Canadian Government Guilty of Violating Khadr's Rights

[bush_cheney2004]

What about this guy, Ronald Smith. Not saying I think he's innocent or whatever, but I heard he was not getting the usual support from our government to intervene when there is a death penalty. it appears that if the US wants to kill a Canadian citizen, then it's ok. Because they are a "democracy". This comment came directly from Peter Mackay, I think.

Of course it's OK....what's wrong with executing a convicted Canadian murderer? This was a (gulp) "hate crime"....doesn't Canada get really excited and kill others for hate crimes (e.g. Kosovo)...without even a trial?

[Sir Bandelot]

doesn't Canada get really excited and kill others for hate crimes (e.g. Kosovo)...without even a trial?

:angry: Ya big meanie

[Guest TrueMetis]

it's gruesome but beheading is very humane...beheading results in instantaneous unconsciousness, it's like flicking off a light switch...

Unless it is botched... Hope they keep their axes sharp and can aim.

[eyeball]

Unless it is botched... Hope they keep their axes sharp and can aim.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that Saudi Arabian red-necks pray for the opposite.

People who cheer at the thought of a pedophile being thrown into a general prison population also come to mind.

[wyly]

Unless it is botched... Hope they keep their axes sharp and can aim.

I've seen Saudi executions online, it's done by sword it's incredibly quick, like slicing paper with a razor...

[Guest TrueMetis]

I've seen Saudi executions online, it's done by sword it's incredibly quick, like slicing paper with a razor...

I would ask for a link to verify, but this is not the type of thing I want to see so I'll take you on you word in this case.

[noahbody]

No, I simply don't think he deserves to be punished for his parent's having forced him into their conflict with the west.

Would your view change if he was on the battlefield at his own request?

[eyeball]

Would your view change if he was on the battlefield at his own request?

If he was an adult when he requested it, yes.

[ironstone]

I think this whole Omar Khadr thing is more about the usual suspects on the left using this as another opportunity to attack the Harper government than Khadr's "rights".

Where the hell were you guys when Maher Arar ended up in Syria where he claims he was tortured?Were you silent back then because this happened under a Liberal government?Were you satisfied with Harper giving him millions in compensation?

[eyeball]

I think this whole Omar Khadr thing is more about the usual suspects on the left using this as another opportunity to attack the Harper government than Khadr's "rights".

Where the hell were you guys when Maher Arar ended up in Syria where he claims he was tortured?Were you silent back then because this happened under a Liberal government?Were you satisfied with Harper giving him millions in compensation?

I was probably beaking off in another forum at the time myself, but I was certainly satisfied that the government compensated Arar.

This 'suspect' certainly doesn't see any difference worth noticing between the Liberals or Conservatives so far as our country wading into this quagmire goes or how our involvement has been managed since we did.

[Guest American Woman]

I was probably beaking off in another forum at the time myself, but I was certainly satisfied that the government compensated Arar.

Arar was found innocent of any wrong doing; from what I've read, his being on the list that led to his deportation was evidently the fault of the RCMP. With Omar, his innocence remains to be seen, while the person who's fault it was that he was in Afghanistan in a gunfight at age 15 goes without charge. Perhaps instead of holding his mother responsible, she should be given money, too, to compensate for her 'mother's grief' over her son's actions. I'm sure that must be worth millions.

[eyeball]

Arar was found innocent of any wrong doing; from what I've read, his being on the list that led to his deportation was evidently the fault of the RCMP. With Omar, his innocence remains to be seen, while the person who's fault it was that he was in Afghanistan in a gunfight at age 15 goes without charge. Perhaps instead of holding his mother responsible, she should be given money, too, to compensate for her 'mother's grief' over her son's actions. I'm sure that must be worth millions.

The government should definitely be holding the parents responsible. Failing that society has a duty to inform children when and why it is wrong to always obey everything their parents tell them. I realize how controversial and incendiary a requirement like this will be to certain adults - but society's duty to protect it's children's rights trump the parent's hands down. If society cannot or will not then it is unconscionable to expect that kids in Khadr's situation should bear the consequences for their deliberately deluded upbringing.

