Canada now rewards terrorists

[esmith]

... or the law, apparently. Or duty. Or honour.

Maybe your idea of Duty, and Honor but (and a big but) not mine. (by the way we spell Honor H-O-N-O-R)
The Army Field Manual is the law when it comes to interrogation. If I had my druthers I would go beyond say to at least waterboarding.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe your idea of Duty, and Honor but (and a big but) not mine. (by the way we spell Honor H-O-N-O-R)
The Army Field Manual is the law when it comes to interrogation.

No, "the law" for the American military is the UCMJ, the US Constitution, and international law.

If I had my druthers I would go beyond say to at least waterboarding.

So if you were held without trial and waterboarded, you'd be okay with it?

 

[esmith]

No, "the law" for the American military is the UCMJ, the US Constitution, and international law.

So what. what does this have to do with this slimeball?
Oh by the way US laws trump International laws. However we are a signatory of the Geneva Convention

So if you were held without trial and waterboarded, you'd be okay with it?

He pleaded guilty in 2010 to charges that included murder and was sentenced to eight years plus the time he had already spent in custody. His guilty plea he said was made under duress. Ask any criminal if they were guilty, what do you think the odds are they would say they were innocent or coerced into admitting guilt.

The only problem I would have with being waterboarded is it isn't my favorite activity.

 

[UpperLimits]

So you acknowledge that he is apparently not on Canada's no-fly list?

It's either that, or start coming up with conspiracy theories about how the government has re-issued new ID and stuff.... Still, I wouldn't advise him to "take the kids to Disneyland."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He pleaded guilty in 2010 to charges that included murder and was sentenced to eight years plus the time he had already spent in custody. His guilty plea he said was made under duress.

"Duress" is an understatement.

He was held for years without trial. Then he was offered the chance for a trial and return to Canada... but on the condition that he plead guilty. At the trial, he was denied the right to call witnesses on his behalf. His trial was a farce. His guilt has not been established.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's either that, or start coming up with conspiracy theories about how the government has re-issued new ID and stuff.... Still, I wouldn't advise him to "take the kids to Disneyland."

I'll take that as a reluctant yes.

 

[esmith]

"Duress" is an understatement.

He was held for years without trial. Then he was offered the chance for a trial and return to Canada... but on the condition that he plead guilty. At the trial, he was denied the right to call witnesses on his behalf. His trial was a farce. His guilt has not been established.

Poor terrorist, him got his feelings hurt, that's what happens when you associate with the scum of the earth. Lucky he didn't get his *** blown away. He's yours and your welcome to him.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Poor terrorist, him got his feelings hurt, that's what happens when you associate with the scum of the earth. Lucky he didn't get his *** blown away. He's yours and your welcome to him.

If you don't care about him, the least you could do is care about human rights. I don't know about you, but I want to live in a country where my freedoms are protected by strong laws. I guess you just don't care about liberty or the rule of law.

 

[Willamena]

No. Just an absolute loss of life and liberty. That's all....Mere trifle....

I'm not arguing that.

 

[esmith]

If you don't care about him, the least you could do is care about human rights. I don't know about you, but I want to live in a country where my freedoms are protected by strong laws. I guess you just don't care about liberty or the rule of law.

I don't look at the world through rose tinted glasses as you appear to do. Everything that was done to this enemy combatant was in accordance of all laws governing the military's handling of this case.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't look at the world through rose tinted glasses as you appear to do.

On the contrary. My position is mostly based on mistrust of a government that is omly constrained by good intentions and not by strong rules.

Everything that was done to this enemy combatant was in accordance of all laws governing the military's handling of this case.

The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that Khadr's treatment violated international law. As for US domestic law... well, Khadr's appeal is working its way through the courts.

 

[esmith]

The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that Khadr's treatment violated international law. As for US domestic law... well, Khadr's appeal is working its way through the courts.

If Canada can do whatever they want.
As far as international law and the US Khadr has no standing
Khadr has zero rights in US civilian courts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If Canada can do whatever they want.
As far as international law and the US Khadr has no standing
Khadr has zero rights in US civilian courts.

Flat-out wrong. Where are you getting this stuff?

 

[esmith]

If Canada can do whatever they want.
As far as international law and the US Khadr has no standing
Khadr has zero rights in US civilian courts.

Flat-out wrong. Where are you getting this stuff?

Ok, Please explain why I'm wrong. Be specific please on each point

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, Please explain why I'm wrong. Be specific please on each point

Explain why you're wrong? I don't have that sort of time.

How about you start by educating yourself? There are plenty of online resources about the rights of non-citizens under US law, or about the enforceability of international law on the US and individual Americans. I'm not your civics teacher.

 

[esmith]

Explain why you're wrong? I don't have that sort of time.

How about you start by educating yourself? There are plenty of online resources about the rights of non-citizens under US law, or about the enforceability of international law on the US and individual Americans. I'm not your civics teacher.

You inferred that my statements were wrong, therefor you are going to have to provide factual information why.

How about you educating yourself, prior to making a rash statement.
1. The terrorist was never in the US, therefore he has no rights under US law. Why do you think the detainees are in Gitmo vice the US?
2. As far as international law is concerned the US has to agree to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. And in this case it never will, because everything done to this terrorist was legal.

