[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

again, by the agreements we signed, he's a child soldier and should be treated as such. Otherwise don't sign protocols like that.

He did whatever he did (and we can't know because of the interrogation used) in Afghanistan, so really he should be tried there. Now I realize that would go a lot worse for him, depending who's in power, but at least that's following the rules. If someone kills an American in Canada, can they just come in and scoop him up and take him to Guantanamo?

He was the last Western citizen at Guantanamo - every other country saw fit to repatriate their people.

If he broke Canadian laws, he should be tried in our bleeding heart justice system. Thank God we have it, compared to the shit hole justice system in other countries, and we have the low crime rate to go with it. Your vengeful heart approach does nothing except satisfy your wanting revenge, it doesn't build a better society.

We should follow our own rules, not make special ones just because a case pisses us off. That's how we maintain a civil society.

As for the guy getting day parole: No bleeding heart judge has released him, it's the parole board. Maybe they know facts about him that we don't - me I'd be very leery of letting somebody with that much rage out until a good long time has passed. But maybe he has participated in therapy, who knows. Recidivism for murder is very very low. The main thing wrong with our parole system is that the federal government doesn't adequately fund it, so parole officers can keep close track of people let out. Typical Reformacon stuff - be tough on crime, increase sentences, but don't fund the prison or parole system in ways that will actually reduce recidivism by offering programs while the perp is in, and funding for parole officers when he's out. All they are doing is throwing some red meat to the fulminators like yourself, so you think they've actually accomplished something.

\


Recidivism prevention for a person who stabbed a fleeing woman who was no threat to him 83 times.

That's a stretch.


And as for Omar being a child soldier the simple answer is he was nothing more than an unlawful combatant which means he wasn't a soldier child or otherwise.

$1:

"An unlawful combatant is a person taking part in belligerent acts against a State, while not being part of a regular military force or subsidiary militias.

"Even an individual combatant who is part of a regular military force, and has forfeited his POW status through committing certain illegal acts, is regarded an unlawful combatant. The distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants is intended to uphold and emphasize the basic distinction between combatants and civilians. This distinction is, therefore, complementary to the basic distinction between 'combatant' and 'civilian"

Related Terms: Enemy Combatant, Prisoner of War
A terrorist is the classic example of an unlawful combatant.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/ ... atant.aspx

Since he wasn't considered a soldier could you explain again why they brought him back to Canada when they continue to leave other non military criminals sit and rot in foreign jails?

I also always thought the "agreements" applied to all Canadian Citizens and not just the ones who were deemed terrorists by the international community?


BTW there's a difference between revenge and justice and I'm pretty sure that living in a "civil society" doesn't include the third world antics and threats against a duly elected leader like we saw in Vancouver yesterday.

[andyt]

Don't be a Dick. You think the kids that are forced to fight in the various ragtag groups around the world, especially in Africa are official soldiers? You want to call him a child unlawful combatant, that's fine by me. All that unlawful combatant stuff is just so much bullshit anyway.

As for bringing people back, you'll have to talk to our and the other govt. We bring plenty of people back, mostly depending on how determined the other country is to keep them. You're just twisting yourself into knots here.

HOw is Khadr a terrorist? He was fighting just as any other soldier on that battle field, using the same weapons. It would make all the US troops terrorists as well. He didn't blow himself up in their barracks, he didn't shoot unarmed soldiers guarding a memorial, he engaged them in battle. He did so because he was indoctrinated and forced to by his father.

Not sure what that last paragraph has to do with this discussion - you really are ranging all over the place trying to hang on to your argument. We should keep Khadr in jail because some protesters burned Harper in effigy?

What makes a civil society is one that follows the rule of law. If those protesters broke the law, give em a fair trial and deal with them according to the law. Same with Khadr.

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

Don't be a Dick. You think the kids that are forced to fight in the various ragtag groups around the world, especially in Africa are official soldiers? You want to call him a child unlawful combatant, that's fine by me. All that unlawful combatant stuff is just so much bullshit anyway.

