Army Guy

Look at the 6 day war for an example. History is full of them countries doing preemptive attacks becasue the other side was building up.... And while it may be illigal to make the first move, not many countries are going to sit on a war footing for long, some where some how something is going to spark and set the whole thing in flames...

I stand corrected there are 3 types of murder and all 3 are the same as a soldier or a civilian... there is no double standard, a soldier killing another soldier within Canadian laws, international laws, and the conventions is legal...take as many lifes as you want, government will provide the ammo, the other government the targets....It is murder when you fall outside the laws, for instance taking a Civilian life that is involved in the actions of the Battle field...that is murder...take a life of a soldier that is surrendering that is murder...which murder you pick... There is a big difference when a soldier intentionally fires upon a priest or medic carrying out his duties that is murder...as they are protected under the laws and conventions and you can be charged and tried ...be it in Canada, inter national court or a UN sanction court... If your going to play soldier then you got to know the rules, or find yourself in front of a court...

I think your getting confused to whom is AN ARMED FORCE,( AQ is clearly an ARMED FORCE with a clear chain of command and they are engaged with the CF)( 2 rednecks in Alberta could be an amred force.).....Besides A state of war does not need to exist it states so on the bottom line... AQ declared thier intentions by slamming into the towers, that action is a stae of war if done intentionally... Japan attacking pearl Harbour, Germany moving on Russia...Just the act of Building up of troops is an act of war, the act it self carried out in surpriase also an act of war. The US also that day announced the War on Terror....with the AQ having front row seats....

Those are still pretty tight numbers, As i'm sure there are alot more missions that are not accounted for ....Like they don't include training any army guys on things like army FAC course or the basic fast air course....Currently the army is renting Aircraft, A-4 from a Civilian company can't recall from where.

There is discretion, but it has it's limits it's not a free ticket to massicre people because they have a great desire to live, and fear their masters...(And while these African kids to whom the Child soldier laws were designed to protect) look pretty harmless in front of the TV, while in the play ground or at school lets not forget they have raped,tortured, extingished life on a whim....and are very capable of doing it again...you can't turn it off nor can you wash it off...They need to be reeducated , for long periods of time...they are mentally unstable for the lack of better words... And accounting for all that they still need to be held accountable for their actions it is part of the healing process, plus acts as a deterent for others the same age... I don't know why you continue down this road, when our own Canadian children have commited adult crimes and have been treid in an adult court and recieved adult sentences...what makes Omar any different because he was a soldier BS he is a Canadian citizen who stepeed on his dick, and now needs to pay for that mistake...nobody gets a free ride...Murder is Murder be it as a soldier or a civilian...

The AQ actions alone are a formal declaration of war, if i punch you in the face, you don't have to wait until i announce my intentions, it's "game on", you can kick my ass. The US is free to strike back with out inter national agreements, or UN approval, all nations are entitled to defend themselfs...in this case the US took the fight to them...

[quote]© assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are. Assisting an enemy can mean anything from Spying and reporting our movements , convoys, routes ETC this is what Omar did before he got into planting IED's...Offering any assistance that may be helpful to their war efforts... Being a minor means squat on the battlefield if your armed then you are a legal target, it only comes into play after capture and how your treated. Even the new child soldier laws change very little on how they are treated... I want to make this clear a state of war does not have to exist as long as they (a nation or any armed group)are engaged with Canadian forces or their allieds...Although not specifically mentioned they are assumed to be one in the same , if our Nation is part of a coalition or allieds...when these coalitions are formed each country has to agree on basic principles so that they are fighting from the same page, not 15 different types of law, but rather one blended rules of operations manual. the AQ is certianly defined as a group of armed people with a clear chain of command who operate across the planet... Canada did agree to enter the war on terror in this specific mission area...and others.

whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

But he did go to an AL-Qaeda training camp, and he was with other members of AL Qaeda during the fire fight...And the Canadian military was engage with elements of AL Qaeda at the time...

