Leaderboard

Sure, you can doubt the government in this, why not? And you can wish there were more effective ways of dealing with exremism/terrorism than we currently have, both in preventing it and dealing with Canadians who go down that path; I certainly do. I agree the warning signs of the Khadr family ought to have been taken more seriously and that some kind of intervention may have saved some lives - and $10.5 million bucks.

The refugees decide! See, no need for any review of refugee claims! What a shit show.

Perhaps you could remind people of that when they refer to nonconservatives as being like Mao, Stalin or Pol Pot. That's been going on around here since forever.

Your sorrow is selective. What was not a good idea was Argus presuming to lecture me about anti-semitism and telling me I must negatively generalize about all Muslims because they hate Jews which is precisely what he did which then made me morally obliged as a Jew to explain it is precisely because Nazis negatively generalized about all we Jews that for anyone to tell us to do the same thing to others is absurd and just outright ignorant. You want to be sorry, then start by trying to understand when and why I raised the history of Nazism. I only did so when Argus played the Jew card suggesting as a Jew I should know certain Muslims hate Jews. My raising it was as an analogy of direct relevance to the consequences that arise when any of us define an entire people as undesireable. If you can not understand that with due respect it might be good idea you tried rather than try indirectly to suggest I unfairly called Argus a Nazi. I have challenged his hateful negative generalizations of an entire people as a Jew whose family history was the target of it, as a Zionist faced with it as an impairment to achieving peace with certain Muslims and as a human being.

He wasn't sent there. He demanded to go fight with his father because he didn't want to be left behind with the women. His 2 older brothers had already graduated from Al Quaeda training and he wanted to be like the rest of his family - terrorists. He has never renounced his terrorist beliefs.

Trudeau settled out of court because, as always, he sided with the terrorist (or 'fighter', as Trudeau calls them).

He was not sent to Afghanistan he followed his family there , was he brainwashed ? not well enough I guess lets remember his mother and father wanted him to become a suicide bomber and become a martyr and a hero for the family name , guess he did not like his families plans for him....I mean this is how they show there love right.......this is the same family we are to feel sorry for....Sorry... He was held until he could be tried for war crimes….in his case the murder of a US soldier...normally trails did not happen until after the conflict is over, this one went on for ever...and to be clear he was subject to mild cases of torture , l.and while he was tortured , lets put it under some context please...Like loud music played all night, lights left on all night, anyone who has had a teenager has faced more torture, for way longer... lets say to other prisoners of war held by the Taliban or other terrorist groups...compared to them he was treated fairly for a terrorist Lets be clear he was tried on murder charges and convicted, normal sentence for murder is 25 years....without parole....he got what exactly , plus 10.5 million dollars...Supreme court may of criticized the military tribunal but it was a legal court and it produced a legal sentence, to which I might add Omar served not only in the US but Canada prison systems...how is that possible if it was not a legal sentence....

I put Khadr in the same category as Karla Homolka. Justice was not served and murderers are walking our streets.

