Canadian Government Guilty of Violating Khadr's Rights

[bush_cheney2004]

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

You can't have it both ways, even while smugly insisting that you can. Keep your morals to yourself....other people have rights too. LOL!

[CANADIEN]

You can't have it both ways, even while smugly insisting that you can. Keep your morals to yourself....other people have rights too. LOL!

Something useful to contribute, besides the US Government can do whatever it wants because it's the US Government and being offended when people point out how empty that is?

BTW, don't worry. unlike the Bush administration, I have no problem with the notion of rights.

[bush_cheney2004]

Something useful to contribute, besides the US Government can do whatever it wants because it's the US Government and being offended when people point out how empty that is?

The US government kept Khadr alive for intel purposes, not really giving a damn about your opinion.

BTW, don't worry. unlike the Bush administration, I have no problem with the notion of rights.

It's American administrations...as in plural...Khadr is still at 'Gitmo. You can save that smug, two-faced distinction for your next election cycle.

[bloodyminded]

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.

Yes, they can and are sometimes held to the same degree of responsibility. This is what I'm arguing...and far as I can see, you're roughly in agreement with me at least on that point.

Nor can he be subjected to an adult sentence.

Yes...he can. He wouldn't be the first 15 year-old to be treated that way, either, not by a long shot.

Which is way I am weary of children being tried as adults.

??? I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm honestly confused. How can you be weary of something that you just claimed cannot and does not occur?

Edited January 31, 2010 by bloodyminded

[capricorn]

Khadr was simply a Canadian kid under his parent's twisted care and for some reason their crimes are his fault. That's what's really ridiculous.

Is this your idea of a Canadian kid?

September 1986: Omar Khadr is born in Scarborough, Ont. Later that year, Khadr moves to Pakistan with his family.

1996: The Khadr family briefly returns to Canada before moving to Jalalabad, Afghanistan and living in Osama bin Laden’s compound. There, Khadr attends weapons training camps affiliated with the Taliban and bin Laden. The family makes annual trips to Canada to raise money and collect supplies, some of which end up at training camps.

1999: Khadr moves to Kabul, Afghanistan, with his family.

November 2001: After the Taliban is chased out of Kabul, Khadr flees to his father’s orphanage in Logar, Afghanistan.

June 2002: Khadr is now 14, and has been training on AK-47s, Soviet PKs and rocket-propelled grenades. He works as a translator for al-Qaeda and conducts a surveillance mission, spying on U.S. military convoys at an airbase in Khost, Afghanistan.

http://news.globaltv.com/story.html?id=1527151

Because his father, Ahmed Said Khadr, had raised his family in Peshawar, Pakistan since 1985,[25][26] Omar spent his childhood moving back and forth between Canada and Pakistan. His mother also wished to raise her family outside of Canada due to her animus for western social influences. Khadr was enrolled in a madrassah in Peshawar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr#Early_life

That's hardly a Canadian kid in my books.

[CANADIEN]

The US government kept Khadr alive for intel purposes, not really giving a damn about your opinion.

It's American administrations...as in plural...Khadr is still at 'Gitmo. You can save that smug, two-faced distinction for your next election cycle.

Thanks for confirming my point about you.

[CANADIEN]

Yes, they can and are sometimes held to the same degree of responsibility. This is what I'm arguing...and far as I can see, you're roughly in agreement with me at least on that point.

Yes...he can. He wouldn't be the first 15 year-old to be treated that way, either, not by a long shot.

??? I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm honestly confused. How can you be weary of something that you just claimed cannot and does not occur?

By can't be tried as an adult - I mean it is contrary to the fundamental principles of justice. Hope this clarifies my point.

[justme]

British common law includes due process and the rule of law. Which some of the right - including you it seems, are always very eager to set aside.

If he was accused of a crime in Canada, yes. The Toronto 18 are facing the rule of law with due process, no? Of course, whether or not the sentences are tough enough is another debate....

[capricorn]

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

Notice that I wasn't critical, just making a statement of fact.

[CANADIEN]

If he was accused of a crime in Canada, yes. The Toronto 18 are facing the rule of law with due process, no? Of course, whether or not the sentences are tough enough is another debate....

And officials of the Government of Canada are subjected to the same rule of conduct regarding tje kaw and the Constitution even when they happen to be physically in another country, wouldn't you agree?

Edited January 31, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Gabriel]

The evidence against him is circumstantial. Even the eye witness testimony has contradicted itself. There would not be grounds to lay charges in a place where the assumption of innocence existed. This is compounded by the fact that, even if he did kill the soldier in question, this is a reasonable target in a war theater.

