Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Khadr Sentenced To 40 Years By Military Tribunal


  • Please log in to reply
803 replies to this topic

#151 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 26 October 2010 - 03:47 PM

Unfortunately, the fathers sin was to work to get him trained up as a terrorist. Unfortunately said training is what is problematic IMO. The Gitmo stuff didn't help either.

I agree the major problem was the father, but he's already dead so what we gonna do about that?


Uh...how about not punishing a child for acts committed by a father on him and on the battelfield? That would be a good place to start. And next, how about brining some real justice to Omar and prepare him for reintegration into society, without excommunicating him or banishing him to some place that would ensure his 'conversion'....either deprogram him....or re-arm him...that's our choice.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#152 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,112 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 03:48 PM

It is also most likely that George Bush Senior met him as well given the business dealings that Bush has with the Bin Laden in respect of oil interests. So what?

As a child soldier Canada is obligated at international law to treat Omar Khadr as a victim of a War Crime and to apply demobilization, disarmament and reintegration (DDR) programs - not prosecution or imprisonment.



The american government was complicit in arming Al Queda in the first place. It's not like they had NO ill effects.

If you want to complain that Canada didn't exactly step up to the plate to honour the treaty I would agree.

I simply feel it's too late to change him now as he is no longer a child. We blew our chance at DDR programs. I see zero chance of him being re-intergrated into normal society, especially within a family that praises his actions with radical islam as his eventual support system.
  • 0

#153 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,112 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 03:50 PM

Yeah? What other information did you look at, other than his stuff?

And please..don't make me now quote Bertuzzi in characterising your conclusions.

You think Canada's ability to label Omar a terrorist after a couple of brief meetings by CSIS agents towing the political line, is any more reassuring, than those who drafted a report on his potential danger, if released?

Hypocrisy knows no bounds, eh?



I would say that either could be true. Unfortunately, the consequences of the CSIS guys being correct could be dire indeed.
  • 0

#154 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,284 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 03:51 PM

Uh...how about not punishing a child for acts committed by a father on him and on the battelfield? That would be a good place to start. And next, how about brining some real justice to Omar and prepare him for reintegration into society, without excommunicating him or banishing him to some place that would ensure his 'conversion'....either deprogram him....or re-arm him...that's our choice.

Hey, let's throw a parade for the little monster! Let's invite him into our homes for some Qu'oran reading and discussion on world politics!

I don't think so...

The only thing Canadian about this POS is his birth certificate.
  • 0
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali

#155 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,112 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 03:51 PM

If you have looked at it and come to such a conclusion then your opinion is uninformed - that can relate to both a failure to consider as well as failure to comprehend. In your case it would seem the latter.



I disagree.
  • 0

#156 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,284 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 03:54 PM

If you have looked at it and come to such a conclusion then your opinion is uninformed - that can relate to both a failure to consider as well as failure to comprehend. In your case it would seem the latter.

I think you're being a little over-bearing here. He's not saying you're wrong, just that he FEELS differently than you do regarding a large amount of data and circumstantial evidence. Your perspective is that of a legal professional and (I assume) someone who is concerned personaly with human rights and international law. His perspective is different.

You're opinion, while different, is not more correct overall.

Edited by JAH, 26 October 2010 - 03:55 PM.

  • 0
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali

#157 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 26 October 2010 - 03:55 PM

I would say that either could be true. Unfortunately, the consequences of the CSIS guys being correct could be dire indeed.


If either could be true, why put weight on CSIS, who have a horrible track record on assessments and communication, and not on the equally 'professional' psych assessments?

Again, you believe what you want to believe, what you've been led to and told to believe, and nothing or no one will change your already made up mind. That's a dangerous level of obstinancy and herd mentality.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#158 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 26 October 2010 - 03:57 PM

Unfortunately, the fathers sin was to work to get him trained up as a terrorist. Unfortunately said training is what is problematic IMO. The Gitmo stuff didn't help either.

