Canadian Government Guilty of Violating Khadr's Rights

[msdogfood]

OH YES IT CAN SEE JANIVA CONVENON!!!!.

so sorry qotit the woring post

I agee with you!

[capricorn]

"With his lips quivering and voice breaking, a tearful President Hamid Karzai on Sunday lamented that Afghan children are being killed by NATO and US bombs and by terrorists from Pakistan - a portrait of helplessness in the face of spiraling chaos.

In a heartfelt speech that brought audience members to tears, Karzai said the cruelty imposed on his people "is too much" and that Afghanistan cannot stop "the coalition from killing our children."

As though we haven't also done exactly that, eh?

30 years of war, and no end in sight for the people of Afghanistan.

Karzai is doing his own bit to win the hearts and minds of those against the presence of the coalition, both inside the Taleban and among the population. He must be very frustrated at having the coalition breathing down his neck as he tries to push forward his legislative changes and the selection of his ministers.

Responding to criticism from around the world, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Saturday that a new law that critics say makes it legal for men to rape their wives will be studied and possibly sent back to parliament for review.

---

The United States has urged Karzai to review the law, and Karzai said he has spoken with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton about it. Canadian officials have also criticized the legislation.

---

Still, he said the law should be reviewed in consultation with scholars and religious leaders. "I ordered the justice minister to review the law, and if there is anything that would contravene the country's constitution or Shariah law or the freedom our constitution gives to Afghan women, without any doubt there will be changes in it, and again it will be sent to the parliament of Afghanistan," he said. "Measures will be taken." The issue of women's rights is a source of tension between the country's conservative establishment and more liberal members of society. The Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 banned women from appearing in public without a body-covering burqa and a male escort from her family.

http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=1&id=16285

The Afghan parliament delivered another rebuke to President Hamid Karzai on Saturday when it rejected 10 of 17 ministers he proposed on his second try at forming a government -- the latest sign that his fraud-tainted election victory weakened his leadership.

http://www.startribune.com/world/81894247.html

Karzai is just another politician looking to stay in power and it's no secret politicians everywhere are opportunistic. It looks to me he wants the coalition out so he can govern with a free hand. This includes getting rid of the bloc of Ministers that opposes him in the Afghan Parliament and recruiting supporters. Once that's done he can press on with the legislative agenda of his choosing.

The Afghan population is faced with two prospective outcomes. One is the continued presence of a fighting force on their soil which has made mistakes resulting in civilian casualties. But that presence in itself provides a check on Karzai. The other is a withdrawal of the coalition fighting force, accompanied by a budding government which would surely include Taleban representatives and a Karzai agenda. This second scenario comes with unknown consequences to the personal safety and liberties of mainstream Afghans.

I'm not saying Karzai doesn't want the best for his people. He wants it the way he sees it and that's primarily with him in control.

[bush_cheney2004]

Even you can do better than that. One does not excuse the other, or justify it.

But they exist on the same continuum, so don't expect much sympathy for Kid Khadr. Another member conveniently reminded me of this fact.

[eyeball]

Excuse me for believing in the rule of law when dealing with alleged criminals. The dots and the i's are called due process. And it is not about middle, or left, or right of anything. It's about doing things the way they should be done. If you mistake that for a belief that the U.S. Government can do whatever it want, your reading skills are even worse than my writing skills.

Which includes still doing what's right or moral when the letter of law is unable to don't you think?

So what do you think about inserting the term conflict child into the GC to account for kids being caught up in wars that don't involve conventional armies and soldiers?

[bush_cheney2004]

Karzai is just another politician looking to stay in power and it's no secret politicians everywhere are opportunistic. It looks to me he wants the coalition out so he can govern with a free hand. This includes getting rid of the bloc of Ministers that opposes him in the Afghan Parliament and recruiting supporters. Once that's done he can press on with the legislative agenda of his choosing.

Nothing wrong with that....could just as well be PM Harper or Ignatieff.

