Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Khadr - Court rules he must be Repatriated


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 753
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What is Canada becomming when the Prime Minister tells the Supreme Court to butt out and condones the way Bush's America tortured our Citizen?

That isn't un-Canadian. When the federal government tries to make decisions on things that don't fall within their jurisdiction, provinces routinely tell them to butt out.

I'm no fan of Bush at all, but America is our friend and ally. Omar Khadr, while technically a citizen, is our enemy. He is Al Qaeda. Canada is a target of Al Qaeda.

As a result of Chretien intervening, his father escaped facing justice for a bombing that killed 17 people... because he was Canadian. Let's not make that same mistake again.

If you think Omar's allegiance is with Canada, you're not paying attention. "Fool me once, shame on you" should apply.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That isn't un-Canadian. When the federal government tries to make decisions on things that don't fall within their jurisdiction, provinces routinely tell them to butt out.

I'm no fan of Bush at all, but America is our friend and ally. Omar Khadr, while technically a citizen, is our enemy. He is Al Qaeda. Canada is a target of Al Qaeda.

As a result of Chretien intervening, his father escaped facing justice for a bombing that killed 17 people... because he was Canadian. Let's not make that same mistake again.

If you think Omar's allegiance is with Canada, you're not paying attention. "Fool me once, shame on you" should apply.

First of all Omar Khadr was a kid when he was arrested. At worst he was a child-soldier and therefore should have been protected as such by our laws. What's really un-Canadian is trying to make kids accountable for any sins their fathers may have committed.

As for Canada being one of Al Qaeda's targets, we decided to place ourselves squarely in their sights. I think we need a full public review of who our allies are, especially where these alliances drag us squarely into the path of their blowback.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As a result of Chretien intervening, his father escaped facing justice for a bombing that killed 17 people... because he was Canadian. Let's not make that same mistake again.

Who tries to fool who, this Chretien was honored by the Queen recently!?

Link to post
Share on other sites
At worst he was a child-soldier and therefore should have been protected as such by our laws.

The "at worst" is much more worse than being a child soldier, which he wasn't. At least not by any legal definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That isn't un-Canadian. ...I'm no fan of Bush at all, but America is our friend and ally. Omar Khadr, while technically a citizen, is our enemy. He is Al Qaeda. Canada is a target of Al Qaeda.

As a result of Chretien intervening, his father escaped facing justice for a bombing that killed 17 people... because he was Canadian. Let's not make that same mistake again.

If you think Omar's allegiance is with Canada, you're not paying attention. "Fool me once, shame on you" should apply.

fool me twice, I might be George Bush, who can't get it right even the second time round.

Continue with this bullsheet insinuation-game that "Omar" is, after many years in a hell-hole, still `planning' to `do' us when he gets out, and you might be seen as a fool.

Link to post
Share on other sites
fool me twice, I might be George Bush, who can't get it right even the second time round.

Continue with this bullsheet insinuation-game that "Omar" is, after many years in a hell-hole, still `planning' to `do' us when he gets out, and you might be seen as a fool.

Once, the British Empire fooled the Middle East.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The "at worst" is much more worse than being a child soldier, which he wasn't. At least not by any legal definition.

by any legal definition there is no proof that Khadr had anything to do with the death of any US soldiers either. Yet that is what he is charged with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
by any legal definition there is no proof that Khadr had anything to do with the death of any US soldiers either. Yet that is what he is charged with.

The legal definition of the proof has to be determined by the court. There certainly seems enough to warrent a military trial.

Link to post
Share on other sites
fool me twice, I might be George Bush, who can't get it right even the second time round.

Continue with this bullsheet insinuation-game that "Omar" is, after many years in a hell-hole, still `planning' to `do' us when he gets out, and you might be seen as a fool.

Well years ago he was convinced to go to Afghanistan and work with the Taliban. Perhaps he wasn't LEGALLY an adult in Canada yet, but he was old enough to work to fight against us.

How stupid do you have to be to assume that when we repatriate him he'll want to be a productive part of Canadian society?

Omar Khadr and his family are the best example we have of terrible immigration and citizenship laws.

I really, completely and honestly could not care less what happens to him. If he gets out of Gitmo, however, I don't want him back in Canada.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I really, completely and honestly could not care less what happens to him. If he gets out of Gitmo, however, I don't want him back in Canada.

He will get out of gitmo....whether he goes free or to a federal prison will be up to the court. If he does go free I hope that Afghanistan will exratadite him from the US to stand trial there for crimes he committed there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
He will get out of gitmo....whether he goes free or to a federal prison will be up to the court. If he does go free I hope that Afghanistan will exratadite him from the US to stand trial there for crimes he committed there.

which crimes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The legal definition of the proof has to be determined by the court. There certainly seems enough to warrent a military trial.

Of a kid...

There also seems to be enough legal definition of what constitutes a child soldier to compel Canada to intervene and act for instead of against him.

Link

It stands to reason that a signatory nation that takes a captive that falls into the child-soldier catagory should treat that 'prisoner' much differently than an adult prisoner. It also stands to reason that any signatory nation who's child-citizens that are thus captured would have an interest in ensuring the kid's rights were not only upheld but extended if need be.

The least Canada should be doing is proposing amendments to the international protocol's to account for and ensure events like this are handled better in the future.

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites
It stands to reason that a signatory nation that takes a captive that falls into the child-soldier catagory should treat that 'prisoner' much differently than an adult prisoner.

I agree. Unfortunately he does not fall into that category. Which nation's armed forces was he a member of?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree. Unfortunately he does not fall into that category.

He certainly falls into the catagory of a child involved in an armed conflict.

Which nation's armed forces was he a member of?

The same nation that attacked the US on 9/11, presumably.

Link to post
Share on other sites
He certainly falls into the catagory of a child involved in an armed conflict.

So what? Doesn't make him a child soldier. To be a soldier he must be part of a militia or an armied force. He was part of neither. At very best he is a child criminal. The US has the appropriate system to handle cases involving child criminals.

The same nation that attacked the US on 9/11, presumably.

Play the idiot with someone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So what? Doesn't make him a child soldier. To be a soldier he must be part of a militia or an armied force. He was part of neither. At very best he is a child criminal. The US has the appropriate system to handle cases involving child criminals.

Then why doesn't it do the appropriate thing and use that system?

Play the idiot with someone else.

So you're telling me the US is not waging a war against a nation, an armed force or militia? Go figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then why doesn't it do the appropriate thing and use that system?

They are.

So you're telling me the US is not waging a war against a nation, an armed force or militia? Go figure.

Omar wasn't a member of those nations, armed forces or militias.

Yes please, go figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...