Omar Khdar

[wulf42]

Wrong. I want him back. And I'm 100% Canadian. Grapple with that!

Well the Government doesn't.......and not to many Canadians i know want him back either.......

why in the world would any Canadian want this pig back here is beyond me!

unless of course it's just an anti U.S. thing!

Let the Animal rot in the U.S. it was their soldiers he was trying to kill!

we have to many terrorist's already.hopefully the U.S. and/or Canada's Soldiers will simply drill them in the head right in the field! save us all the bother!

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/274923

Edited August 24, 2009 by wulf42

[Guest American Woman]

Well, there are people who do exactly that. You can't deny that. But where did I stereotype all Americans? And can you say metaphor?

There's absolutely no one in the United States walking the streets "shooting anyone who looks like a terrorist," happily, or otherwise. So no. There are not people who do exactly that.

But it's interesting that while some stereotype, others who do the same thing apparently are simply using metaphors.

[Guest American Woman]

There are many Canadian's in this country who are to say the least not very smart and have this

idiotic self rightous attitude and ditch Americans!! But there are many who do not, i have traveled

the U.S. and have enjoyed meeting many Americans...unfortunately we have to many Liberals up here!

I'm a liberal myself, which goes to prove not all liberals always think alike about all issues. I certainly don't agree with your "shoot the terrorist" attitude, but I don't understand why his family has been allowed the privilege of Canadian citizenship.

[Peter F]

So it "effing" doesn't mean "absolutely nothing" to have one's citizenship revoked, as you claimed.

And now I'm done trying to have a civil discussion with you.

Means absolutely nothing to me. It seems entirely pointless to me.

You are suggesting we revoke thier citizenship for being unliked by you. Their citizenship is, or at least should be, as inviolable as mine. Once granted the state should not be using the permanent threat of removing it whenever the hell they feel like. There is no need for the state to be lording it over immigrants. Who knows what unscrupulous government functionaries will be able to do with the weapon of 'citizenship'.

Once they got it they keep it. And why is that a big deal?

[wulf42]

I'm suggesting that the Khadr family, by it's actions, should have been denied their citizenship and return to Canada. People make choices in this world, and they should be prepared to face the consequences of those choices. I have to wonder how many people become citizens of Canada and then go back to live in their own countries, contributing nothing to Canada, only to return when they need something such as healthcare. Given the Khadr's history and the reality of what the western world is up against, I most certainly would have a problem with paying for such care with my dime; and for the record, I'm a very compassionate person. I'm also a person who believes in not biting the hand that feeds you. Being granted Canadian citizenship isn't a right, it's a privilege.

Bingo..............absolutely right American Woman!!

They come here and expect this country to help them when they get into trouble in another country

and give them as you say healthcare and welfare while in secret they hate our guts.....

Canadian's have become so naive and passive! the multiculture thing was a great idea in the 60's,

unfortunately it's time has come due to increasing threats to this country!

Edited August 25, 2009 by wulf42

[wulf42]

Means absolutely nothing to me. It seems entirely pointless to me.

You are suggesting we revoke thier citizenship for being unliked by you. Their citizenship is, or at least should be, as inviolable as mine. Once granted the state should not be using the permanent threat of removing it whenever the hell they feel like. There is no need for the state to be lording it over immigrants. Who knows what unscrupulous government functionaries will be able to do with the weapon of 'citizenship'.

Once they got it they keep it. And why is that a big deal?

They shouldn't get it in the first place!! that is the whole issue!

[wulf42]

I'm a liberal myself, which goes to prove not all liberals always think alike about all issues. I certainly don't agree with your "shoot the terrorist" attitude, but I don't understand why his family has been allowed the privilege of Canadian citizenship.

Well if you shoot these terrorist's they are no longer a threat! they made their choice......your own CIA has stated many of the Gitmo detainee's released became recycled right back into terrorism!! where is the good in that??

this war will never be won playing by rules with these people...the rule book was thrown out after 9/11!

Edited August 25, 2009 by wulf42

[Guest American Woman]

Means absolutely nothing to me. It seems entirely pointless to me.

You are suggesting we revoke thier citizenship for being unliked by you. Their citizenship is, or at least should be, as inviolable as mine. Once granted the state should not be using the permanent threat of removing it whenever the hell they feel like. There is no need for the state to be lording it over immigrants. Who knows what unscrupulous government functionaries will be able to do with the weapon of 'citizenship'.

