# Omar Khadr - Canada bound?



## CubaMark

*Omar Khadr transfer request in Ottawa's hands*



> Omar Khadr is anxious to return to Canada and "become a contributing member of our society," his Toronto lawyer says, as the federal government confirmed today the Canadian Guantanamo Bay prisoner's fate is now in its hands in the form of a transfer application.
> 
> Public Safety Minister Vic Toew's office said it has received a completed application from Khadr to transfer to Canada from the U.S. military detention centre in Cuba, and a decision will be made "in accordance with Canadian law."


(CBC)


----------



## jimbotelecom

Welcome back Khadr!


----------



## Joker Eh

Send him back! I mean keep him out of this country. Just in case anyone was thinking I meant sending him back here. Send him back to where he was caught.


----------



## Macfury

Really, why would anyone be thrilled to have him back?


----------



## John Clay

Terrorists don't get second chances. Let him rot in Gitmo.


----------



## macintosh doctor

Joker Eh said:


> Send him back! I mean keep him out of this country. Just in case anyone was thinking I meant sending him back here. Send him back to where he was caught.


As the Chinese do.. sent the cost of the bullet to his terrorist family and be done with him already.. he is causing and costing too much.


----------



## CubaMark

Sigh. So the hard-hearted right wingers haven't softened their positions since the last times we covered this topic (1) (2)

He's a man _now_, raised behind bars in Guantánamo Prison by the U.S. military. But never forget, *he was a child* when he _allegedly_ killed a U.S. soldier (about which there is considerable doubt).

I'm appalled at what some people consider justice here.


----------



## Macfury

I'm satisfied that he killed the soldier. He may well come here. I wouldn't protest it, but I have no reason to be pleased about it either.


----------



## macintosh doctor

CubaMark said:


> Sigh. So the hard-hearted right wingers haven't softened their positions since the last times we covered this topic (1) (2)
> 
> He's a man _now_, raised behind bars in Guantánamo Prison by the U.S. military. But never forget, *he was a child* when he _allegedly_ killed a U.S. soldier (about which there is considerable doubt).
> 
> I'm appalled at what some people consider justice here.


all the males in his family are terrorists. Stop being so compassionate for the guy seriously.
I would say leave him there but the A+ healthcare and treatment [ 5 meals a day and he is in Cuba is unfair] - they should send him on unmanned plane ride - be the end of him.


----------



## CubaMark

macintosh doctor said:


> all the males in his family are terrorists. Stop being so compassionate for the guy seriously.


Guilt by association plus blaming the victim - _a child._



macintosh doctor said:


> I would say leave him there but the A+ healthcare and treatment [ 5 meals a day and he is in Cuba is unfair]


[sarcasm]Oh, I'm sure Guantánamo was pretty much like a Sandals resort for him. Temps in the high-30s, no air conditioning, lovely _view_ of the beach...[/sarcasm]


----------



## Joker Eh

CubaMark said:


> Guilt by association plus blaming the victim - _a child._


Victim? he is a victim? :lmao: Please.


----------



## macintosh doctor

CubaMark said:


> Guilt by association plus blaming the victim - _a child._
> 
> 
> 
> [sarcasm]Oh, I'm sure Guantánamo was pretty much like a Sandals resort for him. Temps in the high-30s, no air conditioning, lovely _view_ of the beach...[/sarcasm]


it was 20/20 and other programs. they treat them better than their own citizens of US. :-(
they get sports and other life programs to make them comfortable.. 
so maybe they should ship them to a US prison.. then we are talking.. real care program. [ where men are men and boys are scared.]


----------



## Macfury

I believe that it's fairly easy to make anyone look like a victim of _something_ as a last ditch-excuse to fly in the face of common sense. He may have no place to go but here, but I'd much rather see someone else on the immigration roster.


----------



## i-rui

CubaMark said:


> I'm appalled at what some people consider justice here.


they heard he had a fair trial on talk radio, so it must be true.


----------



## SINC

I have tried and tried to be as objective about this as I can. Then I remember what I was taught about the use of deadly force and when I was 15, (and by then an instructor in the Scout movement for gun safety) I knew full well I could drop a deer in its tracks with the pull of a trigger of a .30-.30. Or drop a duck from the sky with a shotgun shell. And at 15 years of age and even younger, I did just that many, many times, fully understanding that I was about to take a life when I sighted down that barrel. Anyone who at that same age tosses a grenade that takes a life does so with the complete knowledge and intent that it would result in death. That personal experience leaves me with no sympathy for this guy whatsoever. Anyone who plays the child card has never been there themselves. Just imagine what this guy's parents or close relatives or army comrades filled his head with, while he, like me knew full well the consequences of his actions at that age. Child soldier be damned.


----------



## BigDL

Remember Khadr is coming back to do time in prison. The Excited States aren't all that excited about retaining Khadr in their midsts. 

They want done with him and seem some here don't want to help out our southern neighbour, my my!


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac

My problem with this is that he left Canada to fight alongside the Taliban committing treason. His passport should have been revoked and his citizenship reversed.


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> Anyone who at that same age tosses a grenade that takes a life does so with the complete knowledge and intent that it would result in death. That personal experience leaves me with no sympathy for this guy whatsoever.


I understand where you're coming from - but as we discussed (ad nauseum) in the other threads, (a) legally, Khadr was a child soldier and should have been afforded certain protections and treatment, and (b) from his documented wounds, there is some doubt that he would have been physically capable of throwing the grenade - there was no eyewitness saying HE did it.


----------



## macintosh doctor

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> My problem with this is that he left Canada to fight alongside the Taliban committing treason. His passport should have been revoked and his citizenship reversed.


+1
Also if we except the nut job back, then what about all the other Canadians on death row throughout USA, can't pick and choose - send them all back home or keep them all
There must be a line drawn. 
Let him pay his crimes over there.


----------



## Ottawaman

macintosh doctor said:


> +1
> Also if we except the nut job back, then what about all the other Canadians on death row throughout USA, can't pick and choose - send them all back home or keep them all
> There must be a line drawn.
> Let him pay his crimes over there.





> Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.


Friedrich Nietzsche


----------



## fjnmusic

macintosh doctor said:


> +1
> Also if we except the nut job back, then what about all the other Canadians on death row throughout USA, can't pick and choose - send them all back home or keep them all
> There must be a line drawn.
> Let him pay his crimes over there.


There is only one Canadian on death row in the US is my understanding. Very different circumstances from Khadr, too.

Only Canadian on death row could lose clemency bid before it begins - The Globe and Mail


----------



## i-rui

it really is amazing that some people try so hard to have their view of the world fit some cartoonish black & white version they hope it actually is.

"Omar Khadr was a "terrorist" who killed someone" (although they leave out allegedly). of course they also forget to mention that "someone" was part of an invading force that had surrounded him and was actively trying to harm him (and in fact *DID* grievously harm him). 

Doesn't really fit the description of "terrorism" under any kind of critical scrutiny.


----------



## Lichen Software

1. If I am surrounded by invading troops and all around me are being killed, I will fight back. The ultimate sovereinty is soverienty of self. If you give that up, you give up all. If he actualy did anything, that is what he is being charged for.

2. By Geneva convention standards and world court standards, he was a child soldier and in any other juristiction he would have been back here long ago. The American set up has dubious legitimacy. This is a country that cries foul but will not submit to the world court because their own leaders might be charged. This is also a military court with dubious practices. I have little faith in current American justice and slim to 0 faith in their military court system.

3. It would appear that the Goverment of Canada really doesn't like his family, and from what I read with fairly good reason, but you don't tar the kid with the father's brush.

4. The crimes are alledged, not proven.

Sorry, I can't support the vitriol, especially when the charging party is making up the rules as they go along. I the long run, this is far more dangerous than anything Kahder has done.


----------



## Joker Eh

Lichen Software said:


> 1. If I am surrounded by invading troops and all around me are being killed, I will fight back. The ultimate sovereinty is soverienty of self. If you give that up, you give up all. If he actualy did anything, that is what he is being charged for.
> 
> 2. By Geneva convention standards and world court standards, he was a child soldier and in any other juristiction he would have been back here long ago. The American set up has dubious legitimacy. This is a country that cries foul but will not submit to the world court because their own leaders might be charged. This is also a military court with dubious practices. I have little faith in current American justice and slim to 0 faith in their military court system.
> 
> 3.* It would appear that the Goverment of Canada really doesn't like his family, and from what I read with fairly good reason, but you don't tar the kid with the father's brush.*
> 
> 4. The crimes are alledged, not proven.
> 
> Sorry, I can't support the vitriol, especially when the charging party is making up the rules as they go along. I the long run, this is far more dangerous than anything Kahder has done.


The apple never falls far from the tree.


----------



## minstrel

_The apple never falls far from the tree._

Really?

What a great way to streamline our justice system! Offspring of convicted (or even accused but never convicted) felons no longer require anything more that a summary trial before sentencing.


----------



## Lichen Software

Joker Eh said:


> The apple never falls far from the tree.


I grew up small town. Yup, there is some truth to that as I have been able to watch over a few generations and seen traits either inherited or family tradition passed on. There is also to falsity as even in families where traits, desireable and otherwise were consistently passed on, there is usually at least one person different from the rest.

The real falsity here is we are in a country that believes in both guilty until proven innocent and that justice delayed is justice denied. You cannot make the quote above and still support the justice system as we know it. He was 15 when all this happened. He is in his twenties now. He has pretty much already done the time without ever being convicted of the crime. How do you spell Gulag (probably not like this as I can't spell for beans and I am on an iPad).


----------



## jimbotelecom

Obviously there are some people who believe in the application of the law and others that don't. The really sad thing about Khadr is that he has rotted away over a decade of his life whereas if a policy like children's aid had been applied there would have been a chance that the young man could have led a better life. I think it's almost pointless debating the fearful crowd on this issue. The propagandists have done a good job gaining support for programs like torture, renditioning, etc.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac

Lichen,

2. By Geneva convention standards and world court standards, he was a child soldier and in any other juristiction he would have been back here long ago

Interesting. I did not know this. Before I sway my thoughts though, this would be akin to a child being tried as an adult. Wasn't this kid 15? If his parents forced him to go that is one thing, if we wanted to go that's another. I know the right wing is saying he was a kid and would have been subject to parental pressure without it being said but I don't always buy that. It all depends on the circumstance.

The other side to this is that perhaps he should have been returned, tried with treason, murder and if found guilty put him in jail and eventually give him a one way ticket out of Canada when his time has been served.


----------



## Sonal

The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that the Canadian government has violated Omar Khadr's Charter rights in not seeking his repatriation.

That's enough for me. The Charter applies to all our citizens, not just the ones we like.


----------



## Dr.G.

Sonal said:


> The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that the Canadian government has violated Omar Khadr's Charter rights in not seeking his repatriation.
> 
> That's enough for me. The Charter applies to all our citizens, not just the ones we like.


Very true, Sonal. While I don't advocate violence, I still see him as a child soldier. Paix, mon amie.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that the Canadian government has violated Omar Khadr's Charter rights in not seeking his repatriation.
> 
> That's enough for me. The Charter applies to all our citizens, not just the ones we like.


Exactly, so if the guy needs to come to Canada, let it happen. But that's no reason to be delighted to have him here.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> Exactly, so if the guy needs to come to Canada, let it happen. But that's no reason to be delighted to have him here.


I can accept delight in the Government upholding the Charter. 

If he still has a sentence to serve out, let him serve it here in Canada. Not in Gitmo.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> I can accept delight in the Government upholding the Charter.


Definitely. But I have no truck with people welcoming him here like some sort of folk hero.


----------



## eMacMan

I think what most are missing is that the only evidence that Omar killed anyone was obtained under torture. 

The initial report indicated that he did not and probably could not have thrown the grenade and was changed under extreme pressure from those higher up in the command chain. This of course was never mentioned during his "trial"

For the moment at least Khadr is a Canadian Citizen and should be treated as such.

Khadr does also enjoy Egyptian citizenship. If King Harpo really believes that Khadr is as evil as he has been portrayed, then obvious course of action is to bring him back to Canada, let him serve out his sentence as originally agreed. Then if there is evidence that he violated the citizenship process, have a trial to revoke it. None of this, "We have evidence but cannot show it because it's classified" nonsense. If the evidence is there present it. Give Khadr a chance to repudiate it and let an unbiased judge decide his fate.

As an aside, I really do not like dual citizenship. Canada's citizenship process gives immigrants ample time to learn Canadian ways and to decide whether or not they want to become Canadian. Should they wish to retain their former citizenship, they can still live and work here indefinitely as Permanent Residents. Dual citizenship can put one in a position of split loyalty where what is required under one flag is banned under another. Under no circumstances should a citizen of another nation be allowed to run for Parliament or any of the Provincial Legislatures without first revoking that foreign citizenship.


----------



## screature

macfury said:


> exactly, so if the guy needs to come to canada, let it happen. But that's no reason to be delighted to have him here.





sonal said:


> i can accept delight in the government upholding the charter.
> 
> if he still has a sentence to serve out, let him serve it here in canada. Not in gitmo.


+1


----------



## Sonal

Dr.G. said:


> Very true, Sonal. While I don't advocate violence, I still see him as a child soldier. Paix, mon amie.


I'm inclined to see it the same way, and there's certainly some question over exactly what happened in the midst of the firefight. But in this particular matter, that's not the most relevant issue. 

The Canadian Government owes it to its citizens to uphold their Charter rights. They have not done so. Bring him back to Canada.... if there are still questions about his actions in Afghanistan, they can be dealt with here under Canadian law and supervision.


----------



## Dr.G.

Sonal said:


> I'm inclined to see it the same way, and there's certainly some question over exactly what happened in the midst of the firefight. But in this particular matter, that's not the most relevant issue.
> 
> The Canadian Government owes it to its citizens to uphold their Charter rights. They have not done so. Bring him back to Canada.... if there are still questions about his actions in Afghanistan, they can be dealt with here under Canadian law and supervision.


I think that this is the key point, Sonal. With no specific details as to exactly what he did best to bring him back to Canada and, as you contend, let the matter ".... be dealt with here under Canadian law and supervision."


----------



## Kosh

Sonal said:


> I'm inclined to see it the same way, and there's certainly some question over exactly what happened in the midst of the firefight. But in this particular matter, that's not the most relevant issue.
> 
> The Canadian Government owes it to its citizens to uphold their Charter rights. They have not done so. Bring him back to Canada.... if there are still questions about his actions in Afghanistan, they can be dealt with here under Canadian law and supervision.


+1

And frankly I think it's an embarrassment to Canada, that the conservatives haven't brought him back to Canada. Other countries have taken back their citizens (repatriated them or extradited them), why aren't we. Guantanamo should be shut down.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

eMacMan said:


> I think what most are missing is that the only evidence that Omar killed anyone was obtained under torture.
> 
> The initial report indicated that he did not and probably could not have thrown the grenade and was changed under extreme pressure from those higher up in the command chain. This of course was never mentioned during his "trial"
> 
> For the moment at least Khadr is a Canadian Citizen and should be treated as such.
> 
> Khadr does also enjoy Egyptian citizenship. If King Harpo really believes that Khadr is as evil as he has been portrayed, then obvious course of action is to bring him back to Canada, let him serve out his sentence as originally agreed. Then if there is evidence that he violated the citizenship process, have a trial to revoke it. None of this, "We have evidence but cannot show it because it's classified" nonsense. If the evidence is there present it. Give Khadr a chance to repudiate it and let an unbiased judge decide his fate.
> 
> As an aside, I really do not like dual citizenship. Canada's citizenship process gives immigrants ample time to learn Canadian ways and to decide whether or not they want to become Canadian. Should they wish to retain their former citizenship, they can still live and work here indefinitely as Permanent Residents. Dual citizenship can put one in a position of split loyalty where what is required under one flag is banned under another. Under no circumstances should a citizen of another nation be allowed to run for Parliament or any of the Provincial Legislatures without first revoking that foreign citizenship.


He was born in Ontario. 

AFAIK, (correct me if I'm wrong) but I don't think there is anything that can revoke the citizenship of someone who was born in Canada. His Egyptian citizenship may be through some familial connection.

If anyone should have been charged for a crime in this case it should have been the parents of Khadr who took a child to a war zone and involved him in such a situation.


----------



## eMacMan

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> He was born in Ontario.
> 
> AFAIK, (correct me if I'm wrong) but I don't think there is anything that can revoke the citizenship of someone who was born in Canada. His Egyptian citizenship may be through some familial connection.
> 
> If anyone should have been charged for a crime in this case it should have been the parents of Khadr who took a child to a war zone and involved him in such a situation.


I was not sure which was his country of birth. So unless he chooses to renounce his Canadian citizenship and live in Egypt, he is indeed Canada's responsibility. I agree that his father and mother bear the lions share of the blame in this mess.


----------



## Sonal

eMacMan said:


> I was not sure which was his country of birth. So unless he chooses to renounce his Canadian citizenship and live in Egypt, he is indeed Canada's responsibility. I agree that his father and mother bear the lions share of the blame in this mess.


From what I can tell from a quick look into it, he's never lived in Egypt, at least not for any significant amount of time.

Omar was born in Toronto. His parents have moved him back and forth between Toronto, Pakistan and Afghanistan for all of his life.

His father is Egyptian. His mother is Palestinian. Most of the children were born in Canada, and all the living members of the family live in Toronto.


----------



## CubaMark

*Good Lord. The CONservatives just can't make a decision, can they?*

*Welcome back Omar Khadr*



> "Under the International Transfer of Offenders Act, he is a Canadian citizen. He is also a Canadian citizen under the Charter which entitles him to come back to Canada, eventually," Toews told QMI Agency.
> 
> "The issue is when does he come back to Canada? That's a determination I have to make and I haven't made any decision in that respect yet."


(Canoe.ca)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *The CONservatives just can't make a decision, can they?*


Sure they can. It's "No" for now. And this is certainly not a pressing matter.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> Sure they can. It's "No" for now. And this is certainly not a pressing matter.


Upholding the Charter is not a pressing matter?

They have been dragging their feet on this for years. Action is overdue.


----------



## eMacMan

Sonal said:


> Upholding the Charter is not a pressing matter?
> 
> They have been dragging their feet on this for years. Action is overdue.


Why would he want to uphold the charter when Bill C-30 is designed to bypass the Charter altogether?


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> Upholding the Charter is not a pressing matter?
> 
> They have been dragging their feet on this for years. Action is overdue.


It's only one guy.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> It's only one guy.


aren't you libertarian?


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> aren't you libertarian?


Yep. What does that have to do with it?


