Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian

[eyeball]

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you suggesting that Western born terrorists should have preferential treatment over their eastern born accomplices?

Nope. I'm suggesting that Omar Khadr should be duly processed and tried for his alleged crimes. Its all the other western prisoners that received the preferential treatment.

Beside the obvious pride Canada has in being seen as getting tough on conflict kids I suspect another reason Khadr is still in limbo is that so many other poorly defined legal terms that were used to justify the war or police action or whatever are in limbo too.

Was it really a WAR war given there were no real SOLDIER soldiers to wage it against? Trying Lil Omar could raise a few inconvenient questions.

Given what I've seen I think he's probably due several millions of dollars in compensation myself but I'll give the US and Canadian governments their day in court to prove otherwise. That's a hell of a lot more than they've given a kid who's likely been abused for years.

Its disgraceful.

Edited December 24, 2009 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

Nope.

So when you said, "only Western citizen", it was apropos to nothing? Okay, never mind then.

[William Ashley]

he was a child soilder, so said, and if he threw the grenade which could not be proven since no one saw it done, lived except perhaps khadr, did so in potential self defence, while US soilders were firing on with real gun rounds, and then preparing to storm the place he was in. No one else in that building survived. Clearly even if he did commit the act it could be seen as desperation as self defence, or some form of entrapment or coercion as he was at threat of life, and he had right to life liberty and security of person. Likewise he was not violating any laws, and instead, an illegal combatant (since the invasion of afghanistan and the war itself is against international laws) those soilders had no right or lawful reason for firing on the building he was in. It was the soilders crime of attempted murder... khadr was defending himself... the soilders were the ones who were on an offensive, and violating the laws of the country illegally.

When you mention laws being broken or not, khadr was the law abiding person, it is a farce to have an invading nation being the lawful party when it was they violating international law, and domestic law in the course of their unlawful duties. A foriegn country's law is not anothers. It is the US soilders who were the criminals. So a trial is a complete farse. A murderor gets killed and suddenly a child who defends himself is "the bad guy"

Edited December 26, 2009 by William Ashley

[Guest American Woman]

Yep. Al Qeada is a law abiding bunch of good' ol guys, merely defending themselves; and of course the Taliban is the same. It's all the people they threaten, maim,and kill for not following their laws based on their extreme interpretation of Islam who are the criminals.

Furthermore, it's great that Canada in effect allows parents to raise child soldiers, even though it's against international law, by not holding the surviving parent accountable for raising Omar to take up arms in a conflict.

[eyeball]

Furthermore, it's great that Canada in effect allows parents to raise child soldiers, even though it's against international law, by not holding the surviving parent accountable for raising Omar to take up arms in a conflict.

If Canada actually did this wouldn't it be a tacit admission that in principle Khadr is innocent on the basis of being a child soldier?

I guess the real lesson from all this is that we need to change the term child soldier into conflict child. The principle is identical but I guess principles aren't valid unless they come with boiler-plate terminology welded into place that clearly spells it out in black and white.

[jbg]

Yep. Al Qeada is a law abiding bunch of good' ol guys, merely defending themselves; and of course the Taliban is the same. It's all the people they threaten, maim,and kill for not following their laws based on their extreme interpretation of Islam who are the criminals.

As usual, sometimes you nail it.

[eyeball]

As usual, sometimes you nail it.

What about AW also nailing the fact that Canada is guilty of allowing the raising of conflict children? What else are we to conclude given our government still refuses to charge Omar Khadr's mother?

Doesn't that make us just as much a law abiding bunch of good old guys as Al Qeada?

[Guest American Woman]

If Canada actually did this wouldn't it be a tacit admission that in principle Khadr is innocent on the basis of being a child soldier?

No, I don't think so. A child who committed a crime isn't automatically released from guilt; they're held accountable. Perhaps different standards apply, but that also varies according to the age/circumstances/crime.

I guess the real lesson from all this is that we need to change the term child soldier into conflict child. The principle is identical but I guess principles aren't valid unless they come with boiler-plate terminology welded into place that clearly spells it out in black and white.

The way I see it, Canada needs to make it clear that it will not accept immigrants from conflict nations, give them citizenship, and then tolerate them taking their kids back to raise them to take up arms, as minors, in conflicts --- especially against said nation/its allies in the conflict -- and then come back to Canada and not have be held accountable for their actions.

So seems to me, by holding his mother responsible, Canada would make this scenario less likely to play itself out again in the future. I mean really, do you think it's good that Canada takes people in who then do what the Khadr's did? Do you think others may not get ideas from it? It doesn't matter what you call him, whether he's classified as a child soldier, child combatant, conflict child, or a minor accused of murder; it all comes down to the fact that but for the way he was raised, he wouldn't have been where he was, when he was, doing what he was. The fact is, by western standards, the way he was raised falls under the category of abuse. However, "abuse" doesn't equal a "get out of jail free" card.

