Interesting Media Omissions

[Argus]

No one other than the Toronto Star seems to be making much of a fuss over the laying of formal charges against Omar Khadr, one of our home-grown Muslim terrorists. Khadr faces a possible death sentence for murdering a US soldier a couple of years ago in Afghanistan.

But you won't find the word "murder" in any Canadian report.

What's more surprising is you won't find any actual description of the killing. Whether in The Star or Post, CTV or CBC, the media all say Khadr killed a US solider or medic, ususually during a firefight, or in the case of the Star, "as US soldiers stormed the building". In fact, Khadr pretended to surrender, and then threw the grenade at a US soldier as he approached. That constitutes murder by almost anyone's reckoning, including the geneva convention.

So why is it not showing up in ANY of the news reports?

[Guest eureka]

Of course it is showing up in News reports. I can't thinkl that anone has not seen or heard it: I have.

What is more interesting is the method of trial: can you say kangaroo? There is also the very valid question of why he is termed an illegal belligerent when he was fighting for a force that was resisting the invasion by the US.

It does not matter that the US had a right to that war. It was still a war that the US happened to win and any fighters for the other side are prisoners of war and entitled to all the protections of the Geneva Convention.

This is another instance of the US hubris that will bring its downfall.

[Riverwind]

In fact, Khadr pretended to surrender, and then threw the grenade at a US soldier as he approached. That constitutes murder by almost anyone's reckoning, including the geneva convention.

If this is murder then what do you call dropping bombs and cruise missles in areas with large civilian populations?

[Yaro]

What's more surprising is you won't find any actual description of the killing. Whether in The Star or Post, CTV or CBC, the media all say Khadr killed a US solider or medic, ususually during a firefight, or in the case of the Star, "as US soldiers stormed the building". In fact, Khadr pretended to surrender, and then threw the grenade at a US soldier as he approached. That constitutes murder by almost anyone's reckoning, including the geneva convention.

Where is this information coming from, under these circumstances the chances of someone doing this being taken alive are about ohhhh 0% so if possible I wouldn't mind seeing a source.

[apollo19]

I just watched Global National and it was their main story. They didn't play much on the angle of the "poor Canadian boy being held by Americans", they did an interview with a soldier who was injured by Khadr and it was very much supportive of the US laying charges against him.

[Argus]

Of course it is showing up in News reports. I can't thinkl that anone has not seen or heard it: I have.

Me too. But it is not being reported in any of the news media I have seen. Do you have a cite?

What is more interesting is the method of trial: can you say kangaroo?

Kangaroo implies an unfair court heaping injustice on an innocent man. I don't think there's a lot of question he is guilty, or that they'll have tons of evidence of that.

There is also the very valid question of why he is termed an illegal belligerent when he was fighting for a force that was resisting the invasion by the US.

He was not a national of the state the US was at war with and not a part of the "official" Afghanistan army.

It does not matter that the US had a right to that war. It was still a war that the US happened to win and any fighters for the other side are prisoners of war and entitled to all the protections of the Geneva Convention.

I believe that under the Geneva Convention Khadr's actions are not considered a legitimate act of war, and he is considered a criminal instead.

I doubt the US would have much, if any difficulty convicting him in a regular criminal trial - without having to disclose any kind of secret sources or information. However, that would set a precident and would raise further howls that all the others should be similarly tried.

[Argus]

I just watched Global National and it was their main story. They didn't play much on the angle of the "poor Canadian boy being held by Americans", they did an interview with a soldier who was injured by Khadr and it was very much supportive of the US laying charges against him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I just watched it on CTV and they played up the poor little Canadian boy angle, with a long interview with one of his lawyers and talk about how unjust the charges were and how outraged everyone should be, and when was Paul Martin going to do something.

For myself, they can hang the little bastard. I don't care what happens to him. I don't consider either he or his family to be Canadians anyway.

[Argus]

In fact, Khadr pretended to surrender, and then threw the grenade at a US soldier as he approached. That constitutes murder by almost anyone's reckoning, including the geneva convention.

If this is murder then what do you call dropping bombs and cruise missles in areas with large civilian populations?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh... war?

