Peter F

None. Advertise that. See if that will stop folks from dirt poor countries trying to enter rich countries. I betcha it won't have any effect at all.

ah, no. Being dirt poor is why people enter this country illegally. They enter illegally because they cannot enter legally. ... and by the way I get all my healthcare - or most of it - Free! and that i fantastic! Are you actually surprised that folks from dirt-poor places seek to enter rich places?

Question asked and answered by your very self: They're dirt poor. Liberal appointees may be granting refugee status to some of the claimants (and acts of parliament lay out the conditions which refugee claimants can be accepted) but Liberal appointees are not demanding that X amount of Haitians must illegally enter Canada and make refugee claims.

True, and the kids learn to speak German very well. Immigration isn't about the immigrant, its about their kids. They integrate into society just as well as German kids. Assuming the Germans let them of course.

I am sure that you secretly love the idea of running down protesters.

Not a very promising future for Haitians. Perhaps we should ensure that none of them can leave such a place. Fence it off, so to speak. Make sure no one ever gets out.

I suspect its not a case of 'can't' but a case of he likes his underlings being in conflict with each other. If they are scrapping each other then their attentions won't be on him except as a go-to guy to sort out the mess - which he will definitely not do in order to keep the conflicts boiling.

Because it was a giant sugar plantation which in the day meant Europeans lording it over a vast number of slaves. The slaves revolted back in 1790 or thereabouts, during the French revolution. By 1804 the slave revolt successfully drove their (by that time Napoleonic) overlords out. I don't think they were all that thrilled with a French culture that found all sorts of reasons to keep them enslaved.

Two Reasons primarily: The USofA didn't and hasn't gone to war with us . Quebec, until recently, didn't seek soveriegnty. You should read a book on the matter. The situation of Austria - Hungary and Canada are and were entirely different in almost every way.

Why? Is that the same 'why?' that the grade 11 teacher asks the class prior to instruction that answers the question? The place was called Austria-Hungary for a reason. The reason being Hungary. On paper Austria-Hungary should have been an example of all the things teacher listed, but in practice it most certainly wasn't. The political infighting between the Austrian (old imperial) element and the Hungarian (nationalist) element were tremendous and debilitating to the Empire. What the imperialists wanted the Hungarians didn't and vice-versa. A strong army to achieve the dreams of re-claiming old Imperial glory? No way the Hungarians would allow such a thing for fear of that army being used to crush Hungarian ambitions. Grand modern, progressive, multicultural, multilingual, civilized Education ? No way the Hungarians would allow such a thing for fear of all the non-hungarians undermining Hungarian Nationalist ambitions. Theres much more . A hugely complicated subject in which entire books (!!) have been written explaining why. Perhaps teach would tell us which texts to read so's we can get on with studying and the tests

And again, Rue, What was the immoral act? or acts? As I see it, If the USofA declares war on the Taliban, then invades Afghanistan to force out the Taliban and in so doing engages in combat with the Taliban, then the Taliban by virtue of opposing the USofA in its endeavours are not terrorists. Khadr was part of a group certainly associated with the Taliban, opposing the US forces. Therefore he was not a terrorist but a combatant. It was in combat that Sgt Spears died, allegedly by Khadr's action of throwing a grenade during that combat. That is not terrorism. That he partook in building IED's and event went out (under the supervision by the way) and planted IED's in spots specifically chosen (by those supervising him) to be places where US military convoys regularly transit, is not terrorism. You are equating those actions (and those actions are the only actions Khadr has been accused of or even admitted to) with terrorism. Just like blowing up bars in Bali, or buses in London, or concerts in Paris or Manchester, or loading suitcases with explosives on aircraft, or machine-gunning random people at airports, or shooting any US citizen that happens to be at hand on cruise ships. I say there is a vast difference between terrorism and combat/war. As regards who is a child soldier and who is not - or more specifically; who should be called a child soldier and who should not be - your argument leads to the inane conclusion that there are two types of child soldiers: (1)Those who fight in uniforms of states for noble causes. Such children deserve the benefit of the law regarding child soldiers, but only if the recruiting state doesn't realize that the child is serving. (2) those children fighting out of uniform for an immoral undignified cause who should not, under any circumstance, be called child soldiers for the sake of other child soldiers dignity (see 1 above). Such children should on no account be considered child soldiers or even treated as such. it would certainly be a travesty of Morality if not Law to do so. Khadr guilt, if any, requires that Khadr himself commit terrorism. It doesn't matter one iota what other folks do or did or will do or what organization they are part of. Is it possible for folks fighting in a legally constituted army following the rules of the Geneva conventions to commit atrocities or war crimes or even terrorism? Yes. Is it possible for those associated with terrorist organizations to not commit terrorism or war crimes or atrocity? Also yes. The question is : What did Khadr do? Not what Al Queda does or advocates. Khadr spits does he? Where has he done that? His mom may have done that. Maybe his dad did that, maybe. Where has Khadr done that?