----------



## i-rui

that whole "individual rights & liberty" thing.

if "one guy" can have his rights discarded by our country, then we all can.

----

on a side note regarding the government taking him back, this is after they spent more than $3 million in legal fees trying to deny him his charter rights, and then when the US tells them jump, Harper says "how high?"

everything about this government reeks. the waste of money over their silly ideology and then the pavlovian response to anything the US tells them. it's embarrassing.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> that whole "individual rights & liberty" thing.
> 
> if "one guy" can have his rights discarded by our country, then we all can.


Ensuring the freedom of criminals wouldn't be on the top of my list. Neither would "the right to have the government attempt to extradite you" be one of those that I would expect a federal government devote significant attention to. If they believed he had been wrongfully imprisoned, that would be another matter.

I see no evidence that Canada is jumping for the U.S. in this case--or else he would already be here.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Ensuring the freedom of criminals wouldn't be on the top of my list.


what exactly makes him a "criminal? you do realize he waited 8 years for a "trial", during which time he was mercilessly "interrogated" (many would say tortured) at Gitmo. When he did finally get a trial it was in a kangaroo court, and they basically forced a "confession" from him.

none of that would ever pass mustard by the standards of any modern day notion of rule of law.



Macfury said:


> If they believed he had been wrongfully imprisoned, that would be another matter.


he was denied his legal rights and due process. civil liberty groups have attacked the US on Gitmo for years. anyone who truly believes in civil liberties should be outraged by his treatment.



Macfury said:


> I see no evidence that Canada is jumping for the U.S. in this case--or else he would already be here.


the government went from spending $3 million dollars to fight his charter rights over the last 6 years to now considering taking him back after the US asked them late last week. all that has to be worked out now is *when*. 6 years vs days. that's a jump in political terms.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> I see no evidence that Canada is jumping for the U.S. in this case--or else he would already be here.


The official word is that yes, the U.S. government wants Khadr repatriated to Canada as an "example" to other countries that still have citizens languishing in Guantánamo.

The right-wing in the U.S., however, sees this as a crime against all that is true and holy.



> While no one has offered a concrete explanation for why the Obama administration might be doing this, some have mulled whether it’s his way of making peace after allowing the assassination of Osama Bin Laden.
> 
> (Awr Hawkins / Breitbart _via the lunatic-right fringe_ Judi McLeod / Canada Free Press)​


----------



## Sonal

The Canadian government has been accused of dragging its feet on this for some time. It was in 2009 that the Federal Court determined that the government violates his Charter rights by not immediately demanding his return to Canada. 

That Vic Toews is now saying "Oh, yes, we just need to think about it a little more" is disingenuous at best.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> what exactly makes him a "criminal? you do realize he waited 8 years for a "trial", during which time he was mercilessly "interrogated" (many would say tortured) at Gitmo. When he did finally get a trial it was in a kangaroo court, and they basically forced a "confession" from him.
> 
> he was denied his legal rights and due process. civil liberty groups have attacked the US on Gitmo for years. anyone who truly believes in civil liberties should be outraged by his treatment.


Killing a man makes him a criminal. He's subject to the laws of a foreign country and faced a military tribunal. This is the rule of law in the U.S.



i-rui said:


> the government went from spending $3 million dollars to fight his charter rights over the last 6 years to now considering taking him back after the US asked them late last week. all that has to be worked out now is *when*. 6 years vs days. that's a jump in political terms.


The government hasn't done anything to take him back yet. However, the Obama Administration has faced significant hurdles in repatriating the Guantanamo crew all over the world.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Killing a man makes him a criminal. He's subject to the laws of a foreign country and faced a military tribunal. This is the rule of law in the U.S.


he allegedly killed a man. there was some dispute that he even threw the grenade. he was denied any sort of semblance of a fair trial.

Secondly it was during a battle in a war zone. Killing someone in a war zone is different than killing someone on the corner of a residential neighbourhood. (otherwise half the US Military would be in jail) There are international laws that deal with these situations that the US simply dismissed.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Killing a man makes him a criminal. He's subject to the laws of a foreign country and faced a military tribunal. This is the rule of law in the U.S.


If there were any hard evidence that he killed anyone you might have a point. However a confession obtained via years of torture does not qualify. Nor does a trial where verdict and sentencing were pre-determined. 

This is the sort of justice that in the past justifiably earned the Soviet Union and China world wide condemnation. 'Tis sad to see the self-proclaimed "Good Guys" following the same path.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> The government hasn't done anything to take him back yet. However, the Obama Administration has faced significant hurdles in repatriating the Guantanamo crew all over the world.


Omar Khadr remains the only citizen of any NATO member nation who has not been repatriated. 

Clearly such hurdles for other NATO members were somehow not as significant.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> Omar Khadr remains the only citizen of any NATO member nation who has not been repatriated.
> 
> Clearly such hurdles for other NATO members were somehow not as significant.


How many were there?


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> How many were there?


It's hard to find complete information, since every reference seems to turn up "Omar is that last Western Citizen in Gitmo".

But from what incomplete information I can find, there were 9 British citizens, 7 French citizens, 1 Danish citizen, 9 Russian citizens, 1 Swedish citizen... all of whom have been repatriated.


----------



## Macfury

Those Russkies aren't part of NATO! 

Still, I see your point. He should have been repatriated--to jail--in a more timely fashion.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac

Hmmm, I was not aware he was born here. I thought I had read that he was born in the middle east. I guess that does change things. I suspect the correct recourse would be to bring him back put him in jail if guilty of murder and try him for treason.

The fact that the charter is being upheld is key. It has to be or why have it, we lose all protection from government and fellow man. If the charter needs to be changed that is one thing but it must be followed as it is written until such time it is changed.


----------



## MacGuiver

I predict a heroes welcome for this guy in certain circles. Not necessarily radical Muslim ones either.


----------



## Macfury

runtheworldonmac said:


> the fact that the charter is being upheld is key. It has to be or why have it, we lose all protection from government and fellow man. If the charter needs to be changed that is one thing but it must be followed as it is written until such time it is changed.


+1


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> Those Russkies aren't part of NATO!
> 
> Still, I see your point. He should have been repatriated--to jail--in a more timely fashion.


Precisely. If he'd like to appeal the charges or the process by which he was found guilty, he's within his rights to do so, just as any incarcerated citizen can. To me, whether or not he is actually guilty is a separate issue from repatriation.

The Canadian government first needs to stop stalling and begin the process of repatriating him, as other Western nations have already done for their citizens. Bring him here, as is his right under the Charter, and then we can deal with him per Canadian law and under Canadian supervision.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> Precisely. If he'd like to appeal the charges or the process by which he was found guilty, he's within his rights to do so, just as any incarcerated citizen can. To me, whether or not he is actually guilty is a separate issue from repatriation.
> 
> The Canadian government first needs to stop stalling and begin the process of repatriating him, as other Western nations have already done for their citizens. Bring him here, as is his right under the Charter, and then we can deal with him per Canadian law and under Canadian supervision.


And people thought my opinion couldn't be swayed.

Nonetheless, he is no hero, and I won't be happy to see him back.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> And people thought my opinion couldn't be swayed.
> 
> Nonetheless, he is no hero, and I won't be happy to see him back.


Your cold Libertarian heart could never stand for a deliberate violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

At this point, the child soldier/terrorist rhetoric on both sides is so overblown that what actually happened may never be entirely clarified. But ultimately, that's all a distraction from the repatriation issue. 

The irony is that had the government moved to quickly and quietly repatriate him in the first place, there would probably have been a lot less fuss and folk heroism.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> Your cold Libertarian heart ...


_Warm_ libertarian heart.


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> I predict a heroes welcome for this guy in certain circles. Not necessarily radical Muslim ones either.


Not sure anyone considers him a hero. 

However allowing the Government to abuse the rights of someone who is universally disliked, makes everyone else a potential victim of similar abuse. Once that gate is opened it is hard to re-close.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> Not sure anyone considers him a hero.
> 
> However allowing the Government to abuse the rights of someone who is universally disliked, *makes everyone else a potential victim of similar abuse.* Once that gate is opened it is hard to re-close.


Not really the, circumstances surrounding Khadr are extremely rare and not likely to be replicated any time soon and I can't see how his situation "makes everyone a potential victim of similar abuse" as there is no logical argument for saying so, it is an unique individual situation that has absolutely nothing to do with the average Canadaian... nothing. Sorry have to call FUD on that post.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> Not really the, circumstances surrounding Khadr are extremely rare and not likely to be replicated any time soon and I can't see how his situation "makes everyone a potential victim of similar abuse" as there is no logical argument for saying so, it is an unique individual situation that has absolutely nothing to do with the average Canadaian... nothing. Sorry have to call FUD on that post.


Once the precedent for charter abuse has been set, further abuse is inevitable and on far flimsier pretexts. Perhaps it might even go as far as pro-democracy demonstrators being surreptitiously shipped to the US so confessions can be tortured from their swollen lips. Time will tell.

King Harpo has further shown his disdain of the Charter with the introduction of Bill C-30. Clearly he is intent on defiling the Charter. For most Canadians this cannot in any way be considered a good thing.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> Once the precedent for charter abuse has been set, further abuse is inevitable and on far flimsier pretexts. Perhaps it might even go as far as pro-democracy demonstrators being surreptitiously shipped to the US so confessions can be tortured from their swollen lips. Time will tell.
> 
> King Harpo has further shown his disdain of the Charter with the introduction of Bill C-30. Clearly he is intent on defiling the Charter. For most Canadians this cannot in any way be considered a good thing.


Perhaps in your world that seems to be based in FUD... my world is based on evidence on a case by case basis as opposed to broad generalizations based on *Fear, uncertainty and doubt* the very things you seem to be be most interested in...

The sky is falling...!!!! Take shelter!!!!


----------



## Lichen Software

screature said:


> Perhaps in your world that seems to be based in FUD... my world is based on evidence on a case by case basis as opposed to broad generalizations based on *Fear, uncertainty and doubt* the very things you seem to be be most interested in...
> 
> The sky is falling...!!!! Take shelter!!!!


The evidence is the guy has been in prison for 10 years without due process of law and with absolute distain from his own government, in contravention of normal international protocol for dealing with people who are both children and in war zones. I am a conservative and I find this very very disturbing. due process is what stands between you and big brother. You jeopardize it in any way at your peril.


----------



## Sonal

Certainly, I hope issues involving suspected terrorists are very few and far between.

However, when the Supreme Court of Canada rules that the Federal Government is violating a citizen's Charter rights, I would hope that we don't take a single step down that slippery slope by not addressing the issue promptly, as that does impact the average Canadian.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## macintosh doctor

MazterCBlazter said:


> Omar was born in Canada.
> 
> He was there under his fathers care. His father was doing charity relief work. If you don't have a good relationship with the Taliban, and give them money, they kill you. It may or may not have been a front for supporting Islamic extremists. .
> 
> It could happen to you.


His dad was a terrorist. Don't try to say otherwise. 

Taken from wiki"Because his father, Ahmed Khadr, had raised his family in Peshawar, Pakistan since 1985,[36][37] Omar spent his life moving back and forth between Canada and Pakistan. His mother also wished to raise her family outside of Canada due to her animosity toward Western social influences.[38] Khadr was enrolled in a school in Peshawar.
In 1992, Khadr's father was severely injured while in Logar, Afghanistan; the Khadr family moved back to Toronto so he could recuperate. .[37]"

Even the mother hated Western life. But they came here to use our country when it suited them, real upstanding people. Leave him there.


----------



## fjnmusic

macintosh doctor said:


> His dad was a terrorist. Don't try to say otherwise.
> 
> Taken from wiki"Because his father, Ahmed Khadr, had raised his family in Peshawar, Pakistan since 1985,[36][37] Omar spent his life moving back and forth between Canada and Pakistan. His mother also wished to raise her family outside of Canada due to her animosity toward Western social influences.[38] Khadr was enrolled in a school in Peshawar.
> In 1992, Khadr's father was severely injured while in Logar, Afghanistan; the Khadr family moved back to Toronto so he could recuperate. .[37]"
> 
> Even the mother hated Western life. But they came here to use our country when it suited them, real upstanding people. Leave him there.


Just because someone hates Canada does not make them a terrorist. And a 15 year old kid defending himself when his house is under attack does not make him a terrorist either. If anything, it makes him normal.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Not really the, circumstances surrounding Khadr are extremely rare and not likely to be replicated any time soon and I can't see how his situation "makes everyone a potential victim of similar abuse" as there is no logical argument for saying so, it is an unique individual situation that has absolutely nothing to do with the average Canadaian... nothing. Sorry have to call FUD on that post.


It isn't so much the situation under the charter, but the relationship the federal government has with the Supreme Court that interests me here. If they find that Khadr's Charter rights are being violated, and the only method of redress is action by the feds, does that not mean they're required to act?


----------



## screature

Lichen Software said:


> The evidence is the guy has been in prison for 10 years without due process of law and with absolute distain from his own government, in contravention of normal international protocol for dealing with people who are both children and in war zones. I am a conservative and I find this very very disturbing. due process is what stands between you and big brother. You jeopardize it in any way at your peril.


Lichen Software I was commenting specifically on eMacMan's claim that the Khadr case puts us all at risk for such treatment... It simply does not.


----------



## screature

MazterCBlazter said:


> ...*It could happen to you.*


If you are in a war zone and are keeping company with the wrong side...


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> It isn't so much the situation under the charter, but the relationship the federal government has with the Supreme Court that interests me here. If they find that Khadr's Charter rights are being violated, and the only method of redress is action by the feds, does that not mean they're required to act?


On this I agree, on it being an example of a slippery slope that puts all of us at risk I do not as this is a very unique case and situation.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> If you are in a war zone and are keeping company with the wrong side...


An abuse is an abuse. Just because he happens to be your guy and claims to have a good excuse does not make it acceptable. If this was a Liberal government the howls from the con side would be deafening.

King Harpo is following this up with Bill C-30, with almost no changes from the failed original Liberal version. Like it or not abuse of the charter at the hands of the Government, does indeed get worse if Canadians are willing to tolerate it.

I'll take my chances with terrorists. Let's face it I am more likely to get struck by lightning than to be killed or maimed by a terrorist. OTOH Please preserve me from those that claim they are protecting me from terrorists. The price they demand is just way too high.


----------



## macintosh doctor

eMacMan said:


> An abuse is an abuse. Just because he happens to be your guy and claims to have a good excuse does not make it acceptable. If this was a Liberal government the howls from the con side would be deafening.
> 
> King Harpo is following this up with Bill C-30, with almost no changes from the failed original Liberal version. Like it or not abuse of the charter at the hands of the Government, does indeed get worse if Canadians are willing to tolerate it.
> 
> I'll take my chances with terrorists. Let's face it I am more likely to get struck by lightning than to be killed or maimed by a terrorist. OTOH Please preserve me from those that claim they are protecting me from terrorists. The price they demand is just way too high.


Don't like it here go to Afghanistan, real estate is cheap. 
Just like Mark Emery hated repressive rule in Canada and moved to Thailand then 6 months later he was back. 
This is the cost of doing business to keep you safe and making being hit by lightening a higher risk.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> If this was a Liberal government the howls from the con side would be deafening.


I highly doubt it.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> I highly doubt it.


On this, Macfury and I agree - the Cons would not be howling for Khadr's charter rights to be protected. Their rhetoric would be entirely in line with the Breitbart bit I posted earlier.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> *An abuse is an abuse. Just because he happens to be your guy and claims to have a good excuse does not make it acceptable.* If this was a Liberal government the howls from the con side would be deafening.
> 
> King Harpo is following this up with Bill C-30, with almost no changes from the failed original Liberal version. Like it or not abuse of the charter at the hands of the Government, does indeed get worse if Canadians are willing to tolerate it.
> 
> I'll take my chances with terrorists. Let's face it I am more likely to get struck by lightning than to be killed or maimed by a terrorist. OTOH Please preserve me from those that claim they are protecting me from terrorists. The price they demand is just way too high.


I never sided with the government's inaction merely refuted your claim that Kahdr's case somehow makes us *all * subject to such inaction. There is no evidence for this and until there is I still call FUD on your statement.


----------



## BigDL

eMacMan said:


> An abuse is an abuse. Just because he happens to be your guy and claims to have a good excuse does not make it acceptable. If this was a Liberal government the howls from the con side would be deafening.
> 
> King Harpo is following this up with Bill C-30, with almost no changes from the failed original Liberal version. Like it or not abuse of the charter at the hands of the Government, does indeed get worse if Canadians are willing to tolerate it.
> 
> I'll take my chances with terrorists. Let's face it I am more likely to get struck by lightning than to be killed or maimed by a terrorist. OTOH Please preserve me from those that claim they are protecting me from terrorists. The price they demand is just way too high.


I must concur with eMM on his premiss that for Government to act arbitrary, discriminatory or selectively on the Khadr matter means they could act similarly on other matters, even matters that affect you or me.

Impinging on rights or freedoms while "protecting us" from a bogeyman is not something that I shall go along with quietly.


----------



## Lichen Software

screature said:


> Lichen Software I was commenting specifically on eMacMan's claim that the Khadr case puts us all at risk for such treatment... It simply does not.


I guess my problem with this is to my optics, "We as the government of Canada do not like this family so we are just going to do what ever we can to be rid of them all." leaves everyone vulnerable to the dislike of the political masters of the day. The intransigence of the goverment in the face of supreme court rulings just reinforces my impression of this situation. The lack of respect by Vic Toews is incredible.


----------



## screature

Lichen Software said:


> I guess my problem with this is to my optics, "*We as the government of Canada do not like this family so we are just going to do what ever we can to be rid of them all.*" *leaves everyone vulnerable to the dislike of the political masters of the day. *The intransigence of the government in the face of supreme court rulings just reinforces my impression of this situation. The lack of respect by Vic Toews is incredible.


Yep that is about it and that's all.... Can't agree with "leaves everyone vulnerable to the dislike of the political masters of the day" as everyone is not in a war zone committing alleged crimes and treason...

This is a unique case unlike any other in Canadian jurisprudence and why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did...

Court refuses to order Khadr home

The Supreme Court has effectively admitted they don't have jurisdiction to make a legally binding ruling... it is up to the Government to decide... it seems their decision is pending and they aren't too interested in bringing Khadr to Canada any time soon...

Write you MP with your objections... just make sure it is from you and not some form e-mail... you will most likely get a much better response.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> I never sided with the government's inaction merely refuted your claim that Kahdr's case somehow makes us *all * subject to such inaction. There is no evidence for this and until there is I still call FUD on your statement.


