Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian

[Rue]

Peter F:

Am i the goon, I don't think so, I'm the guy that has spent 2 tours of duty in Afgan fighting those same people. I'm the guy that has watched 23 of my comrads get loaded onto the back of a herc, draped with our nations flag. So the topic does hold some importance to me.

So who are those people, There the people who's sole purpose in life is the destruction of our way of life, and the destruction of all infidals ( thats us by the way). they are the people who are only happy unless they surpressing thier own people and infidals thru terror, and brutality, they are the people that will carry out these tasks regardless of cost and consquences.

They come in all skin colors, and they come in all religions, so my remarks are not based on racist overtones unless of course you count my opinions on terrorists as racist.

I don't think we as a nation have come to the piont where we are accepting of all people regardless of race, religion, or beliefs. i think most Canadians would express thier discomfort at having the klu klux clan, or known terrorist, or any radical group as neibours, or even in thier towns or cities...does that make me a racist, or a goon....

Personally i could not care if anyone was brown, black or purple with warts on thier dicks, that is not the message i'm putting out there, what i have a problem is our nation sending me off to war to fight a group which we have deemed the enemy, to destroy and take thier lifes...and in doing so having to bury many of my comrads in the process, only to come home to find that we are harbouring, supporting, the same people, who still belief in thier cause, thier beliefs and openly support the taliban movement, and thier tactics.... So yes i think we have to take alook at this problem, and canadians need to decide what side of the fence thier on.

WELL SAID.

For me this is not a black and white issue. It's about discerning shades of grey. Its easy to say we don't want bad people coming to Canada. How we define bad however is where it gets difficult and the Leafless types of the world assume bad means anyone they say is bad.

We already know Leafless' agenda. He wants a nation where everyone practices the exact same religion and follows the exact same beliefs as him and speak English and look just like him.

I do not want to be Leafless Canadian. His designated type of acceptable Canadian to me would result in rampant inbreeding and I find inbred people to be problematic.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Rue

[Leafless]

WELL SAID.

For me this is not a black and white issue. It's about discerning shades of grey. Its easy to say we don't want bad people coming to Canada. How we define bad however is where it gets difficult and the Leafless types of the world assume bad means anyone they say is bad.

And Rue follows the socialist viewpoint that there are really no bad people in society, but are those who are just simply misunderstood.

Hear that Mr. Harper, nullify all laws in Canada as Rue says they are not required as we are a nation of simply misunderstood people.

We already know Leafless' agenda. He wants a nation where everyone practices the exact same religion and follows the exact same beliefs as him and speak English and look just like him.

Canada is a large majority English speaking, Christian country. Most immigrants prior to Quebcec's Trudeau immigration and multiculturalism policies and a Charter, were derived from a multitude of compatible pro Western countries.

These immigrants were of basically, different Christian denominations and those who did not speak the English language quickly learned it and freely assimilated into Canadian society.

I do not want to be Leafless Canadian. His designated type of acceptable Canadian to me would result in rampant inbreeding and I find inbred people to be problematic.

Hogwash.

Obviously you do not know the definition of inbreeding.

But if you want to make a closer comparison to inbreeding, then I would look no further than those living in Quebec society and those living in ethnic communities.

[Army Guy]

Because at 18, certain emotional immaturities aside, a person is physically an adult; and "physically" includes the pysiognomy of the brain.

The above quote is what we as Canadians have determined, at age 18 a person is physically an adult, but not fully developed mentally...But this not how Khadr was raised and brought up, in his culture and raising your an adult as young as 11 up until age 14...In his culture he is treated as a man, entitled to everything that comes with that.

Because I rasied three children, and had a household always filled with children, and it is very, very clear that 15 and 18 are separated by a massive gulf

Because I could ground my 15 year olds, or otherwise discipline them, or reward them, as a way to teach them behavior that none of us truly expect to be wholly adult at 15.

But we as Canadians expect our 14 ,15 and 16 year olds to already know the basics of right and wrong....you can't expect us to swallow that pill"he did not know any better", do your kids know that it is wrong to take anothers life ? Do your kids know that firing a wpn into someone can lead to death, that planting a bomb under someone cars is OK.

