Jump to content

Omar is back


PIK

Recommended Posts

What difference does that actually make? I don't think we're really discussing legal tecnicalities but rather moral imperatives.

Omar Khadr could not help become what he became, I agree. Nevertheless, one could say the same of a variety of child molesters and psychopaths and we still punish them severely. If a 15 year old boy raped and murdered a girl in Canada would you feel sorry for him because of his poor upbringing and demand he be released? Even if he represented a continuing danger?

Who said anything about release?

I'm arguing for assessment and rehabilitation - ie treatment - instead of just incarceration and release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 696
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Who said anything about release?

I'm arguing for assessment and rehabilitation - ie treatment - instead of just incarceration and release.

Why do you believe he can be 'rehabilitated' at all? Has history shown a lot of cases of extremist religious fanatics being rehabilitated by councilling? Hasn't it actually shown them willing to die by torture rather than renounce their beliefs?

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you believe he can be 'rehabilitated' at all? Has history shown a lot of cases of extremist religious fanatics being rehabilitated by councilling? Hasn't it actually shown them willing to die by torture rather than renounce their beliefs?

That's a lot of speculation.

That's what assessment and rehab are for, to determine to what extent he may be a danger to the public.

Right now, because our government has dragged its feet and not addressed these issues, he'll be eligible for release before they get their act together.

That's not appropriate without evaluation of danger to the public and potential for rehabilitation, imo.

"Feeling sorry" isn't useful and isn't my motivation.

Assessment and rehab are useful, necessary imo.

That's just basic human science.

But you're not alone ... I don't think Harper grasps that either.

Edited by jacee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh. Always back to Reagan, eh?

That's your answer to his use of proxy terror groups in Latin America?

smile.png

I guess that's proof eternal of our evil actions; proof of what we "often" do.

It was by far the lesser of the two situations I summoned (both right off the top of my head); and the second one is a 25 year situaitoon, bipartisan, and involving several Western nations.

Maybe read before you respond in such a way.

At any rate, if you're genuinely interested in the Indonesia/East Timor situation, here are some links, from both during and after the brutality:

http://www.gwu.edu/~...BB174/index.htm

http://etan.org/timor/BkgMnu.htm

http://etan.org/timor/uspolicy.htm

http://etan.org/et20...y/1-6/1oped.htm

http://www.etan.org/news/2006/cavr.htm

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

That's your answer to his use of proxy terror groups in Latin America?

smile.png

Nooooo.... My actual response was, and I quote, "I'll address the rest of this later .... heading out now."

But since this is apparently all you've got in response to all that I did say, I don't believe I'll bother.... except I can't forget this, eh? : smile.png

rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a lot of speculation.

That's what assessment and rehab are for, to determine to what extent he may be a danger to the public.

Right now, because our government has dragged its feet and not addressed these issues, he'll be eligible for release before they get their act together.

That's not appropriate without evaluation of danger to the public and potential for rehabilitation, imo.

"Feeling sorry" isn't useful and isn't my motivation.

Assessment and rehab are useful, necessary imo.

That's just basic human science.

But you're not alone ... I don't think Harper grasps that either.

So based on statements by his mommy and sis, should they perhaps be included in any assessment and rehab? Should he be prohibited from contact with them since they seem instrumental in his radical upbringing and pleased that he was making bombs to murder allied military?

I think he should be prohibited from contact with them and vice versa don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nooooo.... My actual response was, and I quote, "I'll address the rest of this later .... heading out now."

Yeah...but you also said, in essence: "Reagan.,..is that all ya got?"

smile.png

Which--as you knew at the time--was not the case.

If your subsequent remark cancels out the first (patently false) one...then why include it?

But since this is apparently all you've got in response to all that I did say, I don't believe I'll bother.

smile.png

I anticipated just this response. Not because of my powers of prediction, but because of the predictability of those frightened to discuss serious western crimes...of the type that match some of our worst enemies.

That's no fun, is it? Best to ignore history, ignore your county's responsbility for mass murder.

A sigh of relief...and then you can on to denouncing the terrorism of others...a much more relaxing (if morally vacuous) enterprise.

You have been offered an extremely solid argument for the outright terrorist collusion of Western states...with the United States clearly leading the way.

This quite authoritatively refutes your silly notion that the Western democracies don't "intentionally" kill innocent civilians, or resort to terrorism.

And you are completely unable to offer a reasoned rebuttal to any of it.