I agree that his mother and father were responsible for placing him in that environment and that his mother should be charged with child abuse.

Where are you getting your information from? Since when was there contradictory eyewitness testimony?

Allow me to ask a broader question: do you actually believe there is a possibility that Omar Khadr ISN'T guilt of providing material support to our terrorist enemies in assisting them to harm and kill American soldiers? He's facing several charges, one of which is murder - throwing a grenade that killed an American medic. From my perspective, the list of crimes he's committed will never really be known. The five charges he is facing are only crimes that there is evidence to support. Imagine how many other crimes he committed while working with the enemy.

Please answer the question - do you actually think there is a shred of possibility that Omar Khadr is innocent of the crimes he is being charged with?

[Gabriel]

Be reminded...the two articles you quoted from are only opinion pieces. Perhaps you could advise us of what charges would or should be laid upon this lad were he sent back to Canada. Afterall, the US has all the evidence and isnt willing to honestly share it or make it public.

Lets just all sit back calmly and see if the kid gets a trial in the US for his deeds.....that is if the charges have any merit..

Since when is evidence made public before a trial, anyways? Have you even considered that perhaps there are national security matters involved in this case? It's also untrue that evidence hasn't been made public, you're free to do a Google search and learn about some of the public knowledge about the case - that he comes from a family of terrorists (that's quite a big piece of evidence!), he was captured fighting alongside the terrorists in Afghanistan (he wasn't there on a boyscout trip), he has confessed to being a terrorist, etc, etc. He wasn't just arbitrarily picked up, charged, and detained for years just for the hell of it.

[Argus]

I have to say I think your apparent middle of the road approach to this is even more pathetic than the right's. It seems that so long as all the dot's and i's were in place, you'd be okay with Khadr being treated any old way.

There are billions of people on the planet to be concerned with. I fail to see why I should be concerned with the fate of one fanatical, violent jihadist. In fact, I'd make a deal with his lawyers that he renounce his citizenship in exchange for being given asylum in Sudan or Iran or some other Islamist shithole, as long as they promise not to let him on any planes. I'd also be okay with the Americans shooting him if they find him guilty of murder. I honestly don't care what happens to him as long as he stays away.

[bloodyminded]

By can't be tried as an adult - I mean it is contrary to the fundamental principles of justice. Hope this clarifies my point.

It does. I was even starting to wonder if that is what you meant.

[CANADIEN]

Where are you getting your information from? Since when was there contradictory eyewitness testimony?

Yhere has been conflictual statements by American soldiers about the engagement during which Khadr was involved and whether or not he threw the grenade.

Allow me to ask a broader question: do you actually believe there is a possibility that Omar Khadr ISN'T guilt of providing material support to our terrorist enemies in assisting them to harm and kill American soldiers? He's facing several charges, one of which is murder - throwing a grenade that killed an American medic. From my perspective, the list of crimes he's committed will never really be known. The five charges he is facing are only crimes that there is evidence to support. Imagine how many other crimes he committed while working with the enemy.

In a court of law, the crimes he's committed but that are not presucuted for lack of evidence do not exist.

Please answer the question - do you actually think there is a shred of possibility that Omar Khadr is innocent of the crimes he is being charged with?

I think he committed the crimes he is accused of, yet it is possible he may be found not guilty. The court could be swayed by the "he was indoctrinated, hence not responsible for his actions" argument, although I find the scenaria doubtful.

In the case of the murder... my understanding is that to be guilty he most be the one who threw the grenade. I think it is most likely him who did it, I am not sure it can be proven out of any reasonable dougt.

[Argus]

You are aware this a racist post, yes?

Racism is such an elastic term that it has ceased to have meaning. Basically it's just a pejorative term the politically correct like to fling around.

Well you might want to perform the heretical feat of explaining how "the left" generally, and me in particular, have "naked sympathies for the enemy.

There are miserable prisons all over the world where people are tortured - I mean really tortured, not that girlyman sleep deprivation the Americans sometimes use. I'm talking hot irons and pokers and electric shocks and skin peeling here. And none of those on the Left give a damn about any of it. Instead, like frenzied, rapid dogs, they are fixated on the slightest sign that "the enemy" ie, the Americans, or anyone associated with them, might have in any way, shape or form, slightly mistreated an Islamist, or perhaps was rude to him, or violated some technical aspect of law. Gitmo is the most famous prison in the world, despite the fact that if you placed it alongside all the political prisons scattered through the third world it would turn out to be the mildest, cleanest, nicest prison of them all, and the one which treated prisoners with the most respect. This is the hypocrisy of the Left. It constantly pretends it cares about human and civil rights but absolutely couldn't care less - except where the Great Satan is concerned. America is the great evil to every Leftist wack job in the Western world, and none of you miss a chance to condemn it or anyone associated with it while shrugging off the most horrific human rights abuses from its enemies.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Argus

