g_bambino Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 [A]ll you've shown me is that you're quite accomplished at peeing into the wind... Thanks for admitting, in your eyeball way, you can't back up your inane statements. Quote
eyeball Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 Thanks for admitting, in your eyeball way, you can't back up your inane statements. No, you simply have a huge moral blind spot that you refuse to treat so...get back to me when you have. I'll be happy to walk you through it again. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
g_bambino Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 No, you simply have a huge moral blind spot... Once was enough. Now you're just being masochistic. Quote
Army Guy Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 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. Really.... maybe i missed it but where is the topic on our soldiers rights again...All of 137 pages of it...It would seem that certain posters on this forum are more concerned with a Terrorist recieving his full rights and benifits than the rights of true Canadian citizens who have decided to defend this nation...In fact some have even championed he recieve a huge settlement because of what he endured during is capture, and that our government was slow to react...Few have already questioned the fact on how our government treats it's vets, but it is a dead topic, no one is interested it's not as sexy as a terroist getting his rights.... So excuse me if the vioces in my head seem imaginary to you, but then again perhaps you have nothing invested in this topic....perhaps you don't know of anyone that has served there, died there, or came back dismembered, sure your concerned that every Canadian gets what is due them in regards to right ..i get that fact..I support that fact... but this is not your typical case is it.... But this is not the first time this type of action has been made public, there are Canadians all over the world being held captive, none of them have 137 pages worth of discussion do they ?....held in much worse conditions than little omar, none of them are going to get a big pay out are they....So from were i stand and the others that served in Afghan it looks like you support Omar and his case....To us this is more than following laws, this is about harboring an enemy...DO you think that rights trump that,regardless of what they have done...because Omar is not the only Canadain fighting in Afghanistan, he just so happens to be the only one caught, or made known. 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. Ya it does suck, and perhaps one day you can tell me just how much....Today i'm talking to you, because your one of millions our civilian leadership listens to...but your not listening, your concerned that one Canadian was wronged by our government...A canadian that went to war for another nation, joined a terrorist organization, engaged in terrorist activities, and murdered a US soldier... Who has been locked up for most of his life, I have one question for you, what do you think he is going to do when we let him out....is he going to thank you guys for the support you gave him....and what support will you give him when he decides to take his anger out on the Average Canadian..what do we tell the victims families....We did what was right we protected his rights, that trumps everything ..sorry for your loses..That would be the right thing to do, but at what cost do we pay to do the right thing is my question. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 Just wondering...How much was the lawsuit for the families of the murdered/man-slaughtered Canadian soldiers that the Americans killed with their 'friendly fire' They got nothing.... The fact remains, you don't want to risk getting killed, don't voluntarily sign up to go into a job where it's a possibility.They deserve no more special treatment than a cab driver who gets killed in a car accident while on duty. Your right, soldiers are no better than any ordinary citizen, and perhaps you did not read all my links a single soldier who is killed in battle gets a free funeral, thats it...not entitled to any workmans comp, no Civilian ins, get dismamember and the VAC will pay out up to 250 k if you die and your married....then your released and put on the street.... your aware that a cab driver can get life ins, upon accidental death can make millions....and yet there is only one life ins company that will cover a soldier in combat, and the max pay out is 250 k .... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
g_bambino Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 It would seem that certain posters on this forum are more concerned with a Terrorist recieving his full rights and benifits than the rights of true Canadian citizens who have decided to defend this nation. There are people who treat Khadr as a victim-martyr, and there are people who want him to be treated severly (even just point blank shot dead) as an example to others. But, regardless of what he's done or not done, and of anyone's personal opinions about him, he should still receive his full rights, in the same way as anyone else; at least, if not his mobility rights, his basic (and ancient) rights of due process, habeus corpus, and the like. It's a fundamental tenet of our civilization that the law is blind, everyone is equal under it. If we start giving certain people less rights than others simply because we suspect them of believing or having done something we don't like, then we start down a very slippery slope towards an end where you or I may, in some circumstance, find ourselves to be the one with no rights. Quote
eyeball Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 There are people who treat Khadr as a victim-martyr, and there are people who want him to be treated severly (even just point blank shot dead) as an example to others. But, regardless of what he's done or not done, and of anyone's personal opinions about him, he should still receive his full rights, in the same way as anyone else; at least, if not his mobility rights, his basic (and ancient) rights of due process, habeus corpus, and the like. It's a fundamental tenet of our civilization that the law is blind, everyone is equal under it. If we start giving certain people less rights than others simply because we suspect them of believing or having done something we don't like, then we start down a very slippery slope towards an end where you or I may, in some circumstance, find ourselves to be the one with no rights. Well said. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
