Khadr - Court rules he must be Repatriated

Radsickle · May 9, 2009

Then, if the US justice system is allowing Omar Khadr to go too far into a hunger strike, only those ready to risk their lives to save Khadr can be called leaders/founders.

One of Omar's first American captors at Bagram, Damien, a mean, now ex-military mofo, actually stood up for the kid. Has everyone seen this VHS?!

Documentary

Edited May 9, 2009 by Radsickle

benny · May 9, 2009

If Omar goes into a hunger strike and the US force feeds him, it will also be torture.

wulf42 · May 10, 2009

But Khadr is a human being.

Wrong! he is a piece of Garbage that nobody really cares about....leave him in Gitmo untill he "disappears"!

Radsickle · May 10, 2009

Wrong! he is a piece of Garbage that nobody really cares about....leave him in Gitmo untill he "disappears"!

woof woof.

Radsickle · May 10, 2009

If Omar goes into a hunger strike and the US force feeds him, it will also be torture.

It will be tough love, not torture. Why all this talk of hunger strike? Why would he do that now?

benny · May 10, 2009

It will be tough love, not torture. Why all this talk of hunger strike? Why would he do that now?

Because his spirit may be broken.

Jerry J. Fortin · May 10, 2009

Broken spirit or not, he was a minor who managed to get himself into some very deep trouble. Lets think about that for a minute. How did he get into the position in the first place? Was he kidnapped and transported into a war zone against his will? Whether or not he committed a criminal act is another story, one which you can be sure the justice system will focus on to the exclusion of reason. This person found his way into a war zone and was caught and punished for it. I am sorry but I have little concern for this individual.

Borg · May 10, 2009

Broken spirit or not, he was a minor who managed to get himself into some very deep trouble. Lets think about that for a minute. How did he get into the position in the first place? Was he kidnapped and transported into a war zone against his will? Whether or not he committed a criminal act is another story, one which you can be sure the justice system will focus on to the exclusion of reason. This person found his way into a war zone and was caught and punished for it. I am sorry but I have little concern for this individual.

Tsk, tsk, tsk

You are treading on the toes of the "poor kid" folks here - and that will get your pee pee slapped by more than a few

:lol:

Borg

Borg · May 10, 2009

If Omar goes into a hunger strike and the US force feeds him, it will also be torture.

Fine. NO torture please - after all he is such a sweet kid.

Just put the food down in front of him and walk away - he can make his own choices from there.

If we are lucky he will make the right choice.

Borg

Jerry J. Fortin · May 10, 2009

Tsk, tsk, tsk
You are treading on the toes of the "poor kid" folks here - and that will get your pee pee slapped by more than a few

Borg

What can I say. The "kid" arrange to get himself into a war zone, then become captured and accused of a crime. Risk and reward, crime and punishment and all that you know.

ironstone · May 10, 2009

Canada didn't kill his Dad and he probably won't be allowed in the US ever again. What sort of `avenging' are you imagining? I've thought about this too and it seems the longer we leave him there, the more legitimately angry he'll be with Canada. Mr. Harper's decision today was dumb.

"Legitimately angry with Canada"?

Could you enlighten us and explain just how Omar Khadr came to hate Canada in the first place?He lived here for some time in what would be rightfully considered to be the lap of luxury along with his family.They had at their disposal more than most people have in other parts of the world,things like the right to vote and a health care system which apparently even takes care of terrorists who want to tear the whole thing apart.They have been welcome to build mosques all over the country and promote their faith without hindrance.Canadians have bent over backwards for people like the Khadr's and yet it's not enough.Be specific and tell us exactly what it was about living in Canada that made the Khadr family hate us(that includes you my friend) so intensely.

And if or when Khadr returns to Canada,he will certainly be released almost immediately given that we have an extremely Liberal justice system.Guess what he will devote himself to?

CANADIEN · May 10, 2009

Why even suggest any choice for this U.S. prisoner?
The war is still ongoing and the U.S. reserves the right to deal with this prisoner the way they see fit according to their laws.

