Canadian Government Guilty of Violating Khadr's Rights

[dizzy]

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."

There hasn't yet been any official word on whether or not charges would be laid. We are all only speculating. That said, let's forget the fact that primary eye witness accounts fail at pretty much every stage of the event retelling (including respecting their own physical positions related to the target). What would you charge him with? This happened on a battlefield in another country. Canada hasn't yet forsaken the geneva convention, so we don't have grounds on which to lay charges. At worst, Khadr killed a soldier in a theater of war.

That's good to hear. Now a question: are you as vocal/passionate about that?

This was only my second post here, so I'm not sure what comparison is being made when asking me to be 'as vocal' on this point. Compared to what?

[Argus]

But you think he "deserves the treatment" anyway. Because...well, just because.

Because no one has a lot of sympathies for extremist Islamist ragheads - other than the left.

[CANADIEN]

Because no one has a lot of sympathies for extremist Islamist ragheads - other than the left.

This is not about sympathy for anyone. This is about the rule of law and due process. And living up to the claim that we are better than the enemy. I believe we are better in part because of the standards we set for ourselves in dealing with murderers. Sadly, some oon of the right think that we can dispense with it.

Edited January 31, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Argus]

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.

If you don't want people to point out just how naked your sympathies are for the enemy you might pull your skirts down now and then.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

This is not about sympathy for anyone. This is about the rule of law and due process. And living up to the claim that we are better than the ennemy.

No one sane believes we're not better than them. I think the SC made the right ruling, and the government should observe it and heed it henceforth, and not involve itself in such situations again. But I see no realistic remedy to the current dilemma which doesn't involve trying to bring a violent, unreformed islamist to Canada. And I don't see that as advantageous to anyone.

[CANADIEN]

No one sane believes we're not better than them.

Yet, some (and from your posting, you are not one of those people) have no problem what soever in sinking as low as the enemy.

[Argus]

Yet, some (and from your posting, you are not one of those people) have no problem what soever in sinking as low as the enemy.

We won't be sinking as low as the enemy until we randomly murder women and children by setting off explosions in markets, attacking girls schools and cutting the heads off prisoners. Let's not exaggerate the depths of Khadr's mistreatment. Sleep deprivation certainly qualifies as mistreatment, but it cannot honestly be termed torture.

[Sir Bandelot]

We won't be sinking as low as the enemy until we randomly murder women and children by setting off explosions in markets, attacking girls schools and cutting the heads off prisoners.

KABUL, Afghanistan - With his lips quivering and voice breaking, a tearful President Hamid Karzai on Sunday lamented that Afghan children are being killed by NATO and US bombs and by terrorists from Pakistan - a portrait of helplessness in the face of spiraling chaos.

In a heartfelt speech that brought audience members to tears, Karzai said the cruelty imposed on his people "is too much" and that Afghanistan cannot stop "the coalition from killing our children."

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-12/11/content_755352.htm

http://www.progressohio.org/page/-/Images/Abu-Ghraib-Prison-Photos.jpg

As though we haven't also done exactly that, eh?

30 years of war, and no end in sight for the people of Afghanistan.

Hey give yourself a pat on the shoulder. You are great

Edited January 31, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[CANADIEN]

We won't be sinking as low as the enemy until we randomly murder women and children by setting off explosions in markets, attacking girls schools and cutting the heads off prisoners. Let's not exaggerate the depths of Khadr's mistreatment. Sleep deprivation certainly qualifies as mistreatment, but it cannot honestly be termed torture.

Some here have advocated that enemies captured be summarily executed without any form of trial. Some in other forums have advocated nuking the whole of Afghanistan. Government officials have sought ways to justify and provide a legal blanket for gross violations of fundamental principles of justice. That's sinking pretty low already.

As for sleep deprivation not being torture. I'll take the opinion of Amnesty International over that of the former Bush administration anyway. Or I'll take this:

In the head of the interrogated prisoner, a haze begins to form. His spirit is wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire: to sleep...Anyone who has experienced this desire knows that not even hunger and thirst are comparable with it[\quote]

Menahem Begin, former Prime Minsiter of Israel, describing the effects of the application of sleep deprivation on him when in the custody of the Soviet secret police. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation#Torture - sorry guys, but I can't get the link thing to work for me)

Edited January 31, 2010 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

KABUL, Afghanistan - With his lips quivering and voice breaking, a tearful President Hamid Karzai on Sunday lamented that Afghan children are being killed by NATO and US bombs and by terrorists from Pakistan - a portrait of helplessness in the face of spiraling chaos.

