g_bambino Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 1 - He was not trying to overthrow the Canadian government, any part of it.2 - Was not privy to any sensitive information in order to give to another country. 3 - The engaging of listed conspiracies or attempted offences... seems quite vague. But he was "assist[ing]... armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 Well, I guess we should first establish which authority you think should charge her with comitting a war crime. Didn't we do that when we signed the Geneva Conventions, including the special ones the authority I cited is responsible for? These conventions are also the law of our land now. If the SC won't touch it I'd say try the Hague but I suspect the SC will eventually, given the ruling it already gave in Omar's case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 But he was "assist[ing]... armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities." Not in Canada . Ergo, no charges here and he walks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) Not in Canada . Ergo, no charges here and he walks. So too though does Canada's and it's allies official narrative about the fundamental nature of this war and our conduct in it. There is a lot that now hinges on preserving the innocence of Omar and his parenting by with-holding charges. Ironic isn't it? Is the import of our side's narrative and history of what's transpired enough to stifle what must be the incredibly profound frustration those with a visceral loathing for the Khadr's feel? I won't be very surprised at all if Omar Khadr is pushed out of a plane or repeatedly falls up a flight of stairs on his way back. Edited May 3, 2012 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 ....I won't be very surprised at all if Omar Khadr is pushed out of a plane or repeatedly falls up a flight of stairs on his way back. Why bother? Young Omar is barely a radar blip even as a poster child for the "struggle" long lost. If that's all you got, then it's no wonder so few give a crap what happens to Omar The Great (jihadist). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 Didn't we do that when we signed the Geneva Conventions, including the special ones the authority I cited is responsible for? These conventions are also the law of our land now.If the SC won't touch it I'd say try the Hague but I suspect the SC will eventually, given the ruling it already gave in Omar's case. I'm not sure a Canadian court can rule on charges of war crimes, especially a non-military court dealing with a civilian. War crimes had nothing to do with the Supreme Court case about violations of Khadr's Charter rights. Trials for war crimes have always (I believe) been carried out by an international court and involved a national or military leader and multiple victims. I doubt a case involving one woman and her child would be something the court at the Hague would want to deal with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) Not in Canada . The law says nothing about "in Canada". Sorry, yes, you're right. The act has to have taken place in Canada. [ed.: correct] Edited May 3, 2012 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 Why bother? Young Omar is barely a radar blip even as a poster child for the "struggle" long lost. If that's all you got, then it's no wonder so few give a crap what happens to Omar The Great (jihadist). Interestingly enough those who do want something to happen to him are probably what keeps him lit up on the radar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 I'm not sure a Canadian court can rule on charges of war crimes, especially a non-military court dealing with a civilian. War crimes had nothing to do with the Supreme Court case about violations of Khadr's Charter rights. No, but it has shown a willingness to deal with his case, which is apparently something our government doesn't want to touch with a ten foot pole. Trials for war crimes have always (I believe) been carried out by an international court and involved a national or military leader and multiple victims. I doubt a case involving one woman and her child would be something the court at the Hague would want to deal with. So they could probably be counted on to return responsibility for that to the courts of signatory nations. I would think further rulings in our courts in Omar's favour could be cited or become evidence in future war crimes trials involving players at the level you're talking about. In any case I can't imagine Omar and the legal team that has assembled around him not pursuing his case in whatever court will hear them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 In any case I can't imagine Omar and the legal team that has assembled around him not pursuing his case in whatever court will hear them. He has a case against his mother for war crimes? That is what we were talking about, wasn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 But he was "assist[ing]... armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities." How does one assist armed forces against Canadian forces (remember it was US troops that were attacked/killed) when lying under a pile of rubble? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 The law says nothing about "in Canada". Sorry, yes, you're right. The act has to have taken place in Canada. [ed.: correct] No it doesn't. It's also treason to commit such acts outside of Canada. PART II OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER Treason and other Offences against the Queen’s Authority and Person Marginal note:High treason 46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada, (a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her; ( levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or (c.) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are. Marginal note:Treason (2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada, (a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province; ( without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada; (c.) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a); (d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or (e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph ( or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph ( and manifests that intention by an overt act. Marginal note:Canadian citizen (3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada, (a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or ( commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2). Department of Justice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 Sorry AW. He did not commit any crime against Canada, Canadians, The Queen here there or anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 Sorry AW. He did not commit any crime against Canada, Canadians, The Queen here there or anywhere. As has already been pointed out more than once, he "assist[ed] an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 He has a case against his mother for war crimes? That is what we were talking about, wasn't it? Amongst other things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 As has already been pointed out more than once, he "assist[ed] an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are." There was no war against Afghanistan. The war was against Al-Queda and the