Omar Khdar

Radsickle · September 19, 2009

Well you believe whatever you want to,
however i can tell you for a fact Most soldiers i have talked to do

not believe we should be helping a known terrorist who has killed

one of our Allies do anything!!

How do you know Omar is guilty?

Bottomline is if we stand any chance to beat Islamic extremist's drastic measures will
need to be taken,

Like forgetting about our sense of Justice and Humanity, eh?

btw-apparently according to the Polls i am not the only one who wants Harper to win!!
he is gaining ground everyday!!

http://celebrifi.com/gossip/Canadian-Conse...oll-743375.html

Oooh, good link! "All Celebrity News, All the Time"... Real credible poll, kid. :lol:

wulf42 · September 19, 2009

How do you know Omar is guilty?
Like forgetting about our sense of Justice and Humanity, eh?

Oooh, good link! "All Celebrity News, All the Time"... Real credible poll, kid.

okay lets make it easy for you.

no 1 ...he was caught fighting with Al Qaeda....!! guilty!

no 2 ...under the Geneva Convention Terrorist's have no rights!! so us troops would have perfectly been

in the right to drill the scumbag right there! Al Qaeda is classified as terrorist's and may be executed

by firing squad since they fight out of uniform and are sobateur's, why do you support the enemy??

You obviously don t care about the welfare and safety of real Canadians when you support Omar

and his Al Qaeda loving family??

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/khadr/waziristan.html

no 3 .....here are so more poll sources for you! are these credible enough????

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews...751308120090917

http://netnewsledger.com/index.php?option=...w&Itemid=89

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...07?hub=CanadaAM

Edited September 19, 2009 by wulf42

waldo · September 19, 2009

... Al Qaeda fights out of uniform and targets non combatant's during battle and makes no effort to protect civilians so under the Geneva Convention this means they may be shot by firing squad!
Al Qaeda /Taliban are not classified as soldiers they are classified as terrorist's and have NO RIGHTS under the Geneva Convention!

...under the Geneva Convention Terrorist's have no rights!! so us troops would have perfectly been in the right to drill the scum right there!

as a self-described former member of the Canadian military, please supply the rules of engagement that support the rights of the Canadian military to summarily perform battlefield/firing squad executions.

clearly, given your expressed certainty, please supply the articles within the Geneva Conventions and/or Protocols/Annexes that support the rights of 'states'... or 'agents of states'... to summarily perform battlefield/firing squad executions.

wulf42 · September 19, 2009

as a self-described former member of the Canadian military, please supply the rules of engagement that support the rights of the Canadian military to summarily perform battlefield/firing squad executions.
clearly, given your expressed certainty, please supply the articles within the Geneva Conventions and/or Protocols/Annexes that support the rights of 'states'... or 'agents of states'... to summarily perform battlefield/firing squad executions.

.........note the first sentence that states under the Geneva convention

soldiers who fight out of uniform, commit atrocities and commit murder of hostages may be

sent before a firing squad! well Al Qaeda does all of these things so execution

is certainly warranted for terrorist's!

http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/geneva-convention-rules.html

Edited September 19, 2009 by wulf42

waldo · September 19, 2009

as a self-described former member of the Canadian military, please supply the rules of engagement that support the rights of the Canadian military to summarily perform battlefield/firing squad executions.
clearly, given your expressed certainty, please supply the articles within the Geneva Conventions and/or Protocols/Annexes that support the rights of 'states'... or 'agents of states'... to summarily perform battlefield/firing squad executions.

.........note the first sentence that states under the Geneva convention soldiers who fight out of uniform, commit atrocities and commit murder of hostages may be sent before a firing squad! well Al Qaeda does all of these things so execution is certainly warranted for terrorist's!
http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/geneva-convention-rules.html

LOL! "Warriors For Truth"... are you a... warrior - for - truth?