BTW I have a couple of German friends who were young teenagers in pre-WWII Germany. They rather vociferously disagree that it is OK to let these things go just because we do not happen to like the individuals involved.

Just curious though. If an underage Canadian/Israeli citizen were to be arrested in Iran and confess to assorted crimes after years of torture, and Iran was to offer to send him back to Canada with the understanding that he serve out the remainder of a jail sentence in Canada, would you similarly support leaving him hung out to dry in Iran?


----------



## Dr T

eMacMan said:


> BTW I have a couple of German friends who were young teenagers in pre-WWII Germany. They rather vociferously disagree that it is OK to let these things go just because we do not happen to like the individuals involved.
> ...



Yup, this is their awareness. Not to mention that a great many Germans over generations have suffered from that era. Let's not let the same stuff recur.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> If you are in a war zone and are keeping company with the wrong side...


If you are in a war zone, especially as a child, you probably have little choice about what "side" you accompany. 

I know very little about the facts of this case, and I don't care to learn more of the details. It's entirely possible, and even probable to me that Omar's dad was a Taliban supporter, and even that, at the age of 15 Omar himself may have believed he was learning to be a freedom fighter like his dad. All of this - his beliefs, attitudes, and actions in Afghanistan - are questions that a trial should address, but are completely irrelevant to wether or not Canada should be allowing one of its citizens to be held in Guantanamo without due process.

What we do know is that this individual 1) is a Canadian citizen, 2) was a child at the time of the events for which he has been accused, 3) he has not received a fair trial, 4) he has been subjected to torture, 5) 'confessed' under torture, and 6) was imprisoned for years without trial or due process.

So regardless of wether the individual in question is a paragon of virtue or a complete scumbag we'd all like to see rot in prison for the rest of his life, our government has utterly failed in its unequivocal responsibility to get him back to Canada, and to respect his rights under the Charter.

Vic Toews' actions on this file alone demonstrate him to be completely incompetent and an embarrassment to Canada. Towes should be fired immediately and the file given immediate priority by the new Minster.


----------



## bryanc

Lichen Software said:


> I guess my problem with this is to my optics, "We as the government of Canada do not like this family so we are just going to do what ever we can to be rid of them all." leaves everyone vulnerable to the dislike of the political masters of the day. The intransigence of the goverment in the face of supreme court rulings just reinforces my impression of this situation. The lack of respect by Vic Toews is incredible.


This. :clap:


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> BTW I have a couple of German friends who were young teenagers in pre-WWII Germany. They rather vociferously disagree that it is OK to let these things go just because we do not happen to like the individuals involved.
> 
> Just curious though. If an underage Canadian/Israeli citizen were to be arrested in Iran and confess to assorted crimes after years of torture, and Iran was to offer to send him back to Canada with the understanding that he serve out the remainder of a jail sentence in Canada, would you similarly support leaving him hung out to dry in Iran?



See I never said I supported anyone being hung out to dry... show me where I said that... Again I simply disputed that Khadr's case puts us all at risk and you assume I don't support his repatriation which in fact I do... seems some people around here just want to read into what people say as opposed to what they actually say.


----------



## Sonal

screature said:


> See I never said I supported anyone being hung to dry... show me where I said that... Again I simply disputed that Khadr's case puts us all at risk and you assume I don't support his repatriation which in fact I do... *seems some people around here just want to read into what people say as opposed to what they actually say*.


I'm going to preface this by saying you asked for this. 

But... is the bolded section really necessary? 

While not directly insulting anyone (and therefore not really against any rules) I can't help but think that it's this kind of thing where something is unnecessarily made personal that creates a lot of enmity. (And I'm just picking examples as I happen upon them, so this is not an exhaustive review of everything everyone has said.)

I get that it's very frustrating to have one's words misinterpreted or taken out of context. But you address that already by saying that this is not what you said. 

And now... back to your regularly schedule thread which may already be in progress.


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> I'm going to preface this by saying you asked for this.
> 
> But... is the bolded section really necessary?
> 
> While not directly insulting anyone (and therefore not really against any rules) I can't help but think that it's this kind of thing where something is unnecessarily made personal that creates a lot of enmity. (And I'm just picking examples as I happen upon them, so this is not an exhaustive review of everything everyone has said.)
> 
> I get that it's very frustrating to have one's words misinterpreted or taken out of context. But you address that already by saying that this is not what you said.
> 
> And now... back to your regularly schedule thread which may already be in progress.


Perhaps not but was your post *necessary*? Seems to me your post was not *necessary* at all.

BTW eMacMan's post was personal by suggesting that I would be supportive of anyone being "hung out to dry". If you are going to cherry pick what constitutes making things personal, I'm not interested and points out to me the potential problems with a reputation rating system.


----------



## Sonal

screature said:


> Perhaps not but was your post *necessary*? Seems to me your post was not *necessary* at all.


I refer you to these posts: (#61 and #49 under Reputation System.... I reorder my posts, so sometimes it doesn't work to link to them.)

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/100097-reputation-system-discussion-4.html#post1189182

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/100097-reputation-system-discussion-6.html#post1189135

Thank you for providing a good example of why I don't speak up, and why perhaps an anonymous system is needed.

EDIT: Regarding your edit, I a) pointed out explicitly that this was not exhaustive and b) did look at eMacMan's earlier post and thought that it more addressed what he believes you were saying, and not you personally.


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> I refer you to these posts: (#61 and #49 under Reputation System.... I reorder my posts, so sometimes it doesn't work to link to them.)
> 
> http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/100097-reputation-system-discussion-4.html#post1189182
> 
> http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/100097-reputation-system-discussion-6.html#post1189135
> 
> Thank you for providing a good example of why I don't speak up, and why perhaps an anonymous system is needed.
> 
> EDIT: Regarding your edit, I a) pointed out explicitly that this was not exhaustive and b) did look at eMacMan's *earlier post and thought that it more addressed what he believes you were saying, and not you personally*.


How is it that saying that someone is seeing only what they want to see rather than reading what has actually been said making it personal when it is a fact?

There is no insult, no derision just a statement of fact... are we going to become this hyper-sensitive about the possibility of stepping on someone's toes?


----------



## Sonal

I'm stepping out of this, as I have no wish to further derail this thread.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> There is no insult, no derision just a statement of fact... are we going to become this hyper-sensitive about the possibility of stepping on someone's toes?


It looks like this is what some people want, heaven help us.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> Perhaps not but was your post *necessary*? Seems to me your post was not *necessary* at all.
> 
> BTW eMacMan's post was personal by suggesting that I would be supportive of anyone being "hung out to dry". If you are going to cherry pick what constitutes making things personal, I'm not interested and points out to me the potential problems with a reputation rating system.


More just curious. If your attitude is consistent at both extremes of the spectrum, then it is consistent and I have no problem at all with it.

Having watched what has been happening Stateside, I firmly believe that ignoring one individuals rights and privileges can very easily lead to much more invasive intrusions. At home Bill C-30 is a great example.

Long and short. The battle for human rights is one that is not won or lost in Afghanistan or Iran. It has to be fought at home and it needs to start with problems like Khadr's.


----------



## screature

I will say this about the government's intransigence on the issue... As this thread alone shows the issue of Khadr and his repatriation is clearly very divisive and strongly felt.

When the government was in a minority position it is understandable that they dragged their heals on the issue fearing political fallout. Now that they have a majority there really is no longer even this "excuse" to fall back on... They should do the right thing grant him his rights under the Charter and bring him home.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> When the government was in a minority position it is understandable that they dragged their heals on the issue fearing political fallout. Now that they have a majority there really is no longer even this "excuse" to fall back on... They should do the right thing grant him his rights under the Charter and bring him home.


We are in agreement.

I may be in the minority on this but I intensely dis-like boogeymen. In some ways many Muslims today find themselves in the same place as European Jews prior to and during WWII. For Muslims living in places like Iraq or even Libya, the boogeyman mentality has been nothing short of devastating.

Beyond that as I get older I see case after case where I am told to cower in terror from this or that boogeyman. In every case the guy telling me how much danger I am in, is using is using that boogeyman as a distraction to do something far worse than said boogeyman. 

Back to bill C-30. Even under the flag of protecting us from terrorists Canadians found this bill so invasive that both a Liberal minority and a Conservative minority backed down. Now that he enjoys a majority Harper is pimping it again, this time to protect us all from the Kiddie Porn crowd. Even his most ardent supporters have said this bill is a very bad idea. A bad invasive bill is just that and needs to be stood up to no matter which boogeyman is being used as a diversionary tactic.


----------



## Kosh

eMacMan said:


> Back to bill C-30. Even under the flag of protecting us from terrorists Canadians found this bill so invasive that both a Liberal minority and a Conservative minority backed down. Now that he enjoys a majority Harper is pimping it again, this time to protect us all from the Kiddie Porn crowd. Even his most ardent supporters have said this bill is a very bad idea. A bad invasive bill is just that and needs to be stood up to no matter which boogeyman is being used as a diversionary tactic.


Did good ole Vic Toews apologize to everyone for calling of us who want to protect our privacy "child pornographers" with his "if your not with us, your with the child pornographers" statement? I can't remember. I really don't see how he'll get Bill C-30 through, even with a majority. Even the constituents out west that voted in Conservative MPs don't want it. Alot of Conservative MPs are scared of the bill, because it'll likely mean they won't get voted in next time, if they vote for the bill.

I have to agree with you that they using child porn as another boogeyman, to try and get Bill C-30 and then they'll use Bill C-30 for other things.


----------



## CubaMark

*Toews move to delay Khadr’s return ‘more foot dragging’*



> Canada's public safety minister has defended his decision to put the repatriation of war criminal Omar Khadr on hold.
> 
> On Friday, Vic Toews cited concerns over the release of "very relevant" information from the U.S. on the convicted murderer's mental state, while a justice-advocacy group accused the government of more "foot dragging."





> Alex Neve of Amnesty International Canada, said the government has "had years" to gather the information it needs to bring Khadr back from the U.S. - a country whose authorities Neve said would not allow Khadr to return north of the border if they considered him a threat.
> 
> "It's hard to see this as anything but more foot dragging," Neve said.
> 
> Neve also called Welner's assessment of Khar "bigoted," and pointed instead to comments of psychiatrist and former military officer Dr. Stephen Xenakis, who in 2010 deemed Khadr as reformed and not a threat to society.


(SunNews)


----------



## SINC

Yep, and if Toews didn't ask for his medical psychological background and something went wrong after his return to Canada, people would be all over him for that too.


----------



## groovetube

> Alex Neve of Amnesty International Canada, said the government has "had years" to gather the information it needs to bring Khadr back from the U.S.


Seems like foot dragging to me too.


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> Seems like foot dragging to me too.


I think Herr Toews is hoping if he can drag that foot long enough, he will find some vague link between Khadr and a Kiddie Porn ring. Probably needs Bill C-30 passed to speed the process along.

BTW Herr is German for Mr. Since we must show fake respect for our politicians this is close as I can manage when it comes to Vic.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> I think Herr Toews is hoping if he can drag that foot long enough, he will find some vague link between Khadr and a Kiddie Porn ring. Probably needs Bill C-30 passed to speed the process along.
> 
> BTW Herr is German for Mr. Since we must show fake respect for our politicians this is close as I can manage when it comes to Vic.


Toews is not German, your attempt to justify your obvious reference to him being an Nazi is simply lame and your real meaning is completely transparent to everyone.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> Toews is not German, your attempt to justify your obvious reference to him being an Nazi is simply lame and your real meaning is completely transparent to everyone.


Herr as stated was simply a way to fake respect as required. Because the Harper Regimes absolute loyalty to the State of Israel is well established, it would take a huge leap of imagination to think that any of his Ministers were being called Nazis. Perhaps you were thinking in terms of Bill C-30 when you made the Nazi leap?

Furthermore the implication that being Germanic is equivalent to being Nazi is extremely insulting.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> Herr as stated was simply a way to fake respect as required. Because the Harper Regimes absolute loyalty to the State of Israel is well established, it would take a huge leap of imagination to think that any of his Ministers were being called Nazis. Perhaps you were thinking in terms of Bill C-30 when you made the Nazi leap?
> 
> Furthermore the implication that being Germanic is equivalent to being Nazi is extremely insulting.


Pure BS ever word of it.


----------



## keebler27

CubaMark said:


> *Toews move to delay Khadr’s return ‘more foot dragging’*
> 
> 
> 
> (SunNews)


I think I'm on the opposite side of the fence here.

He is Canadian so I get that, but cripes, he has ties to Al Qaeda, his family still (allegedly and from what i'm told from a secure source), still has ties to them and he killed a US soldier in combat. Sorry, it was worse - it was a medic! Those who help others in battle.

I could care less if it were the Conservatives, Liberals or NDP, I think Toews is right to ask for this information on Khadr.

Am I the only one who thinks that it's dangerous to let an ex?-terrorist BACK onto our turf? Especially one who will no doubt sue our govt, making millions which he could use to siphon back to the terrorists?

I think this is different than a criminal who committed a crime in another country b/c he was involved with terrorists. 

Al Qaeda are a completely different breed. They don't just commit murders. They hate....HATE our way of living. They HATE the Western world as a whole...everything we do and stand for.

I don't want them here and I don't care if he's Canadian or not. For the record, I'm a fierce and loyal Canadian, but I draw the line there.

I don't buy that he was 15. 15 year old teenagers aren't idiots. They know what they're doing. Plus, like I said, his family is still (allegedly) involved with terrorists. Plus they fact they were 'proud' he killed a US medic. tptptptp

I hope he never comes back. He doesn't deserve it.

Of course, this is my opinion and perhaps not the popular one. lol


----------



## kps

keebler27 said:


> Of course, this is my opinion and perhaps not the popular one. lol


Your opinion is popular with me...


----------



## Macfury

I understand why the feds need to act on this, just on principle--it's just unfortunate that the result is bringing this character to Canada.


----------



## Mckitrick

Let him come back. 

Covertly install a GPS tracker and audio monitor in his head first. Let's see who he hangs out with and what they have to say. 

Probably already done. Allow me to hang my tin foil hat up now.


----------



## SINC

kps said:


> Your opinion is popular with me...


And with me.


----------



## Macfury

On top of that, I don't understand why some people see this as such an important story. I suspect it's the fact that fighting alongside enemies of the West makes him a lefty poster boy of some sort.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> On top of that, I don't understand why some people see this as such an important story. I suspect it's the fact that fighting alongside enemies of the West makes him a lefty poster boy of some sort.


Good lord. He was 15 when the crime to which he confessed occurred. That qualified him more as a child victim of war than as a terrorist. If he had been in Canada at the time, he would have had the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to support him and you wouldn't even know his name. As it stands he had now been a prisoner in Gitmo for nearly ten years. Even the Americans who convicted him want him sent back to Canada to serve out his sentence.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Good lord. He was 15 when the crime to which he confessed occurred. That qualified him more as a child victim of war than as a terrorist. If he had been in Canada at the time, he would have had* the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to support him and you wouldn't even know his name.* As it stands he had now been a prisoner in Gitmo for nearly ten years. Even the Americans who convicted him want him sent back to Canada to serve out his sentence.


The Charter would have zero to do with not knowing his name that would be because of the Young Offenders Act and even at that when it is a crime of as serious nature as this one was he can still be tried as an adult.

However, the Supreme Court has ruled his Charter rights have been denied and based on that he should be brought back to serve out this sentence here but is doesn't mean people have to be happy about it.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> The Charter would have zero to do with not knowing his name that would be because of the Young Offenders Act and even at that when it is a crime of as serious nature as this one was he can still be tried as an adult.
> 
> However, the Supreme Court has ruled his Charter rights have been denied and based on that he should be brought back to serve out this sentence here but is doesn't mean people have to be happy about it.


Since when is people's happiness relevant? There are all kinds of horrible people in Canadian prisons, and we certainly do not have to like them, but at least all had the benefit of a fair trial under Canadian law. When you compare Omar Khadr allegedly lobbing a grenade in self-defense at the age if 15 with say Mark Twitchell, who dismembered Johnny Altinger after luring him online, I think it's a travesty of justice that Twitchell has all the benefit of the doubt while Khadr does not. This continual delay by the Harper gov't sure smells like racism.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *Since when is people's happiness relevant?* There are all kinds of horrible people in Canadian prisons, and we certainly do not have to like them, but at least all had the benefit of a fair trial under Canadian law. When you compare Omar Khadr allegedly lobbing a grenade in self-defense at the age if 15 with say Mark Twitchell, who dismembered Johnny Altinger after luring him online, I think it's a travesty of justice that Twitchell has all the benefit of the doubt while Khadr does not. *This continual delay by the Harper gov't sure smells like racism.*


You do realize that people's happiness or lack there of is relevant to almost everything that human beings do, that is why they call it "the pursuit of happiness"... It was simply an obvious statement of fact relating to those who don't want him back, they may not be happy about it but the Supreme Court has ruled and that is it... he should be brought back.

This continual delay smells like they have a constituency who don't want him back... i.e. politics. The Libs didn't want him back either or at least made no efforts to repatriate him either. Racism has nothing to do with it...


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> You do realize that people's happiness or lack there of is relevant to almost everything that human beings do, that is why they call it "the pursuit of happiness"... It was simply an obvious statement of fact relating to those who don't want him back, they may not be happy about it but the Supreme Court has ruled and that is it... he should be brought back.
> 
> This continual delay smells like they have a constituency who don't want him back... i.e. politics. The Libs didn't want him back either or at least made no efforts to repatriate him either. Racism has nothing to do with it...


Racism has everything to do with it. The common refrain I hear is send him back to his own country and se how he does, since he looks to be of Arabic origin. Well guess what? He was born in Toronto, which makes him just as Canadian as you or I. I would also suggest that "the pursuit of happiness" is meant to refer to your own personal pursuit, not the glee or lack thereof one may feel about the news you read on the front page of your newspaper. How I feel about it is irrelevant…justice cannot be based simply on what's popular. And you are right: the Supreme court has ruled, long ago I might add—it is the government that has erred.

And finally, let us not forget that Khadr was a CHILD at the time of the alleged crime. Here he is at age 14.


----------



## Macfury

Why post the picture? Is that supposed to be part of your argument?


----------



## macintosh doctor

fjnmusic said:


> Since when is people's happiness relevant? There are all kinds of horrible people in Canadian prisons, and we certainly do not have to like them, but at least all had the benefit of a fair trial under Canadian law. When you compare Omar Khadr allegedly lobbing a grenade in self-defense at the age if 15 with say Mark Twitchell, who dismembered Johnny Altinger after luring him online, I think it's a travesty of justice that Twitchell has all the benefit of the doubt while Khadr does not. This continual delay by the Harper gov't sure smells like racism.


