wulf42 Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) Absolutely the correct solution.......the Americans will deal with him appropriately! Case closed! Canada is out of it. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/11/13/omar-khadr-supreme-court-hearing.html Edited November 13, 2009 by wulf42 Quote
Smallc Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 Hopefully they'll have enough evidence to actually do something after that long. Quote
Dave_ON Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 Absolutely the correct solution.......the Americans will deal with him appropriately! Case closed! Canada is out of it. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/11/13/omar-khadr-supreme-court-hearing.html Indeed and it only took the better part of a decade, good show. Quote Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. -Vaclav Haval-
Gabriel Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 Indeed and it only took the better part of a decade, good show. Hahaha! Better late than never. I love this country! Quote
wulf42 Posted November 13, 2009 Author Report Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) Hahaha! Better late than never. I love this country! I am impressed.........Obama is showing his teeth!! Sends a powerful message to terrorist's operating from this country " Nobody will help you!!!" Edited November 13, 2009 by wulf42 Quote
Dave_ON Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 I am impressed.........Obama is showing his teeth!! Sends a powerful message to terrorist's operating from this country " Nobody will help you!!!" If the case were so very cut and dry, why did it take them so long to bring it to trial? Should have been a slam dunk rather than this travesty of justice we currently have on our hands. Guilty or not, this should have been a done deal years ago. Quote Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. -Vaclav Haval-
wulf42 Posted November 13, 2009 Author Report Posted November 13, 2009 If the case were so very cut and dry, why did it take them so long to bring it to trial? Should have been a slam dunk rather than this travesty of justice we currently have on our hands. Guilty or not, this should have been a done deal years ago. Yes it was a long time coming but like Gabriel said ....better late than never! Quote
madmax Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr Quote
waldo Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 U.S. not ruling out Khadr repatriation oh my... what was that about an in-progress Supreme Court review/ruling... perhaps holding influence over Holder/Obama admin. Or... a plea deal that let's the U.S. out of trying a child soldier. Sorry to throw a blanket over your parteee Quote
Gabriel Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 U.S. not ruling out Khadr repatriation oh my... what was that about an in-progress Supreme Court review/ruling... perhaps holding influence over Holder/Obama admin. Or... a plea deal that let's the U.S. out of trying a child soldier. Sorry to throw a blanket over your parteee We'll take the good news as it is so far. Hopefully he will face just punishment for his crimes. It's too bad he probably will not be executed due to mercy because of his age at the time of the crime. I think his whole family should be thoroughly investigated - what kind of family sends their son to Afghanistan to fight alongside terrorists? There is so much of this story that remains unreported in order to shield the absurdity of Khadr's actions (what the hell was he doing in Aghanistan killing American soldiers and fighting alongside our enemies?) and those of his supporters (i.e. his family). Quote
waldo Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 Hopefully he will face just punishment for his crimes. of course... we see certain types speaking to punishment and crimes... before a verdict is actually rendered. Apparently, to some, trials (of whatever nature) don't really mean anything - in a thread titled, uhhh... "justice served" - go figure. Quote
Gabriel Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 of course... we see certain types speaking to punishment and crimes... before a verdict is actually rendered. Apparently, to some, trials (of whatever nature) don't really mean anything - in a thread titled, uhhh... "justice served" - go figure. This isn't a court of law. This is an internet forum. We don't turn our brains off in favour of the philosophical ideal of "innocent until proven guilty". I suppose you think we're also presumptuous for wishing for justice in the case of Major Hasan, as well. We still "don't know all the facts, yet", eh? Perhaps we're too brash and subscribing to mob mentality in wishing for his execution! Ridiculous. Quote
PocketRocket Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 My, but we're a bloodthirsty lot. The case is hardly cut-and-dry. From the Wikipedia link provided by MadMax..... In February 2008, the Pentagon accidentally released documents that revealed that although Khadr was present in the house, there was no other evidence that he had thrown the grenade. In fact, military officials had originally reported that another of the surviving militants had thrown the grenade just before being killed, and later rewrote their report to implicate Khadr instead. So the original report was changed to include the accusation against him. What prompted this change??? Find the answer to that and we'll be one step closer to the truth. Defence lawyers have also suggested that the soldier may have killed by friendly fire by his own comrades. This can be taken with a grain of salt unless an autopsy were to show that the soldier in question had died as a result of bullet wounds rather than shrapnel from a grenade. But it's lawyers doing what lawyers do. However..... It was later determined that Khadr had been crippled, blinded and trapped beneath rubble at the time, and American soldiers weren't even aware of his presence until one stepped on his prone body. So was he lying under the rubble when the grenade was thrown, or did this happen later??? Lot's of tough questions here. I don't envy the jury on this one.But one thing is certain, there is plenty of grounds for doubt. I applaud the lad being put on trial, but the assumption of guilt before he's had his day in court is simply not on. Quote I need another coffee