[err]

I just watched Global National and it was their main story. They didn't play much on the angle of the "poor Canadian boy being held by Americans", they did an interview with a soldier who was injured by Khadr and it was very much supportive of the US laying charges against him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I just watched it on CTV and they played up the poor little Canadian boy angle, with a long interview with one of his lawyers and talk about how unjust the charges were and how outraged everyone should be, and when was Paul Martin going to do something.

For myself, they can hang the little bastard. I don't care what happens to him. I don't consider either he or his family to be Canadians anyway.

Argus, he was born in Canada, and that makes him a Canadian citizen. Being a racist doesn't help your argument.

I think we've already heard a few valid arguments on this.... First of all, if he was fighting for the "other side" in a "war", then why shouldn't he be considered a POW.

And then there's the angle that he was a mere "kid" (15) when he did it.... Did the 15 year-old kid pay for the trip and travel half way around the world on his own whim and budget, or perhaps was he a "passenger" who was taken with his family. Perhaps he was a "brainwashed" kid, who didn't really understand what he was doing .... A real court might consider these things. However, the Kangaroo court he will face probably will not..

And lastly, your use of the word "terrorist" (or should I say abuse) seems to apply to anyone who dares stand up to the USA, whether they fit the definition of terrorist or not.

The term terrorism is largely synonymous with "political violence," and refers to a strategy of using coordinated attacks that typically fall outside the time, manner of conduct, and place commonly understood as representing the bounds of conventional warfare.

"Terrorist attacks" are usually characterized as "indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard" for human life.

[Guest eureka]

There was an article in the Toronto Star, Argus, laying it all out. There is no question that he had the right to fight for the Taliban - which was the de jure government of Afghanistan.

Would you classify those Americans who joined the British forces in WWII before America's entry as terrorists and bastards? There is no difference and they would be prisoners of war if captured.

Who had the moral grounf in Afghanistan is completely irrelevant. It was war and anyone taken is a prisoner of war.

This "trial" is before a military commission not a court. It can accept hearsay evidence (that is it can choose to accept lies); it is not required to give disclosure to the defence; the defence must conduct its meetings with the prisoner in the presence of the prosecution; the "judges" are also the prosecutors. There are some more denials of due process but they do not come to mind at the moment.

It is worse than a kangaroo court. In those, there was at least a pretense of legal proceeding.

[kimmy]

There was an article in the Toronto Star, Argus, laying it all out. There is no question that he had the right to fight for the Taliban - which was the de jure government of Afghanistan.

Omar Khadr was captured in July 2002. The Taliban had ceased to be Afghanistan's government in any sense by that time.

For myself, they can hang the little bastard. I don't care what happens to him. I don't consider either he or his family to be Canadians anyway.

Argus, he was born in Canada, and that makes him a Canadian citizen. Being a racist doesn't help your argument.

Where did Argus bring race into this?

I'm with Argus. I don't consider the Khadr family to be Canadians either. Their willingness to bear arms in support of the thuggish and reprehensible Taliban is proof enough of what sort of people they are. I frankly could not care less if little Omar is hung, shot, gassed, or imprisoned for as long as John Walker Lindh. As far as I'm concerned they can do whatever they wish with him, just as long as he doesn't return to Canada.

-k

[Guest eureka]

The Taliban had not ceased to be the government of Afghanistan. It did not until the Afghan people declared a new government. It had been the government of the country overthrown by a foreign invader and resisiting the invader still.

What you think of the Khadr family is of no consequence to the legal and moral state. They were fighting for what they believed to be the legitimate concern of the Afghanis. There is no more to it than that.

And, nothing lends any moral or legal right to the American rush to judgement. The Military Commission is the chosen vehicle because no court could convict.

[Army Guy]

There was an article in the Toronto Star, Argus, laying it all out. There is no question that he had the right to fight for the Taliban - which was the de jure government of Afghanistan.

When are you guys going to pull your heads out of the sand, and put away your crying towels. This kid is a terrorist, a killer, who would have killed a Canadian soldier just as fast as a US soldier. He lives only to serve his religion and dreams of dying in combat with infidels such as YOU and ME. But we has Canadians have taken in these scum bags and allow them to walk our streets, pay there medical bills, offer them financial support, and allow them to spread thier hate through our media.

lets just make it clear that he was not Taliban but Al Qaeda that makes him a terrorist. nothing more, check the geneva conventions and tell me what rights a terrorist are accorded.

