Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian

[eyeball]

That seems hard to believe, since the law and the equal application of it to all is the very foundation upon which our civilization is built.

This seems just as hard to believe given the complete absence of any charges against Maha el-Samnah after so many years don't you think?

I doubt you buy the silly argument the left-lib love of brown people is the reason any more than I do but what on Earth explains this tough on...just about everything, Conservative majority government not responding to it's base of support's deep desire for her head?

Edited May 5, 2012 by eyeball

[jbg]

He may be a lawyer but more importantly hes a dude that has heavily invested himself in this whole idea of Islam being an existential threat to us, and the idea that theres a large holy war approaching in which its quitely literally us or them that will survive.

If you believe that, it seems pretty reasonable that you be willing to play a little "fast and loose" with "the rules" in order to survive.

You got that right. We learned that on September 11, 2001.

[g_bambino]

This seems just as hard to believe given the complete absence of any charges against Maha el-Samnah after so many years don't you think?

No, I don't.

[eyeball]

No, I don't.

So how do you explain their absence?

[Guest American Woman]

Looking at various sources, there seems to be a general inability to tell whether he was associated with Al Qaeda only, the Taliban only, or that, by the time Khadr fought against the US and Afghan soldiers in 2002, it was essentially impossible to tell Al Qaeda and the Taliban apart.

I would wager that there are ways of telling; at any rate, those who were involved knew. I'm also not sure what your point is as it seems as if the two were allied armed forces against the U.S/Canada/NATO.

However, there's another glitch hinted at in the above: In 2001, the Taliban cesaed to be the recognised government of Afghanistan. The Taliban fighters, even if Khadr was indeed among them, were no longer the armed forces of Afghanistan when Khadr was wounded and detained in July 2002.

Even though the Taliban ceased to be the recognized government of Afghanistan (it was never recognized as such by most of the world), they still belonged to Afghanistan - that's still the country of which the forces belonged; the Taliban forces still belonged to Afghanistan.

I think it would be ludicrous to determine that fighting for an opposing military force isn't treason when that military force is fighting against Canadian forces just because it isn't the officially recognized military of said country. Again. I believe the "country" clause is in place to signify that a declaration of war is not necessary in order for treason to occur. I think it would ludicrous to allow a bunch of Canadians to join al Qaeda or Taliban forces and fight against Canada and then return home after the war/military conflict is over as if they not have committed a crime. If that's the mindset of Canada, no wonder some think Canada harbors terrorists/is a haven for terrorists.

[g_bambino]

Even though the Taliban ceased to be the recognized government of Afghanistan (it was never recognized as such by most of the world), they still belonged to Afghanistan - that's still the country of which the forces belonged; the Taliban forces still belonged to Afghanistan.

I'm sure the Taliban leaders thought they were still the legitimate government of Afghanistan. But, the Canadian govermnent recognised the government of the 2001-established Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as the government of Afghanistan and, by extention, its forces as those of the country. Taliban/Al Qaeda fighters were considered insurgents.

I think it would ludicrous to allow a bunch of Canadians to join al Qaeda or Taliban forces and fight against Canada and then return home after the war/military conflict is over as if they not have committed a crime.

They'd likely be charged with other crimes, just not treason. I don't think the treason section of the Criminal Code was written with non-national entities like the Taliban and Al Qaeda in mind.

[g_bambino]

So how do you explain their absence?

There's no law she could be accused of having broken, perhaps? Or, none it's possible to prove she'd broken?

Remind me: what's the relevance?

[Guest Manny]

I'm sure the Taliban leaders thought they were still the legitimate government of Afghanistan. But, the Canadian govermnent recognised the government of the 2001-established Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as the government of Afghanistan and, by extention, its forces as those of the country.

You mean that same government that was loaded with Taliban sympathizers. A fact which western governments knew, and which presented obstacles to our ability to achieve victory.

However, it did not prevent our government from giving empty lip-service to the govt of Afghanistan, to placate the citizens who support the war.

Peter Mackay - "We will not negotiate with the Taliban." - You were negotiating, all along. And today, seek direct negotiations with Mullah Omar, seeking a way out.

[eyeball]

There's no law she could be accused of having broken, perhaps? Or, none it's possible to prove she'd broken?

Remind me: what's the relevance?

The can of worms charging her with indoctrinating a child soldier would open.

There doesn't seem to be much if anything else she could possibly be charged with.

[dre]

You got that right. We learned that on September 11, 2001.

Well... we learned something. Not sure if we learned that islam is an existential threat to the west or that 20 anrgy people plotting destruction in a basement somewhere can make a mess if you have absolutely no security, but I imagine everyone can find a lesson or two in there...

[Army Guy]

Army Guy, on 05 May 2012 - 05:10 AM, said:

So you agree that the Taliban were the ruling force in power during the time of the conflict right...

Do you agree that Al Queda is an armed group of people..

Do you agree that the Canadian Armed Forces are simply an armed group of people?

Al quada is an armed group of people as laid out by the same difinations that the UN, Inter national law, and the conventions use. funney how the others are using these same difinations to painfully extended their argument. when it is clearly spelled out....

the answer to your question is NO, they are the Armed forces of our nation.

Quote

Then really all one has to do is tie both together during the invasion, which is clearly laid out in what ever ref you use. i used wiki links. link

You link clearly laid out that the Taliban was the government and that Al Qaeda was under the same Ministry of Defence as the army - training it much like our's is now strangely enough. Al Qaeda and the Taliban were simply allies fighting in a war against...another armed group of people.

Not just training it, but commanding it, in battle there is a difference. Al Qaeda was not just allieds but intergrated into their defense forces....