waldo Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 Hopefully he will face just punishment for his crimes.of course... we see certain types speaking to punishment and crimes... before a verdict is actually rendered. Apparently, to some, trials (of whatever nature) don't really mean anything - in a thread titled, uhhh... "justice served" - go figure.This isn't a court of law. This is an internet forum. We don't turn our brains off in favour of the philosophical ideal of "innocent until proven guilty". I suppose you think we're also presumptuous for wishing for justice in the case of Major Hasan, as well. We still "don't know all the facts, yet", eh? Perhaps we're too brash and subscribing to mob mentality in wishing for his execution! Ridiculous. your stated presumption precludes actual justice by your designating "his crimes". By your further categorizing, "innocent until proven guilty", as a philosophical ideal... you show your penchant for selectivity in regards presumptions as, apparently, the presumption of innocence (until proven guilty) doesn't fit your, uhhh... "philosophy" (sic). Ridiculous, indeed. Quote
Gabriel Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 your stated presumption precludes actual justice by your designating "his crimes". By your further categorizing, "innocent until proven guilty", as a philosophical ideal... you show your penchant for selectivity in regards presumptions as, apparently, the presumption of innocence (until proven guilty) doesn't fit your, uhhh... "philosophy" (sic). Ridiculous, indeed. What was a Canadian-born guy doing living with and fighting for our terrorist enemies? Case closed, if you ask me. He's probably guilty of many more crimes that we'll never know about. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean I put my head in the sand and ignore the facts. I'll repeat myself - perhaps you think we're all jumping the gun when claiming that Major Hasan is guilty, although he hasn't yet been convicted. What extremists we are! Jumping to conclusions! In your fantasy world, nobody can have an informed and accurate perspective of the truth until a jury has decided on the case. Absurd. Quote
Dave_ON Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 Yes it was a long time coming but like Gabriel said ....better late than never! That is precisely the point, the right to an expediant trial is a fundamental right in a democracy or have we abandoned that notion? Quote Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. -Vaclav Haval-
waldo Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 What was a Canadian-born guy doing living with and fighting for our terrorist enemies? Case closed, if you ask me. He's probably guilty of many more crimes that we'll never know about. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean I put my head in the sand and ignore the facts. I'll repeat myself - perhaps you think we're all jumping the gun when claiming that Major Hasan is guilty, although he hasn't yet been convicted. What extremists we are! Jumping to conclusions! In your fantasy world, nobody can have an informed and accurate perspective of the truth until a jury has decided on the case. Absurd. The absurdity is yours - you speak of your being informed and accurate (based on???) and assigning a predetermined guilt while ignoring that your assigned/designated crimes are, at this stage, accusations only. The admissibility of evidence and actual proof of guilt... for the alleged crimes... apparently... doesn't fit within your curt "case closed" summation. Quote
Smallc Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 I knew that Gabriel didn't like the idea of innocence until proof of guilt. The reality is, this trial has taken a long time and seems to be based on shaky evidence. It's not anywhere close to a closed case as some would like us to believe. If it was that simple, it would have been done already. Quote
Gabriel Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 That is precisely the point, the right to an expediant trial is a fundamental right in a democracy or have we abandoned that notion? Have you no idea why it takes so long? You can't figure it out? Quote
wulf42 Posted November 13, 2009 Author Report Posted November 13, 2009 U.S. not ruling out Khadr repatriation oh my... what was that about an in-progress Supreme Court review/ruling... perhaps holding influence over Holder/Obama admin. Or... a plea deal that let's the U.S. out of trying a child soldier. Sorry to throw a blanket over your parteee haha........that is the Americans just being diplomatic.........that SOB will never see Canada again and with any luck he will face an American firing Squad like the rest of those animals held in Cuba. Quote
