McCain backs Khadr's return

[bush_cheney2004]

...The whole argument for the way the Bush Whitehouse has been running the W.O.T. is that the ends justify the means! And if you agree with this argument, as most conservatives seem to do, then you are supporting fascism!

No, Bush is pretty much running it the same way Lincoln and FDR did. But, either way, this perp Khadr has become a bigger pain in the ass than Maher Arar!

[WIP]

No, Bush is pretty much running it the same way Lincoln and FDR did. But, either way, this perp Khadr has become a bigger pain in the ass than Maher Arar!

I can't help notice that you have no comment on Benjamin Franklin's point that people who want safety even if they have to sacrifice their freedoms, deserve neither freedom nor protection!

[bush_cheney2004]

I can't help notice that you have no comment on Benjamin Franklin's point that people who want safety even if they have to sacrifice their freedoms, deserve neither freedom nor protection!

'Tis neither inspiring or relevant....Ben Franklin also owned slaves!

Besides, don't you guys have any Canuck icons to quote once in a while...parroting back American propaganda all the time gets pretty old!

[AngusThermopyle]

they don't believe in abortion unless it is someone like a Khadr.

Excellent idea!!!

I wonder if we can make him the subject of a really really really late term abortion?

[WIP]

'Tis neither inspiring or relevant....Ben Franklin also owned slaves!

Besides, don't you guys have any Canuck icons to quote once in a while...parroting back American propaganda all the time gets pretty old!

I can't say I'm surprised that you don't find Ben Franklin inspiring, since your wish is to replace democracy with authoritarianism. And I don't find Lincoln and Roosevelt relevant comparisons to Bush since THEY ACTUALLY SIGNED A DECLARATION OF WAR before suspending or restricting civil rights, so the people had an assurance that any loss of rights and freedoms would only be temporary -- unlike Dubya's undeclared War On Terror, which makes no similar distinction between peacetime and a state of war, and does not clearly define who the enemy is, or how long the war will last!

[myata]

Romeo Dallaire makes some good points on Khadr's case: CBC story.

Highlights:

1) We can't have it both ways: cuddly child soldiers in Africa, vile terrorirsts when it hits home; even though that's what some of us like to do (and very likely capable of compreheding).

2) It's very likely not the last case we'll be dealing with the issue; we better figure out now how far our respect for "rights" and "law" should and does go. And at what point it should be allowed to be trumped by fear? And who we'll become when we allow it to be trumped by fear?

[bush_cheney2004]

I can't say I'm surprised that you don't find Ben Franklin inspiring, since your wish is to replace democracy with authoritarianism.

Then why did you ask?

And I don't find Lincoln and Roosevelt relevant comparisons to Bush since THEY ACTUALLY SIGNED A DECLARATION OF WAR before suspending or restricting civil rights, so the people had an assurance that any loss of rights and freedoms would only be temporary -- unlike Dubya's undeclared War On Terror, which makes no similar distinction between peacetime and a state of war, and does not clearly define who the enemy is, or how long the war will last!

Oh, so you agree that civil liberties can/should be so suspended....great....there is hope for you yet. The WoT is not only declared, but well funded by appropriations from the US Congress.

[WIP]

Then why did you ask?

Oh, so you agree that civil liberties can/should be so suspended..

"should be suspended!" -- did I say "should" or did Lincoln and Roosevelt use that language? My guess is that they used language in their speeches designed to convey great reluctance to suspend habeas corpus, and only did so to protect the nation at a time of great peril, and gave assurances to the public that it was only a temporary inconvenience..........and they got declarations of war approved by Congress before sending troops off to battle.

.great....there is hope for you yet. The WoT is not only declared, but well funded by appropriations from the US Congress.

It is a well-funded undeclared war in actual fact. The best comparison in U.S. history you can find with Bush's W.O.T. is neither the Civil War nor WWII, but should be the period of the Indian Wars, that were fought intermittently as the United States expanded its territory westward into Indian lands. These were also undeclared wars that had no fixed enemy, and the only determining fact to end the wars was similar to today's "defeating the enemy" -- once all of the tribes had been eliminated or subdued and forced onto reservations so that they were out of the way of settlers moving west, then the War On Indians was over!. In a similar vein, as long as a president determines a foreign terrorist threat is present somewhere in the world that must be fought with U.S. combat forces, then the War On Terror isn't over!

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this has nothing to do with warfare, but is instead an attempt to permanently change the levels of rights and freedoms and the executive powers of the president!

