GostHacked Posted May 21, 2012 Report Posted May 21, 2012 I don't see it as torture, just like you don't see kettling as legal even though international courts have approved it. Canadian courts have approved the warentless wiretapping in Canada... Bill C30 .. yes it went through. Anything can become legal or illegal with a change of a law, or amendment to a law. If murder was legalized tomorrow would that make it right then? Quote
Signals.Cpl Posted May 21, 2012 Report Posted May 21, 2012 Canadian courts have approved the warentless wiretapping in Canada... Bill C30 .. yes it went through. Anything can become legal or illegal with a change of a law, or amendment to a law. If murder was legalized tomorrow would that make it right then? Well you have to define right and wrong. Do you mean Morally right? Or Legally right? Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
eyeball Posted May 21, 2012 Report Posted May 21, 2012 Well you have to define right and wrong. Do you mean Morally right? Or Legally right? What an amoral question. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Signals.Cpl Posted May 21, 2012 Report Posted May 21, 2012 What an amoral question. Why? If murder was legalized, then it becomes right to murder someone but thats only if you look at it legally. Its morally wrong to murder someone. If murder was legalized yes it would be legally right, and for some people morally right. For the majority of the Canadian population it would be legally right morally wrong. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
eyeball Posted May 21, 2012 Report Posted May 21, 2012 Why? If murder was legalized, then it becomes right to murder someone but thats only if you look at it legally. Its morally wrong to murder someone. If murder was legalized yes it would be legally right, and for some people morally right. For the majority of the Canadian population it would be legally right morally wrong. Why is it an amoral question? Because the answers are bound to be really stupid. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Signals.Cpl Posted May 22, 2012 Report Posted May 22, 2012 Why is it an amoral question? Because the answers are bound to be really stupid. how so? Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
eyeball Posted May 22, 2012 Report Posted May 22, 2012 how so? They make no sense. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Signals.Cpl Posted May 22, 2012 Report Posted May 22, 2012 They make no sense. Under the Taliban in Afghanistan beating your wife was legally right, but to a westerner it might be morally wrong. Prostitution is legal in the Netherlands yet I don't think its morally right. Gay marriage is illegal in many states in the US,and despite my views on the subject I think it is morally wrong to deny people that basic right. Just because its legal does not make it morally appealing to me, and just because its illegal does not necessarily make it morally wrong. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
GostHacked Posted May 22, 2012 Report Posted May 22, 2012 Well you have to define right and wrong. Do you mean Morally right? Or Legally right? So if murder was legalized tomorrow, would it be right or wrong? It's really not a hard question to answer. Quote
Signals.Cpl Posted May 22, 2012 Report Posted May 22, 2012 So if murder was legalized tomorrow, would it be right or wrong? It's really not a hard question to answer. Yes it would be, legally it would be right, morally it would be wrong. Thats the easiest answer,it might be legal for me to participate in the activity but I will be unable to murder innocent people even if its legal due to my moral objections. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
cybercoma Posted June 1, 2012 Report Posted June 1, 2012 (edited) . Edited June 1, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
PIK Posted June 2, 2012 Report Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) I think the difference is that he made his own mind. Omar did not really have a choice and had to go with his father (that is an assumption on my part) ..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason Seems like there are two levels of treason in Canada. Inouye was convicted of treason and not high treason. And I guess that would depend on any official declaration of war in order to be charged with high treason. Other than that, both forms are treated as the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanao_Inouye The one point I am not understanding with this person is the following .... So why was he convicted and executed in Hong Kong? Crazy that we have to go back to WWII to find the last example of a Canadian committing treason. My understanding is that he had a brother that said no to joining the family business of terrorism. And the only reason they are in canada is because of what you read on this board, support of stupid canadians that don't know any better, but think they are doing something nice, by backing this family. Laws need to be made to be able to get rid of families like this. Edited June 2, 2012 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
eyeball Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 Laws need to be made to be able to get rid of families like this. Why? As signatories to the UNCRC we have all the opportunity if not the obligation we need to see to it that Omar Khadr's mother is charged with the war crime of indoctrinating a child soldier. It should be fairly easy to deport her following a conviction and sentence for that. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
jbg Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 Why? As signatories to the UNCRC we have all the opportunity if not the obligation we need to see to it that Omar Khadr's mother is charged with the war crime of indoctrinating a child soldier. It should be fairly easy to deport her following a conviction and sentence for that. And how fast would that trial go before the World Court? 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 June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 As signatories to the UNCRC we have all the opportunity if not the obligation we need to see to it that Omar Khadr's mother is charged with the war crime of indoctrinating a child soldier. How could that be proven? It would all be based on heresay; most of which I've read indicates Omar's mother didn't want her son off to live among the insurgents, but Omar did. Quote
