Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian

[GostHacked]

Try again, if a soldier kills civilains intentionally it is murder, and if a civilian intentionally kills a soldier it is murder....The only time it cancels each other out is if a soldier kills another soldier.

Then it's sanctioned and approved murder.

[Signals.Cpl]

Funny how that can go either way.

It does go both ways, but if Khadr gets money from Canada because Canada did not do enough to help him the US soldier should get money from Khadr for killing him.Saying That the soldier made his decision to go to Afghanistan and thus the consequences are his responsibility, I agree with that 100% but Khadr went to Afghanistan as well and he knew he could be killed or wounded or Captured so he should be 100% responsible for his actions.

[Signals.Cpl]

Then it's sanctioned and approved murder.

Tell that to the US soldier facing the death penalty or the number of others who are facing similar punishment for crimes in Iraq. If a soldier intentionally kills civilians then he is guilty of murder. No government in the west Sanctions murder on civilians.

[GostHacked]

Tell that to the US soldier facing the death penalty or the number of others who are facing similar punishment for crimes in Iraq. If a soldier intentionally kills civilians then he is guilty of murder. No government in the west Sanctions murder on civilians.

That was not the point I was arguing against. My point about sanctioned approved murder is soldier to soldier during war time. It's part of the goal to kill your enemy. Either way it's all murder when you look at it. No matter if it's soldier on civilian, civilian on civilian, or civilian on soldier, or solider on soldier.

The soldier on soldier murder is sanctioned by approval to go to war.

Edited May 16, 2012 by GostHacked

[Guest Manny]

You obviously misread my description.

No, not misread it. I've re-interpreted it.

it seems to me that terrorism is generally considered to be violence committed deliberately against or without concern for non-combatant civilians in a country not in a state of war as a political/ideological statement.

- Violence committed without concern for non-combatant civilians.

When the US uses predator drones to blow up houses from afar, without knowing who specifically is in those houses, it qualifies as "without concern". And we've seen this time and time again, they thought there was an al qaeda leader in a house, blew it up and killed women and children in the process, and later found out the guy they're after isn't dead. They killed someone else. Therefore they did not verify who was in the house beforehand, since they're flying a drone from the Pentagon. They know women and children are going to be killed, co-lateral damage is the word used to gloss over this crime.

- In a country not in a state of war. The government and military of Afghanistan are in full cooperation with the coalition. There is no war.

- as a political/ ideological statement. The whole effort to re-map the middle east, bring democracy by force, bring capitalism and materialism, bring them Jesus, is to establish an advantage for US interests. That's political, ideological.

Those are the points you made, and it's reasonable to argue that it applies to Afghanistan.

[Rick]

But then again if you are such a staunch supporter of the Taliban maybe you will meet their standards in controlling the females in your life.

See, you guys and the Taliban do share a lot in common... controlling the females...That's a Conservative's nirvana....

Just ask Brad Trost, Stephen Woodworth, Charles McVety or any of the religious right their views on a female's rights....

[g_bambino]

No, not misread it. I've re-interpreted it.

It would seem from your explanations of your "re-interpretation", your actual problem is a combination of miscomprehension and ignorance of facts.

[ed.: sp]

Edited May 16, 2012 by g_bambino

[Rick]

No government in the west Sanctions murder on civilians.

Texas, Florida and all of the death penalty states say you're wrong.

[Signals.Cpl]

See, you guys and the Taliban do share a lot in common... controlling the females...That's a Conservative's nirvana....

Just ask Brad Trost, Stephen Woodworth, Charles McVety or any of the religious right their views on a female's rights....

Yeah, because if the person is conservative I will agree 100%...Sorry I am not you, I have a mind of my own If the party I support has something I disagree with I voice my opinion. You on the other hand seem to have the belief that if the Politburo NDP says it, it must be true without even thinking what your own beliefs are... you are an asset to this country...It sounds wrong even as a joke

[Signals.Cpl]

Texas, Florida and all of the death penalty states say you're wrong.

Thats not soldiers killing civilians its murderers and rapists getting whats coming to them.

[Guest Manny]

It would seem from your explanations of your "re-interpretation", your actual problem is a combination of miscomprehension and ignorance of facts.

Really. At least I do try to be civil in expressing my views. Your blank claim of my ignorance, without raising a counter point leaves little to discuss.

[Rick]

So Signals.Cpl, you're saying the west has never sanctioned any 'black ops' or 'wet work'?