[Guest American Woman]

The government should definitely be holding the parents responsible.

Absolutely.

Failing that society has a duty to inform children when and why it is wrong to always obey everything their parents tell them. I realize how controversial and incendiary a requirement like this will be to certain adults - but society's duty to protect it's children's rights trump the parent's hands down.

There shouldn't be any "failing that" to deal with. Society can teach children that it's wrong to listen to your parents and become a child soldier/suicide bomber, but I doubt it would have much effect since a 15 year old doesn't make the choice of whether to go to Afghanistan with his parents or stay home.

If society cannot or will not then it is unconscionable to expect that kids in Khadr's situation should bear the consequences for their deliberately deluded upbringing.

I think it's unconscionable not to hold a fifteen year old accountable for murder because of his deluded upbringing (if found guilty), but it seems to me as if you don't think Omar should even be brought to trial.

While I have sympathy for him, I don't think others have to be put at risk because he was abused. Also, since one's upbringing often has lasting effects on people, I find it rather odd that you would think an 18 year old who chose to be in that position due to his deluded upbringing should be held accountable, as if at 18 he suddenly has the insight and knowledge to overcome his upbringing, that he didn't possess (according to you) at 15/almost 16. Khadr was less than two month away from his 16th birthday when captured; do you really think just over 2 years makes that much of a difference?

[eyeball]

I think it's unconscionable not to hold a fifteen year old accountable for murder because of his deluded upbringing (if found guilty), but it seems to me as if you don't think Omar should even be brought to trial.

I have doubts about whether he should have even been charged, but given that he was he should have been given a trial immediately. The fact he hasn't and has had to endure widespread public slandering for almost a decade now in the absence of any trial whatsoever clearly changes things for me. Now I can't help but regard him as a victim of circumstances completely out of his control anything less would be unconscionable of me.

While I have sympathy for him, I don't think others have to be put at risk because he was abused.

I'm afraid I just can't believe you when you say you have sympathy for him given what you keep saying about holding him accountable for murder. Murder is term normally reserved for people who kill with an intent born of a sound healthy informed mind. I fail to see how that context could apply to Khadr given the young age at which he was deliberately led astray, which was well before he was 15, and it's this one simple fact that makes all the difference in my mind.

Yes, he should have to answer to the charges against him, I am confident however that he can account for his actions by pointing to the fact he was a kid and his upbringing from early childhood left him bereft of the ability to distinguish right from wrong at the time he's alleged to have committed them.

For what it's worth I don't think other's should be put at risk by simply releasing Khadr untreated into society but I see no reason to hold him if his doctors give him a clean bill of health. He's a victim and a patient, not a perpetrator and a criminal.

Also, since one's upbringing often has lasting effects on people, I find it rather odd that you would think an 18 year old who chose to be in that position due to his deluded upbringing should be held accountable, as if at 18 he suddenly has the insight and knowledge to overcome his upbringing, that he didn't possess (according to you) at 15/almost 16. Khadr was less than two month away from his 16th birthday when captured; do you really think just over 2 years makes that much of a difference?

It stands to reason there is a point at which a person should be able to look around at the world they're in and perceive that their actions and beliefs are contrary to what most other people think is normal i.e. if they're right or wrong. I just happen to believe that experts in psychology and the law are who should be deciding on these sorts of questions on a case by case basis, not politicians. I also think the law supports my belief.

[Guest American Woman]

I have doubts about whether he should have even been charged, but given that he was he should have been given a trial immediately.

Something I've repeatedly agreed with.

The fact he hasn't and has had to endure widespread public slandering for almost a decade now in the absence of any trial whatsoever clearly changes things for me. Now I can't help but regard him as a victim of circumstances completely out of his control anything less would be unconscionable of me.

The fact that he hasn't had a trial doesn't change whether he is guilty as charged or not; nothing changes for the victim or regarding whether others are at risk or not.

I'm afraid I just can't believe you when you say you have sympathy for him given what you keep saying about holding him accountable for murder.

