Army Guy Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 I think what it boils down to now, is are we as nation going to have these violation of rights trump Omars other charges...When in fact it was but a few CSIS agents who failed in thier task to protect Omar...No investagation into this matter....I'm alittle confused here, had this been a soldier we would have been in court or in front of some board of inquiry by now....I Bring this up because the action of these agents have blacken Canada's reputation....in regards to Omars rights never being upheld... Other than this , Omar's case really stands on what legs today... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Born Free Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 Let me clarify for you. Khadr is not a POW. He is a criminal. I accept that it might be your opinion but it remains to be determined by a trial. Quote
Born Free Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 Actually there is a need to define it, and it is defined under the Genva convention, Inter national law and Canadian law. Under which it states "...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental"... This same content is used under all 3 of the above agreements that Canada has signed. Omar was not subjected to torture in fact his own lawyers have quoted he may of been subjected to torture...they did not say he was subjected to torture...Even our supreme court does not mention he was subject to torture...and thier main bone of contention was his other rights were not protected....hence thier judgement... The Supreme Court of Canada wasnt trying to ascertain if he was tortured. Quote
Born Free Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 (edited) I think what it boils down to now, is are we as nation going to have these violation of rights trump Omars other charges...When in fact it was but a few CSIS agents who failed in thier task to protect Omar...No investagation into this matter....I'm alittle confused here, had this been a soldier we would have been in court or in front of some board of inquiry by now....I Bring this up because the action of these agents have blacken Canada's reputation....in regards to Omars rights never being upheld... Other than this , Omar's case really stands on what legs today... This aint the first time that overzealous Canadian agents have screwed up. I see a pattern developing here. Edited February 4, 2010 by Born Free Quote
M.Dancer Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 I accept that it might be your opinion but it remains to be determined by a trial. No trial will determine he is a POW. I will concede though that he is an alledged criminal awaiting trial. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Army Guy Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 I think you've just proven Gabriels piont, thats because there was'nt any torture. And yet it is a very popular belief in this forum that there was.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Born Free Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 Omar was not subjected to torture in fact his own lawyers have quoted he may of been subjected to torture... I see... you have interpreted the lawyar statement ... "he may have been tortured" to mean that he wasn't tortured? It does not compute. Quote
Born Free Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 No trial will determine he is a POW. I will concede though that he is an alledged criminal awaiting trial. Regarding the determination of his being a POW... right or wrong that determination was made by the US folks a long time ago. Quote
Army Guy Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 I see... you have interpreted the lawyar statement ... "he may have been tortured" to mean that he wasn't tortured? It does not compute. Your not giving the court or Omars lawyers much credit are you...don't you think that if they could have proven it they would have....it would give Omars case a major boost.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Born Free Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 (edited) Your not giving the court or Omars lawyers much credit are you...don't you think that if they could have proven it they would have....it would give Omars case a major boost.... What court? Who are you refering to when you say ... "if they could have proven it they would have." According to you, Omars lawyers have stated that Omar may heve been tortured. You are now claiming that must mean that he wasnt tortured. I give Omars lawyers all the credit in the world. I accept that fact that they were there and arent sure about it ...while you werent there and seem to be dead sure about it. Edited February 4, 2010 by Born Free Quote
Army Guy Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 (edited) What court? Who are you refering to when you say ... "if they could have proven it they would have." According to you, Omars lawyers have stated that Omar may heve been tortured. You are now claiming that must mean that he wasnt tortured. I give Omars lawyers all the credit in the world. I accept that fact that they were there and arent sure about it ...while you werent there and seem to be dead sure about it. I'm sorry for not being clearer. I was talking about Omars case before the Supreme court of Canada, in which they decided his rights were violated. As some on this forum have suggested time and time again one of the key componets to those rights violations where that the CSIS agents knew that Omar was tortured, and did not protect Omar and his rights....And yet it was not a major or minor topic in the SC of Canada decision. However the Court transcript did not mention torture nor spend any amount of time on the topic...., nor did Omars lawyers execpt to say he "may" have been tortured....like mentioning he "may" of been to the moon....MY piont was if they could have proven this to the SC of Canada they would have as it would have been a major feather in their cap. And perhaps large enough to perhaps have the SC of Canada force the government into action....Since this was not done I'm assuming that the torture aspect of this trail has no merrit. So i ask you if Omars lawyers had a chance to futher his case do you not think they would of....or perhaps the torture thing is over blown and can not be proved.... Edited February 4, 2010 by Army Guy Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
