Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian

[Oleg Bach]

Bring the kid home and make him a poster boy of how not to be duped by terrorists - whether they be in Washington or in the caves of Pakistan.

[jbg]

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.

Don't you understand this is a war? And how many hands do we need to tie behind our back to fight it?

[eyeball]

Don't you understand this is a war? And how many hands do we need to tie behind our back to fight it?

Of course I understand this is a war, a vicious one too judging by the 9/11 counter-attack.

As for our hands, they might as well be tied behind our back given the blinders we're wearing.

[Army Guy]

Here is what the Canadian experts are saying...MIGHT happen if Khadr is brought back....

He'd be released and subect to wearing an elctronic braclet....Man that is one harsh sentence..does our justice system proud...but what do i know...

mean while hundrds of our vets sent over to smash the same organization that Mr Omar belonged to....hundrds of them that have been disfigured and maimed for LIFE might have to run into young mr omar in the streets of toronto....wonder how that will go down...Seems fair our vets handed a LIFE sentence....omar got what time served and a braclet....

My linknews.globaltv.com/world/story

[Army Guy]

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

If found guilty Capt Semrau will serve his time...And justice will be served...I wonder do you think he'll get a 2 for one consideration, maybe a braclet...or maybe we should demand the full sentence be served ...

But you failed to answer the question...if khadr had been killed on the battlefield would you have had the same reaction...

[eyeball]

But you failed to answer the question...if khadr had been killed on the battlefield would you have had the same reaction...

My reaction to his death on a battlefield probably would have registered as one more thing to regret about this conflict that I would probably incorporate into my generalized negative reaction to our involvement in it.

The fact he wasn't killed has shone a light on a can of worms - one that goes to the heart of my biggest regret about this god awful mess - my shame at how Canada has sold out it's principles, through the act of ignoring this kid's rights, all in the name of maintaining the fiction this conflict didn't start until 9/11.

[Radsickle]

CBC Radio 1's 8:30am EST morning show, "The Current", will have a segment about the child, Omar Khadr, on Friday, January 29th, 2010.

[Radsickle]

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....

Good question. I suppose we wouldn't have noticed; the battle-winners usually write the history.

Thank goodness there was a soldier there that day who noticed Omar's age and ability to speak English. Thank goodness for free press too.

[Army Guy]

My reaction to his death on a battlefield probably would have registered as one more thing to regret about this conflict that I would probably incorporate into my generalized negative reaction to our involvement in it.

Here is where we disagree, and while the killing of an armed under age terrorist would be regretable, It would strenghten my resolve that this terrorist group needed to be stopped, and brought to justice as these crimes of using children in battle are but just one on a list that is very long...

But then again we are from opposite sides of the coin. he see it as a blight again'st Canada, and NATO...i see it as a blight again'st the taliban and it's terrorist comrads...

The fact he wasn't killed has shone a light on a can of worms - one that goes to the heart of my biggest regret about this god awful mess - my shame at how Canada has sold out it's principles, through the act of ignoring this kid's rights, all in the name of maintaining the fiction this conflict didn't start until 9/11.

What is Canada's policy on crimanals placed under custody in foreign jails or prisons, what is the policies for bringing back combatants or terrorist serving in foreign prisons...do they all get the treatment we requested for Omar....Just a question.

[Army Guy]

Good question. I suppose we wouldn't have noticed; the battle-winners usually write the history.

Thank goodness there was a soldier there that day who noticed Omar's age and ability to speak English. Thank goodness for free press too.

Kind of Ironic that it was the Battle winners that decided to save Khadrs life, who decided to write the history as it is today...even you admit it was US soldiers that decided to take action and save this mans life...

But i'm wondering what did the members of Al Qaeda decide that day, what where there actions which involved this kid...there actions where to gun down 3 Afghanis soldiers who where knocking on the door...there actions where to bring the fight to those soldiers...knowing full well it was not going to end well for them....

