Canadian Government Guilty of Violating Khadr's Rights

[ToadBrother]

We don't have any legal definition for independent moral agent that I'm aware of. But we do have laws that state kids at the age of fifteen are treated differently then adults when and where crimes are committed.

In Canada, yes. Cross that border and your on your own. My recommendation to all would be Islamists and Jihadists is to stay in Canada, blow up Canadians, and you can be sure you'll probably only spend 7-10 years in prison, maybe less if you manage to do it when your a kid, and someone can argue "It was society that made him a frothing religious lunatic!!! Oooh the poor children!" Maybe their victims, with their shredded limbs, can speak of what a kind and loving country we are that we treat juvenile traitors with such tenderness.

Yeah that's a swell idea, then Canada can drag it's stupid short-sighted ass through this debacle all over again.

Well then, I have another idea. We frickin' well jail them ourselves, rather than having to rely on other people to take care of our crazies for us. I'm all for letting Khadr back in, providing it's right into another detention centre. Actually, I don't want that, because then my tax dollars get to pay for his keep. Let the Americans keep him, then it's their dime.

Edited February 4, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Have you ever wondered how many terrorists would never have been inspired to become terrorists if the west hadn't diddled with so many governments in the Muslim world?

Which, while true to one extent or another, hardly seems a defense of a 15 year old who willingly went to a Islamist hellhole to learn how to kill people.

[eyeball]

In Canada, yes. Cross that border and your on your own. My recommendation to all would be Islamists and Jihadists is to stay in Canada, blow up Canadians, and you can be sure you'll probably only spend 7-10 years in prison, maybe less if you manage to do it when your a kid, and someone can argue "It was society that made him a frothing religious lunatic!!!"

Well then, I have another idea. We frickin' well jail them ourselves, rather than having to rely on other people to take care of our crazies for us. I'm all for letting Khadr back in, providing it's right into another detention centre. Actually, I don't want that, because then my tax dollars get to pay for his keep. Let the Americans keep him, then it's their dime.

How about teaching kids why and when its appropriate to disobey their parents? Or does this, like so many other aspects of this case, go places that we're just too politically timid or cowardly to go?

[capricorn]

Well then, I have another idea. We frickin' well jail them ourselves, rather than having to rely on other people to take care of our crazies for us. I'm all for letting Khadr back in, providing it's right into another detention centre. Actually, I don't want that, because then my tax dollars get to pay for his keep. Let the Americans keep him, then it's their dime.

ToadBrother for Prime Minister!!

[eyeball]

Which, while true to one extent or another, hardly seems a defense of a 15 year old who willingly went to a Islamist hellhole to learn how to kill people.

You mean a 15 year old who was taken there after being raised all his life to believe it was appropriate to learn how to kill people.

Don't get me wrong Khadr needs treatment, but you seem to think this means he should be punished for needing treatment in the first place.

That's just plain sick. Perhaps your upbringing damaged you more than you realize.

[ToadBrother]

How about teaching kids why and when its appropriate to disobey their parents? Or does this, like so many other aspects of this case, go places that we're just too politically timid or cowardly to go?

I dunno. Are you suggesting we keep a list of beliefs that are not permitted to be taught to children? Good luck enforcing it.

At any rate, the fact remains that Khadr left the country to go kill people, got caught by a foreign power, and that's that. Pretty good argument for having Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, maybe they can catch any Canadian Islamists, and repatriate them before they get imprisoned by the Taliban or, more likely, get blown to bits.

I have no idea why people are so keen to see a would-be murderer back in the country. I'm just glad it's one last religious lunatic whose sole desire is the replacement with a civil secular society with a theocracy. Now, if only there was some crazy-ass Christian country we could convince all the far right extremists to go, I'd say Canada would be well on the way.

[eyeball]

I dunno. Are you suggesting we keep a list of beliefs that are not permitted to be taught to children? Good luck enforcing it.

In lieu of that we're probably going to be stuck with facing other moral Gordian Knots like this.

At any rate, the fact remains that Khadr left the country to go kill people.