Oh by the way you seem to have plenty of time to dither around on the internet

 

[UpperLimits]

I'm not arguing that.

Fair enough... So, what exactly ARE you arguing then?

Let's just presume for a moment that Khadr didn't throw the particular grenade that killed Sgt. Speers and wounded his comrade. There are still many problems with his presumed "innocence," as well as the notion that he's due some compensation for his troubles.

For starters; he WAS a combatant in an enemy force that was attacking American troops and their allies (including Canadian soldiers.) That by it's very definition is treason. The penalty for that crime is execution. But, since Canada doesn't execute prisoners any more, the penalty would have instead been commuted to life imprisonment - not a reward of millions of dollars.

Now I know liberals like to play the "He was just a child." scenario, but here's the deal. Nobody's sure when he actually arrived in Afghanistan, or more specifically, when he actually got behind the enemy lines. It's highly possible he was a child soldier. The UN definition of a child soldier is 14 and under. Child soldiers are forbidden under international law. But since the Taliban was an outlaw organization anyways, nobody expects them to respect the rule of law.

Now, part of the claim that Khadr had put forward involved "psychological torture." Considering the reality of the situation however, I have to seriously wonder about the veracity of his claim. At least as far as care under the American's goes. I would think that the environment that his own father placed him in did far more psychological harm than anything the Americans could have conceived. Perhaps he did lose a few nights sleep in Git-mo. One has to do a little looking in the archives, but there are photos of a young Omar (courtesy of Al-Queda) playing with body parts like they were toys. A young boy. A developing mind. Horrid battle conditions. I would suggest to you that this is far more likely to be the cause of any "psychological distress" the man may be facing today. And that sure doesn't justify a reward of millions of dollars either.

Now as for potentially being a child soldier, he lost that status when he turned 15. You may not like, or agree with the age of 15, (and the UN does try to discourage people that young from military service) but that is the age, according to the UN, when you are old enough to go into a war zone as a combatant. As a combatant, he is fully culpable for his actions.

Once again, one has to do a little looking in the archives, but there are videos of a young Omar (again, courtesy of Al-Queda) assembling IED's and teaching others how to do the same. How many soldiers - Americans, Canadians, French, British, etc, were killed, or maimed by these devices that he personally assembled? We'll never know. Again, this is a criminal act not worthy of a reward of millions of dollars.

But the Canadian government had a "duty" to bring him home. Really? Did they? At any given time there are over 1500 Canadian citizens imprisoned in foreign lands. They go to these places, offend some law, and find themselves in trouble with the local authorities. Some of them are even in a much worse situation that Khadr ever was. Some of them will never return home.

Canadians often forget that Canadian laws and protections STOP at our borders. Where we have diplomatic relations we can attempt to work with the local government. But once you step out of the country you are essentially on your own. The government can't always fix YOUR screw up!! The suggestion that Canadian officials were expected to march into an American military prison and demand the release of Khadr is simply preposterous. There are channels to follow. This guy (or blame it on his father, if you like.) got himself into the mess. And now he receives compensation because we didn't get him out fast enough?? Words cannot express my disgust at this whole situation.

 

[Willamena]

Fair enough... So, what exactly ARE you arguing then?

...

But the Canadian government had a "duty" to bring him home. Really? Did they?

The Supreme Court thinks so.

At any given time there are over 1500 Canadian citizens imprisoned in foreign lands. They go to these places, offend some law, and find themselves in trouble with the local authorities. Some of them are even in a much worse situation that Khadr ever was. Some of them will never return home.

Canadians often forget that Canadian laws and protections STOP at our borders. Where we have diplomatic relations we can attempt to work with the local government. But once you step out of the country you are essentially on your own. The government can't always fix YOUR screw up!! The suggestion that Canadian officials were expected to march into an American military prison and demand the release of Khadr is simply preposterous. There are channels to follow. This guy (or blame it on his father, if you like.) got himself into the mess. And now he receives compensation because we didn't get him out fast enough?? Words cannot express my disgust at this whole situation.

Canadian citizen's rights do not stop at our borders.

 

[UpperLimits]

Canadian citizen's rights do not stop at our borders.

Not in Canada, no. But in other jurisdictions, they most certainly do.

Don't believe me? Then try going to another country and breaking their laws. You'll find out soon enough whose rules are going to apply. Sorry, but one has to be pretty naive to think that the government has the duty to hold their hand everywhere they go.

(And no, you're not due a lottery win when you get back, either - That is, If you're lucky enough to get back from some places....)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Canadians often forget that Canadian laws and protections STOP at our borders. Where we have diplomatic relations we can attempt to work with the local government. But once you step out of the country you are essentially on your own. The government can't always fix YOUR screw up!! The suggestion that Canadian officials were expected to march into an American military prison and demand the release of Khadr is simply preposterous. There are channels to follow. This guy (or blame it on his father, if you like.) got himself into the mess. And now he receives compensation because we didn't get him out fast enough?? Words cannot express my disgust at this whole situation.

Anywhere Canadian government officials go, they're bound by the Charter. That's the issue with the Khadr case: Canadian officials acted illegally, which caused Khadr's Charter rights to be violated. Hence the settlement.