Omar Khadr sued for $50M by widow of U.S. soldier killed in Afghanistan and wounded sergeant

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 24 2014 @ 01:25 AM
link   
National Post

I just read this story in my provincial newspaper.

For us Canadians, Omar Khadr is quite a fiasco. During the onset of the American "war on terror", 15 year old Omar Khadr (Canadian citizen) was captured by US special forces in Afghanistan as he lay dying, riddled with bullets.

He was sent to Guantanamo Bay where he was, essentially, held without trial for years until he was coerced into a plea deal, admitting to throwing a grenade that killed a special forces soldier and wounding others.

The Canadian government refused to do anything to support him, and he now is in some maximum security prison inside the USA.

This article presents an insane precedent: that the widow of the dead soldier and a soldier supposedly wounded by Khadr's actions can sue Khadr for bodily damages caused in combat. And what's even worse is that their whole lawsuit stems from confessions coerced out of Khadr from accepting a plea deal which was the only choice that the American war judge gave him for even progressing the trial beyond indefinite detention.

And that's $45 million that they want. From a guy who was arrested and placed in solitary confinement in a military detention centre for over a decade. At the age of 15.

Personally I believe that Khadr should counter-sue these two plaintiffs and the American government, because there would have been no injuries to any of these victims if the USA had never invaded Afghanistan under false pretences. Remember now, the USA blamed bin Laden for 9/11 and they fought the Taliban for control of Afghanistan, despite the Taliban telling the USA that they were not harbouring bin Laden.

What do you guys think?




posted on May, 24 2014 @ 01:58 AM
link   
He was returned to Canada sometime in 2012 I think... Link Here

Besides a number of major eyebrows already risen in this case (child soldier, acts of war, indefinite detention, torture, etc.) a lawsuit further ices the cake. No matter what side you root for, fight for, or are impartial towards, remember that whatever the rules are, they should apply to all. (Kind of like how the Geneva convention is a standard to war...)

In other words, if they can sue Kadr, can anyone who's had their family members exploded by drone strikes do the same?

edit on 24-5-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-5-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 03:08 AM
link   
What's the point in suing someone for money they haven't got?



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Vovin

I see your logic in that the USA went into Afganistan. However I do think that a young 15 year old, who is still at a very impressionable age would have been v ery vulnerable to Taliban poisonous mumbo jumbo.

However I think I have a far better and superior solution, the Widow and soldier should sue to Arms manufacturer of the grenade.

Think of the precedent, were you to supply a weapon that killed and wounded someone, then you, with the fat profits of your professon, you pay the victims. That way the victims would get their money and not from innocent tax payers in America.

Think about the opening of that legal gate were we to be able to prize it!

In other scenarios, you buy something and it wounds you or someone else, the maker can be considered liable by a court. eg that dreadful woman who put her pet into a microwave oven to dry it successfully sued the microwave oven manufacturer. Bullets for blood eh. and them compension.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 04:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: gusdynamite
What's the point in suing someone for money they haven't got?


The family has money, although I don't think it's in the range they are asking for. The purpose though, would be to take anything the person made in their lifetime. This has happened to numerous people, and a lot of them will rearrange their lives completely, like putting possessions in the names of family or spouse, and work under the table, since they could face garnished wages for their entire lives.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 04:52 AM
link   
if the American widow doesn't win her suit.....

at least she has memorial day to remember her man....

that must be a comfit...
edit on 24-5-2014 by tri-lobe-1 because: because i can



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 05:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: gusdynamite
What's the point in suing someone for money they haven't got?

Exactly.Is there a point here I'm missing



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 05:22 AM
link   
FFs there soldiers,they knew when they signed on the dotted line the risks involved

So can every soldier killed or maimed have their family sue the enemies family ?

I'm sorry that armed forces are maimed and killed,they do get compensation but that's their life choice


I can understand civilians suing in this situation but not the forces family



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: boncho

That makes sense. I hope it's not a futile exercise on the part of the victim's family and that they aren't being put in any financial stress because of the attempt.

Good luck to them.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 06:06 AM
link   
imagine if this soldier died guarding Afghan opium crops....

how freedom saving is that????

when will some men learn to say NO????... and go and do a trade.....



