g_bambino Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) Indoctrinating a child-soldier. Can you point to the relevant clause or clauses of a particular law? [ed.: +] Edited May 16, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
eyeball Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 Can you point to the relevant clause or clauses of a particular law? [ed.: +] Again?!? Stop wasting our time. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
g_bambino Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 Seeing as though he was being held at Gitmo...and not under the supervision of CSIS... That still says nothing about CSIS "outsourcing" interviews. You keep referencing the same Supreme Court ruling I've been keeping in mind when making my statements. It deals only with the two (?) interrogations conducted by CSIS and Canadian officials and the handing over to US officers of the information obtained, since that's all the Supreme Court of Canada has jurisdiction to rule on. His incarceration at Guantanamo, his treatment there by American authorities, those are outside the Supreme Court's purview. Quote
g_bambino Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 Again?!? You'd have to have done it once to do it again. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 Allegedly and amongst others, yes. But I'm not 'down' with giving this rat, Omar, a pass, either. At age 15 I was more than capable of knowing right or wrong. So were you. You knew that killing was BAD, as did I. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
eyeball Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 That still says nothing about CSIS "outsourcing" interviews. You keep referencing the same Supreme Court ruling I've been keeping in mind when making my statements. It deals only with the two (?) interrogations conducted by CSIS and Canadian officials and the handing over to US officers of the information obtained, since that's all the Supreme Court of Canada has jurisdiction to rule on. We were in for a penny therefore just as guilty as if it were a pound. His incarceration at Guantanamo, his treatment there by American authorities, those are outside the Supreme Court's purview. If his incarceration violates the Geneva Conventions then it's in the SC's purview. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 But I'm not 'down' with giving this rat, Omar, a pass, either. At age 15 I was more than capable of knowing right or wrong. So were you. You knew that killing was BAD, as did I. Yes but he was told long before he was 15 to believe and act otherwise - because his capacity to know the difference between right and wrong had been illegally interfered with by adults who knew better he is innocent. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) But I'm not 'down' with giving this rat, Omar, a pass, either. At age 15 I was more than capable of knowing right or wrong. So were you. You knew that killing was BAD, as did I. If you could really tell the difference between right and wrong you'd know it's wrong to hold a child responsible for the sins of their parents. Edited May 16, 2012 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
g_bambino Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 We were in for a penny therefore just as guilty as if it were a pound. Nope. If his incarceration violates the Geneva Conventions then it's in the SC's purview. Nope. Quote
eyeball Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 Nope. Yup. Nope. Yup. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 Wrong. Wrong. You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
g_bambino Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. Oh? Do elaborate... Quote
Rick Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 Nope. Nope. Why because you say so? In 2007, the Federal Court of Appeal ordered the Canadian government to turn over its records related to Khadr's time in captivity, as judge Richard Mosley stated it was now apparent that Canada had violated international law.[93] The government appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2008, arguing that Khadr was just "fishing" for information and that disclosing their records, which include an initial account of the firefight which differs from all previously seen reports,[178] could jeopardise national security.[179]Critics alleged that the refusal to release the classified documents was due only to the "embarrassment" they caused the government,[179][180] and on May 23, 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that the government had acted illegally, contravening §. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and ordered the videotapes of the interrogation released.[181] In April 2009, the Federal Court of Canada ruled once again that Khadr's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated. It concluded that Canada had a "duty to protect" Khadr and ordered the Canadian government to request that the U.S. return him to Canada as soon as possible.[182] In August 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision in a 2–1 ruling.[183] Finally, in January 2010, in a unanimous 9–0 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the participation of Canadian officials in Khadr's interrogations at Guantanamo clearly violated his rights under the Charter. In its sharply worded decision, the Supreme Court referred to the denial of Khadr's legal rights as well as to the use of sleep deprivation techniques to soften him up for interrogation: The deprivation of [Khadr's] right to liberty and security of the person is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects. In all, Khadr has been reported to have been kept in solitary confinement for long periods of time; to have been denied adequate medical treatment; to have been subjected to short shackling, and left bound, in uncomfortable stress positions until he soiled himself.