I agree the major problem was the father, but he's already dead so what we gonna do about that?

Treat the son in accordance with the international law that Canada was instrumental in bringing into force in respect of child soldiers? Seems not only simple and straightforward but also in accordance with the law.

I am with Senator, former General and former commander of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) Romeo Dallaire:

The minute you start playing with human rights, with conventions, with civil liberties, in order to say that you're doing it to protect yourself and you are going against those rights and conventions, you are no better than the guy who doesn't believe in them at all.
...
Since 2000, both Canada and the U.S., along with more than 125 other state-parties to the Optional Protocol on Children in Armed Conflict, have provided millions of dollars in efforts to demobilize, rehabilitate and reintegrate former child soldiers and have consistently advocated for the elimination of the recruitment and use of children in war. Moreover, demobilized child soldiers are considered victims who were coerced into committing serious crimes by adults.

It is hypocritical that Omar Khadr is not receiving the same rights as former child soldiers from countries such as Sierra Leone. His trial puts all former child soldiers in danger and undermines the tireless work that we have done to show child soldiers can be rehabilitated.

One of the problems with this case is that people do not have compassion for Khadr, but have compassion for child soldiers in other parts of the world. If a 15-year-old child in Sierra Leone or Uganda kills someone in a war, he is a victim in need of rehabilitation, but as soon as that child is accused of killing an American soldier, legal standards no longer apply.

It is a shame that Canada has allowed its citizen to be subjected to a process that is an affront to the rule of law. Equally shameful is that the U.S. is using a child detainee charged for war crimes as a test case for an immoral and illegal tribunal.

As early as August 2002, a U.S. District Court in Norfolk, Virginia, in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld held that “(w)e must protect the freedoms of even those who hate us, and that we may find objectionable. If we fail in this task, we become victims of the precedents we create. We have prided ourselves on being a nation of laws applying equally to all and not a nation of men who have few or no standards.” Unfortunately, and much to the dismay of all who stand for the rule of law and due process, today we are all becoming silent victims.



On May 22, 2010 Dallaire wrote this piece for the Globe and Mail:

Canadians must realize by now that our government’s cynicism toward Omar Khadr’s tragic predicament reflects an unacceptable moral position. We are permitting the United States to try a Canadian child soldier using a military tribunal whose procedures violate basic principles of justice.

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives slough off this reality using clever words and pat responses.

Speaking recently about his government’s inaction on the Khadr file, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier glibly told the House that “the current policy of the government is one that has been in place since 2002,” and that the government “is making sure that justice takes its course.”

The policy toward Mr. Khadr formulated by the Canadian government in 2002, during the panicky aftermath of 9/11, was unquestionably wrong. Sticking stubbornly to this six-year-old approach illustrates an inflexible policy mechanism, and perhaps even a compulsion to bow and scrape to the Bush administration.

In recent years, we have heard troubling facts about Guantanamo Bay and incontrovertible evidence of U.S. malfeasance.

In July, 2006, the United Nations called for the closure of Guantanamo Bay, terming the indefinite detention of individuals without a charge “a violation of the convention against torture.” Two months later, more than 600 U.S. legal scholars and jurists called on Congress not to enact the Military Commissions Act of 2006, as it would rob detainees of fundamental protections provided by domestic and international law.

This act allows prosecutors to use evidence gleaned from abusive interrogations, including coercion and torture. The commissions also sabotage individuals’ ability to defend themselves by barring access to exculpatory evidence known to the U.S. government. In Mr. Khadr’s case, documents to be used as evidence for war-crimes charges, laid in February, 2007, have been altered.

In December, 2007, Colonel Morris Davis, then chief military prosecutor of the military tribunals, resigned in protest over such political interference. “It’s a disgrace to call it a military commission,” he said. “It is a political commission.”