One brother openly renounced his family and said the above about them. So that brother of Kadr I distinguish. His sister and mother I deeply criticize as they have gone in to the Muslim community and preached extremist Islamist ideology. How popular they are I do not claim to know. Well yah the issue. Being hateful in itself is not illegal. If it incites crime or violence it then may be considered a hate crime. So it has been used to prevent certain people from getting a visitor's visa to Canada when they have wanted to come and give lectures or speeches. It is of course a tricky topic because there is a fine line between hate crimes and freedom of expression guaranteed in s.2 and other sections of the Charter. The current immigration laws give a Canadian Border Security officer the right to challenge entry on the grounds a foreign national may be a security risk, a fugitive of a criminal conviction where that crime is the same in Canada, or is suspected of being part of organized crime, a terrorist organization or having violated war crimes or UN conventions. The problem with that of course is when the foreign national steps foot on Canadian soil, the Charter applies. So if they do not agree to leave asap and demand an appeal, they are detained and have a detention hearing and an admissibility hearing and the evidence is reviewed as to the grounds to deport. Many countries will not take back criminals or terrorists. They refuse. A classic example is Jamaica. It goes out of its way at times to avoid taking back known gang members who try to get into Canada with fake names, etc. Here is another twist. We added a new definition of refugee that states a person who commits a crime in another country, where that crime is not a crime in Canada or where they were convicted of a sentence much harder than they would in Canada or claim they would be killed if sent home or tortured and can not avail the protection of the state can apply for state protection and be granted refugee status. Its been used for a teacher in her 30's who had sex with a 16 year old and was convicted of statutory rape in Florida since it was not considered statutory rape in Canada. Its been used to allow a 4 time pedophile serial killer from Iraq to remain in Canada because he would have faced a death sentence in Iraq. It can be used by anyone who commits a crime for murder and is sentenced to capital punishment in another country and can flee. It has not been used that way. In Kadr's specific case, the laws he was tried under were found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court 4 times so the US regardless of President had to release him. Each time his conviction was called unconstitutional Bush Jr. would change the law leading to yet another appeal and was able to do that 4 times but after his tenure as President Obama did not want to push that process and scrapped it. The US system failed because it attempted to fuse military tribunal processes with civilian criminal law processes. In so doing it did not allow full disclosure of the evidence used to define Kadr as guilty violating the US constitution and for that matter the Canadian Charter of Rights, Australian, United Kingdom and all laws of full disclosure in Western allied countries. There are no international conventions states have agreed to follow to suggest the treatment of terrorists, child terrorists. This is because no one can agree on what a terrorist is. With Kadr the US had two other alternatives. It could have treated Kadr as a prisoner of war, but he would have had to be released once hostilities were at an end and could not be punished for his killing of the US soldier. He could have also been arrested and charged with violating Afghani laws but the US felt if placed in an Afghani prison he would have easily escaped. The primary motive of the US in creating the hybrid law it did because it felt it morally imperative to contain and punish terrorists especially those who killed a US soldier. Today we are no further ahead. When Kadr returned and he had to, he should have been forced to go to the Supreme Court of Canada on his request for compensation. It is very probable the courts would have said he is entitled to rehabilitation which might include schooling but they most probably would not have rewarded him money as Trudeau did in an out of court settlement citing the common law doctrine that one can not profit from crimes for any reason. Trudeau set a legal precedent to pay off terrorists rather than test this principle. In regards to screening terrorists at this point, we rely on overseas consulates and other government intelligence and police sources because CSIS has no budget or personnel to properly do this and the few CSIS officers we have are swamped screening diplomats. We do have a shared intelligence agreement with the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand and we can ask for info from NATO allies or through Interpol but usually there is not enough time or manpower to do this. The cost to have a proper screening process is something no one discusses. As well no one discusses the implications of the Charter's application and how it makes many grounds some would want to be used to deport or block entry, unconstitutional. Right now I am not sure how much political will the current Prime Minister has to block anyone for any reason. In regards specifically to Muslims coming to Canada our Charter says they must be treated as all others. Simply assuming they are terrorists because they are Muslim won't do it. If on the other hand they did what Kadr did then we have concrete proof of a crime. The problem then is because Kadr was under 16 at the time of his crime he invoked the Young Offenders Act to argue a lesser sentence than age of majority individuals.. The Young Offender Act was predicated on dealing with domestic crimes not acts of terror and war overseas and so it enabled Kadr to get out of a prison term for time already served. Civilly I believe our courts acted unreasonably in not allowing the widow of the person he killed recover compensation from Kadr for wrongful death. I would have liked to have seen that appealed. The true injured parties are the family of the soldier Kadr injured. In regards to Kadr, he was never rehabilitated. He has made it clear he has no remorse for what he did. What can we do for current laws? Well we are going to have to clearly define what is a terrorist. We are going to have to write into the definition words that contemplate the Charter exemption from the Charter if it can be shown the anti terror law is justified as being a higher level of importance than individual rights. The only way to do that is assure the evidence would be fully disclosed as to the grounds of terrorism. The problem with that is the state may not want to fully disclose the evidence for fear of compromising where it was obtained from. So you see its a complex matter.