waldo Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 I'm sorry for not being clearer. I was talking about Omars case before the Supreme court of Canada, in which they decided his rights were violated. As some on this forum have suggested time and time again one of the key copnets to those rights violations where that the CSIS agents knew that Omar was tortured, and did not protect Omar and his rights....And yet it was not a major or minor topic in the SC of Canada decision. in terms of Charter Rights infringement, the SC simply reaffirmed the Federal Court of Appeal - which, in itself, was a reaffirmation of the original Federal Court ruling Federal Court of Appeal - 2009 FCA 246 In Khadr v. Canada (Prime Minister), 2009 FC 405, Justice O’Reilly of the Federal Court found that Canadian officials breached Mr. Khadr’s rights under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, when they interviewed Mr. Khadr at the Guantánamo Bay prison and shared the resulting information with the United States. Federal Court - 2009 FC 405 Canada actively participated in a process contrary to its international human rights obligations and contributed to K’s ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person, guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter, not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Though the process to which K is subject has changed, his claim is based upon the same underlying series of events considered in Khadr 2008. As held in that case, the Charter applies to the participation of Canadian officials in a regime later found to be in violation of fundamental rights protected by international law. There is a sufficient connection between the government’s participation in the illegal process and the deprivation of K’s liberty and security of the person. While the U.S. is the primary source of the deprivation, it is reasonable to infer from the uncontradicted evidence before the Court that the statements taken by Canadian officials are contributing to K’s continued detention. The deprivation of K’s right to liberty and security of the person is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects. Quote
Peter F Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 Prisoners of War have certain immunities from prosecution, mercenaries and other criminals involved in hostilities do not. not to mention certain conditions of incarceration not available to mercenaries and other criminals. Correct again. Shait is a hostage and Arabs in Israeli custody are treated as alledged criminals. Sure. But does that mean hostages should be treated with humanity? AI seems to suggest so and the article certainly leaves me the impression that AI thinks Shalid's captors are not treating him humanely. I see no anti-western or anti-Israeli bias here - though I certainly do see a left-wing bleeding heart one. To be fair the easiest way it would seem to get AI off the israelis backs is when they areest a terrorist, do not charge him. simply say he is a hostage, and then AI will give the arabs as much attention as they give Shalit. Oh! I see! AI shouldn't criticize the Israeli powers-that-be for using thier prisoners as a pawn in a tit-for-tat game with Palestinian-armed-groups who are criticized by AI for treating thier hostages in a lousy manner. *Ching!* No Sale Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
Peter F Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 However the Court transcript did not mention torture nor spend any amount of time on the topic...., nor did Omars lawyers execpt to say he "may" have been tortured....like mentioning he "may" of been to the moon....MY piont was if they could have proven this to the SC of Canada they would have as it would have been a major feather in their cap. And perhaps large enough to perhaps have the SC of Canada force the government into action....Since this was not done I'm assuming that the torture aspect of this trail has no merrit. So i ask you if Omars lawyers had a chance to futher his case do you not think they would of....or perhaps the torture thing is over blown and can not be proved.... The SCC certainly didn't use torture as a reason that Khadr's rights were infringed. But they certainly do see sleep deprivation as abusive. And both torture and abuse are against the norms of fundemental justice. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
M.Dancer Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 I intend to take both my chidren the the International Court to fomally charge them with Torture. First they did not allow us to sleep more than 3 hours at a time, That went on for 2 years for each of them, 4 years in total. Then it was not stop interogations (Daddy, why is....) and now they play Hannah Montana and the Jonas Bros. all the time. Now we are back to the interogations. (Daddy what is the passe compose of prendre?) This consitutes torture. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Peter F Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 I intend to take both my chidren the the International Court to fomally charge them with Torture. This consitutes torture. Good for you. Act. Do not let the abusers get away with the abuse. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
