Gabriel Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 I do think that the heat of war will naturally effect memory. But an unfortunate requirment of jurisprudence is the ability to prove guilt without a reasonable doubt. What, exactly, is he guilty of? ANd how do you prove it? I think the khadr family are shits. I think his mom needs to pay for what her husband escaped through death - accountability for being a bad parent. But, with the geneva and international conventions on child soldiers considered, khadr junior should be a free man in need of rehabilitation. If he engaged in a crime that violates international conventions (like genocide), then I'm happy to see him fry, but there is no publicly available evidence of this. Hopefully the prosecution will be successful in convicting Khadr of his crimes. Statements from various eyewitnesses which vary on some details (as we agree is understandable given the extreme stress of the situation) doesn't absolve him from his guilt. I doubt a jury will see slight disparities between eyewitness accounts as sowing the seeds of reasonable doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzy Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 Hopefully the prosecution will be successful in convicting Khadr of his crimes. Statements from various eyewitnesses which vary on some details (as we agree is understandable given the extreme stress of the situation) doesn't absolve him from his guilt. I doubt a jury will see slight disparities between eyewitness accounts as sowing the seeds of reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, the discrepancies are not slight. They will determine whether or not he was the only one capable of throwing the grenade. I'm still unsure of what crime he should be charged with, though. Having been to afghanistan six times on behalf of the canadian forces (i'm a civilian, btw), I do believe frm my own eyes that we, NATO, are generally the good guys in this battle. But, this is a war theater and Khadr did nothing at his worst other than kill a member of an invading force. In the most respectable terms, that is the nature of war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 CANADIEN, this'll be my last reply to you in this thread. In case you hadn't noticed, we're not in a court of law... we're in an online discussion forum. If you don't want to be a serious poster and insist on being childishly contentious and obtuse, then I won't waste any more of my time. poor poor baby Gaby... In case you didn't notice, mentioning what legal standard applies in a court of law DOES have its place in a discussion forum. If you are too immature and obtuse to read it, don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 (edited) poor poor baby Gaby... In case you didn't notice, mentioning what legal standard applies in a court of law DOES have its place in a discussion forum. Especially one relating to a....wait for it....decision of The Court. Edited February 1, 2010 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 Unfortunately, the discrepancies are not slight. They will determine whether or not he was the only one capable of throwing the grenade. I'm still unsure of what crime he should be charged with, though. Having been to afghanistan six times on behalf of the canadian forces (i'm a civilian, btw), I do believe frm my own eyes that we, NATO, are generally the good guys in this battle. But, this is a war theater and Khadr did nothing at his worst other than kill a member of an invading force. In the most respectable terms, that is the nature of war. He was taking part in combat as part of a known terrorist organization. That he is guilty of, beyond any reasonable doubt in my opinion. I am not so sure that there is no reasonable doubt about him launching the grenade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 Especially one relating to a....wait for it....decision of The Court. Big decision...no remedy. Such a deal. Poster Boy Khadr lives on for another year (as Canadian Bar Association fetish). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 Hopefully the prosecution will be successful in convicting Khadr of his crimes. Statements from various eyewitnesses which vary on some details (as we agree is understandable given the extreme stress of the situation) doesn't absolve him from his guilt. I doubt a jury will see slight disparities between eyewitness accounts as sowing the seeds of reasonable doubt. In case you forgot, this is not a court of law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 Big decision...no remedy. Such a deal. You keep saying that over and over,and you continue to make yourself sound more ridiculous. The court can't offer a remedy because it isn't there place to do so in a matter of foreign affairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 (edited) You keep saying that over and over,and you continue to make yourself sound more ridiculous. The court can't offer a remedy because it isn't there place to do so in a matter of foreign affairs. And you keep saying the same stupid ass thing in response....the court is impotent. Edited February 1, 2010 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 No, it isn't. The court is bound to remain within its jurisdiction. Matters of the Charter are within that jurisdiction, but matters of foreign affairs are not. They ruled that the Charter was violated, but they also decided that it wasn't their place to repair the violation. That job falls to the branch of government that has foreign affairs within its jurisdiction - the executive branch. It isn't silly at all, and the SCoC is far from impotent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzy Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 He was taking part in combat as part of a known terrorist organization. That he is guilty of, beyond any reasonable doubt in my opinion. I am not so sure that there is no reasonable doubt about him launching the grenade. So you don't think the convention governing child soldiers applies? I'm not finding a precedent, other than the US enemy combatant position, to use for reference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 No, it isn't. The court is bound to remain within its jurisdiction. Matters of the Charter are within that jurisdiction, but matters of foreign affairs are not. Oh...I see...then you are saying that the Charter Rights of female ski-jumpers in a Canadian province are also not within the court's jurisdiction. Gotcha...makes perfect sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdogfood Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 every one remember The PMO violated canadian law ... & the Geneva convention never forget that!!