[78][97][98] Khadr's lawyers allege that his interrogators "dragged [him] back and forth in a mixture of his urine and pine oil" and did not provide a change of clothes for two days in March. Canadian intelligence officer Jim Gould returned to Guantanamo in March 2004, but was met by an uncooperative Khadr. The Foreign Affairs office claimed that Khadr was trying to be a "tough guy" and impress his cellmates, while his attorney Muneer Ahmad said that Khadr had originally believed Gould "had finally come to help him" in 2003, but by 2004 had realised that he was being interrogated, not aided, by the Canadian government.[91]In all, Khadr was interrogated by Canadians six times between 2003–2004 and ordered to identify photos of Canadians believed to have ties to terrorism Quote “This is all about who you represent,” Mr. Dewar (NDP) said. “We’re (NDP) talking about representing the interests of working people and everyday Canadians and they [the Conservatives] are about representing the fund managers who come in and fleece our companies and our country. Voted Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' 2011
Signals.Cpl Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 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. My argument is that we should treat both equally in the eyes of the law, if the soldier went willingly and died at the hands of a terrorist(Because he belonged to a terrorist organization not the act in question) then we should take the same view of Khadr who was captured by the US soldiers. The argument presented is that Khadr should sue and get money while the soldier's family can't sue and get money. Your actions carry consequences and therefore people should be 100% responsible for their actions. If I do on a deployment at some time in the future I know the risks and volunteered, but so did the other guy. Saying that say the American soldier who was captured by the Taliban a few years ago is responsible for his actions and thus deserves it while Khadr did not deserve what happened is putting a double standard and a dangerous precedent because now people would assume that no mater what happens if the government does not get you out they pay you in cold hard cash. My actions have consequences and I own up to what I do and why I do it and accept my consequences, I believe everyone should live with their consequences. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
DogOnPorch Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 If you could really tell the difference between right and wrong you'd know it's wrong to hold a child responsible for the sins of their parents. Oh really? So no "child" is ever guilty? I say BS. Edmund Kemper was guilty as they get...for example. Yes...look him up. As was Joshua Phillips...a monster...period. So, why do we give this scum, Omar, a pass and not those two darlings? Because we're Canadian?? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
g_bambino Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) Why because you say so? Funny how you and eyeball both cite the same Supreme Court ruling as proof that the Supreme Court of Canada can hold the Canadian government responsible for Khadr's incarceration in Guantanamo and his treatment there by American officials when it very clearly deals only with the involvement of CSIS agents in that imprisonment and interrogation process. [ed.: c/e] Edited May 16, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
Signals.Cpl Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 If you could really tell the difference between right and wrong you'd know it's wrong to hold a child responsible for the sins of their parents. Jasmine Richardson Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
Rick Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 Funny how you and eyeball both cite the same Supreme Court ruling as proof that the Supreme Court of Canada can hold the Canadian government responsible for Khadr's incarceration in Guantanamo and his treatment there by American officials when it very clearly deals only with the involvement of CSIS agents in that imprisonment and interrogation process. [ed.: c/e] Guess you've never heard the terms...accomplice or aiding and abetting before?Funny how you continue to deny the validity of the SC's ruling... Quote “This is all about who you represent,” Mr. Dewar (NDP) said. “We’re (NDP) talking about representing the interests of working people and everyday Canadians and they [the Conservatives] are about representing the fund managers who come in and fleece our companies and our country. Voted Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' 2011
dre Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 It's a good thing it's not up to you, funney how we all stand up and cheer for Omar because his rights were infringed upon, rights given to him because he was born on Canadian soil..rights that he spits on and wants to destroy..not just him but his entire family...they don't seem to mind the welfare their handed every month though, or our medi care..no they seem to like that.......we seem to care more about them than we do our soldiers... Own soldiers lived in far worse conditions than any of these dirt bags had to languish in..3 meals a day, climate controled rooms, access to TV , religous time, etc etc etc...while our guys lived in the dirt, got eatten alive by ticks,fleas,slept with scorpions, snakes, camel spiders, we had a choice drink the water or bath we opted to shave with a 1/3 of our water, for months on end, until rashes became to sore you could barely walk...try and cope with having the squits in 60 degree heat and no time to stop and relieve your self, having to shit yourself because it was not safe to stop....carried over 160 lbs in heat approaching some days 60 degrees celuis....But you know all this , it's what i volunteered for right...i know i get it all the time STF