Peter F What are you trying to say that he could not be held accountable as a minor, as our history is full of minors being charged as Adults in Adult courts for serious crimes...which i think treason is pretty serious.... Or is there a clause that states other wise....Even under inter national law it states that children that are deemed child soldiers can be held accountable in court for their actions...it also states to be fair it is not the prefered course of action, but it remains one.

I think the reasons are better discribed below. My link On the surface, that’s a fair analysis. However, it could also be argued that the legal definition of treason is also narrowly based. Our legal parameters simply haven’t included nominal instances of modern treason, such as the FLQ crisis. Instead, there is more focus in modern Canadian law on the lighter charge of sedition, or the rebelling against and/or opposition to an existing order – which is what the FLQ faced as one of its charges. This could ultimately mean that previously understood cases of treason in the past won’t fall (and aren’t falling) under the same legal definition in the present and future. Second, when it comes to punishing those people, our country’s legal and judicial system falls far short of expectations. Activist judges on the Supreme Court of Canada are, as London Free Press columnist Rory Leishman writes, “not loathe to commit major breaks with precedent for the purpose of changing the law to accord with their personal ideological preferences.” With this in mind, it’s unlikely that a future accusation of treason would last long enough to survive the claws of judicial activism in Canada. And if politicians and judges are unwilling to enact proper amounts of punishment for certain crimes, treasonous behaviour will most certainly not be properly punished, either. Third, Canada has a minor role in international affairs and this has arguably led to fewer instances of what be generally agreed on to be treason. While our country is now willing to take the lead in military missions like Afghanistan, support forceful stands against terrorist groups like Hamas, and walk out on UN speeches from vicious tyrants such as Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in spite of this, Canada is still regarded as a middle power (at best) on the international scene. Therefore, it’s a less valuable resource for potential treasonous acts than in larger countries like Britain, Germany, and the U.S. due to a lack of power, influence, key stakeholders and available information. This perception could change in time depending on Canada’s willingness to get involved in world affairs in a post-Harper government. But at this moment, our country’s influence is more associated with strong words rather than brute force – meaning that we are still seen as being a minor player. Fourth, Canada has not suffered Western Europe’s fate with terrorist cells and immigration problems…yet. To date, Canada’s experience with terrorist groups and third world immigration has not reached Western European levels. For instance, it’s true that terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Egyptian Islamic Jihad previously established small bases on our soil. But Canada has still not faced France’s 2005 race-based riots, or Denmark’s 2006 cartoon controversy, or wide-ranging concerns that the growth of radical Islamic thought in Western Europe is well underway. It’s possible that Canada could face some of these problems – and more – in due course, which could lead to a surge in treasonous-like activity. For now, this is not the case. This does not mean Canadians should have a lax attitude about treason. Far from it. We should always be on guard to prevent this type of behavioural pattern from spreading, and our laws should become stronger and tougher to make our citizens safer and more secure. But as things currently stand, it appears treason as a common occurrence and a crime actively prosecuted may have run its course in Canadian society.

In lawyer Bob Tarantino’s view, Canada’s definition of treason is rather broad. He wrote, “you do not need to be a Canadian citizen to commit treason, and if you are a Canadian citizen or a ‘person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty,’ any treasonable acts are prosecutable whether they were committed in Canada or outside of the country.” treason ... new admendment proposeal.

Us was still part of the coaltion, and considered an allied, treason still holds, however what the government has quoted is a conviction is unlikely therefore they won't press charges as this would be a political football. My piont is this if we are going to apply justice then it should be done to the fullest extent, not some here some there we don't want to look bad etc, etc... I did not apply that you did, however it is an emotional topic for me. Yes returning soldiers do get some media however how many average Canadians can name 1 Soldier killed in combat, and yet Omar is a house hold name that is the media coverage i'm talking about. They've been rocking the boat since the inception of this thing, what is our government going to do, they can't even find the others that have been deported legally...the whole thing does not leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling. Last time i checked Mom was not a citizen, send her packing the kiddies will follow...