You may call it his self defense to throw garnade at the allied troops that are there trying to prevent the spread of terrorism by Islamist extremists..Yet why his whole family who have been on record they hate our western life style and country living in Canada as well his father and brother are part of the Islamist extremists..

I for one am glad the government is taking their time in doing what ever research they can on this convicted extremist who is guilty of killing a solider. 

Once he has served his sentence you know he will be back on the streets trying to spread his hate like his family taught him too.. Not to mention I am sure he will sue the Government in hope to receive millions, in which case it will be funneled back to his 'family's country' - he maybe born in Canada but surely doesn't respect his birth country.

I am not sure why Canada has to bring back convicted killers home? should they not stay and pay for the crime they committed? if that is the case - every convicted Canadian killers around the world should be flown home then..


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *Racism has everything to do with it*. The common refrain I hear is send him back to his own country and se how he does, since he looks to be of Arabic origin. Well guess what? He was born in Toronto, which makes him just as Canadian as you or I. I would also suggest that "the pursuit of happiness" is meant to refer to your own personal pursuit, not the glee or lack thereof one may feel about the news you read on the front page of your newspaper. How I feel about it is irrelevant…justice cannot be based simply on what's popular. *And you are right: the Supreme court has ruled, long ago I might add—it is the government that has erred.*
> 
> And finally, let us not forget that Khadr was a CHILD at the time of the alleged crime. Here he is at age 14.
> 
> View attachment 24651


Sigh... boy you get worked up over this issue eh?

Racism is not the issue for the government and I couldn't give a rat's a** about the public's refrain. As for the happiness aspect you seem a little overly focused on it as it was a passing comment and was not meant to be part of the debate... read what I was saying and you will see that... I didn't realize I needed to throw in a couple of  to make it clear.

I have acknowledged that in every post I made on the subject it seems you want to debate someone who is actually agreeing with you on this point.

Who cares what he looked like at 14... post a photo of Luka Rocco Magnotta or Paul Bernardo and I bet they look all cute and innocent as well... but you know what they at least waited until they were adults before they started killing people so who is more evil a kid who kills people or an adult?... Maybe the killer who is a child just got started early with their career and is a prodigy?


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Racism is not the issue for the government and I couldn't give a rat's a** about the public's refrain.


Exactly. It's his status as a murderer (and potential terrorist indoctrination) that's significant.


----------



## fjnmusic

macintosh doctor said:


> You may call it his self defense to throw garnade at the allied troops that are there trying to prevent the spread of terrorism by Islamist extremists..Yet why his whole family who have been on record they hate our western life style and country living in Canada as well his father and brother are part of the Islamist extremists..
> 
> I for one am glad the government is taking their time in doing what ever research they can on this convicted extremist who is guilty of killing a solider.
> 
> Once he has served his sentence you know he will be back on the streets trying to spread his hate like his family taught him too.. Not to mention I am sure he will sue the Government in hope to receive millions, in which case it will be funneled back to his 'family's country' - he maybe born in Canada but surely doesn't respect his birth country.
> 
> I am not sure why Canada has to bring back convicted killers home? should they not stay and pay for the crime they committed? if that is the case - every convicted Canadian killers around the world should be flown home then..


They are planning to close Gitmo, in case you hadn't heard. The Americans who tried and convicted him also want him sent home to Canada. He would not be free, since he has already pleaded guilty; he would serve his remaining sentence in a Canadian jail. 

Also, I know many people who bitch and complain about Canada all the time, some who even hate it at times, but that does not take away their Canadian citizenship.

You seem to be very sure of a great many things that have not happened yet. I am only sure that this subject exposes a great deal of hypocrisy and racism on this forum.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Exactly. It's his status as a murderer (and potential terrorist indoctrination) that's significant.


If that's the case, shouldn't we be trying to send all the Canadian murderers to prisons in other countries as well? Let me repeat: the Americans who tried and convicted him also want him to serve his time in Canada. Are Canadian prisons not good enough for you?


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> If that's the case, shouldn't we be trying to send all the Canadian murderers to prisons in other countries as well? Let me repeat: the Americans who tried and convicted him also want him to serve his time in Canada. Are Canadian prisons not good enough for you?


Is that supposed to imply some sort of moral statement on the part of the Americans? They simply don't want him.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> They are planning to close Gitmo, in case you hadn't heard. The Americans who tried and convicted him also want him sent home to Canada. He would not be free, since he has already pleaded guilty; he would serve his remaining sentence in a Canadian jail.
> 
> Also, I know many people who bitch and complain about Canada all the time, some who even hate it at times, but that does not take away their Canadian citizenship.
> 
> You seem to be very sure of a great many things that have not happened yet.* I am only sure that this subject exposes a great deal of hypocrisy and racism on this forum.*


Wow really...? Who ever said anything that would lead you to believe that?? The common reason that has been expressed is that he is a murder, potentialy a terrorist and has family ties to Al Qaeda. Who ever said anything along the lines of "Let the rat bastard Arab rot in jail"... or some such???... No one. 

IMO your statement "this subject exposes a great deal of hypocrisy and racism on this forum" is completely unfounded and presumptuous in the extreme.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *If that's the case, shouldn't we be trying to send all the Canadian murderers to prisons in other countries as well?* Let me repeat: the Americans who tried and convicted him also want him to serve his time in Canada. Are Canadian prisons not good enough for you?


What??? He is already in a foreign prison and *was never incarcerated here*... your argument is starting to get seriously convoluted.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Who cares what he looked like at 14... post a photo of Luka Rocco Magnotta or Paul Bernardo and I bet they look all cute and innocent as well... but you know what they at least waited until they were adults before they started killing people so who is more evil a kid who kills people or an adult?... Maybe the killer who is a child just got started early with their career and is a prodigy?


I posted the picture because that's about how old he was when he allegedly threw the grenade that killed a US soldier. He has pleaded guilty to this, even though he has a very good defense, since the building he was in was under attack by US forces. Are you suggesting that US forces never make mistakes or fire on civilians, or kill the wrong people accidentally? Also, the other convicted murderers that you mention had been adults for a very long time before murdering their victims in a premeditated fashion. Big difference.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> What??? He is already in a foreign prison and *was never incarcerated here*... your argument is starting to get seriously convoluted.


That prison is closing and those same Americans want him to go to Canada. Read the news.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Wow really...? Who ever said anything that would lead you to believe that?? The common reason that has been expressed is that he is a murder, potentialy a terrorist and has family ties to Al Qaeda. Who ever said anything along the lines of "Let the rat bastard Arab rot in jail"... or some such???... No one.
> 
> IMO your statement "this subject exposes a great deal of hypocrisy and racism on this forum" is completely unfounded and presumptuous in the extreme.


Well…you just said it.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> I posted the picture because that's about how old he was when he allegedly threw the grenade that killed a US soldier. He has pleaded guilty to this, even though he has a very good defense, since the building he was in was under attack by US forces. Are you suggesting that US forces never make mistakes or fire on civilians, or kill the wrong people accidentally?* Also, the other convicted murderers that you mention had been adults for a very long time before murdering their victims in a premeditated fashion. Big difference*.


Exactly. Therein lies the rub and so begs the question... who is more "evil" a child murder or an adult murder? A child is supposedly "innocent" and can't know any better, but what if they do? I certainly knew at 15 it is wrong to kill someone... didn't you?


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Well…you just said it.


What the f**k are you talking about????? Do I have to be racist or harbour racist tendencies because I know what racists might say??? You've gone off the deep of logic my friend and I resent your insinuation very, very much!!!  tptptptp


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> That prison is closing and those same Americans want him to go to Canada. Read the news.


Irrelevant to your statement... "If that's the case, shouldn't we be trying to send all the Canadian murderers to prisons in other countries as well?" He's already there and was never sent there by the Canadian government.

Read your own post and stop being so GD condescending and higher than mighty... it doesn't look good on you.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> That prison is closing and those same Americans want him to go to Canada. Read the news.


You act as if though its closure is imminent. Efforts to shut it down have been extremely problematic. As of July 2012, 168 detainees remain at Guantanamo.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Why post the picture? Is that supposed to be part of your argument?


Absolutely. Ever see 12 Angry Men? Juror #8 eventually convinces the other 11 jurors to reconsider their positions after looking closely at all the evidence. They realize their initial support of a guilty verdict was based on prejudice, racism, and assumptions that proved to be false. The boy in the story had a right to a fair trial and could not be convicted if there was a reasonable doubt.

All of the interviews I have heard or read about Khadr suggest a similar circumstance. He did not have a fair trial; he had a military trial. I followed it closely. The only reason he could be convicted was that he pleaded guilty, apparently under the promise of being transferred to a Canadian prison. He could not have been convicted on evidence alone, since nobody actually saw throw the grenade, nor did he know exactly who it would hit. 

Anyway, I am not likely to convince you nor the others here who seem to have a pretty definite view of the danger Khadr would pose to national security from within a Canadian prison cell. I just wish people would do some research before they spout off.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Exactly. Therein lies the rub and so begs the question... who is more "evil" a child murder or an adult murder? A child is supposedly "innocent" and can't know any better, but what if they do? I certainly knew at 15 it is wrong to kill someone... didn't you?


Well, regardless of your personal beliefs about what age a person loses their innocence, we do have laws in this country to protect young offenders and give them a better shot at rehabilitation. I'm not saying I agree with those laws, but they nonetheless exist to protect Canadian citizens, of which Omar Khadr is one.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Absolutely. Ever see 12 Angry Men? Juror #8 eventually convinces the other 11 jurors to reconsider their positions after looking closely at all the evidence. They realize their initial support of a guilty verdict was based on prejudice, racism, and assumptions that proved to be false. The boy in the story had a right to a fair trial and could not be convicted if there was a reasonable doubt.
> 
> All of the interviews I have heard or read about Khadr suggest a similar circumstance. He did not have a fair trial; he had a military trial. I followed it closely. The only reason he could be convicted was that he pleaded guilty, apparently under the promise of being transferred to a Canadian prison. He could not have been convicted on evidence alone, since nobody actually saw throw the grenade, nor did he know exactly who it would hit.
> 
> Anyway, I am not likely to convince you nor the others here who seem to have a pretty definite view of the danger Khadr would pose to national security from within a Canadian prison cell.* I just wish people would do some research before they spout off*.



What makes you think they haven't?? They just have come to a different conclusion than you based on the evidence. I didn't realize you were a Supreme Court Judge and your opinion was the only one that matters or has the right to be expressed.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Absolutely. Ever see 12 Angry Men? Juror #8 eventually convinces the other 11 jurors to reconsider their positions after looking closely at all the evidence. They realize their initial support of a guilty verdict was based on prejudice, racism, and assumptions that proved to be false.


This ain't the movies, and posting a photo of the murderer doesn't change my opinion. The idea that you believe you may be exposing some sort of underlying racism with this image is somewhat embarrassing.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> What makes you think they haven't?? They just have come to a different conclusion than you based on the evidence. I didn't realize you were a Supreme Court Judge and your opinion was the only one that matters or has the right to be expressed.


Well, I try to keep that fact quiet.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Well, regardless of your personal beliefs about what age a person loses their innocence, we do have laws in this country to protect young offenders and give them a better shot at rehabilitation. I'm not saying I agree with those laws, but they nonetheless exist to protect Canadian citizens, of which Omar Khadr is one.


He could have been tried as an adult here because of the nature of the crime under the Young Offenders Act as I have already stated.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> This ain't the movies, and posting a photo of the murderer doesn't change my opinion. The idea that you believe you may be exposing some sort of underlying racism with this image is somewhat embarrassing.


No, it's just that Khadr bears more than a passing resemblance to the kid in the film who's accused of murdering his own father. My own bias, I admit.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> He could have been tried as an adult here because of the nature of the crime under the Young Offenders Act as I have already stated.


Killing an intruder in self-defense is a far cry from murder in the first or even second degree. The point is that this Canadian citizen could have been tried in Canada if the gov't had insisted and received a fair trial. Now we'll never know.


----------



## macintosh doctor

fjnmusic said:


> They are planning to close Gitmo, in case you hadn't heard. The Americans who tried and convicted him also want him sent home to Canada. He would not be free, since he has already pleaded guilty; he would serve his remaining sentence in a Canadian jail.
> 
> Also, I know many people who bitch and complain about Canada all the time, some who even hate it at times, but that does not take away their Canadian citizenship.
> 
> You seem to be very sure of a great many things that have not happened yet. I am only sure that this subject exposes a great deal of hypocrisy and racism on this forum.


if Gitmo is American they should send him to the prisons in US, since he has killed a US citizen and tried on US property .

The people you know - that hate Canada - have the family members been part of a terror cell? .. so stop protecting this guy.. I not sure what your point is and why you would want a convicted terrorist with a family of terrorists back in Canada.. not sure why help the guy?
I could careless of his color or race or age or sex.. he and his family are terrorists .. his father died helping Al Qaida and his brother is a terrorist as well.. 

Also my point is if you help him, then you should bring home all convicted killers home too.. NOT.. do the crime pay the fine.. why should we Canadian tax payers, pay for it..

also posting a picture of something will not change or bias my views..
here I am posting a picture of kittens ... still doesn't mean i want any or will save them from destruction because they have been too long at the shelter.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *Killing an intruder in self-defense is a far cry from murder in the first or even second degree.* *The point is that this Canadian citizen could have been tried in Canada if the gov't had insisted and received a fair trial.* Now we'll never know.


What??? I really have no idea what you are talking about here... He was in a military encampment... in a war zone... you are seriously going to try and equate that with "Killing an intruder in self-defense"... that is as far detached from the reality of the situation as to have no comparative relevance whatsoever.

And exactly what means of "insistence" would have accomplished that? 

The Libs didn't do it and yet you seem to want to place all the blame on the current government even though the Libs had 3.5 years (Khadr was captured on July 27, 2002 by American forces, the Cons came to power on January 23, 2006) to make such "insistent" "demands"/pleas and they didn't... yet you only want to blame the current government for this lack of "insistence".


----------



## macintosh doctor

screature said:


> And exactly what means of "insistence" would have accomplished that?
> 
> The Libs didn't do it and yet you seem to want to place all the blame on the current government even though the Libs had 3.5 years (Khadr was captured on July 27, 2002 by American forces, the Cons came to power on January 23, 2006) to make such "insistent" "demands"/pleas and they didn't... yet you only want to blame the current government for this lack of "insistence".


good point.. I think everyone is always trying to blame the current government for the previous ones mistakes..


----------



## eMacMan

macintosh doctor said:


> if Gitmo is American they should send him to the prisons in US, since he has killed a US citizen and tried on US property .
> 
> The people you know - that hate Canada - have the family members been part of a terror cell? .. so stop protecting this guy.. I not sure what your point is and why you would want a convicted terrorist with a family of terrorists back in Canada.. not sure why help the guy?
> I could careless of his color or race or age or sex.. he and his family are terrorists .. his father died helping Al Qaida and his brother is a terrorist as well..
> 
> Also my point is if you help him, then you should bring home all convicted killers home too.. NOT.. do the crime pay the fine.. why should we Canadian tax payers for it..


Not remotely possible as there was not even a pretense of a fair trial. Once on US soil the verdict would be tossed as evidence obtained under torture would be deemed inadmissible.

BO would dearly love to get Khadr out of Gitmo so they shut the embarrassment down. We can only hope that the Harper Government is dragging its feet to gain some much needed concessions as to FATCA. Yea I know not a snow balls chance in Gitmo.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> Not remotely possible as there was not even a pretense of a fair trial. Once on US soil the verdict would be tossed as evidence obtained under torture would be deemed inadmissible.
> 
> BO would dearly love to get Khadr out of Gitmo so they shut the embarrassment down*. We can only hope that the Harper Government is dragging its feet to gain some much needed concessions as to FATCA*. Yea I know not a snow balls chance in Gitmo.


Oh... my... god... I don't know whether to laugh or to cry if you are serious. :yikes:


----------



## fjnmusic

> Khadr, a 24-year-old Canadian citizen and the youngest detainee held at Guantanamo, pleaded guilty to murder, material support for terrorism and other charges Monday, which means an early end to the first military commission trial conducted during the Obama administration.
> 
> The sentencing phase of Khadr's case is now under way and is expected to conclude by the end of the week. The charges carry a maximum of life in prison.
> 
> The terms of Khadr's plea deal have not been made public. But a source close to the case said the agreement calls for an eight-year sentence. One year of that would be served in U.S. custody, and the balance would be served in Canada.
> Col. Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, said that if the jury panel agrees to a sentence that differs from the terms of the plea agreement, Khadr would receive whichever sentence is shorter.


Well, it certainly looks to me like they messed up on the terms of his incarceration. It's certainly been considerably longer than one year in the US already. Try going on ten years behind bars, quite a lot for an eight year sentence.

The article is from October 2010. If they delay too long, there will be no sentence left to serve when he comes to Canada and hence no opportunity for rehabilitation. Is that what we really want?

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-26/us/khadr.statement_1_omar-khadr-guilty-plea-afghanistan?_s=PM:US


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> What??? I really have no idea what you are talking about here... He was in a military encampment... in a war zone... you are seriously going to try and equate that with "Killing an intruder in self-defense"... that is as far detached from the reality of the situation as to have no comparative relevance whatsoever.
> 
> And exactly what means of "insistence" would have accomplished that?
> 
> The Libs didn't do it and yet you seem to want to place all the blame on the current government even though the Libs had 3.5 years (Khadr was captured on July 27, 2002 by American forces, the Cons came to power on January 23, 2006) to make such "insistent" "demands"/pleas and they didn't... yet you only want to blame the current government for this lack of "insistence".


His trial didn't take place until long after Harper came to power in 2006. This does not absolve either the Libs or the Cons from representing its citizens internationally. The trial itself took place in Cuba—not exactly American soil either. And it is the Harper government that continues to drag its feet. As I explained in a previous post, by the time Khadr finally comes to Canada, there may not be any sentence left to serve. Is that what you want?


----------



## fjnmusic

macintosh doctor said:


> also posting a picture of something will not change or bias my views..
> here I am posting a picture of kittens ... still doesn't mean i want any or will save them from destruction because they have been too long at the shelter.