Omar Khadr’s ordeal began in 2002, when the 15-year-old was present during a firefight with U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Despite his age and the two serious gunshot wounds Khadr suffered during the incident, he was taken prisoner as an adult combatant for allegedly killing a U.S. serviceman. Even while he lay healing from his wounds, he was ill-treated, possibly tortured and certainly threatened with rendition, rape and death. We now know that even Canadian officials capitalized on Khadr’s incarceration at Guantanamo Bay to question him.

Despite all this, Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister sticks to his line that the government “is making sure that justice takes its course.” It’s difficult to imagine how anything resembling justice can come out of Guantanamo Bay.

Within the international community, Canada is viewed as gullible for allowing one its citizens to be processed by an illegal tribunal system at Guantanamo, and as hypocritical for quietly acceding to the first ever child-soldier war-crimes prosecution.

Canada’s inaction has profound ramifications. The UN Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict, Radhika Coomaraswamy, says Khadr’s prosecution sets a hazardous precedent in international law, which will endanger child soldiers in conflict zones. The impunity enjoyed by the real criminals — those who have recruited child soldiers — continues to the detriment of real victims: the thousands of child soldiers around the world.

This government must act now, as all of our allies have done already, to bring its citizen home. Otherwise, we are abetting an affront to human rights and international law.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/05/22/rom-233-o-dallaire-bring-omar-khadr-home.aspx#ixzz13VaHfsfL
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#159 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,284 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 03:58 PM

Again, you believe what you want to believe, what you've been led to and told to believe, and nothing or no one will change your already made up mind. That's a dangerous level of obstinancy and herd mentality.

So does everyone who disagrees with you believing what they are told to believe? Is a sound ethical or moral position predicated on being in line with your stated views?

Sure sounds that way...
  • 0
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali

#160 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,112 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 03:59 PM

If either could be true, why put weight on CSIS, who have a horrible track record on assessments and communication, and not on the equally 'professional' psych assessments?

Again, you believe what you want to believe, what you've been led to and told to believe, and nothing or no one will change your already made up mind. That's a dangerous level of obstinancy and herd mentality.



Even if the odds are 95% that the physc assesment is correct and 5% the CSIS assement is correct that 5% danger is far too great.

Even the physc assement noted that his continued incarceration (which is what happened) could result in a risk.

That's a lot of unnecesary risk.
  • 0

#161 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 26 October 2010 - 03:59 PM

Hey, let's throw a parade for the little monster! Let's invite him into our homes for some Qu'oran reading and discussion on world politics!

I don't think so...

The only thing Canadian about this POS is his birth certificate.


I bet he could teach you a thing or two about U.S. military and its intersection with politics.

His birth certificate is enough to warrant, protection of his fundamental rights, due process and a fair trial. What do you think you're defending by wearing our nation's uniform again?

Edited by Sharpshooter, 26 October 2010 - 03:59 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#162 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 26 October 2010 - 03:59 PM

I think you're being a little over-bearing here. He's not saying you're wrong, just that he FEELS differently than you do regarding a large amount of data and circumstantial evidence. Your perspective is that of a legal professional and (I assume) someone who is concerned personaly with human rights and international law. His perspective is different.

You're opinion, while different, is not more correct overall.

Sure it is.

it is the difference between an informed opinion and some amorphous "feeling".
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#163 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,112 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 04:01 PM

I think you're being a little over-bearing here. He's not saying you're wrong, just that he FEELS differently than you do regarding a large amount of data and circumstantial evidence. Your perspective is that of a legal professional and (I assume) someone who is concerned personaly with human rights and international law. His perspective is different.

You're opinion, while different, is not more correct overall.



People on the left wing of things are often increadibly (and ironically) intollerant of dissenting opinions.

At least Wet is relatively polite and actually puts more effort into explaining himself than simply hurling insults.
  • 0

#164 GarthButcher

GarthButcher

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 901 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 07

Posted 26 October 2010 - 04:02 PM

I'm not calling anyone who disagrees with me a knuckle dragger. That term is reserved for the folks who use the term "terrorist" as a catch-all term to justify denying the rights of a Canadian citizen (child no less).

