Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian

[Signals.Cpl]

Could you please take the time out of your busy day of pedophilia to provide a cite to where I have ever claimed to be collecting welfare.

1)Reported

2)Every policy you support is about the government giving you something for nothing.

[Rick]

Says the guy collecting welfare.

Did you report yourself too ?

[Signals.Cpl]

Did you report yourself too ?

Nope, your entire position is based on asking more and more from the government and demanding more from people that work for their money, this is rampant in people who are too lazy to work and thus expect someone else to give them whatever they want. On the other hand making disgusting, idiotic and unfounded accusations is not exactly based on sound reasoning nor can it be backed up but hey I don't expect you to understand that.

[carepov]

There is a significant difference between a child soldier who is captured and fed drugs and terrorized in order to fight versus a 16 year old individual who volunteered to fight.

Sure there is a difference, but Romeo Dallaire's point was both cases are against the Law. You either comply with the Law or you don't. Once any one starts to make exceptions then it is a slippery slope... I have great respect for his views!

Is there a double standard - (i.e. the enemy does not comply with the Law and Canada is expected to)? Maybe, but IMO, the "War on Terror" is as much a long-term ideological war as anything else and when the West breaks the Law it is counter-productive. Many see adherence to the Law as a hindrance when in a battle - I see it as the key strategy towards winning the war.

P.S. I am sorry to see all the personal attacks on you and the attacks on Canada's military personnel.

[eyeball]

There is a significant difference between a child soldier who is captured and fed drugs and terrorized in order to fight versus a 16 year old individual who volunteered to fight.

There's little difference between being fed drugs or religion when it comes to bending a kid's mind out of shape.

Omar Khadr was only 10 when they started doing that to him and he was 15 when we started lying about his age.

[Signals.Cpl]

Sure there is a difference, but Romeo Dallaire's point was both cases are against the Law. You either comply with the Law or you don't. Once any one starts to make exceptions then it is a slippery slope... I have great respect for his views!

Yes, both cases are against the law but the group that breaks the law is the one who are using those child soldiers. As I said, one is forced while the other is volunteering to go so its not similar at all.

Is there a double standard - (i.e. the enemy does not comply with the Law and Canada is expected to)? Maybe, but IMO, the "War on Terror" is as much a long-term ideological war as anything else and when the West breaks the Law it is counter-productive.

I agree with you, but there is a point where we should reassess the laws that govern us and adapt to the situation when it becomes obvious that our actions are severely restricted because the opposition is using the laws that govern us against us with absolute impunity. Now I'm not saying we should throw away the rulebook, but at least in my view we should do our best to hold the enemy to the same standard and when they break the laws that govern warfare they are held accountable and punished when captured instead of being made out to be a victim of western aggression or something.

Many see adherence to the Law as a hindrance when in a battle - I see it as the key strategy towards winning the war.

I see the fact that we don't hold the enemy to the same standard as a hinderance, if a terrorist is captured he should be held accountable for his actions and lack of adherence to the laws of war, which in my mind means a public trial and a stiff sentence. Look at the US Army soldier who snapped and shot all those civilians in Afghanistan, he will be held accountable for his crimes while at the exact same time if a Taliban fighter is captured after committing such a crime he will not be held to the same standard. We need to hold captured enemy combatants to the exact same standard as we hold our own soldiers.

[Argus]

let me remind you of what you said earlier...

I never wrote that. You seem confused... as usual.

[Argus]

Sure there is a difference, but Romeo Dallaire's point was both cases are against the Law. You either comply with the Law or you don't. Once any one starts to make exceptions then it is a slippery slope... I have great respect for his views!

I think you are leaving out the broader scope of the problem in regard to Khadr. There have been a number of apologetic posts on his behalf suggesting that, because he was a 'child soldier' he was not responsible for what he did. Indeed, I can find some sympathy for that view in the narrower question of individual actions. Brought up by fanatics and brought to Afghanistan, his role was predetermined for him.

However, the same could probably be said of almost every religious fanatic whose parents sent them to a madrassas in Pakistan, or who were raised by ferociously fundamentalist Muslims, or who were raised in an area or community or culture of rigid conformity (which is pretty much the entire Muslim world) and whose parents, teachers, etc., believed in a violent interpretation of Islam. The excuses being given for Khadr are equally valid for the men who crashed airliners into the World Trade Centre. For that matter, one can equally say that pedophiles (since it was raised as a subject) are generally speaking made the way they are by various abuses in their youth.

There comes a point, however, where we have to say that despite what happened when one was a youth to make an individual the way he or she is, we must still address the fact that they ARE, in fact, the way that they are. There is no going back to their childhood to raise them properly. Khadr the grown man, is, from all accounts, every bit the fundamentalist Muslim jihadist as any of those guys who blew up the WTC or who launched any number of other violent attacks against both Muslim and Christian targets around the world last year.