So no, I don't think it would amount to "a tacit admission that in principle Khadr is innocent."

[jbg]

What about AW also nailing the fact that Canada is guilty of allowing the raising of conflict children? What else are we to conclude given our government still refuses to charge Omar Khadr's mother?

Her whole post was rather good. I just complimented the stronger of the two points.

[eyeball]

No, I don't think so. A child who committed a crime isn't automatically released from guilt; they're held accountable. Perhaps different standards apply, but that also varies according to the age/circumstances/crime.

Accountable sure but a child is almost always inculpable and if any in modern times have been found guilty when they've deliberately been as abused and twisted the way Omar was I'd like to see an example. I doubt if you'll find one.

The way I see it, Canada needs to make it clear that it will not accept immigrants from conflict nations, give them citizenship, and then tolerate them taking their kids back to raise them to take up arms, as minors, in conflicts --- especially against said nation/its allies in the conflict -- and then come back to Canada and not have be held accountable for their actions.

So seems to me, by holding his mother responsible, Canada would make this scenario less likely to play itself out again in the future. I mean really, do you think it's good that Canada takes people in who then do what the Khadr's did? Do you think others may not get ideas from it? It doesn't matter what you call him, whether he's classified as a child soldier, child combatant, conflict child, or a minor accused of murder; it all comes down to the fact that but for the way he was raised, he wouldn't have been where he was, when he was, doing what he was. The fact is, by western standards, the way he was raised falls under the category of abuse. However, "abuse" doesn't equal a "get out of jail free" card.

What you think Canada needs to do to immigrants has zero to do with what has been done to one of our citizens.

So no, I don't think it would amount to "a tacit admission that in principle Khadr is innocent."

I guess not, if you did you'd be tacitly admitting you've been barking up the wrong tree by blaming his mother for abusing him while also blaming Omar for what that abuse did to him. Heck, you've even managed to bark up both sides of the tree given you've also blamed the government for not blaming the mother while cheering the government for blaming Omar. Shame on you and the depraved two-faced horse you rode in on.

Edited December 27, 2009 by eyeball

[Guest American Woman]

Accountable sure but a child is almost always inculpable and if any in modern times have been found guilty when they've deliberately been as abused and twisted the way Omar was I'd like to see an example. I doubt if you'll find one.

I doubt whether we'd find any examples of a child being held inculpable or responsible since this seems to be a unique case as it involves parents of a western nation raising a child soldier/combatant/whatever.

What you think Canada needs to do to immigrants has zero to do with what has been done to one of our citizens.

It has everything to do with the situation. As I quite clearly pointed out, in order to prevent the possibility of a similar situation in the future, Canada needs to take a stand against allowing parents to freely raise their children the way Omar was raised. Seems to me you're zeroing in on just part of the issue, rather than the whole. If you are upset about what happened to Omar, then seems to me you should be upset about the whole picture, and wanting to prevent it from happening again to other children. Seems to me you should be just as loudly proclaiming that the way Omar was raised is unacceptable, that Canada will not allow it.

I guess not, if you did you'd be tacitly admitting you've been barking up the wrong tree by blaming his mother for abusing him while also blaming Omar for what that abuse did to him. Heck, you've even managed to bark up both sides of the tree given you've also blamed the government for not blaming the mother while cheering the government for blaming Omar. Shame on you and the depraved two-faced horse you rode in on.

Again, you seem able to only focus on one issue. There's such a thing as both parties having to face responsibility and/or the results of their actions. Omar's abusive upbringing put him in the situation he was is, ie: made him what he is, but he is still what he is. We can't overlook an accused murderer's actions just because of the way they were raised. It's a sad situation, but the surviving parent is not being held responsible at all, and people don't seem to be worked up about that-- which is ludicrous to my way of thinking. If we want to prevent this type of thing from happening again, if we care about Omar, we have to prevent children from being raised the way Omar was. We have to make it clear that it's not acceptable in our nations.

[eyeball]

I doubt whether we'd find any examples of a child being held inculpable or responsible since this seems to be a unique case as it involves parents of a western nation raising a child soldier/combatant/whatever.

Well I guess you have your example now don't you?

It has everything to do with the situation. As I quite clearly pointed out, in order to prevent the possibility of a similar situation in the future, Canada needs to take a stand against allowing parents to freely raise their children the way Omar was raised.

By making an example of this abused kid and treating him like an animal? Am I to understand that your justification for leaving Khadr in the state he's in is so we can deter other parents? I think you'd have to be one very sick puppy if that's the case.