[PIK]

Why do we still have 3rd world countries ,because of countries like ours that rape these poor nations of their brightest and best and bring them here and make cabbies out of them or other jobs that lazy ass canadian won't do.I am sick and tired of the ''R''being thrown out when you question the immigration policies in this country.

[Oleg Bach]

Why should Khadr a young man untried, be held in loathing and contempt? It is phenomenal, the changes we see in so far as the new mind set of the supposedly western world - Does no one notice that we have embraced a type of modnern Nazism..and we imprison without trial - hold with out consent or proof...TORTURE...mentally and physically. What the hell are we all thinking? We should have a good luck at what we have become. Instead of being a civilized and cultured society we are now ruled by dark men in dark offices that take pride in being haters - this is the collapse of Christindom..We are now offically a bunch of thraws controlled by brutes.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why should Khadr a young man untried, be held in loathing and contempt? It is phenomenal, the changes we see in so far as the new mind set of the supposedly western world - Does no one notice that we have embraced a type of modnern Nazism..and we imprison without trial - hold with out consent or proof...TORTURE...mentally and physically. What the hell are we all thinking?

Well, we're sure not giving any credit for inventing those concepts to the damn Nazis. Go back further in time!

We should have a good luck at what we have become. Instead of being a civilized and cultured society we are now ruled by dark men in dark offices that take pride in being haters - this is the collapse of Christindom..We are now offically a bunch of thraws controlled by brutes.

"Christindom" was never all that great anyway....good riddance!

Edited February 6, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

Well, we're sure not giving any credit for inventing those concepts to the damn Nazis. Go back further in time!

"Christindom" was never all that great anyway....good riddance!

Yah the whole Christian thing never quite reached the world but barbarism certainly did under the name of Moses - Jesus - Mohamid and a few others...I just wish you could agree with me once in a while - At least you seem to except the fact that Hitler is alive and well and living the dream. It always bothered me that they intentionally kept Khadar under raps untill he aged and looks the part of the scarey terrorist. I guess it would have been pretty silly to hold up what looks like a twelve year old child as the enemy - But the old and current administration are cowards and liars because they fail to understand the world hates them for sodomizing them finacially and socially - If you are prepared to have a Roman like empire _ You had better be prepared to have the subjugated ready to kill themselves to destroy the oppressors...What did the west expect? Maybe a thank you note for plundering and crippling most of the world? Not that I am pro-terrorist - I am just anti-lieing jerk!

[bush_cheney2004]

..... If you are prepared to have a Roman like empire _ You had better be prepared to have the subjugated ready to kill themselves to destroy the oppressors...What did the west expect? Maybe a thank you note for plundering and crippling most of the world? Not that I am pro-terrorist - I am just anti-lieing jerk!

The "subjugated" are no better than the "oppressors".....demanding "peace, order, and good government". Ghengis Khan didn't have time for all this paperwork.

[Oleg Bach]

The "subjugated" are no better than the "oppressors".....demanding "peace, order, and good government". Ghengis Khan didn't have time for all this paperwork.

Bureaucrats are the lowest of low and the most tormenting of all henchmen.In our prison system they call them the lowly keepers of men. Ghengis did one thing right - he kept the empire going though sheer natural force - He had sex with thousands of woman and almost every sixth person on the planet hold his DNA. Now that was a true conquer...what do our heroic conquering jerks do? They bang young boys in secret! This empire like all others will fade and in time be but a faint memory - in case you have not noticed - they are very poor at propogating themselves genetically. If you want to subjegate - make sure your subjects in time are relatives.

[Sir Bandelot]

I have never quite understood how the definition of war crime applies to Omar Khadr, because he killed a US soldier in a war zone. A person is in a war zone, soldiers will kill them if they can see them. The fight is on and they end up killing a US soldier. Is the war crime definition based solely on the fact that Khadr was not an official Afghani soldier, and because he's not wearing a uniform? If that's the case, aren't all the detainees also war criminals by that definition?

[M.Dancer]

If that's the case, aren't all the detainees also war criminals by that definition?

