Khadr Sentenced To 40 Years By Military Tribunal

[JAH]

Says the guy sitting comfortably on his couch in a stable democracy.

[inane]

You need not crack a book to know that joining an AQ terrorist training camp is wrong. You need not enter a classroom to know that committing War Crimes is wrong. You don't need to be an educated person to know that Islamic ideology that promotes the murder of innocents based on nationality is wrong.

[JAH]

Don't forget that he was brain-washed by his father for 5 years.

And everyone there was probably saying the same mantra "West is evil".

I sincerely doubt that kid knew the western perspective of right or wrong.

To him...it was probably the "right" thing to carry guns and defend his homeland.

[GarthButcher]

Wow, some of the knuckle draggers have come out of the woodwork for this one. Let's see which wacked-out statements can be refuted here (too many to deal with in just one post).

The first one is about the distinction of what is a 'terrorist'. Any student of history can see that the term is used to label anyone who is mounting an opposition. Prominent 'terrorists' through history:

-the founding fathers of the US - labelled terrorists by Great Britain

-those opposing the invasion/occupation of Vietnam by the French and Americans

-Cubans opposing the rule of the US backed dictator Batista

-Zionists Jews opposing British rule in then Palestine -then- Palestinians opposing Zionist rule in once Palestine

The Palestinian case is the most clearcut. When the Brits had power, the Zionists were terrorists. Now that the zionists hold power, the Palestinians are the terrorists. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

That is why the interpretation of exactly who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter should always be considered a legitimate political argument. It strikes at the heart of power, which is what politics is about.

Were the Americans right to prop up the dictator Batista? Were they right to invade and occupy Vietnam (killing 1 million Vietnamese in the process)? Were they right in invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq?

This gets to the 2nd point. The question of a legal war.

There is a question as to whether any war can be deemed legal. If the standard is a UN vote, then let's discuss Iraq.

Since there was no international authorization for the invasion of Iraq, by the terms used, it was an illegal war. So, should all US soldiers be tried for war crimes for their killings in Iraq?

The US never even declared War against Vietnam. They faked an attack to circumvent that authorization (Gulf of Tonkin). Where's the treason and war crimes charges for that action.

The US helped to create and arm the Mujahadeen to fight the soviets. They morphed into the Taliban. The US then invades Afghanistan to fight the force they created.

The US armed Saddam to fight Iran. Then invaded Iraq to fight the force they created.

The US armed the Viet Cong to fight the Japanese. Then invaded Vietnam to fight them.

History is littered with these incidents, and the sad part is those who are prone to drinking the kool-aid (ie. the anyone who fights the US is a "terrorist" and therefore doesn't deserve any basic rights except execution) will fight to the death forever to defend ideas that history will judge more clearly in time.

Whatever your opinion about Mr. Khadr, the very least he's entitled to is a fair trial. What he has gotten instead is 8 years of torture, without a fair trial, completely abandoned by his own government. This is a shame for Canada.

[JAH]

And in return, I thank you for your service to our country, and would most assuredly buy you a round or ten, if ever I had the opportunity to. I won't dishonor your service with a reply in kind....thou you know m very capable and eager to do so, no, it's your mentality in this specific case that I don't honour, for there isn't any honour in it to be found.

In war, truth is the first casualty.

~Aeschylus

[JAH]

Wow, some of the knuckle draggers have come out of the woodwork for this one. Let's see which wacked-out statements can be refuted here (too many to deal with in just one post).

The first one is about the distinction of what is a 'terrorist'. Any student of history can see that the term is used to label anyone who is mounting an opposition. Prominent 'terrorists' through history:

-the founding fathers of the US - labelled terrorists by Great Britain

-those opposing the invasion/occupation of Vietnam by the French and Americans

-Cubans opposing the rule of the US backed dictator Batista

-Zionists Jews opposing British rule in then Palestine -then- Palestinians opposing Zionist rule in once Palestine

The Palestinian case is the most clearcut. When the Brits had power, the Zionists were terrorists. Now that the zionists hold power, the Palestinians are the terrorists. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

That is why the interpretation of exactly who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter should always be considered a legitimate political argument. It strikes at the heart of power, which is what politics is about.

Were the Americans right to prop up the dictator Batista? Were they right to invade and occupy Vietnam (killing 1 million Vietnamese in the process)? Were they right in invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq?

This gets to the 2nd point. The question of a legal war.

There is a question as to whether any war can be deemed legal. If the standard is a UN vote, then let's discuss Iraq.

Since there was no international authorization for the invasion of Iraq, by the terms used, it was an illegal war. So, should all US soldiers be tried for war crimes for their killings in Iraq?

The US never even declared War against Vietnam. They faked an attack to circumvent that authorization (Gulf of Tonkin). Where's the treason and war crimes charges for that action.

The US helped to create and arm the Mujahadeen to fight the soviets. They morphed into the Taliban. The US then invades Afghanistan to fight the force they created.

The US armed Saddam to fight Iran. Then invaded Iraq to fight the force they created.

The US armed the Viet Cong to fight the Japanese. Then invaded Vietnam to fight them.

History is littered with these incidents, and the sad part is those who are prone to drinking the kool-aid (ie. the anyone who fights the US is a "terrorist" and therefore doesn't deserve any basic rights except execution) will fight to the death forever to defend ideas that history will judge more clearly in time.