So... you didn't provide the requested rules of engagement... and you didn't provide the requested articles within the Geneva Convention and/or Protocols/Annexes... you didn't provide either to support your assertions to rights and battlefield/firing squad executions. Your assertions lack support - some might call them fabricated - some might call them BS!

wulf42 · September 19, 2009

LOL! "Warriors For Truth"... are you a... warrior - for - truth?
So... you didn't provide the requested rules of engagement... and you didn't provide the requested articles within the Geneva Convention and/or Protocols/Annexes... you didn't provide either to support your assertions to rights and battlefield/firing squad executions. Your assertions lack support - some might call them fabricated - some might call them BS!

The first line says it all! they may be shot by firing squad argument over!

If you want a trial for Omar great, let the Americans have a military

tribunal for Omar if he is found innocent then its done if not have him shot

by military firing squad!! This is an American military matter nothing to do

with Canada....Omar is on his own! he was outside of Canada fighting Americans

like i have said he is THEIR problem!!!

If you want to know the rules of engagement join the Canadian Army!!

but i doubt you would ever do that would you? Our Government does not

want him back that is the official stand of the Canadian Government so get over it!

only the Liberals want him back and well i guess we all know how they are doing in the polls

now don t we..... :lol:

Omar is simply a Liberal rally cry nothing more this article says it all!

http://unambig.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/om...it-of-a-victim/

Edited September 19, 2009 by wulf42

DogOnPorch · September 19, 2009

Good article there wulf.

wulf42 · September 19, 2009

Good article there wulf.

yes but doesn t matter what i show these left wingers, they will believe what they want

to believe but that is what Canada is about, same i am entitled to my opinions! I just get

furious when i hear lefties defending an Al Qaeda operative just to further their anti USA campaign,

when our own soldiers are in a foriegn land fighting the exact same people! Imagine if Omar comes

to Canada all the terrorists groups celebrating in our streets while our soldiers are coming back

in body bags....if that doesn t make your stomach turn i really don t know what would.

Edited September 19, 2009 by wulf42

DogOnPorch · September 19, 2009

I agree...and I don't believe for a minute that wee Omar is a victim.

wulf42 · September 19, 2009

I agree...and I don't believe for a minute that wee Omar is a victim.

I agree, i am not against a trial but i believe it should be a American

military tribunal....but as i have stated it would have been better to have left Omar

on the battlefield, he knew what he was doing and if released he will do it again!

DogOnPorch · September 19, 2009

Oooops...gun went off. Sorry sir.

wulf42 · September 19, 2009

:lol:

Oooops...gun went off. Sorry sir.

exactly...........it won t happen again sir!

September 19, 2009

QUOTE=American Woman: I agree that my extending the focus to the family members isn't the issue -- to a certain extent -- because this is the family who raised him, gave him his ideas according to what those defending Khadr are saying -- that it's not his fault that he was fighting with the enemy; he was just doing what he was told. So it seems to me it can't work just one way. If this is the way he was raised, if he believes 'the west,' which includes Canada, is 'bad,' ie: 'the enemy,' and his sister thinks his killing allies is "no big deal," how can that not overlap the whole issue? Because is it true that “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian?” Fact is, Canadians who became Canadians by naturalization were by that very fact subjected to a process that born-in-Canada Canadians weren't subjected to. Furthermore, it's that very notion that I think should be addressed. How is a naturalized Canadian who lives their life abroad, not on Canadian soil, not contributing in any way to Canada, not raising their kids by Canadian values, a "Canadian" the same as those who ARE living there and contributing? I'll say again that I think residency requirements should be part of naturalized citizenship rights if people want to take advantage of the benefits of citizenship.
For this first part, there are multiple debates going on in terms of citizenship. As of right now, though, citizenship is what it is. Every person who holds a Canadian passport has the rights entailed to them as such. Those questions will only be answered if you change the definition of citizenship which I'm not sure is fair but that's my opinion.

I'm not sure you would have to change the definition of citizenship. As it is, naturalized citizenship can be revoked if there is fraud in the application process. So what's involved? What would constitute fraud? Is pledging loyalty to Canada part of the application? Because if it is, then supporting the enemy would be "fraud" if loyalty were pledged. If loyalty isn't required, perhaps it's the requirements for becoming a citizen that should be changed.