guyser Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 Well said. Very well said. your aware that a cab driver can get life ins, upon accidental death can make millions....and yet there is only one life ins company that will cover a soldier in combat, and the max pay out is 250 k .... Sadly no,. I am not aware that a cabbie can make millions. Because he cannot Simply put..?...No. I suspect there may be an ins company out there that covers war zone murders , but I doubt with the pay grade the govt has soildiers under, none of them would ever purchase it. There are plenty of occupations that cannot (realistically) get insurance coverage so in that regard, you are not alone. Quote
jbg Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 There are people who treat Khadr as a victim-martyr, and there are people who want him to be treated severly (even just point blank shot dead) as an example to others. Bambino, not calling you out personally on this. However, there are people who feed a 135 1/2 page thread about someone who's creepy, murderous parents take him from Canada (a land they hate but are prepared to suck benefits from) to Afghanistan, to "fight" Canada's allies. There is an incredible focus on the rights of this one person. I don't think many give a damn. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
g_bambino Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 There is an incredible focus on the rights of this one person. I think that's because he's a polarising individual; many think he deserves special treatment, whether that means absolution for his crimes and a big payout or a bullet to the head without prior, proper trial. Quote
GostHacked Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 There are people who treat Khadr as a victim-martyr, and there are people who want him to be treated severly (even just point blank shot dead) as an example to others. But, regardless of what he's done or not done, and of anyone's personal opinions about him, he should still receive his full rights, in the same way as anyone else; at least, if not his mobility rights, his basic (and ancient) rights of due process, habeus corpus, and the like. It's a fundamental tenet of our civilization that the law is blind, everyone is equal under it. If we start giving certain people less rights than others simply because we suspect them of believing or having done something we don't like, then we start down a very slippery slope towards an end where you or I may, in some circumstance, find ourselves to be the one with no rights. Habeas-corpus I think only applies to those in the USA (US Citizens). But habeas-corpus was negated with things like the PATRIOT ACT and the NDAA. Both the PATRIOT ACT and the NDAA circumnavigate many laws and even articles of the Bill of Rights, in the USA. If you have been determined to be an 'illegal combatant' by the USA, any rights that one would normally have, are instantly stripped away, and you can be held indefinitely and without charge. That makes the job of Canadian officials harder in order to secure Khadr's release. Quote
g_bambino Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 Habeas-corpus I think only applies to those in the USA (US Citizens). It's a common law right that's a part of all Commonwealth and many other Western countries' legal systems, even if only by convention; it extends back to the Medaeval period. It's in the Charter in Canada. But habeas-corpus was negated with things like the PATRIOT ACT and the NDAA. It can be "negated" by act of parliament. Habeas corpus protects against unlawful detention, which one made in accordance with the law is not. But, I concede those laws and the rules by which Khadr was incarcerated and the tribunals he faced are all very shady. Quote
Army Guy Posted May 19, 2012 Report Posted May 19, 2012 There are people who treat Khadr as a victim-martyr, and there are people who want him to be treated severly (even just point blank shot dead) as an example to others. But, regardless of what he's done or not done, and of anyone's personal opinions about him, he should still receive his full rights, in the same way as anyone else; at least, if not his mobility rights, his basic (and ancient) rights of due process, habeus corpus, and the like. DId he not recieve this process already, and was he not found guilty. It's a fundamental tenet of our civilization that the law is blind, everyone is equal under it. If we start giving certain people less rights than others simply because we suspect them of believing or having done something we don't like, then we start down a very slippery slope towards an end where you or I may, in some circumstance, find ourselves to be the one with no rights. And while in a perfect world that would work, yes it looks good on papers and charters,etc etc but history has recorded that the law is not blind nor is every one treated equally under it. And in this case we don't believe he has done something wrong he has been convicted, so it is fact. his snetence has been reduced to 8 years, for the murder of a US soldier, for carrying out terrorist activities in another country, for which he has not been tried for, or justice served in Adfghanistan, he has betrayed his country....and justice is blind and everyone is equal under it....i wonder if the Latest US soldier to be tried for murder will be treated the same way.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
eyeball Posted May 19, 2012 Report Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) DId he not recieve this process already, and was he not found guilty. No and no. They didn't find anything on him. His confession was obtained under torture. Edited May 19, 2012 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Signals.Cpl Posted May 19, 2012 Report Posted May 19, 2012 No and no. They didn't find anything on him. His confession was obtained under torture. Because you where there right? Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
waldo Posted May 19, 2012 Report Posted May 19, 2012 Because you where there right? In May hearings, a man identified as Interrogator 1 said in testimony that he threatened Mr. Khadr with being gang-raped to death if he did not co-operate. That interrogator was later identified as former U.S. Army Sergeant Joshua Claus. He has also been convicted of abusing a different detainee and has left the military. On March 14, 2008, it became known that Claus was one of Omar Khadr's first interrogators. The U.S. government has attempted to keep this information suppressed, asking reporters to identify Claus as "Interrogator One." Claus was given immunity from prosecution for any possible abuse of Khadr during the interrogation, in return for his testimony at Khadr's murder trial before a military tribunal at Guantanamo, Cuba. Quote