Once they got it they keep it. And why is that a big deal?

Did you miss the part where I said I'm no longer interested in trying to have a civil discussion with you? But then, I guess your moronic statement that I'm "suggesting" that their citizenship should be revoked "for being unliked by [me]" should have given me a clue that you don't read/comprehend what's actually said ..........

[Peter F]

Bingo..............absolutely right American Woman!!

They come here and expect this country to help them when they get into trouble in another country

and give them as you say healthcare and welfare while in secret they hate our guts.....

Canadian's have become so naive and passive! the multiculture thing was a great idea in the 60's,

unfortunately it's time has come due to increasing threats to this country!

This is funny. I live here and have collected welfare and healthcare, and secretly I hate your guts.

Yet, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that! Except for immigrants - then its very wrong.

[wulf42]

This is funny. I live here and have collected welfare and healthcare, and secretly I hate your guts.

Yet, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that! Except for immigrants - then its very wrong.

Well Peter if your to stupid to tell the difference then well what can i say?

Islamic extremist Immigrant's is what we are talking about here,

so your idiotic twist really doesn t mean to much or has any relevance!

Most people know (at least the smart ones) this country is full of Islamic

extremist's who hate what our country stands for but use it's weak Immigration laws to their advantage!

Edited August 25, 2009 by wulf42

[scorpio]

There's absolutely no one in the United States walking the streets "shooting anyone who looks like a terrorist," happily, or otherwise. So no. There are not people who do exactly that.

What the gist of what I said is that there are people that walk the streets toting guns in some states, even showing up at health care debates. And there were some shootings just after 911 of some innocent "mid-eastern looking" folks.

[wulf42]

What the gist of what I said is that there are people that walk the streets toting guns in some states, even showing up at health care debates. And there were some shootings just after 911 of some innocent "mid-eastern looking" folks.

Oh yes and Canada doesn t have a gun toting gang problem in our major cities do we??............lol!!

just they don t have legal guns here is the only difference!

[Guest American Woman]

What the gist of what I said is that there are people that walk the streets toting guns in some states, even showing up at health care debates. And there were some shootings just after 911 of some innocent "mid-eastern looking" folks.

This is exactly what you said:

There is a country to your liking just south of us. Perhaps you'd feel happy toting your gun walking down the street shooting anyone who looks like a "terriorist." Texas would be glad to have ya all

As for the shootings just after 911 of some innocent mid-eastern looking folks, yes, one white supremacy nut did shoot three people. That's one nut out of 300 million people. And Texas was so "glad" to have him, that they gave him the death penalty.

[DogOnPorch]

This is exactly what you said:

There is a country to your liking just south of us. Perhaps you'd feel happy toting your gun walking down the street shooting anyone who looks like a "terriorist." Texas would be glad to have ya all

As for the shootings just after 911 of some innocent mid-eastern looking folks, yes, one white supremacy nut did shoot three people. That's one nut out of 300 million people. And Texas was so "glad" to have him, that they gave him the death penalty.

Oddly, the only place where I've shot at in the streets is good ol' Canada.

[Guest American Woman]

Oddly, the only place where I've shot at in the streets is good ol' Canada.

You've been shot at?? That must have been a frightening experience!

[DogOnPorch]

You've been shot at?? That must have been a frightening experience!

Indeed it was. Waiting for the wife to get off work...two groups started shooting it out on a downtown street in front of me. Forty plus shots fired.

My other claim to fame this way is nearly getting blown-up by the IRA in 1973. That was worse and resulted in some permanent hearing damage.

[Guest American Woman]

Indeed it was. Waiting for the wife to get off work...two groups started shooting it out on a downtown street in front of me. Forty plus shots fired.

My other claim to fame this way is nearly getting blown-up by the IRA in 1973. That was worse and resulted in some permanent hearing damage.

Wow ... that's terrible! So glad you survived both instances. Pretty scary to think about what could have happened.

edited to add: Thanks for the link --I've been reading up on it some more; I didn't realize you had such a problem there.

Edited August 25, 2009 by American Woman

[Peter F]

Did you miss the part where I said I'm no longer interested in trying to have a civil discussion with you?

The point is Moot...