Quite right. And there are reasons for that.

A battle field (and I use that tern loosely) is not a place without law, where anyone can exact vengeance on anyone and simply say 'the fortunes of war' and not be held accountable. Even those in uniform can expect scrutiny every time they use deadly force, even when returning fire; eg. was the target "hors de combat" was the target surrendering.

Secondly, the reasons that the geneva convention stipulate that belligerents must bear arms openly and wear a signifying token is to protect civilians. Why should be clear and easy to understand.

Those who fail are deemed illegal combatants and while they are entitled to receive treatment in accordance to the GC, they are not immune from prosecution like someone who is captured and who is a bona fide soldier (or insurgent, bearing arms openly, wearing an identifying badge.

For this reason, Iraqi soldiers were prisoners of war, Iraqi insurgents engaging in terrorism are not.

[eyeball]

I have never quite understood how the definition of war crime applies to Omar Khadr, because he killed a US soldier in a war zone. A person is in a war zone, soldiers will kill them if they can see them. The fight is on and they end up killing a US soldier. Is the war crime definition based solely on the fact that Khadr was not an official Afghani soldier, and because he's not wearing a uniform? If that's the case, aren't all the detainees also war criminals by that definition?

The question of what constitutes a war crime should not be left to countries that are alleged to have committed crimes against humanity. They lack the moral and ethical background to even consider let alone answer it.

[M.Dancer]

The question of what constitutes a war crime should not be left to countries that are alleged to have committed crimes against humanity. They lack the moral and ethical background to even consider let alone answer it.

What consitutes a war crime is not left to countries. It's left to the Geneva Conventions. It's a relatively simple document...read it sometime.

A little research on your part would prevent these moments...

[Sir Bandelot]

The question of what constitutes a war crime should not be left to countries that are alleged to have committed crimes against humanity. They lack the moral and ethical background to even consider let alone answer it.

But there is no one else to turn to. If the US or its allies decide that they need not abide by the GC, based on some lawyers advice they will go ahead and just do that. And no international court is going to tell them nothing. They have made it quite clear that US soldiers will be exempt from any such prosecutions. Not, evidently true for US prisoners of war.

The double standard is clear, everyone who has eyes can see that, but not a damned thing can be done about it. It's an example of might makes right.

[M.Dancer]

They have made it quite clear that US soldiers will be exempt from any such prosecutions. Not, evidently true for US prisoners of war.

Incorrect on two accounts

1)US Soldiers are not immune from prosecution and have been prosecuted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings

2) The US has made no attempt to bring prisoners before an international court.

[PIK]

I think you should back up your assertions with proof as I have never heard the Conservatives express any sentiments for the Charter.

Provinces are still squabbling over equalization.

Harper's immigration ideologies are not like the Liberals:

http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/view/2456

And do you really think a Liberal dominated senate would support aggressive Conservative inspired changes to the immigration act?

Your out to lunch as usual.

And that is why the senate has to go. And the immigration and refugee policies need to be updated. It time to put the liberal myth away about how we need to keep bringing people in. You wonder why we still have 3rd world countries in the world when countries like canada steals their best and brightest people that is needed to bring these countries around, and makes cab drivers and janitors out of most of them. Edited February 10, 2010 by PIK

[Sir Bandelot]

Incorrect on two accounts

1)US Soldiers are not immune from prosecution and have been prosecuted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings

2) The US has made no attempt to bring prisoners before an international court.

Not incorrect, but you interpret what I wrote in a different way.

For #1), I meant US soldiers prosecuted by international court, under the GC. I read somewhere that the US will not allow its soldiers to be prosecuted, by anyone else. Assume they mean, the US will decide for itself what for and when a US soldier should be prosecuted, and they will do the prosecuting.

From your link- "Green was arrested as a civilian, and convicted by a civilian court, the U.S. District Court in Paducah, Kentucky. The other four, all active-duty soldiers, were convicted through courts-martial."

So they were tried by the US. It's all good and well, as long as the US agrees there was a violation. No one else can tell them what to do.

