Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian

[wyly]

I'm kinda hoping you'll get your stupid country off my planet actually.

i think moving stupid people everywhere to texas would be a more practical solution...

[Mr.Canada]

i think moving stupid people everywhere to texas would be a more practical solution...

I would love to go to Texas. Conservative and a death penalty they actually use. Kill someone in texas and they kill you back...and quickly. I wish Canada had a death penalty to take out the trash.

[bleeding heart]

I would love to go to Texas. Conservative and a death penalty they actually use. Kill someone in texas and they kill you back...and quickly. I wish Canada had a death penalty to take out the trash.

As...someone...recently said, "why not move somewhere else where they think like you do?"

[Mr.Canada]

As...someone...recently said, "why not move somewhere else where they think like you do?"

I love Canada too much to leave. I would honestly miss the snow. I like winter.

[bleeding heart]

I love Canada too much to leave. I would honestly miss the snow. I like winter.

But wouldn't it be worth it, given that you could rest safely knowing that teenagers and the mentally-challenged are being executed apace?

[Mr.Canada]

But wouldn't it be worth it, given that you could rest safely knowing that teenagers and the mentally-challenged are being executed apace?

You're misinformed on Texas. The death penalty is only considered for murder cases.

Anyone under the age of 18 at the time of the offense cannot be executed.

If both prosecution and defense agree that the defendant is mentally retarded then the defendant cannot be executed.

If the prosecuter isn't seeking the death penalty then the defendant cannot be sentenced to death.

[bleeding heart]

Anyone under the age of 18 at the time of the offense cannot be executed.

If both prosecution and defense agree that the defendant is mentally retarded then the defendant cannot be executed.

Mea culpa it is, then.

[Guest Manny]

I believe they also have the highest, or are among the highest, incarceration rate in the world.

[guyser]

..and I almost never kill people I meet on Internet forums....lol.

You've killed a few threads with inanity.

You've killed a few brain cells of mine whilst reading some of your posts.

You're right...'almost' is apt.

[Mr.Canada]

I think that we can all agree that Khadr got off easy for murder and war crimes charges. Who else can get 8 years for murder in club fed? A man who won't say anything bad about Al-Queda or torrorists in general. That's who.

[g_bambino]

Where's the word demanded? It's not in anything I said, it's not in the story we're both citing and it's not in the court ruling either. So where is it?

Oh, stop being so fucking obtuse. You said the government hadn't "followed" the court's ruling. Followed what, if not a demand/order/instruction/directive/edict? I'd like an answer to that, especially in light of the fact that, when told by me there was nothing in the ruling for the government to follow, you pointed to Khadr's lawyers' request that the court demand/order/instruct/direct the government to repatriate him (which the court never did).

BTW are you ever going to get around to addressing the ruling that Canada criminally breached Khadr's Charter right's?

Gee, how about here and here?

[ed.: sp, +]

Edited October 3, 2012 by g_bambino

[eyeball]

Oh, stop being so fucking obtuse....

...Followed what, if not a demand/order/instruction/directive/edict?

Maybe it's time you got a grip bambi.

A government is expected to take action when the court rules it has violated someone's rights. The remedy requested by lawyers who brought the case to court on Mr. Khadr's behalf is that Ottawa bring their client home for trial. Past governments have not ignored strong declarations from the highest court in the land.

So, the request was made by Khadr's lawyers, and the declaration makes it pretty clear to me which direction the court would like to have seen the government take but because of the executive prerogative the court left it up to the government to decide what course it should take...at it's peril.

[47] The prudent course at this point, respectful of the responsibilities of the executive and the courts, is for this Court to allow Mr. Khadr’s application for judicial review in part and to grant him a declaration advising the government of its opinion on the records before it which, in turn, will provide the legal framework for the executive to exercise its functions and to consider what actions to take in respect of Mr. Khadr, in conformity with the Charter.

[g_bambino]

ecause of the executive prerogative the court left it up to the government to decide what course it should take...

That's right. The ruling made no demand/order/instruction/directive/edict for the government to follow; there was nothing in the ruling for the government to follow, exactly as I said. Thanks for admitting your error, in your obtuse way.

[bleeding heart]

I think that we can all agree that Khadr got off easy for murder and war crimes charges. Who else can get 8 years for murder in club fed? A man who won't say anything bad about Al-Queda or torrorists in general. That's who.

Is it an unusually short sentence (and it's not over yet) for a fifteen year old?

[carepov]

That's right. The ruling made no demand/order/instruction/directive/edict for the government to follow; there was nothing in the ruling for the government to follow, exactly as I said. Thanks for admitting your error, in your obtuse way.

On this issue it looks like you and eyeball are talking past one another. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the way I (as an admitted legalese dunce) see it:

As per the Supreme Court, the Government broke the Law by violating the rights of Khadr and MUST take corrective action. The course of action is up to the government to decide.