[bush_cheney2004]

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this has nothing to do with warfare, but is instead an attempt to permanently change the levels of rights and freedoms and the executive powers of the president!

Nonsense....abdication of responsibilities by the US Congress doesn't have to apply to the Executive Branch. The US has engaged in many "undeclared" wars and military interventions. Just because you happen to be awake during the Bush Adminstration doesn't change history.

[WIP]

Nonsense....abdication of responsibilities by the US Congress doesn't have to apply to the Executive Branch. The US has engaged in many "undeclared" wars and military interventions. Just because you happen to be awake during the Bush Adminstration doesn't change history.

Well the Vietnam War is over, in case you didn't notice! So naturally we are going to focus on present conflicts. Vietnam should have provided a lesson for future presidents about the dangers of committing troops to undeclared wars with no exit strategy.

Edited July 17, 2008 by WIP

[bush_cheney2004]

Well the Vietnam War is over, in case you didn't notice! So naturally we are going to focus on present conflicts. Vietnam should have provided a lesson for future presidents about the dangers of committing troops to undeclared wars with no exit strategy.

Oh, is that your only problem....an "exit strategy", not the war or military action itself? Hell, welcome back to the team then! We can put you down for a Granada, Panama, Gulf War, or Kosovo tee-shirt!

What size?

[Topaz]

Today, the US military is saying they have the right to hold anyone on the battlefield who kills US soldiers. So that being said, can the country that those US soldiers are in do the same to the US soldiers?

[Smallc]

Today, the US military is saying they have the right to hold anyone on the battlefield who kills US soldiers. So that being said, can the country that those US soldiers are in do the same to the US soldiers?

Depends on whether or not the solider committed a crime.

[Wilber]

Today, the US military is saying they have the right to hold anyone on the battlefield who kills US soldiers. So that being said, can the country that those US soldiers are in do the same to the US soldiers?

No, most often they just kill them outright. How many US POW's have been repatriated from Iraq or Afghanistan?

[myata]

It can be summarized plain and simple, as victor's justice. We come to your land, we fight you, we kill you, and we define the laws of justice. Even Geneva conventions, which are still a pure Western invention, were pushed aside by Bush's administration as too damaging to their purpose. At that, I wonder, why ever bother to play the comedy, just proclaim them all guilty (by executive order) and execute in the most convenient (and/or educational) way. If only that, the American public should be maintained in their confidence that they are still the most glorious, democratic, free, etc, people on the face of this planet.

[Wilber]

It can be summarized plain and simple, as victor's justice. We come to your land, we fight you, we kill you, and we define the laws of justice. Even Geneva conventions, which are still a pure Western invention, were pushed aside by Bush's administration as too damaging to their purpose. At that, I wonder, why ever bother to play the comedy, just proclaim them all guilty (by executive order) and execute in the most convenient (and/or educational) way. If only that, the American public should be maintained in their confidence that they are still the most glorious, democratic, free, etc, people on the face of this planet.

Perhaps they should just do what Al Queda does, cut their heads off, video tape it and send the tapes to the media.

Edited July 20, 2008 by Wilber

[myata]

With adoption of special interrogation technics (waterboarding, sleep deprivation, torture outsourcing), aren't they already making great strides toward that end? And the progression may appear alarming, to those who cares still:

- WWII: nuked two civilian cities, with real opposition, having just cause, though never seriously threatened;

- Vietnam: committed numerous atrocities against civilian population, with real opposition (in Soviets, of course - not Vietkong), no just cause, never seriously threatened;

- Iraq/Afghanistan: started unnecessary war resulting in numerous civil casualties, and atrocities, with no real opposition, no just cause, or very doubtful cause;

With couple more iterations in the cycle, the all familiar acts (invasions, atrocities) could be accepted, authorised and performed simply on a pretext. A threat. A potential threat. A possibility of a threat.

The standard path of an aging empire, from glorious ideals of youth to murderous paranoias of old age.

[Wilber]

I'm not paticularly comfortable with the concept of Gitmo either but you might want to ask Daniel Pearl's mother about the comparative treatment of prisoners and here son was just a journalist.

Edited July 20, 2008 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

With adoption of special interrogation technics (waterboarding, sleep deprivation, torture outsourcing), aren't they already making great strides toward that end? And the progression may appear alarming, to those who cares still:

- WWII: nuked two civilian cities, with real opposition, having just cause, though never seriously threatened;

- Vietnam: committed numerous atrocities against civilian population, with real opposition (in Soviets, of course - not Vietkong), no just cause, never seriously threatened;

- Iraq/Afghanistan: started unnecessary war resulting in numerous civil casualties, and atrocities, with no real opposition, no just cause, or very doubtful cause;

This is uniformly absurd coming from a nation that has been far less "threatened" or attacked, but nevertheless is complicit/duplicit in all such actions by the United States, and then some. Why is the USA held to a higher/different standard by "those who cares still"?