Cute kittens. I sure hope they don't grow up to become terrorists.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Oh... my... god... I don't know whether to laugh or to cry if you are serious. :yikes:


Foreign policy is all about sticking it to seniors--hardworking ones, no less.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> His trial didn't take place until long after Harper came to power in 2006. This does not absolve either the Libs or the Cons from representing its citizens internationally. The trial itself took place in *Cuba&mdash*;not exactly American soil either. And it is the Harper government that continues to drag its feet. As I explained in a previous post, by the time Khadr finally comes to Canada, there may not be any sentence left to serve. Is that what you want?


"Cuba&mdash"??? You have other posts that contain such gibberish and I have to infer what you mean... please explain what this series of letters is supposed to mean... and this one... Well&hellip...???

Personally, I really don't care that much where he serves out his sentence... except if he serves it out here then we have to pay for it... If he serves it in a foreign prison then someone else is paying for it... 

I'm Ok with that from a tax dollar perspective... from a Charter perspective that the Supreme Court has ruled on then he should be brought "home" (one that he and his family clearly have no allegiance to) ASAP... 

I sometimes wonder how much the people who care so much for the well being of the likes of Khadr give a rat's a** about their neighbour down the street who may be suffering any number of injustices or troubles... the cause celeb is just all too easy because it doesn't require any personal involvement or effort whatsoever.

Take someone into your home who is suffering from domestic abuse for 6 weeks to keep them safe and then maybe we can talk realistically about this issue... 

You're so worried about Khadr...? Try worrying about the people right next to you first and actually doing something about it... it helps to keep things in perspective.


----------



## macintosh doctor

screature said:


> I sometimes wonder how much the people who care so much for the well being of the likes of Khadr give a rat's a** about their neighbour down the street who may be suffering any number of injustices or troubles... the cause celeb is just all too easy because it doesn't require any personal involvement or effort whatsoever.
> 
> Take someone into your home who is suffering from domestic abuse for 6 weeks to keep them safe and then maybe we can talk realistically about this issue...
> 
> You're so worried about Khadr... try worrying about the people right next to you first and actually doing something about it... it helps to keep things in perspective.


when I was younger my home was like a refugee camp.. My parents always took people in who needed help.. it drove me nuts.. because some of them did not appreciate what we did for them - most of them did, not all- some of them expected the help and were ungrateful.

But my parents always said try to help some one out who is in need, in case you ever need it.
I always try to help others and I have learned - I am starting not to be so generous as the few are ruining it for the others.


----------



## fjnmusic

Good lord. It's a long dash on my iPhone, not sure why it doesn't format the same way on your device. I have grown tired of this conversation, and not a lot of growth is happening at the moment. I'll check back later to see if any seeds have germinated. Housework beckons.


----------



## groovetube

As someone who dislikes the Harper government, my sympathy for Khadr is rather limited. It's too bad he had such a screwed up family, and found himself where he did. The definition of a child soldier is a little thin, because he was 15 at the time of capture. Though he was a child soldier given his involvement prior, to turning 15.

I don't think he should be coddled, or given special treatment. But he should be afforded whatever rights he has, and a fair judgment. The Harper government, for whatever it's reasons, are now dragging their feet despite having agreed to take him. I believe it's for political reasons, not the BS excuses tossed out and swallowed by many.

Hopefully this post doesn't elicit any foaming at the mouth responses I've seen so far.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Good lord. It's a long dash on my iPhone, not sure why it doesn't format the same way on your device. I have grown tired of this conversation, and not a lot of growth is happening at the moment. I'll check back later to see if any seeds have germinated. Housework beckons.


Growth=Conversion to your ideas?

The seeds were sterile, and planting was poorly executed, so they will not ever grow.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Good lord. It's a long dash on my iPhone, not sure why it doesn't *format the same way on your device*. I have grown tired of this conversation, and not a lot of growth is happening at the moment. I'll check back later to see if any seeds have germinated. Housework beckons.


My "device" is a Mac Pro... Maybe your "device" is the problem...


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Good lord. It's a long dash on my iPhone, not sure why it doesn't format the same way on your device. I have grown tired of this conversation, and *not a lot of growth is happening at the moment*. I'll check back later to see if any seeds have germinated. Housework beckons.





Macfury said:


> *Growth=Conversion to your ideas?
> 
> The seeds were sterile, and planting was poorly executed, so they will not ever grow.*


Yep seems to be the case... It seems to be more an unwillingness to accept that not everyone comes to the same conclusion that you do... even with all the "facts" as we know them... just more condescension and holier than thou posts... 

Quite sad really... especially when if you don't agree with someone else's opinion that makes you a racist... very sad (and ironic actually) indeed...  ...

Makes me think that fjnmusic has not experienced actual racism first hand and what it really means... 

fjnmusic's notion that any of the posts here constitute racism indicates to me a lack of ever having experienced it first hand as what goes on here (at least in this thread) ain't it. Not even close.


----------



## fjnmusic

Screature, you're reading way too much into this. My device is an iPhone 4S. You get a long dash by holding down the dash key until a long dash appears. As far as condescension, look in the mirror. I have not experienced much racism myself, but my friends and students certainly have. The conversation was getting pretty static and I have things to do, so like I said, I'll check back later.

And last point: if Omar Khadr's name had been Thomas O'Connor, he'd have been back on Canadian soil several years ago. That's what I mean by racism.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> And last point: if Omar Khadr's name had been Thomas O'Connor, he'd have been back on Canadian soil several years ago. That's what I mean by racism.


Under that faulty premise, Marc Emery would have been repatriated months ago

FreeMarc.ca | Free Marc


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Screature, *you're reading way too much into this*. My device is an iPhone 4S. You get a long dash by holding down the dash key until a long dash appears. As far as condescension, look in the mirror. I have not experienced much racism myself, but my friends and students certainly have. The conversation was getting pretty static and I have things to do, so like I said, I'll check back later.
> 
> And last point: if Omar Khadr's name had been Thomas O'Connor, he'd have been back on Canadian soil several years ago. That's what I mean by racism.


I'm not reading into anything just reading your posts which have been condescending and insulting to me and others here on ehMac... I am far from being a racist and have actually suffered from the slings and arrows of racism... have you? I find your "academic" approach to the subject less than enlightening and actually quite confrontational and not constructive at all...


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Under that faulty premise, Marc Emery would have been repatriated months ago
> 
> FreeMarc.ca | Free Marc


nonsense.

Marc Emery was extradited to the USA. Different circumstances.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> I'm not reading into anything just reading your posts which have been condescending and insulting to me and others here on ehMac... I am far from being a racist and have actually suffered from the slings and arrows of racism... have you? I find your "academic" approach to the subject less than enlightening and actually quite confrontational and not constructive at all...


Hoo boy. I am not playing this game today. Sorry if I've hurt your feelings. And anyone else on ehMac that I've somehow inferred is a racist because they may not share my opinion on Omar Khadr and what I feel was a flagrant abuse of his rights as a Canadian citizen. Apologies all round. I also apologize for apparently being too academic, whatever that means.


----------



## macintosh doctor

Removed already covered


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Hoo boy. I am not playing this game today. Sorry if I've hurt your feelings. And anyone else on ehMac that I've somehow inferred is a racist because they may not share my opinion on Omar Khadr and what I feel was a flagrant abuse of his rights as a Canadian citizen. Apologies all round. I also apologize for apparently being too academic, whatever that means.


Your apology comes across as being less than sincere but I guess it is better than nothing...

Time to move on.


----------



## kps

fjnmusic said:


> Hoo boy. I am not playing this game today. Sorry if I've hurt your feelings. And anyone else on ehMac that I've somehow inferred is a racist because they may not share my opinion on Omar Khadr and what I feel was a flagrant abuse of his rights as a Canadian citizen. Apologies all round. I also apologize for apparently being too academic, whatever that means.


LOL, keep on trucking...

BTW, what are our charter rights under war in a foreign country? Especially if he's on the "other" side ---are we not still involved there? Treason rings a bell for some reason. It's not like this guy was a tourist found spitting on the sidewalk in Singapore and we need to save him from the lash.


----------



## Macfury

kps said:


> LOL, keep on trucking...
> 
> BTW, what are our charter rights under war in a foreign country? Especially if he's on the "other" side ---are we not still involved there? Treason rings a bell for some reason. It's not like this guy was a tourist found spitting on the sidewalk in Singapore and we need to save him from the lash.


Exactly. Some people seem to see these as cases equivalent to the one you describe.

And I still want to know how a guy named Marc Emery can be stuck in a U.S. prison for mailing out cannabis seeds from Canada, if our system supposedly favours white males with western sounding names.


----------



## macintosh doctor

Macfury said:


> Exactly. Some people seem to see these as cases equivalent to the one you describe.
> 
> And I still want to know how a guy named Marc Emery can be stuck in a U.S. prison for mailing out cannabis seeds from Canada, if our system supposedly favours white males with western sounding names.


He got caught because he was stupid and antagonizing the Americans .
Had an ego the size of Canada. 
I met the guy once at Idea City / TED and he came with a carry on full of weed and joints - which he gave away as free samples. 
What's the saying sooner or later the dog will bite if you keep agrivating it.


----------



## groovetube

macintosh doctor said:


> He got caught because he was stupid and antagonizing the Americans .
> Had an ego the size of Canada.
> I met the guy once at Idea City / TED and he came with a carry on full of weed and joints - which he gave away as free samples.
> What's the saying sooner or later the dog will bite if you keep agrivating it.


Not to mention the fact that he was extradited to the US to face the charges.

But don't let these sorts of differences get in the way of anything.


----------



## macintosh doctor

groovetube said:


> Not to mention the fact that he was extradited to the US to face the charges.
> 
> But don't let these sorts of differences get in the way of anything.


Same thing happened to him in Thailand but he left before they caught him because prisons are nicer here


----------



## Macfury

macintosh doctor said:


> He got caught because he was stupid and antagonizing the Americans .
> Had an ego the size of Canada.
> I met the guy once at Idea City / TED and he came with a carry on full of weed and joints - which he gave away as free samples.
> What's the saying sooner or later the dog will bite if you keep agrivating it.


For sure he was antagonizing them. However, fjn believed that racism was at play in the Khadr case, and anyone with a western sounding name would be brought home to serve time in Canada in a heartbeat. That Emery is still in a U.S. prison is proof that he is wrong.


----------



## fjnmusic

kps said:


> LOL, keep on trucking...
> 
> BTW, what are our charter rights under war in a foreign country? Especially if he's on the "other" side ---are we not still involved there? Treason rings a bell for some reason. It's not like this guy was a tourist found spitting on the sidewalk in Singapore and we need to save him from the lash.


It is not treason unless you were to kill a soldier from your OWN country; Khadr is Canadian, not American. Canadian civilians do not swear allegiance to the American flag. True, this is a pretty bizarre situation and rare in international law, but there are some indisputable facts: he was 15 at the time, and the building he was in was under attack by US troops. It's not like US soldiers don't accidentally kill civilians sometimes, especially foreign ones. Canada's first four soldier deaths in Afhhanistan were from "friendly" American fire. 

Anyway, the main point is that the boy pleaded guilty (which I am not convinced he actually is yet) in exchange for being able to serve the rest of his sentence in a Canadian prison. The Canadian Supreme Court has already determined that his rights were violated and he should be brought home to Canada (again, born in Toronto), and his "confession" was obtained using torture—inadmissible in any Canadian or American court save for the military court in Guatanamo Bay in Cuba. And Barack Obama wants Jim back in Canada too, as the youngest Gitmo prisoner and only Westerner left there. So what is Harper's government (the gov't in power, which happens to be Conservative) waiting for? All of the footwork has already been completed—why the delay?


----------



## macintosh doctor

Macfury said:


> For sure he was antagonizing them. However, fjn believed that racism was at play in the Khadr case, and anyone with a western sounding name would be brought home to serve time in Canada in a heartbeat. That Emery is still in a U.S. prison is proof that he is wrong.


if people stop living under rocks and realize that Canada can't keep coming to help criminals when ever they are in trouble we will be fine.. especially ones that lobby explosives at allied troops. [ his family is a terrorist group to start with. ] To bad he wasn't arrested by some other country which has much nicer prisons. LOL [ Please note the sarcasm. ] - gitmo is a resort by any standard of living.. 

Seriously.. it has nothing to do with race, wish people understand that..

Mark Emery was poking the sleeping tiger in every country until he woke one and he got what was coming to him.


----------



## kps

fjnmusic said:


> It is not treason unless you were to kill a soldier from your OWN country; Khadr is Canadian, not American. Canadian civilians do not swear allegiance to the American flag. True, this is a pretty bizarre situation and rare in international law, but there are some indisputable facts: he was 15 at the time, and the building he was in was under attack by US troops. It's not like US soldiers don't accidentally kill civilians sometimes, especially foreign ones. Canada's first four soldier deaths in Afhhanistan were from "friendly" American fire.
> 
> Anyway, the main point is that the boy pleaded guilty (which I am not convinced he actually is yet) in exchange for being able to serve the rest of his sentence in a Canadian prison. The Canadian Supreme Court has already determined that his rights were violated and he should be brought home to Canada (again, born in Toronto), and his "confession" was obtained using torture—inadmissible in any Canadian or American court save for the military court in Guatanamo Bay in Cuba. And Barack Obama wants Jim back in Canada too, as the youngest Gitmo prisoner and only Westerner left there. So what is Harper's government (the gov't in power, which happens to be Conservative) waiting for? All of the footwork has already been completed—why the delay?


Killing an allied soldier in the same war in which your country is involved in is definitely treason.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *It is not treason unless you were to kill a soldier from your OWN country; Khadr is Canadian, not American.* Canadian civilians do not swear allegiance to the American flag. True, this is a pretty bizarre situation and rare in international law, but there are some indisputable facts: he was 15 at the time, and the building he was in was under attack by US troops. It's not like US soldiers don't accidentally kill civilians sometimes, especially foreign ones. Canada's first four soldier deaths in Afhhanistan were from "friendly" American fire.
> 
> Anyway, the main point is that the boy pleaded guilty (which I am not convinced he actually is yet) in exchange for being able to serve the rest of his sentence in a Canadian prison. The Canadian Supreme Court has already determined that his rights were violated and he should be brought home to Canada (again, born in Toronto), and his "confession" was obtained using torture—inadmissible in any Canadian or American court save for the military court in Guatanamo Bay in Cuba. And Barack Obama wants Jim back in Canada too, as the youngest Gitmo prisoner and only Westerner left there. So what is Harper's government (the gov't in power, which happens to be Conservative) waiting for? All of the footwork has already been completed—why the delay?


Hmm not so sure about this... it was a NATO allied force and he killed one of our allies, may not be expressly treason by the letter of the law but pretty damn close to it.

As I have already agreed many times becuase of the SC ruling he should be brought "home" (although I highly doubt he truly regards Canada as home) and will be I suspect at some time. Of course Obama wants him sent home, better we pay his prison bills than them...

On our government's front I have already told you, it is a political issue and that many of the conservative government's supporters don't want him here so the government is delaying as long as they can to appease that constituency... that is why they are dragging their feet. It's politics my friend and if the government can continue to delay based on technicalities they are going to do so for as long as they can.

On another front with our system he would likely be out on parole in very short order and I think the government has legitimate concerns regarding what that may mean for the morale of hidden terrorists and their cells in this country. They would rather not have him speaking freely about his incarceration and his anti-western propaganda, i.e. stirring the pot.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Hmm not so sure about this... it was a NATO allied force and he killed one of our allies, may not be expressly treason by the letter of the law but pretty damn close to it.
> 
> As I have already agreed many times becuase of the SC ruling he should be brought "home" (although I highly doubt he truly regards Canada as home) and will be I suspect at some time. Of course Obama wants him sent home, better we pay his prison bills than them...
> 
> On our government's front I have already told you, it is a political issue and that many of the conservative government's supporters don't want him here so the government is delaying as long as they can to appease that constituency... that is why they are dragging their feet. It's politics my friend and if the government can continue to delay based on technicalities they are going to do so for as long as they can.
> 
> On another front with our system he would likely be out on parole in very short order and I think the government has legitimate concerns regarding what that may mean for the morale of hidden terrorists and their cells in this country. They would rather not have him speaking freely about his incarceration and his anti-western propaganda, i.e. stirring the pot.


If we delay long enough he'll be finished his sentence and he'll be a free man when he comes to Canada. And given the support he's received so far, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he has some less than friendly views about his country of origin. Way too many people see only the punishment aspect of being sentenced to prison and forget all about the rehabilitation side. We do this at our own peril.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> If we delay long enough he'll be finished his sentence and he'll be a free man when he comes to Canada. And given the support he's received so far, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he has some less than friendly views about his country of origin. Way too many people see only the punishment aspect of being sentenced to prison and forget all about the rehabilitation side. We do this at our own peril.


Why should he receive any support? And why would we expect this guy to have friendly views about this country at all? He wants to be free--end of story.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Why should he receive any support? And why would we expect this guy to have friendly views about this country at all? He wants to be free--end of story.


I get the distinct impression that you really know very little about "this guy", MF.


----------



## kps

I don't think his views (or the views of his family, for that matter) have changed since prior to the Afghan situation. Ether way, bad news all around.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> If we delay long enough he'll be finished his sentence and he'll be a free man when he comes to Canada. And given the support he's received so far, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he has some less than friendly views about his country of origin. Way too many people see only the punishment aspect of being sentenced to prison and forget all about the rehabilitation side. We do this at our own peril.


He is clearly beyond "rehabilitation" and has been so since he was a boy, his father made sure of that...

We let him out at our own peril but we have no choice.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> I get the distinct impression that you really know very little about "this guy", MF.


Probably about as much as you fjnmusic as you both only get your information from the media... more condescension fjnmusic... seems you aren't so sorry afterall.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> He is clearly beyond "rehabilitation" and has been so since he was a boy, his father made sure of that...


how do you know that?


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Probably about as much as you fjnmusic as you both only get your information from the media... more condescension fjnmusic... seems you aren't so sorry afterall.


Again, check the mirror if you're looking for condescension, Screature. Stop being so preachy. The only entity that I suggested is racist is the Canadian government and I make no apology for that. Where do you get your information from if not the media? And is it possible that the son may not believe his father's views? Do you believe everything exactly the same as your father? Should people automatically be punished for what their parents believe? That's a pretty flawed system of justice.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> how do you know that?


Let's just call it a fairly good guess... sorry to be accurate I should have said IMO he is clearly beyond rehabilitation. Maybe you or fjnmusic would like to take him into your home or community and give it a shot.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> Let's just call it a fairly good guess...


nah. lets just call it "a guess".


