Signals.Cpl

Why would he care if he has Canadian blood on his hands? He is Canadian when someone has to get him out of trouble, I doubt he would care if he killed a Canadian Soldier, he didn't care about killing and American...

What kind of pressure could we put on the US? Sanctions? Threats of violence? He killed their soldier, it was their problem just because the problem was born in Canada does not mean we can force the US to hand him over. And even if he were handed over to Canada in 2003-2004 what would he receive as punishment? He would have been out shortly thereafter. 1) He admitted to throwing the grenade. 2) The answer was to I believe Peter F, if all the others around Khadr were dead then it leads any person with a brain to come to the conclusion that the only pos alive threw the grenade. It's irrelevant if he was the only survivor or not, what is relevant is if he was the only survivor in the area where the grenade came from. Yet you can pick what you do in any given situation. If he had chosen to surrender during the course of the attack this could have been avoided and he would have been released long ago, what he chose to do is fight and kill an American Sgt. and this choice was all his own. One is hitting an enemy with the intent to kill him/them and accidentally killing innocent people. The other is setting up IEDs in locations where you KNOW that people will be driving/walking through and not carrying wether civilians were killed and maimed or not. One is hitting a target knowing the enemy is there and killing innocent by accident, the other is a first come first die kind of deal. What exactly is it supposed to prove? He did not fall in to the category of a legal combatant, a category that ISAF members fall in to, his organizations actively sought to make themselves illegal combatants and then people complain.

I think we all knew he was coming back, what most people would prefer is that he received a stiffer sentence and was forced to serve the time.

1) He did not fall in to a category according to international law. Someone doesn't get captured in a battlefield as a murderer but as a soldier or a terrorist, the two have different consequences under international law. Omar Khadr was captured as a terrorist. 2) There is nothing "alleged" about his crime, he admitted to it which means he is guilty. He was captured as an illegal combatant who fought his country and its allies killing one soldier in the process, therefore the military commission was necessary to determine the consequences, or the next best thing would be to hand him and all the others over to the Afghan authorities for prosecution as they were committing crimes in Afghanistan. Then the US should have handed him to the Afghan authorities because he was committing the crimes in their nation, I wonder what he would like better, Guantanamo Bay and military commission or a civil court in Afghanistan and spending the time in their prisons. Were they legal combatants? That makes a world of difference. Or maybe he did not qualify for civil courts. Thats right, because he did not want to surrender, if the US forces had given him what he desired we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think a decade in Afghanistan and Iraq proves how wrong and stupid this statement is. One of the main jobs of the SOF is to gather intelligence(Take Prisoners) so stating that they kill anyone and everyone they encounter means you know absolutely nothing about them. Where are you getting this from? I wan to see a source that back your bullshit claim up. And he was shot because he was a threat to the soldiers. If he has surrendered then the US SOF would not have shot him.

He was making IED's, thats seasoned enough. How would you know how many times he has been under fire? I don't know if you are aware but that IS weapons training, he knew how to use the weapon and what it did. What crimes are being assigned to him that he did not commit? No one would ever accuse him of being a genius. He admitted to it, good enough. Must have been the ghost of the other guys that threw the grenade then? Unless you would like to explain how a dead piece of shit could throw a grenade Omar Khadr is the guilty party. Considering his actions up to that point that was enough. Or is murder not ranked that high on your list... So a guilty plea means nothing... does that apply to the rest of those who committed crimes and pleaded guilty? Do we assume anyone who pleads guilty is innocent? He has been assigned the crimes he committed nothing more. You are the company you keep, if he chooses to hangout with the human garbage that beheads people, throws acid in little girl's faces and all the other nasty stuff then there is bound to be some bad feelings over that. And we are, he killed a US Army Sgt., he assembled and set up IED's many types of IED are not remotely controlled so they don't discriminate between soldier and civilian. He was a member of a terrorist organization that did a nasty thing or two so he gets some bad press because of that.

I hope you realize that the US captured Omar Khadr, our agreements do not have much effect on their decision. So is it your opinion that Canada failed to force the US to give us Khadr so we can rehabilitate? Should we interfere in another nations internal legal proceedings in order to satisfy an agreement?

