bush_cheney2004 Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 ... I'm concerned about this kid BECAUSE I'm concerned about our country and its soldiers. We are not winning any hearts and minds by ignoring our agreed-upon duties and responsibilities as a freedom-loving and human-respecting nation. Was that before or after Security Certificates detained and deported others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay22 Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 (edited) The Geneva Conventions also consider a situation which the French Resistance sometimes found itself in, a "Melee en Masse," when a number of `locals', wearing different clothes, would band together to resist an invading force. I think the CF rules of engagement mention this also. Where do you suggest deporting a kid who was born in Toronto? I'm concerned about this kid BECAUSE I'm concerned about our country and its soldiers. We are not winning any hearts and minds by ignoring our agreed-upon duties and responsibilities as a freedom-loving and human-respecting nation. What worries me is posts like yours.Its all about brining people hom and in alot of cases but our own citizens at risk.Don't call this man a kid he is a man.What really worries me if we bring him home and he is convicted people will say he should be free.Yet there have been canadian jailed illegaly and there is very little out cry.As for khadr i beleave his has 2 citizenships so yes he could be deported.I would like to see him brought home and given a fair trial.Then i would like to see new laws put in place. Edited October 10, 2008 by jay22 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Was that before or after Security Certificates detained and deported others? Those Certificates are definitely controversial and I believe that the Supreme court is dealing with the legality of them. Just as they're dealing with Khadr. Their message so far... Khadr is Canadian. Khadr has been tortured. Khadr's incarceration is not in accordance to our laws... Guess what they're gonna say next... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 What worries me is posts like yours.Its all about brining people hom and in alot of cases but our own citizens at risk.Don't call this man a kid he is a man.What really worries me if we bring him home and he is convicted people will say he should be free.Yet there have been canadian jailed illegaly and there is very little out cry.As for khadr i beleave his has 2 citizenships so yes he could be deported.I would like to see him brought home and given a fair trial.Then i would like to see new laws put in place. What worries me is your assumptions. Which illegally-jailed Canadian hasn't there been an outcry for yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Those Certificates are definitely controversial and I believe that the Supreme court is dealing with the legality of them.Just as they're dealing with Khadr. Their message so far... Khadr is Canadian. Khadr has been tortured. Khadr's incarceration is not in accordance to our laws... Guess what they're gonna say next... Beats me.....I was just wondering why those other poor bastards didn't get hugs and kisses from the Khadr Fan Club. Besides....they have no jurisdiction when it comes to 'Gitmo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Beats me.....I was just wondering why those other poor bastards didn't get hugs and kisses from the Khadr Fan Club. hmmm... maybe because each case is different. Besides....they have no jurisdiction when it comes to 'Gitmo. funny, I thought they were allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 hmmm... maybe because each case is different. Yes...each case is so special...still...I wonder how I've managed to avoid detainment and imprisonment all these years. funny, I thought they were allies. No, that is not the case. Courts love to bicker over jurisdiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 No, that is not the case. Courts love to bicker over jurisdiction. If only Khadr was in an actual court, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 If only Khadr was in an actual court, eh? Khadr's attorney's are free to plea his case in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay22 Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 (edited) What worries me is your assumptions. Which illegally-jailed Canadian hasn't there been an outcry for yet? As with omar i am all for brining him back and having a fair trial.But i am not williing to accept some ideas we should should bring every one back and set them free with out a trial. Edited October 10, 2008 by jay22 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr V Posted October 11, 2008 Report Share Posted October 11, 2008 If only Khadr was in an actual court, eh? That's just it. As long as Canada makes no attempt to assert its own jurisdiction over its citizens, the US remains free to design and re-design policies of dealing with "enemy combatants" the way it sees fit. Take a look at this link: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/02/nation/na-gitmo2 Note that nowhere do they make reference to the citizenship of these detainees - as if citizenship does not matter at all once someone is suspected by the US to be a terrorist. Canada's silence over Khadr only reinforces this dangerous illusion that the US has been cultivating. In this sense it does not matter at all if Khadr is an innocent victim of his father's ideology or a dangerous criminal - this is to be decided by Canadian courts alone, and I'm not opening that line of discussion here. Whichever way you look at it, it does not look good. If you believe Khadr is a dangerous terrorist, then Canada's silence suggests it's happy to let the US do the dirty work while it steps aside. In fact, I've read posts that say pretty much that - maybe its authors don't realize how cowardly Canada looks if that really is its position. If you believe Khadr is innocent - well, that's already been discussed to death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted October 11, 2008 Report Share Posted October 11, 2008 (edited) He deserves a fair trial, in Canada, in front of fellow Canadians. Edited October 11, 2008 by Radsickle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted October 11, 2008 Report Share Posted October 11, 2008 He deserves a fair trial, in Canada, in front of