Are you saying that he and his family have not become icons for other terrorists around the globe...including Canada...Sort of how the underdog wins again'st big government....how they used there citizenship of convience again'st us.... I'll give you that, but we still have one with the US in which Omar is in Custody now, where he did not recieve the death sentence, so he should remain to finsih out his sentence. There is more to treason than trying to over throw the government, treason is also classified as partaking in combat again'st Canadian troops or thier allies.... Ya alot of emotion, over many things, seeing comrads killed or wounded, watching your country loss it's interest in the mission, The Khadrs getting more media attention than any Soldier, Canadians ensuring his rights are looked after, while our own get paid out peanuts...No, no emotion there SO we will keep to the facts, -He has been found guilty of most of the charges the US filed again'st him...Talk here in Canada is that he will be released early...Because we think he has been through enough...screw justice and the required sentence, were Canadians we love getting played by terrorists..... Canada has no plans to file other charges again'st him, the treason Charge has been thrown out as unlikely to get a conviction. "Unlikely not impossiable".... - No charges again'st the rest of his family are planed, IE his mother for abuse,neglect ETC as it would not be in Canada's best interest...But then again it's alright to charge real Canadians....thier not part of the terrorist family... - How about his brothers, shit one a signed a contract for money and protection for some info...one got shot with his father, then returned to be treated in Canadian hospitals on OUR dime...the other is still at large Charges pending for wpns smuggling ETC....i wonder were he is....his sister who slams this country ever chance he gets....and was also wanted for the same crimes as the older brother...never been charged.... - Shit, the Canadian government even went out on a limb to bring them back into the country when his father was first arrested....No thats not embrassing, we are Canadians we shrug that shit off. My ass it is a legal stance it is a political stance...if it was a legal stance the full weight should have been applied not just bits and pieces.

This entire Omar thing is an embrassment to our entire country, to all those that died that day including the almost 30 Canadians when the towers came down, to all our soldiers who served in Afghan in fact to everyone concerned...including those Canadians advocating or shedding tears for small defenceless Omar...The same 15 year old who already had as much Military training as most 18 year old Canadian soldiers that served over there.... The same little terrorist that was filmed planting mines, and making IED's...The same 15 year old insurgent that bragged he was going to collect the bounty posted for every NATO soldier he would kill, The same kid who was involved in shooting 3 Afghani army pers ( in Cold blood)as they knocked at the front door of the complex that Omar was in......Nice kid you got there...nice cause your championing...He has not even begun repaying his debt for his deeds... Perhaps you should do some research on his little gang he was apart of, see first hand the pictures of what they have done in the name of Islam, read the deeds they have carried out on the local Afghan people and tell me you don't think that just over 20 dollars of your total tax bill was'nt worth trying to change or stop it.... Because some Canadians have paid alot more, they have paid with their lifes, willingly, of their own free will...there is other Canadians who have come back suffering from mental and physical conditions only to have to fight with veterns affairs for a max 250 k pay out which is extremily rare...want to shed tears or champion a cause there is one... Piss on Omar and his family, and tell me why he should not be sent back to Afghanisatn to face an Afghani court for the crimes he has commited in that country....Why he should not be tried for treason regardless of how it sounds to you, better yet don't tell, me tell those widows who's husbands are not coming back, tell those widows that have to deal not only with the there loss of a spouse but how little our government paid them out....

Why, because our government did not have the will(balls) to act, and instead wanted this to play out on the floor of the UN. and yet we as a Nation sent our Gen down there, infact the Military Advisor was an EX Canadian CDS so WHy we'll never know, except it was our government decission not to act... Another piont we could have sent 2000 fully equiped soldiers down without blinking an eye..Ya they would have been dismounted, and could have gathered up vehs along the way... the APC question well we could have moved them Via hercs, but it would have taken a shit load of trips...and been expensive...remember lives have a value on them , what the general public does not know is just how little they are really worth...