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Again, check the mirror if you're looking for condescension, Screature. Stop being so preachy. The only entity that I suggested is racist is the Canadian government and I make no apology for that. Where do you get your information from if not the media? And is it possible that the son may not believe his father's views? Do you believe everything exactly the same as your father? Should people automatically be punished for what their parents believe? That's a pretty flawed system of justice.


:lmao: Read your own posts fjnmusic if you want to know why I am being "preachy"... you accused others *here* of being racists, not only the government....



fjnmusic said:


> ...*I am only sure that this subject exposes a great deal of hypocrisy and racism on this forum*.


and then me directly...



screature said:


> Wow really...? Who ever said anything that would lead you to believe that?? The common reason that has been expressed is that he is a murder, potentialy a terrorist and has family ties to Al Qaeda. Who ever said anything along the lines of "Let the rat bastard Arab rot in jail"... or some such???... No one.
> 
> IMO your statement "this subject exposes a great deal of hypocrisy and racism on this forum" is completely unfounded and presumptuous in the extreme.





fjnmusic said:


> Well…you just said it.


No condescension, no calling others here racists on my part. YOU were the only one doing that!

Of course we all get our information on this issue from the media but time and again you have made comments like you have some inside track or greater understanding or more information than the rest of us. I stand by my post.

If he didn't agree with his father or didn't accept his brainwashing he wouldn't have been in Afghanistan in the first place... he isn't being punished for his father's beliefs he is being punished for his actions.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> nah. lets just call it "a guess".


IMO let's call any suggestion to the contrary to be naive.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Let's just call it a fairly good guess... sorry to be accurate I should have said IMO he is clearly beyond rehabilitation. Maybe you or fjnmusic would like to take him into your home or community and give it a shot.


What is your problem? Look who needs to apologize for getting personal now. He has several years left to go on his sentence, which is going to be served in a prison. Why are you so opposed to that happening in a Canadian prison, which was one of the reasons he chose to plead guilty in the first place?


----------



## fjnmusic

Two very different psych assessments on Omar Khadr. What do you believe?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/16/omar-khadr-psychiatrists-review.html


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> What is your problem? *Look who needs to apologize for getting personal now.* He has several years left to go on his sentence, which is going to be served in a prison. Why are you so opposed to that happening in a Canadian prison, which was one of the reasons he chose to plead guilty in the first place?


Not in the least bit personal... did I call you a racist did I call you anything? If you can't tell when someone is being facetious I apologize for that.

I never said I am opposed to him being brought back to serve out his time in Canada, not once, check the record. In fact I have said the opposite. You just want to argue with anyone who doesn't see the guy as being some sort of victim.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Two very different psych assessments on Omar Khadr. What do you believe?
> 
> Omar Khadr: Peace-loving Canadian or al-Qaeda royalty? - World - CBC News


Both in terms of the psychiatrists. I think they both believe their analysis to be correct. 

However, Xenakis testimony is purely based on his interviews and doesn't bring any other evidence to bear on the matter whereas Welner brought much more research and other evidence to bear for consideration for his final analysis.

I have no idea who is actually correct, but I have my suspicions.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Both in terms of the psychiatrists. I think they both believe their analysis to be correct.
> 
> However, Xenakis testimony is purely based on his interviews and doesn't bring any other evidence to bear on the matter whereas Welner brought much more research and other evidence to bear for consideration for his final analysis.
> 
> I have no idea who is actually correct, but I have my suspicions.


It's also possible you can develop more empathy for someone over 200 hours than you can over 7 hours. Especially if you consider the 300 hours Welner spent finding good reasons not to be empathetic. What I am suggesting is that it is far more difficult to look another person in the eye and maintain that intense hatred than it is from a distance. And pretty much everyone here including myself and all of the non-empathetic people I read about in the letters columns of the newspaper can sit pretty high and mighty and judge this person without knowing him at all.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> It's also possible you can develop more empathy for someone over 200 hours than you can over 7 hours. Especially if you consider the 300 hours Welner spent finding good reasons not to be empathetic. What I am suggesting is that it is far more difficult to look another person in the eye and maintain that intense hatred than it is from a distance. And pretty much everyone here including myself and all of the non-empathetic people I read about in the letters columns of the newspaper can sit pretty high and mighty and judge this person without knowing him at all.


Which proves what? Even kidnap victims and hostages may suffer from Stockholm Syndrome when they're being violated by their captors.

Does meeting someone in person change your opinion of the facts? It doesn't change mine. I may find a murderer to be an engaging murderer--but still a murderer.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> It's also possible you can develop more empathy for someone over 200 hours than you can over 7 hours. *Especially if you consider the 300 hours Welner spent finding good reasons not to be empathetic. *What I am suggesting is that it is far more difficult to look another person in the eye and maintain that intense hatred than it is from a distance. And pretty much everyone here including myself and all of the non-empathetic people I read about in the letters columns of the newspaper can sit pretty high and mighty and judge this person without knowing him at all.


As a neutral 3rd party he isn't supposed to become empathetic with the accused... your defence of your position actually diminishes the value of the testimony of Dr. Xenakis.

Welner spent 300 hours analyzing the collected evidence yes... it is the responsibility of any prosecutor (or those hired by the prosecution) doing his job to look at ALL the evidence. It is also the responsibility of any prosecutor to dismiss (or recommend dismissal) if their is insufficient evidence.

Based on the evidence presented in the article alone I find Welner's analysis much more compelling than Dr. Xenakis' who by your own admission, could have become much more empathetic towards Khadr, thus clouding his judgment.

Not to mention he is a retired brigadier general and army medical corps officer with 28 years of active service and now belongs to Physicians For Human Rights... 

On the face of it it seems there may be a certain bone to pick there.... You don't get to be a general without having gone along with and believed in the military's way of doing things unless you are a complete hypocrite for 28 years.... 

Then you retire and suddenly have an epiphany... "I was all wrong. I was Saul, I am now Paul..."

Sorry it seems more likely he got bypassed for a promotion or something and now it is "pay back time"....


----------



## fjnmusic

Welner's analysis certainly is compelling. As a forensic psychiatrist, he was also witness for the prosecution, while Xenakis was a witness for the defense, although his testimony was not used. The purpose of each person's information gathering was very different, considering whom each was summoned by. However, most of Welner's conclusions, while thorough and well-argued, come from people other than Khadr himself, to the tune of about a 300:19 hours ratio a he states. He cannot really claim to know Khadr better than the other man, who spent 200 hours I interviewing him directly. 

I do not doubt that Khadr today can be manipulative and has become the poster child for Al-Qaeda, or that he has dangerous connections, or that he is a different man now after ten years of incarceration. But the fact remains he should be transferred to a Canadian prison where he can lose the hero status he currently has among other prisoners at Gitmo and deprogrammed and persuaded to learn to love Canada again so that perhaps he can actually be reformed when he is released in about six years. I would rather he emerge as someone who is grateful for what Canada has done for him rehabilitation-wise. Either way, we will get the man we deserve.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> ut the fact remains he should be transferred to a Canadian prison where he can lose the hero status he currently has among other prisoners at Gitmo and deprogrammed and persuaded to learn to love Canada again so that perhaps he can actually be reformed when he is released in about six years. I would rather he emerge as someone who is grateful for what Canada has done for him rehabilitation-wise.


I can almost see the dancing unicorns as I read this...


----------



## groovetube

of course the alternatives have been proven to be so much successful.

LOL


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I can almost see the dancing unicorns as I read this...


Speaking of condescension. You do realize that Khadr will be coming back to Canada sooner or later, don't you? Would you rather he be afforded the opportunity to make more allies in Gitmo or that he be separated from them before he returns to Canada?


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Speaking of condescension. You do realize that Khadr will be coming back to Canada sooner or later, don't you? Would you rather he be afforded the opportunity to make more allies in Gitmo or that he be separated from them before he returns to Canada?


He _migh_t be coming back to Canada. It would be presumptuous of me to assume that he is definitely making his home here. I really don't care whether he makes his allies in Gitmo or a Canadian prison--if I accept your premise that he has currently made allies in Gitmo and wants to make more..


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> He _migh_t be coming back to Canada. It would be presumptuous of me to assume that he is definitely making his home here. I really don't care whether he makes his allies in Gitmo or a Canadian prison--if I accept your premise that he has currently made allies in Gitmo and wants to make more..


According to that article I referenced on the previous page, he is the poster child for al-Qaeda at Gitmo. It would be a good idea to remove him from the posse unless we want him to become a terrorist, which I do not believe he has become yet. It would require some effort and leadership on Canada's part to reform Mr. Khadr, neither of which we appear to have at thus time.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> According to that article I referenced on the previous page, he is the poster child for al-Qaeda at Gitmo. It would be a good idea to remove him from the posse unless we want him to become a terrorist, which I do not believe he has become yet. It would require some effort and leadership on Canada's part to reform Mr. Khadr, neither of which we appear to have at thus time.


Sorry, but I find this incredible. 



fjnmusic said:


> "It would be a good idea to remove him from the posse unless we want him to become a terrorist, which I do not believe he has become yet."


He already IS a convicted terrorist. *Reformed in our prison system?* Good luck with that!


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> He already IS a convicted terrorist.


I'm saddened that people whom I believe to have some integrity would give such credence to a U.S. military court that lacks any sort of validity, in courts and laws that were concocted for the situation within a climate of unreasonable paranoia and fear.

As for "convicted" - he confessed to the crime as part of a deal to get the hell out of Guantanamo Bay prison and return to Canada, a deal that the Canadian government has yet to honour.


----------



## keebler27

CubaMark said:


> As for "convicted" - he confessed to the crime as part of a deal to get the hell out of Guantanamo Bay prison and return to Canada, a deal that the Canadian government has yet to honour.


whoa Mark? Do you mean that you don't think he's guilty of the crimes? Whether or not he's been convicted, he did it. 

He killed a medic.


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> I'm saddened that people whom I believe to have some integrity would give such credence to a U.S. military court that lacks any sort of validity, in courts and laws that were concocted for the situation within a climate of unreasonable paranoia and fear.
> 
> As for "convicted" - *he confessed to the crime* as part of a deal to get the hell out of Guantanamo Bay prison and return to Canada, a deal that the Canadian government has yet to honour.


^

Pretty much convinces me. Any person of integrity would never confess.


----------



## groovetube

so no one has ever confessed in a deal, coercion, etc to something they never did?

I find that pretty hard to believe.


----------



## SINC

keebler27 said:


> whoa Mark? Do you mean that you don't think he's guilty of the crimes? Whether or not he's been convicted, he did it.
> 
> He killed a medic.


^

Pretty much sums it up.


----------



## CubaMark

keebler27 said:


> whoa Mark? Do you mean that you don't think he's guilty of the crimes? Whether or not he's been convicted, he did it.
> 
> He killed a medic.


Keebler, you should go back and re-read the information surrounding this case. There is considerable doubt that he was the one who threw the grenade (no-one saw him do it). He was there, yes, but the legality of his detention is a huge question. And if he *did* kill the medic, was he unjustified in doing so? He was with a group that was under attack by U.S. forces, and they were fighting back - was he supposed to not fight for his life?

The entire scenario is not as black-and-white as many have painted it.

Ultimately, and this is the core of my position, Khadr was a child soldier whose rights were violated and continue to be violated.


----------



## i-rui

cubamark said:


> keebler, you should go back and re-read the information surrounding this case. There is considerable doubt that he was the one who threw the grenade (no-one saw him do it). He was there, yes, but the legality of his detention is a huge question. And if he *did* kill the medic, was he unjustified in doing so? He was with a group that was under attack by u.s. Forces, and they were fighting back - was he supposed to not fight for his life?
> 
> The entire scenario is not as black-and-white as many have painted it.
> 
> Ultimately, and this is the core of my position, khadr was a child soldier whose rights were violated and continue to be violated.


+1.


----------



## SINC

Everyone seems to agree he had a proper upbringing with normal values. I knew right from wrong long before 14 and certainly at 15 understood that to take a life is wrong. Sorry, but the child soldier bit doesn't cut any ice with me. He made a choice. End of story.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Keebler, you should go back and re-read the information surrounding this case. There is considerable doubt that he was the one who threw the grenade (no-one saw him do it). He was there, yes, but the legality of his detention is a huge question. And if he *did* kill the medic, was he unjustified in doing so? He was with a group that was under attack by U.S. forces, and they were fighting back - was he supposed to not fight for his life?
> 
> The entire scenario is not as black-and-white as many have painted it.
> 
> Ultimately, and this is the core of my position, Khadr was a child soldier whose rights were violated and continue to be violated.


50 shades of grey... but never guilt.


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> Sorry, but the child soldier bit doesn't cut any ice with me. He made a choice. End of story.


Not the end of story. "Everyone" - I believe you're overreaching here. And while it may not "cut any ice" with you, we have international agreements governing the treatment of child soldiers,* who are victims*, to which Canada is a signatory. You may not like it, but that's the reality.


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> Not the end of story. "Everyone" - I believe you're overreaching here. And while it may not "cut any ice" with you, we have international agreements governing the treatment of child soldiers,* who are victims*, to which Canada is a signatory. You may not like it, but that's the reality.


Thank you for bringing some perspective to what I was feeling was a hopeless argument. I was disappointed when he pleaded guilty, actually, because there were several mitigating circumstances, self-defense against attackers among them. I also remember that given the military tribunal he was up against, his best bet was to plead guilty and serve the remainder of his sentence in a Canadian prison. Looks that choice backfired, mainly due to the lack of honour among Canadian defense ministers.

(and here comes the objections to my use of the word honour…)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Not the end of story. "Everyone" - I believe you're overreaching here. And while it may not "cut any ice" with you, we have international agreements governing the treatment of child soldiers,* who are victims*, to which Canada is a signatory. You may not like it, but that's the reality.


That agreement (_the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict_) covers the signatories' responsibilities to refuse to conscript individuals under the age of 18 involuntarily into the armed forces _of the signatory_.

You are wrong about its meaning. You may not like it, but that's the reality.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Thank you for bringing some perspective to what I was feeling was a hopeless argument. I was disappointed when he pleaded guilty, actually, because there were several mitigating circumstances, self-defense against attackers among them. I also remember that given the military tribunal he was up against, his best bet was to plead guilty and serve the remainder of his sentence in a Canadian prison. Looks that choice backfired, mainly due to the lack of honour among Canadian defense ministers.
> 
> (and here comes the objections to my use of the word honour…)


so what of the objections? Of course they'll object. 

It's highly hypocritical for us to have the view we do of child soldiers in other countries, but when one of our own is involved, suddenly the tune changes. That certainly doesn't "cut any ice me" either.

So you're right. If he pleaded guilty with the promise of serving his sentence here, then this government should stand by it's word and do the right thing.

But even screature admitted to what this is. It's merely political. The far right base simply won't stand for taking him here, and Harper and crew are too afraid to stand up to them and stand by their word. Simple as that.


----------



## keebler27

CubaMark said:


> Keebler, you should go back and re-read the information surrounding this case. There is considerable doubt that he was the one who threw the grenade (no-one saw him do it). He was there, yes, but the legality of his detention is a huge question. And if he *did* kill the medic, was he unjustified in doing so? He was with a group that was under attack by U.S. forces, and they were fighting back - was he supposed to not fight for his life?
> 
> The entire scenario is not as black-and-white as many have painted it.
> 
> Ultimately, and this is the core of my position, Khadr was a child soldier whose rights were violated and continue to be violated.


Unfortunately, I think the reality is that any document I could read, probably isn't as black and white as the incident unfolded in real life ie. will we ever know the truth?

I realize you folks just know me from this board, but I'm telling you, I " know " the allegations against him and his family having ties to terrorists are real. Not fabricated. Not a lie in any shape or form. I wish I could say more, but I can't. You'll just have to trust me on a wing and a prayer. Classic case of not revealing a source and a large reason why I've mostly stayed out of this b/c I'm biting at the lip to say more! lol

As for him tossing a grenade to save his life - perhaps that's true in a raw sense from the middle of a battle/skirmist, but it begs the question of how or why he was there. He may have been a teenager pressured or forced to be there by his family, but then that begs - what was his family doing there? Up to no good is what they were doing. 

If his family wasn't there, what were they doing sending him there then? How did he get there? There's a link somewhere between where he lived and people he knows.... right?

Again, I think it's right for Toews to ask for the interview details. Who knows what was said. I don't understand how any of that should be kept away from our government. Maybe he's a changed person (I personally doubt it) but I'd sure like to know what he was like when they first got him and later.

Cheers,
Keebler


----------



## Sonal

groovetube said:


> But even screature admitted to what this is. It's merely political. The far right base simply won't stand for taking him here, and *Harper and crew are too afraid to stand up to them and stand by their word*. Simple as that.


No, the Harper government lost the legal battle. The Supreme Court has ruled that Khadr's Charter Rights are being violated. The government either takes him back or continues to violate his rights. 

This has nothing to do with their word... they have been actively fighting not to repatriate him and are now stuck. So they are taking their time about it. 

(The Supreme Court stopped short of ordering the government to take him back, as it is not clear as to whether or not the Supreme Court has that authority or not.)


----------



## i-rui

keebler27 said:


> I realize you folks just know me from this board, but I'm telling you, I " know " the allegations against him and his family having ties to terrorists are real. Not fabricated. Not a lie in any shape or form. I wish I could say more, but I can't. You'll just have to trust me on a wing and a prayer. Classic case of not revealing a source and a large reason why I've mostly stayed out of this b/c I'm biting at the lip to say more! lol


i don't think anyone is questioning that. it's pretty common knowledge. but it's also an entirely different issue.


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


> Not the end of story. "Everyone" - I believe you're overreaching here. And while it may not "cut any ice" with you, we have international agreements governing the treatment of child soldiers,* who are victims*, to which Canada is a signatory. You may not like it, but that's the reality.


I do find it ironic that so many of the "Letter of the Law" types want to over look the law. Perhaps because they don't like the guy. Perhaps because they really have bought into the Boogey Man that various recent Governments have been pimping in order to erode the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> I do find it ironic that so many of the "Letter of the Law" types want to over look the law. Perhaps because they don't like the guy.


Most of us here believe he should repatriated because of the rule of law. However, we also aren't going to be rolling out the welcome mat when he arrives.


----------



## fjnmusic

Sonal said:


> No, the Harper government lost the legal battle. The Supreme Court has ruled that Khadr's Charter Rights are being violated. The government either takes him back or continues to violate his rights.
> 
> This has nothing to do with their word... they have been actively fighting not to repatriate him and are now stuck. So they are taking their time about it.
> 
> (The Supreme Court stopped short of ordering the government to take him back, as it is not clear as to whether or not the Supreme Court has that authority or not.)