[Gabriel]

There hasn't yet been any official word on whether or not charges would be laid. We are all only speculating. That said, let's forget the fact that primary eye witness accounts fail at pretty much every stage of the event retelling (including respecting their own physical positions related to the target). What would you charge him with? This happened on a battlefield in another country. Canada hasn't yet forsaken the geneva convention, so we don't have grounds on which to lay charges. At worst, Khadr killed a soldier in a theater of war.

This was only my second post here, so I'm not sure what comparison is being made when asking me to be 'as vocal' on this point. Compared to what?

I'd still like to know where you're getting your information regarding the eyewitness testimony being contradictory. All I can find online is that Khadr's lawyers claim there are some contradictions betwen the original Pentagon story of Khadr being the last survivor of the fight and an American soldier saying otherwise. So what? You seem to be implying that this somehow absolves him of guilt. Try being honest for a moment, and ask yourself what a fifteen-year-old from a known terrorist family (which is indisputable) is doing in Afghanistan fighting with the terrorists. Like I've already said, he certainly wasn't on a nature retreat. Khadr has already admitted to being a terrorist, anyways (not that a confession is even necessary).

As far as any rational and honest individual is concerned, a young Muslim Canadian being in Afghanistan living among terrorists coming from a well-known terrorist family is obviously guilty of providing material support to our enemies.

[CANADIEN]

he comes from a family of terrorists (that's quite a big piece of evidence!)

... of nothing, really. What counts is eveidence that HE committed criminal act.

he has confessed to being a terrorist[/wuote] ... as a result of torture. The same way Maher Arar was made to confess to things he never did. The same way John McCain and other U.S prisoners in Vietnam were made to denounce their government. The same way you and I would confess to about anything in the same circumstances. Any court that accepts his "confession" as proof of guilt would commit a gross miscarriage of justice.

[Argus]

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.

The Americans screwed up badly when they let him get elected. They should have taken him out, one way or another, bribed him or shot him. Afghanistan needs a strong leader, not this simpering, powerless whiner. He can't even keep himself alive without western bodyguards because he's got no power base he can trust.

The Americans are truly too stupidly idealistic to ever really control the world. They don't have the balls to do what needs to be done because they're always cringing before world opinion - yes, even Bush. Trying to install a democracy in Afghanistan is a ludicrous waste of time. The people have little interest in one, and don't have the cultural or educational background to support one. This war drags on year after year after year because of it, when a strong-man could have ended it years ago by simply slaughtering anyone who didn't support him.

[Gabriel]

Yhere has been conflictual statements by American soldiers about the engagement during which Khadr was involved and whether or not he threw the grenade.

So what? It's a war. What do you expect? It was a fight between Americans and terrorists, of course there will be differing recollections of the details of the event when everyone's stress levels were extreme. This is basic psychology. To me it seems that the grenade charge is a token charge. Since those of us who are honest know he must be guilty of a laundry list of crimes, the only way to get justice is to charge him for his involvement in the battle at which he was captured - as there will be some evidence to support this. He has obviously assisted in the killing and harming of American and other allies' soldiers prior to these events. He was living and working with a group that ONLY does harm. Perhaps he also played a role in killing and harming civilian non-combatants, as well. He is a monster and needs to be dealt with, so given the realty that "In a court of law, the crimes he's committed but that are not prosucuted for lack of evidence do not exist" (your own words), we need to find a way to keep him behind bars given the system we have. Unfortunately, the rights that are there to protect us also protect our enemies. That's one of the costs of living in a free society, that evil people also have access to these rights.

I think he committed the crimes he is accused of, yet it is possible he may be found not guilty. The court could be swayed by the "he was indoctrinated, hence not responsible for his actions" argument, although I find the scenaria doubtful.

In the case of the murder... my understanding is that to be guilty he most be the one who threw the grenade. I think it is most likely him who did it, I am not sure it can be proven out of any reasonable dougt.

Time will tell, let's just hope that justice is served and that he receives a harsh punishment. It's too bad he won't be executed.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Gabriel

[bloodyminded]

Racism is such an elastic term that it has ceased to have meaning. Basically it's just a pejorative term the politically correct like to fling around.

Oh, perhaps the pejorative does get overused. I'm not sure. However, when you refer to people as "ragheads," that is a racist comment...and is meant to be one.