This "trial" is before a military commission not a court. It can accept hearsay evidence (that is it can choose to accept lies); it is not required to give disclosure to the defence; the defence must conduct its meetings with the prisoner in the presence of the prosecution; the "judges" are also the prosecutors. There are some more denials of due process but they do not come to mind at the moment.

HALF truths. A military commission is a court, that has a panel of judges not one but serveral,with all having to be in agreement before a sentence is passed there is a separate prosecutor team just as there is a defense team It is true the member is not entitled to be present at all times or the defense entitled to know before hand the evidence again'st him.

It is worse than a kangaroo court. In those, there was at least a pretense of legal proceeding

What about the rights of those beheaded on TV. were they afforded any trail.

Were not talking about a criminal who's guilt is in question. He freely admits killing a US soldier, he also freely admits fighting for AL Qaeda. What else do you need...

Argus, he was born in Canada, and that makes him a Canadian citizen. Being a racist doesn't help your argument.

Perhaps then we should strip him of his citizenship and ship him and his family to Afgan to face trail there. as we do with other criminals who commit crimes around the globe.

And then there's the angle that he was a mere "kid" (15) when he did it.... Did the 15 year-old kid pay for the trip and travel half way around the world on his own whim and budget, or perhaps was he a "passenger" who was taken with his family. Perhaps he was a "brainwashed" kid, who didn't really understand what he was doing .... A real court might consider these things. However, the Kangaroo court he will face probably will not..

Correct me if i'm wrong has Canada not proscuted kids under 16 for adult crimes.

What difference does it make how he got there....are you suggesting that he was forced to fight...then why did he not surrender after all those that where with him had been killed...he chose to fight he wanted to be killed in battle as his religion expects him to do.

Stop painting this terrorist as a scared young little boy, when his culture accepts him as a man as young as 10 years old. he has been trained to kill, he knows more about combat than most soldiers do, he knew exactly what he was doing and he knew the outcome. he did so on his own free will.

And lastly, your use of the word "terrorist" (or should I say abuse) seems to apply to anyone who dares stand up to the USA, whether they fit the definition of terrorist or not.

This is a bleeding heart statement, that only those who refuse to see both sides of the story would use.

These poor misguided souls you spend your time making excuses for use terror as a weopon to control not just IFOR forces in Afgan but the general population as a whole. they excute men,women and children in ways that a harden criminal puke. they kill when they want, who they want ...for what to preserve there rights to treat thier people any way they want. I've patroled the streets of Kabul, seen some of thier terror, and have heard plenty of stories from the Afgan people first hand, like a 10 year old girl who had her vigina sown shut because she had commited the terriable crime of holding a boys hand in public...The old man that told me that story was beaten by terrorist so hard that they had broken bones around his face, they had pulled his arm out of the socket. this man was over 60 years old...

So you continue to believe that the terrorists are being mistreated, that we have no right helping those Afgan people to win thier freedom. perhaps you would see things different when you had to look at a young Afgan girl in the eyes and explain to her why you can't help her have a future. I know i could'nt.

KHADR

Khadr family bio

Case of tears.

[Black Dog]

Personally, I'd rather this kid get his day in court. That's more than many, many others caught up in the "war on terror" will ever get. I fully expect, though, that the outcome has been predetermined.

[Army Guy]

Personally, i'd like him have his day in court as well, one in Afgan, to be tried by those people he helped terrorize. As with the many many others caught up in this War on terror. And i'm talking about those caught in Afgan.

I also believe that the US has made a huge mistake in keeping these guys as long as they have, they should have been released after thier interrogation then turned over to the interm gov't for trail and sentencing or interment.

I also believe that regardless of the outcome of these proceedings they will be used again'st the US...No let the AFGAN or IRAQI interm gov't punish them according to muslim law....

[tml12]

Personally, i'd like him have his day in court as well, one in Afgan, to be tried by those people he helped terrorize. As with the many many others caught up in this War on terror. And i'm talking about those caught in Afgan.

I also believe that the US has made a huge mistake in keeping these guys as long as they have, they should have been released after thier interrogation then turned over to the interm gov't for trail and sentencing or interment.

I also believe that regardless of the outcome of these proceedings they will be used again'st the US...No let the AFGAN or IRAQI interm gov't punish them according to muslim law....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Under Bush's Republicans, the U.S. has become a lot more secretive and a lot more paranoid. Maybe for the better and maybe for the worst. What I can tell you overall is no way the U.S. is going to be any less protectionist when it comes to terrorism under Bush.