Our laws for under age persons in Canada are quit clear, they are based on case by case and the severity of the crime, our history is full of children tried for adult crimes, and in some cases as an adult...there is NO get out of jail free card because of age....nor should there be....each case is different....but every action needs to have some consquences....Being classified as a child soldier should not be that all get of jail free card....

I've seen these child soldiers in action, and trust me they are nothing like our children that we have raised, under our protection and our laws, we should NOT be comparing the two, leave the tears and compassion aside, and judge them one by one case by case ....as they would have none for you or me on the battle field. ...In war these kids grow up fast, and they know exactly what they are doing, and what is right and wrong...They are just as capable of doing crimes against humanity as adults...

[eyeball]

But we as Canadians expect our 14 ,15 and 16 year olds to already know the basics of right and wrong....you can't expect us to swallow that pill"he did not know any better", do your kids know that it is wrong to take anothers life ? Do your kids know that firing a wpn into someone can lead to death, that planting a bomb under someone cars is OK.

14 - 16? I think its fair to say most kids probably have not only the basics of right and wrong down pat by the time they're in Kindergarten they probably also have a pretty good handle on most of the normal complexities.

Our laws for under age persons in Canada are quit clear, they are based on case by case and the severity of the crime, our history is full of children tried for adult crimes, and in some cases as an adult...there is NO get out of jail free card because of age....nor should there be....each case is different....but every action needs to have some consquences....Being classified as a child soldier should not be that all get of jail free card....

Normally kids don't need the get out of jail card because the classification of child soldier quite clearly puts them into a category that mandates their rehabilitation and treatment for abuse and indoctrination in a hospital instead of being held in a prison camp without any kind of trial. But there's the rub, we've side-stepped the laws that should have lead to Khadr's treatment instead of imprisonment because if our side classifies him as a soldier it suggests al Queada is an army after all. This is what I'd call a really abnormal complexity of right and wrong - one that only a group of adults would likely ever come up with. Aside from Khadr's maltreatment this particular complexity goes to the very heart of why Canadians should be so ashamed. It's where the rubber hits the road in the selling out of our principles.

I've seen these child soldiers in action, and trust me they are nothing like our children that we have raised, under our protection and our laws, we should NOT be comparing the two, leave the tears and compassion aside, and judge them one by one case by case ....as they would have none for you or me on the battle field. ...In war these kids grow up fast, and they know exactly what they are doing, and what is right and wrong...They are just as capable of doing crimes against humanity as adults...

Only if what they learned in Kindergarten was deliberately beaten out them and just about every time that's been the case under our laws they're judged to be children in need of special protection and compassionate treatment.

[Army Guy]

14 - 16? I think its fair to say most kids probably have not only the basics of right and wrong down pat by the time they're in Kindergarten they probably also have a pretty good handle on most of the normal complexities.

Then you agree young mr Khadr did know exactly what he was doing, that planting IED's and taking up arms was wrong...if not very dangerous, and could cost him his life...or may force him to take a life...Which as seen in his vidio he was very willing to do....SO if he knew better, he knew right from wrong why are we willing to give him a free pass....

I mean Canadians , young offenders in Canada don't get a pass, under our law they are held accountable form thier actions...to the piont where in some cases commiting an adult offense one could be tried as an adult...except when your a soldier...child soldier, here we give them a free ticket to ride, one could commit any crime one wishes only to finally pull that ticket out and start crying....I"M a child soldier....

Normally kids don't need the get out of jail card because the classification of child soldier quite clearly puts them into a category that mandates their rehabilitation and treatment for abuse and indoctrination in a hospital instead of being held in a prison camp without any kind of trial.

Correction...normal kids are not involved in a combat zone, normal kids would already know right from wrong....and by picking up arms one subjects oneself to the rules of War....If you have not commited any crimes, then by all means give them what ever help they need....but everyone must pay for thier actions....regardless of age...

But there's the rub, we've side-stepped the laws that should have lead to Khadr's treatment instead of imprisonment because if our side classifies him as a soldier it suggests al Queada is an army after all.

No there is no rub, Khadr does not belong to an army but to a terrorist group, clearly spelled out not only in the genva convention, but also in Canadian laws....and for some reason you keep mixing the two together....and the are separate indenties....And under all those laws young mr Khadr is indentifed as a terrorist...and their is no laws for child terrorists...