Those that want to say that the Taliban attacked anybody have really gone off the reservation.

If someone wants to claim that the horse and pony show in the UN of the US manipulating public trauma to get votes to attack and occupy an entire country in what should have essentially been a police action amounts to any "legal justification", they don't understand international politics one bit.

The question at the heart of some statements. If you're going to try Khadr for murder, what are the US soldiers doing everyday? What about the roughly 1 million dead Iraqis? 1 million dead Vietnamese?

The US has a lot of blood on its hands. The farce that they attempt to try a minor for murder when they have killed millions is laughable.

That's why this cannot stand-up in a real court, and why it's a complete farce. There are so many grounds to dismiss the case.

That would be the knuckle dragging element. That there are some loud and proud people in this discussion who do not understand the fundamental concepts upon which the Cdn legal system was founded. Freedoms that define Canada as a country.

They have been trampled on in this case. It's just too bad that the "terrorism" brain washing has actually forced some pretty important details to the back seat for far too many people.
  • 0
Posted Image

The immortal Garth...awaiting his place in the ring of honour!

#165 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,112 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 04:04 PM

Sure it is.

it is the difference between an informed opinion and some amorphous "feeling".


:rolleyes:

I still disagree.

I also laid out why I came to my conclusions.

I think you need a scotch big guy.
  • 0

#166 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 26 October 2010 - 04:04 PM

Even if the odds are 95% that the physc assesment is correct and 5% the CSIS assement is correct that 5% danger is far too great.

Even the physc assement noted that his continued incarceration (which is what happened) could result in a risk.

That's a lot of unnecesary risk.


There is a 99% chance that you'll make it home from work tomorrow and a 1% chance you'll die a horrible death in an motor vehicle accident.

That 1% danger is a present and existential risk to your very life...you should stay in bed tomorrow.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#167 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 26 October 2010 - 04:08 PM

People on the left wing of things are often increadibly (and ironically) intollerant of dissenting opinions.

At least Wet is relatively polite and actually puts more effort into explaining himself than simply hurling insults.


Calling Wet polite after calling him incredibly intolerant, while simultaneously rebuking hurled insults to you is.......

awesome. :lol:
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#168 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,284 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 04:09 PM

Treat the son in accordance with the international law that Canada was instrumental in bringing into force in respect of child soldiers? Seems not only simple and straightforward but also in accordance with the law.

I am with Senator, former General and former commander of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) Romeo Dallaire:

The minute you start playing with human rights, with conventions, with civil liberties, in order to say that you're doing it to protect yourself and you are going against those rights and conventions, you are no better than the guy who doesn't believe in them at all.
...
Since 2000, both Canada and the U.S., along with more than 125 other state-parties to the Optional Protocol on Children in Armed Conflict, have provided millions of dollars in efforts to demobilize, rehabilitate and reintegrate former child soldiers and have consistently advocated for the elimination of the recruitment and use of children in war. Moreover, demobilized child soldiers are considered victims who were coerced into committing serious crimes by adults.

It is hypocritical that Omar Khadr is not receiving the same rights as former child soldiers from countries such as Sierra Leone. His trial puts all former child soldiers in danger and undermines the tireless work that we have done to show child soldiers can be rehabilitated.

One of the problems with this case is that people do not have compassion for Khadr, but have compassion for child soldiers in other parts of the world. If a 15-year-old child in Sierra Leone or Uganda kills someone in a war, he is a victim in need of rehabilitation, but as soon as that child is accused of killing an American soldier, legal standards no longer apply.

It is a shame that Canada has allowed its citizen to be subjected to a process that is an affront to the rule of law. Equally shameful is that the U.S. is using a child detainee charged for war crimes as a test case for an immoral and illegal tribunal.

