Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

...

I may want to send a fruit basket.

Include some cake an I can name a few posters who you could put into that fruit basket.

Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.

Posted

Eye you know he is not living next door to you-that is the point.

I'd sooner have him for a neighbour than you that's for sure.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

  • 4 years later...
Posted
On 5/22/2015 at 10:21 AM, Shady said:

There isn't even a question as to whether khadr killed somebody. He did. That's a fact. You're gonna have to come to terms with that at some point.

Yabbut, justice is subjective so he didn't do anything wrong.  Also, justice is subjective so the Canadian government did nothing wrong in awarding him 10 million for our failure to follow our own laws.

Posted
5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Yabbut, justice is subjective so he didn't do anything wrong.  Also, justice is subjective so the Canadian government did nothing wrong in awarding him 10 million for our failure to follow our own laws.

True.  However, some people feel differently.  Especially awarding him money without having to do so.

  • Like 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Shady said:

True.  However, some people feel differently.  Especially awarding him money without having to do so.

But not you, right?  You agree that Khadr was entitled to that money because justice is subjective and anyone can do anything, so long as they can come up with a reason for it.  Like "Well, I think the other side has already behaved badly so I'm going to throw ethics out the window and lie about my impartiality."

Posted
2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

But not you, right?  You agree that Khadr was entitled to that money because justice is subjective and anyone can do anything, so long as they can come up with a reason for it.  Like "Well, I think the other side has already behaved badly so I'm going to throw ethics out the window and lie about my impartiality."

No, I disagreed with the money.  But you're right that some people might have deemed it justified for his long incarciration.

Posted
1 hour ago, dialamah said:

But not you, right?  You agree that Khadr was entitled to that money because justice is subjective and anyone can do anything, so long as they can come up with a reason for it.  Like "Well, I think the other side has already behaved badly so I'm going to throw ethics out the window and lie about my impartiality."

 

Entitled to 10.5 million for killing a medic? Why not. It's dialamah world...

Posted
51 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Entitled to 10.5 million for killing a medic? 

No for being illegally incarcerated and maltreated - a victim of war crimes. Everyone is entitled to defend themselves in war whether they kill anyone or not.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
24 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Far from me to get in the way of your love for this man.

You mistake concern for love because you can only feel hate - a hatred that extends to anyone or thing that doesn't likewise revel in it.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

You love him...I hate him. 

Yup, there's never been any doubt about that.

Compensating him is one thing but I would love to have seen his award set at $150 million to punish Canada for catering to your hatred. Demonizing a POW is a war crime too after all but the fact it was a child soldier goes beyond the pale.

 

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
On 1/17/2020 at 8:21 PM, eyeball said:

Yup, there's never been any doubt about that.

Compensating him is one thing but I would love to have seen his award set at $150 million to punish Canada for catering to your hatred. Demonizing a POW is a war crime too after all but the fact it was a child soldier goes beyond the pale.

 

It has already been determined by a court of law that he was not a child soldier, but classified as a terrorist, which is an illegal activity in its self, let alone murdering a US army Medic, again illegal in inter national law, the Geneva Convention, and guess what Canadian law...and there fore held in a prison camp until his trail.... who cares if he was under age, you break the law and are under age, you are still subjected to the law, and can be incarcerated here in Canada...

  • Like 1

We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.

Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

It has already been determined by a court of law that he was not a child soldier, but classified as a terrorist, which is an illegal activity in its self, let alone murdering a US army Medic, again illegal in inter national law, ...and there fore held in a prison camp until his trail.... who cares if he was under age, you break the law and are under age, you are still subjected to the law, and can be incarcerated here in Canada...

What court of law was it that determined that again? Oh right, George Bush's bogus military commissions that the Supreme Court said were unlawful and in violation of the Geneva Convention.

Quote

 

Khadr was detained at Guantanamo for more than three years before he was charged in January

2006 under the first set of military commissions set up by President George W. Bush. His case

was dismissed when the Supreme Court declared those commissions unlawful in the case of

Hamdan v Rumsfeld in June 2006.

https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/Mackin/Khadr_ChildSoldier.pdf

 


 

Quote

 

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."[1] Specifically, the ruling says that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was violated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

 

 

As I said in another thread when I think about how right-wing conservatives position themselves and their political parties as the champions of law and order your jokes about Islam being the religion of peace come to mind.

 

Quote

...the Geneva Convention, and guess what Canadian law...

Is it because you don't give a shit or don't recall the letter that UN experts on the Geneva Convention in general and Child Soldiers in particular wrote warning Canada and the US they were even more wrong in the case of Omar Khadr.

It sickens me to think Canada sends people like you to represent us on battlefields on the other side of the world.

