Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian

[Radsickle]

Nonsense, I'm not a pedant that cares much about the nomenclature of where they languish, so long as they do...the nick, gaol, the big house, the pen, the joint, the hole, prison, hell....

They all have their place...

Who's `they'?

[M.Dancer]

Omar Khadr has been rotting in an uncertain `jail' for more than 8 years.

Lets overlook that he is not in a jail but a detention camp and address the so called rotting....

1.to undergo decomposition; decay.

2.to deteriorate, disintegrate, fall, or become weak due to decay (often fol. by away, from, off, etc.).

3.to languish, as in confinement.

4.to become morally corrupt or offensive.

1) and 2)_....have you seen the recent pics of Khadr? Far from decomposing, deteriorating or becoming weak, he has blossomed into quite the porker...

3) Hard to say he is languishing when he has put on so much beef...what do they feed these kids today?

4) He started corrupt, his detention is the crucible that is purifying his sorry arsed soul.

[M.Dancer]

Who's `they'?

Who would you like they to be?

[Radsickle]

Odd that you would still be going on about that in response to my post when I pointed out that it's not all about them by any means, as you completely fail to address the points I raised.

Sorry, the points you raise are typical clap-trap logic.

"Or maybe it's a move to please those in society who aren't pleased with prisoners getting out of serving the time they should be serving and to please those who don't think a "speedy" trial is synonymous with "best trial," because it's not. As I said, it could backfire on an innocent person, too."

Firstly, who are you to second-guess a judge? "should be serving"?! It's up to the judge, not you, Stevie, or your pitchfork-wielding comrades.

Secondly, I would think an innocent person has access to compensation for those day$ spent in pre-trial. I would double their compensation if they're innocent, wouldn't you?

Edited February 24, 2010 by Radsickle

[M.Dancer]

Sorry, the points you raise are typical clap-trap logic.

Firstly, who are you to second-guess a judge? "should be serving"?! It's up to the judge, not you, Stevie, or your pitchfork-wielding comrades.

Actually it is up to stevie...or did that fact in the news iten escape you?

Secondly, I would think an innocent person has access to compensation for those day$ spent in pre-trial.

That's what litigation lawyers are for...

I would double their compensation if they're innocent, wouldn't you?

so the guilty only get single compensation?

[Radsickle]

Who would you like they to be?

I don't know who you group as `they', fellow baboons?

[M.Dancer]

I don't know who you group as `they', fellow baboons?

They, who languish in gaol.

I wrote it so even someone like you could follow...

[Radsickle]

Lets overlook that he is not in a jail but a detention camp and address the so called rotting....

1.to undergo decomposition; decay.

2.to deteriorate, disintegrate, fall, or become weak due to decay (often fol. by away, from, off, etc.).

3.to languish, as in confinement.

4.to become morally corrupt or offensive.

1) and 2)_....have you seen the recent pics of Khadr? Far from decomposing, deteriorating or becoming weak, he has blossomed into quite the porker...

3) Hard to say he is languishing when he has put on so much beef...what do they feed these kids today?

4) He started corrupt, his detention is the crucible that is purifying his sorry arsed soul.

Do you base all your opinions on snapshot photos and half-arsed religious mumbo-jumbo?

[Radsickle]

Actually it is up to stevie...or did that fact in the news iten escape you?

I leave no `iten' unturned, guaranteed.

I've discovered that Canadians like to torture 15-year-olds named Omar.

[M.Dancer]

I've discovered that Canadians like to torture 15-year-olds named Omar.

Well aren't you special.

You should do your civic duty and report that to the local constabulary. The one thing lacking in the "they tortured Omar" argument is evidence. Be advised though that your own froth and spittle do not consitute evidence nor do the feces you hurl from your cage constitue an argument.

[M.Dancer]

Do you base all your opinions on snapshot photos and half-arsed religious mumbo-jumbo?

No of course not. I just take your bumper sticker arguments and reverse them so they are not too complicated and you can follow them easily.