As for bringing people back, you'll have to talk to our and the other govt. We bring plenty of people back, mostly depending on how determined the other country is to keep them. You're just twisting yourself into knots here.

HOw is Khadr a terrorist? He was fighting just as any other soldier on that battle field, using the same weapons. It would make all the US troops terrorists as well. He didn't blow himself up in their barracks, he didn't shoot unarmed soldiers guarding a memorial, he engaged them in battle. He did so because he was indoctrinated and forced to by his father.

Not sure what that last paragraph has to do with this discussion - you really are ranging all over the place trying to hang on to your argument. We should keep Khadr in jail because some protesters burned Harper in effigy?

What makes a civil society is one that follows the rule of law. If those protesters broke the law, give em a fair trial and deal with them according to the law. Same with Khadr.

Don't be a dick? Why, because I disagree with the bullshit theories and excuses you're using to exonerate Khadr?

You're the one who used the term "civil society" not me. I just pointed out the hypocrisy of that statement by showing the antics of those self absorbed, self entitled, civil clowns in Vancouver who given your posts on the topic, think like you.

If you'd bothered to read the link I posted you'd have discovered that it refutes your claim that he was a soldier let alone a child soldier and he may have been indoctrinated by his father but, according to Islam he'd reached the age of consent which means he had a choice and whether that fits your agenda or not is irrelevant because it's fact.

[andyt]

$1:

The U.S. military commission that has been established to try Khadr views him as an "unlawful" participant in an international conflict — a civilian who had no legal right to attack American soldiers, and kill one of them, during U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, Newton said.

He said there are no Canadian laws that would fully reflect the nature of these charges. A murder charge under Canada's criminal code wouldn't speak to Khadr's so-called "unlawful" combatant status, while a charge under Canada's War Crimes Act, which criminalizes offences like genocide and crimes against humanity, likely wouldn't hold up, he added.

"Canadians would probably not view Khadr as having committed a war crime within the meaning of the act," Newton said.


What won't be raised during Khadr's trial is the argument that he should be considered a child soldier, and should be afforded the protections offered under international law to children under the age of 18 who are drawn into conflict. That's because a ruling has already been made that his age won't be considered as part of this trial.

Khadr's lawyers have argued that the fact that their client was only 15 at the time of battle is crucial; so is the fact that he was only 17, and still a child, when he was sleep-deprived for weeks in Guantanamo Bay in order to make him more willing to talk to investigators, as recently released documents have suggested.

But military judge Col. Peter Brownback previously ruled that the defence cannot raise matters of international law in Khadr's trial. The trial will therefore only be considering the events that occurred on the day that Khadr allegedly killed Speer.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/what-lies- ... r-1.770129

[andyt]

$1:

To his supporters, Omar Khadr fits the typical profile of a child soldier, a point of view shared by Senator Romeo Dallaire, the former general who proudly served Canada in conflict zones including Africa, where he regularly came into contact with child soldiers. To them, Omar Khadr is also a perfect example of the “collateral damage” of the “war on terror.” All along, his supporters have cited credible reports that clearly established he was subjected to torture and various types of mistreatment, including the sleep deprivation program he was subjected to before CSIS officers interrogated him in Guantanamo.

First and foremost, Omar Khadr is a Canadian citizen, and as such has the right to return to his country of birth. He also has the full right to rehabilitation, a basic right our justice system affords to offenders. As far as I know, there is nothing in Canadian law that allows us to deny him these basic rights, regardless of his guilt or innocence. Unless Parliament decides otherwise, we can’t pick and choose which Canadian citizens are and are not allowed to be repatriated and rehabilitated.
Second, while his presence in Afghanistan at the time of his capture raises legitimate questions, we should not forget that he was less than 10 years old when his family decided to move there. Even his presence in the compound where he was captured was forced upon him, as he was only 15 at the time. If we want to be impartial in our analysis, we should also ask how it was that the United States invaded Afghanistan without any mandate from the UN — i.e. the invasion was illegal. The bottom line is that Omar Khadr was not captured in Manhattan trying to commit a terrorist act.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editoria ... _arar.html