Taliban (how are those negotiations coming along?... I mean only hours after Obama flew out of Kandahar .. BOOM goes a bomb with the Taliban saying it was a message to Obama.... but sure, negotiating with them is the way to go) ...... It's a war on terror. Terrorism has no home country to call it's own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 There was no war against Afghanistan. The war was against Al-Queda and the Taliban (how are those negotiations coming along?... I mean only hours after Obama flew out of Kandahar .. [....] It's a war on terror. Terrorism has no home country to call it's own. Yet this is what was said earlier in the thread, which is what I am responding in regards to: g_bambino, on 03 May 2012 - 12:44 PM, said: But he was "assist[ing]... armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities." Not in Canada . Ergo, no charges here and he walks. So g_bambino said the same thing I did - and guyser responded that it didn't take place in Canada so that's the reason it wasn't treason. Yet it's treason even outside of Canada, which is what I pointed out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 So g_bambino said the same thing I did - and guyser responded that it didn't take place in Canada so that's the reason it wasn't treason. Yet it's treason even outside of Canada, which is what I pointed out. I did not comment on the treason part in my response. I was commenting on the fact there is no official war against Afghanistan (because there was no delcaration). The invasion was part of the war on terror to root out Al-queda and kick out the Taliban. So no, there was and is no war against Afghanistan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 Lets go through this.... As has already been pointed out more than once, he "assist[ed] an enemy at war with Canada, Did he? No he didnt. They were not at war with Canada. or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are." DId he assist? No he didnt because he never helped any armed force ,since there were no countries force in play at the time. (Except the American force) There are no forces from any country Believe me, I read this a long tome ago, over and over and could not see what i was missing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) Lets go through this.... Did he? No he didnt. They were not at war with Canada. "Even if war wasn't declared." They most definitely were at war/engaging in hostilities with Canada. Canadian forces were there fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban. Are you denying that? DId he assist?No he didnt because he never helped any armed force ,since there were no countries force in play at the time. (Except the American force) There are no forces from any country Yet you said to g_bambino that the crime didn't occur in Canada, therefore he wasn't charged in Canada; yet, as I pointed out, it is treason even when committed outside of Canada - it doesn't have to be in Canada as you said. So you're changing the reason he wasn't charged now? - It's no longer because it didn't occur in Canada but rather that it didn't occur at all? Believe me, I read this a long tome ago, over and over and could not see what i was missing. I think you're (dis)missing the fact that al Qaeda and the taliban are "armed forces" within Afghanistan; I think the law says that it's treason even if no war is declared against the country because if if there are armed forces within that country engaging in war/hostilities against Canada, then it is still treason. Edited May 3, 2012 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) No he didnt because he never helped any armed force... Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were armed forces against whom Canadian Forces were engaged in hostilities. [ed.: +, sp] Edited May 3, 2012 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 Section 2 we agree is not partial to this discussion. So we are focusing on Sec 1 So the pertinent part is this..... © assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are The Canucks were not at war. The 'assists any armed forces against whom CF are engaged" , and we know no CF were there. Yet you said to g_bambino that the crime didn't occur in Canada, therefore he wasn't charged in Canada; yet, as I pointed out, it is treason even when committed outside of Canada - it doesn't have to be in Canada as you said. So you're changing the reason he wasn't charged now? - It's no longer because it didn't occur in Canada but rather that it didn't occur at all? I corrected the in Canada part gbambino left that out. I have not changed one iota of what I have been saying all along. I think you're (dis)missing the fact that al Qaeda and the taliban are "armed forces" within Afghanistan; I think the law says that it's treason even if no war is declared against the country because if if there are armed forces within that country engaging in war/hostilities against Canada, then it is still treason. Im not dismissing anything at all. All true that war not need be declared but there are no armed forces from any country engaged in a fight against Canada.( In Afg) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were armed forces against whom Canadian Forces were engaged in hostilities. [ed.: +, sp] Sec 2 © assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are Does it matter if war is stated? No Does it matter if a country has armed forces involved? Yes....but wee Omar was not assisting a countries forces since they do not exist in this fight. See the difference? I know one thing we can all agree on, and thats I wish the Americans had been a tad slower getting him any help , or just left him where he was and let nature do its job. Edited May 3, 2012 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 I know one thing we can all agree on, and thats I wish the Americans had been a tad slower getting him any help , or just left him where he was and let nature do its job. They didn't and now Canada and the world needs to deal with it. In the meantime the SC says he is a Canadian minor and that the government of Canada failed to uphold his constitutional rights. The highest authority on the planet on the subject of child soldiers says he's a child soldier which the government of Canada also continues to ignore to this day. I know something I'll never agree to - that I'm amongst whoever you think it is that all agree with you. What's clear to me is how broad a spectrum it is across which this kid's story has the power to divide. It's not just countries, political parties, families and friends...even individuals are divided between their respect for the law and their baser instincts that would wish death on the poor bastard who causes us to face head on the failings of our most politically charged laws. That such a politically charged institution and document as the SC and the Charter is also at the centre of all this is like gasoline on a fire. I guess if you can't stand the heat...you cave and crumble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 .... The highest authority on the planet on the subject of child soldiers says he's a child soldier which the government of Canada also continues to ignore to this day. No...the highest authority on the planet still has his ass locked up at 'Gitmo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.