As for repatriating people to be tried in Canada, for the most part I agree with what you say. If they do something in the states, they should be tried in the states unless it's a death penalty case in which I believe the Canadian government should ask for clemency (no person should be subjected to the death penalty and this has always been a Canadian stance until Harper came into power).

Actually, that's not correct. Canada didn't abolish the death penalty completely until the end of 1998.

Between 1892 and 1961, the penalty for all murders in Canada was death by hanging.

Between 1954 and 1963, a private member's bill was introduced in each parliamentary session calling for abolition of the death penalty. The first major debate on the issue took place in the House of Commons in 1966. Following a lengthy and emotional debate, the government introduced and passed Bill C-168, which limited capital murder to the killing of on-duty police officers and prison guards.

Canada retained the death penalty for a number of military offenses, including treason and mutiny.

On 10 December, 1998, the last vestiges of the death penalty in Canada were abolished with the passage of legislation removing all references to capital punishment from the National Defence Act. link

So it's only been 10 1/2 years since Canada abolished the death penalty for "treason." Wouldn't you agree that shooting Canada's allies, fighting against Canada, is treason? Not that long ago Khadr, if found guilty, would face the possibility of the death sentence in Canada, too.

Khadr's case is differen't though. First, Khadr isn't being held as a prisoner of war but a criminal and second, he hasn't been afforded due process which is granted to all other Americans and very likely has been subject to cruel and unusual punishment. If someone is being mistreated, be it in Iran or the United States, I should hope that its the government's duty to attempt to right injustices being meted out against Canadians despte the circumstances.

The government, under Obama, has attempted to "right the wrongs" being done in Gitmo by its closure.

As for charging the family of recruiting the kid to fight, I think it should be prosecuted if it indeed is the case. Canada is a signatory to the UN treaties and the Geneva convention ban it from occuring. If they can prove this, then yes, they should be subject to prosecution. I should imagine it would prove a very difficult case to prove, however.

I don't think it would be real difficult to prove given the statements that have made by the family in interviews that have been publicly aired.

Army Guy · September 19, 2009

Mine:

Thats an interesting twist, dont you think....Using the deaths of dead soldiers who paid the ultimate price fighting for and establishing our current rights and freedoms....but it brings up one question, do you think that they had Mr Khadrs rights in mind when they where orginally written. Do you think they would approve, of us now twisting those very rights to protect a terrorist, allowing him to walk free in the very nation him and his family hate ...the very nation those very same soldiers help build and protect....

Yours:

those soldiers fought for freedom which is the rule of law and justice...justice which then as well as now means you are innocent until proven guilty nothing has changed before or since WW2, the twist is all yours if soldiers are fighting for anything else, I want nothing to do with them...

Answer the question do you think they had in mind Mr Khadr's rights and freedoms....or was the orginal intent for law biding Canadians.

Canadian soldiers Rules of engagement are based upon Canadian law, inter-national law, and all the conventions in which Canada has signed....it governs whom and what our soldiers do on the battle field....MR Khadr was a legal target according to those same laws and freedoms we are speaking about...meaning he could be engaged with deadly force...

Perhaps i'm seeing this through the eyes of a soldier....and you thru the eys of a civilian....here is my issue if he meets all the legal means for me to take his life on the battle field then why, is our current justice system which can not find it's ass with both hands, and convict him of some crime to keep him off our streets....let me remind you it is the same justice system that has clearly stated any soldier would be legally correct to kill him, and on the other hand says there is not enough evidence to convict him in a court.... there is a big gap here would you not say....

why does the military deserve any more respect than any other Canadian? are you royalty? demi gods? you have job like most canadians do, so what...the day the Airborne Regiment was disbanded was a day that the Canadian miltary should take pride in, it showed respect to rule of law...

No, i'm not royalty, nor a demi god, nor am i asking you to kiss my feet or my ass....all most soldiers want is alittle respect , be it on NOV 11 , or a hand shake maybe even a thanks ....i mean even i give out a thanks to all that make my life a little easier....As for having a job like most Canadians , your right i do have a good job and it pays well, much like most canadians, but then again few have a job which requires they put thier lives on the line every day....most Canadian do not have to sign an unlimited liability contract...a contract that states i might have to give my life for my country upon recieving an order, a contract that may see me taker a life upon recieving an order....

