Canadian Government Guilty of Violating Khadr's Rights

[bloodyminded]

Yeah? Make me. Better yet how about you and anyone else who subscribes to this bullshit bugger off instead. :angry:

Oh is that right? Its people like you that have made Canada (spit) what it's become today not me. You deserve just about anything we get at this point.

eyeball, my friend, you are insuffiently nationalistic...and so not obedient enough to powerful men. for shame.

No wonder the Commissars hate you. It's a compliment.

[eyeball]

If you want to take it upon yourself to engage in a foreign war, particularly one that could involve you fighting against your "own country", don't expect that country to bend over backward for you. Particularly if your actions are "abusing" the rights of people in that country. It you chose to engage in another country's civil war, this country's government has no obligation to you when it comes to te result.

True enough except Omar didn't take it upon himself to engage himself in a war, his abusive parents did and illegally.

Canada (spit) has an obligation to defend this kid not abandon him, but since that's what it still insists on doing then...hork...spit...what else can I say?

What makes you think you have the right to impose Canada's Charter of Rights on another country?

What makes you think that's what I said? The corner that you and our effing country have been painting themselves into by years of official rhetoric and BS?

[waldo]

you shouldn't feel too isolated... too relegated... many right-wing non-thinkers have difficulty separating principle from partisanship and ideological loyalties.

And you can't distinguish right from wrong,good from bad.What does that say about your moral compass?What kind of principles do you have to be so supportive of people like the Khadr family and the things they stand for?

why deflect from the principle... from the ruling? Notwithstanding your (own) attempts at marginalizing, the Supreme Court has come down on the side of - the Charter. Will Harper Conservatives respect the declaration and apply resolution fitting with Charter principles?

[eyeball]

eyeball, my friend, you are insuffiently nationalistic...and so not obedient enough to powerful men. for shame.

No wonder the Commissars hate you. It's a compliment.

I'll wear that compliment proudly and loudly.

Thanks.

[Keepitsimple]

The horse is out of the barn.......but when the Charter was created, it's fair to say they the creators could not foresee every situation that might transpire. It's also fair to say that the Khadr case is one of those situations. If the Charter creators HAD foreseen a 15 year old Canadian fighting on the side of terrorism against Canadian allies, what would they have determined with regards to Khadr's rights back in 1982? Hard to say....but I don't think it's a stretch to think that they might have determined that such actions would diosqualify the perpetrators from Charter protection - if not being tried for outright treason. This is the challenge that the Harper government faces - how far should the Charter go? What if Khadr had killed a Canadian soldier?

[Sir Bandelot]

The Khadrs could sure use $10M or more to fund a lot of nifty things in either Afghanistan or Pakistan.

That is the sheer absurdity of the situation. Yet if he had been given due process, there wouldn't have been such a problem. What was the alternative? In front of a court he probably would have been let go. Another, perhaps better option would have been to employ the Ralph Klein methid

[bloodyminded]

That is the sheer absurdity of the situation. Yet if he had been given due process, there wouldn't have been such a problem. What was the alternative? In front of a court he probably would have been let go. Another, perhaps better option would have been to employ the Ralph Klein methid

Alcohol?

[eyeball]

What if Khadr had killed a Canadian soldier?

If he was there under parental duress and against the inherent principle and spirit of the Geneva Convention on the matter of child soldiers he'd still be completely innocent.

So I take it you're proud of the Liberals for putting Canada (spit) on this path are you?

Edited January 29, 2010 by eyeball

[Shady]

Yeah? Make me. Better yet how about you and anyone else who subscribes to this bullshit bugger off instead. :angry:

Why would I leave? I'm not disgusted to be Canadian. I'm not shitting on my country. Like I said, if you don't like it here, nobody's forcing you to stay. You're free to leave, at any time.

Oh is that right? Its people like you that have made Canada (spit) what it's become today not me. You deserve just about anything we get at this point.

Yes, it definitely is people like me that have made Canada what its become today. A strong, prosperous, and influential country. That recognizes that if you kill people abroad, and commit terrorists acts in other people's countries, against other people's citizens, there's going to be very significant repercussions.