They have an obligation to their citizens to do this.

They have an onligation to their citizens to respect the letter and the spirit of the law.

Which in this case would have involved grabbing the little terrorist in front of a regular court of law, with the opportunity for his lawyers to question the evidence and the witnesses. The way it is supposed to happen. Not a kangaroo court, where "evidence" obtained under torture is admitted.

CANADIEN · May 10, 2009

Wrong!

He is a despicable human being.

The treatment of Omar Khadr is leading us to a slippery slope towards being little better than the people who see others as less as humans.

Then, there are people who have already sunk that low...

Edited May 10, 2009 by CANADIEN

benny · May 10, 2009

Fine. NO torture please - after all he is such a sweet kid.
Just put the food down in front of him and walk away - he can make his own choices from there.

If we are lucky he will make the right choice.

Borg

The ideology surrounding free individual choice is an arbitrary guilty verdict without due process.

bush_cheney2004 · May 10, 2009

He is a despicable human being.
The treatment of Omar Khadr is leading us to a slippery slope towards being little better than the people who see others as less as humans.

Is that a bad thing? How can you judge others in this way if not already holding such a view.

Then, there are people who have laready sunk that low...

You mean the abortionists? :lol:

benny · May 10, 2009

Broken spirit or not, he was a minor who managed to get himself into some very deep trouble.

His father was his manager.

Radsickle · May 10, 2009

The ideology surrounding free individual choice is an arbitrary guilty verdict without due process.

You're too kind to give their arguments the validity of an `ideology'. What we are reading from these types has more to do with the undercurrents of xenophobia and systemic racism in Canada than with any philosophical or legal argument.

benny · May 10, 2009

You're too kind to give their arguments the validity of an `ideology'. What we are reading from these types has more to do with the undercurrents of xenophobia and systemic racism in Canada than with any philosophical or legal argument.

You may be right indeed! Ideology as false consciousness may be irrelevant anymore. Racists may enjoy too much their cruelty to hide it behind words.

Rue · May 11, 2009

Once again people make the false assumption, that since we ourselves are naive, that our leaders or military are also naive. They should already know better.
"today's treaties were not written at a time when we contemplated a blurring of the line between conventional soldiers of adult age, and civilians engaged in a combination of terrorist (attacks on civilians) and conventional war attacks against soldiers, let alone child terrorists or soldiers."

Ever heard of Guerrilla Warfare? Probably... it's been around for a long time.

Many of us have but that is not the point I was making and clearly is the point you missed. The fact that there have been different forms of guerilla warfare in existence for thousands of years does not for one second suggest the United Nations or the League of Nations ever attempted or have attempted to draft a treaty addressing a convention for the treatment of child terrorists or terrorists and yes there is a huge difference between a guerilla and a terrorist not that you seem to notice. Guerillas limit their tactics to the opposing army not civilians.

Armies or guerilla forces that attack civilians behave in a different manner then armies of guerillas who attack civilians. This is why there are international laws for armies that attack civilians or guerillas who attack armies but when it comes to guerillas attacking civilians the international laws are silent unless those guerillas are in a conventional army. International law will not impede on a soverign state's right to create a domestic criminal law to deal with non army persons within their country attacking civilians. You missed that distinction completely in your response to me.

Further the fact that guerillas and terrorists and armies have all been engaging in conflict for milenium is irrelevant to the point I was making and if it was relevant you would simply trot out the international law that deals with child terrorists or any terrorists.

This is precisely why there is no international anti-terror force sanctioned t invade any country it wants and operate under its own laws. If an international force is constituted to fight terrorists it needs the legal consent of the host nation and must hand over terrorists to the host nation's authority unless that host nation agrees to an other arrangement.

In the case of Afghanistan, the state legally sanctioned the U.S. and all other armies as part of the UN force to arrest and detain Taliban because the state did not have sufficient military or local prisons let alone a security guard apperatus or police apperatus to monitor and enforce the incarceration of such offenders.