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Vovin

aww, the then under age juvenile delinquent canadian citizen, that wanted to play the like he was a warrior for a god a child molester made up while hold up in a cave under a rock is getting sued for killing and wounding U.S. Service Men.

he's lucky to even be alive, they should just left him there to bleed out.

as for a couple of things you said,




Remember now, the USA blamed bin Laden for 9/11 and they fought the Taliban for control of Afghanistan, despite the Taliban telling the USA that they were not harbouring bin Laden.


your wrong about this. no matter who you think planned, instigated, and executed 9/11, there is no doubt that members of al-qaeda were indeed involved.

the taliban were indeed protecting bin laden to a point he was in country, and they refused to caputrue and hand him over without proof he was involved. they did ask him to leave and he didn't, bush gave them the chance and they didn't hand him over, the U.S. was not even going after the taliban, bin laden and al gaeda were the targets.
there are plenty of reports of that, below is a just one report, of many on the fact.



Without evidence, Afghanistan's Taliban rulers will not hand over Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan's ambassador to Pakistan said Friday. The rejection came in a statement by Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan. Asked whether the Taliban would hand over bin Laden, Zaeef said, "No." But his translator said, "No, not without evidence."
Taliban Won't Turn Over Bin Laden


in fact after two given two chance to hand him over, the U.S. started the bombing campaign, then the taliban showing their true colors,offered to turn over bin laden, but still only to a neutral country and only with evidence. showing that they indeed knew where he was and that they were harboring him, and were terrorist sympathizers, and as every one knows were a terrorist group themsevles regain terror in their own country. bush refused to stop the bombing and invasion plans.
here is another report of many saying that.



JALALABAD, Afghanistan –– A senior Taliban leader said Sunday that the Islamic militia would be willing to hand over Osama bin Laden to a third country if the United States halts the bombing of Afghanistan and provides evidence against him.
President Bush quickly rejected the offer.
"The president has been very clear, there will be no negotiations," White House spokeswoman Anne Womack said. Washington has repeatedly rejected any negotiations or conditions on its demands that the Taliban surrender bin Laden and his al-Qaida terror network.
Bush Rejects Taliban Bin Laden Offer




However I do think that a young 15 year old, who is still at a very impressionable age would have been very vulnerable to Taliban poisonous mumbo jumbo.


this right here is one of the things that is wrong with the world.
" However I do think that a young 15 year old, who is still at a very impressionable age"

just give all young offenders, trouble marker, idealist, and delinquents a slap on the wrist no matter what they do.
after all they are " still at a very impressionable age"

what should he not be held accountable for his own actions.

look the kid was there right in the middle of the fighting, he sure wasn't there waving a white flag yelling peace.
he was there supporting a repressive terrorist regime, no matter how " impressionable" he may have been he made his own choice and should have to live with the consequences of his actions.

like i said he's is lucky to be alive. been me he would have bled out.
edit on 24-5-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Vovin

I think you're going to need a lot better of a defense for this chump than, "9/11 was a conspiracy".



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   
So nobody liked my idea of actually suing the arms manufacturer of the grenade and making the individual, who is actually making money out this misery pay?

I reiterate my point about the microwave company being successfully sued by the woman who put her pet dog in it to dry it and won her case.

The arms manufacturer knows exactly what his goods will do and should pay for what he sells in my book. These men are some of the wealthiest in the world and theirs is blood money. One of them was treated like a celebrity in a world selling magazine showing off his family in their finest frocks which alone, must have cost a small fortune let alone the house they were currently living in. These people clearly have no conscience about how they earn their money.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Suppose someone should have told these American soldiers they were going to WAR
and if you shoot at someone,
THEY WILL SHOOT BACK AT YOUR ASS!

The Geneva Convention states to PROTECT CHILDREN AGAINST WAR TRIBUNALS.

Canada now has the dubious distinction of being THE ONLY COUNTRY to allow this atrocity.

Khadrs history;
While living in Canada, he was brought to Afghanistan by his father and SOLD to the Tal-Quaida as he is
fluent in different languages making him a desirable aquisition.
(the Taliban & Al Quaida are owned & operated by the American establishment to control the Eastern
part of our planet)
During the fire-fight which took place in an alley where American soldiers had the so-called terrorists
blocked in, a grenade was thrown - but as reported by an AMERICAN Soldier who was THERE during the
altercation did record that Khadr did nothing, and is INNOCENT of these allegations! but of course, his
evidence was inadmissible and now has been covered up, although at the initial trial, this soldiers evidence
could be found on Youtube, which it has since mysteriously vanished.
(and yes, this has been reported here on ATS)

The kid was railroaded by the American government with help from the Canadian establishment to
further the agenda on terrorism.