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdogfood Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 every one remember The PMO violated canadian law ... & the Geneva convention never forget that!!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdogfood Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 if the PMO dose nothing the court can & WILL MACK THE PMO COMPLY WITH THE CARTER!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 So you don't think the convention governing child soldiers applies? I'm not finding a precedent, other than the US enemy combatant position, to use for reference. From what I could see, the convention governs the use of child-soldiers, not what to do to those captured beyond treating them in accordance with their age. As I mentioned before, I think the convention has to provide protection against prosecution to children committing crimes under duress (forced recruitment). I do not think Khadr fills that profile, although his lawyers are certainly welcome to try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 every one remember The PMO violated canadian law ... & the Geneva convention never forget that!!. Before we can remember, it would be helpful to know which geneva convention you think we have violated? This should not be a long search, given that most of the conventions related to belligerents do not apply to Omar Khadr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 Before we can remember, it would be helpful to know which geneva convention you think we have violated? This should not be a long search, given that most of the conventions related to belligerents do not apply to Omar Khadr. The spirit of the GC has certainly been abused and $10 says he next incarnation of the GC will apply to human beings like Khadr, in the meantime it's bad enough knowing our government has violated and disgraced our Charter. It's shameful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 The spirit of the GC has certainly been abused and $10 says he next incarnation of the GC will apply to human beings like Khadr, in the meantime it's bad enough knowing our government has violated and disgraced our Charter. It's shameful. I agree the spirit has been abused but the abusers are the ones who, ignorant of the Conventions try to smash the square conventions into terrorist traiangles. The framers of the convention were specific about who would be afforded the protection, ensuring that criminals like Khadr did not receive the benefits that are rightfully the due of those who honourably serve their county. Your bet is safe given their is no desire (except for perhaps the terrorists) to frame another convention as the present one works fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 No...Khadr's (terrorist perp) rights were found to be violated by the Supreme Court of Canada, yet it still defers to foreign policy. The Americans tromped all over his "rights" regardless of domestic Canadian politics or court rulings, and shopped him around without any subordination at all. Right again BC. Unfortunately the public in Canada does not seem to understand this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 I agree the spirit has been abused but the abusers are the ones who, ignorant of the Conventions try to smash the square conventions into terrorist traiangles. The framers of the convention were specific about who would be afforded the protection, ensuring that criminals like Khadr did not receive the benefits that are rightfully the due of those who honourably serve their county. Your bet is safe given their is no desire (except for perhaps the terrorists) to frame another convention as the present one works fine. Human right's advocates are not terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 Human right's advocates are not terrorists. Who cares? Either way your $10 is safe and so is Lil Omar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born Free Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 ....... ensuring that criminals like Khadr did not receive the benefits that are rightfully the due of those who honourably serve their county. We musta missed the trial. Were you there Morris? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 We musta missed the trial. Were you there Morris? Irrelevant. He does not qualify for GC protection. The reasons for his inelligibility are his criminality, his trial was a trial by fire. He lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 Irrelevant. He does not qualify for GC protection. The reasons for his inelligibility are his criminality, his trial was a trial by fire. He lost. No, his ineligibility stems from the shortsightedness of the GC framers who failed to account for the reaction that super-rogue diddling might provoke. Thankfully he's still eligible for Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protection, he still hasn't lost that yet. Admit it you're just as ashamed to be Canadian as I am aren't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.