This is what I'd call a really abnormal complexity of right and wrong - one that only a group of adults would likely ever come up with. Aside from Khadr's maltreatment this particular complexity goes to the very heart of why Canadians should be so ashamed. It's where the rubber hits the road in the selling out of our principles.

Here is where i agree with you some what, the treatment of young mr Khadr is a red mark in our history, terrorist (and when i say treatment i mean torture, not his confinement....)or not Canada should have stepped up and done the right thing...bringing him home and putting him on trial....But where the rubber hits the road is how and who we make accountable for all these actions including young mr khadrs, his families, our government, and other governments.....It's still not to late for our leadership to do the right thing and hold all accountable...

[bloodyminded]

The above quote is what we as Canadians have determined, at age 18 a person is physically an adult, but not fully developed mentally...But this not how Khadr was raised and brought up, in his culture and raising your an adult as young as 11 up until age 14...In his culture he is treated as a man, entitled to everything that comes with that.

But we as Canadians expect our 14 ,15 and 16 year olds to already know the basics of right and wrong....you can't expect us to swallow that pill"he did not know any better", do your kids know that it is wrong to take anothers life ? Do your kids know that firing a wpn into someone can lead to death, that planting a bomb under someone cars is OK.

Our laws for under age persons in Canada are quit clear, they are based on case by case and the severity of the crime, our history is full of children tried for adult crimes, and in some cases as an adult...there is NO get out of jail free card because of age....nor should there be....each case is different....but every action needs to have some consquences....Being classified as a child soldier should not be that all get of jail free card....

I appreciate the civil tenor of your post here. But what I've realized is that (with the exception of a smarter-than-me poster named eyeball) no one is addressing anything I've said.

Still, in the interest of maintaining a civil discussion, I'll assume i have been less than clear. So let me try again:

i agree--completely agree--that a 15 year-old should be held responsible for what he has done.

What I disagree with is the idea that we can suddenly decide that he is an "adult"--though only for purposes of reponsbility, not for rights.

No, a case like Khadr is not looked at "individualy," in which we somehow ascertain he is an "adult." This suggest we have soberly and carefully looked not only at his case...but, presumably, that he has undergone some battery of psychological and moral tests (which don't actually exist, not as legal determiners) and have objectively discovered that Khadr, at 15, was an "adult."

On the contrary, we merely CLAIMED he was an adult, SO THAT he could be punished as an adult. that's not "lookiung carefully at each case indivisdually."

This is unadulterated statism, police-state mentality...and I will tell you why:

In countries like Canada and the United States, we are NOT deemed as possessing "responsibilities" first, and "rights" second. If anything, it is the other way 'round.

Either way, the two components are inextricable: you can't have one without the other. Ypou have adult resp[onsibilites? Then you have adult rights.

So if Khadr (or anyone else) is deemed an adult by law...then the only reasonable argument is the perfectly circular one: that he IS an adult by law. It can't be any other way.

This means--i mean by definition, inhertently, uncontroversially, incontrovertibly--that he must have had all the RIGHTS of an adult.

We cannot have it both ways...unless we choose to be a police state, where your rights are of lesser import than are your legal responsibilites.

And whatever one believes about this matter is irrelevant...because our rights are NOT of lesser import. Legally, constitutiopnally. They aren't.

If any--ANY--15 year old can be charged as an adult, then we have to give 15 year olds all the rights of an adult.

Further, every prisoner currently serving time for, say, statutory rape must now be released, if not compensated for improper incarceration. You cannot commit satutory rape upin an adult. They have been terribl;y abused by the system. they had consesual sex with an "adult" and were imprisoned for it. More police-statism.

Honestly, I really find it amazing that everyone says "we must look at these matters on a case-by-case basis"..ok, so what where the criteria under which Khadr was determined to be a 15-year-old adult?

Since we look at each case individually and arrive at a sober and objective asserssment of their adulthood...how do we do this? what were the exact mechanisms in which we discovered Khadr was not a child, but actually an adult?

The repeated argument begs the question.

And no one ever, ever, ever answers it.