The sort of common language, terms and definitions contained in your link reflect why so many use similarly common language, terms and definitions to argue why the Geneva Conventions should apply to Omar Khadr.

Omar is been branded a terrorist, and therefore does not enjoy the same convention coverage, and when you boil it down there are only a few caveats he is not entitled to...he is covered by a most of the conventions. as is everyone.

I guess it is just a wiki link though so I suppose you could go edit it to better suit your purposes if you need to back-peddle later.

Like i said this is common info and can be found any where other than wiki....but it does explain what my piont was, which clearly states Omar can be tried for treason, as his family for terrorist charges.

[dre]

If that's the mindset of Canada, no wonder some think Canada harbors terrorists/is a haven for terrorists.

[g_bambino]

Omar can be tried for treason...

It appears that's not true.

[Army Guy]

It appears that's not true.

How so ?

[cybercoma]

How so ?

It has been debated thoroughly in this thread. The Taliban and al-Qaeda were no longer the armed forces of another nation.

[jbg]

Well... we learned something. Not sure if we learned that islam is an existential threat to the west or that 20 angry people plotting destruction in a basement somewhere can make a mess if you have absolutely no security, but I imagine everyone can find a lesson or two in there...

Someone had to feed these 20 angry people for a long time, pay for their flight training, and organize them. And the coward that put them up to it was not on the planes. I chalk it up to warfare against the West, not spontaneous anger that survived months of pilot training.

[Guest American Woman]

Army Guy, on 06 May 2012 - 02:33 AM, said:Omar can be tried for treason...

It appears that's not true.

How so ?

I far as I can see, mostly because the government keeps 'passing the buck'....

Treason charge for Khadr not up to feds

I can't figure how treason would be a provincial matter rather than a national issue.

[g_bambino]

How so ?

See the preceeding debate about the content of the Criminal Code relating to treason. The way the clauses are worded, it seems that Omar would have to have been fighting as a member of a country's armed forces, which, by 2002, the Taliban/Al Qaeda was not; they had been replaced as Afghanistan's armed force and relegated to insurgents. Though, I suppose it depends on which point of view one takes: the Taliban certainly must have thought their forces were the legitimate forces of Afghanistan, but the Canadian government would have recognised the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (the ones they were fighting alongside) as the country's forces.

I recall reading somewhere that treason charges are almost never levied because it is almost impossible to get a conviction.

[ed.: +]

Edited May 6, 2012 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

They'd likely be charged with other crimes, just not treason. I don't think the treason section of the Criminal Code was written with non-national entities like the Taliban and Al Qaeda in mind.

I can get behind that, but it's difficult to understand the "he didn't commit a crime against Canada" mindset. In other words, I don't understand how a crime against an ally in a war/military conflict wouldn't be considered a crime to the Canadian government, and of course it could have been Canadian forces he met up against - and the idea that he should be given compensation or that he was invaded and defending himself is incomprehensible.

As I pointed out earlier, he was less than two months away from being able to legally join the Canadian reserves with parental consent. Canada does recognize that there are times when minors can be - and are - tried as adults, and I would think a less than two month time frame, when the charge is murder, would be one of those times - but instead, some feel as if he should be treated as the victim. At his age, knowing the legal age for joining the Canadian military, I no longer think "child soldier" applies.

The "American Taliban" - John Walker Lindh - wasn't charged with treason either, and I really don't understand why, but he was given a 20 year sentence - and he didn't kill any allies.

[g_bambino]

t's difficult to understand the "he didn't commit a crime against Canada" mindset... ome feel as if he should be treated as the victim.

I think the Khadr family is odious and I don't fully buy the "poor-innocent-Omar" story, either; there's no doubt he was a Canadian aiding the enemy of Canada's allies. But, I do believe in the equal application of the law to everyone, regardless of the heinousness of their actions.

[eyeball]

Canada does recognize that there are times when minors can be - and are - tried as adults

Can you cite even a single case of this ever happening where the minor in question was forced to become a criminal by his parents?

I seriously doubt it myself.

[Topaz]

As I said before, let this guy alone, he'll have government watching his every move,so there's no need to worry. As far as being ashamed to be Canadian, I say the Canadian government or the Harper government should be the ones ashamed by the way they are treating or rather NOT treating our Vets coming home from these wars they sent the soldiers into. These soldiers should get anything and everything they need and no cuts should be made to Veterans Affairs. Take the money out of the General revenue and the let the MP's do with less. When the military tells these vets not to talk to the media or suffer the punishment, I put them as bad as the Harper's government.

[Guest American Woman]

I think the Khadr family is odious and I don't fully buy the "poor-innocent-Omar" story, either; there's no doubt he was a Canadian aiding the enemy of Canada's allies. But, I do believe in the equal application of the law to everyone, regardless of the heinousness of their actions.

I agree with you, and I believe in equal application of the law too, but can you cite a similar instance where a Canadian fought for military forces that Canada was engaged against and wasn't charged with treason? - I'm wondering why you feel as if there wouldn't be "equal application of the law" if he were to be tried for treason.

[cybercoma]

I guarantee you if this goes to trial the courts are going to take into consideration that he was forced into a cult-like scenario from a very young age with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, then was used as a child soldier for their ends. They cannot properly hear that case without doing so. In which case, people here would not like the outcome of that trial.

[jbg]

I guarantee you if this goes to trial the courts are going to take into consideration that he was forced into a cult-like scenario from a very young age with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, then was used as a child soldier for their ends. They cannot properly hear that case without doing so. In which case, people here would not like the outcome of that trial.

How about, as the outcome of such a trial, a deprogramming of this little child, so he doesn't go through life hating the society he's part of? That's what you do with cults.