Taken from an interveiw with Gen Dallaire and Amnesty International NOW magazine, Winter 2002 My link Another reason Rwanda failed "A young officer is entering a village," Dallaire recounts. "The village has been wiped out except for a few women and children still alive [in a ditch filled with bodies]. There is 30 percent AIDS in that area. There is blood all over that place, no rubber gloves. Does the platoon commander order his troops to get in there, into the ditch risking AIDS, and help?" The question, it turns out, is not an exercise in armchair ethics. "When I asked the platoon commanders, those from 23 of the 26 nations that sent forces said they would order their troops to keep marching. Commanders from three nations- Holland, Ghana, and Canada-were saved the complexity of the question because by the time they turned around their troops were already in the ditch." I could tell [the peacekeepers] to do things," he says, "but they would check with their country. The troops are under my operational command, but they remained under the ultimate command of their nations, so. . . if a national capital feels that a [rescue] mission is unwarranted, or too risky, or something, the soldiers can turn around and say, 'No, I can't do it."' ( Canada actually had a world wide reputation for doing this in Rwanada and Yugo) In Yugo we had 2 battle groups call CANBAT 1 and CANBAT 2 our allies called us CAN'T BAT...) Asked to name one of the countries that ordered its soldiers not to move injured Rwandans to safe areas, even when Dallaire told them to, the general hesitates for a long time before saying, "Bangladesh." It was the Ghanaians, he adds, who performed most humanely. Another reason. For all the blame he heaps on himself, Dallaire also faults the strictures that bound him in 1994 and that will have to change if the world is to avoid another Rwanda. The institution of peacekeeping missions, he says, is deeply flawed. Even if he had received the political and humanitarian training the job demanded, the U.N.'s rules would have robbed him of the ability to use his military skills. With thousands of civilians begging for protection as they were hunted down in their homes and churches, Another. The designation of "tribal" conflict also nicely avoided the word "genocide." Had a major power or the U.N. invoked that term in time, all states that were signatories of the 1948 convention on genocide would have been obliged to condemn the slaughter and act to stop it. Avoiding the word did not however avoid the fact. "They knew how many people were dying," Dallaire says, no matter what word they used. "The world is racist," he says bitterly. ,' "Africans don't count; Yugoslavians do. More people were killed, injured, internally displaced, and refugeed in 100 days in Rwanda than in the whole eight to nine years of the Yugoslavia campaign," he says, and there are still peacekeeping troops in the former Yugoslavia while Rwanda is again off the radar. f "Why didn't the world react to scenes where women were held as shields so nobody could shoot back while the militia shot into the | crowd?" he asks. "Where... boys were drugged up and turned into child soldiers, slaughtering families?...Where girls and women were systematically raped before they were killed? Babies ripped out of their stomachs? ...Why didn't the world come?" Dallaire supplies his own answer: "Because there was no self-interest....No oil. They didn't come because some humans are [considered] less human than others." Another interview from Front line. My link A key note here is the Name Maurice Baril ring a bell he should he was once the CDS for our military.

Shit, nothing scares a tree hugger any more than a good Chain saw....All the cops had to do was start up a Chain saw and 3/4 of them Vancoverites would have shit thier pants and ran for cover...just like squirels...Seattle load up on Chainsaws and you'll be fine...tree huggers