In other words, the Harper government is breaking the law, since the Supreme Court decides the law, especially for contentious issues. And I always understood that bad guys who break the law could go to prison. Ha! beejacon


----------



## groovetube

I don't think anyone is going to be rolling out the welcome mat anytime soon. Let's get back on track.



fjnmusic said:


> In other words, the Harper government is breaking the law, since the Supreme Court decides the law, especially for contentious issues. And I always understood that bad guys who break the law could go to prison. Ha! beejacon


Not sure if they are breaking the law, but they are violating his rights by ignoring the supreme court's decision. But this government is more interested in it's own agenda and dislikes being told what to do.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> In other words, the Harper government is breaking the law, since the Supreme Court decides the law, especially for contentious issues. And I always understood that bad guys who break the law could go to prison. Ha! beejacon


What is the timeline for compliance?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> What is the timeline for compliance?


Good question. If there are no consequences for non-compliance then I think the Harper government was planning on "indefinitely."


----------



## Sonal

fjnmusic said:


> Good question. If there are no consequences for non-compliance then I think the Harper government was planning on "indefinitely."


The Supreme Court did not order the Federal Government to comply--that is apparently a bit of a sticky legal question as to whether or not they can do that, and they got around that issue by not going there. 

The Supreme Court simply ruled that not repatriating Khadr violates his Charter Rights.

So there's no timeline and no direct consequences here.

However, it still bothers me that the Federal Government, knowing they are violating Khadr's Charter Rights, continues to drag their feet in putting this violation of the Charter right. 

That other similar nations (the UK, France, etc.) have repatriated their citizens from Gitmo already simply puts us in an embarrassing situation.


----------



## fjnmusic

Sonal said:


> The Supreme Court did not order the Federal Government to comply--that is apparently a bit of a sticky legal question as to whether or not they can do that, and they got around that issue by not going there.
> 
> The Supreme Court simply ruled that not repatriating Khadr violates his Charter Rights.
> 
> So there's no timeline and no direct consequences here.
> 
> However, it still bothers me that the Federal Government, knowing they are violating Khadr's Charter Rights, continues to drag their feet in putting this violation of the Charter right.
> 
> That other similar nations (the UK, France, etc.) have repatriated their citizens from Gitmo already simply puts us in an embarrassing situation.


If nothing else, it just gives Mr. Khadr all the more reason to become a terrorist. I don't understand why gov'ts can't look at the long term consequences of their actions. Or non-actions in this case.


----------



## i-rui

fjnmusic said:


> If nothing else, it just gives Mr. Khadr all the more reason to become a terrorist.


If nothing else, it gives Mr. Khadr an excellent case for a civil suit against the federal government. He'll be a millionaire when he gets out of prison.

of course the conservative cheerleaders will go on about how delaying his return saves us money on his incarceration, ignoring the $millions$ the Harper government has spent fighting his charter rights, and the inevitable pay off for that violation of those charter rights.

but you know, the Harper government are sound fiscal managers so i'm sure it's ok.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> If nothing else, it gives Mr. Khadr an excellent case for a civil suit against the federal government. He'll be a millionaire when he gets out of prison.
> 
> of course the conservative cheerleaders will go on about how delaying his return saves us money on his incarceration, ignoring the $millions$ the Harper government has spent fighting his charter rights, and the inevitable pay off for that violation of those charter rights.
> 
> but you know, the Harper government are sound fiscal managers so i'm sure it's ok.


That's just it. As I said, I don't think anyone is overjoyed at bringing him here. But, violating his rights can and will likely have repercussions that can as you said, end up costing us millions if not already with the legal battles so far.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> *If nothing else, it just gives Mr. Khadr all the more reason to become a terrorist.* I don't understand why gov'ts can't look at the long term consequences of their actions. Or non-actions in this case.


Ah, now you are beginning to get it.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Ah, now you are beginning to get it.


So do you think we should continue to violate his rights by refusing to repatriate him, or bring him here and at least pull him away from the rest if the al-Qaeda gang? I have found in my own experience that once away from the gang, the gang member must relearn the social pecking order. Therein lies your best chance at rehabilitation. He was a kid when he came to Gitmo, but there's been a lot of years and unsavory influence since then, not to mention a huge mistrust of authority.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> So do you think we should continue to violate his rights by refusing to repatriate him, or bring him here and at least pull him away from the rest if the al-Qaeda gang? I have found in my own experience that once away from the gang, the gang member must relearn the social pecking order. Therein lies your best chance at rehabilitation. He was a kid when he came to Gitmo, but there's been a lot of years and unsavory influence since then, not to mention a huge mistrust of authority.


 thought all of the people left in Gitmo were supposed to be innocent? Or is Khadr the only innocent there, in your humble opinion?


----------



## jimbotelecom

Canadian defence minister's Iranian born spouse says: "Welcome back Khadr!"

MacKay?s activist wife calls for Ottawa to bring back Omar Khadr - The Globe and Mail

He may be a traitor to progressive conservatism but he has a nice spouse.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> thought all of the people left in Gitmo were supposed to be innocent? Or is Khadr the only innocent there, in your humble opinion?


Where on earth did you get that idea? We were talking about Khadr, not every prisoner in Gitmo.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> If nothing else, it gives Mr. Khadr an excellent case for *a civil suit against the federal government. He'll be a millionaire when he gets out of prison.*
> 
> of course the conservative cheerleaders will go on about how delaying his return saves us money on his incarceration, ignoring the $millions$ the Harper government has spent fighting his charter rights, and the inevitable pay off for that violation of those charter rights.
> 
> but you know, the Harper government are sound fiscal managers so i'm sure it's ok.


If the Supreme Court can't order the government to comply what makes you think that he would have any grounds for a civil suit? What exactly would he being suing them for? He is an admitted murder. 

I think your estimation that he will be a millionaire has no foundation in law or in precedent.


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> Canadian defence minister's Iranian born spouse says: "Welcome back Khadr!"
> 
> MacKay?s activist wife calls for Ottawa to bring back Omar Khadr - The Globe and Mail
> 
> He may be a traitor to progressive conservatism but he has a nice spouse.


'The Defence Minister's Wife' responds to Guardian story

I have a name you know



> This afternoon while here in PEI I was asked to come to the Guardian offices to sit down and do an interview about my new book The Tale of Two Nazanins; but instead the journalist Jim Day did not ask me a single question about the book and made an obvious effort to draw me into a discussion criticising the government. When responding I specifically qualified that what I said was my personal view. I am very disappointed that once again my personal view has been distorted. After I expressly and emphatically told him numerous times that I was tired seeing my name continually left out of interviews and referred to as "The Defence Minister's wife"...this is exactly what he chose to do. As a result of today's experience I am extremely disappointed with the Guardian and I will think twice before speaking to them again. I am confident that Mr. Khadr will be transferred back to Canada. Let's leave it to the Canadian and US governments who have all the facts and details about the case to take the proper actions in due course.
> 
> Signed,
> 
> Nazanin Afshin-Jam MacKay
> 
> International Human Rights Activist
> 
> President and Co-Founder of Stop Child Executions


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> If the Supreme Court can't order the government to comply what makes you think that he would have any grounds for a civil suit? What exactly would he being suing them for? He is an admitted murder.


his lawyers already filed a $10 million dollar civil suit in 2010. The SC has already ruled the government violated his charter rights.



screature said:


> I think your estimation that he will be a millionaire has no foundation in law or in precedent.


precedent has already been set :

Ottawa reaches $10M settlement with Arar - Canada - CBC News


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> his lawyers already filed a $10 million dollar civil suit in 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> precedent has already been set :
> 
> Ottawa reaches $10M settlement with Arar - Canada - CBC News


The Arar case is no precedent at all he was deported to Syria and was innocent of any wrong doing... Kahdr is a confessed murder, huge difference.

However maybe if he does get the $10M maybe he can use it to help pay for the civil suit against the estate of his father already won in the US:



> Sgt. Layne Morris and Sgt. Speer's widow Tabitha, both represented by Donald Winder,[185] filed a civil suit against the estate of Ahmed Khadr – claiming that the father's failure to control his son resulted in the loss of Speers' life and Morris' right eye. Since American law doesn't allow civil lawsuits against "acts of war", Speer and Morris relied on the argument that throwing the grenade was an act of terrorism, rather than war. In February 2006, Utah District Court Judge Paul Cassell awarded the plaintiffs $102.6 million in damages, approximately $94 million to Speer and $8 million to Morris,[186] in what he said likely marks the first time terrorist acts have resulted in civil liabilities.[187] It has been suggested that the plaintiffs might collect funds via the U.S. Terrorism Risk Insurance Act,[188] but since the Federal government is not bound by civil rulings, it has refused to release Khadr's frozen assets.[189] Morris is expected to testify at Khadr's trial in Guantanamo.[190]


Wikipedia


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Where on earth did you get that idea? We were talking about Khadr, not every prisoner in Gitmo.


I see. So Gitmo prisoners are terrorists, except for Khadr?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I see. So Gitmo prisoners are terrorists, except for Khadr?


I think you misuse the word terrorist. When I hear the word, I think of repeated acts meant to terrorize many people, to have them live in fear of when the next pipe bomb might go off, to live in a state if perpetual fear of who might get killed next. A state of fear like the Afghanistan and Iraq population must live in each day because they are not sure who the Occupiers might kill next. A one-off murder does not a terrorist make, especially since this particular death by a grenade appears to fall into a category of its own.

Remember, our soldiers kill with impunity during wartime, and often are well-decorated for doing so. By your definition, that would make them terrorists to the other side. Or does the word terrorist apply only to people you don't like?


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> The Arar case is no precedent at all he was deported to Syria and was innocent of any wrong doing... Kahdr is a confessed murder, huge difference.


the Arar case is precedent of the $10 million figure (in response to your suggestion he won't be a millionaire). i'm sure that's why Khadr's lawyers chose that number. There are similarities between cases (both were tortured, both had charter rights violated), and of course there are also differences.

the supreme court has already ruled the government violated Khadr's charter rights. the supreme court has also ruled that citizens can seek damages for charter violations. his civil case will be strong. even stronger the longer the government drags out his repatriation.


----------



## fjnmusic

From Wikipedia:



> [BOLD]Terrorism [/BOLD]has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments. An abiding characteristic is the [BOLD]indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants[/BOLD] for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause or individual.


Since a soldier is considered a combatant rather than a non-combatant (like a civilian), it is hard to make a case that a 15 year old boy killing a soldier constitutes an act of terrorism, especially since the boy in question was severely injured and near death himself. A much stronger case can be made for self-defense. Terrorism is a loaded word that uninformed people bandy about always to describe the other side, never their own.


----------



## jimbotelecom

screature said:


> The Arar case is no precedent at all he was *deported* to Syria and was innocent of any wrong doing.
> 
> Wikipedia


You're wrong. Arar was not deported. He was renditioned out of the United States to be tortured in Syria by the CIA and their buds. Even though Syria was part of the Axis of Evil.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> From Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> 
> Since a soldier is considered a combatant rather than a non-combatant (like a civilian), it is hard to make a case that a 15 year old boy killing a soldier constitutes an act of terrorism, especially since the boy in question was severely injured and near death himself. A much stronger case can be made for self-defense. Terrorism is a loaded word that uninformed people bandy about always to describe the other side, never their own.


You said he would be likely to become a terrorist if he stayed at Gitmo. I'm asking you if the rest of the people imprisoned there are terrorists.


----------



## Sonal

Interesting page from the Canadian Bar Association about your Charter Rights and what remedies are available if government action violates them.

<i>Charter of Rights and Freedoms</i>: Overview

I have only skimmed this, but it does seem like Khadr could sue civilly. Given that the Supreme Court has already ruled that his Charter Rights are being violated, I would think he'd have a pretty good case.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Senator Roméo Dallaire on child soldiers and Khadr:

Omar Khadr didn?t choose a life of terrorism


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> I think you misuse the word terrorist. When I hear the word, I think of repeated acts meant to terrorize many people, to have them live in fear of when the next pipe bomb might go off, to live in a state if perpetual fear of who might get killed next.


So then, by your own definition, the perpetrators of 9/11 were not terrorists since they only did it once?


----------



## CubaMark

*Khadr offered guilty plea long before deal to return home*



> Two years before the plea deal that was supposed to mean his quick exit from Guantanamo Bay, Omar Khadr offered to plead guilty to terrorism charges in Canada in exchange for a relatively lenient sentence and speedy transfer to Canada, documents show.





> Kuebler attempted to sell the deal as "advantageous" to the United States, arguing it would avoid a legal fight over the fact that Khadr was 15 years old when he committed the crimes with which he was charged.
> 
> "As a former child soldier, Mr. Khadr has a strong legal challenge to the jurisdiction of the military commission," Kuebler wrote.
> 
> "It is abundantly clear that Congress did not intend military commissions to exercise jurisdiction over juvenile defendants."





> Prosecuting Khadr by military commission was also "inconsistent" with American obligations under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the lawyer wrote.
> 
> Kuebler argued the case against Khadr for throwing a grenade that killed a special forces soldier was "extremely weak." No one witnessed the throwing, and the on-scene commander wrote after the incident that the person responsible had been killed, the lawyer noted.
> 
> Like many others, Kuebler also questioned the validity of the charge — murder in violation of the law of war — a crime most legal observers outside the commission process don't recognize.


(CBC.ca)


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You said he would be likely to become a terrorist if he stayed at Gitmo. I'm asking you if the rest of the people imprisoned there are terrorists.


Yes, many of them are. The one single act of violence committed by Khadr does not a terrorist make, but the continued exposure to the other al-Qaeda prisoners at Gitmo very well could. Khadr is the poster boy for these other prisoners because he is well respected and still basically a nice kid despite the murder conviction. Al-Qaeda would live to use him as their front man. The longer he stays at Gitmo, the bigger the risk. I'm surprised you hadn't figured this out already.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> So then, by your own definition, the perpetrators of 9/11 were not terrorists since they only did it once?


Nope. The perpetrators of 9/11 flew jet planes into huge skyscrapers filled with people. Both the people on the planes and the ones in the buildings were non-combatants, or what we usually call civilians.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Yes, many of them are. The one single act of violence committed by Khadr does not a terrorist make, but the continued exposure to the other al-Qaeda prisoners at Gitmo very well could. Khadr is the poster boy for these other prisoners because he is well respected and still basically a nice kid despite the murder conviction. Al-Qaeda would live to use him as their front man. The longer he stays at Gitmo, the bigger the risk. I'm surprised you hadn't figured this out already.


I've figured it all out, actually. I'm just curious about your unusual worldview.


----------



## jimbotelecom

screature said:


> 'The Defence Minister's Wife' responds to Guardian story
> 
> I have a name you know


Yeah the Globe and Mail has run this story:

MacKay?s wife slams newspaper for ?distorted? Khadr comments - The Globe and Mail

Little doubt that Defence Minister Pete got a call from Prime Minister Harper wondering what exactly is going on with Mrs. Nazanin Afshin-Jam MacKay.

I'll speculate further that she'll likely be receiving a little "media training" in short order.

Still even though her husband is a traitor to progressive conservatism, I like her.

Nazanin Afshin-Jam MacKay for PM!


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> Yeah the Globe and Mail has run this story:
> 
> MacKay?s wife slams newspaper for ?distorted? Khadr comments - The Globe and Mail
> 
> Little doubt that Defence Minister Pete got a call from Prime Minister Harper wondering what exactly is going on with Mrs. Nazanin Afshin-Jam MacKay.
> 
> I'll speculate further that she'll likely be receiving a little "media training" in short order.
> 
> Still even though her husband is a *traitor to progressive conservatism*, I like her.
> 
> Nazanin Afshin-Jam MacKay for PM!


Why would you care??? Among conservative ranks it seems they understand he did what was necessary at the time and all is forgiven.... are your a card carrying member of the PC Party???? I never would have guessed!!


----------



## Macfury

Why would anyone damn the government with the "progressive" label? This is a pejorative term.


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> Yeah the Globe and Mail has run this story:
> 
> MacKay?s wife slams newspaper for ?distorted? Khadr comments - The Globe and Mail
> 
> *Little doubt that Defence Minister Pete got a call from Prime Minister Harper wondering what exactly is going on with Mrs. Nazanin Afshin-Jam MacKay.*
> 
> I'll speculate further that she'll likely be receiving a little "media training" in short order.
> 
> Still even though her husband is a traitor to progressive conservatism, I like her.
> 
> Nazanin Afshin-Jam MacKay for PM!


How the hell would you know...???? Your post is no better than the journalist's article... Nazanin Afshin-Jam has no identity or life separate from her husband???... très sexiste... except it is OK because it was made about a conservative MP's wife....


----------



## jimbotelecom

Macfury said:


> Why would anyone damn the government with the "progressive" label? This is a pejorative term.


preferable to regressive.


----------



## jimbotelecom

screature said:


> Why would you care??? Among conservative ranks it seems they understand he did what was necessary at the time and all is forgiven.... are your a card carrying member of the PC Party???? I never would have guessed!!


I was indeed a member of the federal PC party. I'm currently a Green party member.


----------



## jimbotelecom

screature said:


> How the hell would you know...???? Your post is no better than the journalist's article... Nazanin Afshin-Jam has no identity or life separate from her husband???... très sexiste... except it is OK because it was made about a conservative MP's wife....


Perhaps you might look up the word speculate.

Of course she has her own life as she has stated her own personal opinion. Quite sensible and law abiding at that. I like the cut of her jib.

Nazanin Afshin-Jam MacKay for PM! We need a female to clean up this mess.


----------



## Macfury

jimbotelecom said:


> preferable to regressive.


They're not opposites in the political sense--they both mean the same thing.


----------



## keebler27

this is on tonight:

Omar Khadr, 10 years later : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery


----------



## CubaMark

*Ottawa gets Omar Khadr documents, videos from U.S.*



> American military authorities have handed over to Ottawa videotapes and documents related to Omar Khadr.





> when the items are reviewed, the minister will give them the appropriate consideration and render a decision in accordance with Canadian law.
> 
> One of Khadr's Canadian lawyers says there's now no reason for Toews to delay the decision any longer given Canada's commitment almost two years ago to take him back.