Seems to me you're zeroing in on just part of the issue, rather than the whole. If you are upset about what happened to Omar, then seems to me you should be upset about the whole picture, and wanting to prevent it from happening again to other children. Seems to me you should be just as loudly proclaiming that the way Omar was raised is unacceptable, that Canada will not allow it.

Excuse me but where did I say I was happy with the way he was abused by his parents? I'm not happy, but that's nothing compared to the outrage, shame and disgust that I have for the abuse our government's have only added to his sufferings.

Again, you seem able to only focus on one issue.

No, I'm just focused on the core of this issue; the ongoing never-ending abuse of Omar Khadr. His parents didn't abuse him enough for you or something? Its a disgrace and its why Khadr is making so many Canadians ashamed, notwithstanding the amoral cowards who are actually proud of what's going on.

This sort of polarizing shit is by far the worst effect of blow-back from our government's past filthy interference in other countries. The dysfunction stemming from our abusive diddling with other cultures just lives on and on and on with no end in sight. You're an enabler AW its just that simple. As long as there are people like you our governments will push the line on what they think they can get away with.

[Guest American Woman]

You're an enabler AW its just that simple. As long as there are people like you our governments will push the line on what they think they can get away with.

I have to wonder where in God's name this, along with some of your other totally inappropriate comments in your response, are coming from. I've repeatedly said how I feel about Khadr not getting a trial when I was posting about that issue. Not all of my posts have to be about that specific issue, however, and in this instance, I'm posting about his abusive parents not being held responsible. You are focused only on one aspect of this situation. You hate our governments, so that's where you spend your energy. And since you're making moronic judgments about me, let me just say that I wonder if you truly care about Omar, or if he's just a means for you to criticize the government. Seems to me you, by not being just as enraged by the way he was raised, are "enabling" parents to raise child soldiers/et al.

If it's him you truly care about, and you don't want to see this happen again to anyone else, I suggest you get just as enraged over how some parents are raising child soldiers/combatant; then we won't have to deal with the aftermath. If parents don't raise their kids to be child soldiers, they won't be in the position Omar is in. Minimize that fact all you want, but parents who are abusive should be held accountable; just as accountable as anyone else.

Apparently you'd rather just go after the government, though, rather than hold parents accountable and try to prevent children from being in the position Omar was put in. I, on the other hand, have just as much anger for his parents for raising him the way they did and hold them just as accountable for their actions; I have just as much anger for them for raising him to be a child soldier/combatant -- which I repeat, is against international law. Seems to me your rage is quite selective.

Edited December 27, 2009 by American Woman

[eyeball]

Apparently you'd rather just go after the government, though, rather than hold parents accountable and try to prevent children from being in the position Omar was put in.

I'd rather go after the government right now because that's who's abusing Khadr. There is nothing to suggest in the least that there is an epidemic of Omar Khadrs that need to be prevented.

In the meantime your distraction and focus on something that doesn't even exist enables the government to keep on abusing Khadr's rights.

[Guest American Woman]

I'd rather go after the government right now because that's who's abusing Khadr. There is nothing to suggest in the least that there is an epidemic of Omar Khadrs that need to be prevented.

And was there anything to suggest to you that Omar was being raised the way he was before he made the news? I'm guessing not.

And evidently to your way of thinking, as long as abuse is in the past, there's no sense going after those responsible.

In the meantime your distraction and focus on something that doesn't even exist enables the government to keep on abusing Khadr's rights.

So Omar's abusive past now "doesn't exist?"

Here's the thing: I'm able to "focus" on an entire issue, not just one aspect of it, which means I can focus on what his parents did and what his mother is getting away with without being "distracted" in the least from other aspects. I believe the government is just as capable of 'multi-tasking' and addressing all aspects of Omar's case.

Edited December 27, 2009 by American Woman

[jbg]

I'd rather go after the government right now because that's who's abusing Khadr. There is nothing to suggest in the least that there is an epidemic of Omar Khadrs that need to be prevented.

In the meantime your distraction and focus on something that doesn't even exist enables the government to keep on abusing Khadr's rights.

Why this obsession with Khadr's "rights"?

[eyeball]

Why this obsession with Khadr's "rights"?

Its more the principles. As go the principles that uphold Khadr's rights so go our's or anybody else's.

[eyeball]

And was there anything to suggest to you that Omar was being raised the way he was before he made the news? I'm guessing not.

And evidently to your way of thinking, as long as abuse is in the past, there's no sense going after those responsible.

What was or is there to go after? Are you suggesting the state should have or should be ensuring parents weren't/aren't filling their kid's head's up with religious patriotic crap and then teaching them how to use guns? Is there anyone doing anything to ensure this isn't happening in other Canadian or American households right now? Should there be? I certainly think so.