[g_bambino]

As per the Supreme Court, the Government broke the Law by violating the rights of Khadr and MUST take corrective action. The course of action is up to the government to decide.

It's absolutely true the court ruled Khadr's rights had been violated by the Crown when its agents (CSIS) interviewed him at Guantanamo. However, there is no directive in the ruling that compels the government to take any action, corrective or otherwise. The court admitted both that Khadr was not then "under the control of the Canadian government". There was thus no action the government could take other than making a request that Khadr be repatriated, and the court couldn't make the government do that, since affairs between the federal government and other foreign governments is within the Royal Prerogative and therefore outside of the Supreme Court's purvue.

[carepov]

It's absolutely true the court ruled Khadr's rights had been violated by the Crown when its agents (CSIS) interviewed him at Guantanamo. However, there is no directive in the ruling that compels the government to take any action, corrective or otherwise. The court admitted both that Khadr was not then "under the control of the Canadian government". There was thus no action the government could take other than making a request that Khadr be repatriated, and the court couldn't make the government do that, since affairs between the federal government and other foreign governments is within the Royal Prerogative and therefore outside of the Supreme Court's purvue.

Thanks, this helps but still:

If Khadr's rights were being violated, does this not force the government to take action to protect his rights? I.e. doesn’t the Canadian government have the obligation to protect, or at least try to protect, the rights of Canadian citizens?

[g_bambino]

If Khadr's rights were being violated, does this not force the government to take action to protect his rights?

It wasn't that they were being violated; the Supreme Court can't rule on the legality of the actions of foreign governments. The court ruled that Khadr's rights were violated by Canadian officials, the actons of which the court could rule on, since the officials were Canadian and acting with the Crown's authority.

[eyeball]

That's right. The ruling made no demand/order/instruction/directive/edict for the government to follow; there was nothing in the ruling for the government to follow, exactly as I said. Thanks for admitting your error, in your obtuse way.

Because of the executive prerogative the court left it up to the government to decide what course it should take...

You don't think the words take and follow pretty much mean the same thing in the context of following or taking a course?

Only a dedicated pedant on a mission from God would spend as much time quibbling over the difference.

Edited October 3, 2012 by eyeball

[eyeball]

If Khadr's rights were being violated, does this not force the government to take action to protect his rights?

Worded differently you could have just as easily and just as accurately asked does this not force the government to follow whatever course will lead to the protection of his rights?

[carepov]

It wasn't that they were being violated; the Supreme Court can't rule on the legality of the actions of foreign governments. The court ruled that Khadr's rights were violated by Canadian officials, the actons of which the court could rule on, since the officials were Canadian and acting with the Crown's authority.

Ah, thank you. This makes more sense now, (in a legal sort of way).

Putting aside the "legal" requirements by the government, are you satisfied with the actions of the Canadian government with respect to Khadr? How about the US government? If you have already explained your position in previous posts - I'm sorry, I have not come across them.

[g_bambino]

You don't think the words take and follow pretty much mean the same thing in the context of following or taking a course?

Certainly. Allow me to demonstrate: The Supreme Court's ruling set no course for the government to take.

[eyeball]

Certainly. Allow me to demonstrate: The Supreme Court's ruling set no course for the government to take.

[47] The prudent course at this point, respectful of the responsibilities of the executive and the courts, is for this Court to allow Mr. Khadr’s application for judicial review in part and to grant him a declaration advising the government of its opinion on the records before it which, in turn, will provide the legal framework for the executive to exercise its functions and to consider what actions to take in respect of Mr. Khadr, in conformity with the Charter.

The SC even pointed it out to the government.

[eyeball]

It wasn't that they were being violated; the Supreme Court can't rule on the legality of the actions of foreign governments. The court ruled that Khadr's rights were violated by Canadian officials, the actons of which the court could rule on, since the officials were Canadian and acting with the Crown's authority.

You've conveniently overlooked the fact the US has practically been begging Canada to take Khadr off their hands since day one.

The course of action Canada could have followed/taken is also in the record of events that the SC has before it.

[g_bambino]

The SC even pointed it out to the government.

Taking words out of context won't prove your claim. The prudent course referred to is that for the court itself to pursue; "The prudent course... is for this Court [italics mine] to allow Mr. Khadr's application for judicial review in part and to grant him a declaration advising the government of its opinion on the records before it..." The intent is for that opinion to "provide the legal framework for the executive to exercise its functions and to consider what actions to take in respect of Mr. Khadr..." Though it must keep in mind the court's opinion about the interrogation of Khadr by CSIS agents at Guantanamo (namely, it was a violation of the Charter), the ruling set no course for the government to take, contrary to your claim. At best, the court said indirectly that no more CSIS officers could be sent to Cuba to interview Khadr without there being another breach of his rights.