As early as August 2002, a U.S. District Court in Norfolk, Virginia, in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld held that “(w)e must protect the freedoms of even those who hate us, and that we may find objectionable. If we fail in this task, we become victims of the precedents we create. We have prided ourselves on being a nation of laws applying equally to all and not a nation of men who have few or no standards.” Unfortunately, and much to the dismay of all who stand for the rule of law and due process, today we are all becoming silent victims.



On May 22, 2010 Dallaire wrote this piece for the Globe and Mail:

Canadians must realize by now that our government’s cynicism toward Omar Khadr’s tragic predicament reflects an unacceptable moral position. We are permitting the United States to try a Canadian child soldier using a military tribunal whose procedures violate basic principles of justice.

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives slough off this reality using clever words and pat responses.

Speaking recently about his government’s inaction on the Khadr file, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier glibly told the House that “the current policy of the government is one that has been in place since 2002,” and that the government “is making sure that justice takes its course.”

The policy toward Mr. Khadr formulated by the Canadian government in 2002, during the panicky aftermath of 9/11, was unquestionably wrong. Sticking stubbornly to this six-year-old approach illustrates an inflexible policy mechanism, and perhaps even a compulsion to bow and scrape to the Bush administration.

In recent years, we have heard troubling facts about Guantanamo Bay and incontrovertible evidence of U.S. malfeasance.

In July, 2006, the United Nations called for the closure of Guantanamo Bay, terming the indefinite detention of individuals without a charge “a violation of the convention against torture.” Two months later, more than 600 U.S. legal scholars and jurists called on Congress not to enact the Military Commissions Act of 2006, as it would rob detainees of fundamental protections provided by domestic and international law.

This act allows prosecutors to use evidence gleaned from abusive interrogations, including coercion and torture. The commissions also sabotage individuals’ ability to defend themselves by barring access to exculpatory evidence known to the U.S. government. In Mr. Khadr’s case, documents to be used as evidence for war-crimes charges, laid in February, 2007, have been altered.

In December, 2007, Colonel Morris Davis, then chief military prosecutor of the military tribunals, resigned in protest over such political interference. “It’s a disgrace to call it a military commission,” he said. “It is a political commission.”

Omar Khadr’s ordeal began in 2002, when the 15-year-old was present during a firefight with U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Despite his age and the two serious gunshot wounds Khadr suffered during the incident, he was taken prisoner as an adult combatant for allegedly killing a U.S. serviceman. Even while he lay healing from his wounds, he was ill-treated, possibly tortured and certainly threatened with rendition, rape and death. We now know that even Canadian officials capitalized on Khadr’s incarceration at Guantanamo Bay to question him.

Despite all this, Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister sticks to his line that the government “is making sure that justice takes its course.” It’s difficult to imagine how anything resembling justice can come out of Guantanamo Bay.

Within the international community, Canada is viewed as gullible for allowing one its citizens to be processed by an illegal tribunal system at Guantanamo, and as hypocritical for quietly acceding to the first ever child-soldier war-crimes prosecution.

Canada’s inaction has profound ramifications. The UN Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict, Radhika Coomaraswamy, says Khadr’s prosecution sets a hazardous precedent in international law, which will endanger child soldiers in conflict zones. The impunity enjoyed by the real criminals — those who have recruited child soldiers — continues to the detriment of real victims: the thousands of child soldiers around the world.

This government must act now, as all of our allies have done already, to bring its citizen home. Otherwise, we are abetting an affront to human rights and international law.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/05/22/rom-233-o-dallaire-bring-omar-khadr-home.aspx#ixzz13VaHfsfL

I don't think it's wise to back up your points with quotes from that guy. Here is a man who, when told unequivocally that 10 of his men were surrounded by armed militiamen (who were known without a doubt to be on a genocidal rampage), ordered them to surrender, that help was on the way, and then went to a meeting for SEVERAL HOURS with the masterminds of the genocide and DIDN'T BRING THE ISSUE UP! Those 10 men were hacked to death by the Genocidaires. He was obligated not only to back up his assertion to the paratroopers that he would in fact send help, but he also had a moral obligation to attempt to rescue them even if he hadn't promised to do so. He did not for his own reasons, many shrouded in self-preservation.

