New witness account shows Khadr charges should be dropped

[kuzadd]

My father encouraged his children with talk and deed to take action against corporations, sometimes violent destructive action. People in this country can say whatever they fucking like in the privacy of thier own homes - even to the point of advocating the violent overthrow of the government if they so wish. They just can't publish broadcast or teach such things. Khadr's mom hasn't done that - so no crime to kick her out of the country for. Gnash your teeth all you want.

All very true. But she wasn't attempting to procure a hit man. Never did.

How about if I encourage them to be willing to die for a cause? or to be willing to kill for a cause? would that still be interesting too?

People in this country can say whatever they ****** like in the privacy of thier own homes -

amen to that!!!

That is as it should be!

No thought police allowed, and why anyone would advocate for that is beyond me.

The fact is , if this wasn't a muslim family, no one would give a sh*t, what they say!

[BornAlbertan]

amen to that!!!

That is as it should be!

No thought police allowed, and why anyone would advocate for that is beyond me.

The fact is , if this wasn't a muslim family, no one would give a sh*t, what they say!

If "talking" and "believing" never resulted in any action then that would be perfect. And I do not believe we need to live in an Orwellian world. But you must understand thoughts and beliefs do manifest as actions. In a court case...thoughts and actions are VERY important. Nobody EVER gets tried on thoughts and beliefs in their own home until they express them publicly or act on them (thus obviously posing a risk).

So...now that we are talking about being able to believe and say what you want in your own home...here is what I believe: They don't like this "dirty swamp"....go the f*** home. NOW. Nobody ever invited you here....but we welcomed you with open arms when you did show up. You don't like it, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out (and believe me...I would love to see it happen). If you would rather be riding a camel through the desert with a towel on your head wondering if you will be shot to death by warlords or die of thirst/hunger have at 'er.

Let's see the thought police here jump on me for that one!!

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE: So you believe encouraging your children to murder innocent civilians is nothing more than being an "idoiot." Interesting take.

How about if I encourage them to be willing to die for a cause? or to be willing to kill for a cause? would that still be interesting too?

Since you asked, if you encouraged your children to kill innocent people for a cause, it would be more than "interesting," there would be something wrong with you; especially if you were living in the 'home' of those you were encouraging your children to kill, living off of the generosity of the hosts as you encouraged your children to murder them.

[Peter F]

Since you asked, if you encouraged your children to kill innocent people for a cause, it would be more than "interesting," there would be something wrong with you; especially if you were living in the 'home' of those you were encouraging your children to kill, living off of the generosity of the hosts as you encouraged your children to murder them.

I agree; Anyone who advocates killing as a means to achieve a particular end is a nut. But that has nothing to do with citizenship.

[AngusThermopyle]

How do you feel about treason and advocating the killing of homosexuals on a nationwide public forum?

[Peter F]

How do you feel about treason and advocating the killing of homosexuals on a nationwide public forum?

I'm against it.

[Guest American Woman]

I agree; Anyone who advocates killing as a means to achieve a particular end is a nut. But that has nothing to do with citizenship.

Perhaps it should. Perhaps a naturalized citizen who advocates killing the citizens of said country should have their citizenship revoked. A naturalized Canadian citizen can lose their citizenship if it's found that they lied on their application. Seems to me there should be a question about loyalty to Canada on the application. Does anyone know if there is? Because if there is, this woman obviously lied when she said she would be loyal to Canada (can't imagine she would have said "no" and been granted entery/citizenship), which would be grounds for her citizenship being revoked.

[Peter F]

Perhaps it should. Perhaps a naturalized citizen who advocates killing the citizens of said country should have their citizenship revoked. A naturalized Canadian citizen can lose their citizenship if it's found that they lied on their application. Seems to me there should be a question about loyalty to Canada on the application. Does anyone know if there is? Because if there is, this woman obviously lied when she said she would be loyal to Canada (can't imagine she would have said "no" and been granted entery/citizenship), which would be grounds for her citizenship being revoked.

Why hers and not mine? Nobody has asked me if I will swear allegiance to Crown. Why is my citizenship untouchable when I could be just as disloyal to this country as she?

[Guest American Woman]

Why hers and not mine? Nobody has asked me if I will swear allegiance to Crown. Why is my citizenship untouchable when I could be just as disloyal to this country as she?

Are you a naturalized citizen?

[Peter F]

Are you a naturalized citizen?

I was born here. Should that make any difference? If I engage in the same behaviour as the widow Khadr no one can touch my citizenship.

I could actually kill people, throw puppies from cliffs, eat babies and rape nuns; my citizenship would remain intact and inviolable. But an immigrant, also a Canadian citizen, who commits the same crimes is not to be treated the same; In addition to the required punishments, they will also be stripped of their citizenship. But not me. My citizenship can't be touched.

Doesn't make any sense to me.

[Guest American Woman]

I was born here. Should that make any difference?

Evidently it does make a difference since you didn't have to fill out an application and/or pass a test in order to live here and become a citizen.

Being born in Canada makes citizenship your right. It's not a right to someone who was born outside of Canada. It's a priviledge. And as such, there should be a question regarding loyalty to Canada. If someone says they will not be loyal, then they should be denied the priviledge of citizenship. If someone says they will be loyal and then encourages their children to kill Canadians, they lied, and should have their citizenship revoked accordingly.

