Canadian Government Guilty of Violating Khadr's Rights

[eyeball]

He has a right to a humane treatment, and a fair trial and sentencing.

Avoiding responscibilty for his acts is not a right he does or should enjoy.

He has a right to huge compensation settlement.

Avoiding responsibility for his humane treatment, a fair trial and exoneration was a really stupid idea.

[eyeball]

Can't hold anyone responsible for their actions because it was there parents who raised them that way, and their grandparents who raised their parents that way, and their great-grandparents who raised their grandparents that way.

So who's ultimatley responsible? According to your logic no one is truly responsible for any of their actions.

This fundamental question has already been addressed, according to the law, adults are more responsible for their actions than kids. Deal with it.

The law is ultimately responsible for dealing with and accounting for an individuals actions, at least it was until people like you hi-jacked it. Now somebody has to take responsibility for protecting our laws from being arbitrarily changed to satisfy your outraged whim.

[eyeball]

If you are accused of killing someone than your age is irrelevant.

Not according to the law.

Anyway it is an arbitrary number.

Not according to the legal experts who came up with it or why.

[eyeball]

He's dead.

She is still very much alive.

[eyeball]

You ask as though it's never been done. Have you not heard of something called the Second World War? Or, perhaps you did but think Hitler should've been given a hug.

This is about as lame it gets. I'm taking the rapidly degenerating quality of arguments for maintaining Khadr's continued maltreatment as an expression of the resigned futility that must finally be sinking into people like you.

[Guest TrueMetis]

This fundamental question has already been addressed, according to the law, adults are more responsible for their actions than kids. Deal with it.

The law is ultimately responsible for dealing with and accounting for an individuals actions, at least it was until people like you hi-jacked it. Now somebody has to take responsibility for protecting our laws from being arbitrarily changed to satisfy your outraged whim.

Yes I want it arbitrarily changed so that people who have been charged with killing another human should be held responsible.

Not according to the law.

Laws can and should be in many cases changed.

Not according to the legal experts who came up with it or why.

And who would these "experts" be? I hope they were experts in neuroscience but I doubt it because a persons brain is not fully developed untill they're 25 although 90% of it is already done by 12. It take until age 25 for the frontal lobe to develop, that's the part of the brain that allows for reasoning. Geuss that means we should push the age of majority back some what amd let all people who commited crimes before the age of 25 off.

Screw the legal experts and their arbitrary numbers.

[Sir Bandelot]

And who would these "experts" be? I hope they were experts in neuroscience but I doubt it because a persons brain is not fully developed untill they're 25 although 90% of it is already done by 12. It take until age 25 for the frontal lobe to develop, that's the part of the brain that allows for reasoning. Geuss that means we should push the age of majority back some what amd let all people who commited crimes before the age of 25 off.

Screw the legal experts and their arbitrary numbers.

I guess this means you're either an expert in neuroscience, or a legal expert. Which is it?

[blueblood]

And who would these "experts" be? I hope they were experts in neuroscience but I doubt it because a persons brain is not fully developed untill they're 25 although 90% of it is already done by 12. It take until age 25 for the frontal lobe to develop, that's the part of the brain that allows for reasoning. Geuss that means we should push the age of majority back some what amd let all people who commited crimes before the age of 25 off.

That is interesting, do you got a source for that, so I can read up on it?

[cybercoma]

I've noticed a strange trend on political message boards: those with the least to say post the most.

[eyeball]

Yes I want it arbitrarily changed so that people who have been charged with killing another human should be held responsible.

I think what you really want is revenge against one kid in particular. To feed this desire however you need to change our legal code and throw out a whole bunch of principles of justice and law that have taken decades to develop.

Laws can and should be in many cases changed.

No kidding, it should have been be a crime against humanity for powerful countries to diddle with weaker one's a long time ago.

And who would these "experts" be? I hope they were experts in neuroscience but I doubt it because a persons brain is not fully developed untill they're 25 although 90% of it is already done by 12. It take until age 25 for the frontal lobe to develop, that's the part of the brain that allows for reasoning. Geuss that means we should push the age of majority back some what amd let all people who commited crimes before the age of 25 off.

No, but in light of this but we might need to cut kids even more slack.

Screw the legal experts and their arbitrary numbers.

Fine, just do it legally and according to due process.

Edited February 7, 2010 by eyeball

[eyeball]

I've noticed a strange trend on political message boards: those with the least to say post the most.

Notice how dozens of wide-ranging disparate arguments can be neutralized with the same fundamental principle?

[bloodyminded]

And who would these "experts" be? I hope they were experts in neuroscience but I doubt it because a persons brain is not fully developed untill they're 25 although 90% of it is already done by 12. It take until age 25 for the frontal lobe to develop, that's the part of the brain that allows for reasoning. Geuss that means we should push the age of majority back some what amd let all people who commited crimes before the age of 25 off.