[2Cdo]

andyt andyt:

$1:

To his supporters, Omar Khadr fits the typical profile of a child soldier, a point of view shared by Senator Romeo Dallaire, the former general who proudly served Canada in conflict zones including Africa, where he regularly came into contact with child soldiers. To them, Omar Khadr is also a perfect example of the “collateral damage” of the “war on terror.” All along, his supporters have cited credible reports that clearly established he was subjected to torture and various types of mistreatment, including the sleep deprivation program he was subjected to before CSIS officers interrogated him in Guantanamo.

First and foremost, Omar Khadr is a Canadian citizen, and as such has the right to return to his country of birth. He also has the full right to rehabilitation, a basic right our justice system affords to offenders. As far as I know, there is nothing in Canadian law that allows us to deny him these basic rights, regardless of his guilt or innocence. Unless Parliament decides otherwise, we can’t pick and choose which Canadian citizens are and are not allowed to be repatriated and rehabilitated.
Second, while his presence in Afghanistan at the time of his capture raises legitimate questions, we should not forget that he was less than 10 years old when his family decided to move there. Even his presence in the compound where he was captured was forced upon him, as he was only 15 at the time. If we want to be impartial in our analysis, we should also ask how it was that the United States invaded Afghanistan without any mandate from the UN — i.e. the invasion was illegal. The bottom line is that Omar Khadr was not captured in Manhattan trying to commit a terrorist act.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editoria ... _arar.html

Quoting the "Red Star" and that embarrassment Dallaire means fuck all.

[martin14]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Quoting the "Red Star" and that embarrassment Dallaire means fuck all.

And the UN for the trifecta of idiocy.

[BeaverFever]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Should have just executed him right there. No identifiable uniform, not a citizen of the the country the war was being fought in. In WW2 we'd have called him a spy and shot him dead right there.

In WW2 we also carpet bombed cities of little strategic value with little regard for civilian lives. There was no such thing as "war crimes" back then.

[andyt]

We're the good guys, so we can do what we want. Rules only apply when the other side breaks them, then we howl.

He's here. He's getting out at some point. He might win his law suit. Might as well learn to deal with it.

[Zipperfish]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

[

So let me simplify my stance. We should stop all religious and cultural practices that don't coincide or conflict with the western ones but, if we're not going all in and are still allowing some of them to continue we can't suddenly decide that we can impose our values just to excuse theirs.

Western values include certain human rights and rule of law, as we see playing out in the courts right now. Adn that is why Khadr will likely soon be free on bail.

Western values don't include torturing children, which you seem to support in the case of Omar Khadr. Maybe it's you that's in the wrong country.

[2Cdo]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Should have just executed him right there. No identifiable uniform, not a citizen of the the country the war was being fought in. In WW2 we'd have called him a spy and shot him dead right there.

In WW2 we also carpet bombed cities of little strategic value with little regard for civilian lives. There was no such thing as "war crimes" back then.

Seriously? Remember Nuremburg after the war? Our "crimes" were in direct retaliation to
Germanys "total war". That is what won us that war.

[ShepherdsDog]

Yes dragging the war on National Socialism out for a few more years would have been infinitely better.

pay attention to the sig

[BeaverFever]

War crimes were invented as a consequence of that war, and were not in effect during the war. And I'm not sure where you heard that the indiscriminate killing of non-combatants is what won the war.

What won the war is that Germany, despite it's technological and economic advances, never really stood a chance of simultaneously defeating the Western Allies and the Soviet Union on 2 different fronts while at the same time...not to mention having to man an occupation force at the same time across much of the continent.

[BeaverFever]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Yes dragging the war on National Socialism out for a few more years would have been infinitely better.

pay attention to the sig

"Dragging the war out" is an unproven claim.

[ShepherdsDog]

.....and you can't prove otherwise.