As for the SO what....well you've said it all above Soldiers have faught and died for those very freedoms you enjoy today....that same fight todays soldiers are fighting to give the Afghan people today....i think down deep, you know it's it's a big gift, and it's a big deal.

The disbandment of the CAR is nothing the miltary takes pride in, nor is it something you should....it would be like tearing down toronto because of a few criminals, and gangs....The CAR regt had a history that dated back to WWII, it's that reputation and all those that where part of that now have been tarnished because of a few individuals....and i know that means squat to you....but to those in the military it means everything....as it means that all there sacrafice blood, sweat , and tears could be erased by the actions of a few some time in the future....in this case those actions of of those that took place during the Normandy landings, and the other countless Airbourne landings thru out WWII, until the present ....is all given a black eye....it's colors now retired, placed in some warehouse, it's traditions forgotten, it's vets remembered not for playing a part in earning our freedoms and rights but rather for a small incident in Somolia some forgotten African country most Canadians could'nt find on a map.... no not a day to rejoice but a day of mourning....all done to score some political pionts....

the need for justice out weighs all....innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, that is what freedom is all about..

.

I really hope young Mr Khadr lives a long and productive live here in Canada, or what ever country he decides to go to....but if he does decide to exact his revenge as his brother puts it....i hope you can look his victims in the face and explain to them that our need to keep a clear state of mind, to enforce our rights and freedoms trumped they're lives and safety....

Because your version of rights and freedoms differ a bit....from mine here in Canada includes going down to the local store without fear of getting blown up...that some whacko will not use his child to strap explosives to make some political statement or plant IEDs on the side of the road....that they (the terrorist) deserve the right to force there way of life on whom every they wish....sorry thats not freedom....thats living in terror....and current our rights and freedoms are protecting just that, a terrorist....and if need be they (our laws) should be tweaked to stand up to these scumbags....

wulf42 · September 19, 2009

Mine:
Yours:

Answer the question do you think they had in mind Mr Khadr's rights and freedoms....or was the orginal intent for law biding Canadians.

Canadian soldiers Rules of engagement are based upon Canadian law, inter-national law, and all the conventions in which Canada has signed....it governs whom and what our soldiers do on the battle field....MR Khadr was a legal target according to those same laws and freedoms we are speaking about...meaning he could be engaged with deadly force...

Perhaps i'm seeing this through the eyes of a soldier....and you thru the eys of a civilian....here is my issue if he meets all the legal means for me to take his life on the battle field then why, is our current justice system which can not find it's ass with both hands, and convict him of some crime to keep him off our streets....let me remind you it is the same justice system that has clearly stated any soldier would be legally correct to kill him, and on the other hand says there is not enough evidence to convict him in a court.... there is a big gap here would you not say....

No, i'm not royalty, nor a demi god, nor am i asking you to kiss my feet or my ass....all most soldiers want is alittle respect , be it on NOV 11 , or a hand shake maybe even a thanks ....i mean even i give out a thanks to all that make my life a little easier....As for having a job like most Canadians , your right i do have a good job and it pays well, much like most canadians, but then again few have a job which requires they put thier lives on the line every day....most Canadian do not have to sign an unlimited liability contract...a contract that states i might have to give my life for my country upon recieving an order, a contract that may see me taker a life upon recieving an order....

As for the SO what....well you've said it all above Soldiers have faught and died for those very freedoms you enjoy today....that same fight todays soldiers are fighting to give the Afghan people today....i think down deep, you know it's it's a big gift, and it's a big deal.

The disbandment of the CAR is nothing the miltary takes pride in, nor is it something you should....it would be like tearing down toronto because of a few criminals, and gangs....The CAR regt had a history that dated back to WWII, it's that reputation and all those that where part of that now have been tarnished because of a few individuals....and i know that means squat to you....but to those in the military it means everything....as it means that all there sacrafice blood, sweat , and tears could be erased by the actions of a few some time in the future....in this case those actions of of those that took place during the Normandy landings, and the other countless Airbourne landings thru out WWII, until the present ....is all given a black eye....it's colors now retired, placed in some warehouse, it's traditions forgotten, it's vets remembered not for playing a part in earning our freedoms and rights but rather for a small incident in Somolia some forgotten African country most Canadians could'nt find on a map.... no not a day to rejoice but a day of mourning....all done to score some political pionts....