[Radsickle]

Well aren't you special.

You should do your civic duty and report that to the local constabulary. The one thing lacking in the "they tortured Omar" argument is evidence. Be advised though that your own froth and spittle do not consitute evidence nor do the feces you hurl from your cage constitue an argument.

Now you're talkin' feces. Good for you, Baboon.

Harper had to eat some feces recently when the Supreme Court forced him to send a diplomatic note to the US to ask them to disregard the info gained while we participated in torturing the child, Omar Khadr.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Radsickle

[M.Dancer]

Now you're talkin' feces. Good for you, Baboon.

Harper had to eat some feces recently when the Supreme Court forced him to send a diplomatic note to the US to ask them to disregard the info gained while we participated in torturing the child, Omar Khadr.

Do you get all your arguments from defective bumper stickers or do you just process information so it seems that way.

disregard the info gained while we participated in torturing the child

I'm sure that kind of rhetoric arouses the young coed marxist sophomores, but fails here.

Please find a cite where the SCC says we tortured him or stop wasting everyones time with this type of drivel.

[bloodyminded]

Waiting time could count as served time, rather than double the time. It makes no sense to try to rush a trial just out of fear that someone who is guilty will have part of their sentence cut in half -- not because of remorse, or good behavior, or being ready to go back out in society -- but based on nothing other than a two-for-one law.

And that's not a good thing for society, which is the issue that started this exchange in the first place. As I said above, shortening the sentence isn't based on anything that matters regarding rehabilitation, danger to society, etc.

No, it is based on something substantial. It's a way to avoid a particular form of prosecutorial misconduct. In spirit, it's closley related to rules of evidence, rules surrounding search and seizure, and so on.

ALL these things make the jobs of prosecutors and/or police more difficult; which they're supposed to do.

The point is to protect you and me. That's why these crucial rules are there.

As for your point that it could harm the inncoent as well...that's what defense lawyers are for. If the defense is insufficiently prepared, they can get a temporary deferral on the trial.

[Guest American Woman]

No, it is based on something substantial. It's a way to avoid a particular form of prosecutorial misconduct. In spirit, it's closley related to rules of evidence, rules surrounding search and seizure, and so on.

I understand that it's purpose is to prevent misconduct by the prosecution, but it has other side effects as well. As I pointed out, it lets a criminal out earlier than he/she would normally be based on nothing that has to do with their crime, behavior, remorse, danger to society, etc. If a judge give a murderer 15 years it's because that's what he/she thinks is appropriate for the crime. Having credit for serving double time before the trial even starts could substantially reduce sentence time, and put possible repeat offenders back out on the street before they should be.

ALL these things make the jobs of prosecutors and/or police more difficult; which they're supposed to do.

And it very likely has the effect of making the rest of us less safe.

The point is to protect you and me. That's why these crucial rules are there.

It's to protect you and me if we're accused of a crime, but not you and me as citizens.

As for your point that it could harm the inncoent as well...that's what defense lawyers are for. If the defense is insufficiently prepared, they can get a temporary deferral on the trial.

"The defense" isn't synonymous with "innocent" by any means. But I have to question what happens if the prosecution is insufficiently prepared-- can they, too, get a temporary deferral on the trial? And would there be any difference between the defense getting it and the prosecution getting it? In other words, if the defense is granted a temporary deferral on the trial and the accused is found guilty, does the accused get two-for-one credit during the deferral time?

[eyeball]

But I have to question what happens if the prosecution is insufficiently prepared-- can they, too, get a temporary deferral on the trial?

No, a judge is supposed to order that the accused be released and that the persecution should come back when it actually has a case to make.

[bloodyminded]

I understand that it's purpose is to prevent misconduct by the prosecution, but it has other side effects as well. As I pointed out, it lets a criminal out earlier than he/she would normally be based on nothing that has to do with their crime, behavior, remorse, danger to society, etc. If a judge give a murderer 15 years it's because that's what he/she thinks is appropriate for the crime. Having credit for serving double time before the trial even starts could substantially reduce sentence time, and put possible repeat offenders back out on the street before they should be.

