The Kadr problem again

[geoffrey]

I was talking the family. They willingly sent a child to fight against Canada in a war.

That's good enough for treason to me.

[Catchme]

I was talking the family. They willingly sent a child to fight against Canada in a war.

That's good enough for treason to me.

Why would you punish him for treason because of his families actions his families actions?

When did he fight against Canadians?

What war? Hillier said we are NOT at WAR?

[geoffrey]

Why would you punish him for treason because of his families actions his families actions?

When did he fight against Canadians?

He fought against a NATO mission that included Canadians. The whole lot of them need to be charged, not just him. He'll hang in the US long before Canada ever would try him for treason.

What war? Hillier said we are NOT at WAR?

The CCC doesn't specify war, there are other grounds.

[Argus]

Yeah, well, I think our core values wouldn't be unduly harmed by giving this punk a bullet behind the ear.

And I don't think you even understand what core values are.

And we all now KNOW that Argus , most certainly has no idea what core values are.

I don't think you even understand what values mean. From what I've read you don't have any yourself. You have rabid political prejudices that cause you to hate many people, but you don't understand the basics of moral behaviour.

To you, acceptable moral behaviour depends entirely on where that particular racial, ethnic, religious, political or social group falls on your yardstick of political acceptance.

[Argus]

I was talking the family. They willingly sent a child to fight against Canada in a war.

That's good enough for treason to me.

You have to understand that from the perspective of the Leftists here, sending your child to another country to kill American is a good thing. They only wish they had the courage to go somewhere and try to kill Americans themselves (and Jews, of course).

[Charles Anthony]

A wannabe terrorist may not have a nuclear bomb but claiming that God gives them the right to set that bomb off is still inciting violence.

What imaginary thing is posing a threat?

Similarly, someone calling for a UDI is guilty of inciting violence because a UDI requires violence or the threat of violence to enforce.

Prove it.

If there was no threat of violence then the gov't would simply ignore the UDI and life would continue on as before.

Correct. Like I said, "If the people making the unilateral declaration of independence do not have the means to commit the violence to secure their claim of sovereignty over a territory against your legitimate government, it is twisted politics to claim that they are inciting violence -- unless you can prove they have secret weapons of mass seduction hidden away somewhere."

If I ran stark naked into a bank (I know, I know, I am shuddering at the image too...) and swiped my debit card and demanded all of the money from my account be withdrawn immediately by saying "Give me all of the money in my account!" while pointing my finger in imitation of a hand-gun to the bank-teller sitting behind a bullet-proof glass, you may call the state's men-at-arms but it does not stand to reason that you should feel physically threatened by my rightful demand. That is your UDI by Canadian separatists.

That said, I don't believe that either Kadr or UDI advocates should be charged with treason. I just brought up the comparison because I think the hypothetical case for treason against UDI advocates is much stronger than the hypothetical case against Kadr.

Excellent!

I have always disliked the entire concept of 'treason' as a crime because it is generally used to persecute political opponents. If Kadr is guilty of murder then charge him with murder.

I agree.

He fought against a NATO mission that included Canadians.

How does that make it different from any other crime? Why should he not get due process?

[Riverwind]

Give me all of the money in my account!" while pointing my finger in imitation of a hand-gun to the bank-teller sitting behind a bullet-proof glass, you may call the state's men-at-arms but it does not stand to reason that you should feel physically threatened by my rightful demand. That is your UDI by Canadian separatists.

Advocating a UDI is like a death threat - it is a clearly stated intention to commit violence in order to achieve an end. It does not make a difference whether the person has the means at the current time to carry out the threat - the only thing that matters is the person saying intends to use violence or the threat violence to achieve a goal.

A UDI from a democratic state is never a legitimate form of political expression - trying to pretend it is Orwellian doublespeak. For example, some might say that Tony Soprano is not advocating violence if he walked into a shop an offers an insurance policy because 'something could happen to the shop'. However, both Soprano and the shopkeeper know that offer is really a threat of violence. Similarly anyone advocating a UDI is saying you have to give me what I want or I will use violence to take it.

[Army Guy]

Poser;

Why would you punish him for treason because of his families actions his families actions?

Actually our treason laws are quit clear, And some of the Kadr families actions do fit our defination of treason. which leads to this question is why have they not been charged ? perhaps FTA lawyer can field that one.

treason

I think there is a concenus that NO canadian citizen should serve in Gitmo, so lets just say for sake of argument we do secure his release, then what, let him go, charge him with treason, revoke his citizenship.

and what message do we send the rest of the world for each one of those actions...i mean letting him go to live out his days collecting welfare, would be inviting for a terrorist to apply for Canadian citizenship, would it not..

Sending him back to afgan would also be sending a message that we do not tolerate is actions here in Canada.

[Figleaf]

His family has continuously denounced Canada

Irrelevant.

Not really, the family should be charged with treason and jailed.

If they have commited treason, no doubt they will be charged. But last time I checked, it was not a crime to 'denounce' Canada.

They sent their Canadian citizen son to go fight against Canada, all of them should be jailed.

Which son fought against Canada? When?

"They" sent? Who is 'they'?

You're just so full of $h!t it's leaking out your ears. You don't like the Kadrs. Fine, neither do I, but trying to pervert the laws to serve your likes and dislikes is both immature and dangerous.

[Figleaf]

Yeah, well, I think our core values wouldn't be unduly harmed by giving this punk a bullet behind the ear.

I feel the same way about you, but the laws are there to protect everyone equally.

And I don't think you even understand what core values are.

Again, I feel the same way about you.