It's not the same has holding up the corner store.

And I had to laugh out loud at your "we deserve anything we get at this point" nonsense. As if terrorists and their terrorist groups care a shit about constitutions and the rule of law. Not only do you shit on our country, you publicly root for its attack by our enemies. You're a shameful, disgusting human being, who definitely doesn't deserve to live in this great land.

Please leave NOW! :angry:

[Shakeyhands]

Question is, will Harper do the right thing and ask for him to be repatriated?

[eyeball]

Please leave NOW! :angry:

Bite me.

And I had to laugh out loud at your "we deserve anything we get at this point" nonsense.

Why? That's not what I said.

Edited January 29, 2010 by eyeball

[Topaz]

Yes, if you're Canadian, and you go abroad to commit terrorist acts, killing people, you may have a tough time. Wow, I'm so afraid.

Good. Then feel free to leave. :angry:

Oh, and by the way, I'm also ashamed and disgusted that you're Canadian too.

Wait a minute Shady.So you are saying that if a Canadian, like yourself, goes back to their original homeland to help protect it from invasion and you killed the enemy or is thought to kill the enemy, then you should go to jail by THAT country that is your enemy????

[ironstone]

why deflect from the principle... from the ruling? Notwithstanding your (own) attempts at marginalizing, the Supreme Court has come down on the side of - the Charter. Will Harper Conservatives respect the declaration and apply resolution fitting with Charter principles?

Did the Supreme Court ruling not also say it's up to the current government to decide whether to try and bring Khadr back or not?

If there were a case where a Canadian neo-nazi had committed a serious crime like murder in a foreign country,would you be fighting to have someone like him brought back to Canada and escape the consequences of his actions?

While we're on this subject,what's the latest update on that other Canadian that had his rights violated?Ronald Smith?Stuck a shotgun in the back of Harvey Mad Man and Thomas Running Rabbit.....just to see what it felt like to kill someone.How goes the fight to bring him back to Canada so he can eventually gain his freedom?

[waldo]

Did the Supreme Court ruling not also say it's up to the current government to decide whether to try and bring Khadr back or not?

yes... most certainly... in conformity with the Charter. Clearly the spotlight is on Harper - we will see if he ignores the Supreme Court of Canada and continues to add to the perception (reality) that questions his conduct along democratic terms. There has been a clear and ongoing breach of the Charter as ruled by the highest court of our land... Harper can no longer simply ignore it in deference to the lower court processes.

[Argus]

you shouldn't feel too isolated... too relegated... many right-wing non-thinkers have difficulty separating principle from partisanship and ideological loyalties.

And you're so good at it, right?

[Argus]

as is typical for you Simple... you miss the most salient point: the Harper Conservatives will now be forced to publicly state whether they will (finally) recognize... and act... on a declaration from the Supreme Court of Canada - that Khadr's rights as a citizen of Canada were violated -

I think the Harper government, probably in the form of Rob Nicholson, should say that the government is cognizent of the finding made by the Supreme Court in this matter, and that it would communicate that requirement to all federal agencies which might again be in a position to be seen as involving themselves in a matter of a Canadian held by foreign governments where that prisoner's fundamental Charter rights are involved. Henceforth, there will be no such involvement which might draw a finding of a violation of the prisoner's Charter Rights by representatives of the Canadian government.

and continue to be violated (during the Harper tenure).

It has become a routine remedy by the justice system that when a prisoner's rights are violated in some way by a government agency the appropriate remedy is to give the prisoner a "get out ot jail free" card. I have _never_ been comfortable with this remedy. It seems to me that if an agent of the goverment made an honest error he should be forgiven and if he violated the law he should be charged, but that a criminal should in no way benefit from that agent's error or misbehaviour. Khadr should not be let out of jail simply because federal agents interviewed him when they oughtn't to. He should face trial on the charges and be punished accordingly.

Notwithstanding the fact that many of you on the Left hate Americans so much Khadr is practically a hero to you.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

Question is, will Harper do the right thing and ask for him to be repatriated?

Not a chance in hell.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

True enough except Omar didn't take it upon himself to engage himself in a war, his abusive parents did and illegally.