He was a coward.

How did this man become the expert on all things humanitarian and military? He failed miserably as a soldier, and almost as badly as a humanitarian.
  • 0
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali

#169 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,112 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 04:10 PM

I'm not calling anyone who disagrees with me a knuckle dragger. That term is reserved for the folks who use the term "terrorist" as a catch-all term to justify denying the rights of a Canadian citizen (child no less).

Those that want to say that the Taliban attacked anybody have really gone off the reservation.

If someone wants to claim that the horse and pony show in the UN of the US manipulating public trauma to get votes to attack and occupy an entire country in what should have essentially been a police action amounts to any "legal justification", they don't understand international politics one bit.

The question at the heart of some statements. If you're going to try Khadr for murder, what are the US soldiers doing everyday? What about the roughly 1 million dead Iraqis? 1 million dead Vietnamese?

The US has a lot of blood on its hands. The farce that they attempt to try a minor for murder when they have killed millions is laughable.

That's why this cannot stand-up in a real court, and why it's a complete farce. There are so many grounds to dismiss the case.

That would be the knuckle dragging element. That there are some loud and proud people in this discussion who do not understand the fundamental concepts upon which the Cdn legal system was founded. Freedoms that define Canada as a country.

They have been trampled on in this case. It's just too bad that the "terrorism" brain washing has actually forced some pretty important details to the back seat for far too many people.


He was chilling with Al Quada. They are pretty pro at killing innocent people themselves.

Still don't understand the jusitification for the name calling. Look at the bright side! Apparently the charter even protects Canadians of convienience living in a foreign country engaged in battle with out troops! Man if that's not a test I don't know what is! I have no doubts he will be walking the streets of downtown T.O. within a year and if you want to go shake his hand or wish him your condolences you can go do so in person.
  • 0

#170 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,284 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 04:12 PM

I bet he could teach you a thing or two about U.S. military and its intersection with politics.

His birth certificate is enough to warrant, protection of his fundamental rights, due process and a fair trial. What do you think you're defending by wearing our nation's uniform again?

Are you for real?! He could teach me something? Yeah, maybe some of the tripe fed to him by AQ, that'd be fun. And didn't you know that military operations are, by definition, political? Military force is the ultimate expression of one's foreign policy afterall.

He got all of those things, and the manner and form the trial took was comensurate with the crimes he was accused of and the circumstance in which he committed them.

Edited by JAH, 26 October 2010 - 04:18 PM.

  • 0
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali

#171 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 26 October 2010 - 04:15 PM

People on the left wing of things are often increadibly (and ironically) intollerant of dissenting opinions.

At least Wet is relatively polite and actually puts more effort into explaining himself than simply hurling insults.

That is the first time anyone has referred to me as "left wing".
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#172 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,112 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 04:15 PM

There is a 99% chance that you'll make it home from work tomorrow and a 1% chance you'll die a horrible death in an motor vehicle accident.

That 1% danger is a present and existential risk to your very life...you should stay in bed tomorrow.


Nope.

I do like the stay in bed idea though. Unfortunately it's not feasible.
  • 0

#173 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,284 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 04:16 PM

If you're going to try Khadr for murder, what are the US soldiers doing everyday?


Engaging in Military Operations in accordance with International Law.

I'll listen to an argument that the executive arm of the US acted out of turn or even illegally, but the troops on the ground have done NOTHING wrong by simply engaging in combat. Of course, if in the course of their operations, individual soldiers committ war crimes (like murder, rape, etc.) then INDIVIDUALLY they should be puinished. But to label them all murderers because the entire mission is illegal (allegedly) is completely unfair and legally incorrect.

