Guest American Woman Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 Khadr can do whatever he wants. If he wants to be a traitor to Canada I'm not going to like that, but I can't stop him. You can't force somebody to be loyal to a country if they don't want to be. So he can go do his thing and we'll gladly stick him jail for it.We can all do whatever we want; that's a given. That doesn't mean we have the right to do it. Some people want to kidnap children, others want to rape. That doesn't mean they have the right to do so. By the same token, Khadr, while he chose to fight against Canada and its allies, hardly had the "right" to do it, as you claimed. Quote
kimmy Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 If Khadr wants to fight against Canadian interests and fight against Canadian + allies invasion of Afghanistan that's his choice and he has every right to do that. It means he's a traitor to Canada so he has to live with the consequences. I don't defend his getting involved with terrorist groups that target civilians though. His dad was a scumbag and taught his son to be a scumbag. It's his choice, but it's not a legal right per se. If he gets convicted in court, he can't appeal the convictions on the grounds of a "right" to fight against Canadian forces, because no such right exists. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Moonlight Graham Posted September 21, 2013 Author Report Posted September 21, 2013 Did anybody catch the Jon Stewart bit this week in which he contrasted the rights' views of the 2nd amendment vs their views of the others? The theme could be summed up with his line: "So, with guns the Constitution is iron-clad. But with terrorism, it's a list of suggestions." It featured right-wing pundits, plus politicians like John Cornyn and Lindsey Graham explaining why that the 2nd amendment is an unchangeable absolute, yet essentially arguing that the 1st and 4th amendments are negotiable BECAUSE TERRORISM. And concludes with Monica Crowley saying "look, the Constitution is not a suicide pact!" ...in essence, saying that yes, she thinks the government ought to infringe on the 4th amendment to protect Americans. If you applied the same logic to the 2nd amendment... No, I wish I had seen it. I don't understand people who support things like the Patriot Act and FISA, and what the NSA has been doing. I would honestly much rather risk death via terrorist attack than give up my liberties of privacy, such as in Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure." Americans, especially Republicans,, fiercely defend their liberties and their constitutional rights so I don't understand why they would be at all willing to give any of them up for fear of terrorism. Maybe a bunch in congress are just a bunch of unthinking sheep? It's a miracle that parts of the Patriot Act and FISA passed into law and haven't been struck down by the courts yet (though some parts have). Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Moonlight Graham Posted September 21, 2013 Author Report Posted September 21, 2013 It's his choice, but it's not a legal right per se. If he gets convicted in court, he can't appeal the convictions on the grounds of a "right" to fight against Canadian forces, because no such right exists. -k I'm not referring to legal rights obviously. I was being philosophical rather than legal in using the term "right". There's a difference between legal rights and natural rights: Natural and legal rights are two types of rights: legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system, while natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. The theory of natural law is closely related to the theory of natural rights. During the Age of Enlightenment, natural law theory challenged the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government — and thus legal rights — in the form of classical republicanism.[dubious – discuss][original research?][clarification needed] Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by some anarchists to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
dre Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 We can all do whatever we want; that's a given. That doesn't mean we have the right to do it. Some people want to kidnap children, others want to rape. That doesn't mean they have the right to do so. By the same token, Khadr, while he chose to fight against Canada and its allies, hardly had the "right" to do it, as you claimed. Sure he did. People have a right to pick which side of a conflict they are on, and that right is not superceded by citizenship. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Guest American Woman Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 Sure he did. People have a right to pick which side of a conflict they are on, and that right is not superceded by citizenship. No, he didn't and yes it is. There's a little thing called "treason." Canadians do not have the "right" to fight against Canada in a conflict. Quote
Bonam Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 People have a right to do whatever they want to do, and to live (or die) with the consequences of their actions. Quote
dre Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 No, he didn't and yes it is. There's a little thing called "treason." Canadians do not have the "right" to fight against Canada in a conflict. You are assuming that Canadian law is the sole source of all rights. Its not. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Guest American Woman Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 People have a right to do whatever they want to do, and to live (or die) with the consequences of their actions. So people have the right to rape, murder, abuse children? Okay. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 You are assuming that Canadian law is the sole source of all rights. Its not. It is in Canada. Another country's laws have no bearing in Canada. Quote
The_Squid Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 It is in Canada. Another country's laws have no bearing in Canada.And if he wasn't in Canada? How do Canadian laws apply? It gets a little convoluted for simple black/white thinking.Plus, he was a child soldier... The "rules" are different. They need help, not punitive punishment. Quote
dre Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 It is in Canada. Another country's laws have no bearing in Canada. He wasnt IN Canada, and our laws do not apply to anyone in Afghanistan, Canadian or otherwise. Section 6(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada (hereinafter the Code) states that no person shall be convicted of an offence committed outside Canada. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