[Black Dog]

Total aside here, but why is it that the people who denounce "the left" for focusing on some issues (ie. Gitmo) and not others (ie. Darfur)* never take up those causes themselves, except to use them as rhetorical cudgels?

*of course, the construct itself is a joke: we aren't told who "the left" is in this case and there are many many people who would be considered "leftists" who actually do pay attention to issues other than Israel and Gitmo.

[Figleaf]

Not really, the family should be charged with treason and jailed.

Anyone who advocates a UDI for a province or territory is also guilty of treason under the law. Should we round up all of the seperatists as well?

That's not true at all. Check out the criminal code, no reference is made to democratic political action.

What's 'democratic' about a purported provincial UDI?

[Charles Anthony]

BadDog, your link is a little biased. Might you have added a "the people who denounce "the left" for focusing on some issues" filter to skew the results?

Advocating a UDI is like a death threat - it is a clearly stated intention to commit violence in order to achieve an end.

I understood the statement the first time around but I am looking for proof or a justification for the statement.

It does not make a difference whether the person has the means at the current time to carry out the threat -

Prove that it does not make a difference.

the only thing that matters is the person saying intends to use violence or the threat violence to achieve a goal.

You are stating that the person intends to use violence or the threat of violence. That sounds like something that would be "generally used to persecute political opponents" if you ask me. I want proof or a justification for you conclusion. You are not giving one.

Similarly anyone advocating a UDI is saying you have to give me what I want or I will use violence to take it.

You have the concepts of Statism and self-determination reversed.

[Black Dog]

BadDog, your link is a little biased. Might you have added a "the people who denounce "the left" for focusing on some issues" filter to skew the results?

That was kinda the point...

[guyser]

I don't think you even understand what values mean. From what I've read you don't have any yourself. You have rabid political prejudices that cause you to hate many people, but you don't understand the basics of moral behaviour.

To you, acceptable moral behaviour depends entirely on where that particular racial, ethnic, religious, political or social group falls on your yardstick of political acceptance.

I am afraid you must have me mistaken for someone else.You did show in that previous post that morals are unimportant , vis a vis "put a bullet in his head" .

Rabid political prejudices..?..hate many people..?...dont understand moral behaviour..?.....wow man can I have some of what you must be smoking.

You have the wrong person in mind, and if you still think you dont, then please direct me to my hate filled, rabid political and immoral posts.

[Riverwind]

It does not make a difference whether the person has the means at the current time to carry out the threat -

Prove that it does not make a difference.

To secure a conviction at trial, the Crown must prove that the person making the threat did so knowingly. That is, the prosecution must show that he was aware of the words used and the meaning they would convey. It also must show that he intended the threat to be taken seriously, that is, to intimidate or strike fear into the recipient. It is not necessary that the person making the threat intend to carry it out or be capable of doing so. The motive for making the threat is equally irrelevant.

http://www.defencelaw.com/utter-threats.html

Similarly anyone advocating a UDI is saying you have to give me what I want or I will use violence to take it.

You have the concepts of Statism and self-determination reversed.

No. A UDI has nothing to do with 'self determination' - it is about one state supplanting another. If you really have a problem with state coercion then you should criticize federalists and separatists equally since both groups are unapologetic 'statists'. Supporting a UDI by separatist groups suggests that you have no problem with the concept of coercion by wannabe states provided they support your political objectives.

I have no problem with the concept of a state and believe that the rule of law be followed. Groups that wish to break up the country have a legal options available to them so there is no justification for a UDI. Of course seperatists groups will complain that the legal options are too cumbersome and would likely require that they sacrifice too much. That argument is equivalent to a bank robber who justifies the theft because it takes too long to make less money working in a legimate job.

[Charles Anthony]

continued in Provincial Seperation -- Should provinces be permitted to seperate?

[jbg]

Gitmo is an embarrassment to the world.

What do we do?

I am open to hearing more.

With how many hands tied behind our back do we need to fight the war on terror?

[noahbody]

His family has continuously denounced Canada

Irrelevant.

Not really, the family should be charged with treason and jailed.

CC:

High treason

46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

( a kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

( b ) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

( c ) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

They sent their Canadian citizen son to go fight against Canada, all of them should be jailed. Or perhaps we need to bring back hanging? I have little patience for people like the Khadrs. So ya, let's get him released, and sent back to Canada to stand trial with the rest of his ungrateful terrorist family.

Exactly. The laws are already there, punt them. Beyond that, we should start protecting are society and outlaw extremism. Freedom of religion like any other right has never been absolute. Poligomy is not allowed. Preaching death to fellow citizens shoud not be tolerated either.

[Remiel]

Gitmo is an embarrassment to the world.

What do we do?

I am open to hearing more.

With how many hands tied behind our back do we need to fight the war on terror?

With how many hands tied behind our back do we have to fight the war on totalitarianism?

[jbg]

Gitmo is an embarrassment to the world. What do we do? I am open to hearing more.

With how many hands tied behind our back do we need to fight the war on terror?

With how many hands tied behind our back do we have to fight the war on totalitarianism?

Islamofascism is a form of totalitarianism.

[Remiel]

And denial of habeas corpus is a big step in that direction.

[geoffrey]

And denial of habeas corpus is a big step in that direction.

Who wants to do that?

[Remiel]

Let's see... the people currently in charge of the U.S.? You can spin their new powers however you want, but the fact is that any measures that's sole safeguard against unjust seizure, torture and execution is the alleged goodwill of some of the most circumspect people in the industrialized world, uou have a ridiculously screwed up situation which will guaranteed lead to the suffering and death of a whole crap load of not guilty people.