Edited by JAH, 26 October 2010 - 04:17 PM.

  • 0
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali

#174 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,858 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 26 October 2010 - 04:16 PM

He was chilling with Al Quada. They are pretty pro at killing innocent people themselves.

Still don't understand the jusitification for the name calling. Look at the bright side! Apparently the charter even protects Canadians of convienience living in a foreign country engaged in battle with out troops! Man if that's not a test I don't know what is! I have no doubts he will be walking the streets of downtown T.O. within a year and if you want to go shake his hand or wish him your condolences you can go do so in person.


:lol: You guys are so blinded by your own perspective it's shocking.
  • 0

#175 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,858 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 26 October 2010 - 04:18 PM

Engaging in Military Operations in accordance with International Law.

I'll listen to an argument that the executive arm of the US acted out of turn or even illegally, but the troops on the ground have done NOTHING wrong by simply engaging in combat. Of course, if in the course of their operations, individual soldiers committ war crimes (like murder, rape, etc.) then INDIVIDUALLY they should be puinished. But to label them all murderers because the entire mission is illegal (allegedly) is completely unfair and legally incorrect.


You and ron sound pretty comfortable using the words 'terrorist' without looking at the individual...
  • 0

#176 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,112 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 04:18 PM

Calling Wet polite after calling him incredibly intolerant, while simultaneously rebuking hurled insults to you is.......

awesome. :lol:


Uniformed<knuckledragger<bat crap crazy with my head up my ass

It's all relative.

Reminds me of watching the attack adds from the US election last night. More insult than substance.
  • 0

#177 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 26 October 2010 - 04:20 PM

Are you for real?! He could teach me something? Yeah, maybe some of the tripe fed to him by AQ, that'd be fun. And didn;t you know that military operations are, by efinition, political? Military force is the ultimate expression of one's foreign policy afterall.

He got all of those things, and the manner and form the trial took was comensurate with the crimes he was accused of and the circumstance in which he committed them.


That's why I said he could teach you a thing or two about the intersection between the military and politics...because the military's torture of a child is indeed the ultimate expression of a political ideology. One that you seem to subscribe to....but only when it's not you or your fellow soldiers on the recieving end of such political expression...right?

He got all of those things eh? Interesting observation from your perspective. He was charged with murder...didn't receive a fair trial, had no due process in the 8 years leading to the military tribunal...and even as a child sodlier wasn't afforded any rights by which his country of birth and his country of capture and torture, have entrenched themselves, legally, morally, domestically and internationally.
You sure got a funny observational perspective soldier.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#178 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,284 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 04:20 PM

You and ron sound pretty comfortable using the words 'terrorist' without looking at the individual...

Where, in that post, did I use the word 'terrorist'?
  • 0
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali

#179 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,112 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 04:21 PM

You and ron sound pretty comfortable using the words 'terrorist' without looking at the individual...



Feel free to substitute "enemy combatant" if it makes you feel better.
  • 0

#180 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,284 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 04:22 PM

That's why I said he could teach you a thing or two about the intersection between the military and politics...because the military's torture of a child is indeed the ultimate expression of a political ideology. One that you seem to subscribe to....but only when it's not you or your fellow soldiers on the recieving end of such political expression...right?

He got all of those things eh? Interesting observation from your perspective. He was charged with murder...didn't receive a fair trial, had no due process in the 8 years leading to the military tribunal...and even as a child sodlier wasn't afforded any rights by which his country of birth and his country of capture and torture, have entrenched themselves, legally, morally, domestically and internationally.
You sure got a funny observational perspective soldier.

Oh come on! He was subjected to sleep dep, he wasn't waterboarded! Let's give the torture business a rest. Krikey, a new Dad is also subjected to sleep dep, is little Johnny torturing him?
  • 0
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.