In a heartfelt speech that brought audience members to tears, Karzai said the cruelty imposed on his people "is too much" and that Afghanistan cannot stop "the coalition from killing our children."

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-12/11/content_755352.htm

As though we haven't also done exactly that, eh?

30 years of war, and no end in sight.

Let's be honest here. There has not been delibarate targetting of civilian population by coalition troops.

[cybercoma]

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.

You're missing a very important point. Your argument is hinged on the notion that this is like any other murder trial. Khadr was an enemy combatant in a military zone. Without being in an identifiable uniform, and from behind civil shields, he attacked the US military and killed one of their soldiers. Khadr broke the Geneva Convention himself, but since he was not correctly following the rules of war and did not belong to a foreign military, how do you classify him? The Geneva Convention theoretically does not apply to him, but he was acting as an "enemy combatant", which is why the United States chose to call them that. Nevertheless, the United States still does not have the right to torture its POWs, if it is to abide by international standards and set the bar for other countries in peacekeeping conduct. However, what they do with their detainees in war is their prerogative, SCC be damned.

[CANADIEN]

You're missing a very important point. Your argument is hinged on the notion that this is like any other murder trial.

It's a murder trial. No need and no justification for departing from the rules that govern murder trials.

However, what they do with their detainees in war is their prerogative, SCC be damned.

You conviently forget that actions and decisions of the Bush administration regarding the detainees have been found to be contrary to US and international law by US courts, up to the Supreme Court. And that our Supreme Copurt, beside repeating what had already been said by the U.S. Supreme

Court, was issuing a decision on the lagallity of the actions of CANADIAN officiicials.

Edited January 31, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Guest American Woman]

KABUL, Afghanistan - With his lips quivering and voice breaking, a tearful President Hamid Karzai on Sunday lamented that Afghan children are being killed by NATO and US bombs and by terrorists from Pakistan - a portrait of helplessness in the face of spiraling chaos.

In a heartfelt speech that brought audience members to tears, Karzai said the cruelty imposed on his people "is too much" and that Afghanistan cannot stop "the coalition from killing our children."

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-12/11/content_755352.htm

http://www.progressohio.org/page/-/Images/Abu-Ghraib-Prison-Photos.jpg

I find it odd that we don't hear of Karzai crying over the Taliban killing their children, especially in light of the fact that far more civilians are killed by the Taliban.

We don't purposely kill any civilians, we take care not to, and when we do, there is ultimately an investigation. When's the last time the Taliban had an investigation into the deaths of civilians at their hands?

As though we haven't also done exactly that, eh?

No, we have not done exactly that, if we are honest about it.

Furthermore, I've read where people who have seen pictures of the bodies of "children killed" say that they had full grown beards. I wouldn't take Karazi's word to heart regarding what's happening there. Seems even his official admits that 'the bodies of the school children were buried by the time he got there.'

link

I'm not downplaying the deaths by any means, but it's not "exactly that;" not even close. If you want to compare our actions to the Taliban's, I have to wonder why.

[Sir Bandelot]

Let's be honest here. There has not been delibarate targetting of civilian population by coalition troops.

WHat is deliberate. An act of ommission of the safety of others, is that not deliberate?

It makes no difference, when the bombs are raining down on a civilian. They don't know or care if it was really meant for them or not.

We certainly don't go out of our way to avoid these occurences, as they happen so frequently. There is probably more we could do to protect civilians. But we dont

[CANADIEN]

I find it odd that we don't hear of Karzai crying over the Taliban killing their children, especially in light of the fact that far more civilians are killed by the Taliban.

Especially considering that he makes reference to terrorists from Pakistan. He may be guilty of trying to discount the facts that the terrorist movement does not lack for Afghani volunteers, but he is certainly not trying to ignore that things done by the terrorists.

[Sir Bandelot]

I'm not downplaying the deaths by any means, but it's not "exactly that;" not even close. If you want to compare our actions to the Taliban's, I have to wonder why.

Then what else are you really saying. Do you actually doubt that women and children are killed routinely as collateral damage? I'd be very surprised if you said "yes...".

Those links I showed were acquired in about 5 minutes of google. There is so much else. There is no doubt whatsoever that we (or any nation) will do whatever it takes to further our own self interests. If that means bombing people into the stone age, we will do that. If that means, you need to believe that its all for the greater good, so you can sleep well at night, please carry on.

[Guest American Woman]

Then what else are you really saying. Do you actually doubt that women and children are killed routinely as collateral damage? I'd be very surprised if you said "yes...".