And it very likely has the effect of making the rest of us less safe.

Yes. Just as throwing out cases (undoubtedly many of which are about truly guilty people) because of police or prosecutorial misconduct. It's not a simple and happy matter. But police and prosecutorial misconduct is worse. It is a direct road to a tyrannical polcie state; or at least to a justice system so corrupt that it's useless.

It's to protect you and me if we're accused of a crime, but not you and me as citizens.

I don't see how we can have it both ways. Being accused of a crime is not a crime in itself. Besides, protection of the accused IS protection of citizens.

"The defense" isn't synonymous with "innocent" by any means. But I have to question what happens if the prosecution is insufficiently prepared-- can they, too, get a temporary deferral on the trial? And would there be any difference between the defense getting it and the prosecution getting it? In other words, if the defense is granted a temporary deferral on the trial and the accused is found guilty, does the accused get two-for-one credit during the deferral time?

I'm not sure about your last question, which is a very interesting one.

As to the rest, we can't pretend that the prosecution and defense are equal. The prosecution has more power, and more resources. Unless you're rich, which is rarely the case for (accused..much less indicted) criminals.

[M.Dancer]

In other words, if the defense is granted a temporary deferral on the trial and the accused is found guilty, does the accused get two-for-one credit during the deferral time?

That is exactly the way it used to be. Someone who would get 18 months needs only delay the trial for 9 months to have the 18 months reduced to time served.

[Radsickle]

That is exactly the way it used to be. Someone who would get 18 months needs only delay the trial for 9 months to have the 18 months reduced to time served.

eh, Baboon, I think you'll find that the majority of those people would rather just get the trial over with. Only the stupidly guilty would purposely delay their trial so they could live inside a space smaller than the average washroom for months on end. Wake up.

oh, and Baboon: A "substantial number" of Omar Khadr's torture allegations have been "conclusively corroborated" during hearings of the military commissions, the Canadian-born terror suspect's chief U.S. lawyer said at their conclusion Thursday.

CSIS, somewhere in the timeline, is an accomplice in this torture.

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Khadr+torture+claims+proven+lawyer/2996748/story.html#ixzz0nTuhSkLK

Also, Baboon, here's a story about a Canadian who still values truth and justice, not just reactionary babble:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2010/05/05/khadr-edney.html

[jbg]

oh, and Baboon: A "substantial number" of Omar Khadr's torture allegations have been "conclusively corroborated" during hearings of the military commissions, the Canadian-born terror suspect's chief U.S. lawyer said at their conclusion Thursday.

CSIS, somewhere in the timeline, is an accomplice in this torture.

The Khadr case shows why you don't fight a war in Court (link).

[Radsickle]

The Khadr case shows why you don't fight a war in Court (link).

Excellent attempt to re-direct the topic into something vague! Clearly, you don't think things through and don't want to...

"Clearly they are bent on slaughter"

Clearly, you are bent on assuming certain "cultures" a threat and propagating that perception, regardless of the facts.

Let's be clear; clearly, you are far from being clear. You are just another Baboon.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Radsickle

[Radsickle]

The Khadr case shows why you don't fight a war in Court (link).

Your post shows your ego is bigger than your keyboard and you just want attention.

[Radsickle]

The Khadr case shows why you don't fight a war in Court (link).

You don't win a war by torturing 15 year olds.

[jbg]

Excellent attempt to re-direct the topic into something vague! Clearly, you don't think things through and don't want to...

Actually I thought your linked article deserved a new thread. It made some good suggestions. Link to thread.

[Radsickle]

Actually I thought your linked article deserved a new thread. It made some good suggestions. Link to thread.

"Deserved"? Bull Shite. You were trying to re-direct into an anti-Liberal rant instead of focusing on how much shite our country reeks of in our short-sighted treatment of the citizen, Omar Khadr.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Radsickle