[wyly]

I've seen these child soldiers in action, and trust me they are nothing like our children that we have raised, under our protection and our laws, we should NOT be comparing the two, leave the tears and compassion aside, and judge them one by one case by case ....as they would have none for you or me on the battle field. ...In war these kids grow up fast, and they know exactly what they are doing, and what is right and wrong...They are just as capable of doing crimes against humanity as adults...

there child soldiers in africa 8-9-10 yrs old who amputated hands and arms, killed whenever they were asked to and behaved as the adults did...are these adults?

I spent the better part of 3 decades working with kids from 5 and up, each age has different maturity levels and each age sees and understands the world differently from the other...14-15 yr old girls are the most bizaare animals on the planet, if they were adults many would have to be classified as mentally unstable...being the size of an adult an doing adult activities does not indicate there is an adult brain at work...the part of the brain that controls impulsive behaviour somestimes does not mature for some until they reach their 20's...

in no way is a 15 year old boy an adult and should never be treated as such...

[DogOnPorch]

in no way is a 15 year old boy an adult and should never be treated as such...

Tell that to the kid with the AK-47 pointed at us.

[jbg]

in no way is a 15 year old boy an adult and should never be treated as such...

I still don't understand the concern for a (then) 15 year old and his family. They hate us. They don't want any part of us (except our benefits). By and large they want us dead. That is an adult emotion with adult consequences.

What could be more bloody simple?

[Smallc]

How about this. At 15, you aren't an adult. Now how simple is that?

[Army Guy]

i agree--completely agree--that a 15 year-old should be held responsible for what he has done.

Thats a good start, considering some agree that he should not be punished at all.

What I disagree with is the idea that we can suddenly decide that he is an "adult"--though only for purposes of reponsbility, not for rights.

I think perhaps i've been unclear, In Afghan he is considered an adult,by thier culture , .. as this is where the crimes where committed, and should be tried ( my opinion)...however, in Canada at the time of the crimes he was considered a youth...however within our laws a youth can be charged and sentenced as an adult...That does not mean they will recieve the same sentence as an adult, or serve that time in an adult prison...After all the individual is a youth...

No, a case like Khadr is not looked at "individualy," in which we somehow ascertain he is an "adult." This suggest we have soberly and carefully looked not only at his case...but, presumably, that he has undergone some battery of psychological and moral tests (which don't actually exist, not as legal determiners) and have objectively discovered that Khadr, at 15, was an "adult."

Keep in mind that the Khadr case has not yet hit our justice system. and hence has not made any findings...However This is "not" the first time a youth has been tried as an adult, or sentenced as such in north america, I am assuming that there is some method of determining how this is done and what the rules are for this....I'm not a lawyer nor claim to be one, that being said my argument or counter argument is that some have said that Khadr did not know what was right or wrong, therfore can not be held responable for his actions.

On the contrary, we merely CLAIMED he was an adult, SO THAT he could be punished as an adult. that's not "lookiung carefully at each case indivisdually."

If there is no performa in determining what constitutes an adult crime, or who should be charged or treated as an adult then i would agree with your statement. and would have to be taken into account. I've tried to research this and since i'm not a lawyer can not translate all that legal BS into something that proves my statement... perhaps someone else with legal experience can explain it..I'm assuming that this has been done in the past, as we have had youth charged with adult crimes in our history.

In countries like Canada and the United States, we are NOT deemed as possessing "responsibilities" first, and "rights" second. If anything, it is the other way 'round.

Either way, the two components are inextricable: you can't have one without the other. Ypou have adult resp[onsibilites? Then you have adult rights.

So if Khadr (or anyone else) is deemed an adult by law...then the only reasonable argument is the perfectly circular one: that he IS an adult by law. It can't be any other way.

Like everything there are exceptions, that are age specific, you can join the military at age 17,allowed in combat at age 18 . but are not allowed to drink legally.

Since we look at each case individually and arrive at a sober and objective asserssment of their adulthood...how do we do this? what were the exact mechanisms in which we discovered Khadr was not a child, but actually an adult?

I know where your going with this, and i've explained before i'm not sure, and have not found anything to prove my piont....What we do know is this Khadr knew what he was doing was wrong, very seriously wrong, he aslo knew of the consquences for his actions, and understood them clearly...for this he should be held responsiable,

[eyeball]

Then you agree young mr Khadr did know exactly what he was doing, that planting IED's and taking up arms was wrong...if not very dangerous, and could cost him his life...or may force him to take a life...Which as seen in his vidio he was very willing to do....SO if he knew better, he knew right from wrong why are we willing to give him a free pass....