They always err on the side of rewarding terrorists/murderers. It's in their DNA.

"I disagree because it's nonsense" isn't an argument. So, you are out of cogent arguments. I win!

No, it's that you have no idea what would've happened. Your opinion isn't fact. I disagree with your entire premise because it's nonsense.

Out of cogent arguments already?

Right - when its your side killing innocent civilians it's a shrug. If it's the other side killing innocent civilians, it's a war crime. Why are your innocent civilians more important and more deserving of life than any other ones? This is ridiculous, of course - just as ridiculous as an Imam or ISIS leader saying that the West is at war with Islam. It's an extremist propaganda statement, whatever side you are on.

It was in the UK. The story was kept out of the British press. It wasn't a secret in the US and other countries but here it was not well known amongst the general public.

Yes, and nice Western non-Muslims build drones that drop armaments on innocent civilians in far-off lands. I know we're not at all willing to hold our own accountable for the innocent people they kill off the battlefield, but if we did, should we also hold the makers of the weapons accountable as murderers? Does that make sense to you? I mean, I'm all for that, personally - but I can see it's not actually realistic.

Everything is an individual decision. Welcome to liberals lala land.

Not everyone agrees with this. You should stop spouting it as "fact".

No court awarded 10.5 million dollars to him.

The worst ones know better than to behave the way they do. They even have constitutions and laws that tell them why - I guess you tend to stick out more when you shine a spotlight on your own magnificence.

The Khadr family is the poster child for "Entitled Refugees". They used the benefits of Canadian citizenship, all the while denigrating the country and all Canadian citizens and using our country as a home base to terrorize int he name of their religion. They are an embarrassment to our country. How some people can defend them is beyond me.

I agree with G's position on Kadr but I am not sure how it relates to the thread. The defficiency in our laws as to how to deal with terrorists and child terrorists is a very real and complex issue. Banning innocent Muslims coming to Canada or hating all Muslims won't resolve it. I have yet to hear anyone provide criteria to screen out what they feel are undesirables.

No. Original Judaism believed and believes the Messiah has not yet come. However many of us today do not interpret Judaism thatvway anymore just like many others reject your literal interpretations. We believe heaven and hell are symbols for our negative and positive energy. We believe everyone is the messiah, i.e. given this life to save or condemn, heal or injure. We embrace many views of life being a complex process of creating meaning from chaos or balancing negative and positive energy and this process is complex, multi dimensional, constantly takes new forms as it travels. We are all Gods creating universes so to speak but always connected to each other and a greater origin from whence we came but from where we can not return. Where I move is just a reflection of you and vice versa. It's all a big illusion. It's just something to do really. Do notv swet the details. If calling it Jesus helps you enjoy. I call it eternal transference of mutating enegy based on the dialectic process of any given moment which was,is and could be all at the same moment. The vessels that transfer the energy of meaning are infinite as each new meaning creates one.

The refugees themselves will decide when the land they are on has become inhospitable to human life. Almost a foregone conclusion since we are doing so little to mitigate the effects of climate change. Its not just people trying to find a place to live, but the economic cost of climate change that will contribute to collapse of society as we know it.

Imdeed, 'individual rights and freedoms' resulted in the formation of unions because too often corporations treated their "human capital" as poorly as possible. Where there are no unions, they still do. The track record of corporations demonstrates that they'll generally sacrifice people's welfare in pursuit of profit, and an individual has little power in comparison. Anti-union sentiment is kinda the same as anti-vaxxer sentiment; the reasons these things exist and how they've been a benefit to all of us has been forgotten.