With couple more iterations in the cycle, the all familiar acts (invasions, atrocities) could be accepted, authorised and performed simply on a pretext. A threat. A potential threat. A possibility of a threat. The standard path of an aging empire, from glorious ideals of youth to murderous paranoias of old age.

Well, any present or former member of the British Empire would certainly understand this.

Edited July 20, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

This is uniformly absurd coming from a nation that has been far less "threatened" or attacked, but nevertheless is complicit/duplicit in all such actions by the United States, and then some. Why is the USA held to a higher/different standard by "those who cares still"?

Well, any present or former member of the British Empire would certainly understand this.

I finally heard the story from an eye witness regarding Kid Khadr's fight with the "invaders" - yes folks the so-called benevolent forces from the west - while on Afghan turf surrounded a building that housed a few women and Khadr and the rest....the Khadrs open fire on what was akin to troops from China surrounding a bungalo in Richmond Hill Ontario.. And you and I protecting home turf....so from what I heard the Americans brought in air cover and blasted the hell out of the place till it was a pile of mud bricks- with the the 15 year old Kid Khadar standing their with a hole in his head and his ears ringing in total deafness after being blown to shit! So what would you do? Of course you would assume that the Americans were going to finish you off and maybe if he did toss that grenade - that the act saved his life...by the way there were no Canadians present ( as talk radio insists)..

Not that I like the Khadr family - but - if you come into my house after traveling across half the planet - and you want me to submit to YOU - well - all I can say is F..YOU and I am not going to go down without a fight..because I am a man and am proud of the fact that I am not morally nutered and neutral as most western hetro-fags are....at least the kid stood up to invaders like a man at 15 and was willing to fight for his heritage and family...where as our pot smoking cocaine sniffing girly boys are loyal to no one other than their dicks. That fail to breed.

[Wilber]

Not that I like the Khadr family - but - if you come into my house after traveling across half the planet -

Not the Khadr's house, they are "Canadians" who originally came from Egypt. They have SFA to do with Afghanistan except for what they have decided to do themselves.

[myata]

what was akin to troops from China surrounding a bungalo in Richmond Hill Ontario.. And you and I protecting home turf....

Yes. They had to dress into uniforms and come out in the open to pose easy targets for our remotely controlled missiles just to earn the right to fight us on their own soil. Otherwise, they're guilty of high crime of war, convicted in a kangaroo court.

Don't be suprised if it doesn't make much sense. It's not supposed to. All the fussing about morality and justice is not to be taken seriously. Just another instrument in the planned strategy. Whatever works.

So, sit back and relax. There will be no winners. And a few short years will show which way the ball will roll - this time around. And, there will be many more games in the years to come. War is such a cool (and benefitial, not to mention) game, after all.

[myata]

I'm not paticularly comfortable with the concept of Gitmo either but you might want to ask Daniel Pearl's mother about the comparative treatment of prisoners and here son was just a journalist.

Whatever this supposed to mean? What Al Quaeda is wrong to murder innocent civilians? No question. What we're right to invade their countries, set things to our liking, prop up governments of our liking? I won't be certain of that. It's clear who's bad. But who's on the good side? Anyone?

[bush_cheney2004]

...So, sit back and relax. There will be no winners. And a few short years will show which way the ball will roll - this time around. And, there will be many more games in the years to come. War is such a cool (and benefitial, not to mention) game, after all.

Indeed...sit back and relax is exactly what you are doing in the end, because it is obvious on which side you choose to live and prosper. Unless you want to demonstrate real commitment to the cause by standing in front of a Caterpillar D-9.

[Oleg Bach]

Not the Khadr's house, they are "Canadians" who originally came from Egypt. They have SFA to do with Afghanistan except for what they have decided to do themselves.

Maybe the concept of Egyptian Mehat` and "charity" is still strong in the "family" - I stand corrected. Having said that...what the family is perhaps are PRODUCT of our fine Canadian liberalism that has no loyalty to any nation including Canada...after all the courts and most city councils are filled with half baked Trotskyite lunitics..so the Khdars in part are our product, seeing that the kid went to school here and as they say in the western and eastern parts of suburban sprawl is....."it takes a suburb to raise a lunitical child".