Quote

who cares if he was under age, you break the law and are under age, you are still subjected to the law, and can be incarcerated here in Canada...

The Geneva Convention cares. I thought you guys swore a bunch of magic words that committed you to caring as well before going off and killing people.   

Edited by eyeball

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
On 1/17/2020 at 9:03 AM, dialamah said:

But not you, right?  You agree that Khadr was entitled to that money because justice is subjective and anyone can do anything, so long as they can come up with a reason for it.  Like "Well, I think the other side has already behaved badly so I'm going to throw ethics out the window and lie about my impartiality."

Khadr wasn't entitled to that money. 

The money was given to him based on the supposition that he was denied a quick and fair trial, but there's no precedent for giving people who were caught on the battlefield a trial. Canadian POWs didn't sue Germany for the lack of a trial, and by the same token German POWs didn't sue Canada either. A trial for a POW isn't really a thing.

When Khadr was apprehended he didn't even have the right to the normal protections of the Geneva conventions because he was an unlawful combatant (he wasn't young enough to be considered a child soldier either). 

He was caught, he was detained, and as long as the conflict in Afghanistan was going on he should have stayed there.

  • Like 2

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

"If it didn't come from CNN, it's heresy!" - leftist "intellectuals"

Posted
17 hours ago, eyeball said:

The Geneva Convention cares. I thought you guys swore a bunch of magic words that committed you to caring as well before going off and killing people.   

When people wear a military uniform with a flag on it and enter a warzone, thereby making it legal for their enemies to kill them, those brave people get the protection of the Geneva Conventions

People in a warzone without a uniform & flag are not legal targets, and they can't be killed by military personnel. But in the instances where those 'civilians' do engage military personnel they are considered unlawful combatants and they don't get the same protections of the Geneva Conventions. If Khadr was killed where he stood it wouldn't have been an issue. The fact that he was allowed to live is more than he deserved. 

  • Like 1

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

"If it didn't come from CNN, it's heresy!" - leftist "intellectuals"

Posted
3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

When people wear a military uniform with a flag on it and enter a warzone, thereby making it legal for their enemies to kill them, those brave people get the protection of the Geneva Conventions

People in a warzone without a uniform & flag are not legal targets, and they can't be killed by military personnel. But in the instances where those 'civilians' do engage military personnel they are considered unlawful combatants and they don't get the same protections of the Geneva Conventions. If Khadr was killed where he stood it wouldn't have been an issue. The fact that he was allowed to live is more than he deserved. 

That's not what the the UN Secretary-General's special representative for children and armed conflict said.
 

Quote

 

Radhika Coomaraswamy, the UN Secretary-General's special representative for children and armed conflict, wrote in a 2010 statement that the proposed trial violated international legal norms and "may endanger the status of child soldiers all over the world."[19] "Since World War II, no child has been prosecuted for a war crime," Coomaraswamy said in a statement distributed by the U.N. on the eve of Khadr's trial at Guantánamo.[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr#United_Nations_reaction_to_Khadr_trial

 

 

Quote

People in a warzone...

What war? You must still be new at this because more enlightened Khadrphobes like to negate the Geneva Conventions right off the bat by claiming there was no officially declared war.  If there was no war...there were no POWS...and no need for rights, legal procedures or precedent.

Just simple might to make right. 

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The money was given to him based on the supposition that he was denied a quick and fair trial, but there's no precedent for giving people who were caught on the battlefield a trial

He was a child soldier, recruited while under 18 and captured while under 18. 

Here's info on child soldiers:

Regardless of how children are recruited and of their roles, child soldiers are victims, whose participation in conflict bears serious implications for their physical and emotional well-being. They are commonly subject to abuse and most of them witness death, killing, and sexual violence. Many are forced to commit violent acts and some suffer serious long-term psychological consequences. The reintegration of these children into civilian life is an essential part of the work to help child soldiers rebuild their lives.

The UN's declaration on child soldiers include this clause:  

States will demobilize anyone under 18 conscripted or used in hostilities and will provide physical, psychological recovery services and help their social reintegration.

Both Canada and the US signed onto this agreement.  In Khadr's case, neither Canada nor the US made any effort to offer recovery services, or reintegrate him into society.  UN agreements are not legally binding, so that hardly matters - although I daresay if the child had been not-Muslim, these details would have mattered.

Still, Canadian and US laws were broken in Khadr's case.  Multiple court cases on both sides of the border demonstrated that.  Khadr got the payout because of the injustice meted out by the Canadian government.   It wasn't about a "speedy trial" at all.

There's also evidence that he didn't kill anyone, though we'll probably never know for sure.  

Continuing to insist that Khadr's payout was unjustified ignores many facts.  It also suggests that you'd be ok with a "shithole country" justice system, where facts don't matter, laws are applied randomly, and people can be made examples of, regardless of their guilt or lack of it.