Signals.Cpl Posted May 19, 2012 Report Posted May 19, 2012 Torture: tor·ture/ˈtôrCHər/ Noun: The action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something. The threats do not equal torture, they are just threats Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
waldo Posted May 19, 2012 Report Posted May 19, 2012 The threats do not equal torture, they are just threats uhhhh.... Because you where there right? universally accepted by the 146 countries that have currently ratified Article 1 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT): “... 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.” ergo => torture: the intentional infliction of severe mental or physical pain or suffering by or with the consent of the state authorities for a specific purpose. => psychological forms of torture: isolation, threats, humiliation, mock executions, mock amputations, and witnessing the torture of others. Quote
bleeding heart Posted May 19, 2012 Report Posted May 19, 2012 The mental and emotional aspect of torture is crucial to it, inseparable from torture in the larger sense. But I've ceased being surprised at the defense of it. Many of us understood, back in the spring of 2004 (when torture became part of the public conversation, following the Abu Ghraib mess), that by doctrinal neccessity, sycophancy-to-power would win out among broad swaths of the public...and among the Establishment intellectual culture generally. People who immediately before would have stentorially denounced the practice (correctly) as barbaric and unacceptable, suddenly started saying "Oh, boo hoo hoo about the poor little terrorists [sic]." Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Signals.Cpl Posted May 19, 2012 Report Posted May 19, 2012 The mental and emotional aspect of torture is crucial to it, inseparable from torture in the larger sense. But I've ceased being surprised at the defense of it. Many of us understood, back in the spring of 2004 (when torture became part of the public conversation, following the Abu Ghraib mess), that by doctrinal neccessity, sycophancy-to-power would win out among broad swaths of the public...and among the Establishment intellectual culture generally. People who immediately before would have stentorially denounced the practice (correctly) as barbaric and unacceptable, suddenly started saying "Oh, boo hoo hoo about the poor little terrorists [sic]." I don't know, they seem to be doing a great job of dehumanizing themselves without any help.Its hard for me to feel sorry for someone or a group of people who are bent on killing people simply because they don't believe in the same narrow-minded misinterpretation of a religion, and are more then willing to murder women because she was raped or her husband accused her of cheating or my all time favourite, because she did not give birth to a boy. Im sorry if I don't see them as humans, to be fait I don't see white supremacist as humans either nor do I see the Hutu extremists as humans. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
waldo Posted May 19, 2012 Report Posted May 19, 2012 I don't know, they seem to be doing a great job of dehumanizing themselves without any help.Its hard for me to feel sorry for someone or a group of people who are bent on killing people simply because they don't believe in the same narrow-minded misinterpretation of a religion, and are more then willing to murder women because she was raped or her husband accused her of cheating or my all time favourite, because she did not give birth to a boy. Im sorry if I don't see them as humans, to be fait I don't see white supremacist as humans either nor do I see the Hutu extremists as humans. why... how distracting of you. I do believe the most immediate discussion was torture, specifically Omar Khadr's torture, and your insisting denial, per the described UN Convention (UNCAT), that mental/psychological threats constitute torture. Quote
bleeding heart Posted May 19, 2012 Report Posted May 19, 2012 I don't know, they seem to be doing a great job of dehumanizing themselves without any help.Its hard for me to feel sorry for someone or a group of people who are bent on killing people simply because they don't believe in the same narrow-minded misinterpretation of a religion, and are more then willing to murder women because she was raped or her husband accused her of cheating or my all time favourite, because she did not give birth to a boy. Im sorry if I don't see them as humans, to be fait I don't see white supremacist as humans either nor do I see the Hutu extremists as humans. So everyone who is tortured belongs to this "subhuman" category? And you know this because...they are tortured at the behest of (or by) civilized Westerners? At any rate, do you support the torture of Western leaders when they involve themselves in terrorism and the murder of innocent people? Because it's quite a rogues' gallery of perpetrators, as you doubtless know. Or is it that Muslim terrorism is simply bad, always unacceptable...whereas our terrorism is more...nuanced, and more defensible? (Some shivering little knuckledraggers have actually tried to make that case to me, undeterred by elementary morality.) Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Signals.Cpl Posted May 19, 2012 Report Posted May 19, 2012 why... how distracting of you. I do believe the most immediate discussion was torture, specifically Omar Khadr's torture, and your insisting denial, per the described UN Convention (UNCAT), that mental/psychological threats constitute torture. I don't see it as torture, just like you don't see kettling as legal even though international courts have approved it. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
waldo Posted May 19, 2012 Report Posted May 19, 2012 why... how distracting of you. I do believe the most immediate discussion was torture, specifically Omar Khadr's torture, and your insisting denial, per the described UN Convention (UNCAT), that mental/psychological threats constitute torture.I don't see it as torture, just like you don't see kettling as legal even though international courts have approved it. when you start quoting minimalistic wiktionary level references as the defacto definition, you are well beyond your expressed personal opinion... particularly when you, still, refuse to accept/acknowledge the provided universally ratified UN UNCAT definition. As for kettling - is this another of your distractions? I've not said a word about kettling... but don't let that stop you from... distracting. Quote
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.