[CANADIEN]

But they exist on the same continuum, so don't expect much sympathy for Kid Khadr. Another member conveniently reminded me of this fact.

It is not about sympathy, it is about right and wrong. Something you never care about.

[capricorn]

I honestly don't trust the man, and doubt whether what he says is true.

I don't believe him either. Karzai is for Karzai.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is not about sympathy, it is about right and wrong. Something you never care about.

Right and wrong is your personal (and fickle) hangup.....not mine. Khadr put his own tits in the wringer.

[msdogfood]

That isn't what I read. I don't think you even know.

They said that having a Canadian government person at Khadr's interrogation at Gitmo violated some right or another. I don't quite get it, and that's half of the reason I was asking. The other half was that it seems nobody else knows, either.

What can these judges have the PM do, in future? Chastise the official? Perhaps he could whistle the President of the USA in, to explain why Gitmo's now going to be the site of the NY Terrorist trial, and the implications for human rights ...

This ruling seems to me to be a lot of hot air expended over an order that's essentially empty.

if the PMO falls to comply with the charter any court can provide a remedy to fix it!! in Canada

[bush_cheney2004]

if the PMO falls to comply with the charter any court can provide a remedy to fix it!! in Canada

How would the PMO comply? By saying "pretty please" to the Americans?

[eyeball]

But they exist on the same continuum, so don't expect much sympathy for Kid Khadr. Another member conveniently reminded me of this fact.

True, both Danial Pearl and Omar Khadr were under the control of people that nobody had any control over.

Edited January 31, 2010 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Right and wrong is your personal (and fickle) hangup.....not mine. Khadr put his own tits in the wringer.

No, his parents did.

[bush_cheney2004]

True, both Danial Pearl and Omar Khadr were under the control of people that nobody had any control over.

...but Pearl isn't alleged to have killed anybody. He is a much more credible "victim".

[bush_cheney2004]

No, his parents did.

But his parents have Charter rights too.....LOL!

[eyeball]

...but Pearl isn't alleged to have killed anybody. He is a much more credible "victim".

Khadr was a kid thusly every bit as credible a victim.

Edited January 31, 2010 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

Khadr was a kid thusly every bit as credible a victim.

Not at 'Gitmo....where it counts. Don't worry, I'm sure we can find more "victims" in Toronto.

[CANADIEN]

So what do you think about inserting the term conflict child into the GC to account for kids being caught up in wars that don't involve conventional armies and soldiers?

Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention a;ready prohibit the use of child-soldiers. This needs to be expended to prohibit the sentencing of children who committed crimes in time of war while under duress.

It should NOT prohibit the prosecution of children who wilfully participate in armed conflict and commit a crime while doing so. A fifteen year old boy who enrols in a street gang and commits a crime is not shieldest from responsibility for his actions. Should not be different just because the crime is committed in a combat zone.

Now, Khadr's lawyers are of course welcome to argue he was under some kind of duress, or that he was abused into becoming a child-soldier. Good for him if it works, but I don't see why it should work better than the pleas of a 15 year old street thug who blames his parents or his surroundings for his crimes.

Then of course, is the fact that Khadr's sentence, if he is found guilty through a fair trial, should take into account his age as well as his crimes.

[CANADIEN]

Right and wrong is your personal (and fickle) hangup.....not mine.

Your failure as a human being, not mine.

[bush_cheney2004]

Your failure as a human being, not mine.

Is Khadr a failure as a human being as well? Have you passed judgement on him too? Thanks for the SMUG alert!

[bloodyminded]

Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention a;ready prohibit the use of child-soldiers. This needs to be expended to prohibit the sentencing of children who committed crimes in time of war while under duress.

It should NOT prohibit the prosecution of children who wilfully participate in armed conflict and commit a crime while doing so. A fifteen year old boy who enrols in a street gang and commits a crime is not shieldest from responsibility for his actions. Should not be different just because the crime is committed in a combat zone.