And I'm afraid you have a very closed mind. If it's not something you feel/agree with, it can't be true, eh? Don't believe me if it makes you feel better somehow, and I suspect it does.

Murder is term normally reserved for people who kill with an intent born of a sound healthy informed mind.

So you think Manson had a "healthy and informed mind?" If one is declared 'criminally insane,' that's one thing, but to say murder is reserved for people with a "healthy mind" is way off base. Plenty of people who have been abused are now in prison for crimes they committed, including murder. They aren't excused from responsibility because their upbringing was abusive and their minds didn't suddenly become "healthy and informed" on their 18th birthday.

I fail to see how that context could apply to Khadr given the young age at which he was deliberately led astray, which was well before he was 15, and it's this one simple fact that makes all the difference in my mind.

It makes a difference because you said you would feel differently had he been 18.

Yes, he should have to answer to the charges against him, I am confident however that he can account for his actions by pointing to the fact he was a kid and his upbringing from early childhood left him bereft of the ability to distinguish right from wrong at the time he's alleged to have committed them.

But at 18, of course, all that would have changed. Just two years later, and his upbringing would have no longer had any bearing on his "mind" or actions. He would have suddenly known right from wrong.

For what it's worth I don't think other's should be put at risk by simply releasing Khadr untreated into society but I see no reason to hold him if his doctors give him a clean bill of health. He's a victim and a patient, not a perpetrator and a criminal.

It seems to me I could say I'm afraid I just can't believe you when you say you don't think others should be put at risk by simply releasing Khadr, but I won't.

How do you know he's not a "perpetrator and a criminal?" And pardon me if I would question any doctor who gave him a "clean bill of health," as I don't see someone magically overcoming their upbringing/beliefs when they've had such a major influence over them.

It stands to reason there is a point at which a person should be able to look around at the world they're in and perceive that their actions and beliefs are contrary to what most other people think is normal i.e. if they're right or wrong.

And you think that point in life is the same for everyone? I'm betting most 15 year olds would know that it's not "right" to take someone's life and/or engage in terrorist activity.

I just happen to believe that experts in psychology and the law are who should be deciding on these sorts of questions on a case by case basis, not politicians. I also think the law supports my belief.

Yet there are those who believe the brain isn't completely 'cooked' until 25.

A National Institutes of Health study suggests that the region of the brain that inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until age 25.....

"We'd thought the highest levels of physical and brain maturity were reached by age 18, maybe earlier -- so this threw us," said Jay Giedd, a pediatric psychiatrist leading the study, which released its first results in April. link

As for what the law says, U.S. law says a child soldier is under the age of 15, but I find it odd as in out of character that you would be ok with something just because "it's the law."

[ironstone]

I just can't find it within myself to feel one iota of sympathy for Omar Khadr or his family because of what they believe in.They and their kind would love nothing better than to see this once great nation crumble into oblivion.They hate people like me and they especially hate the people in Canada who defend and enable them,who are seen as being weak.Perhaps the the worst part is,their numbers in Canada are increasing with each passing day.Did you ever ask yourself how people like that,living among us,come to the point where they are completely filled with hatred for our way of life?You think they give a rats ass about your politically correct ideology?

[eyeball]

So you think Manson had a "healthy and informed mind?"

I think Godwin's Law on Hitler should encompass the inevitable use of ridiculous comparisons to all famous bogymen.

And I'm supposed to believe you have sympathy for Omar Khadr when you dredge up Charles Manson's ghost to make your point about how Khadr should be treated? How on Earth am I supposed to do that?

There is nothing in the least to suggest Omar Khadr is a serial-killing indoctrinator.

A National Institutes of Health study suggests that the region of the brain that inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until age 25.....

"We'd thought the highest levels of physical and brain maturity were reached by age 18, maybe earlier -- so this threw us," said Jay Giedd, a pediatric psychiatrist leading the study, which released its first results in April.

It's not throwing you though is it? You still give every appearance of being someone who insists that kid's be subjected to the same sort of punishing consequences an adult is for no apparent reason other than... that's what your justice system has always done or some other similarly unfounded reason.