That is why under international law, the U.S. would have been allowed to imprison Kadr as a pow although technically he was a terrorist. There are international laws as to the treatment of child soldiers but as another poster pointed out Kadr did not qualify as a child soldier-he was not part of a legal army-he was part of a terrorist cell that had illegally entered Afghanistan and was committing crimes against the Afghani state making Kadr a criminal in Afghanistan as well as a terrorist.

The assumption he is entitled to the Young Offender Act's standard is erroneous. He did not commit the crimes he is accused of in Canada. Criminal law of Afghanistan applies.

This is precisely why the U.S. tried to create this hybrid mess of a law to deal with terrorists. It tried unilaterally to fill the gap international law still has not dealt with and my point was the U.S. Bush regime screwed up their attempt big time because Bush went over the head of the Judge Advocate General of the US Armed Forces who told him to cool it and leave Kadr in a military prison.

This is why I say to Army we must hold our nose with Kadr. There are no international laws that deal with child terrorists at this time let alone terrorists and they need to be drafted and then signed by nations but then of course the nations supplying the terrorists would never agree to sign such treaties anyways.

I am not sympathetic to Kadr' plight but I appreciate the law must be followed and not broken otherwise we set dangerous anti-democratic precedents.

What most people conveniently suspend from their reality when discussing Kadr as a victim simply because he is 15 is that he belongs in an Afghani prison sentenced under Afghani criminal laws and this assumption a Canadian can go anywhere and engage in terror and be protected by the Young Offender Act is to me pure b.s.

If he's re-patriated then yes that b.s. will prevail and will have valid legal standing and probably prevail although if I was a crown I would argue his crimes were so hineous as to warrant him being tried in adult court.

Then again in Canada if you murder someone you only get a sentence of 10 years,w ith 5 automatically deducted because there is no room in prison, and then another half of the remaining sentence deducted as long as you do not kill someone in prison.

I share Army's views and disgust but as a lawyer I must state until we change the laws we can't break them just because they create situations many of us find politically absurd.

I want to get back to what Army tried to explain. For those of you that think child terrorists are magically innocent because they are under 16 you would change your mind quickly if you saw the devastation a hand explosive device being carried by a 7 year old can cause or how 8 year olds throw grenades and shoot weapons no differently then adults when placed in certain situations-in fact they are easier to send out to fight or engage in terror-they are far easier to emotionally manipulate and their full sense of fear is not yet developed.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Rue

benny · May 11, 2009

Many of us have but that is not the point I was making and clearly is the point you missed. The fact that there have been different forms of guerilla warfare in existence for thousands of years does not for one second suggest the United Nations or the League of Nations ever attempted or have attempted to draft a treaty addressing a convention for the treatment of child terrorists or terrorists and yes there is a huge difference between a guerilla and a terrorist not that you seem to notice. Guerillas limit their tactics to the opposing army not civilians.
Armies or guerilla forces that attack civilians behave in a different manner then armies of guerillas who attack civilians. This is why there are international laws for armies that attack civilians or guerillas who attack armies but when it comes to guerillas attacking civilians the international laws are silent unless those guerillas are in a conventional army. International law will not impede on a soverign state's right to create a domestic criminal law to deal with non army persons within their country attacking civilians. You missed that distinction completely in your response to me.

Further the fact that guerillas and terrorists and armies have all been engaging in conflict for milenium is irrelevant to the point I was making and if it was relevant you would simply trot out the international law that deals with child terrorists or any terrorists.

This is precisely why there is no international anti-terror force sanctioned t invade any country it wants and operate under its own laws. If an international force is constituted to fight terrorists it needs the legal consent of the host nation and must hand over terrorists to the host nation's authority unless that host nation agrees to an other arrangement.

In the case of Afghanistan, the state legally sanctioned the U.S. and all other armies as part of the UN force to arrest and detain Taliban because the state did not have sufficient military or local prisons let alone a security guard apperatus or police apperatus to monitor and enforce the incarceration of such offenders.

