Canadian Government Guilty of Violating Khadr's Rights

[eyeball]

You said "promote our principles and values". That sounds like pro-active action to me not restricted to showing an example. Don't get mad at me for pointing out that you talk out of both sides of your mouth to suit your purpose.

promote

If you can find a definition that even sounds remotely like; "intervene and dictate (to) foreign governments on what their values should be" I might stop laughing out of both sides of my mouth.

Perhaps you should go google up the definition of intervene and dictate first, that might give you a clue what not to look for.

[capricorn]

There are 13 million entries to the link you provided for "promote". Let's narrow it down to one, shall we? How about the widely accepted Merriam-Webster's.

Main Entry: pro·mote

Pronunciation: \prə-ˈmōt\

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): pro·mot·ed; pro·mot·ing

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin promotus, past participle of promovēre, literally, to move forward, from pro- forward + movēre to move

Date: 14th century

1 a : to advance in station, rank, or honor : raise b : to change (a pawn) into a piece in chess by moving to the eighth rank c : to advance (a student) from one grade to the next higher grade

2 a : to contribute to the growth or prosperity of : further <promote international understanding> b : to help bring (as an enterprise) into being : launch c : to present (merchandise) for buyer acceptance through advertising, publicity, or discounting

synonyms see advance

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/promote

It's apparent common usage for the term "promote" is to advance something through some concrete action.

So, you can also laugh out both sides of your mouth? Good to know. That adds a certain symmetry to you.

[wyly]

What differentiates us from the enemy is that we don't strap bombs to the bodies of juveniles with a promise of 40 virgins in heaven and $25,000 payments to the surviving parents.

well we do exactly the same...the religious soldiers believe they're going to heaven when they die and we pay much better death benefits...so we're not different at all, both sides are willing to make the supreme sacrifice...

Part 1 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA) provides that upon the death of an annuitant, the conjugal survivor is normally entitled to receive an annual allowance equal to one-half of the annuitant's original pension plus cost-of-living increases, provided the marriage occurred prior to the annuitant's 60th birthday. This annual allowance is payable for life and is subject to the cost-of-living adjustments.

Children of the marriage (born prior to the annuitant's 60th birthday) are normally entitled to a child's annual allowance equal to one-fifth of the survivor's annual allowance per child (to a maximum of four-fifths per family). This allowance is payable until the child attains 18 years of age and may be extended to a maximum of age 25 where the child remains in uninterrupted full-time attendance in school. This benefit may be doubled where the child is orphaned (where there is no conjugal survivor).

[wyly]

To repeat, again, Khadr was taken to far off lands to kill Western soldiers.

yup, it's absolutely the same as any religious indoctrination of any Canadian child, kids believe anything their parents tell them, some become Catholic priests, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon Polygamists or Islamic extremists

...it's unbelievable stupid for anyone to claim this kid had any say in his upbringing...

[capricorn]

well we do exactly the same...

We do? Remember that in my post I referred to juveniles being coerced into strapping bombs to their bodies.

Pakistan's top Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud, is buying children as young as 7 to serve as suicide bombers in the growing spate of attacks against Pakistani, Afghan and U.S. targets, U.S. Defense Department and Pakistani officials say.

A Pakistani official, who spoke on the condition that he not be named because of the sensitive nature of the topic, said the going price for child bombers was $7,000 to $14,000 - huge sums in Pakistan, where per-capita income is about $2,600 a year.

---

Using child suicide bombers "is the grim reality of the Taliban Frankenstein that now threatens to overwhelm the Pakistani state," said Bruce Riedel, a Brookings Institution scholar who chaired a review of Pakistan-Afghanistan strategy for President Obama.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/02/taliban-buying-children-to-serve-as-suicide-bomber/

Many of the bombers who blew themselves up were children, while teenagers who have been arrested provide chilling accounts of how they had been imbued into carrying out similar attacks.