fellow Canadians. Why? He didn't shoot a Canadian, he allegedly shot an American. So why should he be tried by us when he was fighting Americans. Does that mean if a Canadian goes down to the States and commits murder they shouldn't have the right to bring them to trial, just us? If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, then yes, lets give him a trial, then boot the lot of them out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay22 Posted October 11, 2008 Report Share Posted October 11, 2008 Why? He didn't shoot a Canadian, he allegedly shot an American. So why should he be tried by us when he was fighting Americans. Does that mean if a Canadian goes down to the States and commits murder they shouldn't have the right to bring them to trial, just us?If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, then yes, lets give him a trial, then boot the lot of them out. While i do agree with what your saying.But from all accounts he has been treated not to fair so i do think canada should bring him back and have a trial.Where does it stop is the big question.If we bring kaadr back do we bring every one back who accused of every crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 (edited) Why? He didn't shoot a Canadian, he allegedly shot an American. So why should he be tried by us when he was fighting Americans. Does that mean if a Canadian goes down to the States and commits murder they shouldn't have the right to bring them to trial, just us?If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, then yes, lets give him a trial, then boot the lot of them out. Why do you try to equate a "Canadian going down to the States" with a Canadian being on the wrong side of a battle in a far-away country where there was no rule of law. Do you think such a comparison is fair? Does such fuzzy logic make you feel warm and fuzzy? Edited October 12, 2008 by Radsickle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 What worries me is your assumptions. Which illegally-jailed Canadian hasn't there been an outcry for yet? There are Canadians jailed all over the world on various pretexts. We rarely hear of them.Saul Itzhayek spent almost a year in an Indian jail for nothing, and nobody really heard a thing about him until right near the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 Why do you try to equate a "Canadian going down to the States" with a Canadian being on the wrong side of a battle in a far-away country where there was no rule of law.Do you think such a comparison is fair? Does such fuzzy logic make you feel warm and fuzzy? Actually its not fuzzy at all, except to you apparently. He commited an offense against the Americans, thus it is their right to bring him to trial. I'm not saying that they've done that, just that Canada has no right to demand to try him when it was Americans whom he was fighting. As for your whole wrong side argument, what relevance does that have, how does it cancel out jurisdiction? As I said, its not my logic that is fuzzy. Now how about you give me one sound reason why the Americans should not be able to bring him to trial but we should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 14, 2008 Report Share Posted October 14, 2008 Army guy, you are a scary dude. I hope you are not in our army now. Do you know what 'evidence' is? Do you know that circumstantial evidence - he was there, he was trained - isn't enough to convict someone? Do you know what a child is? Fortunately, one American soldier did. Fortunately, American soldiers are standing up for him and telling the truth.[/quot What makes me scary, the fact i'm not whinning and crying over what this kid did, and how's he's being treated. Or the fact that i know our justice system could not do any better. Yes I'm currently employed in our nations military, And i suppose the tape of him planting IED's later recovered by a US disposal team is just circumstantial. that and the fact he was found in a combat zone with a AK just feet away from him recentily fired thats just circumstantial as well...or the fact he as said he would like to collect the 1500.00 bounty paid for each coalition soldier killed... He is a child in your eyes, not mine, to me he is a trouble young man, and when given the oportunity will return to Afgan to pick up where he left off...trying to put coalition soldiers in body bags. Which American soldier was that the one that put 3 rounds into his chest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 (edited) Actually its not fuzzy at all, except to you apparently. He commited an offense against the Americans, thus it is their right to bring him to trial. I'm not saying that they've done that, just that Canada has no right to demand to try him when it was Americans whom he was fighting.As for your whole wrong side argument, what relevance does that have, how does it cancel out jurisdiction? As I said, its not my logic that is fuzzy. Now how about you give me one sound reason why the Americans should not be able to bring him to trial but we should. He took up arms against a military force that was attacking where he was. If a Canadian goes to a law-abiding country and breaks one of their laws, they are subject to that countries punishment. The Taliban had already been declared `unfit' to rule Afghanistan anymore.. If the country doesn't have an established government, what law is he breaking? That's for his homeland, Canada, to decide. Not the attacking Army's homeland. Why isn't any other country involved over there bringing their captives to mock trials in their own torture chambers? Surely the Canadian Forces have many lawsuits against the captured Taliban F-Heads who've attacked our soldiers, right? and the fact he was found in a combat zone with a AK just feet away from him recentily fired Dude, he was in a small hut with numerous other people with guns. A warm rifle on the other side of the room is not good evidence. Why aren't you mentioning the smoking grenade anymore? Because a witness to the event admitted that it was probably someone else who threw it? Which American soldier was that the one that put 3 rounds into his chest. No, the one who saved his life when they stopped putting bullets in his back. That's a good soldier. Edited October 15, 2008 by Radsickle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Dude, he was in a small hut with numerous other people with guns. A