On a battlefield he did not belong on, fighting his own country and its allies. He could have surrendered but instead he decided to throw a grenade and he had to live with that decision. And if the US did not define who is a soldier and who is an enemy combatant who would? The "people" he was fighting for actively seek to make sure they don't fall in to any proper category according to International Law and then people complain that the US decided which category to put them in.

As you yourself mentioned he was rounded up at the beginning of the war and did not commit the crimes that Omar Khadr. After contemplation he chose his side and now has to live with the decision just like Omar Khadr chose his side and he too has to live with the decision.

Seing as he was in Afghanistan and not an Afghan citizen I don't see how the US owes him any apology. The US owes him an apology for saving his life, offering him medical treatment free of charge for the last 10 years and are now graciously letting a war criminal go without completing his sentence.

Every time you post something you cry about how that POS was screwed as a child and thus he should not be punished for his crimes... if that is not a blank check I don't know what is.

You seem to think justice=vengeance, to me he needs to serve his full term for the crimes he committed. You seem to think that we should take in to account a criminal's upbringing and sentence him/her according to how bad their upbringing was, at some point people need to stop blaming their childhood and start taking responsibility for their actions being 20 and claiming your parents screwed you thats why you committed an offence doesn't cut it.

Rescue...lol you are funny...

Well there is reality and then there is your reality, I live in the real world where your childhood trauma might be a mitigating factor but is not a blank check to commit any and all crimes wether you are 15, 20 or 50.

And if we follow along with eyeball and his suggestion we won't need to charge anyone since their childhood would be an excuse to do any crime without fear of any consequences.

You really are out of touch with reality, aren't you?

Do you support letting criminals go based on their childhood? If someone was "indoctrinated" since the age of 3 that beating your wife is appropriate who should we consider the victim? The guy who beats his wife because he was indoctrinated or the wife? What about rapists? Or murderers? Or is it just over Khadr that your heart bleeds?

He would ask them about their childhood and cry about how much of a victim each and everyone of them is.

So from now on we will ask rapists, murderers and every other criminal if they were brainwashed since the age of 8. If they were brainwashed starting at a young age they automatically will be released with a pat on the back and an apology for a crappy childhood? There are many people who grew up to become proper and productive members of society in spite of what their parents did rather than because of what their parents did and there are even more who became criminals inspire of having good law abiding and loving parents. Is this going to become an automatic defence? I had a crappy childhood and criminals for parents who brainwashed me from an early age therefore I am innocent of any and all crimes I subsequently committed even though I was at an age when I could or should know the difference between good and bad?

And what does the Canadian military have to do with this? The CF has no authority over civilians, DND is not a Law enforcement agency to anyone other than it's own. I am pretty sure that the military does not deal with treason unless it is directly tied with a member committing the act and even then it would be doubtful that the military has the authority to charge him with anything.

So? What is your point? You think that the 54 days between his capture and his 16th birthday would have made him any wiser? This is like arguing that you are not an adult at 17 years and 10 months but are magically responsible for your actions at the age of 18 years and 1 minute. You mean like the Cadets that are send to camp, given military style training including for some weapons handling? Many join the reserves at their earliest opportunity. Now, if you want to argue that he is an idiot with out the ability to think because he is 15 go right ahead, but then we need to treat every 14,15 and 16 year old the same way, they commit a robbery, rape or murder just give them a nice lecture and let them go since they did not know right from wrong. But the fact that at age 15 and 355 days you have pretty much the same mind set as age 16 docent change. Again, either we let anyone under the age of 16 or whatever other magical age you choose go because they are lacking the ability to determine right from wrong just say so, I for one hold the belief that at age 14,15 or 16 young adults are responsible for their actions and should be held to account for their actions. Yes, and in this war he chose to go and fight against his country and its allies. Because he decided to fight the government of Afghanistan and fought on the side of the Taliban and I believe that they deserve to punish him in any way they find fit. Also since he fought on the side of the Taliban the US should return him to the organization that he fought for or wait until the end of the war to release him back to them. And if he had done it at age 16 or 17 it would be different? I don't have to justify anything, I have had the pleasure to work with many soldiers who joined the military at 16 and they were more than enough proof that a 16 year old is capable of determining right and wrong. A 15 year old trained to build and deploy IED's that do not discriminate between soldier and civilian, so yes a 15 year old who was trained to blow people up without regard to wether they were soldier or civilian. A 15 year old who likely caused more deaths through his work than we know about or will ever know about, so there is no comparison between what he did and what CF members do, what I am trying to point out is that 16 year olds are capable of determining right from wrong and in some cases even though their parents might have chosen not to delve in the subject. I wouldn't argue that point, I am whining, because he will be rewarded for the murder we know he committed and the others that he probably is responsible for. He spend 10 years in prison. And lets see how much of the 8 years he will serve or the parade he will receive when he is set free. He was charged for the crimes he committed against the US, but I would say that he has not been held to account for the crimes he committed against 1) Canada 2) Afghanistan. I would beg to differ, I don't support the conservatives, I support their policies and decisions. If they do something that does not appeal to me I do not support it.