No I don't agree with that at all, I said MOST kids know the difference. I think most of kids that DON'T understand the difference between right and wrong have had the difference beaten or deliberately indoctrinated out of them, I think its clear that conflict kids like Omar Khadr fall into this category.

I mean Canadians , young offenders in Canada don't get a pass, under our law they are held accountable form thier actions...to the piont where in some cases commiting an adult offense one could be tried as an adult...except when your a soldier...child soldier, here we give them a free ticket to ride, one could commit any crime one wishes only to finally pull that ticket out and start crying....I"M a child soldier....

This is a ridiculous argument. Khadr wasn't arrested by police in Canada following a B&E, he was taken prisoner by soldiers following a firefight in a war.

Correction...normal kids are not involved in a combat zone, normal kids would already know right from wrong....and by picking up arms one subjects oneself to the rules of War....If you have not commited any crimes, then by all means give them what ever help they need....but everyone must pay for thier actions....regardless of age...

That's right, normal kids are not involved in a combat zone unless its as a victim. When weapons of war however have been placed in the hands of a child who has been abused and indoctrinated into thinking a wrong is right, the situation is far from normal and they do not nor should they be treated as normal kids, they should be treated as...child soldiers and victims, not criminals.

No there is no rub, Khadr does not belong to an army but to a terrorist group, clearly spelled out not only in the genva convention, but also in Canadian laws....and for some reason you keep mixing the two together....and the are separate indenties....And under all those laws young mr Khadr is indentifed as a terrorist...and their is no laws for child terrorists...

Its quite obvious the law needs to be changed then, the term should be conflict children. He belonged in Canada in school not in a conflict that he couldn't possibly comprehend. Of course there is a rub and you know it. The only the one's who are mixing things up here are the governments that have painted themselves into a corner with their redefining of terms and newspeak and doublespeak and out right bullshit.

Here is where i agree with you some what, the treatment of young mr Khadr is a red mark in our history, terrorist (and when i say treatment i mean torture, not his confinement....)or not Canada should have stepped up and done the right thing...bringing him home and putting him on trial....But where the rubber hits the road is how and who we make accountable for all these actions including young mr khadrs, his families, our government, and other governments.....It's still not to late for our leadership to do the right thing and hold all accountable...

What's really shameful is how you can realize this and yet still go after this kid like he was Jeffrey Dahlmer.

Edited January 25, 2010 by eyeball

[Army Guy]

No I don't agree with that at all, I said MOST kids know the difference. I think most of kids that DON'T understand the difference between right and wrong have had the difference beaten or deliberately indoctrinated out of them, I think its clear that conflict kids like Omar Khadr fall into this category.

Oh i get it most kids , just not Omar...funney he has never said he was indoctinated though beating except when mentioning the US government and agencies....Did his family , friends terrorist group brain wash him ....perhaps...So your answer is what hugs and kisses, free ticket to ride...screw everyone this kid has hurt or hed thier lives changed forever....

This is a ridiculous argument. Khadr wasn't arrested by police in Canada following a B&E, he was taken prisoner by soldiers following a firefight in a war.

What we only punish our kids here in Canada....we hold them responsiable for minor crimes and major crimes....Being taken prisoner on a battlefield is a very serious event would you not say....If we don't hold them accountable what message is that sending to the others that use child soldiers....Do you think anything in the Khadr trail will change thier minds in using children ? will it prevent children themselfs form commiting war crimes....

That's right, normal kids are not involved in a combat zone unless its as a victim. When weapons of war however have been placed in the hands of a child who has been abused and indoctrinated into thinking a wrong is right, the situation is far from normal and they do not nor should they be treated as normal kids, they should be treated as...child soldiers and victims, not criminals.

The conventions and inter-national law also says it does not preclude them from being punished or held accountable for thier actions....does it...

Its quite obvious the law needs to be changed then, the term should be conflict children. He belonged in Canada in school not in a conflict that he couldn't possibly comprehend. Of course there is a rub and you know it. The only the one's who are mixing things up here are the governments that have painted themselves into a corner with their redefining of terms and newspeak and doublespeak and out right bullshit.