Whatever your opinion about Mr. Khadr, the very least he's entitled to is a fair trial. What he has gotten instead is 8 years of torture, without a fair trial, completely abandoned by his own government. This is a shame for Canada.

[ronthecivil]

Don't forget that he was brain-washed by his father for 5 years.

And everyone there was probably saying the same mantra "West is evil".

I sincerely doubt that kid knew the western perspective of right or wrong.

To him...it was probably the "right" thing to carry guns and defend his homeland.

[Sharpshooter]

Oh come on! Give me a break! You've shown me no respect, called into question my intelligence and ethics, and NOW you're 'honouring' me?!

Give me a break and keep your drink. Next time ask instead of just pumping your verbal diahrea my way.

[canucks_dynasty]

Thus my opinion that if he didn't think the west was evil and needing to get "cleansed" shall we say there's a very good chance he is now!

[canucks_dynasty]

It wasn't 5 years for one.

And secondly, I find it a little too convenient to use his Canadian citizenship as some kind of shield to hide behind with regards to extradiction and our responsibility to protect. But then when we start to question how he could be an innocent while taking part in this abhorent activity, you claim he doesn't know the Western (read: Canadian) definition of right and wrong?

I call bs.

[Wetcoaster]

So this is a non-issue to you... is that right? I'm not saying everyone needs to treat this guy like Olsen or OBL, but he aint you're average Joe.

[Wetcoaster]

Why would a guy who openly admits he would want to represent him coming back disagree with an interviewers opinion that he is not a threat?

[ronthecivil]

Wow, some of the knuckle draggers have come out of the woodwork for this one. Let's see which wacked-out statements can be refuted here (too many to deal with in just one post).

The first one is about the distinction of what is a 'terrorist'. Any student of history can see that the term is used to label anyone who is mounting an opposition. Prominent 'terrorists' through history:

-the founding fathers of the US - labelled terrorists by Great Britain

-those opposing the invasion/occupation of Vietnam by the French and Americans

-Cubans opposing the rule of the US backed dictator Batista

-Zionists Jews opposing British rule in then Palestine -then- Palestinians opposing Zionist rule in once Palestine

The Palestinian case is the most clearcut. When the Brits had power, the Zionists were terrorists. Now that the zionists hold power, the Palestinians are the terrorists. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

That is why the interpretation of exactly who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter should always be considered a legitimate political argument. It strikes at the heart of power, which is what politics is about.

Were the Americans right to prop up the dictator Batista? Were they right to invade and occupy Vietnam (killing 1 million Vietnamese in the process)? Were they right in invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq?

This gets to the 2nd point. The question of a legal war.

There is a question as to whether any war can be deemed legal. If the standard is a UN vote, then let's discuss Iraq.

Since there was no international authorization for the invasion of Iraq, by the terms used, it was an illegal war. So, should all US soldiers be tried for war crimes for their killings in Iraq?

The US never even declared War against Vietnam. They faked an attack to circumvent that authorization (Gulf of Tonkin). Where's the treason and war crimes charges for that action.

The US helped to create and arm the Mujahadeen to fight the soviets. They morphed into the Taliban. The US then invades Afghanistan to fight the force they created.

The US armed Saddam to fight Iran. Then invaded Iraq to fight the force they created.

The US armed the Viet Cong to fight the Japanese. Then invaded Vietnam to fight them.

History is littered with these incidents, and the sad part is those who are prone to drinking the kool-aid (ie. the anyone who fights the US is a "terrorist" and therefore doesn't deserve any basic rights except execution) will fight to the death forever to defend ideas that history will judge more clearly in time.

Whatever your opinion about Mr. Khadr, the very least he's entitled to is a fair trial. What he has gotten instead is 8 years of torture, without a fair trial, completely abandoned by his own government. This is a shame for Canada.

[ronthecivil]

I don't doubt he has alot of anger bottled up inside.

Whether it'll blow up or fizzle out remains to be seen.

[Sharpshooter]

Don't worry,there's a report that says he's fine, and those are never wrong.....

[ronthecivil]

The representation remark was based upon the novel and interesting legal principles that would be in play.

Consider it an intellectual challenge.

[Wetcoaster]

You need not crack a book to know that joining an AQ terrorist training camp is wrong. You need not enter a classroom to know that committing War Crimes is wrong. You don't need to be an educated person to know that Islamic ideology that promotes the murder of innocents based on nationality is wrong.

[ronthecivil]

Actually WetCoaster has done a pretty good job in linking the assessment awaiting Omar upon his return. But, you can choose to ignore it and pretty much whatever other realities, WC, holds up two inches from in front of your face.

[Sharpshooter]

Oh, just saying that it would be foolish for YOU to challenge the report.

Just like it would be foolish to not expect someone in that kind of legal matter to present their own case as to his stability. I don't think it would be that hard to find someone to suggest that someone born and raised as a terrorist with years of brainwashing and weapons training under this best MIGHT be a threat, especially after years in GITMO, which even in your report was shown to be a possible risk.

Either way, I am not in a court of law, and frankly I am allowed to have my own opinion on the matter.

[ronthecivil]

You need to understand that child soldiers at international law are not committing War Crimes - they are considered victims of a War Crime. Canada was responsible for pushing for the protocol and the first signatory.