American Woman...stymied and at a loss for words! We don't see that every day. smile.png

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Yeah...but you also said, in essence: "Reagan.,..is that all ya got?"

smile.png

Noooo. In reality I said that I'll get back to you later, I'm on my way out. But don't let that stop you from making things up.

smile.png

Which--as you knew at the time--was not the case.

Which is why I said that I'd address it later.

smile.png

If your subsequent remark cancels out the first (patently false) one...then why include it?

Because I felt like it.

smile.png

smile.png

smile.png

I anticipated just this response. Not because of my powers of prediction, but because of the predictability of those frightened to discuss serious western crimes...of the type that match some of our worst enemies.

That's no fun, is it? Best to ignore history, ignore your county's responsbility for mass murder.

A sigh of relief...and then you can on to denouncing the terrorism of others...a much more relaxing (if morally vacuous) enterprise.

You have been offered an extremely solid argument for the outright terrorist collusion of Western states...with the United States clearly leading the way.

This quite authoritatively refutes your silly notion that the Western democracies don't "intentionally" kill innocent civilians, or resort to terrorism.

And you are completely unable to offer a reasoned rebuttal to any of it.

American Woman...stymied and at a loss for words! We don't see that every day. smile.png

Are you seriously an ignoramus who can't comprehend plain English - as in "I'll address the rest later, I'm on my way out?"

smile.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noooo. In reality I said that I'll get back to you later, I'm on my way out. But don't let that stop you from making things up.

These aren't your words, directly preceding the rest?:

Sigh. Always back to Reagan, eh? I guess that's proof eternal of our evil actions; proof of what we "often" do.

?

as in "I'll address the rest later, I'm on my way out?"

Excellent. I look forward to your thoughts on the matter.

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect arguing over Khadr's case and fate will continue to irreparably divide Canadians and we'll getting be in each other's faces even more. I'm glad he's home, maybe now he'll finally get a chance at some justice.

Maybe.

He a supposed Canadian, admitted to murder of a Canadian ally, isn't there justice for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

He a supposed Canadian, admitted to murder of a Canadian ally, isn't there justice for that?

Yeah - in the form of a ten million dollar payout, evidently. "Canadian justice," according to some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So based on statements by his mommy and sis, should they perhaps be included in any assessment and rehab? Should he be prohibited from contact with them since they seem instrumental in his radical upbringing and pleased that he was making bombs to murder allied military?

I think he should be prohibited from contact with them and vice versa don't you?

I don't know.

They've never been charged or convicted of anything.

Not sure if there are legal grounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares if he is a terrorist. Criminals that are abused and have their rights violated are entitled to compensation and an apology also.

People who are violating their rights are human rights abusers, which is on an equal plane or worse.

Defending against a foreign invasion is honourable. You just slap a lable on, fact is he wasn't a terrorist, he wasn't targetting civillians.

The Canadian Forces killed more innocent civillians than Omar Khadr did. Get it straight.

You are speaking from a fantasy standpoint not based in the real world.

You people are disgusting if you think that human rights abuses are ever "ok", they arn't. People like you should be shot.

People with that position are a disease on humanity that must be cured.

Just a question who stands up for the rights of regular Afghanis citizens....And yes while it may be an honorable cause to stand up for all the Omars in the world, ensuring everyone has equal rights and is treated fairly....lets not forget one thing what the Taliban and al quadia stoood for, what they were trying to achieve, and that does not entitle them to anything except disdain.....

Defending again'st invasion is honorable, except that is not what Omar and his cronies were doing, they were fighting an insurgent action again'st the ligitimate government of Afghanistan, which is illigal in any country including ours..............check the time lines, once again.....

As for him not targeting civilians , what do you call placing mines on a hyway which 80 % of the time occupied by civilians, The mines he placed are victim operated meaning you have to step on them to make them explode....there is not remote device....So your claim that he was not targeting them is false when in fact he was targeting everyone.

Your understanding of Combat is unbelievable, if you spent just 1/3 of the time you spend chasing down Conspiracy theories looking into how our military conducted itself on the battlefield you would understand more about this conflict than most.....

I won't deny that the CF was involved in civilain deaths, but those were tragic accidents or non intentional, with the exception of one with was the shooting Capt Semeau was involved with....even that one could be debated....

I don't think anyone is out right saying abuses are good....i don't think they should be put ahead of the others such as law bidding deserving Canadians or law abidding Afghanis....

