CANADIEN

Agreed

If Omar Khadr was freed by the U.S. authorities, the Canadian government would be legally obligated to allow him back, as he has Canadian citizenship. I wish he wasn't, and there would be a way to take his citizenship away, but my wishes and the rule of law are two different things in this case. And while there is also the possibility or having laws retroactively taking away the citizenship of people accused of certainpast crimes, he would set a dangerous precedent of retroactive law. He is not worth it. Does this mean he should just be left to walk free on our streets? Most definitely not. While I wonder how many of those who call him a traitor took the time to actually read the definition of the word in Canadian law, it just so happen that at least some of the acts he committed can be considered treasonous under Canadian law The Criminal Code (section 46) states: Ironically, he being a Canadian citizenship would give our government a stronger legal foundation to try him.

facts are not your stong suit, are they? Omar Khadr is accused of killing an American soldier, not a Canadian. Of course, he still is a terrorist. As for the witness whose testimony "revealed" Maher Arar so-called guilt, it took less than a day to demolish his testimony by comparing it to his own notes taken when he interrogated Khadr. The guy is a cop; if he had given that kind of contradiction-ridden testimony at a parking infraction hearing, he would be on photocopier duty by now. What is unbelievable is that people would grasp at anything, no matter non-sensical, to sustain a claim that Maher Arar is a terrorist. We are talking about a man's freedom here; is it too much to ask that any accusation against him be at least more believable than the 9/11 conspiracy theories?

Hear! Hear! More fondamentally, he is a human being. It is one thing to say that he is a terrorist (hhhe is), a murderer (I think it is, but that's a determination to be made by a legitimate court of law), a scumbag (he is), that he should rot in jail (he should, after being found guilty in a legitimate court of law), that he is not a Canadian (legally he is, UNFORTUNATELY). Or even that he should be executed after being found guilty (I oppose the death penalty, but I would not cry "oh the poor little maaartyr). But its quite another thing to approve of his torture and the conditions in which he was detained, to wish he would blow himself up in a meeting of left-wing party, to hope he would be eaten alive. That some people would scream "THEY are uncivilized, and WE are civilized" then turn around and make such statement is hypocritical and sickening.

I thought you could not sink much lower after your last one. I stand corrected.

I think that Omar Khadr deserves to rot in jail. But this one is a new low, even from you.

This coming from someone who supports torture and opposes the rule of law. The terrorist Khadr should have been tried for his crimes according to the rule of law, that is in a legitimate American court, not the Guantanamo parody of justice.

I wonder how many people were wishing 8 years ago for 9/11, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, the Iraqi desastor, the economic meltdown. It is one thing to say that Obama will fail, that he will not be up to the task. It his quite a different thing to wish for it to happen.

Omar Khadr is accused of: - murder (tehcnically, he might not be guilty if he didn't throw the granade that killed a American soldier) - attempted murder (he was there, fighting in a terrorist outfit, so that one is a sure thing IMO) - support of terrorism (guilty as charged) - spying (don't know enough about the legitimate evidence to have an opinion) There is enough to convince him of at least two of the charges from the simple fact he was there and participated in the fight. He should be brought before a LEGITIMATE American Court, something the Guantanamo tribunal most definitely is not. Found guilty, and sentenced. As for his age. A person can be tried as an adult in a regular court of law for crimes committed as a minor, depending on the gravity of the crime. I think this fits the bill. And I don't think he is a child-soldier, for the very reason that he was not a soldier period; besides, legal protection for child-soldiers were (rightly) put in place for children abducted and forced to participate in war. O,ar Khadr does not fit that bill. I say give him a real trial then lock him and throw the key.

Too bad the notes taken BY THE INTERROGATOR, AT THE TIME HE INTERROGATED Khadr, indicate something radically different from "Khadr saw the picture and said it was Maher Arar".

Says who? A man whose testimony on Monday was contradicted by the notes he took when he interrogated Khadr. You know, the notes where Khadr is quoted as saying "he looks familiar" when shown a picture of Arar for a second time, after denying having ever seen him just minutes earlier. I don't know for you, but to me "he looks familiar" is not the same as "I know him, his name is so and so". It's also the notes that states that Khadr said he saw Arar (or more precisely, "that guy who looks familiar") in Afghanistan at a time when the RCMP had Arar under surveillance in Ottawa. Once again, I don't know about you, but either what that witness said on Monday was true and what he wrote the day he interrogated Khadr was not, or what he wrote in 1982 was true and what he said this week is not. Two statements so contradictory cannot both be true at the same time and logic dictates that it makes more sense to believe what he wrote when the interrogation was still fresh on his mind.

