Jump to content

Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian


Recommended Posts

Guest Peeves

The Supreme Court clearly said he had all the rights of a Canadian and that our government was violating them.

..and he was involved in manufacturing bombs and in a fire fight against NATO soldiers, our allies. I suggest respectfully that such might well be considered as treason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

..and he was involved in manufacturing bombs and in a fire fight against NATO soldiers, our allies. I suggest respectfully that such might well be considered as treason?

It might if he was an adult instead of a kid that was indoctrinated when he was a child into becoming a soldier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's legal to leave Canadian minors alone to deal with foreign officials?

That's a moot question. Once any Canadian is in another country's custody, there's nothing any Canadian government can do to force the return of that individual. Canadian law does not apply to foreign jurisdictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is were i don't agree, in afghan a young boy goes through a ceramony at age 11 in which he is considered a man, in Afghan he enjoys all the laws that an adult has. He can marry, start a family, carries a wpn, and fights in any conflict he chooses....

The fact he is Canadian did not change any of that, the crimes he commited were in fact commited here in Afghan, and being 15 years old does not change that either.

What does international law say about children soldiers? Does it say if they go through a ritual in their home countries that makes them adults, then it's ok to have 12 year old soldiers or militants? How does the Canadian military handle children soldiers on the battlefield?

Edited by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a moot question. Once any Canadian is in another country's custody, there's nothing any Canadian government can do to force the return of that individual. Canadian law does not apply to foreign jurisdictions.

Critics, except on here, aren't suggesting that they should. What they're suggesting is that our government has an obligation to look out for its citizens better than they did here. They would go out of their way to save and help child soldiers in Africa, but do nothing for someone with a Canadian passport who was made into a child soldier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they're suggesting is that our government has an obligation to look out for its citizens better than they did here.

That's a moralistic matter and, hence, subjective.

They... do nothing for someone with a Canadian passport who was made into a child soldier.

Once Khadr hit the age of fifteen, he ceased to meet the definition of a child soldier, according to both the UN and the Geneva Conventions. Not that the Canadian government would be forced to do anything, otherwise.

[ed.: +]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a moot question. Once any Canadian is in another country's custody, there's nothing any Canadian government can do to force the return of that individual.

That's a pile of crap, especially in this case where the foreign government in question practically begged us to repatriate him.

Canadian law does not apply to foreign jurisdictions.

The law in this case applied to our own government.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a pile of crap.

That retort of yours certainly is.

Short of military invasion and overthrow of the goverment detaining the Canadian, what force do you think the Canadian government can exercise to make foreign ones obey its bidding?

The law in this case applied to our own government.

What law?

[ed.: +]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That retort of yours certainly is.

The US opposed no other request from other western countries and allies to repatriate their citizens. Since when did simply our picking up a phone and doing the same thing equate to invading and overthrowing the US government?

Get a grip bambino, you're sure lousy at acting stupid.

What law?

The Charter, ever heard of it?

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US opposed no other request from other western countries and allies to repatriate their citizens. Since when did simply our picking up a phone and doing the same thing equate to invading and overthrowing the US government?

What does that have to do with laws forcing the government to do anything about Canadians, minor or otherwise, detained abroad or, if there was even such a law, the power of our government over foreign states? That was what you asked about, remember?

The Charter, ever heard of it?

Yea. Hence I said Canadian officials were bound by it when dealing with Canadians abroad.

And you say I'm acting stupid...

[ed.: link]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does that have to do with laws forcing the government to do anything about Canadians, minor or otherwise, detained abroad or, if there was even such a law, the power of our government over foreign states? That was what you asked about, remember?

You tell me. You're the one who posed the ridiculous notion that our government had no recourse but to use force in this case. That is what you did, remember?

And you say I'm acting stupid...

I'd probably rephrase that but then you'd probably sic someone on me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're the one who posed the ridiculous notion that our government had no recourse but to use force in this case.

No... I asked you what, other than that obviously ridiculous notion, you thought the government could do to force the return of a Canadian in foreign custody, since, by equating my assertion that "there's nothing any Canadian government can do to force the return of that individual" with "a pile of crap", you implied you knew of at least one method.

So did the SC.

I know.

[ed.: +, sp]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does the Supreme court say otherwise about that he while in Afghanistan he enjoys all the laws that an adult has. He can marry, start a family, carries a wpn, and fights in any conflict he chooses....

The fact he is Canadian did not change any of that, the crimes he commited were in fact commited here in Afghan, and being 15 years old does not change that either. As with any Canadian who breaks the lawe in another country has to face the law and justice meated out by said country, being a 15 year old canadian should not change that either....But nobody has explored that opition as US forces whisped him away to face war crimes

Why you always spell weapon as wpn?? This has bugged me for some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No... I asked you what, other than that obviously ridiculous notion, you thought the government could do to force the return of a Canadian in foreign custody, since, by equating my assertion that "there's nothing any Canadian government can do to force the return of that individual" with "a pile of crap", you implied you knew of at least one method.

Yes, I suggested a phone call would probably suffice.

I know.

Finally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court clearly said he had all the rights of a Canadian and that our government was violating them.

Another good reason to change the immigration and refugee act, and use the notwithstanding clause to keep the judges noses out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea. Hence I said Canadian officials were bound by it when dealing with Canadians abroad.

And here is the thing no one is actually talking about. The law says this guy is a Canadian. Canadians think otherwise. Canadians have quite deliberately turned their collective backs on him and his family, clearing stating they feel nothing in the way of kinship for them, and that they do not feel they are Canadians.

Thus, they don't want them here, and don't care what happens to them elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,750
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    troydistro
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Videospirit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • gatomontes99 earned a badge
      Posting Machine
    • Betsy Smith earned a badge
      First Post
    • Charliep earned a badge
      First Post
    • Betsy Smith earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...