No of course not. Its meaning and significance depends on the context the holocaust is used. Your blanket prohibition and censorship of its use is illogical. I raised the point for a specific reason or context.. to explain why Argus telling Jews who and why we should hate is ignorant of Jewish history. It was not initiated as a stand alone accusation. It was raised to explain why telling Jews to hate Muslims is an ignorant and stupid thing to do. That in no way diminishes the holocaust but applies lessons learned from the holocaust NOT TO REPEAT the same process of steretyping and so does the exact opposite. In fact to remain silent as a Jew as to what the holocaust taught us about hatred in the face of being told by Argus in reference to my being a Jew who and when to hate would diminish the meaning of the holocaust. That is why I raised it. You might also want to look at the negative generalizations Argus threw out on the Islam thread about my positions and for that matter Dialamah's before you tell me how to deal with the implications of the steretypes he throws out. I respond to what is said. I make no apologies.

It’s beyond ridiculous to raise the spectre of nazism. People can be criticized without it being related to Nazi Germany. It just makes you look foolish, while at the same time lessening the significance of what happened during the holocaust. Please be more careful and responsible.

When you spend a lot more of your time whining about how the earth's preeminent shining beacon isn't perfect and doesn't always live up to it's lofty ideals than you do criticizing shit-disturbing rogue nations, you're going to get accused of hating America for dubious reasons, who knew? Give me a call when you start calling out the shit-disturbing rogue nations more than you call out America, instead of focusing your criticism on a nation that is vastly superior alternative to those nations you call out far less often, despite far more quantity and quality of grievances against them than against America. Until then, any perception about you having anti-American bias where you hold America to standards you don't hold other countries to and use that double standard to unfairly appraise their performance relative to the competition, that is your own fault.

Look, it's not my fault it isn't apparent to you by now the disregard I have for shit-disturbing rogue nations is as universal as it is timeless. In the meantime when Pakistan starts billing itself as Earth's preeminent Shining Beacon for democracy while knocking off elected governments halfway around the planet and outfitting dictatorships give me call.

Khadr is the convicted war criminal and unlawful combatant.

And Dr. Stephan Xenakis had this to say about Khadr and Welner: Welner spent what - 7 hours? - with Khadr, and then went off to interview his jailers. Xenakis spent 200 hours with Khadr. Who do you suppose is going to understand him better? Oh, btw - you are "misinformed"; you said: He did on May 15, 2015 - in person, in front of several cameras. He told his prison psychiatrist that he renounces terrorism. So, that's at least twice. And in many interviews he's reiterated his desire to live a peaceful "ordinary" life, and has advised young people not to take the same path he did.

Revolutionary commander who suppressed protests last November gunned down. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/iran-commander-working-to-suppress-protests-gunned-down-in-front-of-home

Restrict free speech rights to save the hard done by royals. There should be a law to protect them from media coverage. The People's Republic of Zeitgeist is freedom hating and dystopic.

15 year olds know what's right and wrong. 15 year olds know that murder is wrong. Give me a break with the brainwashing bullshit. It's just an excuse.

They took him into custody instead of killing him. It takes a special kind of asshole not to notice that.

Khadr is human garbage.