“These young boys are as much the victims of terrorism as those they kill. They are victims of the most brutal exploitation,” said Anees Khan, a Lahore-based psychologist who is carrying out a study on the use of children as bombers for a local non-governmental organisation (NGO).

The manner in which teenagers have been used in suicide bombings has become evident in recent months.

In December 2007, an attack in Kohat that killed 11 army cadets was carried out by a bomber aged 16 or 17 who detonated explosives strapped to his body as he approached his targets.

In January, a boy of around the same age blew himself up at a mosque in Peshawar in a sectarian attack on worshippers gathered there.

http://www.essex.ac.uk/armedcon/story_id/000745.html

Our recruiting methods are far more stringent and less coercive than insurgents (or the other side as you would prefer). Our forces would not accept anyone under the age of 16. Recruits between the ages of 16 and 18 need parental consent before joining. Even then it's not assured they will be accepted.

the religious soldiers believe they're going to heaven when they die

Religious soldiers would believe they will go to heaven whether or not they are in uniform. Their military attachment has nothing to do with the religion they adhere to. I have no doubt some are atheists, others agnostic.

and we pay much better death benefits...

That's simply a reflection of the higher value we place on the lives of our citizens and our pledge to help the survivors of those who gave their lives for our country.

so we're not different at all, both sides are willing to make the supreme sacrifice...

I can't possibly understand how you could think we're not different wily. Is it that you feel both of our causes are just?

[eyeball]

There are 13 million entries to the link you provided for "promote". Let's narrow it down to one, shall we? How about the widely accepted Merriam-Webster's.

1 a : to advance in station, rank, or honor : raise b : to change (a pawn) into a piece in chess by moving to the eighth rank c : to advance (a student) from one grade to the next higher grade

2 a : to contribute to the growth or prosperity of : further <promote international understanding> b : to help bring (as an enterprise) into being : launch c : to present (merchandise) for buyer acceptance through advertising, publicity, or discounting

It's apparent common usage for the term "promote" is to advance something through some concrete action.

How come I don't see intervene and dictate in bold then? Because it's as plain as the nose on your face that setting a good example is a passive act of encouragement.

But you've got another 12999999 entries to try and make your case with. Good luck.

Edited February 6, 2010 by eyeball

[eyeball]

yup, it's absolutely the same as any religious indoctrination of any Canadian child, kids believe anything their parents tell them, some become Catholic priests, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon Polygamists or Islamic extremists

...it's unbelievable stupid for anyone to claim this kid had any say in his upbringing...

I think it's rather disingenuous if not outright malevolent at times myself.

In a way though...I have to forgive them. It's clear our society's moral compass has been as deliberately deviated as Omar Khadr's and we're every bit as off course and lost as a result.

As Omar Khadr goes, so goes the country.

[Guest TrueMetis]

What we're talking about is the fact he was still crippled by the head full of crap his parents started putting there - long before he was 15.

The same thing can be said about 90% of terrorists. Does that mean we should let them off?

[ToadBrother]

You keep conflating our simply setting a better example with intervening in the affairs of another country and dictating what their values should be. I'm not having any of your duplicitous bullshit today thanks.

You want us to demand Khadr back from the United States. If that isn't an attempted intervention, I don't know what it is.

Let's face it, you're a hypocrite. When it's an issue near and dear to your heart, suddenly it's okay, if it's something you disagree with, it's an intrusion into another state's affairs.

[Peter F]

You want us to demand Khadr back from the United States. If that isn't an attempted intervention, I don't know what it is.

Let's face it, you're a hypocrite. When it's an issue near and dear to your heart, suddenly it's okay, if it's something you disagree with, it's an intrusion into another state's affairs.

I don't think he's advocating sending HMCS Canuck down into Lake Michigan to pop a few rounds into Chicago, or have CSIS attempt to destabilize the US government. Demanding things is easy - getting them is the difficult part.

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman, on 05 February 2010 - 03:58 PM, said: Saying "he should be held accountable for his actions" and saying "f**k the little bastard" are two very different things.