kimmy Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 People have a right to do whatever they want to do, and to live (or die) with the consequences of their actions. In this case, the consequences include a vacation in luxurious Millhaven. Some people are using at the term "rights" in a legal sense, and others are using it in the sense of people having sovereignty over their actions. Certainly the latter concept exists, but it's not going to get your ass out of Millhaven when you exercise a "right" that doesn't exist in the legal sense. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Bonam Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 In this case, the consequences include a vacation in luxurious Millhaven. Some people are using at the term "rights" in a legal sense, and others are using it in the sense of people having sovereignty over their actions. Certainly the latter concept exists, but it's not going to get your ass out of Millhaven when you exercise a "right" that doesn't exist in the legal sense. -k I agree. It's important people use a consistent set of definitions when discussing something, otherwise debates inevitably degenerate into semantic arguments. Quote
kimmy Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 I agree. It's important people use a consistent set of definitions when discussing something, otherwise debates inevitably degenerate into semantic arguments. Well we certainly try to avoid that here at MLW! -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Guest American Woman Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 He wasnt IN Canada, and our laws do not apply to anyone in Afghanistan, Canadian or otherwise. Some do. It's why Canadian citizens can't assist an enemy at war with Canada. Quote
dre Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 In this case, the consequences include a vacation in luxurious Millhaven. Some people are using at the term "rights" in a legal sense, and others are using it in the sense of people having sovereignty over their actions. Certainly the latter concept exists, but it's not going to get your ass out of Millhaven when you exercise a "right" that doesn't exist in the legal sense. -k But whether or not people in Afganistan had a right to resist the invasion is a matter of Afgan law, not Canadian law. Our laws do not apply there, and our courts have no jurrisdiction there. He COULD in theory be charged with treason while on Canadian soil, but the problem with that is.... No proceedings for an offence of treason as defined by paragraph 46(2)(a) shall be commenced more than three years after the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bleeding heart Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 Did anybody catch the Jon Stewart bit this week in which he contrasted the rights' views of the 2nd amendment vs their views of the others? The theme could be summed up with his line: "So, with guns the Constitution is iron-clad. But with terrorism, it's a list of suggestions." It featured right-wing pundits, plus politicians like John Cornyn and Lindsey Graham explaining why that the 2nd amendment is an unchangeable absolute, yet essentially arguing that the 1st and 4th amendments are negotiable BECAUSE TERRORISM. And concludes with Monica Crowley saying "look, the Constitution is not a suicide pact!" ...in essence, saying that yes, she thinks the government ought to infringe on the 4th amendment to protect Americans. If you applied the same logic to the 2nd amendment... -k these people are morons...laughable, but unfortunately influential, and so dangerous. I'm not talking about their adherence to the 2nd amendment, either. I have no emotional connection to it, but I can see their point. I'm talking about the rest of that nonsense, as you laid out so well. (And, of course, their hypocrisy re Constitutional matters.) Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
bleeding heart Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 As for Dre's citation: No proceedings for an offence of treason as defined by paragraph 46(2)(a) shall be commenced more than three years after the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed. I've heard this too, and similar statutes exist in the US. Which is why obnoxious right-wing loon David Horowitz, who admitted to committing treason back when he was an obnoxious left-wing loon, can't now be charged with it. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
GostHacked Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 So why did the Canadian government ignore his human rights? Canada did not ignore it. Just was powerless to do anything about it. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 Canada did not ignore it. Just was powerless to do anything about it. So that's why Canada didn't even try? Because Canada is so powerless? Must make you feel real secure. From what I remember, Canada kept passing the buck, not even really wanting him when Obama was wanting to send him back to Canada. But of course your version/revision makes the U.S. the Bad Guy and Canada the Poor Powerless Good Guy. Canada didn't give a crap about his human rights or the government would have been making a lot of noise about it whether it did any good or not. In other words, Canada most definitely did ignore it. Quote
GostHacked Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 So that's why Canada didn't even try? Because Canada is so powerless? Must make you feel real secure. Canada did try for years to have Kadhr moved to a Canadian facility. The US are the ones who would not let him go. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-blames-u-s-for-delay-in-omar-khadr-return-1.1260921 In an affidavit filed in response to a Federal Court application by Khadr's lawyers, a senior public safety official cites two main reasons for the lack of a decision to an application for Khadr to serve out his sentence in Canada — something he was eligible to do starting last October. The first reason cited was a delay in Washington's approval of the transfer — granted only this past spring. The second reason was Public Safety Minister Vic Toews's request for sealed videos of mental assessments of the inmate done for military prosecutors — apparently only discovered in February through media reports. But looks like both sides had a part in this delay. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 Canada did try for years to have Kadhr moved to a Canadian facility. The US are the ones who would not let him go. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-blames-u-s-for-delay-in-omar-khadr-return-1.1260921 But looks like both sides had a part in this delay. While the Americans waited until April to approve his transfer back to Canada, the Conservative government steadfastly refused to sign-off on the transfer, leaving Khadr in U.S. custody well past his eligibility date of last October. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/12/omar-khadr-canada-return_n_1878041.html Canada didn't care about his human rights any more than the U.S. did. The "powerless to do anything about it" is bull; as I said, Canada didn't even want him at the time he could have been sent back. Quote
dre Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 How the hell did we get to "Canada didnt care about his human rights!!!!" Jesus... Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
The_Squid Posted September 21, 2013 Report Posted September 21, 2013 It's called a red herring and is certainly trolling. Deflect attention from a topic that one has trouble debating.... 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.