[Argus]

For myself, they can hang the little bastard. I don't care what happens to him. I don't consider either he or his family to be Canadians anyway.

Argus, he was born in Canada, and that makes him a Canadian citizen. Being a racist doesn't help your argument.

I think the difference between our thinking here is that I have standards. You have none. Your interpretation of what it means to be Canadian is as heartful and emotional as that of a Bay street accountant or lawyer. As long as they have the documentation, they're Canadian to you. Heck, they might not speak the language, might have spent little or no time here, might hate everything this country stands for and pray for Allah to destroy us all, but to you, as long as the paperwork is in place they're every bit as Canadian as everyone else. I wonder why, if being Canadian means so very, very little to you, you even care about what happens to this country.

This boy was born to foreigners, Arab Muslims, fanatical Muslims. He was raised to worship at the alter of jihad, and spent much of his time growing up overseas in Muslim nations. If he has any attachment to Canada at all it's, like his family, to our welfare and other social programs. You will not catch him watching hockey, much less playing it. You won't catch him making passes at girls or going canoeing out in the bush. He has no more in common with kids growing up in Canada than a kid growing up in Cairo or Tehran.

I think we've already heard a few valid arguments on this.... First of all, if he was fighting for the "other side" in a "war", then why shouldn't he be considered a POW. 

Wars involve nations. When nations make peace, the prisoners are released to those other nations. But this was not a war between nations. This boy was not a citizen of Afghanistan. There is nowhere to release him to except here. And most of us don't want him here.

And lastly, your use of the word "terrorist" (or should I say abuse) seems to apply to anyone who dares stand up to the USA, whether they fit the definition of terrorist or not. 

Do you really have no idea just how brutal, how vicious the Taliban were? What they did to anyone and everyone who wasn't as dedicated and zealous as they were? This is what he and his family were fighting for. You embrace very strange bedfellows in your hatred of the Americans. Sometimes I think you would rather see Canada as a Muslim nation under Sharia law rather than in a closer relationship with the US.

[tml12]

For myself, they can hang the little bastard. I don't care what happens to him. I don't consider either he or his family to be Canadians anyway.

Argus, he was born in Canada, and that makes him a Canadian citizen. Being a racist doesn't help your argument.

I think the difference between our thinking here is that I have standards. You have none. Your interpretation of what it means to be Canadian is as heartful and emotional as that of a Bay street account or lawyer. As long as they have the documentation, they're Canadian to you. Heck, they might not speak the language, might have spent little or no time here, might hate everything this country stands for and pray for Allah to destroy us all, but to you, as long as the paperwork is in place they're every bit as Canadian as everyone else. I wonder why, if being Canadian means so very, very little to you, you even care about what happens to this country.

This boy was born to foreigners, Arab Muslims, fanatical Muslims. He was raised to worship at the alter of jihad, and spent much of his time growing up overseas in Muslim nations. If he has any attachment to Canada at all it's, like his family, to our welfare and other social programs. You will not catch him watching hockey, much less playing it. You won't catch him making passes at girls or going canoeing out in the bush. He has no more in common with kids growing up in Canada than a kid growing up in Cairo or Tehran.

I think we've already heard a few valid arguments on this.... First of all, if he was fighting for the "other side" in a "war", then why shouldn't he be considered a POW. 

Wars involve nations. When nations make peace, the prisoners are released to those other nations. But this was not a war between nations. This boy was not a citizen of Afghanistan. There is nowhere to release him to except here. And most of us don't want him here.

And lastly, your use of the word "terrorist" (or should I say abuse) seems to apply to anyone who dares stand up to the USA, whether they fit the definition of terrorist or not. 

Do you really have no idea just how brutal, how vicious the Taliban were? What they did to anyone and everyone who wasn't as dedicated and zealous as they were? This is what he and his family were fighting for. You embrace very strange bedfellows in your hatred of the Americans. Sometimes I think you would rather see Canada as a Muslim nation under Sharia law rather than in a closer relationship with the US.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Argus is dead on correct.

When this little terrorist through that bomb he might as well have thrown it at Canadian soldiers. Is our relationship with the U.S. so bad we are actually trying to defend him?