Such a disgrace...war..and the ridiculous results applied.

Kill a soldier who is trying to kill you..and now you can be sued -

Will we lose ALL human rights to the War Establishment of NWO,
when will the injustices STOP, when will WE UNDERSTAND, we are the MANY
against the FEW.. WE DO NOT HAVE TO LIVE THIS WAY!!!

Its time to stop hating and share the wealth and love of our planet!
Be well



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

A simple question.

Do you actually know anything about what happened with Khadr? Not the two line "he was there, he did it." but real particulars of the case made against him?

As for the OP, I doubt thi will happen as if she is successful, it sets a very dangerous precedent in US law. Every family member of anyone killed over the last 13 years, or maybe longer, could be a target for litigation, on both sides.
edit on 24-5-2014 by GAOTU789 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

What is the point of your post? It doesn't appear that you even know anything about this situation.

And it's quite racist by the way.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Vovin

what you mean that i don't understand that a under age canadian citizen went to afghanistan to fight a jihad against his country and the U.S., got shot and was found guitly of war crimes, or are you talking about where i corrected a couple of the OP's statements.

oh there's the word. you used it and didn't even use it correctly.

never once in my post did i say a racist thing, i attacked a pedo and a religion, not a race. there is more than one race or ethnic group that claim to be muslim.

you need to bone up on those reading comprehension skills of yours.

edit on 25-5-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Vovin

what you mean that i don't understand that a under age canadian citizen went to afghanistan to fight a jihad against his country and the U.S., got shot and was found guitly of war crimes, or are you talking about where i corrected a couple of the OP's statements.

oh there's the word. you used it and didn't even use it correctly.

never once in my post did i say a racist thing, i attacked a pedo and a religion, not a race. there is more than one race or ethnic group that claim to be muslim.

you need to bone up on those reading comprehension skills of yours.



And I'm calling you a racist bigot because you said Khadr was a "child molester" who should have been killed like the rest.

And you claim he was charged with war crimes? Buddy, if you think war crimes are the enemy killing your soldier in combat, then you have no clue what "war crimes" are. The whole Invasion of Afghanistan was a war crime. It was carried out on false pretences and had nothing to do with 9/11.

And what's even worse is that you feel like American military judges have the power to charge people with war crimes. The real International Criminal Court is in The Hague, and the US has refused to be a part of it and threatened anyone who brings Americans before it with violence.

So how is indefinite detainment and torture and then show trial at Guantanamo Bay legitimate?



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 04:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hounddoghowlie


what you mean that i don't understand that a under age canadian citizen went to afghanistan to fight a jihad against his country and the U.S., got shot and was found guitly of war crimes,

never once in my post did i say a racist thing, i attacked a pedo and a religion, not a race. there is more than one race or ethnic group that claim to be muslim.



Actually what you did was to show a lack of understanding for the Geneva Conventions Rule that -
NO CHILD SHALL BE TRIED FOR WAR CRIMES!

Do some research instead of following BLINDLY your Commander-in-Chief's hiddeous war crimes.

Omar Khadr's military-appointed lawyer tells a pretrial hearing that a photograph and an American soldier's testimony prove that Khadr could not have thrown the grenade that killed a U.S. soldier in a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan.

www.cbc.ca...
Lots of info there... if you would ONLY TRY to read and understand the 'rail-road' game of
the ever unlawful American War Machine!

Explain your statement of Khadr being a, as you put it - a 'PEDO' & a Jihadist!?!
Show some FACTS please - instead of spreading hate.

History is doomed to repeat itself when in a day of readily public information,
people blindly follow without ever knowing who or what it is they are actually
being hand fed on whom to HATE.
edit on 26-5-2014 by HumAnnunaki because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 04:48 AM
link   
US Soldiers rarely capture anymore. They shoot to kill. To messy when you imprison them and have to take them to court etc... you can no longer torture them for information either so no good use of a live enemy. Should not see many more Guantanamo situations. Soldiers know it is better to just leave em dead.
edit on 26-5-2014 by Xeven because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join