Signals.Cpl

So because they are idiots do we void them of all responsibility as adults?

How is it irrelevant? When it does not come to whether or not it’s right or wrong but it comes down to being dangerous to the health of developing bodies intervention is required. Then why can’t I go and get some crack cocaine? I’m 25 and am an adult so why is it that I cannot go and purchase it from my neighborhood pharmacy? If the age of consent is at age 21 or higher than that becomes irrelevant. Easy, if you cannot take care of the consequences then you don’t get to engage in the act simple as that, and the assumption is that by age 21-22 a person should be well established with at least a reasonable chance of obtaining employment, something that is not available to them at age 16 simply because they haven’t completed the necessary schooling. So you think that rights and privileges make an adult? So by your reasoning adult in Ontario are 19 and over because at 18 they are not trusted to make proper decisions regarding drinking and smoking until 19... so how does that work? They are not adults until all their rights and privileges are given to them? Or you give the 15 year old the chance to prove themselves as an adult and punish them if they screw up letting them know what is expected of them. Waiting until the age of 18 to treat someone like an adult means that you expect that there is a magic overnight change that makes someone an adult. It's not an event but rather a process, years in the making. Until the age of 19 people are idiots and thus cannot be trusted to be adults? So we expect them to act like apes, because they are stupid little children who cannot be trusted to know the difference between right and wrong, that is until they turn 19 because then they get the final right to drink. Being ready to make the decision does not make you ready to deal with the consequences. There are plenty of 15 and 16 year old who can make good decisions, but when you don’t have a high school education then you become a burden to the state which means the state has a say in the whole affair. Do you realize how idiotic your argument is? That suddenly on your 18th birthday you become an adult or your 19th birthday in Ontario. Playing the you are not an adult at 17y and 360 days but suddenly you are an adult and should act like one at age 18 is ridiculous. Using your argument, none of us are adults until we can all go in to a pharmacy and buy crack cocaine, LSD and every other drug known to man because we should be given the choice to take said drugs. There are certain restrictions that should be placed for the good of the individual regardless their age, and there are certain restrictions placed on the individual for the good of the state regardless of their age , placing certain restrictions does not make one a child, and giving some freedoms does not make one an adult. I would like to ask you to present evidence that at age 15 people are unable to determine what is right and what is wrong, and act accordingly. Please inform me why certain 18 and under individuals are fit to be held accountable for their actions not under one but two justice systems while others are too stupid to be held accountable for their actions in front of one system?

Google. Use it. in 35s of searching there are a number of people terrorists charged or convicted of murder by the US and other western Nations.

How do you know he is the only one ever charged? Others could have been charged but no one pretends to give a shit because they are not our favourite little terrorist.

As far as I understand it, drinking is not allowed for people under 18/19 depending on province because it could hurt their development at a biological level whereas making decisions does not really hurt them. My view is that people are given "adult" decisions at 18 so that they can get experience being adults without the decisions hanging over their heads, not because they are too stupid to make those decisions. As I mentioned above, 18 is an arbitrary date that was chosen to become an adult, drinking before 18 has consequences that would be negative to their development and health even in moderation. As for the others, as I said voting I don't see a difference between 15 and 18 year olds way of thinking. Now the most controversial one is the age of consent, and this is where I don't think we should have it at 16 but at 20+, not because a 15 or 16 year old cannot make an informed decision about potential sex partner, but because a 15-19 year olds generally do not have the means to take care of the consequences(kids) due to lack of education which means that no education=no good job... If your kids are 15, do you keep them on a leash? And I mean a real leash around their neck like a dog because they are too stupid to make ANY decisions? Or is this limited only to Mr. Khadr? I am all for that, a person should have the responsibilities of an adult as soon as it becomes obvious that they have the mental capacity to do so. Rights and privileges should be earned through good decisions and actions rather than through arbitrary naming an age where you become an adult. I dont understand your point here, my position is that a 15 year old is an adult and should be treated as such, 18 is an arbitrary number that someone dreamed up as the age of becoming an adult. If you treat a 15-17 year old as an idiot who is unable to make any decisions, then they will not be able to make any decisions even after they turn 18. There are somethings I believe that we could give 15 year olds and have no major change in the way things are run, but there are other"rights and privileges" that should be restricted to those who can manage the consequences and there are some things that are and should be denied, not because they are in capable of making a decision, but because they are unable to deal with the consequences due to missing an important factor(education,job...).

And thats only the things they caught him doing.What is the proper punishment for attacking a police officer, damaging public property as well as private property and terrorizing innocent people?

I knew it, there was nothing of substance to those protests or the protestors themselves... thanks jacee!

I wonder if someone will look in to his social assistance. What was he protesting? Not enough welfare?

If I am understanding things correctly, some people on this forum are suggesting a 15 year old cannot make adult choices at all but magically at the age of 18 they suddenly can make "adult" decisions. So is your position that a 15 year old is too stupid to know the most basic of things? Like the difference between right and wrong. I personally do not think that there is much difference in the way a 15 year old thinks compared to how an 18 year old thinks. Please do tell me at what point in time a person becomes an adult? What day in a persons life is the day when their thinking suddenly changes? How is that a person cannot vote 1 day before they are 18 but suddenly they become capable and responsible when they turn 18? Is there a chemical or biological reaction that only occurs on the birthday?

I would wager to say that not everything you see on tv is real, and not every one who was there did what they claim they did. Care to explain how this guy was real? What kind of evidence does he bring to the table that would suggest everything or anything he says is real? for all we know he could have been the base cook, or a garbage collector, what undeniable evidence does he bring to the table?