waldo Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 haha........that is the Americans just being diplomatic.........that SOB will never see Canada again and with any luck he will face an American firing Squad like the rest of those animals held in Cuba. and was the U.S. just "being diplomatic" when actual U.S./Canadian discussions began to repatriate Khadr... relative to the Canadian Federal Court ruling? As inferred from the repatriation discussions, if the U.S. didn't say "NO" relative to the Canadian Federal Court ruling, why would they say "NO" relative to a Canadian Supreme Court ruling that upholds the Federal Court ruling? In light of several U.S. transfers of detainees to their native countries, you're anticipating that wouldn't be forthcoming in the Khadr case if a formal request came from Canada? In your zealous pursuit, you've jumped to a self-serving outcome (ahead of a Supreme Court ruling), one that fits the personal agenda you've demonstrated numerous times across this forum. Quote
Gabriel Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) Here's a somewhat candid timeline of this whole affair. Clearly the entire Khadr family is of questionable loyalty, and in the eyes of most people, clearly enemies of this country and full-blown terrorists. Anyways, to anyone with a brain, this is an open and shut case. Omar's been a terrorist from the cradle and will be to his grave. He'll get his day in court, he'll get a chance to make his argument. But he'll be convicted. Unfortunately, I'm betting he will not receive the death penalty he deserves due to absurd sympathy towards his age at the tie of his crime. Clearly there is a large amount of naivety in the minds of left-wing Canadian extremists who simply refuse to believe how sick this extremist/fundamentalist Islamic terrorism culture relly is. They just can't believe that such hate and such venom and such reverence for death and violence is possible - news flash: it's possible, and it's happening right now (and has been for decades). Edited November 14, 2009 by Gabriel Quote
waldo Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 Here's a somewhat candid timeline of this whole affair. Clearly the entire Khadr are of questionable loyalty, and to most people, clearly enemies of this country and full-blown terrorists. Anyways, to anyone with a brain, this is an open and shut case. Omar's been a terrorist from the cradle and will be to his grave. He'll get his day in court, he'll get a chance to make his argument. But he'll be convicted. Unfortunately, I'm betting he will not receive the death penalty he deserves due to absurd sympathy towards his age at the tie of his crime. are you labeling International child soldier treaties... and signatories therein - absurd? I see you've added "guilt by association" to the (your) growing list of agenda driven definers. Quote
Gabriel Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 and was the U.S. just "being diplomatic" when actual U.S./Canadian discussions began to repatriate Khadr... relative to the Canadian Federal Court ruling? As inferred from the repatriation discussions, if the U.S. didn't say "NO" relative to the Canadian Federal Court ruling, why would they say "NO" relative to a Canadian Supreme Court ruling that upholds the Federal Court ruling? In light of several U.S. transfers of detainees to their native countries, you're anticipating that wouldn't be forthcoming in the Khadr case if a formal request came from Canada? In your zealous pursuit, you've jumped to a self-serving outcome (ahead of a Supreme Court ruling), one that fits the personal agenda you've demonstrated numerous times across this forum. Yes, yes, yes... such a vicious personal agenda of his to desire that Canada keep itself safe from animals. How right-wing and extreme of him to not show compassion to terrorists and their families! He's right, though, Khadr won't be returning to Canada. Holder's just being diplomatic by keeping his options open. I really don't anticipate them dumping this case on Canada out of fear of offending the extreme left-wing by prosecuting a man who committed murder when he was 15. As soft as the Americans are, I don't think they'll be SO sympathetic to this murderer just because he was 15 when he was caught. There are MOUNTAINS of evidence against this guy. His entire family is made up of terrorists and he was involved in terrorism from a young age, and pinched fighting for the Taliban. This is an open and shut case. Make bets on his innocence and you'll lose your money. Quote
Gabriel Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 are you labeling International child soldier treaties... and signatories therein - absurd? I see you've added "guilt by association" to the (your) growing list of agenda driven definers. I don't care about those treaties. I know what's right and what's wrong. There's nothing convoluted here. This man and his entire family are knee-deep in extremist ideology and actors in supporting terrorism. Omar Khadr was pinched among his fellow Taliban terrorists. He killed an American medic (this is the one crime we KNOW he committed, surely there are many other crimes he's been involved in as he was in Afghanistan working with the enemy for YEARS). My agenda is for JUSTICE. I don't hide that desire. Nothing more, nothing less. Treaty or not, working with the enemy and murdering our allies requires justice. He will have his day in court with one of the fairest (re - most left-wing, lenient, and absurd) legal systems in the world - American justice. Let me get out my violin and play it for you while you shed tears for the enemy. READ THE SUMMARY - Him and his entire family are terrorists. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.