Peter F Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) No...the Official Languages Act serves as a wonderfully absurd example of what would constitute a breach of Omar (The Kid Terrorist) Khadr's precious Charter rights. I wonder if the Froot Loops boxes at 'Gitmo are printed in French? Ya-ya, I get it. Charter rights have no meaning or practical effect for you. I understand that. Sorta like me and my Right to Bear Arms. I got the Charter right to deal with the Canadian government in either English or French (where reasonably available), my choice. You don't. Big whup. As for Froot Loops at gitmo - I don't really give a shit. But if i'm reading the froot loops box in Quebec City I'd better damn well see some french printing! But thats neither here nor there. You seem to be equating questioning minors about the very serious - even in America - charge of Murder without legal representation and/or advice, then further abusing them (if not torturing them) three ways from sunday over the next few years in order to get him to confess...you seem to be equating that to be as meaningless and mundane as whether French is on his froot loops box or not. You can do a helluvalot better than that. Nope...the USSC has a much longer legacy than the SCC, which only grew fderal balls in 1949. Ooooh. I feel so inadequate beside you. Please, sir, Can you give Canada the same history as the USofA? No? Well then, I guess we'll have to make do Edited January 31, 2010 by Peter F Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
msdogfood Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 Yes, but they meant that they, the Court, has no right to interfere in foreign policy. Not the government, the Court. That's recognizing that the Court is messing in politics, where they have no business. The point about 'rights' has to do with Khadr. I doubt if the Supreme Court said what is being reported. What possible right could anyone have that would entitle them to -- what? -- incession? Khadr went to Pakistan to learn how to kill Americans, Afghan style, from ambushes, etc. He ended up being wounded and caught, and his life saved by a lot of American medical care. Formally, the guy has no rights. He's caught, fighting without a uniform, in the employ of no state, killing Americans. Legally, he's just a criminal or an insurgent. Either way, he could have been lined up against the wall and shot, legally. He's lucky to be treated as a PoW. Does Canada have an obligation to seek the freedom of Canadians fighting against NATO? I doubt it. It would be more likely a crime for Canadians to fight against NATO. There's a lot of loose talk about 'rights' these days, as if everybody has a right to everything. The problem is -- they don't, and people who attack military units from ambushes take their own chances. If I am wrong, identify the right that Omar Khadr has supposedly not been accorded. I don't think you can. PMO falls to act the SCC sed any Court can order a remedy! Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 But if i'm reading the froot loops box in Quebec City I'd better damn well see some french printing! Khadr is not in Quebec City.....but the weather is much nicer. But thats neither here nor there. You seem to be equating questioning minors about the very serious - even in America - charge of Murder without legal representation and/or advice, then further abusing them (if not torturing them) three ways from sunday over the next few years in order to get him to confess...you seem to be equating that to be as meaningless and mundane as whether French is on his froot loops box or not. No...I've baited you into supporting such absurd provisions regardless of the setting. Next stop....International Space Station. Ooooh. I feel so inadequate beside you. Please, sir, Can you give Canada the same history as the USofA? No? Well then, I guess we'll have to make do You made the comparison...and failed. Better luck next time. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
msdogfood Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 Very lucky to be treated like a PoW... especially since the US Government has constantly refused to treat him as such. And I don't think you even bothered to read the Court decision, or you would know the answer. Various aspects of the procedures and policies in place at Guantanamo at the time Khadr was interrogated by Canadian agents in 2003 were later found BY U.S. COURTS to be against both U.S. and international law. In the case of Khadr, these violations included denial of access to a lawyer and of habeas corpusAlso, Khadr was subjected to treatment, such as sleep depravation, that amounts to torture. By interrogating Khadr without a lawyer present while he was being subject to sleep depravation, Canadian officials violated his rights under the Constitution, as well as fundamental justice. Like it our not, under our Constitution, even those accused of the most hieous crimes have a right to a lawyer, and not to be tortured. Canadian officials had no right to interrogate Khadr knowing the conditions he was subjected to. Good thing we have the courts to remind us of that. Thank- you for poning that out!! Quote
msdogfood Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 Do you think you're being funny, or something? It's hardly that simple. The article itself plainly states that the CCRF doesn't apply to Canadian abroad, except in rare circumstances. I'd like to know what those circumstances are. The Khadr case is clearly an exceptional circumstance. Was the Canadian Foreign Affairs official supposed to bring a lawyer along when interviewing Khadr? I'm also unsure why he needs a lawyer if the Foreign Affairs official wasn't an investigator. The FA official wasn't there in a law enforcement capacity, I don't think, so why would Khadr have needed a lawyer? Again, what type of lawyer(s) should he have had? The very concept of a lawyer seems to imply that he's a civilian criminal (if that's a term I can use) rather than an enemy combatant. Is it standard for POWs (and he's not even a conventional soldier, but a non-uniformed terrorist) to be given lawyers when captured? It'd be interesting to get more insight from somehow familiar with the relevant laws of this case, if such a person exists on this forum. becuse of what the court stat-id thay now must do that!! Quote
