While busy enacting hate speech laws over using the wrong pronoun, Trudeau’s Liberals are ready to apologize to former Guantanamo Bay inmate Omar Khadr and compensate him to the tune of C$10 million (US$7.7 million) for being sentenced to Guantanamo after killing U.S. Army medic Sgt. Christopher Speer and blinding another soldier.

Khadar will get his apology and loot after the country’s Supreme Court judged in 2010 that

Canada breached his rights by sending intelligence agents to interrogate him and sharing the results with the United States.

Which is how he ended up in Gitmo, after which he sued the government for C$20 million on grounds of violating his human rights.

The fifteen year old Khadr was working as a bomb-maker apprentice for al Qaeda when he killed the U.S. servicemen with a grenade. The Liberals say he was a child soldier (similar to Mexican drug cartels using underage MS-13 members as hit men so they get easier sentences if caught) who deserves an apology.

He is now thirty years old, and living in Canada, where he was born.

The Daily Caller reports that

Speer’s widow, along with another soldier who was blinded by the grenade attack, filed a wrongful death and injury lawsuit against Khadr in 2014 because they suspected Khadr might receive financial compensation if he was successful in appealing his sentencing.

A U.S. judge awarded the pair $134.2 million in damages in 2015 but the plaintiffs have acknowledged that they don’t expect to receive any of the money because Khadr lives in Canada.

Trudeau’s neither denying nor confirming the settlement.

I wonder if we’ll be hearing more news in years to come about like those involving Khadr’s fellow Gitmo alumni in Uruguay, with stories  of domestic violence and unauthorized travel to other countries – or  stories involving others.

Unlike the Syrians in Uruguay, who have time on their hands because they refuse to work, Khadr will have his apology, and US$7million.

What could possibly go wrong?

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz writes on U. S. and Latin America at Fausta’s blog.

I have been predicting for quite a while that the Obama administration’s next goal regarding its foreign policy on Latin America is to gift the Guantanamo naval base to the Castro’s communist regime.

Carlos Alberto Montaner agrees; after all, the process is well under way (emphasis added):

The opening of the embassies is only one step, obviously. The next step will be to return the Guantanamo base to the administration of the Cuban government. So far, the White House has ordered the closing of the prison and has asked a major law firm for an opinion on the president’s authority to surrender to the Cuban regime the military base the United States acquired in 1903.

Simultaneously, he has requested the U.S. Navy’s opinion on that facility’s usefulness and cost-effectiveness, more than 100 years after it was leased from Cuba. Presumably, the Navy will report that, at this point in history, it is perfectly useless. If Roosevelt Roads, the world’s largest naval base, was shut down in nearby Puerto Rico, there is no doubt that Guantanamo barely serves as a detention center.

Montaner mentions the influence of National Security Council member and Georgetown University professor Charles Kupchan on Obama’s foreign policy,

Kupchan’s idea, disputed by numerous strategists, is alarmingly simple: Give the enemy everything he requests without demanding anything in exchange.

Which is about as good a summary of the guiding principle of this administration as you could find.

Montaner correctly predicts that the Cuban dictatorship will survive.

I speculate, however, that there are pretty good odds that the Castros and their inner circle may already be taking bids from Putin and the Chinese on future use of Guantanamo. After all, Russia has been sending spy ships.

Now that the Iranians got their juicy deal, it only makes me wonder if they, too, may be interested in that facility’s easy access to the Gulf of Mexico.

Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S. and Latin American politics, news and culture at Fausta’s Blog

I was talking with a friend of mine recently about some issues that arise on the nightly news.  Many of these revolve around the Constitution and various things that show up on the nightly news about this document.  The friend was also an Army Veteran and between the two of us have spent enough years in uniform that we like to know what it is we are/were defending.  So this topic does come up.

In particular this conversation revolved around the fifth Amendment.  So for review here is the original text:

Original Text of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


This Amendment is usually not one that is argued terribly often, with one notable exception, however it is invoked in ways that it may not apply, and recently.

It basically tells us that the police (or other government authority) can’t hold a Citizen for an unreasonable amount of time (discussed below) without being charged of a crime.  Being charged with a crime means there will be a trial. But, people will complain, there is a long time while the person is in confinement before their trial. This is due to the gathering of evidence phase, not because of anything else.  You can argue what reasonable length of time is but that is where we must argue, not the validity or invalidity of being held.

In other words, despite what prime time television shows have told us, we can’t be thrown in jail, have the key thrown out, and never see the light of day again.  That is, without being charged with a crime.

As we mentioned this is usually not argued by too many people, as even drug dealers and murders see their day in court.

The notable exception to this is the prisoners from the Global War in Terror that to this day still reside at a prison at Guantanamo Bay Cuba.  These prisoners went a very long time without being charged with anything.  Here is the government argument for that exception.

They are not United States Citizens; they are not inside the United States and therefore not subject to our laws and privileges.  They are, and this is where it gets sticky, on a Military Base.  Those are generally considered US Territory.  We really don’t know exactly how that one is gotten around, but somehow it is.

On top of all of that they are considered to be Prisoners of War. While we are required by the Geneva Convention to treat them with basic human rights, they don’t fall under our judicial system.

Is this government argument correct?

Maybe, but maybe not.

That is beyond the scope of this discussion and could probably fill book after book by itself (if you look on Amazon there may already be one).  However, the Constitution does only apply to Citizens of the United States and really only to the area of the globe inside our borders.

The Constitution, and the rights guaranteed by it don’t extend everywhere.  For instance, in Iran one cannot reasonably expect to have the right to indefinite detainment without being charged with a crime.  There, you can be thrown into a prison for no apparent reason and the Constitution of the United States can’t protect you, even if you are a US Citizen.

Another recent possible Fifth Amendment issue in the recent news cycles concerns the Internal Revenue Service.  There was a controversy of them holding up and allegedly harassing groups with one (and only one) political ideology.  That is the claim.

How true is that claim?

Well…enter the United States Congress doing an investigation (what could possibly go wrong now).  The Congress questioned an IRS official, and that official “took the fifth” and refused to answer questions (presumably so they wouldn’t incriminate themselves).

Here is the interesting bit.

That same official was offered immunity for any wrongdoing then pulled back in front of Congress.  So, this amendment says you can refuse to answer so you don’t incriminate yourself.  This person can’t possibly incriminate themselves in the commission of a crime…they have immunity.

So do Fifth Amendment rights pertain to this?  Can this person officially refuse to answer questions without being held in contempt of Congress (for which they can be thrown in jail)?

It is an interesting Constitutional question.


Olimometer 2.52

This blog exists as a full time endeavor thanks to your support.

The reporting, the commentary and the nine magnificent seven writers are all made possible because you, the reader choose to support it.

For a full month of all of what we provide ,we ask a fixed amount $1465, under $50 a day.

This month we are behind, but we can make our goal if we can get $143 per day  6 $25 Tip jar hits we can make that goal.

Jesus said  laborer deserves his payment.  (Lk 10:7) If you think the work we do here for the conservative movement is worth it, please consider hitting DaTipJar below .

Naturally once our monthly goal is made these solicitations will disappear till the next month but once we get 61 more subscribers  at $20 a month the goal will be covered for a full year and this pitch will disappear until 2015.

Consider the lineup you get for this price, in addition to my own work seven days a week you get John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit) and Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Sunday  Linda Szugyi (No one of any import) on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

If that’s not worth $20 a month I’d like to know what is?