perhaps you can explain, how young Khadr was convicted of murder and then sentenced, and after sentencing was placed in a federal prison to start serving his time, and once he was transferred to Canada he was once again placed in prison....the reason I asked is your quoting that the US supreme court had said they were unlawful, and yet they let the sentence of murder stand....or maybe it was because Omar was a terrorist and could be sentenced by a military court, which by the way is where all war criminals are charged, you still remember Nuremburg, Germany do you not.... This was not a UN trail, this was a US military trail and was to uphold US law, within the confines' of those laws he was determined to be a terrorist, not a child soldier, the UN did not have a say in US military law...And if you had read the child soldier act it does not say that every child is immune to criminal proceedings, it does state criminal charges should be a last resort...but NO where does it state that all children have a get out of jail card... It sickens me you have no idea what your talking about, it also sickens me that you can sit there and judge me without even knowing what our nations soldiers even did in Afghanistan on your behalf...it sickens me that you have no idea on how brutal the Taliban was towards it's people and yet here you sit whining about how one of them was abused... The Geneva convention only applies to nations that have signed on to it, the Taliban or more to the point terrorist around the world have not signed on to it, there fore it does not apply to them, there are only a few paras within the convention that are there for people like Omar or terrorists, That they must be treated with fairly. and with respect, He got treated far better than say the dip shit that brought over his pregnant wife to Afghanistan to go hiking during the conflict, and was held by Taliban for 5 years. That oath I swore to was to the Queen, and I followed her and the Geneva convention rules to the tee, and within those rules we sent as many terrorist to Allah as we could, seems your nation is pretty good at doing just that, creating a shortage of virgins there for a while......all in your name eyeball, but you must be some kind of naïve if you think that every one on the battle field follows what few rules there are laid out within the convention to guide soldiers on how to kill each other...but then again your an expert, you know all of that...I'm sure cutting off little girls hands for going to school is in there some where, or skinning a old man alive , then leaving him bake in the morning sun has got to be covered in those conventions as well, what about stoning young women because there husbands committed adultery...These are Omar's people, these are the people he vowed to protect, instead we award them 10 million dollars, and say sorry.... what should have happened was CBC do a documentary on the Taliban's crimes....and let Canadians decide if we should have sent him and his family back to Afghanistan to be tried for their crimes...They were all terrorists, all of them , what was it that Gen Hillier called them, oh yes Scumbags.

Misanthropy is so boring. The audacity of those who would build moralistic systems, on the other hand, is exciting.

To you he's an innocent victim. To me he's a killer that was given money for his efforts in the Middle East serving with his al-Qaeda papa. So when are you having him over for dinner?

When people wear a military uniform with a flag on it and enter a warzone, thereby making it legal for their enemies to kill them, those brave people get the protection of the Geneva Conventions. People in a warzone without a uniform & flag are not legal targets, and they can't be killed by military personnel. But in the instances where those 'civilians' do engage military personnel they are considered unlawful combatants and they don't get the same protections of the Geneva Conventions. If Khadr was killed where he stood it wouldn't have been an issue. The fact that he was allowed to live is more than he deserved.

Khadr wasn't entitled to that money. The money was given to him based on the supposition that he was denied a quick and fair trial, but there's no precedent for giving people who were caught on the battlefield a trial. Canadian POWs didn't sue Germany for the lack of a trial, and by the same token German POWs didn't sue Canada either. A trial for a POW isn't really a thing. When Khadr was apprehended he didn't even have the right to the normal protections of the Geneva conventions because he was an unlawful combatant (he wasn't young enough to be considered a child soldier either). He was caught, he was detained, and as long as the conflict in Afghanistan was going on he should have stayed there.

It has already been determined by a court of law that he was not a child soldier, but classified as a terrorist, which is an illegal activity in its self, let alone murdering a US army Medic, again illegal in inter national law, the Geneva Convention, and guess what Canadian law...and there fore held in a prison camp until his trail.... who cares if he was under age, you break the law and are under age, you are still subjected to the law, and can be incarcerated here in Canada...

She wasn't popular among those who did know, and she wasn't half black. She got it way worse than Meghan could ever dream of, so enough of this it must be racist crap. It's elitist anti-american snobbery, racism is not under every rock, a person who happens to be part black being criticized does not mean it's because of their race.

That was not why she was unpopular. She was unpopular long before Edward abdicated and the Nazi's had nothing to do with it either. American women dating Royal Family men are frowned upon, you might think that it's a coincidence, but I don't. It's more likely to be a sexist thing than a racist thing, and infinitely more likely to be an Anti-American thing most of all. Some lefties see race under every rock and think this must be about race? Quelle surprise.

True. However, some people feel differently. Especially awarding him money without having to do so.

Argus that's it? You found some ungrateful refugee? And? What is your point? exactly? What does pointing out when an individual is a shmuck, prove anything other than that individual is a shmuck?...if in fact they are actually a shmuck.. Have a nice day and thanks for sharing.