1. He is being held because of his alleged actions.

2. What accounts for his alleged actions is his shitty upbringing.

What you and others are basically saying is f**k that account, ergo f**k him to.

Is this the new standard by which kids are to be treated by our justice system then I fail to see what it is that differentiates us from the enemy.

Yes, he's "being held because of his alleged actions," which is quite different from having a trial and "being held accountable" if he is found guilty as charged.

And I'm quite aware of what "accounts" for his alleged actions, as I've been quite vocal about Canada holding his mother accountable for raising a child soldier/combatant, as you're well aware of. In fact, I may have been the first to raise the issue; at the very least, one of the first.

So now that we've cleared that up, I'm not interested in playing word games.

So no, I'm not basically saying anything close to "f**k" either of those things. I think his mother should be held accountable, and I've made that quite clear. I think it's wrong that he's been held so long without a trial, and I've made that quite clear. I also think he needs to be held accountable for his actions, if found guilty, because it's not just about him -- it's about the victim/potential victims, who also have rights, and I've made that quite clear.

But keep trying to make me and my position something it isn't. Evidently you have some need to make my view depraved and totally uncaring. Perhaps you think it makes your position 'holier than mine' if you can make me out to be some sort of uncaring, depraved individual. I could throw the same thing back at you regarding the victims/potential victims of such actions, but I don't have that need.

As I've pointed out before, I'm guessing a good percentage of those serving time for crimes of rape, murder, assault, etc., have had horrible upbringings. We can't not hold them accountable for their actions because if it. We can't put innocent people at risk, we can't let innocent people die, be assaulted, raped, etc., because of our sympathy for them. I think, therefore, we should hold those accountable for both the actions and the "horrible upbringings," rather than let them live the good life, free of responsibility, as what is happening now in Canada. Evidently one can raise a child soldier in Canada and people like you won't go after the government for that. You're very selective in what you are outraged about regarding the government, as far as I can see, and you don't hesitate to in effect demonize anyone who doesn't agree with your take on all of it.

Edited February 6, 2010 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

Israel also does not torture its prisoners and has facilities that operate under standard legal accountabilities.

On torture:

An official Israeli report has acknowledged for the first time that the Israeli security service tortured detainees during the Palestinian uprising, the Intifada, between 1988 and 1992.

The report, written five years ago but kept secret until now, said the leadership of the security service Shin Bet knew about the torture but did nothing to stop it.

.........

All of this, together with additional layers of protection for torturers - GSS exemption from the obligation to provide audio or video recording of interrogations, a dual system for keeping interrogation records, systematic denial of the detainee's right to meet an attorney and the deliberate concealment or withholding of detainee medical records - lead to the fact that each and every torture complaint in Israel is shelved with no investigation and no justice. According to data provided by the State, since 2001 more than 600 complaints of torture by GSS agents were submitted while not even a single criminal investigation was opened.

http://www.stoptorture.org.il/en/node/1520

........

Most of the specific methods used before the 1999 decision all but vanished after the ruling. Yet slowly but surely, human rights lawyers said, new techniques took their place.

The latest report by the committee against torture, covering the period from September 2001 to April 2003, alleged that detainees faced a new regime of sleep deprivation, shackling, slapping, hitting and kicking; exposure to extreme cold and heat; threats, curses and insults; and prolonged detention in subhuman conditions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44664-2004Jun15_2.html

On "facilities that operate under standard legal accountabilities" (as you put it):

What really surrounds Camp 1391, more than physical protection, is an entrenched wall of silence. Since the 1980s, when the facility was moved from a more southerly location to its present site, the Israeli authorities have made every effort to keep its very existence secret. And even now that its existence has been revealed, the state refuses to answer the many questions of the world and of the Israeli public: Where is the facility? Who is being held there, why, and for how long? Were they tried before being locked up in Camp 1391, or are they awaiting trial? What are their conditions of incarceration? In every other lockup in Israel the answers to these and many other questions are open and amenable to external, legal, public and international review.

