Jump to content

Omar Khadr is coming back to Canada.


Bob

Recommended Posts

Are you saying that he and his family have not become icons for other terrorists around the globe...including Canada...Sort of how the underdog wins again'st big government....how they used there citizenship of convience again'st us....

Never really thought about them as 'icons' , dont really care either, there are plenty they can choose from, the shoe bomber guy in Detroit, any number of others who are martyrs. To me it is no concern.

I'll give you that, but we still have one with the US in which Omar is in Custody now, where he did not recieve the death sentence, so he should remain to finsih out his sentence.

I have no issue with him staying where he is, but frankly if the Yanks want him out they we should oblige them and find a cell for him.

There is more to treason than trying to over throw the government, treason is also classified as partaking in combat again'st Canadian troops or thier allies....

He did his thang to US Forces. Had he been throwing shit at Canadian Forces and been caught (I have little doubt he had at some point) then the case is there.

Ya alot of emotion, over many things, seeing comrads killed or wounded, watching your country loss it's interest in the mission, The Khadrs getting more media attention than any Soldier, Canadians ensuring his rights are looked after, while our own get paid out peanuts...No, no emotion there

I am not mocking nor dismissing any contribution your fellow soldiers make.

Khadrs dont get media reception close to a returning soldier. In totality I would think you are wrong.Your fellow soldiers rights are protected just like any other citizens .

SO we will keep to the facts,

-He has been found guilty of most of the charges the US filed again'st him...Talk here in Canada is that he will be released early...Because we think he has been through enough...screw justice and the required sentence, were Canadians we love getting played by terrorists.....

Canada has no plans to file other charges again'st him, the treason Charge has been thrown out as unlikely to get a conviction. "Unlikely not impossiable"....

- No charges again'st the rest of his family are planed, IE his mother for abuse,neglect ETC as it would not be in Canada's best interest...But then again it's alright to charge real Canadians....thier not part of the terrorist family...

- How about his brothers, shit one a signed a contract for money and protection for some info...one got shot with his father, then returned to be treated in Canadian hospitals on OUR dime...the other is still at large Charges pending for wpns smuggling ETC....i wonder were he is....his sister who slams this country ever chance he gets....and was also wanted for the same crimes as the older brother...never been charged....

- Shit, the Canadian government even went out on a limb to bring them back into the country when his father was first arrested....No thats not embrassing, we are Canadians we shrug that shit off.

Pretty much all true. But no embarassment for a country to be honest. It suskc thay we have to do some things. Are the Americans embarassed that they tried to save the doofus when he tried to kill them? No, so if we have to medically interven, we have to do so.

My ass it is a legal stance it is a political stance...if it was a legal stance the full weight should have been applied not just bits and pieces.

It is a legal stance. The Govt is limited in what it could do, and I suspect they are trying behind the scenes to make it hard for them to live here. However they need to tread lightly and not slip up or it will cost them.

They cannot kick a citizen out of the country .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 348
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Substitute CRIMINAL for Canadian and you have all the answers anyone needs.

Ok...does this help you?

As a criminal he was and is entitled to all rights accorded to him by the Canadian constitution, the same as all other Canadian citizens. Of course, the Canadian constitution applies only within Canadian jurisdiction.

Cuz even as a tourist ones rights are protected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He did his thang to US Forces. Had he been throwing shit at Canadian Forces and been caught (I have little doubt he had at some point) then the case is there.

Us was still part of the coaltion, and considered an allied, treason still holds, however what the government has quoted is a conviction is unlikely therefore they won't press charges as this would be a political football. My piont is this if we are going to apply justice then it should be done to the fullest extent, not some here some there we don't want to look bad etc, etc...

I am not mocking nor dismissing any contribution your fellow soldiers make.

Khadrs dont get media reception close to a returning soldier. In totality I would think you are wrong.Your fellow soldiers rights are protected just like any other citizens .

I did not apply that you did, however it is an emotional topic for me. Yes returning soldiers do get some media however how many average Canadians can name 1 Soldier killed in combat, and yet Omar is a house hold name that is the media coverage i'm talking about.

It is a legal stance. The Govt is limited in what it could do, and I suspect they are trying behind the scenes to make it hard for them to live here. However they need to tread lightly and not slip up or it will cost them.

They've been rocking the boat since the inception of this thing, what is our government going to do, they can't even find the others that have been deported legally...the whole thing does not leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling.

They cannot kick a citizen out of the country .

Last time i checked Mom was not a citizen, send her packing the kiddies will follow...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the number of Canadians who've washed their hands of any regard for the fact Omar Khadr was an illegally indoctrinated child soldier that's really shameful.

It's disgusting to be perfectly honest.

He was born into Al Qaeda, an organization to which his father was a founder. He wasn't illegally indocrinated. He did benefit from it though. Had children in Africa not been taken from their homes and made soldiers, the age of a child soldier probably wouldn't have been raised, and Omar would have been considered "of age" to be a soldier.