Bullshit, the fact remains that he was TAKEN to kill people after having been raised to believe it was appropriate to do so.

I remember I used to bring home wounded birds and abandoned puppies and such. Perhaps if my parents had beat me and taught me to scrape them off instead of encouraging me I would have been a better Canadian. Whattya think?

[PIK]

I dunno. Are you suggesting we keep a list of beliefs that are not permitted to be taught to children? Good luck enforcing it.

At any rate, the fact remains that Khadr left the country to go kill people, got caught by a foreign power, and that's that. Pretty good argument for having Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, maybe they can catch any Canadian Islamists, and repatriate them before they get imprisoned by the Taliban or, more likely, get blown to bits.

I have no idea why people are so keen to see a would-be murderer back in the country. I'm just glad it's one last religious lunatic whose sole desire is the replacement with a civil secular society with a theocracy. Now, if only there was some crazy-ass Christian country we could convince all the far right extremists to go, I'd say Canada would be well on the way.

Because the left's hatred for harper takes over all common sense, and if they can embareress him with this, then they will. The left has become very irresponsible.

Edited February 4, 2010 by PIK

[ToadBrother]

In lieu of that we're probably going to be stuck with facing other moral Gordian Knots like this.

There's a simpler answer. Commit crimes outside Canadian jurisdiction, and you're on your own.

Bullshit, the fact remains that he was TAKEN to kill people after having been raised to believe it was appropriate to do so.

And some kids grow up with alcoholic parents who beat them daily. I still don't want them turned loose because they killed someone due to poor upbringing. I'm not going to play at being this guy's defense attorney, so I see no need of any kind to invest myself with a bunch of claptrap and emotional baggage. He wasn't kidnapped. He wasn't forced. Sure he believed what he was doing was right, but lots of bad people are certain of their own righteousness. Let it be a lesson to other murderous young Jihadists in this country, "We will not rescue you."

I remember I used to bring home wounded birds and abandoned puppies and such. Perhaps if my parents had beat me and taught me to scrape them off instead of encouraging me I would have been a better Canadian. Whattya think?

I think there are better things to spend emotional energy on than some damned Jihadist who got busted. A lot worse could have happened to him, he could have got blown to bits, for instance.

Edited February 4, 2010 by ToadBrother

[PIK]

In lieu of that we're probably going to be stuck with facing other moral Gordian Knots like this.

Bullshit, the fact remains that he was TAKEN to kill people after having been raised to believe it was appropriate to do so.

I remember I used to bring home wounded birds and abandoned puppies and such. Perhaps if my parents had beat me and taught me to scrape them off instead of encouraging me I would have been a better Canadian. Whattya think?

Were those birds and puppies killing women and throwing acid in young girls faces?

[eyeball]

Were those birds and puppies killing women and throwing acid in young girls faces?

Nope. Do you think it would have been appropriate for my parents to lead me to believe they were? Would this have made it easier for me to scrape them off if I did?

[Born Free]

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....

Thanks for clearing that up for me. As far as I'm concerned, I have made no judgement as to whether he was or wasnt tortured. Thats what a trial is for. If his lawyers say they arent sure, then you can bet I'm not sure either.

What I have been outspoken on is the fact that he's never had a trial and it should be done sooner rather than leter. If he's guilty of the crime, then set the sentence, put him away and move on.

Clearly we have a group of overzealous intel guys who have twice screwed things up rather badly. Of course I refer to the Arar case and now this one.

[Gabriel]

Here is a not-so-subtle message from AI regarding what they believe should be done for Omar Kadr:

Here's a link, for some reason I can't insert the image.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Gabriel

[Born Free]

Here is a not-so-subtle message from AI regarding what they believe should be done for Omar Kadr:

Here's a link, for some reason I can't insert the image.

Perhaps they should help fund his legal fees.

[Gabriel]

Perhaps they should help fund his legal fees.