.

I really hope young Mr Khadr lives a long and productive live here in Canada, or what ever country he decides to go to....but if he does decide to exact his revenge as his brother puts it....i hope you can look his victims in the face and explain to them that our need to keep a clear state of mind, to enforce our rights and freedoms trumped they're lives and safety....

Because your version of rights and freedoms differ a bit....from mine here in Canada includes going down to the local store without fear of getting blown up...that some whacko will not use his child to strap explosives to make some political statement or plant IEDs on the side of the road....that they (the terrorist) deserve the right to force there way of life on whom every they wish....sorry thats not freedom....thats living in terror....and current our rights and freedoms are protecting just that, a terrorist....and if need be they (our laws) should be tweaked to stand up to these scumbags....

Well said Army Guy!!!!!

Army Guy · September 19, 2009

upon repatriation, you anticipate the exercising of rights will result in the release of Khadr... you suggest, as possibilities, either a lack of evidence or the method of evidence gathering could predicate that release. In law that is considered due process - one is innocent unless proven guilty. I'm not clear how you find distinction - if you do - in this regard to the process of a "military tribunal/commission"... surely you're not suggesting it's unnecessary to attach guilt before verdict/sentencing within a military proceeding.
we are a nation founded upon principles that recognize the the rule of law

Lets talk about due process shall we, since we are talking about ensuring that Mr Khadr has every option available to him to defend himself again'st all the charges brought again'st him here in Canada...and yet nobody has even thought about making it a level playing field ....ensuring that the proscution has the same rights and abilities....

After all we are talking about a battlefield here, they're is no such thing as a combat CSI team, or the net works would have made a 4 th CSI special....Soldiers don't gahter evidence after a fire fight, they gather intel two very different things....we move on to the next battle field or continue the mission....which is what happen here, sure a tape was found some other intel gathered....but not to cover soldiers asses or ensure this wounded Terrorist got a fair trail.... but to see if this intel would lead them to another IED bomb making network....

So NATO may of scewed up a bit trying out these new laws and testing out new conventions by sticking mr Khadr into a pigion hole marked terrorist or illigal combantant....had he been declared a POW legally he could been held for the duration of the war providing he was not guilty of war crimes...and this whole thing would have been where....Canada demanding his return from a POW center , i don't think so...

SO they went down the wrong road, and may of lost all abilities to sink Mr Khadrs ship....soon he will test our justice system which is geared towards the criminal anyways....with the victim suffering once again....yes i say victim as Sgt Speers wife is watching this closely, along with those US soldiers that where there that day...and they want to know that Omar and those like him pay a price for thier decisions...they also want to see us as a nation step up to the plate and send a clear message to the world....Terrorist your not welcome here and we support our NATO allieds....

Army Guy · September 19, 2009

there was more to it than a few fools, the regimental culture was contaminated....the military isn't a boys club it's a job, in any job you can be reassigned to another department by your boss...regimental loyalty is a childish anachronisim...

Perhaps you should educate yourself on the Regiment, those responsible for the somolia incident where charged and tried in a court of law and punished....And the others where removed from the military, by the time the politicasl decision was made to disband the entire regt was cleaned up...

Your right it's not a boys club....the CAR was our nations elite unit, one comparable to some of the best in the world....in fact alot of it's members went on to serve in what is known as the JTF today, As for it being just another job your wrong....it was'nt a job but a way of life, these men recieved elite training from around the world...and they where very good at it....