Maybe you think every Tom, Dick, and Harry should be able to become a Canadian citizen, but it doesn't work that way. That's a fact.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Maybe you think every Tom, Dick, and Harry should be able to become a Canadian citizen, but it doesn't work that way. That's a fact.

Some people don't think the happenstance of birth should be the sole determinant of citizenship. Truth be told, Canada strips citizenship on a regular basis, and even being born in Canada is no guarantee of the right.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/23/...ansmarch26.html

[Peter F]

Evidently it does make a difference since you didn't have to fill out an application and/or pass a test in order to live here and become a citizen.

Being born in Canada makes citizenship your right. It's not a right to someone who was born outside of Canada. It's a priviledge. And as such, there should be a question regarding loyalty to Canada. If someone says they will not be loyal, then they should be denied the priviledge of citizenship. If someone says they will be loyal and then encourages their children to kill Canadians, they lied, and should have their citizenship revoked accordingly.

Maybe you think every Tom, Dick, and Harry should be able to become a Canadian citizen, but it doesn't work that way. That's a fact.

The fact is that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can become Canadian citizens upon taking the citizenship oath...wich I was never required to do. Once they recieve thier citizenship its a done deal - they're Canadians and there aint nothing you or I can or should be able to do about it.

Let's suppose you are right and the Widow Khadr is a traitor to her country. The only thing that should happen is that she be tried for the crime and if found guilty of such be appropriatly punished for it. Taking away her citizenship is entirely meaningless and without point, other than to satisfy somebody else's anger.

[Guest American Woman]

The fact is that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can become Canadian citizens upon taking the citizenship oath...wich I was never required to do. Once they recieve thier citizenship its a done deal - they're Canadians and there aint nothing you or I can or should be able to do about it.

You're wrong about that. First of all, a criminal background is done. A criminal will not be granted citizenship. Secondly, once they receive their citizenship it isn't a "done deal." If they lied on their application, they can be stripped of their citizenship.

Let's suppose you are right and the Widow Khadr is a traitor to her country. The only thing that should happen is that she be tried for the crime and if found guilty of such be appropriatly punished for it. Taking away her citizenship is entirely meaningless and without point, other than to satisfy somebody else's anger.

Of course it wouldn't be entirely meaningless. It would take someone who wants Canadians/westerners to die, and encourages her children to do it, out of your country.

[Peter F]

You're wrong about that. First of all, a criminal background is done. A criminal will not be granted citizenship. Secondly, once they receive their citizenship it isn't a "done deal." If they lied on their application, they can be stripped of their citizenship.

Of course it wouldn't be entirely meaningless. It would take someone who wants Canadians/westerners to die, and encourages her children to do it, out of your country.

Okay then. What legal body should determine wether someones citizenship gets revoked? The High Court of Public Opinion? or some actual legal authority?

EDIT TO ADD:

re Canadian Hate crimes. Here's the criminal code of Canada Part VIII Offences Against the Person and Reputation; Hate Crimes...

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

( an offence punishable on summary conviction.

But here is an actual crime you might actually have her for: Suicide

Counselling or aiding suicide

241. Every one who

(a) counsels a person to commit suicide, or

( aids or abets a person to commit suicide,

whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Statutes of Canada, Criminal Code

Edited March 8, 2008 by Peter F

[Peter F]

Of course it wouldn't be entirely meaningless. It would take someone who wants Canadians/westerners to die, and encourages her children to do it, out of your country.

So what? They'd still be counselling others to the same end. She'd probably find herself on the lecture circuit around the Madrassa's of Pakistasn. Do us a lot of good wouldn't it?

[jbg]

The fact is that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can become Canadian citizens upon taking the citizenship oath...wich I was never required to do. Once they recieve thier citizenship its a done deal - they're Canadians and there aint nothing you or I can or should be able to do about it.

Nothing is perfect. But a good place to start is denaturalizing liars.

[FTA Lawyer]

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/02/05/khadr-account.html

Imagine my non-suprise on reading this one? The Pentagon involved in a cover-up, say it isn't so?

Canada, embarrassing as always.

Pentagon officials later backtracked slightly after it was revealed nobody witnessed Khadr throw the grenade. Pentagon officials said an eyewitness wasn't needed, because Khadr was the only al-Qaeda fighter left alive and the only person who could have thrown the grenade.

Yet the soldier in his testimony says the child was on his knees facing away from him when he shot him twice in the back. So how exactly was Khadr 'attacking' the soldier?

Not only did no-one witness it, but now apparently we are finding out that the military altered reports that would suggest the dead guy (i.e. not Khadr) threw the grenade.

Military Coverup?

The official report by the military commander, dated July 28, originally said the assailant who threw the grenade was killed, which would rule out Khadr as the suspect.

However, the report was revised months later, under the same date, to say a U.S. fighter had only "engaged" the assailant, according to Kuebler, who said the later version was presented to him by prosecutors as an "updated" document.

Kuebler told reporters after the hearing that it appears "the government manufactured evidence to make it look like Omar was guilty."

Prosecutors, who did not contest Kuebler's account in court, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Now all of a sudden my complaints about an accused person being denied due process, imprisoned without a trial, and denied access to habeas corpus applications don't seem so crazy.

FTA

[Army Guy]

This has turned into a large bucket of worms, for both sides. With dozens of wrong choices made by both sides.

Regardless of whom threw the grenade, something we will never know for sure, the fact remains he was there, and did take part in the fighting, perhaps it would have been easier to call him a combatant and POW, giving NATO the right to lock not only him but all the others up until the conflict is over...