I am so sick and tired of hearing of excuses. This guy is a prisoner of war and deserves to be treated as such. Humanitarians can cry all they want...when you are involved in a war it's a whole different game.

[Guest eureka]

Precisely! He is a prisoner of war and deserves to be treated as such. I am so glad it is getting through.

[err]

For myself, they can hang the little bastard. I don't care what happens to him. I don't consider either he or his family to be Canadians anyway.

Argus, he was born in Canada, and that makes him a Canadian citizen. Being a racist doesn't help your argument.

I think the difference between our thinking here is that I have standards. You have none. Your interpretation of what it means to be Canadian is as heartful and emotional as that of a Bay street account or lawyer. As long as they have the documentation, they're Canadian to you. Heck, they might not speak the language, might have spent little or no time here, might hate everything this country stands for and pray for Allah to destroy us all, but to you, as long as the paperwork is in place they're every bit as Canadian as everyone else. I wonder why, if being Canadian means so very, very little to you, you even care about what happens to this country.

You may have standards... Ernst Zundell has standards too... Both yours and Ernst's are very different from mine. (I'm not saying that you're the same as Ernst... He hated Jews, and you... well Arabs aren't Jews...)

I have an anti-terrorist position, but I don't consider this kid to be a terrorist.... a soldier maybe, but realistically, he was brought there and plunked into the situation by his parents..... So he was more realistically a vict0m of unfortunate circumstance.....

One big difference between our standards is that I don't let my vision become blinded by hatred.... racist or otherwise...

This boy was born to foreigners, Arab Muslims, fanatical Muslims. He was raised to worship at the alter of jihad, and spent much of his time growing up overseas in Muslim nations. If he has any attachment to Canada at all it's, like his family, to our welfare and other social programs. You will not catch him watching hockey, much less playing it. You won't catch him making passes at girls or going canoeing out in the bush. He has no more in common with kids growing up in Canada than a kid growing up in Cairo or Tehran.

You're going to have us in tears... the poor lad, being brainwashed by his parents.... not getting to have a normal childhood....

I think we've already heard a few valid arguments on this.... First of all, if he was fighting for the "other side" in a "war", then why shouldn't he be considered a POW. 

Wars involve nations. When nations make peace, the prisoners are released to those other nations. But this was not a war between nations.

OK... It was a war between the US/Coalition and the "supporters of the official government of their nation"....

And lastly, your use of the word "terrorist" (or should I say abuse) seems to apply to anyone who dares stand up to the USA, whether they fit the definition of terrorist or not. 

Do you really have no idea just how brutal, how vicious the Taliban were?

Is that relavent to the question ??? I don't think so....

You embrace very strange bedfellows in your hatred of the Americans. Sometimes I think you would rather see Canada as a Muslim nation under Sharia law rather than in a closer relationship with the US.

I guess you have very simple black and white perspectives.... and have trouble with the more complicated thought processes expressed by others...

I am no supporter of the Taliban, and think that it is a good thing that their reign is ended. However, I can see the situation of this kid as being different.... he is not the Taliban... He's a kid... perhaps a soldier who is playing for the different team...

Similarly, I do not approve of many of the actions of the USA's administration, their blatant disregard for human life, etc.... But my negative sentiment is not toward individual Americans.... Some of my best friends are Americans... and the funny thing is... many of them feel exactly as I do about the administration...

This guy is a prisoner of war and deserves to be treated as such.

I'll agree with you on that point....

[Army Guy]

I have an anti-terrorist position, but I don't consider this kid to be a terrorist.... a soldier maybe, but realistically, he was brought there and plunked into the situation by his parents..... So he was more realistically a vict0m of unfortunate circumstance.....

I am no supporter of the Taliban, and think that it is a good thing that their reign is ended. However, I can see the situation of this kid as being different.... he is not the Taliban... He's a kid... perhaps a soldier who is playing for the different team...

Lets examine the facts here. He is a member of the AL Queda, a known terrorist group that operates inter-national. That fact alone makes him what...

According to the geneva convention links provided below he is not a soldier, but a beligerent or terrorist you decide.

Yes his parents raised him to fight, yes they brought him to Afgan for the purpose of fighting, But this kid has had plenty of opportunity to escape or surrender but he "and he alone" made that chioce. Each individual, is responsiable for his actions regardless of age he picked up a wpn and used it making him a combatant.