Regimental Loyalty may be a childish anachronism to you, but then again how do you explain it to someone that has not been exposed to it....many members spend thier entire carears with the same regt, it picks up where the tax payer leaves off, offering many things not available thru public fuinding, such as loans for those members in need, higher education assistance for dependants, looking after members that have been injured the list is endless.... i guess to sum it up they look after it's members long after the tax payer has forgotton them....and that sir is worth alot for those that give up almost everything in the service of thier country....Lets not forget that these men and women develope a bond that is equal or greater than family. and it's this bond that allows them to do there jobs, knowing that every sacrafice they make will not be forgotten....

wyly · September 19, 2009

Well you believe whatever you want to,
however i can tell you for a fact Most soldiers i have talked to do

not believe we should be helping a known terrorist who has killed

one of our Allies do anything!!

until he has had a trial is not guilty of anything other than being in the wrong place in the wrong time...according to you military types those are the rights you are defending...you must have missed that classroom session

Bottomline is if we stand any chance to beat Islamic extremist's drastic measures will
need to be taken, Al Qaeda fights out of uniform and targets non combatant's during battle

and makes no effort to protect civilians so under the Geneva Convention this means they

may be shot by firing squad! nothing Rabid about that!

even your link states they are entitled to a trial...anything else is murder

Al Qaeda /Taliban are not classified
as soldiers they are classified as terrorist's and have NO RIGHTS under the Geneva

Convention!

subjective the NAZI's called the French resistance terrorists too...hmm am I detecting a similarity in behaviour here...the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan at the time of the US invasion the allies are now supporting a puppet government like the NAZI's supported Vichy france...one sides terrorist is the other sides freedom fighters and occupation is a legitimate cause for resistance....

Bottomline is if we stand any chance to beat Islamic extremist's drastic measures will
need to be taken, Al Qaeda fights out of uniform and targets non combatant's during battle

and makes no effort to protect civilians so under the Geneva Convention this means they

may be shot by firing squad! nothing Rabid about that! Al Qaeda /Taliban are not classified

as soldiers they are classified as terrorist's and have NO RIGHTS under the Geneva

Convention!

much of the northern Alliance militias and from photo's I've seen parts of the afghan army is not

in a regular uniforms either, maybe our military should execute them as well without trial...it's naive to expect a militia and to have uniforms...any rule against this is a rule of convenience for invading militaries dealing with occupied nations...

Same as we executed Nazi ss troops when we captured them!! You need to
realize Taliban are vicious terrorists who enjoy killing their captives and innocent people to

further their fanatical gains! why in the world would you or anyone want to help them??

even NAZI's had trials, obviously you never heard of the Nuremberg Trials...

and what would you call the Para Regiment members who tortured and killed? and those other Para members who stood by and remained silent? vicious terrorists? were any executed witout trial?

Edited September 19, 2009 by wyly

wyly · September 19, 2009

Perhaps you should educate yourself on the Regiment, those responsible for the somolia incident where charged and tried in a court of law and punished....And the others where removed from the military, by the time the politicasl decision was made to disband the entire regt was cleaned up...

jusitice ruled as it should and I applaud that and take pride in that, no one should be above the law... disbanding the regiment may seem harsh to you and I can understand that but it sends a message, the rule of law is supreme and loyalty to that is more important than anything...

wulf42 · September 19, 2009

subjective the NAZI's called the French resistance terrorists too...hmm am I detecting a similarity in behaviour here...the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan at the time of the US invasion the allies are now supporting a puppet government like the NAZI's supported Vichy france...one sides terrorist is the other sides freedom fighters and occupation is a legitimate cause for resistance....

Comparing the Taliban with the French resistance has to be the most lame

excuse for defending terrorist's i have heard yet! The French resistance only

targeted German Forces....go on youtube and type Taliban atrocities see

how these "freedom fighters" treat their hostages ..they cut their throats

slowly while they scream until they get the vocal cords or their latest thing

is dose hostages in flammible liquid and laugh while they burn to death!!

these are the people you defend...............what is wrong with you???

waldo · September 20, 2009

.........note the first sentence that states under the Geneva convention
soldiers who fight out of uniform, commit atrocities and commit murder of hostages may be

sent before a firing squad! well Al Qaeda does all of these things so execution

is certainly warranted for terrorist's!

http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/geneva-convention-rules.html

LOL! "Warriors For Truth"... are you a... warrior - for - truth?

