dialamah

This episode seemed to me a little low-key, setting up for the rest of the season I guess. Sansa has certainly changed from the giddy girl she was, and Cersei has tipped over into some kind of insanity. Looks like Briana has a special 'friend' and what is Bran Stark up to? As usual, the episode ended before I was ready. I pay too, sign up to HBO very year for 3 months just for GOT.

As are we.

He didn't merely give offense, he failed a duty to accommodate. As a landlord, he is more akin to a business owner or employer than just a random guy on the street or even a neighbor. A private citizen can refuse to let people into his or her home because they are the wrong skin color or have a physical disability, but a landlord cannot refuse to rent to someone for the same reason. Your unwilingness to recognize that a landlord-tenant relationship is different from a relationship between private citizens is why you don't understand the reason for such a high award. I agree that drunk drivers should have higher penalties.

If the guy you like got in, absolutely. Principles and sovereignty be damned.

Thanks. It's a US Military Judge deciding on a case that could make the US Military look bad, so I would take that with a large grain of salt. But to each their own.

LOL. You might be right about everything else, but you are wrong about that. I still think you and others are underestimating the effect of the indoctrination he experienced between the ages of 9 and 15. And if the law thinks younger people can be re-habbed, why wouldn"t that also apply to Khadr? In any case, evwrybody has made up their minds, JT might be out over this in a couple of years and we can have a good Christian making decisions based on his version of Godly morals.

Cite please.

'Feels' are all that matters.

Geneva Convention considers anyone under 18 a child soldier. We have an entire legal system specially for kids under 18 or 19 because they are considered less culpable than adults. Generally speaking, how much influence do you expect parents would or should have over their kids between the ages of 9 and 15, for good or ill. Look at the pic of Khadr under a pile of rubble, two bullets in his back, and explain how he could have been throwing grenades 15 seconds earlier. Consider the 7 different reports of that event, how they contradict each other and how 5 of the 7 do not implicate Khadr. If you refuse to even consider any alternate information that contradicts what you think is true then again I ask you, why do you expect more from a 15-year-old than you do yourself?

Why don't you, now? You've had the "Khadr chose to be an evil terrorist between the ages of 9 and 15" propaganda, but you've also had the court decision that his rights were violated, and you have been shown evidence indicating that he probably did not throw that grenade, yet I don't see you eagerly throwing off the shackles of propaganda. Why do you expect so much more from a kid than you do from yourself?

He was under fire by 100 soldiers for about 4 hours, wounded twice and found buried under rubble. He was 15 years old. Prior to that, he was taken from Canada at age 9, by his father, to be raised as a jihadist. But 9 year olds have choices eh? And even if 9-year-olds don't, maybe a 12-year-old should defy his father and a merry band of killers to escape into a war-torn country and make his way to friendly forces. If not able to do so at 12, certainly a 15-year-old should somehow be able to shake off years of indoctrination and run out into a hail of bullets during a firefight. And I suppose a kid of 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 should be able to resist the anti-Western propaganda fed him by his family and all his associates for six years, declare his loyalty to Canada and Canadians and their allies and stand against the Taliban all on his own. Certainly he should be able to parse truth from lies better than the adults on this forum who, after only a few intermittent and contradictory media stories, are willing to throw him out of Canada and declare him their enemy. That a child couldn't withstand years of much more intense propaganda is entirely on him, right?

Did not the courts find he'd been tortured? Did they just take his word for it without evidence? Are there not pics of him wounded and buried under rubble? Did not an American say, in the first report hours after the incident, that Khadr did not throw the grenade, but the guy they killed was the thrower? http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/07/07/opinion/what-if-omar-khadr-isnt-guilty https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/07/10/omar-khadr-fact-check-paints-a-clearer-picture-of-the-case-and-the-incident-underlying-it.html As a lawyer yourself, you should particularly appreciate the first link.

Ah yes, now I see what you mean. Who was initially in power is irrelevant; IOW, the Liberals started the injustice and the Conservatives continued it. At this moment in time it is still the Conservatives who are (deliberately) fanning outrage. Thus they ignore

Yes, I don't really care which government was in power, Khadr's rights were violated. Sleep deprivation is no walk in the park, which is why it is considered 'torture'. Being randomly moved nay not sound like much to you, but when one is incarcerated psychological effects are very different for the prisoners. Try looking up the Stanford Prison experiment and see how quckly that escalated and then imagine a real prison environment and the effects that may have on a teenage boy.

Generally coerced confessions aren't legal or accepted. But if it suits propoganda we can just ignore the torture prior to his "confession" eh?

Screw you too.

So now I am wondering if that is considered treason and if so, why he wasn't charged for such. Could it be because there were no Canadians involved? I don't think treason against allies makes sense.

Good point, actually. Hmmmm.

Argus and you are the ones arguing for the suspension of rights of Canadian citizens based in how you feel about people.

Are all widows of war entitled to sue someone? I really don't understand this part of it; why should this one person be allowed to sue for compensation while other widows/widowers and orphans cannot? If Syrians catch a member of the Western coalition and torture him till he confesses to operating a drone that dropped a bomb on an apartment building, should an orphaned family who was in that apt building then be entitled to compensation from him?

Emotions over facts.

Don't doubt that for a second. Facts are essentially irrelevant.

Clearly you do not believe that the rights of Canadians should be upheld. Ok.

Not potato/potahto. As Canadians, we enjoy certain rights. Those rights exist even if we break the law. If our government is permitted to ignore those rights for people suspected of or even convicted of crimes, then what good are they really? We protect those rights for everyone, we have to also apply them to people we don't like, disapprove of or believe are guilty of crimes. Add to the above that the physical evidence at the scene, including pictures, doesn't actually support Khadr's guilt, and what we have is a witch hunt against Trudeau, led by the Conservative party. Their campaign is based on emotionalism and partisan politics and supported by a public that prefers to be outraged instead of thoughtful.