Edited May 16, 2012 by Rick

[g_bambino]

You don't want to risk getting killed/captured font be a terrorist... I am astounded with your one sided view. You are perfectly willing to say the soldier is responsible for his actions and earned his consequences yet the little shit Khadr isn't.

I'm not sure how many times we have to go through this: The US soldiers weren't victims of a terrorist attack. They were armed soldiers active in combat who engaged Khadr and his compatriots, themselves enemy fighters at war. Khadr may have been a terrorist because he belonged to an organisation that carried out terrorist attacks (ignoring the question of whether or not he was Taliban or Al Qaeda by assuming the two groups were, in Afghanistan, essentially one), but he did not carry out a terrorist attack on any US soldier.

[g_bambino]

Your blank claim of my ignorance, without raising a counter point leaves little to discuss.

Yes, intentionally, since that particular subject is getting off topic. Start another thread, if you wish.

[g_bambino]

Khadr's going to get himself a nice chunk of change in this settlement...and given the way he was treated, he deserves every penny.

How much is the "torment" of a couple of CSIS interviews worth?

[Guest Manny]

Yes, intentionally, since that particular subject is getting off topic. Start another thread, if you wish.

No I won't bother. This is not terribly off topic, given the definition of Khadr as either war criminal or terrorist is up for debate, in a thread entitled "ashamed to be Canadian".

You introduced a definition of terrorism according to your view, and I am holding you to it.

[Rick]

How much is the "torment" of a couple of CSIS interviews worth?

Probably not as much as the outsourcing of 'interviews' that they probably had done for them during his stay at Gitmo while the government refused to repatriate him

The decision's findings, however, are unequivocal. The judges conclude that the rights of Omar Khadr have been breached since his capture in Afghanistan by U.S. troops in 2002 at the age of fifteen, and they continue to be. Referring in its news release to the conduct of Canadian officials in the course of interrogations in 2003 and 2004, the Court concluded that Canada had "actively participated in a process contrary to its international human rights obligations [...] so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice." The Court condemns the Canadian officials for having extracted information of high importance from a teenager while he was unable to consult a lawyer and knowing that he had suffered and continued to suffer of mistreatments.

[eyeball]

the US soldier should get money from Khadr for killing him.Saying That the soldier made his decision to go to Afghanistan and thus the consequences are his responsibility, I agree with that 100% but Khadr went to Afghanistan as well and he knew he could be killed or wounded or Captured so he should be 100% responsible for his actions.

Notwithstanding the fact it's never been proven Omar actually killed anyone or that his so-called confession would ever stand up in a real court, if anyone should be held responsible for Speer's death it should be the adults who made Omar Khadr into a child soldier.

[DogOnPorch]

His mother, then.

[g_bambino]

You introduced a definition of terrorism according to your view...

I did, specifically in the context of labelling Khard as a terrorist or accusing him of carrying out a terrorist attack against US soldiers. I conclude that he was a terrorist but the fight he became engaged in with US soldiers was not terrorism. Whether or not the invasion of Taliban Afghanistan or military operations therein, etc., are "terrorism" is an entirely different and unrelated discussion.

[eyeball]

His mother, then.

Allegedly and amongst others, yes.

[g_bambino]

Probably not as much as the outsourcing of 'interviews' that they probably had done for them during his stay at Gitmo while the government refused to repatriate him

Your quote says nothing about "outsourcing" of interviews; it refers to the couple of CSIS interrogations I specifically mentioned.

[g_bambino]

His mother, then.

What charge could be laid against her, though?

[eyeball]

What charge could be laid against her, though?

Indoctrinating a child-soldier.

[Rick]

Your quote says nothing about "outsourcing" of interviews; it refers to the couple of CSIS interrogations I specifically mentioned.

Seeing as though he was being held at Gitmo...and not under the supervision of CSIS...

I'd suggest that the court's findings would back my statement above.

CANADA VIOLATED KHADR’S CHARTER RIGHTS

“In an 9-0 ruling this morning, the Court said that Canada violated Mr. Khadr’s Charter rights by participating in illegal interrogation methods which included sleep deprivation. It stressed that the constitutional breach is ongoing and ‘continues to this day’.”

“The judges could scarcely have been tougher in their finding that Mr. Khadr was mistreated during interrogations in 2003 and 2004. ‘Interrogation of a youth to elicit statements about the most serious criminal charges – while detained in these conditions and without access to counsel and while knowing the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the U.S. prosecutors – offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects’.”

Edited May 16, 2012 by Rick