up...quit complaining...But hey.... keep crying for your man Omar....His rights are more important than mine, or any soldiers, even yours...I mean we were born here, grew up here, we are not terrorists, we picked our nation to serve in, and not some terrorist organization half way around the world... And we right it off as part of the job, we knew what we were getting into....these soldiers come back to be paid off with chump change...and we wave it off again ... , in the Canadian military, as i'm not familar with US forces policy, but upon death each serving Married Military member is entitled to 250,000, if you are deemed single the member gets ) benifits from the VAC. each soldier is encouraged to take out a military insurence plan which can pay out up to 660 K providing the soldier has the ins as it is not manatory. The basic pkg for death is a free funeral, with basic casket and head stone. Note there is NO workmans comp for any military member ever... Getting compensation from VAC is a very complicated process, and requires the assistance of a lawyer, as an example a friend of mine involved in a IED explosion lost hearing in both ears, and lost the full use of his right arm recieved 1800.00 dollars and was forced to retire....while another indiv recieved 160 K for PTSD...I'm sure you can find more examples on goggle... As for Omar reciving any cash to flaunt around during his new found freedom it is a myth, Omar has an outstanding lawsuit file by his victim's wife and one of soldiers wounded during the same fight , the US courts have awarded a 120 Mil settlement to them... Unless the Canadian government settles for more than that i think Omar, will have to settle for the welfare check as the rest of his family... My link My link My link It's a good thing it's not up to you, funney how we all stand up and cheer for Omar because his rights were infringed upon, rights given to him because he was born on Canadian soil..rights that he spits on and wants to destroy..not just him but his entire family...they don't seem to mind the welfare their handed every month though, or our medi care..no they seem to like that.......we seem to care more about them than we do our soldiers... Nobody is cheering for Omar besides the imaginary voices inside your head. But we are a nation of laws whether we are at war or not. And to say that people who want our own government to follow our laws are someone cheering for the enemy is too mind numbingly stupid to even comment on. And we right it off as part of the job, we knew what we were getting into....these soldiers come back to be paid off with chump change...and we wave it off again ... Yeah well war sucks for soldiers. News at 11!. Talk to the civilian leaders that sent them on this pointless fools errand in the first place. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Signals.Cpl Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 Nobody is cheering for Omar besides the imaginary voices inside your head. But we are a nation of laws whether we are at war or not. And to say that people who want our own government to follow our laws are someone cheering for the enemy is too mind numbingly stupid to even comment on. Yeah well war sucks for soldiers. News at 11!. Talk to the civilian leaders that sent them on this pointless fools errand in the first place. Then you aren't following the thread, Rick and eyeball believe that he is the worlds most victimized person. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
g_bambino Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) Guess you've never heard the terms...accomplice or aiding and abetting before? I have. And, though it's not precisely what the Supreme Court said CSIS did when interrogating Khadr at Guantanamo and handing over to US authorities whatever information was obtained, it's near the heart of the ruling. How does that equate with the Supreme Court holding the Canadian government responsible for Khadr's incarceration or his treatment by US authorities? Funny how you continue to deny the validity of the SC's ruling... Funny how you continually build untidy straw men to attack. [ed.: sp] Edited May 16, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
dre Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 Oh really? So no "child" is ever guilty? I say BS. Edmund Kemper was guilty as they get...for example. Yes...look him up. As was Joshua Phillips...a monster...period. So, why do we give this scum, Omar, a pass and not those two darlings? Because we're Canadian?? Nope its simply because we are a nation of laws. Most countries treat jeuvenile offenders differently than adults. You can cry about it if you want, but thats just how it is. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 Then you aren't following the thread, Rick and eyeball believe that he is the worlds most victimized person. Well, thats not my angle. I think he should be held until the cessation of hostilities then released. He also could have been shot on the spot... Thats the position he put himself in. But if our own government or any of its sordid appendages broke our laws then they should be held accountable as well. Im fine with letting the legal process play out in the courts. Thats how we do things in the modern world. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Signals.Cpl Posted May 16, 2012 Report Posted May 16, 2012 Well, thats not my angle. I think he should be held until the cessation of hostilities then released. He also could have been shot on the spot... Thats the position he put himself in. But if our own government or any of its sordid appendages broke our laws then they should be held accountable as well. So if our government was involved in how? I thought the whole argument was that our government didn't get him out of Guantanamo Bay Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
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.