IF it was very possible that he was a terrorist... Key word is IF. Nobody would argue for monetary compensation to somebody when there is credible evidence that he may be a criminal. Let me ask a question in turn? if a - public commission of inquiry, reviewing all information collected by the RCMP about an individual, concluded there was no evidence in there suggesting that the man is a terrorist; b- a Minister in the federal government, when shown a U.S. file about the same individual, said he saw no evidence in there that the man constitute a danger to the public; c - if no credible evidence that the man is a terrorist was produced; would you be arguing that there is a very strong possibility that the man is a terrorist? Gonna ask, because it's exactly what we get here.

It should not come to a surprise that you think we should stoop as low as our ennemies. I think we should held ourselves to a higher standard. As for the use of torture, its lack of relability as a way to obtain information is well known, as the usual use by bigots and ignorants of the "if you don't approve of torture, you support terrorism" cr*p. Speaking of ignorance, that's probably explains why you didn't bother to check the detail regarding the event that M. Dancer described as an accident. Here are the FACTS: The so-called teerorist was a young Afghani man Dilawar. On December 5, 2002, he was driving his taxi, with three assengers on board, when they were detained by forces loyal to local warlord Jan Baz Khan. Khan, it would later be found, had been the architected of a recent rocket attack on a nearby American base, and was handing innocent men to the Americans in order to both cash a reward promised for the capture of any culprit, and to deflect attention from himself. Dilawar and his passengers were delivered to U.S. forces and brought to the Dharan prison camps. The passengers were interrogated, sent to Guantanamo and later released as they didn't constitute a risk. Dilawar was not that lucky. His captors started beating him. Soon, they started to find the way he screamed "ALLAH" when struck to be funny. So they beat him more, and more. Between beatings, he was chained to a wall, preventing him from geeting sleep. A guard later testified that, in the first 24 hours of his captivity, Dilawar received more than 100 kicks to the peroneal (a nerve behind the kneeca), most of them delivered just to hear him scream. After four days, his knees were so weak he could not even kneel when ordered. He died on December 10, 2002, after five days in captivity. The initial autopsy report termed his death an homicide. But the more horrfying aspect of this murder is what was found later, and I'll bold it so that you cannot miss it: according to notes left by Dilawar's interrogators, they believed right from the start that he was likely INNOCENT. Are the FACTS clear enough?

Interesting, all that could be also be said about you. So, "socialists" (better described as anyone who do not share your prejudice and bigotry) are stoned around the clock? :lol:

delete

Indeed. What's fair is fair. I have seen ads inviting Catholics to go back to the Church. Sounds like a form of evangelisation to me. BTW, There is a difference between a group CHOOSING not to place ads on the TTC and a group not being allowed to do so. Unless you can prove that the TTC refuses to take ads from Church groups, there is no basis tothe "if we don't do it, they should not be allowed to do it" argument..

Nice to see that you can take lightly the killing of an innocent man.

After three months of relentless interrogation, using tehcniques that are designed to break the resistence of the interrogated person, with no access to any form of legal representation, there is no such thing as "just asking". The conditions of Khadr's interrogation makes most everything he said to his captor suspect. Especially when it contradicts evidence.

Omar Khadr was not a soldier in the Afghan Army, but a member of a terrorist organisation, Al-Quaida. That his treatment since his capture and his current trial do not meet some of the fundamental principal of our justice and criminal system does not change that fact.

On top of it: In a statement made to the O'Connor Commission, a RCMP agent who interrogated Khadr in the summer of 2002 (two-three months before his alledged identification of Arar); the agent said that he had shown Khadr a photo of Arar and that Khadr told him he had never seen the man. Also interesting is that there is confirmed information that places Maher Arar in San Diego (!) for most of September 2001, and in Ottawa for most of October 2001, the two months when Omar Khadr allegedly saw him om Afghanistan.

And why is there no place for the view ppoint of atheists in T.O.? Not that I agree with it, obviously, but they to have freedom of expression.

I don't call killing a man during an interrogation an accident.

Now the story is "we sgowed him photos, and he said "his name is Maher Arar", and I saw him twice in Afghanistan, in September and October 2001". Convenient story, except that it appears that he did not immediately identify Arar. Especially interesting is the fact that Arar was, at that time, under surveillance by the RCMP in CANADA. While I believe the handling of the whole thing by the RCMP was abysmal, I have a hard time believing that they would not have noticed Arar travelling out of the country. Or, if they did, that both the O'Connor Commission and Stockwell Day didn't catch that one in all the documentation they saw.

No. I rely on the fact that a public commission of inquiry and a Minister, a Conservative one no less, could not find any credible evidence that he was a terrorist. Of course, anyone who considers Maher Arar not to be a terrorist has to be a terrorist apologist. What a load of cr*p. Omar Khadr was submitted to could be described at a minimum as coercive forms of interrogation. People in that situation are likely to say anything that think their interrogators want to hear. Any "evidence" based on that type of confession is not worth the paper it is written on without at least some corroboration. In this case, there is none.

Of course, they is no evidence that indicates he was coerced into accusing Maher arar yesterday. The testimony submitted yesterday to the Court in Guantanamo is that he odentified Arar 7 YEARS AGO.