Of course I don't doubt it, but I also don't think for a minute that we are purposely targeting them or carelessly dropping bombs regardless of whether or not there are civilians in the area. If we were, how do you account for the fact that the Taliban is responsible for so many more civilian deaths than we are?

Those links I showed were acquired in about 5 minutes of google. There is so much else. There is no doubt whatsoever that we (or any nation) will do whatever it takes to further our own self interests. If that means bombing people into the stone age, we will do that.

If that were true, we'd have already nuked them, and we'd be responsible for a lot more deaths than the Taliban is.

If that means, you need to believe that its all for the greater good, so you can sleep well at night, please carry on.

It has nothing to do with me personally or my ability to sleep at night; it has to do with the reality of the situation being discussed, which is what my response was in regards to. But if you need to make it personal, for whatever lame reason, please carry on.

Edited January 31, 2010 by American Woman

[CANADIEN]

Then what else are you really saying. Do you actually doubt that women and children are killed routinely as collateral damage? I'd be very surprised if you said "yes...".

Those links I showed were acquired in about 5 minutes of google. There is so much else. There is no doubt whatsoever that we (or any nation) will do whatever it takes to further our own self interests. If that means bombing people into the stone age, we will do that. If that means, you need to believe that its all for the greater good, so you can sleep well at night, please carry on.

The needless dying of civilians is not acceptable. And it is the moral responsibility of any combattabt party to do all they can to avoid civilian casualty. But there is still a difference between not yaking sufficient measures to avoid them and delibarately seeking to kill civilians.

[Guest American Woman]

Especially considering that he makes reference to terrorists from Pakistan. He may be guilty of trying to discount the facts that the terrorist movement does not lack for Afghani volunteers, but he is certainly not trying to ignore that things done by the terrorists.

Which makes it all the more odd that Karzai isn't crying over the civilian deaths at the hands of the Taliban. It appears as if they are responsible for the greatest percentage of civilian deaths, even according to the UN.

I honestly don't trust the man, and doubt whether what he says is true.

[Peter F]

You're missing a very important point. Your argument is hinged on the notion that this is like any other murder trial....

I'll be happy to start a new thread on whether the Americans are treating gitmo detainee's justly or not. That is not the point of this thread or the point of the FrootLoops exchange.

However, what they do with their detainees in war is their prerogative, SCC be damned.

After all the posts so far you still don't understand. The SCC decision was a mere declaration that the Canadian government (not the American government) infringed Khadrs Charter rights by questioning him in Gitmo in 2003/4.

Its NOT about what the American Government has done ; Its about what Canadian Officials have done.

[Born Free]

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.

It doesnt say the prevailing opinion of all legal experts. Hence my comment re the term you used ie. "prevailing".

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 seemed to me that your bringing the two subject matters into the same sentence implies that there was some kind of nexus. There isnt any.

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.

What do you believe that Canada can do from a legal stand point?

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.

What precisely do you believe Canada could do regarding the parents? There is no evidence to suggest child abuse. There is no evidence that says the lad was raised as a child soldier. We only have the US authorities say so on that matter.

[Sir Bandelot]

No one sane believes we're not better than them.

Whle its true we dont slice off heads during intermission at soccer matches, "we" as in Canada, or the western alliance or whatever manipulate situations in other countries for our own nations personal interest, to the detriment of theirs. We are not unlike the Roman citizens of old who enjoyed the prosperity and security of living in Rome, while the troops battled in barbarian lands far away. We enjoy the wealth and profit made by those conquests, whose main purpose is to create economic security zones that benefit the empire.

The way we attack, the way we destroy and assimilate into our culture, is different from the way they do. On this level we are only better because we don't get bombed by them.

[Born Free]

Sleep deprivation certainly qualifies as mistreatment, but it cannot honestly be termed torture.

You are absolutely dead wrong on that.

[Born Free]

Khadr was an enemy combatant in a military zone.

You have absolutely no evidence of that. Only an open trial will decide that matter. I assume that you'd want to see a trial....sooner rather than later...

[Born Free]

Then what else are you really saying. Do you actually doubt that women and children are killed routinely as collateral damage? I'd be very surprised if you said "yes...".

Those links I showed were acquired in about 5 minutes of google. There is so much else. There is no doubt whatsoever that we (or any nation) will do whatever it takes to further our own self interests. If that means bombing people into the stone age, we will do that. If that means, you need to believe that its all for the greater good, so you can sleep well at night, please carry on.

Tghis is all academic. The foreign forces in Afghanistan will move a lot of rubble around with their bombs but at the end of the day...nothing will change. Once the coalition forces leave...the tribes will still hate and kill each other as they have done for centuries.

Its time to leave.