Gabriel Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 (edited) Did you actually read the same article Canadien posted the link for? its here: Canadien Link to AI article Where does it AI say or suggest that Shalit is a legitimate POW? It's right here, "...These are Amnesty International’s key demands on Gilad Shalit’s case, based on his status as a prisoner of war." Please read the article before commenting further. AI *clearly* states that Shalit's status is a POW. No such description is extended to the Palestinian prisoners or to Omar Khadr. Omr Khadr is regularly referred to as a "child soldier" by AI in many (if not all) of their information regarding him. I don't see a suggestion that Shalit is not being treated as a legitimate POW. Nor do I see any suggestion that he is. Where do you get this POW stuff from?. He should, of course, be treated as one - IE allowed visits from the IRC and some communication with his family on a regular basis. Actually, as a POW or not, those things should be allowed anyways. You do see the criticism of palestinian armed groups for not allowing those things don't you? I'm talking about the disparity between how AI reports on Shalit and Khadr, and to a lesser extent between Shalit and Palestinian prisoners held by Israel. You're indicating that AI has made equal calls for treatment towards Shalit and the Palestinian prisoners with respect the visits from the ICRC and family members. Yes, they do. As I've already stated, Israel did permit many visitations in many circumstances until September 2008. Israel also does not torture its prisoners and has facilities that operate under standard legal accountabilities. Do you think there is a similar legal mechanism among the terrorists? Israel is much more compliant with all sorts of standards of human rights and legal freedoms than Gaza. No acknowledgement of this is made by AI, obviously. Reading the article, you'd get the impression that Hamas is some sort of legitimate political entity. Shalit shouldn't be treated like a POW? As I said, I see no suggestion that AI is a POW or not a POW. That appears to bes something you've cooked up entirely on your own. I can't see how you could have gathered that 'suggestion' from the article. Perhaps it was the mention of the IRC that threw it into POW territory for you. Ok. and what has that got to do with being a POW or not being a POW? So what if they are unlawful combatants and terrorists and break all conventions of war - every single one? Is that to say that Amnesty International is wrong to suggest that a prisoner held by the so-called armed groups should be treated with a modicum of humanity? Or do you suggest that AI should not be telling unlawful combatants/terrorists how they should treat thier prisoners? Peter, READ the article. AI attaches the label of POW to Shalit, and not to Khadr or the Palestinian prisoners held by Israel. One again, here is the exact language from the article, "These are Amnesty International’s key demands on Gilad Shalit’s case, based on his status as a prisoner of war. What I am suggesting is very clear - that attaching the label of "POW" to Shalit legitimizes his abduction. In other words, Shalit wasn't abducted, but was captured in a war. Aside from the legalities, this was done during relative peacetime at a southern Gaza/Israel crossing. There is legitimacy extended to Hamas and its operations when Shalit can be described as a POW by AI. So Khadr is a legitimate POW but Shalit is not? And AI is persuing some agenda by saying that both should be treated in exactly the same manner? That's my perspective. AI, however, only views Shalit as a legitimate POW. Khadr is never described as a POW, but as a child soldier. AI isn't calling for them to be treated the same in all respects, though. AI is calling for Khadr to be treated as child soldier and claims that Khadr has been tortured, abused, and denied international standards with respect to access to a lawyer and due process. AI doesn't make these demands with respect to Shalit. Shalit is NOT being held illegaly, according to AI, as AI views Shalit as a legitimate POW rather than a soldier abducted during peacetime for propaganda purposes by a terrorist organization. AI does demand that Shalit not be abused and have access to ICRC visits as well as visits from his family, but makes no demands for him to have any form of legal course. The inconsistencies here are glaring. How can you not see them? There is no difference in description. Shalit isn't described as a POW nor are the Israeli prisoners described as POW's - that is something you are making up entirely on your own. And you appear to be doing so in order to create (yes - create) evidence that Amnesty International is has some sort of Political Agenda - Well, not some sort, but some very particular sort of agenda; Anti-Israeli, Anti-American, Pro-Terrorist Agenda. I have no intention of denigrating AI to the level of organizations that really are anti-Israeli, anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-Semitic, or anti-whatever. I'm simply making quote obvious observation about discrepancies in their approaches to similar cases and suggesting that politicization is responsible. Once again, the exact language from the article is "These are Amnesty International’s key demands on Gilad Shalit’s case, based on his status as a prisoner of war." You're welcome to press crtl-f to find it. No, I do not think such. Do I need to in order to understand that AI is criticizing Shalids keepers for not allowing the IRC access to him or allowing some communication from him? Is that not a legitimate criticism? Are you suggesting that AI should not be shoving thier bleeding-heart noses into how Palestinian Armed Groups treat thier prisoners? What I am suggesting is clear, that there are inconsistencies in AI's approach to similar stories, whose differences I have acknowledged, that can be explained by politicization. After reviewing material on HRW, I find HRW (at the moment, based on my limited experience with the organization) to be more even-handed and consistent in their values. AI simply isn't complying fully with its mission statement with respect to these stories, as it is affording different levels of care to these two stories. They are on equal footing. BOTH palestinian armed groups and the Israeli government are using prisoners as bargaining chips. Now maybe one group is the good guys and one that bad guys, but in this case, as pointed out by AI, Both are behaving pretty much the same way in regards to thier prisoner/s: Poorly. Israel doesn't arrest people for political purposes. It is Hamas that engages in this activity and puts Israel in a position to deal with this sort of thing out of deep concern for one of its young citizens. Edited February 4, 2010 by Gabriel Quote
Gabriel Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 in terms of Charter Rights infringement, the SC simply reaffirmed the Federal Court of Appeal - which, in itself, was a reaffirmation of the original Federal Court ruling Federal Court of Appeal - 2009 FCA 246 Federal Court - 2009 FC 405 Hey there waldo, As Army Guy has said, the court's decision never mentions torture or mistreatment. It's clear the court is concerned with Khadr not being treated differently (or, more softly) due to his age at the time of his arrest and with him being deprived of access to legal counsel when being investigated. Furthermore, the information yielded from CSIS' interviews with Khadr were shared with American officials and are likely to contribute to Khadr's continuing detention. Not one mention of torture or abuse. Anyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding what is and isn't torture. In the case of Omar Khadr, however, there doesn't seem to be much legal agreement that Khadr was indeed abused or mistreated. As I stated earlier, the best support one may have regarding his or her opinion that Khadr was indeed tortured is the Obama administration's decision to cease the enhanced interrogation techniques authorized during the Bush Administration - which included the specific sleep deprivation techniques used on Khadr. Quote
eyeball Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 (edited) Good for you. Act. Do not let the abusers get away with the abuse. Canadians expect kids to obey their parents and we're all taught to do that from a very early age. So it begs the question, how can kids like Omar Khadr be expected to know when it's not appropriate to obey everything their parent's tell them to do? I don't recall any teacher ever explaining this to me when I was a kid, does anyone else? Should kids be taught this outside the home or do we simply punish kids for their bad upbringing when it occurs in hopes it will deter parents? That seems awfully unfair to the kid. I think it's fairly obvious it takes a village to at least help raise a child which means it has to assume at least some responsibility for the screw-ups it allows to happen. If people expect society to be given some slack here it's only fair that we give Khadr some too. Edited February 4, 2010 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Gabriel Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 Canadians expect kids to obey their parents and we're all taught to do that from a very early age. So it begs the question, how can kids like Omar Khadr be expected to know when it's not appropriate to obey everything their parent's tell them to do? I don't recall any teacher ever explaining this to me when I was a kid, does anyone else? Should kids be taught this outside the home or do we simply punish kids for their bad upbringing when it occurs in hopes it will deter parents? That seems awfully unfair to the kid. I think it's fairly obvious it takes a village to at least help raise a child which means it has to assume at least some responsibility for the screw-ups it allows to happen. If people expect society to be given some slack here it's only fair that we give Khadr some too. There's no doubt that Khadr is extremely unlucky to be born into a family such as his. How do we determine how much, if any, slack to afford him, though? Do you think Khadr has renounced his actions or the ideology he was brought up with? Hardly. There's also something to be said for balancing society's need for protection with an individual's need for compassion. Assume that a person is made into a monster largely as the result of circumstances beyond his or her control. Let's assume that his or her family and overall upbringing shaped him or her into a monster beyond a reasonable hope or rehabilitation. Does the need for compassion override society's need to protect itself from such a monster? In all seriousness, I believe wholeheartedly that society needs to be protected from animals like Omar Khadr. It's most likely too late for him. He may have become a different person under different circumstances, but he is what he is and he needs to be dealt with. Would you let your children spend time with him? Would you want to work with him? Let's be serious for a moment and not philosophical, naive, or idealistic. Lastly, of course I will concede that I do not know Omar Khadr personally. Canadian officials did describe him as "salvageable" and "a good kid". Still, I think society needs much more than those statements as assurances that he should be afforded any slack at all. IMO, the onus is on the bleeding hearts to prove that any slack afforded to him isn't irresponsibly putting the rest of us at risk. Quote