Now we are talking about shooting people and calling them disease on humanity....i guess it is OK to talk about human rights and abuses when it suits you and Omar, and does not come into play for the rest of Canadians....It's ok to talk the talk, but not walk the walk...

Edited by Army Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That depends on the prisoner, and also on which 'rights' are violated, given the enormous elasticisity some have made of that term.

- -

No, it doesn't depend on the prisoner, a human rights abuse is a human rights abuse. If you can't show humanity why do you expect it from them. There is always a third party, so your position is just a creation of viciousness.

HUMAN RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS... there are no good or bad human rights they are fundamental.

If he's an Afghani, which is the only group who can 'defend against a foreign invasion' then we should ship him to Afghanistan.

Will it result in good? The idea is to prevent Arar like repetitions where people are shipped to hostile countries so they can be violated with less of a conflict of interest. If you wants to go back to Afghaistan, sure. Also I disagree with your assessment of the only person able to defend.. wrong, it was an invasion in violation of the rules of war, why apply the rules of war if the invader doesn't apply them? Law of Persons states that if an individual's life is threatened they have the fundamental right to a defence, by any reasonable application of force whether deadly or not. In most contexts the notion of duress would provide a defence. Period. In absence of "lawful government" (since domestic law cannot be changed lawfully during an occupation), acts that would be unlawful by one side substantiate self defence provsions providing a lawful defence. Its like a 15 year old knifing a home invader whose posse has them pinned to their house. Totally legal defence. No part of "in force" Afghan law provided for US special forces to assault the house Khadr was in, so the act is beyond the law and a criminal act, so Khadr would have both fundamentally and within Afghan law as existed internationally (that is prior to the occupation by the US invading forces) US cannot force changes to domestic law, it is against the rules of occupation within the rules of war.

Sounds like you need to open some concentration camps.

No need for camps bodies decompose.

Edited by login
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a question who stands up for the rights of regular Afghanis citizens....

Humans, if Afghanis can't defend themselves then they're going to need a stronger husband or wife.

I'm strongly against foreign intervention in domestic affairs as a political policy position. I feel diplomacy is applied. Casual war is nonsensical, occupation of Afghanistan is nonsensical. If over a billion people can fit into china there is more room in Canada and Russia and other central asian states for Refugees.

and yes while it may be an honorable cause to stand up for all the Omars in the world, ensuring everyone has equal rights and is treated fairly....lets not forget one thing what the Taliban and al quadia stoood for, what they were trying to achieve, and that does not entitle them to anything except disdain.....

I don't like Canadian law either. I could care less if there was a place for Taliban law. There are thousands of people praising the dhali lama for next to the same justice system. why are you claiming to have the right values? I think people of different values can share the same planet, its not like they were in France, they were in their tribal lands, who the hell cares, its their tribes, their traditional lands, Why are you forcing your standards of law on the land they have lived in for centuries? You think our society is perfect? I like arranged marriages and speeding. Those things make life easier. I'd take 10 wives I cuold care less if people had multiple wives or husbands. Yeah cut their bloody hand off, or I'd say just kill every criminal it will save time, just make sure that it is someone who is committed to crime rather than someone of circumstance, kill the people who like to victimize. I'm all for that. While neither Canadian Law nor Taliban law do my thing, that is it right their I don't think your law is perfect, and I don't think theirs is perfect, its that simple, but its their law, and its your law. Just don't try to apply it to me. I will gladly die and get the hell off this rock. Its a body.

Defending again'st invasion is honorable, except that is not what Omar and his cronies were doing, they were fighting an insurgent action again'st the ligitimate government of Afghanistan, which is illigal in any country including ours..............check the time lines, once again.....

It wasn't any more legitimate all humans have equal rights and equal right to land, it is only out of respect that people can live in peace and cooexistance. You have no more right than they do, but one should realize IT WAS THEIR TRADITIONAL LAND NOT THE NORTHERN ALLIANCES'.

As for him not targeting civilians , what do you call placing mines on a hyway which 80 % of the time occupied by civilians, The mines he placed are victim operated meaning you have to step on them to make them explode....there is not remote device....So your claim that he was not targeting them is false when in fact he was targeting everyone.

Proove that he killed civillians or shut up.

Your understanding of Combat is unbelievable, if you spent just 1/3 of the time you spend chasing down Conspiracy theories looking into how our military conducted itself on the battlefield you would understand more about this conflict than most.....

I won't deny that the CF was involved in civilain deaths, but those were tragic accidents or non intentional, with the exception of one with was the shooting Capt Semeau was involved with....even that one could be debated....