At the end of the day, the only reason Omar is behind bars and his brother is paralyzed is because Chretien was duped by the family and got their father freed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

It's the number of Canadians who've washed their hands of any regard for the fact Omar Khadr was an illegally indoctrinated child soldier that's really shameful.

Yet his mother is still living the good life in Canada, without having had any charges laid against her.

It's disgusting to be perfectly honest.

Oh, it's disgusting, for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Us was still part of the coaltion, and considered an allied, treason still holds

Treason simply doesn't apply. The action considered treasonous has to be committed in Canada; the Criminal Code is quite clear on that: "Every one commits high treason who, in Canada... [emphasis mine]" Since Khadr did what he did in Afghanistan, the act can't be considered treasonous under Canadian law.

[c/e]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Treason simply doesn't apply. The action considered treasonous has to be committed in Canada; the Criminal Code is quite clear on that: "Every one commits high treason who, in Canada... [emphasis mine]" Since Khadr did what he did in Afghanistan, the act can't be considered treasonous under Canadian law.

[c/e]

It's also treasonous to do those things outside of Canada (emphasis mine). link

PART II

OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Treason and other Offences against the Queen’s Authority and Person

High treason

46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

(B) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

© assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Treason

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

(B) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

© conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (B) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (B) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

Canadian citizen

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,

(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or

(B)commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In lawyer Bob Tarantino’s view, Canada’s definition of treason is rather broad. He wrote, “you do not need to be a Canadian citizen to commit treason, and if you are a Canadian citizen or a ‘person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty,’ any treasonable acts are prosecutable whether they were committed in Canada or outside of the country.”

treason

After the Japanese capitulation in August 1945, Inouye was arrested in Kowloon and tried for war crimes by a military tribunal. He was convicted and was sentenced to death. However, the verdict was overturned on appeal, since as a Canadian citizen, he could not be prosecuted for war crimes committed by an enemy army.
In April 1947, Inouye was tried on the criminal charge of treason. He was again found guilty, and on August 27, 1947, he was executed by hanging at Hong Kong's Stanley Prison. His last word was "Banzai!"[5]

...

new admendment proposeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,

(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or

(B) commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).

I stand corrected!

However, there's still the matter of which clause in subsection 1 or 2 applies to Khadr. The only one that seems remotely applicable is 1.c. But, even then, for it to be useful in this case, Canada would either have had to have declared war against Al-Qaeda (which I don't believe has been done) or Al-Qaeda would have to be an armed force belonging to a state (which it is not).

I think this is why treason is a charge that's hard to make stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

I stand corrected!

However, there's still the matter of which clause in subsection 1 or 2 applies to Khadr. The only one that seems remotely applicable is 1.c. But, even then, for it to be useful in this case, Canada would either have had to have declared war against Al-Qaeda (which I don't believe has been done) or Al-Qaeda would have to be an armed force belonging to a state (which it is not).

1.c. reads:

(1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(c.) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Again, emphasis mine. Re: "assists an enemy at war with Canada" - doesn't sound as if Canada had to have declared war if there is an enemy at war with Canada.

The following text is the second fatwa originally published on February 23, 1998, to declare a holy war, or jihad, against the West and Israel.

Al Qaeda has declared war against the West, which would include Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is why treason is a charge that's hard to make stick.

I think the reasons are better discribed below.

My link

On the surface, that’s a fair analysis. However, it could also be argued that the legal definition of treason is also narrowly based. Our legal parameters simply haven’t included nominal instances of modern treason, such as the FLQ crisis. Instead, there is more focus in modern Canadian law on the lighter charge of sedition, or the rebelling against and/or opposition to an existing order – which is what the FLQ faced as one of its charges. This could ultimately mean that previously understood cases of treason in the past won’t fall (and aren’t falling) under the same legal definition in the present and future.

Second, when it comes to punishing those people, our country’s legal and judicial system falls far short of expectations.

Activist judges on the Supreme Court of Canada are, as London Free Press columnist Rory Leishman writes, “not loathe to commit major breaks with precedent for the purpose of changing the law to accord with their personal ideological preferences.” With this in mind, it’s unlikely that a future accusation of treason would last long enough to survive the claws of judicial activism in Canada. And if politicians and judges are unwilling to enact proper amounts of punishment for certain crimes, treasonous behaviour will most certainly not be properly punished, either.

Third, Canada has a minor role in international affairs and this has arguably led to fewer instances of what be generally agreed on to be treason.

While our country is now willing to take the lead in military missions like Afghanistan, support forceful stands against terrorist groups like Hamas, and walk out on UN speeches from vicious tyrants such as Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in spite of this, Canada is still regarded as a middle power (at best) on the international scene. Therefore, it’s a less valuable resource for potential treasonous acts than in larger countries like Britain, Germany, and the U.S. due to a lack of power, influence, key stakeholders and available information. This perception could change in time depending on Canada’s willingness to get involved in world affairs in a post-Harper government. But at this moment, our country’s influence is more associated with strong words rather than brute force – meaning that we are still seen as being a minor player.