msdogfood Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 No. They participated in a violation of the rights guaranteed by the Charter. very true! Quote
msdogfood Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 The media acts in the best interests of the media. Like the government of the day, it doesn't really care about anything else. If they think it makes a good story, they'll cover it and even campaign for the prisoner. If not, they'll ignore him. Government is pretty much the same. Unless it's politically necessary, they're not going to upset our relationship with the foreign government involved. In fact, the "government" that is to say, the political part of it, won't even hear about it because the bureaucracy will play down its importance. If you think the foreign minister gets a list from his bureaucrats of Canadians arrested abroad every night you're sadly mistaken. Did you even look at the decision at ALL!!!! Quote
Peter F Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 No...I've baited you into supporting such absurd provisions regardless of the setting. Absurd? Absolutely not. There's nothing absurd about the Charter of Rights no matter the setting. You made the comparison...and failed. Better luck next time. Post it again....maybe I'll believe it then. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 Absurd? Absolutely not. There's nothing absurd about the Charter of Rights no matter the setting. Except if you happen to be disabled in Canada. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bugs Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 PMO falls to act the SCC sed any Court can order a remedy! That isn't what I read. I don't think you even know. They said that having a Canadian government person at Khadr's interrogation at Gitmo violated some right or another. I don't quite get it, and that's half of the reason I was asking. The other half was that it seems nobody else knows, either. What can these judges have the PM do, in future? Chastise the official? Perhaps he could whistle the President of the USA in, to explain why Gitmo's now going to be the site of the NY Terrorist trial, and the implications for human rights ... This ruling seems to me to be a lot of hot air expended over an order that's essentially empty. Quote
justme Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 No.....I just wonder why you are only concerned about Khadr's precious rights since Harper became PM. Either way, political games in Canada mean nothing until America is good and ready to be done with that terrorist bastard! You can keep him. Instead of trying to bring him back, Canada should be trying to remove the rest of the family. With all the people in the world that would love to live in a country like Canada, we don't need people that hate it. Sadly, sympathy for the enemy is nothing new to lefties. Quote “The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.” –Theodore Roosevelt “The symptoms of dying civilizations are well known. The death of faith; the degeneration of morals; contempt for the old values; collapse of the culture; paralysis of the will, but the two certain symptoms that a civilization has begun to die are a declining population and foreign invasions no longer resisted.” – Patrick J. Buchanan "Liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide. Its ideas pursued to their logical end will prove fatal to the West." -- James Burnham
scorpio Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) Except if you happen to be disabled in Canada. Section Fifteen of our charter: 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. I'm disabled, living in Canada. Show me the inequality. Edited January 31, 2010 by scorpio Quote
Born Free Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) But he isn't guaranteed a full night's sleep when in American custody at Gitmo after being captured as an enemy combatant in Afghanistan. Your Charter rights don't follow you around the world, you know? They exist only within our borders. I still reject your use of the term "interrogate" when all I've seen are interview. Was there Canadian participation in an investigatory capacity to build a case against Khadr? Specifically, was Khadr's interview with the Canadian FA official done with intent to prove his guilt? If not, then he didn't need a lawyer. If this was the case, however, Canada still doesn't have the authority to enforce these standards of provision of a lawyer at Gitmo without America's permission. End of story. Gabby...Gabby....Gabby.... You still dont understand what the Supreme Court decision was all about vs. what transpired in Gitmo. Perhaps if you stood back and thought about it all, you'd realize that how silly all this back and forth arguing is. It was the CANADIAN guys who were deemed to have contravened Khadr's CANADIAN rights. Anyone with a modicum of common sense would understand that the AMERICAN guys are contravening their own constitution and of course international Human Rights. We cant do anything about that. Its up to the US folks in charge to deal with that. In the mean time, the US folks seem to have some concerns after all these years to actually bring Khadr to trial. Of course, the reason behind that is obvious.... Edited January 31, 2010 by Born Free Quote
