Jump to content

Omar is back


PIK

Recommended Posts

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.

What the heck kind of argument is that? Maybe some of us would prefer if Canada didn't look like China?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 696
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

I lived in the city where Milgaard was supposed to have committed his depraved rape/murder I still remember the morning it happened very clearly, no one believed Milgaard was innocent, my cop buddies were absolutely convinced he was human garbage, for 20 yrs everyone except his mother believed that he was guilty until one day he was found to be entirely innocent..mistaken witnesses, witnesses that lie, forced confessions, intimidation, incompetent coroners, incompetent lawyers, judges and juries...we should never be 100% sure of someone's guilt...ya manson is probable guilty but we can’t extend that to everyone, emotion clouds good judgement...

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ya manson is probable guilty but we can’t extend that to everyone, emotion clouds good judgement...

We should never allow emotion to could our judgement, especially the court of public opinion but the real problem is, corruption. How many cases have we seen with trumped up evidence? Those people should be heavily punished, with incarceration.

But the real killers, Olsen, Bernardo, Homolka, Williams, should not be kept alive IMO. Although, it comes down to a question of should the state have the right to take a life, for me it's a trade off between the rights if the individual and the rights of the people to peace and security.

Edited by Sir Bandelot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should never allow emotion to could our judgement, especially the court of public opinion but the real problem is, corruption. How many cases have we seen with trumped up evidence? Those people should be heavily punished, with incarceration.

sure, but how do you separate corruption from ordinary incompetence...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the real killers, Olsen, Bernardo, Homolka, Williams, should not be kept alive IMO. Although, it comes down to a question of should the state have the right to take a life, for me it's a trade off between the rights if the individual and the rights of the people to peace and security.

but again Milgaard and a number of others were considered "real killers" too, only to have DNA and new trials clear them, the death penalty makes mistakes final...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

"I really don't care if people like you have your rights violated because"... you don't beleive in unviersal human rights. See the cycle.

Fact is you are the bad guy. I don't know either of those people. I think that an act or acts does not justify what someone is. You make them that, they don't need to be that.

And what is a human right?

Without greater cause or reason,

Right of Mobility- freedom of movement

Right of Security - freedom to be free from threat to their life in innocence.

Right of Liberty - the freedom to make for their own survival from what is on the planet in equal access without harm

Right of Peace - not to be subjected to treatment which violates the peace of mind

Right of Inviolibility - right not to have their body violated by substance or object or force without consent

Right of Equality - to have their rights respected and not to be interfered with if they grant those same rights to others..

Right of Honour - the protection against misinformation, lies and deciet so as to cause harm or defraud in context with the individual

Right to Self Recognition and Affiliation - the freedom to choose who they associate with and who they organize with

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.

The bottom line, if it ain't ok for me to walk up on the street and do it to you, it is likely a human rights abuse.

There's the right of criminals in prison to vote, for example.

Fundamentally there is no government beyond the self so the idea of the vote is nonconsequential, that is a poiltical concept for self organization. People needn't be part of an insitution or government if they choose not to be. That is the notion of right to self recognition and self affiliation.

People cannot be made slaves to someone elses rule. Rule is voluntary not forced. Rule of force invites conflict and force of arms.

There's the right of foreigners who lie and sneak into Canada to have years of appeals paid for by Canada.

Canada doesn't exist fundamentally as more than a self organized political unit. If you dont have a good reason for denying them entry they should be allowed in.

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.

That has to do with dignity. Drug dealers can very much be recorded by the police. Just a quesion in Canadian law whether a search warrant is requried. If police see a deal going down they are fully entitled to make an arrest. The idea of breaching peoples privacy is an issue of dignity. This relates to peace of mind.

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

I think people should be subjected to their own standards of law. A set of laws for the ruler and another set for the ruled is not a notion I support. I beleive in equality and equal rights to all citziens.

Edited by login
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't say it's not a problem. Has DNA evidence ever been wrong?

it's a huge problem, our entire justicesystem would be a complete failure if we executed even a single innocent person...and I'm sure it's happened in the past...at least now we can give someone their lives back when we screw up...

I don't think DNA can ever be wrong only the people doing the testing... a negative match.DNA can absolutely clear someone but a postive DNA match isn't always proof of guilt...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's a huge problem, our entire justicesystem would be a complete failure if we executed even a single innocent person...and I'm sure it's happened in the past...at least now we can give someone their lives back when we screw up...

I don't think DNA can ever be wrong only the people doing the testing... a negative match.DNA can absolutely clear someone but a postive DNA match isn't always proof of guilt...

It has happened in the past. But even spending 27 years in jail only to find out the accused was innocent, their lives are ruined.

Off topic anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know.