It's interesting you should say this, because this aligns closely with the argument against treating Khadr like an adult, thanks to the inane postulations of people who wish him "held responsible" (without ever going into specifics...although he's already received eight years of incarceration, without a trial).

Because folks keep sagely opining the following:

"Ages are arbitrary. Each case must be determined individually."

This is said as if Khadr WAS adjudged "individually" in any manner we could appreciate. But he wasn't. It is merely declared, tyranny-style.

So, to ask you your own question: did neuroscientists examine Khadr and determine him to be an adult? Is there some device applied to his head, in which the scale of child-adult becomes clear, and under which his adulthood was adduced?

The fact is that Khadr is deemed "fully responsible for his own actions" (as if that phrase has an objective meaning--which it does not) because he may have killed (another issue, also ignored) an allied soldier.

Also, if "age is arbitrary" then you would consider a 10 year old equally "responsible." And...a seven year old?

You say age is "arbitrary" but I guarantee you that you have some sort of cut-off point on the matter.

Why? Based on some impression you have, a "felt" notion of what constitutes adulthood?

THIS IS ARBITRARY. Far moreso than what you criticize.

Well, thank the gods the law doesn't work that way. It's only powerful political leaders and their stalwart defenders who wish it were so. It's a plea to place prosecutorial "wisdom" above the law itself. Ironically enough.

[Guest TrueMetis]

That is interesting, do you got a source for that, so I can read up on it?

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/teenage-brain-a-work-in-progress-fact-sheet/index.shtml

http://www.actforyouth.net/documents/may02factsheetadolbraindev.pdf

The brain is still developing during the teen years Dr. Jay Giedd of the NIMH has reported

that brain “maturation does not stop at age 10, but continues into the teen years and

even into the 20’s.

http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/juvenile-justice/factsheets/braindev.pdf

This last one supports eyeballs position not mine.

Kids are not adults—and shouldn’t be treated as such. Yet each year, nearly 250,000 youth are prosecuted,

sentenced and incarcerated as adults. Recent advances in neuroscientific research, however, have confirmed

that young people’s brains are not fully developed until they reach their early twenties. As a result, children lack

the capacity for adult level reasoning or a full realization of the consequences of their actions. This emerging

research establishes a medical basis for applying a different standard of culpability to children than to adults.

Are Youth Capable of Making Decisions? Yes. It is important to note that generally adolescents over the age of 15 can be as capable as adults in focused decisionmaking situations (cold cognition.) However, the impulsive, short-sighted judgment associated with delinquency is influenced by the combination of cognitive and psychosocial factors (hot cognition.) When children find themselves in emotionally-charged situations, the parts of the brain that regulate emotion, rather than reasoning, are more likely to be engaged.

[Guest TrueMetis]

So, to ask you your own question: did neuroscientists examine Khadr and determine him to be an adult? Is there some device applied to his head, in which the scale of child-adult becomes clear, and under which his adulthood was adduced?

Than put him into an MRI.

Also, if "age is arbitrary" then you would consider a 10 year old equally "responsible." And...a seven year old?

Depending on how far along there frontal lobe development was yes. It would also depend on whether it was done emotionally because that has a lot of bearing on it.

You say age is "arbitrary" but I guarantee you that you have some sort of cut-off point on the matter.

Not depending on their age depending on how far along their brain is developed.

Why? Based on some impression you have, a "felt" notion of what constitutes adulthood?

See above.

THIS IS ARBITRARY. Far moreso than what you criticize.

No this is science.

Well, thank the gods the law doesn't work that way. It's only powerful political leaders and their stalwart defenders who wish it were so. It's a plea to place prosecutorial "wisdom" above the law itself. Ironically enough.

The fact that the law ignores the science is bull.

[bloodyminded]

Than put him into an MRI.

An MRI does not magically deduce "Adulthood." That's a far stickier matter than "brain development" anyway.

As the information you just posted for us explains quite nicely.

Depending on how far along there frontal lobe development was yes. It would also depend on whether it was done emotionally because that has a lot of bearing on it.

It's not clear what you mean by "done emotionally": are you talking about the difference between sociopaths and the rest of the population?

Not depending on their age depending on how far along their brain is developed.

Yes, their age too. you wouldn't hold a three-year old "responsible as an adult" no matter what a brain scan said.

The fact that the law ignores the science is bull.

Then--I ask yet again--what "science" weas used to determine that Khadr is legally an adult?

(It's a rhetorical question: "science" didn't determine it, politics did.)