warm rifle on the other side of the room is not good evidence. Why aren't you mentioning the smoking grenade anymore? Because a witness to the event admitted that it was probably someone else who threw it? You're confused, I never mentioned a grenade. Why is it that so many people attribute things that were never said to people on this forum. Is it too hard for people to remember who said what? As for your whole going to Afghanistan and breaking their laws, well, thats invalid. Being there with NATO approval and at the invitation of the Afghani government at the time means that no laws were broken, except by Khadr. So he participated in hostilities by the Americans, they caught him, he's their to bring to trial. When the Allies would capture German combatants in, lets say Poland, did they turn the prisoners over to the Polish government? No, they kept and dealt with them themselves, so why should Khadr be any different. Because he's just a poor little muffin? No, he was a combatant, fully willing and able to kill coalition troops. Do you honestly believe if it had been Canadian troops he would have just extended the olive branch of peace? Of course not, he would have done what he could to kill them as well. All this coupled with the fact that the majority of Canadians don't want this piece of slime back in Canada, but thats just the emotional aspect of this whole thing. Finally, I never mentioned anyone putting three rounds into his chest either, guess you're confused again, or just being disingenuous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 (edited) Dude, he was in a small hut with numerous other people with guns. A warm rifle on the other side of the room is not good evidence. Why aren't you mentioning the smoking grenade anymore? Because a witness to the event admitted that it was probably someone else who threw it? Look this is not CSI Las Vegas, and your not going to get Court quality evidance from a battle field, for one, there was a pro longed gun battle, which included serveral air stikes, and dropping of 500 lb bombs, next the scene was left unattended during the night, left to the locals to pick over.... what you do have is soldiers following thier ROE to the letter, in fact going that extra step and sending 2 Afgan soldiers up to the house to see what was going on....It was here that the "ARMED force" in the mud hut opened up engaging the afgan army, Starting this whole thing off... My piont is that it would be next to impossiable to get court quality evidance off a battle field, and get a convection with it... Next i tried to explain the differences in written testimony, like watching a car crash every witiness is going to have a different story, does'nt mean the crash did not happen just there is too many accounts.... You mentioned the grenade, your right hard to say if it was freindly fire or not, but out of the bad guys Omar was the only one left, the man beside him died earlier, so he could not of thrown it...so whom ?.... and if he had not spoken english when he did he would have bled out on the battlefield and we would not be having this big charad. No, the one who saved his life when they stopped putting bullets in his back. That's a good soldier. Lets not forget what soldiers jobs are, before you go all soft on me, it's to kill, yes when the battle is all over it's to provide aid to those that need it...which was done, again i will say if omar did not speak english he would have bled out...it's the order of which we treat our cas ...first ours, then coalitions, allieds, civilians, then bad guys.... Edited October 15, 2008 by Army Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 You're confused, I never mentioned a grenade. Why is it that so many people attribute things that were never said to people on this forum. Is it too hard for people to remember who said what? Was your name inside the quote? No. I was responding to a different post. If you were following all the posts in this thread, you would have noticed. As for your whole going to Afghanistan and breaking their laws, well, thats invalid. Being there with NATO approval and at the invitation of the Afghani government at the time means that no laws were broken, except by Khadr. There was no government of Afghanistan until 2005... which government invited us to invade?! The Taliban in 2001?!?! All this coupled with the fact that the majority of Canadians don't want this piece of slime back in Canada, but thats just the emotional aspect of this whole thing. You sound like you're pre-judging Canadians. Only read what you want to hear, eh? Post a link to your imagined `fact' Finally, I never mentioned anyone putting three rounds into his chest either, guess you're confused again, or just being disingenuous. Again, you should read the other posts and follow the threads.... I wasn't responding to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 There was no government of Afghanistan until 2005... which government invited us to invade?! The Taliban in 2001?!?! The defacto government. http://www.afghanland.com/history/transitional.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Army Guy, this is not a charade. It may seem like an insignificant football for us arm-chair quarterbacks, us `civies', to toss around. But I promise you it means a hell of a lot more to me. I didn't think Canada would regress so easily, quickly forgetting itself when faced with a difficult foe. Have the terrorists already won? This battle's not going to be won with bullets. We need better leadership than that. Karzai wants negotiations with the `Taliban'. We should stop being binary about it and allow the possibility. If they put down their weapons, they can have a seat beside the seat of power. If they mess it up, the world painfully continues to kick their ass. Our diplomats should at least live up to our Nation's signed commitments, all of them. Including the ones about 15 year old soldiers and Canadian citizens being allowed a fair trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 The defacto government.http://www.afghanland.com/history/transitional.html The nation's new constitution has been adopted and an executive president democratically elected in 2004. The parliamentary elections took place the following year, in September 2005. an elected government - not the one Bush picked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.