Omni

Well it's a flimsy argument you suggest and here's why: this case is about the son, not mommy and daddy. Beat them up all you want, but the court case under discussion is about a natural born Canadian citizen. Laws have to be adhered to or we end up in a maelstrom.

You should feel sorry for yourself. I'm fine.

Hamdan v Rumsfeld was one, you can go ahead and look up the others What allegations and what courts are you flailing around about?

Apparently it is for you. He was a child. His rights were denied, child or not. He's got a pocketful of your money because of the stupidity. Sorry.

Let me slow it down for you dude, there..is...no...proof...he...was...working...for...any....army. He was taken to Afghanistan by his father as a young child. You can blame daddy but you can't translate that blame at your whim to rest on the child. I understand that people who are weak enough to buy into xenophobia tend to go completely down the rabbit hole. But others who do not fall for that attempt to observe and uphold the laws we have worked so hard to create and be proud of.

They certainly did, and found the commission unlawful in 3 seperate cases.

I can imagine Trump is all too happy to suffer through a 6 hour time change to arrive in France and try to dodge the flak his sons emails have created. Mots de Christ!

So stoning is OK, abortion is not?

All that drivel simply to try and deflect from the fact he was a child? Try a little harder.

You are a scary man if you are comfortable with that. Have you ever been to a stoning?

No, with regard to legal matters, the relevant word is "child"

Fun for me because I don't live in the US and don't have to suffer the embarrassment.

Oh I thought somebody tried to say there were only 4 papers sticking to their guns on Trump. I hope you're straight on that fallacy now.

Trump provides fodder for the cannon daily. If he didn't I guess we would stop having so much fun with it.

We stopped court murdering people 55 years ago. Don't like it, move. Saudi Arabia might appeal to you.

I have certainly come to learn that equation by reading your posts.

I guess I should have pasted this particular paragraph from the article for those non readers. But in the case of the Russia investigation, there is no evidence of disagreement among members of the intelligence community.

The relevant point here is "child". Which is waht he was when the US attacked.

Naw I think we're better off letting you remain asleep.

Interfering with a democratic election is "alright" with you? Crickey!

No, he was a child soldier, not a terrorist. And you just not get that that's not necessarily my opinion, but the opinion of international and Canadian law. Please try to keep up because repeating the same facts continuously becomes laborious.

Blame your school if you think it's justified, but maybe they didn't actually teach law at your level.

No they did not. You're just wishful thinking and not doing very much reading. Why do you guys do that all the time? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/

Way too complicated for some of our right wingers who can't comprehend laws such as our charter, and just want to throw him back in jail so they don't have to think about the issue.

Obviously you don't watch much news, or at least not anything more credible than the rebel, breitbart game show variety.I'll try and clue you in a little though, the Russia/Trump connection becomes more substantial on a daily basis. Have you bothered to understand the signifigance of the Junior emails?