1)The military recruits 16 year olds which was age when he was captured minus a couple of months. 2)He was not defending himself from an attack that came out of nowhere, he actively went seeking combat and was engaged in combat against a Nation that is one of Canada's closest allies while fighting for an organization that was and is an enemy of his country. As a POW he should have been released to Afghanistan rather than Canada as he was fighting for the Taliban not Canada, and then put his ass on a no fly list. He had no business being in Afghanistan fighting against the Afghan government and ISAF so it is unfair to say that he was just defending himself when he was a member in an organization aimed at overthrowing the legitimate government of Afghanistan and oppressing Afghanistan. You are right, he is not a child soldier, he is a terrorists there is a big difference. So? Because he is an unlawful combatant. I don't see why there is so much whining about this issue, the unlawful combatants actively work to fall in that category and I don't see why it's our problem. I call him a terrorist. Terrorist, thats the only fair label. And it should be of no surprise then that he was detained. Right? Are you suggesting that the US Army Sgt. should have expected to be killed but that Khadr should not expect that he would be detained if captured? I agree, keep him in jail until the War on Terror ends. I am all for this suggestion. But it was the government's duty to investigate him in order to make sure they had the best plan of action in place so as not to put real Canadians in jeopardy. I believe that he generates quite a lot of sympathy, there might even be a book in it for him. He was 16 years old minus a a little over a month. I sure hope he stays in jail for 8 more years. Yeah I agree, for those members of the CF who are injured on operation and end up being kicked around by the government and the people for the remainder of their lives there is no justice. He spend less than 10 years in Guantanamo Bay, another 8 years(Hopefully) in Canadian custody, sue the government get a payout and laugh at the vets who get treated much worse than him even though they have done their best to serve Canada. There is absolutely no justice in this case, his brother injured in Afghanistan is given medical treatment in Canada at the expense of the very people his family despises.

That is precisely why I believe the government did the right thing by withdrawing the embassy staff, no need to risk leaving them to the mercy of Iran . And I realize that the embassy cannot do much as Iran does not recognize a dual citizenship therefore Iranian-Canadians cannot receive any sort of help from the embassy.

There is not much that they could do to Canada directly and I see no reason for us to give them a chance to hurt us by leaving potentially dozens of Canadians in Iran at the mercy of the Iranian government.

So you mean a child who does 50% of the work, gets 60% on the work done can advance year after year? This means that the student knows only about 30% of what is being taught yet that student gets a pass? Having no solid base of knowledge sets up a student for failure when grade 10 math is based on grade 9 math and the student knows only about 30% of what is required to pass to the next level. Having the pass/fail level set at 50% is bad enough, setting it lower by giving out incomplete in order to pass them means that teachers become nothing more than over glorified babysitters. If there is a specific problem that a student faces then by all means help them out and solve the problem, but letting them advance by in effect setting up a no-fail policy means that they will be set up to fail later in life when they end up in post-secondary education and/or the workforce.

I would hope so, maybe he will go to another war zone and someone will finish him off...