For #2), I meant not that the US should bring its prisoners before international courts, but that they use the rules of the GC where and when they see fit, against their enemies but not against their own citizens when it's disadvantagous to do so.

"The Bush administration, coming into office in 2001 as the Court neared implementation, adopted an extremely active opposition. Washington began to negotiate bilateral agreements with other countries, insuring immunity of US nationals from prosecution by the Court. As leverage, Washington threatened termination of economic aid, withdrawal of military assistance, and other painful measures."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/us-un-and-international-law-8-24/us-opposition-to-the-icc-8-29.html

"The opposition of the United States to the International Criminal Court appears as either a puzzle or an embarrassment to many of the nation's traditional supporters. A puzzle, because it is not at all obvious why the United States should feel so threatened by this new court. Supporters of the Court point out that there are ample provisions in the Rome Statute designed to protect a mature democracy's capacity to engage in legal self-regulation and self-policing. To raise the specter of an irresponsible prosecutor before the ICC, or of other nations manipulating the Court's jurisdiction for anti-American political purposes, is to create a straw man.

An embarrassment, because the United States appears to be exempting itself from rules of the game that it believes should apply to others."

http://www.crimesofwar.org/icc_magazine/icc-kahn.html

I have a memory, I remember.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[M.Dancer]

Not incorrect, but you interpret what I wrote in a different way.

For #1), I meant US soldiers prosecuted by international court, under the GC. I read somewhere that the US will not allow its soldiers to be prosecuted, by anyone else. Assume they mean, the US will decide for itself what for and when a US soldier should be prosecuted, and they will do the prosecuting.

I agree with them. Sovereign nations should not wager their chances on a fickle, sometimes hostile foreign climate.

From your link- "Green was arrested as a civilian, and convicted by a civilian court, the U.S. District Court in Paducah, Kentucky. The other four, all active-duty soldiers, were convicted through courts-martial."

So they were tried by the US. It's all good and well, as long as the US agrees there was a violation. No one else can tell them what to do.

Again correct. No needs tell them what to do. The US is a law abiding nation. Sometimes we may not agree with their interpretation of the law, just like sometimes we may not agree with an international court (and the inherint biases) interpretation.

For #2), I meant not that the US should bring its prisoners before international courts, but that they use the rules of the GC where and when they see fit, against their enemies but not against their own citizens when it's disadvantagous to do so.

By prosecuting their own, they fulfil the spirit of the convention. You surely know that the convention does not in itself proscribe penalties, that the penalties are left up to the prosecuting nations?

"The Bush administration, coming into office in 2001 as the Court neared implementation, adopted an extremely active opposition. Washington began to negotiate bilateral agreements with other countries, insuring immunity of US nationals from prosecution by the Court. As leverage, Washington threatened termination of economic aid, withdrawal of military assistance, and other painful measures."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/us-un-and-international-law-8-24/us-opposition-to-the-icc-8-29.html

"The opposition of the United States to the International Criminal Court appears as either a puzzle or an embarrassment to many of the nation's traditional supporters. A puzzle, because it is not at all obvious why the United States should feel so threatened by this new court. Supporters of the Court point out that there are ample provisions in the Rome Statute designed to protect a mature democracy's capacity to engage in legal self-regulation and self-policing. To raise the specter of an irresponsible prosecutor before the ICC, or of other nations manipulating the Court's jurisdiction for anti-American political purposes, is to create a straw man.

An embarrassment, because the United States appears to be exempting itself from rules of the game that it believes should apply to others."

http://www.crimesofwar.org/icc_magazine/icc-kahn.html

I have a memory, I remember.

Obviously the assurances that the international court would not be a forum for america bashing was unconvincing. Given the mood of the UN et al, I think they are right. And given that the US is a mature democracy and has a proven capacity to prosecute its own and to give its own all the opportunities that US laws gives to defense, there should be no worries whether the US is not on board.

On the otherhand, states with poor judicial records...