Sorry for saying so but you still sound a little unconscionable in the face of your own conscionable evidence on brain immaturity to me. Did you miss the link True Metis provided on brain development? Apparently he's questioning his position as a result of looking up some expert opinions on the subject.

http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/juvenile-justice/factsheets/braindev.pdf

In the light of these experts findings even Manson deserves some sympathy. That said...

Children as young as 13 can be sentenced to life

imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Worldwide, there are only 13 individuals sentenced

to life for crimes committed as a juveniles. In the

United States alone, there are 2,200.

It's unconscionable I tell you.

[Guest American Woman]

I think Godwin's Law on Hitler should encompass the inevitable use of ridiculous comparisons to all famous bogymen.

Interesting that you refer to Manson as a bogyman, when what he is is a murderer. Let me remind you what you said: Murder is term normally reserved for people who kill with an intent born of a sound healthy informed mind.

So I asked you, do you think Manson had a healthy, informed mind? From your non-answer, jumping on me instead of responding to what you yourself said earlier, I know what your answer would be.

Here's the thing. I could ask you about any number of murderers, and if you think they had a "healthy mind," if you think "murder" and "healthy mind" go together, I have to wonder where you are coming from. One would normally assume that a murderer, by his/her very act, doesn't have a "healthy mind." THAT was my point, but I see you chose to ignore it and make it about "bogymen."

There is nothing in the least to suggest Omar Khadr is a serial-killing indoctrinator.

And I never said there was. Try following along instead of going off on some tangent.

And I'm supposed to believe you have sympathy for Omar Khadr when you dredge up Charles Manson's ghost to make your point about how Khadr should be treated? How on Earth am I supposed to do that?

I hope to God you're not that incapable of understanding what I really said, because I did nothing of the sort. CLEARLY I brought up Manson to show that "murder" and "healthy mind" don't go together, as you stated. It had nothing to do with "treatment," but everything to do with your statement, which is what I was responding to.

Bottom line. I don't "expect" anything from you. Why would I care about whether you believe I have sympathy for the way Omar was raised or not? You haven't exactly proven yourself as capable of believing anything beyond your take on things. I make statements based on what I think/believe, same as you do, but if you think you know more about what I think/feel than I do, go for it.

It's not throwing you though is it? You still give every appearance of being someone who insists that kid's be subjected to the same sort of punishing consequences an adult is for no apparent reason other than... that's what your justice system has always done or some other similarly unfounded reason.

If I give every appearance of someone who insists that he should be held accountable for no apparent reason other than that's what my justice system has always done, I have to conclude that you don't read my posts. Or you're totally incapable of comprehending them. Or you're choosing not to listen to what I'm actually saying. Nice attempt to make it about me, though. Guess that means you can't refute what I said.

Sorry for saying so but you still sound a little unconscionable in the face of your own conscionable evidence on brain immaturity to me. Did you miss the link True Metis provided on brain development? Apparently he's questioning his position as a result of looking up some expert opinions on the subject.

Good for True Metis. I showed you that a recent report shows the brain isn't fully developed until age 25, and it wasn't by non-experts in the field. Yet you think at age 18, just a little over two years down the road, Omar would have suddenly been responsible. He would have either suddenly seen the light or suddenly been totally responsible for his actions in spite of the way he was raised. And evidently that's fine, because that's what you believe. Evidently everyone has to be judged according to your beliefs.

It's unconscionable I tell you.

Something's unconscionable, alright. It's just not always what you think it is.

Edited February 13, 2010 by American Woman

[noahbody]

The government should definitely be holding the parents responsible. Failing that society has a duty to inform children when and why it is wrong to always obey everything their parents tell them. I realize how controversial and incendiary a requirement like this will be to certain adults - but society's duty to protect it's children's rights trump the parent's hands down. If society cannot or will not then it is unconscionable to expect that kids in Khadr's situation should bear the consequences for their deliberately deluded upbringing.

The problem with your position is that there are many societies, not a single society of the world. The Khadrs weren't members of Canadian Society. They lived in very different society.