bloodyminded Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 Sadly, sympathy for the enemy is nothing new to lefties. Yeah, there is a sector of the Right which is so obssessed with left-hatred that they always produce vacuous, meaningless statements like yours here. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Born Free Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) You can keep him. Instead of trying to bring him back, Canada should be trying to remove the rest of the family. With all the people in the world that would love to live in a country like Canada, we don't need people that hate it. Sadly, sympathy for the enemy is nothing new to lefties. This is unbelievably silly...how old are you? There are many in this country that are simply of the belief that Khadr should be given a trial and not left to rot in a dungeon without regard to the fundamental human rights we supposedly enjoy in this country. Rights that our forefathers died for. This has nothing to do with right or left... Edited January 31, 2010 by Born Free Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) This is what I don't get: It is unlikely that Omar Khadr would be tried or convicted in Canada if the Supreme Court on Friday orders the Harper government to seek his repatriation from Guantanamo Bay, say legal experts. link This young man is the confusing face of modern warfare. He was a child soldier under international law, and is a citizen of Canada, whose government does not want him home, perhaps largely because he would not likely be tried for anything here. link Why wouldn't he be tried for anything in Canada? Do 15 year olds who are accused of murder 'not get tried' in Canada? And again, if he is a 'child soldier,' why isn't his mother being charged with child abuse? I don't agree with his having been held without a trial for 7 years, but according to the article, he will likely face a "'military commission' trial" this summer, so he will no longer be held in limbo. If Canadians have a problem because a "child soldier" is facing a "military commission," they best get on the government's butt about charging his mother, who is living freely and without charge, in Canada. Can't have one without the other. If he's a child soldier, his mother is guilty of abuse. If he's not, then what's the problem with the accused being tried in the country of the soldier who was killed? Edited January 31, 2010 by American Woman Quote
dizzy Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 This is what I don't get: It is unlikely that Omar Khadr would be tried or convicted in Canada if the Supreme Court on Friday orders the Harper government to seek his repatriation from Guantanamo Bay, say legal experts. link This young man is the confusing face of modern warfare. He was a child soldier under international law, and is a citizen of Canada, whose government does not want him home, perhaps largely because he would not likely be tried for anything here. link Why wouldn't he be tried for anything in Canada? Do 15 year olds who are accused of murder 'not get tried' in Canada? And again, if he is a 'child soldier,' why isn't his mother being charged with child abuse? I don't agree with his having been held without a trial for 7 years, but according to the article, he will likely face a "'military commission' trial" this summer, so he will no longer be held in limbo. If Canadians have a problem because a "child soldier" is facing a "military commission," they best get on the government's butt about charging his mother, who is living freely and without charge, in Canada. Can't have one without the other. If he's a child soldier, his mother is guilty of abuse. If he's not, then what's the problem with the accused being tried in the country of the soldier who was killed? 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. Quote
Born Free Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 This is what I don't get: Why wouldn't he be tried for anything in Canada? Do 15 year olds who are accused of murder 'not get tried' in Canada?... 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.. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) 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. Of course they are only OPs, but from what I've seen, that seems to be the prevailing opinion, so there must be some basis for that. 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.. I couldn't agree more. That's my stand too. But I don't understand those who passionately believe Omar's rights as a Canadian have been violated as they remain silent regarding the abuse he endured at his parents' hands-- as his mother remains in Canada without charge. Edited January 31, 2010 by American Woman Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 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. Trails often consist of circumstantial evidence; it's up to either a judge or a jury to decide if the circumstantial evidence is enough for a conviction. Eye witnesses often contradict each other, too, for legitimate reasons. Again, that's why it's up to either a judge or a jury to make a final verdict. "Circumstantial evidence" does not mean there "are no grounds to lay charges." 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. That's good to hear. Now a question: are you as vocal/passionate about that? Quote