waldo Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 Hey there waldo, As I stated earlier, the best support one may have regarding his or her opinion that Khadr was indeed tortured is the Obama administration's decision to cease the enhanced interrogation techniques authorized during the Bush Administration - which included the specific sleep deprivation techniques used on Khadr. whether accepting to your earlier statement, or not... a common tie between this, your latest post, and the Federal Court (FC) ruling... is the sleep deprivation reference. Are you offering this as a qualification for an inherent FC torture implication, and subsequent higher court reaffirmations of same? Federal Court - 2009 FC 405 The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects. Quote
Gabriel Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 whether accepting to your earlier statement, or not... a common tie between this, your latest post, and the Federal Court (FC) ruling... is the sleep deprivation reference. Are you offering this as a qualification for an inherent FC torture implication, and subsequent higher court reaffirmations of same? Just because the FC mentioned sleep deprivation doesn't mean they qualify it as torture or abuse. I found that portion of the ruling unclear. Perhaps it was inappropriate to use sleep deprivation based on Khadr's age? Perhaps the FC was suggesting the sleep deprivation constitutes mistreatment/abuse/torture. I, and many others, reject that idea if that's what's being suggested by the FC and SCOC. Bear in mind that the reports on Omar's condition, as well as the video, do not indicate any signs of abuse. CSIS officials reported that Omar was fully cognisant of what was going on and didn't display any signs of extreme fatigue that would be compatible with suggestions that he was subjected to torture via sleep deprivation. What's your opinion - do you believe that being put on the "frequent flyer program" constitutes torture? Remember that the program means that he is never permitted to have more than three hours of uninterrupted sleep by being moved from location to location (cell to cell). I'm certain he still clocked in at least six hours of sleep or more per day. This went on for a few weeks. Are you such a wimp that you would describe that as torture? Quote
eyeball Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 Lastly, of course I will concede that I do not know Omar Khadr personally. You seem to know him well enough to conclude he's an animal and monster. It doesn't look like you're really willing to concede anything. the onus is on the bleeding hearts to prove that any slack afforded to him isn't irresponsibly putting the rest of us at risk. No, that onus should be on the law and his team of doctors and psychologists. The onus on me is to shine a light on the shameful inactions of our government regarding Khadr's ongoing maltreatment at the hands of people with unchecked power and authority over him. This appears it's all he's ever known in life and that's simply criminal in my view. Thankfully SCC seems to agree. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Army Guy Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 The SCC certainly didn't use torture as a reason that Khadr's rights were infringed. But they certainly do see sleep deprivation as abusive. And both torture and abuse are against the norms of fundemental justice. Well if they do then why not mention it in thier findings....maybe they did and i missed it... I think the reason it's forgotten is that there is not enough proof to say for sure, without a doubt....so they concentrated on other violations of his rights... And should these violations be considered serious...if they are why are the CSIS agents who breached these rights been dealt with...why is there no Board of inquiry to ensure they don't happen again.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Gabriel Posted February 4, 2010 Report Posted February 4, 2010 You seem to know him well enough to conclude he's an animal and monster. It doesn't look like you're really willing to concede anything. No, that onus should be on the law and his team of doctors and psychologists. The onus on me is to shine a light on the shameful inactions of our government regarding Khadr's ongoing maltreatment at the hands of people with unchecked power and authority over him. This appears it's all he's ever known in life and that's simply criminal in my view. Thankfully SCC seems to agree. You're greatly overstating the SCOC's "agreement" with you. We've already covered that the SCOC's decision is primarily concerned with Khadr's lack of having access to a lawyer when questioned by Canadian officials as well as his status as a minor during the time of his capture. I'm not seeing any language in the court decisions regarding his unfortunate family upbringing. Why is it you always avoid pertinent points or questions in my posts? Don't bother answering... I know why. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.