They've never been charged or convicted of anything.

Not sure if there are legal grounds.

Yes Jacee they've never been convicted of anything, but lets take a look at how it is going to affect his so call rehab, do you think his mother and sister are going to be a postive influence ....And the courts have made these types of decisions like this before...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Jacee they've never been convicted of anything, but lets take a look at how it is going to affect his so call rehab, do you think his mother and sister are going to be a postive influence ....And the courts have made these types of decisions like this before...

I don't think it matters what I think. It only matters if the court has leeway to declare Mom and Sis undesirable influences on him without evidence against them in court.

And that I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Why? Because it's the ass-holes who supported the government's criminality in Khadr's case who should be paying the consequences.

I'm left wondering why there shouldn't be a class-action suit to sue the government to exempt supporters of Khadr from having to pay anything at all -.any of us who can prove that we were not complicit in his vilification and defamation (that's a war crime by the way) should get a refund on our taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

You can disagree all you want it is illegal in Canadian law, inter national law and the conventions....You can not take up arms for any nation you please, if you are not a citizen of that country.....As it has been explained many times Omar is a Canadian citizen and has no right to defend Afghanistan from any foriegn invader.....He was just visting .....

As for the Invasion being in violation of inter national laws, the US claims it was authorized by Article 51 of the Un charter...assisted by UN res 1373

According to Art 51 the US does not need direct UN approval to take action...Perhaps you can explain why the US is in violation of the Rules of war, or geneva convention. and piont out what portion they are in violation of. And maybe why the UN has not taken action again' st the US for doing so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sc7158.doc.htm

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.

This must be applied to everyone then, including criminals, when the police come to there doors and they believe their lifes are threaten they can defend themselfs right ? and if that is so why are they're laws against such very actions....ie assault of a police officer, So just so i'm clear if the police draw their wpns i can draw mine, if they shoot i can shoot, and kill as many of them as i can , and it is all legal...

I'm going to need a source on that one....

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,

At the time a legal interm government was in place that much we know it's in all the history books......That interm governmant did give those very said powers to not Only US forces but to ISAF forces as well. ...but hey lets not stop there....lets take a look at Omars situation, Spec ops units were not in the area looking for something else and were side tracked to check out the the source of a SAT phone... Aghan milita or government forces went up to the house and knocked on the door.....Which in logins mind is a serious threat,....Omars buddies answered those knocks with Automatic gun fire knocking 3 of the militia members down.....a couple of questions here Is knocking on the door considered a threat , and can you use deadly force, i won't add if your a Canadian , in a foreign country, under foreign laws, in a war zone lets keep it simple....and when can the militia and US forces return fire.....And can someone explain to me what criminal act took place....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm left wondering why there shouldn't be a class-action suit to sue the government to exempt supporters of Khadr from having to pay anything at all -.any of us who can prove that we were not complicit in his vilification and defamation (that's a war crime by the way) should get a refund on our taxes.

laugh.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

laugh.png

Double biggrin.pngbiggrin.png and a tongue.png What a sense of humor. A terrorists jihadist traitor trains to kill our soldiers and allies and we have some bleeding hearts that hate the USA and Harper enough, that....huh.png they side with the traitorous jihadist..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but again Milgaard and a number of others were considered "real killers" too, only to have DNA and new trials clear them, the death penalty makes mistakes final...

And the sentence alternatively of 'life' isn't and if a murderer kills more than one the next are apparently free since only one sentence or concurrent sentences are levied. Our treatment of murder is wrong.

Life should be life if convicted as an adult. Murder(s) sentences should not be concurrent.

Edited by Peeves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Double biggrin.pngbiggrin.png and a tongue.png What a sense of humor. A terrorists jihadist traitor trains to kill our soldiers and allies and we have some bleeding hearts that hate the USA and Harper enough, that....huh.png they side with the traitorous jihadist..

And all the people that are giving money to this terrorist should be investigated. It is just embarressing to have so called canadians backing peop[le that would kill them in a heart beat. Like the gay man that is giving money to his defence I read in todays paper. His people would kill this man slowly for being gay, how stupid are people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
Why? Because it's the ass-holes who supported the government's criminality in Khadr's case who should be paying the consequences.

Yet you're the one who feels so bad for his lost childhood; the "ass-holes" you refer to had nothing to do with raising him. You feel as if he ended up where he did because of the way he was raised, so why should you be calling for him to receive millions - at others' expense? It's easy to be oh-so-righteous - when you deny any responsibility yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what bs is this?

so not the case. a bunch of countries allow non citizens to serve in their forces.

Besides, the US wasn't fighting a nation's active military. They were sweeping the country for people that they deemed to be terrorists.

Edited by cybercoma
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
      10,713
    • 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...