CANADIEN

By can't be tried as an adult - I mean it is contrary to the fundamental principles of justice. Hope this clarifies my point.

Thanks for confirming my point about you.

Something useful to contribute, besides the US Government can do whatever it wants because it's the US Government and being offended when people point out how empty that is? BTW, don't worry. unlike the Bush administration, I have no problem with the notion of rights.

I stand corrected.

Not worth commenting Coming from someone who do not care about trials, I find it very laughable. And BTW, I haven't hidden the fact I believe Khadr to be guilty of the crimes he committed. If he is found not guilty by a real court of law, then I will stand corrected on that account

We are all indoctrinated in a world-view system or another. Some by school, some by parents, some by peers. The leeway does not extend to murder. [wuote]At any rate, I continue to be amazed that 15 year old is expected to hold the same responsibility as an adult. This is quite a serious regression in political culture. Hell, let's bring back child executions and chimnney-sweeps. Not over-dramatizing a bit here? A child of 15 years does not, and cannot, be ehld to the same degree of responsibility as an adult. Nor can he be subjected to an adult sentence. Which is way I am weary of children being tried as adults. But a lesser degree of responsibility does not equate no responsibility at all. Then, his lawyers are welcome to argue he was indoctrinated to such an extent he did not have the same capacity to distinguish right from wrong that other 15 year old have.

Not smug, merely stating a fact.And yep, a terrorist is pretty much a failure as a hyman being too.

??? The fact that the French langauage hasn't met its DEMISE is evidence of the English-speaking folks being screwed over by the government? Holy cow. And here I've lived happily in New Brunswick, an English speaker in a province that is 30% French, and never once been screwed over by the evil French. I didn't even know that their very existence threatens my rights. Thanks for informing me. I gotta go break up with my evil Acadien girlfriend now. Am Acadian girlfriend? You traitor BTW, sounds that in this case you and a Francophone are screwing each other:D

Your failure as a human being, not mine.

Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention a;ready prohibit the use of child-soldiers. This needs to be expended to prohibit the sentencing of children who committed crimes in time of war while under duress. It should NOT prohibit the prosecution of children who wilfully participate in armed conflict and commit a crime while doing so. A fifteen year old boy who enrols in a street gang and commits a crime is not shieldest from responsibility for his actions. Should not be different just because the crime is committed in a combat zone. Now, Khadr's lawyers are of course welcome to argue he was under some kind of duress, or that he was abused into becoming a child-soldier. Good for him if it works, but I don't see why it should work better than the pleas of a 15 year old street thug who blames his parents or his surroundings for his crimes. Then of course, is the fact that Khadr's sentence, if he is found guilty through a fair trial, should take into account his age as well as his crimes.

It is not about sympathy, it is about right and wrong. Something you never care about.

Even you can do better than that. One does not excuse the other, or justify it.

British common law includes due process and the rule of law. Which some of the right - including you it seems, are always very eager to set aside.

Excuse me for believing in the rule of law when dealing with alleged criminals. The dots and the i's are called due process. And it is not about middle, or left, or right of anything. It's about doing things the way they should be done. If you mistake that for a belief that the U.S. Government can do whatever it want, your reading skills are even worse than my writing skills.

Thanks to corrupt dysfunctional governments and English speaking tax payers who WILL NOT stand up for the rights of their large English speaking majority. Let's put a side for one moment that there is nothing dysfunctional or corrupt in recognizing the rights of Canadians, and that there is nothing in federal laws that is detrimental to the linguistic rights of Canadians. If you had not been assleep during history classes, you would know that the preservation of the French language in this great country called Canada was, for most of our history, achieved DESPITE government actions, from the Durham Report to Manitoba violating the Constitution for more than 90 years to Ontario regulations banning the teaching of French, among other things. Federal language policies since the 1960's have merely confirmed what was already self-evident... French-speaking Canadians, and their language, are fully Canadian. Canada should be able to survive without the discriminatory policies you advocate.

Leafless' myth The REALITY; It is Trudeau's policies that ended up second class status for french-speaking Canadians and their language.

I will repeat. The OLA recognizes the exact equality of status of English and French in fedreal laws, institutions and services. And no matter how often you repeat the same clueless statement, you will still be clueless.

The needless dying of civilians is not acceptable. And it is the moral responsibility of any combattabt party to do all they can to avoid civilian casualty. But there is still a difference between not yaking sufficient measures to avoid them and delibarately seeking to kill civilians.

Especially considering that he makes reference to terrorists from Pakistan. He may be guilty of trying to discount the facts that the terrorist movement does not lack for Afghani volunteers, but he is certainly not trying to ignore that things done by the terrorists.

It's a murder trial. No need and no justification for departing from the rules that govern murder trials. You conviently forget that actions and decisions of the Bush administration regarding the detainees have been found to be contrary to US and international law by US courts, up to the Supreme Court. And that our Supreme Copurt, beside repeating what had already been said by the U.S. Supreme Court, was issuing a decision on the lagallity of the actions of CANADIAN officiicials.

Let's be honest here. There has not been delibarate targetting of civilian population by coalition troops.

Some here have advocated that enemies captured be summarily executed without any form of trial. Some in other forums have advocated nuking the whole of Afghanistan. Government officials have sought ways to justify and provide a legal blanket for gross violations of fundamental principles of justice. That's sinking pretty low already. As for sleep deprivation not being torture. I'll take the opinion of Amnesty International over that of the former Bush administration anyway. Or I'll take this:

News to you.... Yhey are not Frenchmen. Actually, I have met some that do vote Conservatives everytime. As for the rest, could it be that they expect less bigotry from the Liberals? Interesting indeed... In the 1990's, the Liberals were winning almost all risings in Ontario... regardless of the ethnic composition. As for the reason that is holding the Conservatives from having a majority... It's called Canadian voters.

Yet, some (and from your posting, you are not one of those people) have no problem what soever in sinking as low as the enemy.

This is not about sympathy for anyone. This is about the rule of law and due process. And living up to the claim that we are better than the enemy. I believe we are better in part because of the standards we set for ourselves in dealing with murderers. Sadly, some oon of the right think that we can dispense with it.