Fletch 27 Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 "youtube" his mother and sister.... Dude.... She wants you and your family dead... No ifs ands or butts! She praises her poor sons work overseas like he was a missionary. The entire family should be on trial. How could that be proven? It would all be based on heresay; most of which I've read indicates Omar's mother didn't want her son off to live among the insurgents, but Omar did. Quote
eyeball Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 The entire family should be on trial. Not Omar, he should be compensated. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
eyeball Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 How could that be proven? It would all be based on heresay; most of which I've read indicates Omar's mother didn't want her son off to live among the insurgents, but Omar did. All on heresy? In addition to statements by Maha el-Samnah there are things like Radhika Coomaraswamy's letter to the Guantanamo military commission tribunal, the SC's ruling in Omar Khadr's favour, a Security Intelligence Review Committee's (SIRC) report to Cabinet, not to mention the learned opinions of many other prominent institutions and organizations who have also weighed in on Omar Khadr's behalf and who is after all is said and done the living proof of the crime that was committed. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
g_bambino Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 All on heresy? In addition to statements by Maha el-Samnah there are things like Radhika Coomaraswamy's letter to the Guantanamo military commission tribunal, the SC's ruling in Omar Khadr's favour, a Security Intelligence Review Committee's (SIRC) report to Cabinet, not to mention the learned opinions of many other prominent institutions and organizations who have also weighed in on Omar Khadr's behalf and who is after all is said and done the living proof of the crime that was committed. Hearsay, not heresy. I'm not familiar with what any of those things you mention say about Omar's mother, specifically; what proof there is within them that could be used to convict the woman of indocrtinating a child soldier. She's no pious, naive waif. But, I'm unconvinced she's committed any actual crime. It would be the Khadr patriarch I'd say orchestrated the induction of his sons into terrorism. Of course, he's dead now. Quote
g_bambino Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 "youtube" his mother and sister.... Dude.... She wants you and your family dead... No ifs ands or butts! She praises her poor sons work overseas like he was a missionary. The entire family should be on trial. I know of their utterances. Nothing illegal in there, so far as I know, however. It's not against the law to be an asshole. Quote
eyeball Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 Hearsay, not heresy. Yes. That said it is a heresy to suggest Omar Khadr is innocent. I'm not familiar with what any of those things you mention say about Omar's mother, specifically; what proof there is within them that could be used to convict the woman of indocrtinating a child soldier. They provide evidence of the crime that was committed against Omar Khadr, the way a body in your freezer or the trunk of your car might except this body is still alive. She's no pious, naive waif. But, I'm unconvinced she's committed any actual crime. It would be the Khadr patriarch I'd say orchestrated the induction of his sons into terrorism. Of course, he's dead now. The point being that Omar Khadr is still the victim. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
bleeding heart Posted June 6, 2012 Report Posted June 6, 2012 (edited) The point being that Omar Khadr is still the victim. Everyone would immediately recognize this if the allegations were other than attacks against allied personnel. Which means the moral compass is set firmly on the doctrinal necessities of "worthy" vs. "unworthy" victims, combatants, and chess pieces generally. Edited June 6, 2012 by bleeding heart 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
g_bambino Posted June 7, 2012 Report Posted June 7, 2012 They provide evidence of the crime that was committed against Omar Khadr, the way a body in your freezer or the trunk of your car might except this body is still alive.The point being that Omar Khadr is still the victim. Stop speaking in vagueries. If a woman is to be convicted of a crime, there has to be specific proof she committed it. It isn't enough that documents "provide evidence of the crime that was committed against Omar Khadr"; they must show his mother committed a crime against Omar Khadr. It isn't enough to say" Omar Khadr is still the victim"; there must be proof he's the victim of his mother's crimes. Quote
eyeball Posted June 7, 2012 Report Posted June 7, 2012 Stop speaking in vagueries. If a woman is to be convicted of a crime, there has to be specific proof she committed it. It isn't enough that documents "provide evidence of the crime that was committed against Omar Khadr"; they must show his mother committed a crime against Omar Khadr. It isn't enough to say" Omar Khadr is still the victim"; there must be proof he's the victim of his mother's crimes. You mean like forensic physical evidence? I'm certainly not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure the law allows for the sort of circumstantial evidence that her actions and statements might provide, in accordance with SC discretion. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
g_bambino Posted June 7, 2012 Report Posted June 7, 2012 I'm certainly not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure the law allows for the sort of circumstantial evidence that her actions and statements might provide, in accordance with SC discretion. Some circumstantial evidence is looked at. But just circumstantial evidence? I don't believe a conviction could be laid on that alone. If there were more than simply circumstantial evidence, do you not think someone would've laid charges by now? The Khadrs aren't exactly Canada's most loved family. 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.