No one should be given a free ticket to ride, a free pass to commit any crimes they want, and then pull out I'm a child card...Why is Khadr so different...he's not..want to hold someone responsiable lets look at his family, dear mom still collect that welfare check...here in Canada still has nothing good to say about Canadians and yet despite her haterd for us and our ways still refuses to leave....

What's really shameful is how you can realize this and yet still go after this kid like he was Jeffrey Dahlmer.

I want justice to be served, Omar is going to set precedence in this country, as it already has with the toronto gang....what needs to be done is Canadians educated on just what crimes these terrorist have done, what impact they have on millions that only wish is to get on with thier lives....and yet we can't see past our own noses...we are more interested in making sure our troops don't rough up this scumbags, than the crimes commited in the name of some sick bastards mind. Hold them all responsable...give them thier day in court...and lets carry on...

[CANADIEN]

The concept of child-soldier was created for one, good purpose... that children abducted, beaten, tortured, brainwashed into killing machines would receive the rehabilitation they deserve instead of being treated like criminals.

Omar Khadr does not meet that definition. Like any teenaged thug, he should stand trial for whatever crime he committed. Too bad the Bushites ruined this by dispensing with the normal course of the justice system.

[eyeball]

The concept of child-soldier was created for one, good purpose... that children abducted, beaten, tortured, brainwashed into killing machines would receive the rehabilitation they deserve instead of being treated like criminals.

Omar Khadr does not meet that definition. Like any teenaged thug, he should stand trial for whatever crime he committed. Too bad the Bushites ruined this by dispensing with the normal course of the justice system.

Alleged crime you mean, and yes, too bad so sad indeed - the longer normal justice is denied Khadr the deeper the stain of shame Canada bears.

[eyeball]

..want to hold someone responsiable lets look at his family...

Are you sure you really want the government to do that? If Omar Khadr's parents are held liable for turning him into a "killing machine" then by definition Omar Khadr is innocent and has been criminally mistreated as a child prisoner of war.

That's why the government doesn't want to hold Khadr's family responsible. If they did, it would undermine the very basis for pretending he is not a victim. I suspect a few other illusions about the so called war on terror would also be threatened.

[Army Guy]

Alleged crime you mean, and yes, too bad so sad indeed - the longer normal justice is denied Khadr the deeper the stain of shame Canada bears.

Alleged crime yes, but kind of like a bank robber getting caught inside the vault with a pocket full of cash....But alleged only because he has not been convicted....

[Army Guy]

Are you sure you really want the government to do that? If Omar Khadr's parents are held liable for turning him into a "killing machine" then by definition Omar Khadr is innocent and has been criminally mistreated as a child prisoner of war.

That's why the government doesn't want to hold Khadr's family responsible. If they did, it would undermine the very basis for pretending he is not a victim. I suspect a few other illusions about the so called war on terror would also be threatened.

Have you read the Geneva convention we signed on Child soldiers ? it clearly states that it does not preclude child soldiers for being held accountable for thier crimes...it also clearly states that it's main intention is to go after those responsible for recruiting, using, or placing children as child soldiers....So according to your argument we can do both...if it can be proven that his mother had a hand in that...She as much said publically that she tried to recruit him to be a suicide bomber...

But since he is not a child soldier, but a terrorist and thier is no child soldier clause in the defination of a terrorist is there making it a mout piont.

[bloodyminded]

Alleged crime yes, but kind of like a bank robber getting caught inside the vault with a pocket full of cash....But alleged only because he has not been convicted....

No. There were other fighters present. And the soldier who is the KEY WITNESS says he isn't sure if Khadr is responsible.

So "alleged" is objectively the correct word.

Edited January 27, 2010 by bloodyminded

[eyeball]

Have you read the Geneva convention we signed on Child soldiers ? it clearly states that it does not preclude child soldiers for being held accountable for thier crimes...it also clearly states that it's main intention is to go after those responsible for recruiting, using, or placing children as child soldiers....So according to your argument we can do both...if it can be proven that his mother had a hand in that...She as much said publically that she tried to recruit him to be a suicide bomber...

But since he is not a child soldier, but a terrorist and thier is no child soldier clause in the defination of a terrorist is there making it a mout piont.