[wyly]

While I have sympathy for him, I don't think others have to be put at risk because he was abused. Also, since one's upbringing often has lasting effects on people, I find it rather odd that you would think an 18 year old who chose to be in that position due to his deluded upbringing should be held accountable, as if at 18 he suddenly has the insight and knowledge to overcome his upbringing, that he didn't possess (according to you) at 15/almost 16.

18 is legal minimum for being an adult and making adult decisions and being held responsible for those decisions...many 18 year olds aren't even capable at that age but that's where choose to make the cut off...

Khadr was less than two month away from his 16th birthday when captured; do you really think just over 2 years makes that much of a difference?

a world of difference you're challenging established science here...

I spent 25 years working with kids 1 year of development is huge physically and mentally any psychologist will confirm the same this is also why up to the age of 18 they are treated by pediatricians, there entire hospitals dedicated to treating kids even their bodies get sick differently than adults...there specific methods used to teach kids at different ages because they perceive and understand the world differently as they age, a 15yr old is not an adult...

[eyeball]

Yet you think at age 18, just a little over two years down the road, Omar would have suddenly been responsible.

I did not specify any such age. You're the one who said I did.

Please follow your own advice.

Try following along instead of going off on some tangent.

[eyeball]

The problem with your position is that there are many societies, not a single society of the world. The Khadrs weren't members of Canadian Society. They lived in very different society.

Nonetheless Omar Khadr is a citizen of Canada. There is no law, policy or regulation that says otherwise.

As his rights go so go our society's.

Edited February 14, 2010 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Evidently everyone has to be judged according to your beliefs.

No, I'm simply saying Omar Khadr should be judged according to the law and I'd rather he be judged by our justice system. Evidently your justice system routinely throws kids as young as 13 into prison for life without parole and just as evidently my government is fine with that. That's why I keep saying as go Khadr's right's so go our country's.

Omar Khadr really is emblematic of Canada, like him our country has been dragged into a conflict that was not of our making and beyond our control. We have been led astray and off course and our moral compass is so far out of whack, we may not find our way back. The difference is that we have no excuse for not knowing better, for knowingly chosen the course we're on.

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman, on 13 February 2010 - 02:14 PM, said: Yet you think at age 18, just a little over two years down the road, Omar would have suddenly been responsible.

I did not specify any such age. You're the one who said I did.

Riiiight. You just keep referring to Child Soldiers and international law, which states a child soldier is under the age of 18, and you had this to say:

noahbody, on 12 February 2010 - 03:56 PM, said: Would your view change if he was on the battlefield at his own request?

If he was an adult when he requested it, yes.

But of course you didn't specifically SAY "18," so go ahead and play your game.....

Then there's this, too:

ToadBrother, on 05 February 2010 - 05:19 PM, said: I'm sure that would apply to a fairly good chunk of all the criminals out there. That they were poisoned by their parents does not mitigate guilt.

Maybe not when they commit crimes as an adult, but there's the rub...

The new 18 is now...whatever works.

Seems pretty clear that you're equating 18 with being an adult.

Edited February 14, 2010 by American Woman

[eyeball]

But of course you didn't specifically SAY "18," so go ahead and play your game...

If you'd been paying attention you'd noticed I've given up citing the Geneva Convention's definition of Child Soldier, the proper term should be Conflict Child. The expert evidence as provided by you and others who have argued against Khadr clearly indicates that the definition of what an adult is needs to be upgraded, perhaps up as far as 25 years of age. In this light and given his own twisted upbringing even Charlie Manson deserves our sympathy.

I am constantly struck by how deeply and fundamentally Omar Khadr challenges so many of our individual, national and international assumptions on so many levels.

I really don't mean to sound trite when I ask this but can anyone seriously imagine Jesus saying, "screw the little prick"? I sure can't and I'm an atheist. We'd probably be better off asking the Dalia Lama what to do, apparently he knows of people who, as kids, were forced at gunpoint to kill their parents, forced by people who probably believed they were being just and acting within the law. People we're allied with now in the War of Terror.

It's enough to make me scream sometimes.