Edited by dialamah
Posted
On 1/17/2020 at 4:21 PM, eyeball said:

Yup, there's never been any doubt about that.

Compensating him is one thing but I would love to have seen his award set at $150 million to punish Canada for catering to your hatred. Demonizing a POW is a war crime too after all but the fact it was a child soldier goes beyond the pale.

 

 

To you he's an innocent victim.

To me he's a killer that was given money for his efforts in the Middle East serving with his al-Qaeda papa.

So when are you having him over for dinner?

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

To you he's an innocent victim.

That's right, as per the Conventional reasons given by the UN Secretary-General's special representative for children and armed conflict.

Quote

To me he's a killer that was given money for his efforts in the Middle East serving with his al-Qaeda papa.

As per opinions that are completely immaterial to the UN Secretary-General's special representative for children and armed conflict, the Geneva Conventions plus the US and Canadian Supreme Courts.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
1 minute ago, eyeball said:

That's right, as per the Conventional reasons given by the UN Secretary-General's special representative for children and armed conflict.

As per opinions that are completely immaterial to the UN Secretary-General's special representative for children and armed conflict, the Geneva Conventions plus the US and Canadian Supreme Courts.

 

So when's dinner?

He's allowed into your home....right?

You trust him.

:) 

Posted
10 minutes ago, dialamah said:

He was a child soldier, recruited while under 18 and captured while under 18. 

Here's info on child soldiers:

Regardless of how children are recruited and of their roles, child soldiers are victims, whose participation in conflict bears serious implications for their physical and emotional well-being. They are commonly subject to abuse and most of them witness death, killing, and sexual violence. Many are forced to commit violent acts and some suffer serious long-term psychological consequences. The reintegration of these children into civilian life is an essential part of the work to help child soldiers rebuild their lives.

The UN's declaration on child soldiers include this clause:  

States will demobilize anyone under 18 conscripted or used in hostilities and will provide physical, psychological recovery services and help their social reintegration.

Both Canada and the US signed onto this agreement.  In Khadr's case, neither Canada nor the US made any effort to offer recovery services, or reintegrate him into society.  UN agreements are not legally binding, so that hardly matters - although I daresay if the child had been not-Muslim, these details would have mattered.

Still, Canadian and US laws were broken in Khadr's case.  Multiple court cases on both sides of the border demonstrated that.  Khadr got the payout because of the injustice meted out by the Canadian government.   It wasn't about a "speedy trial" at all.

There's also evidence that he didn't kill anyone, though we'll probably never know for sure.  

Until he's in custody he's just an unlawful combatant and as such the legal combatants on the field had every right to kill him. You can't expect soldiers to id people before they defend themselves.

The Canadian government under Chretien and then Harper didn't mete out any injustice on him, they just didn't fight to get him released. And with him being a murderer and war criminal, why should we care?  

Khadr was born and raised to be a terrorist with bomb-making videos on the internet. Can you cite the "evidence that he didn't kill anyone"? You know that he pleaded guilty, right?

Quote

although I daresay if the child had been not-Muslim, these details would have mattered.

More stupidity. No one is saying that Bisonette should be rehabilitated or released. I get that he was an adult but he was a non-muslim and no one is crying because he's in jail. 

Quote

Continuing to insist that Khadr's payout was unjustified ignores many facts.  It also suggests that you'd be ok with a "shithole country" justice system, where facts don't matter, laws are applied randomly, and people can be made examples of, regardless of their guilt or lack of it.

It was completely unjustified. He was old enough to know right from wrong and he killed someone. 

If there's a requirement to rehabilitate him it should be done while he's behind bars. That's not shithole justice. Shithole justice is when a woman goes to jail for decades because she took off her own hijab, or when a 15 girl gets raped because she didn't have a hijab on and the police just laugh. 

  • Like 1

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

"If it didn't come from CNN, it's heresy!" - leftist "intellectuals"

Posted
26 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

So when's dinner?

He's allowed into your home....right?

You trust him.

:) 

What's this got to do with the aforementioned UN, GC, and Supreme Courts?

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
44 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's right, as per the Conventional reasons given by the UN Secretary-General's special representative for children and armed conflict.

As per opinions that are completely immaterial to the UN Secretary-General's special representative for children and armed conflict, the Geneva Conventions plus the US and Canadian Supreme Courts.

You can forgive Khadr for killing an American because you think that's ok anyways, but if a 15 yr-old Canadian was an unlawful combatant and killed a member of the Quds force would you still want them to get $10M after just spending 10 years in prison?  

  • Like 1

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

"If it didn't come from CNN, it's heresy!" - leftist "intellectuals"

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
      10,890
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    armchairscholar
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

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