That omission is the loophole in the convention our whole sorry case rests on isn't it? Its a really pathetic and cowardly excuse for a country as allegedly principled as ours to be using. It's disgusting and shameful.

I'm reminded of those commercials where kids are made victims of the small print and clauses that adults are forever obfuscating things with.

Edited January 27, 2010 by eyeball

[Army Guy]

No. There were other fighters present. And the soldier who is the KEY WITNESS says he isn't sure if Khadr is responsible.

So "alleged" is objectively the correct word.

If you read his statement, he says before the grenade was thrown he engaged the postion in which Khadr was found and was postive he had killed his target with a head shot, it was after everything was done and he approached the postion he found 2 person there, one alive and one dead, he Assumed that it was Khadr who thrown the grenade because he was the only left alive, and he'd killed the other guy before the grenade was thrown ...SO your right he is not sure, as he did not see who threw it, but then again grenades don't throw themselfs...perhaps the lone man on the knoll....

[bloodyminded]

If you read his statement, he says before the grenade was thrown he engaged the postion in which Khadr was found and was postive he had killed his target with a head shot, it was after everything was done and he approached the postion he found 2 person there, one alive and one dead, he Assumed that it was Khadr who thrown the grenade because he was the only left alive, and he'd killed the other guy before the grenade was thrown ...SO your right he is not sure, as he did not see who threw it, but then again grenades don't throw themselfs...perhaps the lone man on the knoll....

so why bother with a trial? YOU "know" he was guilty.

So he's guilty.

[Army Guy]

That omission is the loophole in the convention our whole sorry case rests on isn't it? Its a really pathetic and cowardly excuse for a country as allegedly principled as ours to be using. It's disgusting and shameful.

I'm reminded of those commercials where kids are made victims of the small print and clauses that adults are forever obfuscating things with.

Bullshit, first of all Our country is not using anything, as the case is before US courts, with Canada waiting on the outcome...and many of the SAVE OMAR crowd is quick to piont out Canada should get on it's white stead and go galloping to this terrorists rescue....What about all those other Canadians found guilty of crimes overseas, are we rescueing them to...where is thier white horse...or team of SAVE ME specialists...Is that what we do rescue terrorist now, don't we have enough terrorist in our country right now....what makes this case above all the other cases so different?

They've used every excuse in the books, and yet here we sit still waiting, young mr Omar will soon be transfered to a cell in the US, and he will langish there until the US justice system is done with him...That much is fact, soon afterward Omar will fade into the limelight and thats a fact...sure we'll hear about him from time to time but he'll be in in US cells until they release him as it should be.

[Army Guy]

so why bother with a trial? YOU "know" he was guilty.

So he's guilty.

Ya i think he's guilty, guilty enough to recieve 3 bullets in a fire fight, with NATO troops, which ended with the deaths of serveral Aghan national army personal, and a US medic....but hey he's got what 6 or 7 other charges to answer for as well...

And yet alot of Canadians are weeping for poor Omar he's just a kid...he's been twisted by his parents, tortured by the US, and forgotten by Canada....SET HIM FREE they scream...it's someone elses fault...mostly the US fault because that is the good Canadian thing to do blame the US....Nobody made him get involved in that fire fight, he could have fled, or hide or just lay in a ball crying....he needs to be held accountable for his actions, as with anyone charged with these type of offense...He made a chioce regardless of age he made it, it nearly killed him, now he must stand up and be judged...What about all the other Omars in Afghan what do we do with them....

I just wonder what would have been Canada's reaction if the media came back an annouced he'd been killed on the battlefield that day...would we have even blinked an eye...would it even made the paper....would we be calling for an inquiry on the death....would we have looked into his family past and held them accountable....I don't think so....Omar would have been put in a shallow grave his mother crying vowing vengence....and that would have been it....

[eyeball]

I just wonder what would have been Canada's reaction if the media came back an annouced he'd been killed on the battlefield that day...would we have even blinked an eye...would it even made the paper....would we be calling for an inquiry on the death....would we have looked into his family past and held them accountable....I don't think so....Omar would have been put in a shallow grave his mother crying vowing vengence....and that would have been it....

Yeah, its just to bad Robert Semrau wasn't on hand that day to do Canada proud.