Born Free Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) Of course they are only OPs, but from what I've seen, that seems to be the prevailing opinion, so there must be some basis for that. Right or wrong...there is always a basis behind an opinion. I would say that there isn't any prevailing opinion..... differing opinions or varying opinions might be more like it. But I don't understand those who passionately believe Omar's rights as a Canadian have been violated as they remain silent regarding the abuse he endured at his parents' hands-- as his mother remains in Canada without charge. Whatever his parents might have or might not have done has absolutely nothing to do with Canada's Supreme Court decision....namely that Khadr's rights were violated by the Canadian officials who visited Khadr in Gitmo. Its that simple. Lets have a trial and see what it brings... Edited January 31, 2010 by Born Free Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) Right or wrong...there is always a basis behind an opinion. I would say that there isn't any prevailing opinion..... differing opinions or varying opinions might be more like it. According to one of the articles I linked, it is the prevailing opinion of legal experts. Again: It is unlikely that Omar Khadr would be tried or convicted in Canada if the Supreme Court on Friday orders the Harper government to seek his repatriation from Guantanamo Bay, say legal experts. Whatever his parents might have or might not have done has absolutely nothing to do with Canada's Supreme Court decision....namely that Khadr's rights were violated by the Canadian officials who visited Khadr in Gitmo. Its that simple. I never said it did have anything to do with the Supreme Court decision. I said I don't understand how those who passionately/vocally object to his treatment/claim that his rights have been violated remain so silent regarding his upbringing -- as his mother lives the good life in Canada, free from any charges. It's especially odd to me because that's in Canada's hands, while Omar remains in our hands. It's something Canada could easily do something about. So why no uproar about his mother violating Omar's right not to be raised as a child soldier? After all, that's clearly something your country could decisively deal with. Lets have a trial and see what it brings... Again, as I've clearly stated, that's my stand. It doesn't, however, erase the other issues I've brought up. Edited January 31, 2010 by American Woman Quote
CANADIEN Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 You can keep him. Instead of trying to bring him back, Canada should be trying to remove the rest of the family. With all the people in the world that would love to live in a country like Canada, we don't need people that hate it. Sadly, sympathy for the enemy is nothing new to lefties. The issue of what to do with the rest of the Khadr family is a different one. Feel free to start a new thread on it anytime. Sadly, confusing concern for the highest standard of conduct with sympathy for anyone is nothing new coming from those on the right who couldn't care less about it. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) ...I'm disabled, living in Canada. Show me the inequality. Here ya go...with the usual reference to American policies: Canadians with disabilities have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but the Charter does not enforce their rights and they remain largely shut out of Canadian society. The disabled face discrimination in employment, schools, social and eating places. By comparison Americans have effective protection with the Americans with Disabilities Act. They also enforcement bodies like Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). http://www.njnnetwork.com/?p=13574 There are more than three million Canadians with disabilities and more than 2.3 million families in Canada who provide day-to-day support for a family member with a disability. Despite progress in the last two decades, Canadians with disabilities and their families still face significant barriers. It is clear that the experience of exclusion, poverty and isolation for people with disabilities continues. This is unacceptable in a country as prosperous as Canada. http://www.ccdonline.ca/en/socialpolicy/actionplan/accessible-canada So once again, there are high falutin' Charter rights with no remedy or enforcement. Salute! Edited January 31, 2010 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
CANADIEN Posted January 31, 2010 Report Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) This is what I don't get: It is unlikely that Omar Khadr would be tried or convicted in Canada if the Supreme Court on Friday orders the Harper government to seek his repatriation from Guantanamo Bay, say legal experts. link This young man is the confusing face of modern warfare. He was a child soldier under international law, and is a citizen of Canada, whose government does not want him home, perhaps largely because he would not likely be tried for anything here. link Why wouldn't he be tried for anything in Canada? Do 15 year olds who are accused of murder 'not get tried' in Canada? And again, if he is a 'child soldier,' why isn't his mother being charged with child abuse? I don't agree with his having been held without a trial for 7 years, but according to the article, he will likely face a "'military commission' trial" this summer, so he will no longer be held in limbo. If Canadians have a problem because a "child soldier" is facing a "military commission," they best get on the government's butt about charging his mother, who is living freely and without charge, in Canada. Can't have one without the other. If he's a child soldier, his mother is guilty of abuse. If he's not, then what's the problem with the accused being tried in the country of the soldier who was killed? Thgere are three issues here. One, is he a child soldier? I think not, but he is certainly welcome to have his lawyers argue that once there is a legitimate tribunal in place to try him. Second - can he be tried in Canada? If the Criminal Code qualifies as a crime the murder of a soldier of an allied country during a war Canada is taking part in, yes. If not, he has not violated Canadian law. (BTW, for thosewho may be tempted to argue I think otherwise, if it's not a crime let's change the criminal code) Third - I think many of those who want Khadr back (and I am not particularly interested in having him back, btw) are basing their opinion on the illegal treatment Khadr has been subjected to in Guantanamo. Edited January 31, 2010 by CANADIEN Quote
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.