Fourth, Canada has not suffered Western Europe’s fate with terrorist cells and immigration problems…yet.

To date, Canada’s experience with terrorist groups and third world immigration has not reached Western European levels. For instance, it’s true that terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Egyptian Islamic Jihad previously established small bases on our soil. But Canada has still not faced France’s 2005 race-based riots, or Denmark’s 2006 cartoon controversy, or wide-ranging concerns that the growth of radical Islamic thought in Western Europe is well underway. It’s possible that Canada could face some of these problems – and more – in due course, which could lead to a surge in treasonous-like activity. For now, this is not the case.

This does not mean Canadians should have a lax attitude about treason. Far from it. We should always be on guard to prevent this type of behavioural pattern from spreading, and our laws should become stronger and tougher to make our citizens safer and more secure. But as things currently stand, it appears treason as a common occurrence and a crime actively prosecuted may have run its course in Canadian society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

I think the reasons are better discribed below.

My link

Interesting. My first reaction is that I read those reasons more as why he wouldn't be charged with treason than why a charge of treason, if made, "wouldn't stick." However, I believe that his age is a factor in whether or not he would be charged, too. There is no reference to age in the law, but can such a charge be made against a minor? I myself believe that would be the most difficult factor to overcome if such a charge were to be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No charge of treason could possibly hold with wee Omar. He was captured by the Americans at the age of 15. Every possible act he could have committed to support a treason charge, had to have occurred before that time. And, needless to say, any such act would

have been committed by a child - and most definately as a child-soldier to boot.

There will be no charge of treason or any other charge for that reason alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also treasonous to do those things outside of Canada (emphasis mine). link

PART II

OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Treason and other Offences against the Queen’s Authority and Person

High treason

46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

(B) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

© assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Treason

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

(B) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

© conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (B) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (B) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

Canadian citizen

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,

(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or

(B)commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).

While true that applies in or out of Canada, section 46(1)© does not state actions against allies, just Canadian forces. The intention would probably be extended to include all coalition forces if it went to trial though. That's not a given though. It would be open to judicial discretion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

While true that applies in or out of Canada, section 46(1)© does not state actions against allies, just Canadian forces. The intention would probably be extended to include all coalition forces if it went to trial though. That's not a given though. It would be open to judicial discretion.

Killing Canadian allies would certainly be "assisting an enemy at war with Canada."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter F

No charge of treason could possibly hold with wee Omar. He was captured by the Americans at the age of 15. Every possible act he could have committed to support a treason charge, had to have occurred before that time. And, needless to say, any such act would

have been committed by a child - and most definately as a child-soldier to boot.

There will be no charge of treason or any other charge for that reason alone.

What are you trying to say that he could not be held accountable as a minor, as our history is full of minors being charged as Adults in Adult courts for serious crimes...which i think treason is pretty serious....

Or is there a clause that states other wise....Even under inter national law it states that children that are deemed child soldiers can be held accountable in court for their actions...it also states to be fair it is not the prefered course of action, but it remains one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

I highly doubt it. Nothing mentioned in the Statute about Allies.

"Assisting an enemy" is pretty broad, and as such, you don't think killing Canada's allies is assisting Canada's enemy? Fighting with the enemy isn't assisting them? What do you think "assisting an enemy..." means?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

I agree with you, but it's tough to say how these things will be interpreted. It's also possible for the defense to argue that the enemy was not strictly defined, so he couldn't possibly be helping the enemy.

What do you mean "the enemy wasn't clearly defined?" Canada was clearly in Afghanistan fighting al Qaeda. Al Qaeda declared war against the West, which includes Canada. I don't think there's any question of al Qaeda being the enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean "the enemy wasn't clearly defined?" Canada was clearly in Afghanistan fighting al Qaeda. Al Qaeda declared war against the West, which includes Canada. I don't think there's any question of al Qaeda being the enemy.

al-Qaeda is not clearly defined. We have claims of them having sleeper-cells and whatnot. They're almost like the internet group Anonymous. If you say you're al-Qaeda, then you're al-Qaeda. He wasn't at an al-Qaeda training camp with al-Qaeda soldiers fighting the Canadian military.

In any event, I agree that he should probably be charged with treason, but the outcome of such a case anything but certain. Also, Peter F has a good point. If they want to say the enemy was clearly defined, then he could be considered a child soldier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you say you're al-Qaeda, then you're al-Qaeda. He wasn't at an al-Qaeda training camp with al-Qaeda soldiers fighting the Canadian military.

But he did go to an AL-Qaeda training camp, and he was with other members of AL Qaeda during the fire fight...And the Canadian military was engage with elements of AL Qaeda at the time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: "assists an enemy at war with Canada" - doesn't sound as if Canada had to have declared war if there is an enemy at war with Canada.

The answer lies within the definition of "at war". Does a formal declaration of war have to be made before an enemy is considered "at war" with Canada? Can a non-national militant organization be considered to be "at war" with Canada? I can't say for sure what are the answers to those questions; but, my suspicion is that it's "yes" to the former and "no" to the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...