I actually thought this post died 4 pages ago...I agree with some of your post the US did have a role to play in the genocide in Rwanda, but reality is so did everyone else, i think what Dereck was driving at was the Gen did plead with any organization that would listen, including our own government to send vehs and what he requested most for troops...The Canadian government refused...along with all nations...Have you read his book, it not that bad actually , not a big fan of the Gen's, but then again he was a desparate man, that was to emotional attached to the people...and became more after the Beligian para incident. And nobody wanted to answer his call for assistance...sad really DND did issue mobilization orders to a few units but they were quickly recinded by the government.... One of the big major let downs is the UN , first in it's command and control aspects...Civilians controling a battle from a polictical perspective...does not work and will never work...on the polictical side it holds no weight and there fore has no power, it can ask nations to mobilize or fulfill a request but not very quickly.... After Rwanda there was a movement to create a UN operational division (25,000)in Europe i dont think it got off the ground as operational control was going to be with the UN...Not NATO or any other country. Another problem with Rwanda is there is nothing worth fighting over, nothing worth putting bils into...except people and in todays world life is worth next to nothing , even less if they have no resources, or from Africa.

Could it be that there is no real need for a consumption law, because everything is covered under all the other laws...but hey perhaps that is what is needed here a consumption law....so there is absolutly no doubt that Illigal drugs are illigal...period....you can't touch them , you can't buy/ sell them,can't grow them or make them....whats next we have specific laws that say you can't jam them up your arse either because someone said well it must be legal it's not in the CCC.... i can't for the life of me figure out why it is a big deal...to a normal indiviual it is covered under the CCC....Do we need a consumption law looks like we do...perhaps it will drive a new breatherziler for drugs....and everything will go back to normal

What i'm saying is your employer can send you to the hospital to be tested if that is a condition of your job....you come in hung over and reaking of booze,you have given doubt to your employer your going to get tested. I'm not sure about Civilian hospitals but military hospitals do have breathilzers to measure alcohol content.... No need to involve the CCC when it is your job at stake...

So are you saying there is laws in ref consumption be it that they only pertain to a few and not the masses.....

I agree that some employment has conditions, and in the hiring process why would we not agree with any reasonable conditions all those conditions are set or approved by law...or one could set all women must come into work on thursdays naked, or in micro mini's ....so conditions are laid out in law, telling employers and employees what is legal what is not...in this case the law/ And HRC states that there are some jobs which have safety concerns can test employees for illigal drug useage or consumption...if that is the case then there is a law out there that does confirm that some not all persons can be tested for consumption...which would mean there is a law...it just does not apply to everyone... but why i ask..if consumption is legal...how could a employer dismiss me for something that is legal...wrongful dismal claims are heard where ? in court, with lawyers and judges ...and maybe this is just me, but what law is this charged under... which is confusing really ...i can't be charged for consumption but i can get fired for it...OK if thats the case one would assume there is a law some where...

Every member is first and foremost held accountable to the law of the land,and any that are charged to uphold it canadian and local laws are applied first and while we can not be charged twice for the same charge, the military justice system can and will also charge you for smaller things conduct unbecoming is the catch all...normally resulting in a cash fine or extra duties/ training..... I don't know which is worse the MP's or local police...i know while we were in Arkansa " sorry spelling" there was a lot of local cops we did not want to get stopped by...in fact a bunch of us got this warning" If you Canadians think your going to come into my town and cause trouble like the last assholes ...see this here ring "as he shows us the botom of his night stick...thats how far i'm going to stick it up your ass...this guy was more than 6'6 I'm 6'3 and had to look up he was huge needless to say we got drunk but we were on our best behavior...mind you MP can get pretty big as well...

Any urine testing that is conditions of employment,or other wise ordered all of which gets tied into basic human rights, and laws which state or cover the use of tests and testing, when and whom or what can be tested...Back to the question "So explain to me what exactly does a urine test , test for, for use or consumption is it not." and why the tests if not to seek if that person has consumed... So i ask because i can not find a source for it...How could a employer fire you for use, if it is legal to consume illigal drugs. that would be unlawful dismisal would it not...so there must be a law on the books some where that states employers can put legal caveats on our jobs, ones that would stand up in law...because to take your employer to court you are infact seeing a lawyer and judge are you not...which means the law has to be involved somewhere...I'm just assuming it would be criminal law, maybe i'm wrong.