Why don't you try to be honest for once and criticize AI's position on this issue? Do you support freeing Omar Khadr? If not, then you're disagreeing with AI's position <gasp!>, at least based on this rally image. I'm not asking you to condemn AI, I'm not condemning AI, myself. At least I can acknowledge it is politicized to some degree, however. Assuming AI's bias is the same as your own, it's unsurprising that you are either unwilling or unable to see this ideological leaning for what it is.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Gabriel

[Born Free]

Why don't you try to be honest for once and criticize AI's position on this issue? Do you support freeing Omar Khadr? If not, then you're disagreeing with AI's position <gasp!>, at least based on this rally image. I'm not asking you to condemn AI, I'm not condemning AI, myself. At least I can acknowledge it is politicized to some degree, however. Assuming AI's bias is the same as your own, it's unsurprising that you are either unwilling or unable to see this ideological leaning for what it is.

Stop being so damn anal. You take yourself far too seriously. Calling me dishonest doesnt win you any brownie points. You tend to call people names like Peter MacKay does.

I have no opinion about AI and I have no interest. I havent bothered to participated in the lengthy debate you guys are having. I offer no opinion about them and dont intend to.

I've made it explicitly clear to you several times in this forum regarding my views of Khadr's guilt or innocence. I will await the result of a trial and go along with the verdict. You should too!

Some of the evidence against Khadr has been reported in the news. I have even seen stories that suggests that there is conflicting testimony from US personnel who were there.

The story is rather simple. Canadian authorities totally screwed things up which seems to be a nasty habit of theirs. The SCOC ruled against these jerks.

In the US, the USSC has essentially ruled that the detaines in Gitmo (including Khadr) shall have a trial. Lets all wait and see how this all turns out.

If he is found not guilty, it will certainly become a very very interesting legal situation given what Canadian authorities have already done to him.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Born Free

[Peter F]

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.

You are absolutely correct. There is the sentence. AI does indeed believe Shalit should be treated by his captors as a POW.

I clearly am wrong. My apologies for f*cking that up.

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.

Absolutely. no dispute.

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.

Shalit was abducted and should not be accorded the status of prisoner of war. And shalit should not be treated as such

because if he was then that legitimizes the abduction. I take it you mean that should Shalits captors do as AI suggest they do, and actually treat Shalit as a POW that that would be a bad thing. For Shalits captors to start behaving in a civilized manner - at least in regards to treatment of prisoners - is a step in the right direction is it not? If the captors did do as AI says they should, then yes I expect they would gain legitimacy. They'd still have the mountain of illigitimate acts to climb (such as kidnapping for one) but nevertheless they would gain legitimacy. And why not?

It seems that you would prefer AI to say that Shalids captors definately not treat Shalid as a POW but as the hostage he is.

Now what would that involve? to be treated like a hostage? Regular beatings? Lack of food and water? Mock executions? Torture?

You would rather have AI suggest that Shalid definately not be treated as a POW, than risk who-ever his captors are gaining legitimacy. Guess who takes that risk: not you nor I nor Hamas nor Isreal nor Amnesty International. Shalid gets to carry the can for that.

What you suggest, for AI to meet your requirments of an objective neutral NGO, is to engage in what you criticize them as engaging in. They must have the motive of depriving Hamas of legitimacy. Even to the hostages detriment.

Amnesty International is a neutral NGO. Shalid is a soldier of the State of Isreal. Isreal is in armed conflict - militarily - with somebody, I think. The folks who hold Shalid certainly consider themselves in an armed conflict with Isreal.

Shalid should be treated as a POW even if it does legitimizes the kidnappers.

But that won't happen. Shalids idiotic kidnappers will continue to hold a death threat over Shalids head in order to apply pressure to Isreal. They are fools. Its too bad they don't do things to gain legitimacy.

Treating soldiers as POWS would be a good start.

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.

Hamas is some sort of legitimate political entity. They were elected to govern last I heard. That makes them legitimate.

You are asking AI to be political. They cannot and should not be political. Much like the International Red Cross. Statements of Isreal good, Hamas bad, will not do any detained person held by anybody any good. Wont do Shalid any goddamn good or any of those held by Isreal and also used as pawns in reaction to Shalids treatment.