I don't think anyone is out right saying abuses are good....i don't think they should be put ahead of the others such as law bidding deserving Canadians or law abidding Afghanis....

Now we are talking about shooting people and calling them disease on humanity....i guess it is OK to talk about human rights and abuses when it suits you and Omar, and does not come into play for the rest of Canadians....It's ok to talk the talk, but not walk the walk...

I consider killing people honourable, I consider torture inhumane, death is liberation.

Afghanistan feels to me like a shrub that is being trimmed for show. But the strategic importance will only become clear over the next 3 years. I'm still waiting to see how things fall but this is a critical time. Once we hit 2020 things will be more clear. Its is hard to verbalize but my strategy would not have been occupation. As a training exercise as I indicated as the reason for extending Afghanistan it is fullfilling its purpose but I feel it isn't being managed as well as it could be. I don't feel it.

Its just an exercise in gunboat imperialism.

I hate victimizers by character. I respect people who make victims due to difference in culture with reason because it is a form of innocence that only communicaton can resolve in respect and allowing comprehension of one world for both. I can't blame someone for being them, but I can despise someone who chooses to be a tormentor.

Edited by login
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah - in the form of a ten million dollar payout, evidently. "Canadian justice," according to some.

And a well deserved penalty to Canadians for letting our government break the law and drag our country's sweet name thorough it's own filthy shit.

I just wish there was some way to make the sycophants who cheered on Ottawa's vilification and maltreatment of Omar Khadr like a mob at a lynching pay the bill. This spectacle is mostly the fault of the spectators because in a democracy the people are responsible for the actions of their government, and especially when they condone or allow their indifference to fan it's criminal actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

And a well deserved penalty to Canadians for letting our government break the law and drag our country's sweet name thorough it's own filthy shit.

How can Canada have a "sweet name" if it's got "it's own filthy shit?"

I just wish there was some way to make the sycophants who cheered on Ottawa's vilification and maltreatment of Omar Khadr like a mob at a lynching pay the bill. ....

Why? If you think he's so deserving of it, why don't you want to be part of paying it? Seems to me you should be more than happy to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This spectacle is mostly the fault of the spectators because in a democracy the people are responsible for the actions of their government, and especially when they condone or allow their indifference to fan it's criminal actions.

Yes, and it's good to see the system work that way. Question is, will we learn our lesson after paying out? No! That's why the real criminals keep getting away with it, time and time again. Our laws are hollow and we've proven it by looking the other way from our own offences.

Not that I hate our government, of course. But I hate what they do!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- -

No, it doesn't depend on the prisoner, a human rights abuse is a human rights abuse. If you can't show humanity why do you expect it from them. There is always a third party, so your position is just a creation of viciousness.

How noble. The problem is I really don't care if the human rights of someone like Paul Bernardo or Clifford Olsen are violated.

HUMAN RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS... there are no good or bad human rights they are fundamental.

And what is a human right? We have the traditional interpretation, of course. If you torture someone, that violates their human rights. But we've now got a whole pantheon of new 'human rights' the various courts have decreed. There's the right of criminals in prison to vote, for example. There's the right of foreigners who lie and sneak into Canada to have years of appeals paid for by Canada. There's the right of drug dealers not to have their transactions tape recorded by the police who make buys. There's the right a fat person to a nearby parking spot. I don't consider all these rights to be all that sacrosanct, I'm afraid.

No need for camps bodies decompose.

It sounds very much like your concern for human rights is strictly limited, and that those you dissaprove of shouldn't have any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean like:

I really don't care if the human rights of someone like Paul Bernardo or Clifford Olsen are violated.

at one time that would've included David Milgaard too...at times I think there are definitely people who need/deserve killing but examples like Milgaard remind me how we can screw things up, everyone is deserving of human rights even the undeserving...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[E]veryone is deserving of human rights even the undeserving...

I think it's important to remember the ancient premise that the law is blind. Once we start making some exceptions as to who gets human rights and who doesn't, we place ourselves at the top of a very slippery slope.

Though, Argus does make a point about conveniences having been turned into rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

everyone is deserving of human rights even the undeserving...

Not so sure after seeing Manson on TV recently, and his accomplices. Somehow keeping them alive and in the media year after year, hearing about their crimes and their attitudes after years in prison. doesn't satisfy me that they are being adequately punished, and that the public conscience is undisturbed.

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
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    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...