As for him being a "Canadian". I realize that he has documents. Unfortunately, our system is not very flexible, and not very discriminating in terms of who we let in. But in reality, you could grab any young man off the streets of Beirut or Kandahar or Cairo, and he'd be as much a 'Canadian', in terms of mental outlook, culture, values and beliefs, as Khadr. So pardon me if I don't rush to embrace him and am not eager to bring him here (I won't say home).

[Argus]

There's little difference between being fed drugs or religion when it comes to bending a kid's mind out of shape.

Omar Khadr was only 10 when they started doing that to him and he was 15 when we started lying about his age.

So do we forgive all terrorists? I think it safe to assume the majority had a similar experience, after all.

Do we let all child abusers go because they were made that way by abuses in their youth?

[Argus]

Please get your facts straight:

"Arar was detained during a layover at John F. Kennedy International Airport in September 2002 on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunis."

Also from Wiki: "...the actions of Canadian officials likely led to his being deported by U.S. authorities to Syria"

If you're reading, you might read beyond Wiki. In point of fact there are any number of questions about what happened to him and why. I think the most pertinent is where he was in the year in question when he was allegedly in Afghanistan? He's never responded to that, just stated that his confession to being at a training camp in Afghanistan that year was obtained by torture. He's also never been asked to prove he was tortured, nor was there any evidence of torture.

What Really Happened to Maher Arar

[carepov]

Yes, both cases are against the law but the group that breaks the law is the one who are using those child soldiers. As I said, one is forced while the other is volunteering to go so its not similar at all.

I agree with you, but there is a point where we should reassess the laws that govern us and adapt to the situation when it becomes obvious that our actions are severely restricted because the opposition is using the laws that govern us against us with absolute impunity. Now I'm not saying we should throw away the rulebook, but at least in my view we should do our best to hold the enemy to the same standard and when they break the laws that govern warfare they are held accountable and punished when captured instead of being made out to be a victim of western aggression or something.

I see the fact that we don't hold the enemy to the same standard as a hinderance, if a terrorist is captured he should be held accountable for his actions and lack of adherence to the laws of war, which in my mind means a public trial and a stiff sentence. Look at the US Army soldier who snapped and shot all those civilians in Afghanistan, he will be held accountable for his crimes while at the exact same time if a Taliban fighter is captured after committing such a crime he will not be held to the same standard. We need to hold captured enemy combatants to the exact same standard as we hold our own soldiers.

Do you agree that in the handling of Omar Khadr, and other Guantanamo prisoners, some Laws were broken by the US military?

Yes I agree with you - Let's do our best to hold the Taliban and other enemies accountable and try them to the full extent of the Law. BUT: This becomes much more difficult (next to impossible?) when we (the West) do not follow the Law.

Yes - let's improve the laws to ensure that they are appropriate for modern warfare. BUT: The way to do this is not to break current laws.

[wyly]

There's little difference between being fed drugs or religion when it comes to bending a kid's mind out of shape.

his indoctrination to his fathers extreme views began the moment he received his first religious instruction, then just being in a family where those religious views are combined with political agendas, parental influences are stronger than any drugs...his military training began at 10...he's no different than the hilter-jugend of ww2...

Omar Khadr was only 10 when they started doing that to him and he was 15 when we started lying about his age.

and lying about him throwing a grenade...the only one witness and he said Oamr did not throw the grenade.. Edited July 27, 2012 by wyly

[carepov]

If you're reading, you might read beyond Wiki. In point of fact there are any number of questions about what happened to him and why. I think the most pertinent is where he was in the year in question when he was allegedly in Afghanistan? He's never responded to that, just stated that his confession to being at a training camp in Afghanistan that year was obtained by torture. He's also never been asked to prove he was tortured, nor was there any evidence of torture.

What Really Happened to Maher Arar

First of all, do you admit that your statement:

If he [Arar] hadn't gone back HOME to Syria he'd have been fine.

is false?

Wiki:

"On September 18, 2006, the Canadian Commission of Inquiry, led by Dennis O'Connor, Associate Chief Justice of Ontario, issued its report. The final report exonerates Arar and categorically states that there is no evidence linking Arar to terrorist activity, stating there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada. The Commission also found no evidence that Canadian officials acquiesced in the U.S. decision to detain and remove Mr. Arar to Syria, but that it is very likely that the U.S. relied on inaccurate and unfair information about Mr. Arar that was provided by Canadian officials. The report also confirms that he was tortured while in Syria. O'Connor cleared Arar of terrorism allegations, and found the actions of Canadian officials likely led to his being deported by U.S. authorities to Syria[44][45][46]"

Wiki sources:

44.^ a b Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar. (2006) (PDF). Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar: Analysis and Recommendations. Ottawa, Ont.: Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar. ISBN 0-660-19648-4.

45.^ Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar. (2006) (PDF). Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar: Factual Background Volume I. Ottawa, Ont.: Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar. ISBN 0-660-19648-4.