That is why under international law, the U.S. would have been allowed to imprison Kadr as a pow although technically he was a terrorist. There are international laws as to the treatment of child soldiers but as another poster pointed out Kadr did not qualify as a child soldier-he was not part of a legal army-he was part of a terrorist cell that had illegally entered Afghanistan and was committing crimes against the Afghani state making Kadr a criminal in Afghanistan as well as a terrorist.

The assumption he is entitled to the Young Offender Act's standard is erroneous. He did not commit the crimes he is accused of in Canada. Criminal law of Afghanistan applies.

This is precisely why the U.S. tried to create this hybrid mess of a law to deal with terrorists. It tried unilaterally to fill the gap international law still has not dealt with and my point was the U.S. Bush regime screwed up their attempt big time because Bush went over the head of the Judge Advocate General of the US Armed Forces who told him to cool it and leave Kadr in a military prison.

This is why I say to Army we must hold our nose with Kadr. There are no international laws that deal with child terrorists at this time let alone terrorists and they need to be drafted and then signed by nations but then of course the nations supplying the terrorists would never agree to sign such treaties anyways.

I am not sympathetic to Kadr' plight but I appreciate the law must be followed and not broken otherwise we set dangerous anti-democratic precedents.

What most people conveniently suspend from their reality when discussing Kadr as a victim simply because he is 15 is that he belongs in an Afghani prison sentenced under Afghani criminal laws and this assumption a Canadian can go anywhere and engage in terror and be protected by the Young Offender Act is to me pure b.s.

If he's re-patriated then yes that b.s. will prevail and will have valid legal standing and probably prevail although if I was a crown I would argue his crimes were so hineous as to warrant him being tried in adult court.

Then again in Canada if you murder someone you only get a sentence of 10 years,w ith 5 automatically deducted because there is no room in prison, and then another half of the remaining sentence deducted as long as you do not kill someone in prison.

I share Army's views and disgust but as a lawyer I must state until we change the laws we can't break them just because they create situations many of us find politically absurd.

I want to get back to what Army tried to explain. For those of you that think child terrorists are magically innocent because they are under 16 you would change your mind quickly if you saw the devastation a hand explosive device being carried by a 7 year old can cause or how 8 year olds throw grenades and shoot weapons no differently then adults when placed in certain situations-in fact they are easier to send out to fight or engage in terror-they are far easier to emotionally manipulate and their full sense of fear is not yet developed.

For generations, Afghanistan has been, not a state, not a country but one of many battle grounds of capitalism and communism. In this kind of situation, distinctions like civilian and military and child and adult are worthless. The Talibans, by having survived this ordeal, have all the legitimacy to be part of the foundation of a new nation and social contract. That international institutions try to make states agree on treaties is barely starching the surface of what political powers can do militarily worldwide and that Canada takes some refugees on humanitarian ground is not scratching that surface any more.

Edited May 11, 2009 by benny

Topaz · May 11, 2009

Today, in question period, asked about bringing Khadr home, Peter Kent stood up and said that he's been charged with a serious crime and that Canada will PROTECT OUR INTEREST??? What, they don't want to peeve-off the Americans??? I don't think they have to worry about Khadr staying in Canada once he does come home, who would, after the way the govt has acted.

benny · May 12, 2009

Today, in question period, asked about bringing Khadr home, Peter Kent stood up and said that he's been charged with a serious crime and that Canada will PROTECT OUR INTEREST??? What, they don't want to peeve-off the Americans??? I don't think they have to worry about Khadr staying in Canada once he does come home, who would, after the way the govt has acted.

The legacy that Omar can keep from his father is that one can go and live in a country where he can foment a revolution but what he should forget is to start the revolution before having enough popular support.

Radsickle · May 12, 2009

he was not part of a legal army-he was part of a terrorist cell that had illegally entered Afghanistan and was committing crimes against the Afghani state making Kadr a criminal in Afghanistan as well as a terrorist.

I think he travelled to Afghanistan through normal routes... his father was part of a cell.... he's on video taking part in something bad but I haven't seen any evidence that he's committing crimes against the "Afghani state".... Khadr has not been shown to be either a criminal or a terrorist yet.