So... you didn't provide the requested rules of engagement... and you didn't provide the requested articles within the Geneva Convention and/or Protocols/Annexes... you didn't provide either to support your assertions to rights and battlefield/firing squad executions. Your assertions lack support - some might call them fabricated - some might call them BS!

The first line says it all! they may be shot by firing squad argument over!

If you want to know the rules of engagement join the Canadian Army!!

your "Warriors" website carries no credibility... no authority to make the statements offered in regards the Geneva Convention. Here's a newsflash for you - just because you can find something on the interweebs, that does not give it an absolute acceptance as fact. If you're so bold and certain in making your claims, simply support them by showing the Geneva Convention article(s) to support your statements.

you're the self-proclaimed (ex) military man... certainly, you should be able to quickly relate the rules of engagement that would support how Canada's military has the sanctioning to shoot captured insurgents... emphasis on "captured".

waldo · September 20, 2009

yes but doesn t matter what i show these left wingers, they will believe what they want
to believe but that is what Canada is about, same i am entitled to my opinions! I just get

furious when i hear lefties defending an Al Qaeda operative just to further their anti USA campaign, when our own soldiers are in a foriegn land fighting the exact same people! Imagine if Omar comes to Canada all the terrorists groups celebrating in our streets while our soldiers are coming back in body bags....if that doesn t make your stomach turn i really don t know what would.

ah, more left wing label parroting!

your self-expressed fury seems to be boundless... but no emphatic CAPS usage - this time. Progress, I guess... or a scaled down "fury", perhaps.

once more with feeling as it seems no matter how many times its stated for you, no one is defending an "Al Qaeda operative". There are principles at state, whether you respect them or not. It's those principles that are "being defended".

your over-the-top liberties and paranoid rhetoric are relentless... when you speak of terrorist groups celebrating in our streets, what groups are you describing? C'mon... name them - name the terrorist groups you anticipate celebrating in the streets.

waldo · September 20, 2009

upon repatriation, you anticipate the exercising of rights will result in the release of Khadr... you suggest, as possibilities, either a lack of evidence or the method of evidence gathering could predicate that release. In law that is considered due process - one is innocent unless proven guilty. I'm not clear how you find distinction - if you do - in this regard to the process of a "military tribunal/commission"... surely you're not suggesting it's unnecessary to attach guilt before verdict/sentencing within a military proceeding.
we are a nation founded upon principles that recognize the the rule of law

Lets talk about due process shall we, since we are talking about ensuring that Mr Khadr has every option available to him to defend himself again'st all the charges brought again'st him here in Canada...and yet nobody has even thought about making it a level playing field ....ensuring that the prosecution has the same rights and abilities....

alternatively, many argue the U.S. military tribunal (commissions) process is weighted in the prosecutions favour. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled Khadr's charter rights were breached in regards his initial handling by CSIS personnel... the transfer of interrogation information to the U.S. prosecution. Add in an assortment of other transgressions, some more serious than others... add in he's been waiting 7 years and that the U.S. now seems predisposed to returning him to Canada.

Khadr needs to be tried, presuming there is applicable evidence against him and presuming he can be charged under Canadian law(s), a trial within Canada's justice system will follow his repatriation... a trial - finally. (notwithstanding determinations on trying him as an adult or a child).

if there is such stated certainty to Khadr's guilt, we should expect available evidence to support that stated guilt... regardless of what court he is tried in.

wyly · September 20, 2009

Comparing the Taliban with the French resistance has to be the most lame
excuse for defending terrorist's i have heard yet! The French resistance only

targeted German Forces....go on youtube and type Taliban atrocities see

how these "freedom fighters" treat their hostages ..they cut their throats

slowly while they scream until they get the vocal cords or their latest thing

is dose hostages in flammible liquid and laugh while they burn to death!!

these are the people you defend...............what is wrong with you???

you're not very good at this history stuff are you... resistance fighters in France and everywhere else in occupied europe targeted their own countrymen as well and the methods could be brutal as a warning to those who were thinking of supporting the German occupation forces...