46.^ Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar. (2006) (PDF). Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar: Factual Background Volume II. Ottawa, Ont.: Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar. ISBN 0-660-19648-4.

You and your source (Kevin Steel of Wetsern Standard.ca) can ask any questions and raise any doubts that you want - in my mind the following FACTS are unquestionable:

1.He was and still is an an innocent man

2.He was tortured

Edited July 27, 2012 by carepov

[g_bambino]

Sure there is a difference, but Romeo Dallaire's point was both cases are against the Law.

What law?

[carepov]

What law?

-Various laws in the 1949 Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

-International juvenile justice standards

-Various international laws banning torture

-Others?

Edited July 27, 2012 by carepov

[g_bambino]

-Various laws in the 1949 Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

-International juvenile justice standards

-Various international laws banning torture

-Others?

None in there indicates it is illegal for "a 16 year old individual [to volunteer] to fight".

[Argus]

First of all, do you admit that your statement:

is false?

Okay. If it's important to you to focus on something of little relevance. Sure.

Wiki:

I've already said that Wiki is not much of a source. And it fails to address the questions in the cite I posted.

You and your source (Kevin Steel of Wetsern Standard.ca) can ask any questions and raise any doubts that you want - in my mind the following FACTS are unquestionable:

1.He was and still is an an innocent man

2.He was tortured

You have no evidence to support either of those statements. Just his word. That you think the word of a stranger is 'unquestionable' is kind of odd.

And it almost looks like your mind is veering violently away from even considering the implications of why Arar, who refused to testify at the inquiry, refuses to say where he was during that time he was allegedly in Afghanistan at a training camp. Especially when he could quash all question about his innocence by doing so.

[Guest Manny]

So do we forgive all terrorists? I think it safe to assume the majority had a similar experience, after all.

Do we let all child abusers go because they were made that way by abuses in their youth?

No, clearly not but it should be considered as part of the sentencing process, and rehabilitation.

The question it should come down to is, is this a life-long condition that's been learned, is the person a permanent threat (as might be the case with pedophiles), or can the damage be undone. Can the person be safely reintegrated into society.

[carepov]

Okay. If it's important to you to focus on something of little relevance. Sure.

I've already said that Wiki is not much of a source. And it fails to address the questions in the cite I posted.

You have no evidence to support either of those statements. Just his word. That you think the word of a stranger is 'unquestionable' is kind of odd.

And it almost looks like your mind is veering violently away from even considering the implications of why Arar, who refused to testify at the inquiry, refuses to say where he was during that time he was allegedly in Afghanistan at a training camp. Especially when he could quash all question about his innocence by doing so.

Here is my source:

http://www.pch.gc.ca/cs-kc/arar/Arar_e.pdf

Again - this commission established that:

1.He was and still is an innocent man

2.He was tortured

What do you have to dispute these facts?

[carepov]

None in there indicates it is illegal for "a 16 year old individual [to volunteer] to fight".

The way that he was treated by his captors was illegal.

[wyly]

-Various laws in the 1949 Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

-International juvenile justice standards

-Various international laws banning torture

-Others?

of which canada is likely a signed participant so the legal battles that will result when Khadr returns will be interesting and awkward for the government...

[g_bambino]

The way that he was treated by his captors was illegal.

So says the Supreme Court. But that has no bearing on Canada beyond the CSIS interview matter, which has already been settled.

Regardless, this deviates from the subject, which is whether or not it was illegal for "a 16 year old individual [to volunteer] to fight". You said Romeo Dallaire said it was "against the Law"; but, no law seems to support that claim.

[ed.: +]

Edited July 27, 2012 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

of which canada is likely a signed participant so the legal battles that will result when Khadr returns will be interesting and awkward for the government...

When was Khadr detained by the Canadian government?

[GostHacked]

why would your employer do a check after you were hired?.. background checks are done before you are hired...

Army Guy's statement still stands.

i've never done a background check but you're probably right the check will only show you were guilty...not that background checks matter at all at the time to someone who is faced with plea a bargaining situation...

And once you plead guilty to a lesser charge , regardless of your innocence, it stays on your record and can hinder you when you go look for a job.

[carepov]

So says the Supreme Court. But that has no bearing on Canada beyond the CSIS interview matter, which has already been settled.

Regardless, this deviates from the subject, which is whether or not it was illegal for "a 16 year old individual [to volunteer] to fight". You said Romeo Dallaire said it was "against the Law"; but, no law seems to support that claim.

[ed.: +]

Sorry if I was not clear earlier, the subject is not "whether or not it was illegal for a 16 year old individual [to volunteer] to fight". It is the illegal treatment/processing of Omar Khadr since his capture and Canada's inaction in addressing this issue. If I am not mistaken, all other Western foreign nationals held in Guantanamo (UK, France, Spain...) have been repatriated many years ago.