hudson bay rules Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 We should just bury him up to the neck and stone him. Wait, that would be barbaric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 We should just bury him up to the neck and stone him. Wait, that would be barbaric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 my main problem with the whole Khadr situation is the lying scum bag politicians and burro- cats that have dealt with this file in a manner unbefitting Canada and our laws and customs will have absolutely dick all happen to them as punishment for their crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hudson bay rules Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 So would torturing him and according to the Federal Courts of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada that has already occurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 my main problem with the whole Khadr situation is the lying scum bag politicians and burro- cats that have dealt with this file in a manner unbefitting Canada and our laws and customs will have absolutely dick all happen to them as punishment for their crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 stoning = death silly. Reserved for those that haven't had a fair trial. I don't agree with torture but no one would give 2 fracks if he was shot right off the bat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hudson bay rules Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Khadr was shot and critically wounded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 killing enemy combatants is the idea. He got "lucky" in some respects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hudson bay rules Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 And yet he was not allowed to fight back. What's up with that???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 throwing a grenade was his way of fighting. If it were just a few years ago medical treatment couldn't have saved him so again he was "lucky." I say again, a well placed bullet in the field and no one would even be talking about this looser. life imprisonment or execution in the field with no torture seems about right but we can't go back on that can we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hudson bay rules Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 And I say again the bastard is lucky some marine didn't just step on his throat. Imagine if this was WWII or Vietnam. That's exactly what would have happened and no one would give a rats ass Only his mum and lawyers care about this looser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted May 12, 2013 Author Share Posted May 12, 2013 An article from the wife of Maher Arar: Monia Mazigh was born and raised in Tunisia and immigrated to Canada in 1991. Mazigh was catapulted onto the public stage in 2002 when her husband, Maher Arar, was deported to Syria where he was tortured and held without charge for over a year. She campaigned tirelessly for his release. Mazigh holds a PhD in finance from McGill University. In 2008, she published a memoir, Hope and Despair, about her pursuit of justice, and in 2011, a novel in French, Miroirs et mirages. Her husband was connected to Khadr who mistakenly identified Arar as meeting with Al Quaida members while being tortured by US interrogators which led to Arar's extraordinary rendition to Syria when he was in turn tortured. Just an example of why coerced confessions and information obtained under torture are rejected by an lawfully constituted court of law operating under the Rule of Law. The Syrian government later stated that Arar was "completely innocent." A Canadian commission publicly cleared Arar of any links to terrorism, and the government of Canada later settled out of court with Arar. He received C$10.5 million and prime minister Stephen Harper formally apologized to Arar for Canada's role in his "terrible ordeal". While testifying at the Guantanamo military commission for alleged child soldier Omar Khadr, FBI agent Robert Fuller testified that Khadr had identified Maher Arar as among the al-Qaeda militants he met while in Afghanistan. On October 7, 2002, Mr. Fuller went to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and showed Canadian teenager Omar Khadr a black-and-white photograph of Arar obtained from the FBI office in Massachusetts, and demanded to know if he recognised him. Khadr initially stated that he did not recognise Arar. Upon cross-examination, Mr. Fuller clarified his testimony saying that at first Mr. Khadr could not identify Mr. Arar. Then after giving him a couple minutes Khadr "stated he felt he had seen" Maher Arar at a Kabul safehouse run by Abu Musab al-Suri or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The validity of Omar Khadr's possible sighting has been seriously questioned due to the time frame of the alleged sighting which was sometime during September or October 2001. Mr. Arar was known to be in North America during this time frame and under surveillance by the RCMP. This was confirmed during the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar chaired by Justice Dennis O'Connor: http://www.sirc-csars.gc.ca/pdfs/cm_arar_rec-eng.pdf Khadr's lawyer told Canadian media that Khadr, claiming to be under torture at Bagram Theater Internment Facility, simply told his captors whatever he thought they wanted to hear. Much like his other admissions and extorted guilty plea. Why is the Canadian government afraid of Omar Khadr speaking? About a week ago, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews overruled a decision made by the warden of Millhaven Institution, also known as Guantanamo North, and refused an interview request by the Canadian Press to speak with Omar Khadr over the phone. This refusal was justified by the Minister's office because of security concerns. I am still trying to figure out how speaking on the phone from a maximum security prison can pose a threat to Canadians. Does it insinuate that Khadr will speak in encrypted messages to the journalist and to some shadowy accomplices? Or does it mean the interview poses a threat to the intelligence of people? One has to remember that the refusal of the interview came few days after the speedy approval of the very controversial anti-terrorism bill S-7. So maybe, the government was so excited to see the bill passed amidst the growing fears created by the Boston Marathon attack and the sudden arrest of two Muslims suspected as terrorists, and thus didn't want to wreck the perfect atmosphere by allowing an ex-Guantanamo detainee to tell his story and nuance the whole debate geared for tighter security measures. There is no doubt that the refused Khadr interview will bring to the table the use of torture that many security experts still depict with a fancy and elaborate word like "enhanced interrogation techniques". Khadr's personal story, one that so far no one knows in detail, will speak to the intelligence of people rather than create security threats. It will make Khadr look more like a human being and a child soldier caught in a labyrinth of violence and war. Regardless of the guilt or innocence of Khadr, Canadians have the right to hear his story and make their own judgment. Canadians do not need a minister's office to tell us what to read or to protect them from some "dangerous" reading. But what we really need to know is that this new anti-terror legislation was sleeping for a while on the shelves of Parliament without finding any reasonable incentive to table it. The "Boston Marathon attack" awoke it and gave the government the perfect "national security alibi" to make it a priority. What about the backbencher rebellion brewing within the ranks of the government's own parliamentarians? What about the motion that was to be voted on at the same time and that would have stripped party whips of the power to decide which MPs are allowed to make members' statements in the House of Commons? The government decides once again, for our own security, that these issues were not worth discussing. Perhaps this time, these discussions were more dangerous to the government itself than to us. Bill S-7 allowed "preventive detention" and "investigative hearing" -- two clauses that already existed in the anti-terror legislation (Bill C-36) passed by Jean Chretien's government after the events of 9/11. These clauses were sunset in 2007. At that time, Canada was trying to trying to re-adjust the pendulum back to the human rights side after Canadians heard horrific stories of Canadians being imprisoned, tortured and deported under the name of national security. Today, Vic Toews didn't want Canadians to hear similar stories of torture and mistreatment. He didn't want Canadians to know the truth; he wanted them to simply dig their heads under the sand and have the false impression that censorship will make us safer. http://rabble.ca/columnists/2013/05/why-canadian-government-afraid-omar-khadr-speaking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.