Oh, and speaking of political correctness: slamming everyone who disagrees with you politically as "supporting the enemy" IS political correctness. So it would seem you're competing for a position in the PC Thought Police. Congratulations.

I don't think your racism is gonna get you anywhere in left OR right-wing political correctness, however. It's not helpful to your cause of pretending moral superiority. (I say "pretending" because racists are degenerates.)

There are miserable prisons all over the world where people are tortured - I mean really tortured, not that girlyman sleep deprivation the Americans sometimes use. I'm talking hot irons and pokers and electric shocks and skin peeling here. And none of those on the Left give a damn about any of it. Instead, like frenzied, rapid dogs, they are fixated on the slightest sign that "the enemy" ie, the Americans, or anyone associated with them, might have in any way, shape or form, slightly mistreated an Islamist, or perhaps was rude to him, or violated some technical aspect of law. Gitmo is the most famous prison in the world, despite the fact that if you placed it alongside all the political prisons scattered through the third world it would turn out to be the mildest, cleanest, nicest prison of them all, and the one which treated prisoners with the most respect. This is the hypocrisy of the Left. It constantly pretends it cares about human and civil rights but absolutely couldn't care less - except where the Great Satan is concerned. America is the great evil to every Leftist wack job in the Western world, and none of you miss a chance to condemn it or anyone associated with it while shrugging off the most horrific human rights abuses from its enemies.

Right....how do I keep forgetitng that the hardcore Right thinks nationalism is a moral quality, pointing out the crimes of enemies takes tremendous courage, and that pointing out the crimes of us and our allies is insane.

It's ridiculous. Elementary morality, as well as basic democratic principles, tells us that we should be MORE concerned about what WE do wrong than what enemies do wrong. That's obvious enough.

Though, clearly, not to all of us.

[Argus]

Whle its true we dont slice off heads during intermission at soccer matches, "we" as in Canada, or the western alliance or whatever manipulate situations in other countries for our own nations personal interest,

Oh spare me the sniveling. Every nation, every tribe in the history of the planet has done the same, dealing with foreign nations or tribes as best they can for their own self-interest. If your heart bleeds because ours is more successful than others then maybe you should give away your possessions and go live in a third world country where you'll be free of guilt.

[Gabriel]

... of nothing, really. What counts is eveidence that HE committed criminal act.

he has confessed to being a terrorist[/wuote] ... as a result of torture. The same way Maher Arar was made to confess to things he never did. The same way John McCain and other U.S prisoners in Vietnam were made to denounce their government. The same way you and I would confess to about anything in the same circumstances. Any court that accepts his "confession" as proof of guilt would commit a gross miscarriage of justice.

CANADIEN, I can't really see myself replying to too many more of your posts. The absurdity continues. Are you really comparing the treatment of Khadr at Club Gitmo to what McCain endured? Or what Maher Arar endured? Why are you so consistently ridiculous? I also haven't seen any information to support your earlier claim that Omar Khadr was undergoing sleep deprivation for a month. Even if your claim is true (again, your word can't be taken at face value as far as I'm concerned), it would depend on what degree of sleep deprivation he endured if we are to decide on whether or not it qualified as torture.

Most ridiculous is your rejection of the importance of analyzing Khadr's family history, as if it has no bearing at all on this story and this case. It is wholly relevant to this case. I'm speechless. How am I supposed to respond to such a crazy suggestion?

Edited January 31, 2010 by Gabriel

[Argus]

KABUL, Afghanistan - 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.

It is a physical impossibility to engage in warfare with guerrillas without sometimes accidentally killing innocents. It is even more impossible when those guerrillas deliberately make use of this for publicity, fighting from among innocents so they can cry crocodile tears over the victims.

I think your equating that with deliberately setting off car bombs outside schools and mosques is utterly contemptible, but is certainly in synch with the way the Left makes excuses for terrorism and the most horrific violence by simply shrugging and pretending we're the same.

[Argus]

As for sleep deprivation not being torture. I'll take the opinion of Amnesty International over that of the former Bush administration anyway. Or I'll take this:

In the head of the interrogated prisoner, a haze begins to form. His spirit is wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire: to sleep...Anyone who has experienced this desire knows that not even hunger and thirst are comparable with it[\quote]

Tell you what, I'll offer you a choice. You can go to Gitmo and be a prisoner of the Americans, and suffer sleep deprivation, and perhaps even naked humiliation, or you can go to Iran and have your genitals cut off, have a hot red poker shoved up your rectum, and your skin peeled off inch by slow inch.

Going to suggest there's really no difference between them and you don't care which one you suffer from?

Edited January 31, 2010 by Argus