Edited February 7, 2010 by bloodyminded

[eyeball]

Are Youth Capable of Making Decisions? Yes. It is important to note that generally adolescents over the age of 15 can be as capable as adults in focused decisionmaking situations (cold cognition.) However, the impulsive, short-sighted judgment associated with delinquency is influenced by the combination of cognitive and psychosocial factors (hot cognition.) When children find themselves in emotionally-charged situations, the parts of the brain that regulate emotion, rather than reasoning, are more likely to be engaged.

In addition to being thrown wildly off course by adults since the age of three or four, Khadr was not over 15 and was in an emotionally-charged situation.

Thanks for clearing that up.

This is the result of keeping the debate focused on a simple principle of law and humanity. It's making people dig and think, that said...

The fact that the law ignores the science is bull.

Even if a horse or a bull can find the water themselves there is no guarantee they'll drink it.

Edited February 7, 2010 by eyeball

[Guest TrueMetis]

An MRI does not magically deduce "Adulthood." That's a far stickier matter than "brain development" anyway.

As the information you just posted for us explains quite nicely.

It would deduce how far along his frontal cortex is and how easily he could make rational decsions.

"Adulthood" is what we label it.

It's not clear what you mean by "done emotionally": are you talking about the difference between sociopaths and the rest of the population?

Do you not understand what an emotional situation is?

Yes, their age too. you wouldn't hold a three-year old "responsible as an adult" no matter what a brain scan said.

If it said their brain was fully developed I would do exactly that.

Then--I ask yet again--what "science" weas used to determine that Khadr is legally an adult?

(It's a rhetorical question: "science" didn't determine it, politics did.)

Then it is wrong screw politics the science should have been used.

In addition to being thrown wildly off course by adults since the age of three or four, Khadr was not over 15 and was in an emotionally-charged situation.

Thanks for clearing that up.

He was 15 the year at the most won't make much of a difference, and yes the situation was emotional I had said that the cite supported you position.

This is the result of keeping the debate focused on a simple principle of law and humanity. It's making people dig and think, that said...

Even if a horse or a bull can find the water themselves there is no guarantee they'll drink it.

Then the horse or bull dies same should happen to a politcians career when they ignore the science.

ETA after researching this I'm no longer sure where I stand.

Edited February 7, 2010 by TrueMetis

[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

all true!!

[msdogfood]

Funny thing about that. Apparently it doesn't apply in Afghanistan or Guantanamo Bay. Go figure, huh?

SOC basically Sid yes to that!

[msdogfood]

Funny thing about that. Apparently it doesn't apply in Afghanistan or Guantanamo Bay. Go figure, huh?

it applies!!

[msdogfood]

He has a right to huge compensation settlement.

Avoiding responsibility for his humane treatment, a fair trial and exoneration was a really stupid idea.

he has already taking Action on this as of this passed Saturday!!

[msdogfood]

The Supreme court has finally ruled:

Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2499075

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

link here!

Source: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2010/2010scc3/2010scc3.html

[cybercoma]

Notice how dozens of wide-ranging disparate arguments can be neutralized with the same fundamental principle?

I'm as guilty as the next person of thinking that the more worked up I get and the more I type the bigger and better my argument is. I didn't get this many points by having incredibly brilliant things to say the whole time. In fact, I rarely say anything brilliant, but some people on this forum lately take the cake.

[Army Guy]

I can't speak for all nations, but generally if you enlist in an army which is not considered an enemy state, and in particular if you enlist in the army of an ally, there's little your native land can or will do about it. Even after Ireland was fully independent of Great Britain, and even though it remained neutral during WWII, plenty of Irishmen joined the British Army. Heck, the French Foreign Legion is made up entirely of people who do not hold French citizenship.

I think you miss the piont here, regardless of which army or which nation you decide to enlist in, be it an enemy of the state or not each soldier is responsiable for his or her own actions....and if those actions are terrorist in nature then that soldier is deemed a terrorist, precluding you from protection under the conventions and inter-national law....The laws are quite clear,

Most nations claim you must be a citizen of thier country to join, there are exceptions as you've listed, Here in Canada you must be a canadian citizen, to join the military or RCMP...The USMC you need to be a citizen of the US, however you can join the army, navy, or airforce without being a citizen,....as for the French foreign legion, it was once a home to malcontents, and criminals, however todays FFL is now a very different place with most of there personal being of french decent, those few that are not upon completion of service where granted french citizenship.

[Army Guy]

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.

She won't because we don't have the leadership or stones to do so...becuase Canadians have been blinded by the Khadrs, the movement to have him brought home, set free is huge, a payout will follow to cleanse our hands and minds...Justice hoever will have nothing to do with it....

Not doing so because bad things will happen is bullshit, i would have thought bad things would have happen to the US for hold one of her children....and we still wait....NO the US justice system will do what we Canadians have failed to do, give him his day in court, and pass a sentence befitting his terrorist activities...