As far as is known, the 1391 site is the only detention facility whose detainees don't know where they are. If they ask, the warders may answer, "on the moon," or "in outer space," or "outside the borders of Israel." It is also the only detention facility that the state prevents the International Red Cross from visiting. Nor, as far as can be ascertained, have Knesset members ever visited the place, and many of the politicians who have been asked about it in the past few weeks said they had never heard of it - including some who have held senior positions in the government, such as Prof. David Libai, who was justice minister in the government of Yitzhak Rabin and a member of the ministerial committee that deals with the secret services: "I will not say a single word about the subject, for the simple reason that I am not familiar with it. This is the first time I have ever heard about such a thing."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=331637&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Edited February 6, 2010 by bloodyminded

[CANADIEN]

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.

The US government announced a few years back it would not be seeking the death penalty.

[CANADIEN]

He is being held and what accounts for his actions is his flawed upbringing. How anyone can realize this while effectively also saying...f^*k the little bastard...is beyond me. It's utterly depraved.

The only thing utterly depraved here is the assumption that anyone should be spared having to face the consequences of his/her acts just by saying "it's my upbringing".

It is one thing to say that Khadr should be treated according to international conventions and fundamental justice. It's another thing to say that he should not assume and face responsibility for what he did.

[CANADIEN]

1. He is being held because of his alleged actions.

As he should. And if found guilty, he should be sentenced accordingly.

2. What accounts for his alleged actions is his shitty upbringing.

Not different from most people who commit crimes.

What you and others are basically saying is f**k that account, ergo f**k him to.

What we are basically saying, and that you don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to comprehend, is that upbringing is not an excuse for crimes - a reason perhaps, but not an excuse.

Is this the new standard by which kids are to be treated by our justice system then I fail to see what it is that differentiates us from the enemy.

If you think that holding 15 year old who commit crimes accountable for their acts is acting like our enemies, buy some glasses.

Edited February 6, 2010 by CANADIEN

[noahbody]

And I'm quite aware of what "accounts" for his alleged actions, as I've been quite vocal about Canada holding his mother accountable for raising a child soldier/combatant, as you're well aware of. In fact, I may have been the first to raise the issue; at the very least, one of the first.

That's always been my stance as well. She should be charged with child abuse and treason. She never will be though, because of who she is: Ahmed Khadr's wife and a close friend to bin Laden. If Canada were to prosecute her, Canadians would die for it.

[capricorn]

She should be charged with child abuse and treason. She never will be though, because of who she is: Ahmed Khadr's wife and a close friend to bin Laden. If Canada were to prosecute her, Canadians would die for it.

This aversion to prosecuting terrorists and, those who aid and abet them, enables the sympathy some Canadians feel for their plight. Then, there are those Canadians who simply want us to maintain our "good guy" image. I'm sure there is some sentiment out there that if the government doesn't prosecute them, then they can't be all that bad and/or there is no case against them. With regard to the Khadr clan, it certainly didn't help matters that Chretien personally assisted the patriarch's release from jail, ensuring that they maintain residence here. Does timidity and being the good guy result in saving Canadian lives and somewhat protect us from the terrorists' bulls eye? Maybe, I'm not sure. So far, prosecuting the Toronto 18 has not resulted in retaliatory action. True, they were home grown terrorists but no less dangerous than the imported type.

[eyeball]

The same thing can be said about 90% of terrorists. Does that mean we should let them off?

We could certainly do more to incorporate that awareness and understanding into our thinking and actions.

[eyeball]

You want us to demand Khadr back from the United States. If that isn't an attempted intervention, I don't know what it is.

Let's face it, you're a hypocrite. When it's an issue near and dear to your heart, suddenly it's okay, if it's something you disagree with, it's an intrusion into another state's affairs.

Please get a grip, or feel free to flounder around out in left field with Capricorn looking for definitions to simple terms and concepts if you wish.