No, he cannot be a child soldier because he had multiple chances of surrender during that one day and he did not take any of them while choosing to fight and kill instead. At some point being "forced" to do something stops being an excuse when you have a choice to do the right thing and you don't do it. There was a grenade and he threw it, if he had refrained from throwing it then he would have sad in Guantanamo Bay for a few months to a couple of years and would have been released. No, anyone who is given a choice cannot fall in to the category with those who are given no choice over their actions. He was given a choice to surrender without fighting and he chose to fight, while child soldiers are not given a chance to choose to surrender.

So you think he had no legal representation? If so you REALLY need to acquaint yourself with the particulars of the subject at hand. It seems really stupid on your part to argue that he was a minor with no legal representation when he pled guilty and he was 23 with a number of lawyers representing him, both US military and civilian lawyers.

Proves that you have issues with the truth.

Good Question, how reliable was their assessment? Were they there and saw the events transpire, or were they in a different location and made assumptions? Being in the general geographic area does not mean they know what happened, there are very few people who know what happened there, and I can count them on one hand. Well according to you, he lied when he pleaded guilty... And did you hear about the US Army "Ranger" Who expressed sorrow and regret for slaughtering unarmed civilians in Iraq only to turn out that he never made it past basic training? What if I go on TV and make a sad sob story about how 10 years ago I tortured Khadr in Guantanamo Bay and I regret my actions, how reliable is that? Not really, it keeps getting worse and worse for Canada each and every passing day, because soon enough he will be out and writing a book, or suing the government for imagined grievances and using the funds to conduct terrorism in Canada. It's sad that idiots have to be proven wrong through the deaths of innocent people... and even then super star Khadr will not be responsible for his actions for one reason or another.

Since when is 20 something year old a minor? And by the way he had representation, at a higher level than either of us can hope to ever receive should we need it.

True, and since some of those Canadians happened to live in the Have provinces they pay for the "have not" provinces. At the end of the day, Alberta as a have province is paying for Quebec's equalization payments because Albertans are sending their money to the federal coffers. Great, if they can provide their people with the same level of services all by themselves why are the have provinces paying equalization? The whole point is to offer a minimum standard of services across Canada, if a province can afford those services all on its own then they should not be receiving equalization payments. Great, if the taxes are paying for the services, then the equalization payments are paying for the higher standard of service that is not enjoyed by the have provinces. There are have not provinces that are using their equalization payments as intended to bring services to their citizens at the same level as the rest of Canada, while Quebec is supporting(in your words) its own services and using equalization to pay above and beyond the minimum standard enjoyed by Canadians in other provinces. I can think of better things to do with the money spend on Quebec's equalization payments than paying for the better all around services that Quebec enjoys.

Care to prove that?

No, Mr. Canada was most likely not there at the time, but the witnesses were there and they state what happened and I would take the version of events they present over the version of someone who was not there, and has limited understanding of the situation at hand and bases his opinion on assumptions. There are some people who were there and then there some people who were "there". Apparently not, because Khadr lied according to you at least.

War Criminal = framed? Gee what world do you inhabit? He had every opportunity to lay down his arms and surrender, instead he chose to fight and kill while being an illegal combatant. In the majority of cases child soldiers are not fighting against professionals such as the American Special Forces and are not allowed the choose of surrender. Comparing him to a child soldier is fundamentally unfair towards real child soldiers who were not given a chance to choose at the time of battle because they were fighting against people who have little regard for the value of human lives and most likely will not accept a surrender because they too are using child soldiers. Many people don't understand the value of their word, pleading guilty is pleading guilty and crossing your fingers and taking your guilty plea back at your convenience does not make one innocent.

The money is collected from the provinces, it does not go through the provincial government but rather directly from the people living in those provinces. What is the goal for equalization payments? Is it to give every Canadian regardless of which province they happen to live in a basic level of services? At some point if we look at the situation in Canada we can see that a have not province is actually providing services at a much higher level than the have provinces which would mean that they don't require the equalization payments to maintain the basics. The argument that Quebecers pay more taxes and thats why they receive better services is bogus as well because if it was not for equalization payments they will not be able to afford many of their current services and their $7/day daycare for example would never have existed due to the simple fact that the cost vastly outweighs the benefit except for the fact that someone else was paying for it in the Case of Quebec.

Look at that, Taliban and al-Qaeda don't have a Conduct after Capture course...Who da thunk it!

The don't...

The Canadian government has the primary duty to protect Canadians, so in this case they inconvenienced him for some time but they know apt more and made sure that he will serve at least some time behind bars before he is released by Canadian Authorities. How would the rehabilitation program work if he is stuck living with his family? Yes but as I have thrown hand grandees I can tell you that there are certain physical limitations as to where the grenade comes from and how far you can throw it and what direction it came from. Friendly Fire is a possibility but I discard it because of the fact that those soldiers were Special Forces in the immediate vicinity and thus I doubt that they would make such a mistake. And another thing is that I can think of so many easier ways to do a coverup than this method as it seems a little overkill and waste of resources. There you go, there is the evidence you provided it yourself. Then you most definitely need to read up on the subject. I would strongly suggest you read up on the Taliban and their allies which includes AQ. There would still be the bleeding hearts who would be crying over not bringing the terrorist "home" The chances for rehabilitation even after capture were slim at best, now its near impossible.

I have no doubt that the RCMP and CSIS will be monitoring him, but do you think that he will be brought to justice for any future wrong doing unless there is a smoking gun? At any point in time if the intelligence or police services were to bring forth a case concerning him, the people like eyeball will be up in arms to defend him and the agencies themselves will be leery of any action lest they be seen as gunning for the little terrorist.

Why? Here we have some pos who killed an American soldier, admitted to it but is left with an avenue to deny it, he will sue the Canadian government and get millions of dollars. And best of all he will be virtually untouchable by Canadian Authorities.