I'd like to get my hands on whatever right-wing fucker first introduced this fallacious "street gang" analogy into this debate. People keep repeating it word-for-word, so we can be sure it has its genesis somewhere.

But it IS a false analogy. If the 15 year-old had been indoctrinated into the gang because of his parents' radical religious beliefs...then the analogy would be slightly better.

And a court would generally take this parental indoctrination into account. As they should.

Also, street crime and warfare are two very different things. We give our own troops a lot of benefit of the doubt, when they accidentally bomb wedding parties and so on. The same leeway does not apply on the domestic front.

At any rate, I continue to be amazed that 15 year old is expected to hold the same responsibility as an adult.

This is quite a serious regression in political culture. Hell, let's bring back child executions and chimnney-sweeps.

Now, Khadr's lawyers are of course welcome to argue he was under some kind of duress, or that he was abused into becoming a child-soldier. Good for him if it works, but I don't see why it should work better than the pleas of a 15 year old street thug who blames his parents or his surroundings for his crimes.

We're not going by Khadr's unsubstantiated claims. Even the hang-Khadr-high brigade freely ADMITS that he was indoctrinated by his parents. As do his parents themselves. It's a done deal, a finished argument.

Then of course, is the fact that Khadr's sentence, if he is found guilty through a fair trial, should take into account his age as well as his crimes.

At least you are willing to understand this elementary precept of contemporary justice. Others here are openly hostile to the idea.

[CANADIEN]

Is Khadr a failure as a human being as well? Have you passed judgement on him too? Thanks for the SMUG alert!

Not smug, merely stating a fact.

And yep, a terrorist is pretty much a failure as a hyman being too.

[bush_cheney2004]

....We're not going by Khadr's unsubstantiated claims. Even the hang-Khadr-high brigade freely ADMITS that he was indoctrinated by his parents. As do his parents themselves. It's a done deal, a finished argument.

Yet Khadr's parents have Charter Rights and Freedoms to do so....no?

[bush_cheney2004]

Not smug, merely stating a fact.

That's what they all say. Your opinion isn't any better than mine.

And yep, a terrorist is pretty much a failure as a hyman being too.

So now you have convicted Khadr without a trial? Very inconsistent.....

[CANADIEN]

But it IS a false analogy. If the 15 year-old had been indoctrinated into the gang because of his parents' radical religious beliefs...then the analogy would be slightly better.

We are all indoctrinated in a world-view system or another. Some by school, some by parents, some by peers.

Also, street crime and warfare are two very different things. We give our own troops a lot of benefit of the doubt, when they accidentally bomb wedding parties and so on. The same leeway does not apply on the domestic front.

The leeway does not extend to murder.

[wuote]At any rate, I continue to be amazed that 15 year old is expected to hold the same responsibility as an adult.

This is quite a serious regression in political culture. Hell, let's bring back child executions and chimnney-sweeps.

Not over-dramatizing a bit here? A child of 15 years does not, and cannot, be ehld to the same degree of responsibility as an adult. Nor can he be subjected to an adult sentence. Which is way I am weary of children being tried as adults. But a lesser degree of responsibility does not equate no responsibility at all.

We're not going by Khadr's unsubstantiated claims. Even the hang-Khadr-high brigade freely ADMITS that he was indoctrinated by his parents. As do his parents themselves. It's a done deal, a finished argument.

Then, his lawyers are welcome to argue he was indoctrinated to such an extent he did not have the same capacity to distinguish right from wrong that other 15 year old have.

[CANADIEN]

That's what they all say. Your opinion isn't any better than mine.

Not worth commenting

So now you have convicted Khadr without a trial? Very inconsistent.....

Coming from someone who do not care about trials, I find it very laughable. And BTW, I haven't hidden the fact I believe Khadr to be guilty of the crimes he committed. If he is found not guilty by a real court of law, then I will stand corrected on that account

Edited January 31, 2010 by CANADIEN