So Omar's abusive past now "doesn't exist?"

It DID exist, but here's the thing about the past it doesn't exist now but if that's where you really want to go with this.

Here's the thing: I'm able to "focus" on an entire issue, not just one aspect of it, which means I can focus on what his parents did and what his mother is getting away with without being "distracted" in the least from other aspects. I believe the government is just as capable of 'multi-tasking' and addressing all aspects of Omar's case.

Are you really sure you want me to focus on the entire issue so I can put the "whole situation" as you also put it into its proper perspective and context? For me the issue starts back in 1953...You want me to start working forward from there?

I suggest we focus on what's happening right now. He was a fucked over kid when he was arrested or captured or whatever it was the state is calling it and he's still being fucked over now and no one is doing anything about it.

Edited December 28, 2009 by eyeball

[DogOnPorch]

For me the issue starts back in 1953...You want me to start working forward from there?

History, you might be surprised to find out, goes back well before 1953. Nor can you simply put a single event in a box and say outside influences didn't affect the event and its outcome. For example, in 1953, numerous crazy-ass things were happening like: nuclear tests including the H-Bomb, Korea, Stalin's death + power struggle in the Soviet Union, Egypt becoming republic, Viet-Nam Part I, Tito...etc, etc. The nasty evil CIA providing support for Iranian officers to have a coup was just one of many things happening.

Plus, if you're looking at Iran, you need to at least go back to the discovery of oil in the region to understand the interests held in the area by various parties/nations. This would include the events of WW2 where Iran nearly joined the Axis powers...as was also attempted in Iraq by similar Nazi agents. Iran in the early 50s was leaning towards socialism/communism and in a world ruled by the Cold War's terms, that was indeed a no-no...not to mention the actual theft of British assets which started the ball rolling.

[GostHacked]

And evidently to your way of thinking, as long as abuse is in the past, there's no sense going after those responsible.

What are the statistics for people getting off scott free because of abuses on them in the past? Juries still convict the guilty regardless. A person commits a murder, but is let off because of past abuses? Does the court then go after the abuser of the one who did the murder?

So Omar's abusive past now "doesn't exist?"

I don't think it matters to the court.

[William Ashley]

Yep. Al Qeada is a law abiding bunch of good' ol guys, merely defending themselves; and of course the Taliban is the same. It's all the people they threaten, maim,and kill for not following their laws based on their extreme interpretation of Islam who are the criminals.

Furthermore, it's great that Canada in effect allows parents to raise child soldiers, even though it's against international law, by not holding the surviving parent accountable for raising Omar to take up arms in a conflict.

He was unarmed, does that tell you something.

[bush_cheney2004]

He was unarmed, does that tell you something.

Yes...he couldn't afford the $60 PAL fee for the Canadian Gun Registry.

[Guest American Woman]

What are the statistics for people getting off scott free because of abuses on them in the past? Juries still convict the guilty regardless. A person commits a murder, but is let off because of past abuses? Does the court then go after the abuser of the one who did the murder?

I agree. In fact, I've pointed out that abuse is not a 'get out of jail free' card. But if raising children to be soldiers is against international law, I don't understand why Canada would allow immigrants to come in, become citizens, and then not do anything when they bring them back to countries we are in conflict with to raise them to be combatants.

So Omar's abusive past now "doesn't exist?"

I don't think it matters to the court.

Not in regards to Omar's verdict; but it should matter to the legal system. When someone breaks the law, they should be held accountable, even if it was "in the past."

Seems as if those who are so concerned about Omar's rights are always on about the U.S. breaking international law, so I'm wondering why Omar's parents were able to break international law, and not be held accountable.

He was unarmed, does that tell you something.

Not really.

Edited December 29, 2009 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

Seems as if those who are so concerned about Omar's rights are always on about the U.S. breaking international law, so I'm wondering why Omar's parents were able to break international law, and not be held accountable.

I can't speak for others, but my concerns are primarily about Canada's role in this.

Similarly with the case of Mahir Arar. While it's clear enough that the U.S. actively supported torture in that case, I was always more worried abotu Canada's complicity.

Edited December 29, 2009 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

I can't speak for others, but my concerns are primarily about Canada's role in this.

Similarly with the case of Mahir Arar. While it's clear enough that the U.S. actively supported torture in that case, I was always more worried abotu Canada's complicity.

I'm concerned about everyone's role in it, and that includes Omar's parents. It's against international law to raise kids to be child soldiers/combatants, so I'm just wondering why his mother is living the good life in Canada -- when she is responsible for Omar's having been where he was, ie: in this gunfight.

What are your views about that? What do you think about Canada not doing anything about parents who would go against international law and raise their child the way Omar was raised?