What moral values did Khadr violate? What moral wrong did he do? Sure no one called them victims, unless they were killed or maimed or imprisoned. Then there would be laments about how they shouldn't have even been allowed there to be killed or maimed and so the state failed them. If the wannabe recruit is not of 18 years of age (exception: 17 if both parents assent) then the wannabe is told to go home and come back later. No moral test is required. Not even during WW2. To claim that Khadr failed some moral test by not deceiving the adults around him into believing that he was older than he was is ridiculous. To claim that those under 18 - even in the big noble one - are 'legitimate' through some nebulous greater morality and Khadr is an illegitimate because he doesn't fit that supposed morality is asinine. The morality involved is simply this: If you are not 18 you shouldn't be here. That morality is reflected in Canadian law, even during WW2. That your father got away with it because he successfully deceived the state, does not change the fact that if the state at the time had found out your fathers deceit they would have shipped him off right quick. The morality of your father has no bearing. There are no exceptions. You are 18 or you're not. If not, there are no exeptions for morals or eagerness. Your father served illegally up until he was 18. Not that your father was committing some crime by doing so. He wasn't. The crime was allowing him to serve and that crime rests on the Canadian government who allowed a child to serve. Which they do not do, even your dad. Thus the necessity of your fathers deceit. Boys will be boys.

WTF is that? I've heard of under-age kids joining up in the Big One - but they lied about their age to do so.

Not at all. I think it would have been fine to do so. It's also fine to avoid all that and come to a mutually agreed upon settlement.

Could it? His claims of torture were considered by both the federal and Supreme courts of this country. Granted they went out of their way to say that they weren't convinced he was tortured but they most certainly were convinced he was subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment. Torture is not necessary to the claim. Abusive treatment is.

Check the MC trial of Muhammad Jawad, also a juvenile charged with war crimes at Guantanamo. His military-appointed lawyers argued that the sleep deprivation regime carried out at Guantanamo was torture and therefore his charges should be dismissed. The Military Judge in that case didn't actually agree that sleep-deprivation was torture but it most certainly was abusive, so ruled that all Jawads statements of guilt need be tossed being the result of inhumane treatment. The evidence presented by the defence to prove the abuse were the same methods applied to Omar Khadr during that same period that Jawad suffered them. They had the prison records to prove it. When this was presented by the defence in Khadr's trial, in a motion to dismiss, the judge there determined that it may or may not be inhumane treatment or even torture - let the panel decide. The judge most certainly did not find that Khadr wasn't tortured; only that he (the judge) was not convinced and so not dismissing the charges. He certainly allowed that the defence could make the argument when it presented its case to the panel. Of course this did not preclude many headlines announcing "Khadr Not Tortured Rules Judge" ...the panel never got to consider the question since the Khadr's lawyers never had the opportunity to present the evidence to them.

The Combat Status Review Panels are a requirement of the Geneva Conventions. They only determine whether a prisoner is to be a combatant or a non-combatant. This idea of 'legal' or 'illegal' combatant was cooked up by the Americans when they cooked up the Military Commissions. There is no way for a CSRT to determine legality or illegality of combatantship. Thus all those CSRT's pushed through after the Hamdan decision and zero of those pushed through were determined to be 'illegal' combatants. The GC's do not recognize such a distinction. No mistake was made. Due to the ad hoc nature of the Military Commissions and the belief of some in the Bush admin at the time, they need not worry because the detained were held outside of the USofA and therefor no US court would have jurisdiction and they would never run into any problems. How very wrong those clowns were. this whole 'legal'/'illegal' combatant crap was cooked up to allow the enhanced interrogations and retention at undisclosed locations with no legal representation. Such a distinction doesn't exist under the GC's. Khadr, being charged with a crime of war, should have been tried using the day to day UCMJ's, not some special cooked up ad hoc system that they threw together to avoid recognizing rights of the accused.

I hope not. I think we too try to adhere to the rules of war and geneva conventions that our governments have signed on to. I have no desire to see our boys committing war crimes in order to fulfill some fools idea of being tough.

According to the USofA - which did in fact conduct the only trial ever against Khadr - he was a member of Al - Queda or associated forces with.

by whose accounts?

So? Sgt Spears was there conducting military operations against who? why non-soldiers of course. It doesn't matter one little bit that Khadr was not a soldier. He was there. He was in a group that the US was conducting military operations against - be they solidiers or non soldiers, or legal combatants or illegal combatants. Sgt Spear died of wounds suffered in that battle. He wasn't there by accident or happenstance. He was there because the USofA sent him there with great purpose and resolve to engage the enemy in combat and defeat them.

One may do that, yes. One may also think that a negotiated settlement is the right thing to do. 'One' in the latter instance being me.

No, her husband signed up to fight whoever the US government tells them to fight. Thus his being in afghanistan overthrowing the Taliban and conducting combat ops agains any or all who supported Al-queda or the Taliban in Afghanistan. and, unfortunately being killed by those very same folks.

Yup. Even the most undeserving of Rights still have those very same rights that everyone else has. Wether they deserve them or not is neither here nor there; They have them.

Not quite that good but ... Everybody (in the USofA at least) has the right to make claims against others in court. The court will then determine whether those claims are legally valid or just a load of crap. The court in that case ruled that since Khadr had been found guilty of his crimes - in fact pled guilty and in those pleadings admitted he did indeed throw the grenade - and that the MC determined khadr to have done so illegally because he was an illegal combatant and then determined that Khadrs actions were not part of an ongoing war (contrary to the MC ) but terrorism (because Khadr was not a legal combatant therefore his actions were terrorism) , and because no one actually contested Mrs Spears charge (and the Utah Judge certainly was not going to become Khadrs lawyer on the spot) the court awarded Mrs Spears all the money. To me the odd thing is, that Mrs Spears had already received a judgment in her favour against Khadrs dad for his being responsible for her husbands death apparently by raising wee Omar to be a terrorist, that case also being uncontested in Utah and all sorts of monies awarded there. Those Utah judgements will become pretty iffy should the MC's findings of guilt be dumped or partially dumped as a result of Khadr's appeals.