A real hypocritical use of the term intervention in the context of our demands that Khadr be returned would take the form of a special operation involving JTF 2 sneaking into Guantanamo and rescuing Khadr. The way you're trying to pin the definition down trade with the US would also be a hypocritical intervention.

Like I said, get a grip, please.

[Sir Bandelot]

Anyone for scrabble?

http://word-games.pogo.com/games/scrabble?sl=2

Edited February 6, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[CANADIEN]

We could certainly do more to incorporate that awareness and understanding into our thinking and actions.

Next time criminals engage in terrorist acts, let's not do anything to them. Let's not stop them, let's not go after them, let's not prosecute them if we catch them. After all, it's not their fault, they were raised that way.

By that logic, we shouldn't go after Khadr's mother either... that's how she was raised.

[eyeball]

As I've pointed out before, I'm guessing a good percentage of those serving time for crimes of rape, murder, assault, etc., have had horrible upbringings. We can't not hold them accountable for their actions because if it. We can't put innocent people at risk, we can't let innocent people die, be assaulted, raped, etc., because of our sympathy for them.

And as I've pointed I agree, we can't put innocent people at risk, or let innocent people die, be assaulted, raped, etc. I'm not however aware of any regulation or such that mandates we use the public antipathy that is usually reserved for adults to guide the government's punishment of Omar Khadr.

I realize our government itself isn't coming outright and using words like monster and bastard and so on but it's clear our government is catering to people who do.

It's sick, there's no other word for it.

[wyly]

We do? Remember that in my post I referred to juveniles being coerced into strapping bombs to their bodies.

first you want to punish a kid who is you claim responsible for his own actions and now you say they're coerced???? which it? the inconsistance of your arguement is glaring...

Our recruiting methods are far more stringent and less coercive than insurgents (or the other side as you would prefer). Our forces would not accept anyone under the age of 16. Recruits between the ages of 16 and 18 need parental consent before joining. Even then it's not assured they will be accepted.

again coercion, which is an admission this kid did not understand what he was getting into, we require parental consent for under 18 because they're CHILDREN! under 16 isn't permitted at all because they're CHILDREN! they aren't considered responsible enough to make those decisions in Canada but yet you want to hold a child responsible for his actions...what hypocrisy!

Religious soldiers would believe they will go to heaven whether or not they are in uniform. Their military attachment has nothing to do with the religion they adhere to. I have no doubt some are atheists, others agnostic.

it's exactly the same...they don't fear death because they believe in an afterlife just as most of our soldiers do...

That's simply a reflection of the higher value we place on the lives of our citizens and our pledge to help the survivors of those who gave their lives for our country.

BS...they look after their own as well, their mothers cry when they loose their children just as ours do...this typical dehumanizing mindset that makes easier to kill the opponents because they're not like us, they're sub humans, animals...there are no innocents killed, they're just collateral damage...

I can't possibly understand how you could think we're not different wily. Is it that you feel both of our causes are just?

human nature is the same everywhere, their cause is right in their minds just as you think ours is in yours.....

[eyeball]

The only thing utterly depraved here is the assumption that anyone should be spared having to face the consequences of his/her acts just by saying "it's my upbringing".

This is why I say as go Khadr's right's so go anyone else's.

I have little doubt the hang em' high crowd would like to see Khadr's treatment become the new standard in Canada.

[eyeball]

That's always been my stance as well. She should be charged with child abuse and treason. She never will be though, because of who she is: Ahmed Khadr's wife and a close friend to bin Laden. If Canada were to prosecute her, Canadians would die for it.

If Canada were to prosecute her it would undermine the case that Omar chose to be the way he is.

With regard to the Khadr clan, it certainly didn't help matters that Chretien personally assisted the patriarch's release from jail, ensuring that they maintain residence here.

So what's stopping Harper from personally assisting to reopen the case?

I say bring it on.

Edited February 6, 2010 by eyeball