Jump to content

Peter F

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Peter F

  1. Where do you get the idea that Khadr joined them gleefully?
  2. Unfortunatley, it was the Military Commissions judge that ruled Khadr was an illegal combatant. Judge Brownback dismissed the charges during the first edition of Khadrs trial, the US prosecuting authority appealed that ruling (that being that the MC required an illegal combatant in order to try Khadr and all Judge Brownback had before him was a combatant) to the Court of Military Commission Review. That particular court of review had to be rushed together because there wasn't one yet but certainly a lot of government memo's circulating that perhaps it would be a good idea to set one up. The MC dismissed the charge (without prejudice) and certain minds then got focused and the Court of MC Review was created. That Court heard the government appeal agreed that the judge was correct in that he did indeed require an illegal combatant and not any ol combatant but then also determined that the MC was quite capable of determining the legality or illegality of Khadr's combattantship prior to actually trying Khadr on the charges levelled. Judge Brownback subsequently did so and concluded khadr was an illegal combatant. Shortly after that Judge Brownback was removed from his position and Judge Parrish assigned to replace him. Then the USSC ruled that the MC's as constituted were contrary to the requirements of the Geneva Conventions and Khadrs trial stopped until the next edition of the MC's were cooked up. the next edition of the MC's were passed in Congress and the Senate and the MC's kicked off again. There was/is only one administrative hearing outside of the MC and that was the Combat Status Review Panel held at Guantanamo with only determines (Then and now) wether the person held is a combatant or not - it does not and cannot determine legality of supposed combatantship. see http://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/Omar07-001/T Military Judge Authority and Remanding Case to MJ to decide MC jurisdiction over Khadr case, 24 September 2007.pdf
  3. No, his rights were violated not because, or as a result, of his engagement in terrorism, but because CSIS - of which he had absolutely no control over - interviewed him and passed the results of that interview on to the Americans to use in a criminal case against him. It wasn't khadr's actions that compelled CSIS to ignore his god-given charter rights. Thats all and completely on CSIS.
  4. That doesn't make any sense. He was fighting for one of the 'recognized' sides: Al-queda or associated forces thereto, including the Taliban. He was therefore subject to the Combat Status Review Tribunal held at Guatanamo which determined him to be a combatant and therefore subject to military detention. Then the Military Commissions trial determined him to be an alien illegal enemy combatant and therefore subject to the Military Commissions trial. You don't get to be an enemy to the Armed Forces of the USofA by merely killing somebody. Khadr was a recognized enemy due to the US declaration of War on Al-Queda and associated forces. Otherwise, if you were correct, Khadr would have been put on trial for his terrorist activities in a regularly consituted civl court just like many, many others accused and tried for terrorism.
  5. Also, should I ever behave as the asshole in this case, then the victims of my oppression have every damn right to haul me up before the tribunal.
  6. What makes you think Sgt. Speer was acting as the medic that day? Was it the distinctive markings he was wearing? Y'know Red crosses on white background? Was he acting as a medic by laying down covering fire for his compatriots? What makes you think he was most certainly a medic that day.
  7. There are assholes and then there are assholes. This particular asshole refused to remove his boots and refused to give the tenants reasonable notice. All entirely reasonable requests and he refused to do so because he couldn't' handle Muslims making reasonable requests. Now, normally, assholes can be ignored because you will soon be out of their presence and their assholedom is limited to verbal assholerly. But in this case, the assholery was within the tenants own home and persistent. Good on them and good on the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.
  8. The decision: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2017/2017hrto436/2017hrto436.html Read and weep for Freedom! The landlord behaved like an asshole and so he pays.
  9. No, He's getting $$$ because the Canadian flunkies traipsed down to Gitmo to interrogate the kid knowing full well he was on the receiving end of abusive treatment. That's why Khadr is getting a payout.
  10. In reply to DoP above: and, of course, you are free to see others remain oppressed in order to save yourself.
  11. The rules won't change Dog, You think those women over there who come here will want to revert back to that once they see that it is not necessary? Unlike you, I am not living in fear of muslims because I know very well that our culture is far more powerful than even you give it credit for. That power is influence. We don't need no caneings to make folks stop wearing those things As dialamah correctly says: "If our culture isn't strong enough to offer opportunity for freedom from oppression to these women without losing our way, that's pretty pathetic"
  12. Which does nothing to explain why so many muslim women in this country don't dress like that.
  13. It's normal where they are. In fact the state where they are punishes them for not conforming. It is oppression and Facistic where they are.. But it isn't here. Because they are not caned here for dressing differently. Argus and Rue argue that what this photo shows is women who actually want to dress like that. Most of them don't and wouldn't if it wasn't for the damn caning they'd face. 'Don't let those barbarians come here and do that' Argus argues. I am saying by all means come here; See that there is no punishment for not dressing like that. Over time, most will end such silliness. They will see thier religion doe's not demand them to. Not here. There yes but not here. I say, Canadian Values require us to tell all those women there that they can come here and be free. That freedom to choose also means that if any wish to wear such things, well , they get to do so.
  14. Sexual facism my ass. If folks want to dress modestly they can - or not - as they please.
  15. ...along with many non-religous folks, lets not forget them.
  16. So? If a woman wants to cover herself up then whose business is that but hers? Or go topless for that matter. Is this some Canadian Values thing going on? A demand that women expose a certain amount of themselves at all times?
  17. I don't think so. It's roots are found in guys being grossed out at the thought of having sex with guys - then rooting through religious texts to justify thier discomfort. Folks writing religious texts were not immune to this discomfort.
  18. yup. Lots of rubber laid on non-rainbow painted pavement too.
  19. It seems to me that the real gay- hating and bashing kind of zealotry is not bound by religion.
  20. (in reply to Argus above) I get that. You've said it a hundred times. And, for the hundredth time, I think its perfectly fine in freedom loving Canada to be stupid and always has been
  21. Hey, if extremist soothes your doubts then call me an extremist.
  • Create New...