But then, I guess your moronic statement that I'm "suggesting" that their citizenship should be revoked "for being unliked by [me]" should have given me a clue that you don't read/comprehend what's actually said ..........

Well lets see...Some Canadian citizens shouldn't get healthcare in Canada if they spend alot of time out of the country. Wich ones shouldn't is dependant upon their opinions and beliefs. specifically whether those opinions and beliefs bug your butt or not.

I think I got right.

[wulf42]

Ah more good news.............this is the reason Mr Harper should be in power!! Here is a good example

of a Canadian leader protecting his countrymen from scum terrorist's!!!......keep up the good work Mr Harper!

Just say no to Liberals!!!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/08/24/...comments-submit

[capricorn]

I don't think the government had much choice but to appeal the SC decision. Leaving aside whether Khadr is guilty or not guilty of murder, an important issue needs to be decided. Should a panel of unelected judges dictate to the government how it is to conduct its foreign affairs? Because, in effect the SC is ordering the government to intervene into the judicial process of another sovereign state. If another country butted into a criminal case tried in Canada, what would our response be? I would hope we'd tell them to take a hike.

The SC decision was not unanimous. The vote was 2-l in favour of instructing the government to pull all stops and work for Khadr's repatriation.

If this decision stands, it would set a precedent and open the door for the SC to shape other aspects of our foreign policy. It would usurp the authority of government and the House of Commons.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I don't think the government had much choice but to appeal the SC decision. Leaving aside whether Khadr is guilty or not guilty of murder, an important issue needs to be decided. Should a panel of unelected judges dictate to the government how it is to conduct its foreign affairs? Because, in effect the SC is ordering the government to intervene into the judicial process of another sovereign state. If another country butted into a criminal case tried in Canada, what would our response be? I would hope we'd tell them to take a hike.

The SC decision was not unanimous. The vote was 2-l in favour of instructing the government to pull all stops and work for Khadr's repatriation.

If this decision stands, it would set a precedent and open the door for the SC to shape other aspects of our foreign policy. It would usurp the authority of government and the House of Commons.

If it stands? What appeal is there to the Supreme Court of Canada?

When the government of Canada chooses not to follow the law, or is found to be in contravention of a law, how can that government be determined to be legitimate. This country should be one in which the law is the ultimate authority, its either that or we decide to live in a society where any single group such as the government is above the law.

[Peter F]

Jerry's right. Assuming the Federal Courts order survives the SC I cannot see how the nations Foriegn Minister is being shackled to any significant degree.

The government wont be Locked and Loaded when they ask for OK's repatriation. All they will be required to do is say "please send Mr Khadr to Canada". Thats it. Nothing more.

At wich point the Americans could very well pull the rug out and say "sure. He'll be landing in Toronto tomorrow", sending this government into a dither.

Or, they can give this government a break and say "Nope."

[capricorn]

Jerry's right. Assuming the Federal Courts order survives the SC I cannot see how the nations Foriegn Minister is being shackled to any significant degree.

The thing with a precedent setting legal decision is that often, its full impact and reach may not be known until it is applied to other cases and/or situations. The law of unintended consequences, so to speak.

The government wont be Locked and Loaded when they ask for OK's repatriation. All they will be required to do is say "please send Mr Khadr to Canada". Thats it. Nothing more.

At wich point the Americans could very well pull the rug out and say "sure. He'll be landing in Toronto tomorrow", sending this government into a dither.

Or, they can give this government a break and say "Nope."

Personally, I would not be bothered by either outcome. If by chance he was released instantaneously, his homecoming could very well outdo the welcome extended to the freed Lockerbie bomber. I would guess down Yonge street in Toronto.

[jdobbin]

The SC decision was not unanimous. The vote was 2-l in favour of instructing the government to pull all stops and work for Khadr's repatriation.

I believe you mean that was the Appeals Court.

Is it your contention that the Supreme Court has to be unanimous when it goes before them?

[Guest American Woman]

Personally, I would not be bothered by either outcome. If by chance he was released instantaneously, his homecoming could very well outdo the welcome extended to the freed Lockerbie bomber. I would guess down Yonge street in Toronto.

Would you be bothered if he had a homecoming welcome down Younge?

How about other posters there -- do you think his homecoming could outdo the welcome extended to the freed Lockerbie bomber? And how would you feel about it?

Edited August 25, 2009 by American Woman