Canada (spit) has an obligation to defend this kid not abandon him, but since that's what it still insists on doing then...hork...spit...what else can I say?

Even if one allows your argument, that Khadr became what he became due to "abusive parents", where does that place us? If you examine the history of many, if not most child molesters, you find that they were, in fact, abused themselves in childhood. We cut them no slack because of that. Khadr, however he became that way, is a violent islamist NOW. Most of us are cognizant of that fact and reluctant to put him on the streets of Toronto - just as we would be reluctant to put an unrepentant, unreformed child molester out on the streets.

You apparently have no such concerns.

[Argus]

Supreme Court won't force Ottawa to repatriate Khadr.

Good.

Omar Khadr should make us afraid to be Canadian if we go abroad or worse, are taken there against our will.

The fact is, there is very little the Canadian government has ever been able to do on behalf of Canadians abroad who are imprisoned, and, in fact, there is very little the Canadian government has ever even TRIED to do. Relationships with foreign governments, even the petty tinpot dictatorships of Africa, have ALWAYS been seen as infinitely more important than the well-being of some nobody Canadian who was dumb enough to visit that particular place and then got into trouble there.

Nor is Canada alone in that. Most governments will do almost nothing on behalf of their individual citizens abroad. The only real exceptions that I'm aware of being the UK and Israel.

If the supreme court can't or won't control our government's foreign policies Canadians need to.

We do that by voting come election day.

Canada has clearly lost its way.

If you think Canada of twenty or thirty or forty or fifty years ago would have done its utmost on behalf of Khadr, regardless of his name, nationality or origin, then you are sadly ignorant of history and rather childishly naive.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

....Is subordination in the eyes of the beholder?

No...Khadr's (terrorist perp) rights were found to be violated by the Supreme Court of Canada, yet it still defers to foreign policy. The Americans tromped all over his "rights" regardless of domestic Canadian politics or court rulings, and shopped him around without any subordination at all.

[nicky10013]

Good.

The fact is, there is very little the Canadian government has ever been able to do on behalf of Canadians abroad who are imprisoned, and, in fact, there is very little the Canadian government has ever even TRIED to do. Relationships with foreign governments, even the petty tinpot dictatorships of Africa, have ALWAYS been seen as infinitely more important than the well-being of some nobody Canadian who was dumb enough to visit that particular place and then got into trouble there.

Nor is Canada alone in that. Most governments will do almost nothing on behalf of their individual citizens abroad. The only real exceptions that I'm aware of being the UK and Israel.

We do that by voting come election day.

If you think Canada of twenty or thirty or forty or fifty years ago would have done its utmost on behalf of Khadr, regardless of his name, nationality or origin, then you are sadly ignorant of history and rather childishly naive.

This entire post is pretty much false. The Canadian government does a LOT but like most diplomacy it's usually done behind closed doors. There have been quite a few people detained and retrieved while imprisoned in Iran, Mexico, Saudi Arabia. There is (or was) diplomacy done on behalf of Canadians in US prisons on death row. The Canadian government doesn't always object to sentencing, but it has always been a policy to lobby against the death penalty. As a diplomatic courtesy, Canadian requests to the United States are usually granted.

Furthermore, it's not "good" that Canada is backing down on its international obligations. We're signatories to the Geneva Convention and that should mean something. I'm not saying that this kid should be let go, but due process is the least we can give him. Holding him without trial is at best is victors justice. We're supposed to be better than the people we're fighting but I guess a lot of people here just don't agree with that statement.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Holding him without trial is at best is victors justice. We're supposed to be better than the people we're fighting but I guess a lot of people here just don't agree with that statement.

Not better at all...see "Security Certificates".

[nicky10013]

Not better at all...see "Security Certificates".

I know all about security certificates and highly disagree with their use.

[Bugs]

I think you should read a little more carefully. They are pretty clear about how they feel about infinging on foreign policy....

seriously?

Yes, seriously.

I gather you don't know either.

[Smallc]

Yes, seriously.

I gather you don't know either.

I don't know how you can be serious. The court clearly said that they had no place interfering in foreign policy.