Put your crying towel away, this kid is a terrorist who has had plenty of time to give-up or leave the battlefield but chose to stay.

Precisely! He is a prisoner of war and deserves to be treated as such. I am so glad it is getting through.

Read the links and tell me if you still think he is a prisoner of war.

My Webpage

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

( that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

© that of carrying arms openly;

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

My Webpage

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

My Webpage

Art 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

( does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

© is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

[kimmy]

Precisely! He is a prisoner of war and deserves to be treated as such. I am so glad it is getting through.

Read the links and tell me if you still think he is a prisoner of war.

My Webpage

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

I suppose he could be considered a POW under categories 1 or 3 here, depending on whether one considers Al Qaeda to be "regular armed forces." I expect that legal arguments would concentrate on whether that is the case.

My Webpage

Art 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

( c ) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

On the other hand I doubt he'd be considered a mercenary, on account of condition C here.

At any rate: to those of you who oppose this prosecution, I ask what you'd prefer to see happen. Just send him home so that he can attend highschool in Toronto with other kids his age?

-k

[Argus]

Precisely! He is a prisoner of war and deserves to be treated as such. I am so glad it is getting through.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are two problems with that. prisoners of war are released only when the war is over. The war is not over and probably won't ever be over.

Second, if he killed someone after surrendering then he is guilty of a crime punishable by execution.

But as I said, I really don't care what they do to him. There are far more innocent people out there in the world you ought to be concerned for.

[Argus]

I think the difference between our thinking here is that I have standards. You have none. Your interpretation of what it means to be Canadian is as heartful and emotional as that of a Bay street account or lawyer. As long as they have the documentation, they're Canadian to you. Heck, they might not speak the language, might have spent little or no time here, might hate everything this country stands for and pray for Allah to destroy us all, but to you, as long as the paperwork is in place they're every bit as Canadian as everyone else. I wonder why, if being Canadian means so very, very little to you, you even care about what happens to this country.

You may have standards... Ernst Zundell has standards too... Both yours and Ernst's are very different from mine. (I'm not saying that you're the same as Ernst... He hated Jews, and you... well Arabs aren't Jews...)

I don't hate Arabs, certainly not a fraction on your loathing and contempt for Americans. I hate religious fanatics who espouse, embace or support violence. And that, regretably, includes much of the Muslim world today.

And what has that got to do with the fact you believe being a Canadian is so much nothing that all you need is a piece of paper to qualify you as exactly the same as people born and raised here?

I have an anti-terrorist position, but I don't consider this kid to be a terrorist.... a soldier maybe, but realistically, he was brought there and plunked into the situation by his parents..... So he was more realistically a vict0m of unfortunate circumstance.....

One big difference between our standards is that I don't let my vision become blinded by hatred....  racist or otherwise...

Poor, unfortunate little murderer.

This boy was born to foreigners, Arab Muslims, fanatical Muslims. He was raised to worship at the alter of jihad, and spent much of his time growing up overseas in Muslim nations. If he has any attachment to Canada at all it's, like his family, to our welfare and other social programs. You will not catch him watching hockey, much less playing it. You won't catch him making passes at girls or going canoeing out in the bush. He has no more in common with kids growing up in Canada than a kid growing up in Cairo or Tehran.

You're going to have us in tears... the poor lad, being brainwashed by his parents.... not getting to have a normal childhood....

And once again, your mocking the point rather than responding to it merely illustrates how little importance you place in Canadian citizenship.

[Riverwind]

At any rate:  to those of you who oppose this prosecution, I ask what you'd prefer to see happen.   Just send him home so that he can attend highschool in Toronto with other kids his age?

Well if he goes to school in Burlington he probably will find some kids he can relate to...

I would compare this case to the Pickton murder trial in Vancouver right now. I think there is overwhelming evidence that Pickton is guilty as changed yet the public is spending millions of dollars to ensure this retrobate gets a fair trial. It is seems like a waste of taxpayers money, however, it is a price we have to pay for a civilized free society.

If there is evidence that he murdered a US soldier in cold blood then put him on trial in a US civilian court - he would get his due process and would probably be tossed in jail for the rest of his life (something he would deserve). Secret military tribunals are never the answer.