As for Khadr. He is not a prisoner of war. According to the US government he is an Illegal combatant not a legal combatant.

A legal combatant is entitled to be treated according to the GC's regulations regarding Prisoners of War. Khadr has most definately been denied Prisoner of War status by the USofA. Otherwise, Sgt Spear would be a combat casualty and not a victim of 'murder in violation of the laws of war'.

So why doesn't AI ask that Khadr be treated as a POW? Like Shalid should be treated? Because Khadr should have been treated as a child soldier and not as an adult soldier. Khadr was 15 at the time of his capture. Shalid was not. According to the AI the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child UNCHR should have applied. See particularly articles 37 and 40.

If AI had have insisted the US treat Khadr as a POW they would have had to throw the CRC out the window, in that they would be requiring a state to treat a 15 year old as an adult. To do so would be detrimental to children elsewhere who are detained and do Khadr absolutely no good whatsoever.

So, I know what you see, but I see it different. To ask that Shalid be treated as the POW that he is,is a good thing. To ask that Khadr be treated as the child he was is also a good thing.

But the USofA never ratified the UNCRC so were not bound by it. But that does not mean that AI are bound by US actions/inactions. They do what they percieve to be best for the detained.

How else would you have it?

[msdogfood]

But I thought that you have denied this in other threads, hmm? Is that not so?

In any case it seems to me that the US government denies that gitmo detainees have POW status, since it would grant them certain rights that they don't want them to have. This classification would cause some problems for his prosecution.

"To be entitled to prisoner-of-war status, captured service members must be lawful combatants entitled to combatant's privilege—which gives them immunity from punishment for crimes constituting lawful acts of war, e.g., killing enemy troops."

He is A POW!!!!!!!!!!!.

[msdogfood]

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

yes the violations is still going on!!!.

Edited February 5, 2010 by msdogfood

[Army Guy]

Have you ever wondered how many terrorists would never have been inspired to become terrorists if the west hadn't diddled with so many governments in the Muslim world?

What gives a Canadian the right to take up arms and become a terrorist again'st any nation....I've looked and can not find one single reference. There is serveral laws however clearly stating that is is UNLAWFUL to take up arms again'st Canada and her allieds...There are serveral laws again'st terrorism or becoming a terrorist regardless of cause....I'm sure the rest of the western world also have similar laws...

No where does it say piss me off enough and i can and will use deadly force when i want ...where i want.... and how i want....And while i do agree frustration can lead some to doing just that, it does not make it legal.

[Army Guy]

Any human being given the proper chance to do so is capable of regret and a desire to become a contributing member of society. Look at how many who do go on to become counselors for such people as themselves.

That was not the question Has he publically expressed his regret. And while many humans are capable of regrett there are plenty of examples of repeat offenders.

[Army Guy]

Yeah, he was probably all of what when he made the decision to go bad, two or three or maybe four years old?

How big of you.

The decisions i'm talking about is the one he took just before and during the day of his capture, US and Afghanis Soldier's gave the entire villiage a warning, gave the civilains time to vacate the village...Omar decided he was staying....Omar could have surrendered at any time he decided not to....

Omar decided to take up arms and fight....

[Sir Bandelot]

In some countries treason is a capital offence. Wonder what the chances are, if Khadr gets a trial that he could face execution? I mean if tried by the US, either government or military.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Born Free]

What gives a Canadian the right to take up arms and become a terrorist again'st any nation....I've looked and can not find one single reference. There is serveral laws however clearly stating that is is UNLAWFUL to take up arms again'st Canada and her allieds...There are serveral laws again'st terrorism or becoming a terrorist regardless of cause....I'm sure the rest of the western world also have similar laws...

No where does it say piss me off enough and i can and will use deadly force when i want ...where i want.... and how i want....And while i do agree frustration can lead some to doing just that, it does not make it legal.

Canadians went over and fought in Vietnam. They must have been terrorists too. I believe a large bunch of Irishmen went and fought in the Spanish Civil War. They must have been terrorists too.

Hypotheticaly speaking of course.

[Born Free]

Omar decided to take up arms and fight....

You dont know that.