(CBC)


----------



## CubaMark

*Finally. But what a bunch of mealy-mouthed pinheads.* 

*Canada blames U.S. for delay in Omar Khadr return*



> The Canadian government is defending itself against allegations it is deliberately dragging its feet in allowing Omar Khadr to return from Guantanamo Bay by arguing much of the delay is the fault of the Americans, new court documents show.
> 
> In an affidavit filed in response to a Federal Court application by Khadr's lawyers, a senior public safety official cites two main reasons for the lack of a decision to the application for Khadr to serve out his sentence in Canada — something he was eligible to do starting in October 2011.
> 
> The first reason cited was a delay in Washington's approval of the transfer — granted only this past spring.
> 
> The second reason was Public Safety Minister Vic Toews' request for sealed videos of mental assessments of the inmate done for military prosecutors — apparently only discovered in February through media reports.


(CBC)


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> *Finally. But what a bunch of mealy-mouthed pinheads.*
> 
> *Canada blames U.S. for delay in Omar Khadr return*
> 
> (CBC)


Wrong place, wrong time, wrong father... you want to blame someone... blame Ahmed Khadr.

I mean seriously.


----------



## Macfury

> The first reason cited was a delay in Washington's approval of the transfer — granted only this past spring.
> 
> The second reason was Public Safety Minister Vic Toews' request for sealed videos of mental assessments of the inmate done for military prosecutors — apparently only discovered in February through media reports.


These are both good reasons.


----------



## jimbotelecom

BREAKING - Welcome back Khadr! Who's going to the airport?

Omar Khadr returning to Canada - Canada - CBC News


----------



## jimbotelecom

It should be interesting to see how much welcoming back Khadr will cost - it was a big bill to bring back the cannibal -

Cost of repatriating Luka Magnotta on a military plane: $375,000 - The Globe and Mail


----------



## keebler27

jimbotelecom said:


> BREAKING - Welcome back Khadr! Who's going to the airport?
> 
> Omar Khadr returning to Canada - Canada - CBC News


I'm not happy but we knew this was likely. I seriously think the security of our country will be affected by him coming back. 

CSIS will surely watch him but I don't like it. 

Every poll I've seen shows overwhelming support for him to not return so plenty of unhappy TRUE Canadians today. tptptptp


----------



## jimbotelecom

keebler27 said:


> I'm not happy but we knew this was likely. I seriously think the security of our country will be affected by him coming back.
> 
> CSIS will surely watch him but I don't like it.
> 
> Every poll I've seen shows overwhelming support for him to not return so plenty of unhappy TRUE Canadians today. tptptptp


I was under the impression that he's headed for prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. No doubt all kinds of security will be deployed to monitor Khadr as his family is already likely monitored. Consequently I feel secure. 

I'm content that the law has been followed albeit delayed. I still have a problem with a child enemy combatant being imprisoned even with nefarious family connections.


----------



## SINC

Trouble is our backwards legal system makes him eligible for payroll next year. How sad is that? No wonder he wants to come back.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Just heard that the plane will land in Trenton at the airforce base so I'm sure we're in for one heckuva bill in the $200k range. Meanwhile Ottawa to Havana flights are a mere $300.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Our national broadcaster the CBC is reporting that Minister Vic (he's not with the pornographers) Toews will be speaking on welcoming back Khadr in 30 minutes.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Canada's national newspaper reports that we have officially welcomed back Khadr. Headed for Kingston?

Omar Khadr returned to Canada from U.S. Guantanamo Bay base - The Globe and Mail


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Trouble is our backwards legal system makes him eligible for payroll next year. How sad is that? No wonder he wants to come back.





CBCNews said:


> Omar Khadr, who has been in a U.S. detention camp since October 2002 following his capture by U.S. special forces in Afghanistan, is on his way to Canada from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to serve the balance of his sentence.
> 
> A military plane with Khadr on board left the U.S. Naval base on Cuba's southeast shore around 4:30 a.m. ET Saturday, according to a military source.
> 
> The Canadian government has yet to confirm that Khadr has left Guantanamo Bay and no information has been released on where the plane will arrive in Canada, but there are reports he could be taken to a maximum-security prison near Montreal.
> 
> Reporter Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald told CBC News she got confirmation of the departure early Saturday.
> 
> Khadr received consular 'welfare' visit
> "This was obviously years in the making, and in the last couple of days, it had become clear that the repatriation was about to happen," she said.
> 
> Rosenberg said Khadr recently got a consular "welfare" visit from a Canadian diplomatic official in advance of his return.
> 
> Under a plea deal with prosecutors in October 2010, Khadr admitted to being responsible for the death of American Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer.
> 
> In exchange for that plea, he was promised he would be transferred to Canada to serve out the rest of his sentence.
> 
> He agreed to a sentence of eight years, with no credit for time served, with the first year spent in U.S. custody.


Wow Khadr, in custody since 2002, a child soldier, in prison until at least 2013 for a total of 11 years. So how punitive should the justice system be towards Omar Khadr?


----------



## SINC

jimbotelecom said:


> Just heard that the plane will land in Trenton at the airforce base so I'm sure we're in for one heckuva bill in the $200k range. Meanwhile Ottawa to Havana flights are a mere $300.


You heard wrong. The U.S. air force flew him back on their plane. Cost to Canada not an issue.


----------



## jimbotelecom

SINC said:


> You heard wrong. The U.S. air force flew him back on their plane. Cost to Canada not an issue.


Excellent. It's the least the US could do. CBC is now reporting that Omar is safe and sound and will be held at Milhaven maximum security prison in beautiful Kingston Ontario. 

Welcome back Khadr and enjoy your stay!


----------



## eMacMan

jimbotelecom said:


> Our national broadcaster the CBC is reporting that Minister Vic (he's not with the pornographers) Toews will be speaking on welcoming back Khadr in 30 minutes.


:lmao::lmao::lmao:

Please remember that we have the assurances of one of ehMacs most illustrious Cons that Mr. Toews would never dream of telling a lie.


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> BREAKING - Welcome back Khadr! * Who's going to the airport?*
> 
> Omar Khadr returning to Canada - Canada - CBC News


 I guess he warrants a hero's welcome in your eyes.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> I guess he warrants a hero's welcome in your eyes.


Yeah, really--let the bells ring out and the banners fly, 'cause we've got a new inmate heading for Kingston Pen.


----------



## Ottawaman

keebler27 said:


> I'm not happy but we knew this was likely. I seriously think the security of our country will be affected by him coming back.
> 
> CSIS will surely watch him but I don't like it.
> 
> Every poll I've seen shows overwhelming support for him to not return so plenty of unhappy TRUE Canadians today. tptptptp


Please tell us more of these "true" Canadians.


----------



## keebler27

Ottawaman said:


> Please tell us more of these "true" Canadians.


Mighty simple: Canadians, either born here or immigrated to, who actually believe in the values and belief system of THIS country rather than going overseas and engaging in terrorist activities.

Plenty of reports on the Khadr family ties to terrorist groups and well, his very own actions.

To me, they aren't Canadian and I don't care that he was born here either. His family nationality means nothing in the situation. He should be rotting in a prison for what he did.

Instead, he'll no doubt sue the government for delaying it so long thus creating more funds from which he can siphon to his terrorist buddies.


----------



## CubaMark

Today is the end of my self-imposed one-week "vacation". Looks like I'm going to take another one.

Keebler27, as has been stated in this thread on multiple occasions, Omar Khadr was a child soldier, and for that - under international covenant and common decency - deserves compassion. Whoever he is now, he is the result of unlawful, forcible confinement in the U.S.-occupied Guantanamo naval base prison. 

His family ties have no bearing on the situation. As to "his very own actions" and "rotting in a prison for what he did", there is considerable doubt as to whether he is guilty of anything other than accepting a plea deal to get his ass out of Guantanamo and back to Canada. We've covered all of this earlier in this thread.

Sadly - some people are so caught up in their manufactured bloodlust, their desire to punish Khadr for what his family represents, that they have lost all sense of right and wrong.

I find that position loathsome, cruel and unbefitting Canadian values (whatever the hell those are these days).

See you guys in a week. Or not. My tolerance for intolerance is reaching a limit...


----------



## Macfury

Buh-bye, CM. While we may reluctantly have to accept that Khadr must be returned according to our laws and protocols, we needn't be cheering it either.


----------



## keebler27

CubaMark said:


> Today is the end of my self-imposed one-week "vacation". Looks like I'm going to take another one.
> 
> Keebler27, as has been stated in this thread on multiple occasions, Omar Khadr was a child soldier, and for that - under international covenant and common decency - deserves compassion. Whoever he is now, he is the result of unlawful, forcible confinement in the U.S.-occupied Guantanamo naval base prison.
> 
> His family ties have no bearing on the situation. As to "his very own actions" and "rotting in a prison for what he did", there is considerable doubt as to whether he is guilty of anything other than accepting a plea deal to get his ass out of Guantanamo and back to Canada. We've covered all of this earlier in this thread.
> 
> Sadly - some people are so caught up in their manufactured bloodlust, their desire to punish Khadr for what his family represents, that they have lost all sense of right and wrong.
> 
> I find that position loathsome, cruel and unbefitting Canadian values (whatever the hell those are these days).
> 
> See you guys in a week. Or not. My tolerance for intolerance is reaching a limit...


I don't understand the ' 1 week vacations '. This forum illustrates what our country is about - freedom of speech. Just because our views on 'manufactured bloodlust' vs facts (ie. a dead US MEDIC...not a soldier) are different doesn't mean you should leave for a week.

Your views and mine will still be the same.

I find this statement interesting: 

"I find that position loathsome, cruel and unbefitting Canadian values (whatever the hell those are these days)."

I know us Canucks have always been easy going and laid back, but I think there are enough of us there who now realize that the very thing you mention, Canadian values, is under a slow attack from people coming to this country who do not foster and believe, those very values.

I'm beginning to see it. Relating to that, I do believe his family actions are important. It shows a clear pattern and link to activities which do not foster those values.

I don't want those people in my Canada. Perhaps there will be some who won't want me to be a Canadian either, but tough sh*t.

Child soldier or not.

I'm not a terrorist nor will ever be one.


----------



## i-rui

keebler27 said:


> Mighty simple: Canadians, either born here or immigrated to, who actually believe in the *values and belief system of THIS country* ....





Macfury said:


> Buh-bye, CM. While we may reluctantly have to accept that Khadr must be returned according to *our laws and protocols*, we needn't be cheering it either.


it needs to be pointed out that our "values and belief system" is protected & governed by our "laws and protocols", so when the Supreme Court of Canada says that Khadr needed to be repatriated it actually is a victory for "TRUE Canadians" (who believe in what this country stands for) when it *finally* happened.


----------



## SINC

While I had no desire to see him return (Likely so he could claim leniency and try for payroll), something a majority of clear thinking Canadians will not want (Watch people appear at hearings to oppose any attempt), I do think he should not be afforded any break in his sentence term by Canadian courts. And if they ever do decide to allow him out, I hope it is only done under the strictest of conditions that curtail any opportunity for terrorist activities. Simply put, he is a clear and present danger to all Canadians forever and should be treated as such. If CM feels that is un-Canadian of me, he's dead wrong.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> it needs to be pointed out that our "values and belief system" is protected & governed by our "laws and protocols", so when the Supreme Court of Canada says that Khadr needed to be repatriated it actually is a victory for "TRUE Canadians" (who believe in what this country stands for) when it *finally* happened.


That's a total logical fallacy. We don't have one "values and belief system" and even though our freedom to hold beliefs and values is protected by our "laws and protocols" it doesn't mean that all Canadians see, or need to see, this as a positive development.


----------



## BigDL

keebler27 said:


> I don't understand the ' 1 week vacations '. This forum illustrates what our country is about - freedom of speech. Just because our views on 'manufactured bloodlust' vs facts (ie. a dead US MEDIC...not a soldier) are different doesn't mean you should leave for a week.
> 
> Your views and mine will still be the same.
> 
> I find this statement interesting:
> 
> "I find that position loathsome, cruel and unbefitting Canadian values (whatever the hell those are these days)."
> 
> I know us Canucks have always been easy going and laid back, but I think there are enough of us there who now realize that the very thing you mention, Canadian values, is under a slow attack from people coming to this country who do not foster and believe, those very values.
> 
> I'm beginning to see it. Relating to that, I do believe his family actions are important. It shows a clear pattern and link to activities which do not foster those values.
> 
> I don't want those people in my Canada. Perhaps there will be some who won't want me to be a Canadian either, but tough sh*t.
> 
> Child soldier or not.
> 
> I'm not a terrorist nor will ever be one.


I for one feel terrorized by the intolerant views expressed on this site. The condoning of radical right expressions is very worrisome to me.

The Canadian values of openness, tolerance and inclusion seem to be diminishing here. The "...cruel and unbefitting Canadian values (whatever the hell those are these days)." The "what the hell Canadian values" should need some reflection time.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> I for one feel terrorized by the intolerant views expressed on this site. The condoning of radical right expressions is very worrisome to me.
> 
> The Canadian values of openness, tolerance and inclusion seem to be diminishing here. The "...cruel and unbefitting Canadian values (whatever the hell those are these days)." The "what the hell Canadian values" should need some reflection time.


That you feel "terrorized" by views suggests to me an innate state of intolerance.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> That you feel "terrorized" by views suggests to me an innate state of intolerance.


:lmao: BigDL feels terrorized by some of the "intolerant" views here... Shows what terrorism means to the ardent left... people daring to have a differing opinion i.e. freedom of speech... truly telling indeed. 

And yet when they have differing views, in the self righteous way that they do, it is a an "uprising", a "revolution", etc. and it means a seismic shift is occurring in the world of politics and democracy... it really is too funny and arrogant for words that all one can do is laugh. :lmao:


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> ....See you guys in a week. Or not. *My tolerance for intolerance is reaching a limit...*


What grandstanding! Do really think that that anyone really cares that you take a "self imposed" one week vacation"? If you do then you may want to see a psychiatrist about a condition known as megalomania... 

My tolerance for your self righteous proclamations is reaching a limit...


----------



## jimbotelecom

Great thread.

It shows some people for what they are. Law abiding but not necessarily abiding the law. 

The fact is the boy was a child soldier and subjected to torture. I'm glad he's back in a law abiding country.


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> Great thread.
> 
> *It shows people for what they are.* Law abiding but not necessarily abiding the law.
> 
> The fact is the boy was a child soldier and subjected to torture. I'm glad he's back in a law abiding country.


Indeed...



> BREAKING - Welcome back Khadr! *Who's going to the airport?*
> 
> Omar Khadr returning to Canada - Canada - CBC News


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> And yet when they have differing views, in the self righteous way that they do, it is a an "uprising", a "revolution", etc. and it means a seismic shift is occurring in the world of politics and democracy... it really is too funny and arrogant for words that all one can do is laugh. :lmao:


That's just so-bang on I'm going to steal it and use it myself!


----------



## jimbotelecom

This seems to be a fair analysis courtesy of the NY Times -

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/w...tanamo-bay-is-repatriated.html?pagewanted=all


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> That's just so-bang on I'm going to steal it and use it myself!


Please do... I have no vested interest in my statements here... share at will under your own name... the less self righteous indignation the better.


----------



## krs

jimbotelecom said:


> The fact is the boy was a child soldier................


Since when are terrorists considered "soldiers"?

Child "terrorist" - yes, but definitely not a Child "soldier"


----------



## SINC

SINC said:


> *While I had no desire to see him return (Likely so he could claim leniency and try for payroll), something a majority of clear thinking Canadians will not want (Watch people appear at hearings to oppose any attempt),* I do think he should not be afforded any break in his sentence term by Canadian courts. And if they ever do decide to allow him out, I hope it is only done under the strictest of conditions that curtail any opportunity for terrorist activities. Simply put, he is a clear and present danger to all Canadians forever and should be treated as such. If CM feels that is un-Canadian of me, he's dead wrong.


Those Canadians I refer to re certainly showing their true feeling on the CTV website this morning:

Back in Canada, questions linger over Omar Khadr's return | CTV News


----------



## keebler27

jimbotelecom said:


> Great thread.
> 
> It shows some people for what they are. Law abiding but not necessarily abiding the law.
> 
> The fact is the boy was a child soldier and subjected to torture. I'm glad he's back in a law abiding country.


And I'm sure this child-soldier/terrorist abided by the law when he killed a medic?

The greatest injustice will be if he ever is granted parole. 

I have to admit I take your 'shows some people for what they are' personally. Maybe I wasn't included in that list, but subconsciously, I've never even come close to being I trouble with the law

But I'm tired of where this country is going in terms of people being allowed in who do not follow our values. Not only that, plenty hate us and our way of living.

Not acceptable.


----------



## macintosh doctor

just waiting for the next headline.. : Canada gives terrorist $20 million in hopes appease the minority.
shaking my head.. that we are now screwed with this guy and going to pay for it dearly.

amazing we are allowing his hateful family to live in Canada and with open arms.. makes no sense.. oh wait, it is in the charter that you can use our country and openly speak hatefully of it, we will protect you as well. [ also pay you to live as well ]

Time for a revise of the charter.


----------



## eMacMan

keebler27 said:


> And I'm sure this child-soldier/terrorist abided by the law when he killed a medic?
> 
> The greatest injustice will be if he ever is granted parole.
> 
> I have to admit I take your 'shows some people for what they are' personally. Maybe I wasn't included in that list, but subconsciously, I've never even come close to being I trouble with the law
> 
> But I'm tired of where this country is going in terms of people being allowed in who do not follow our values. Not only that, plenty hate us and our way of living.
> 
> Not acceptable.


Ahh then you should certainly welcome having every one of your phone conversations and eMails added to a monster data base. I expect you'll just love watching the Team Sexual Assault grope your wife or daughter the next time you fly Stateside.

Sometimes we need to realize that our so-called protectors are even more the monster than those they claim are threatening us. The protectors need the terrorists in order to legitimize their own government sponsored acts of terror. 

Where there are no real terrorists it is quite legitimate to manufacture them. The CIA agent who pretended to be a crotch bomber, which led to all those naked body scanners in our airports is just one example. This one provable in that the CIA eventually came right out and admitted that the crotch bomber was indeed one of their own.

Just as the Germans embraced the New Order to glorify German Homeland, so shall you embrace the New World Order, however ironic it may be that they called their secret police Homeland Security.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Where there are no real terrorists it is quite legitimate to manufacture them. The CIA agent who pretended to be a crotch bomber, which led to all those naked body scanners in our airports is just one example. This one provable in that the CIA eventually came right out and admitted that the crotch bomber was indeed one of their own.


Could not find this proof. Please assist.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Could not find this proof. Please assist.


Indeed citations would be useful... alas in ehMacMan land no proof is required just FUD and conspiracy theory.


----------



## eMacMan

There was a more recent lamestream article which has indeed been suppressed. The fact that his bomb had no detonator is probably the most telling point that it was in no way ever a terrorist plot. How can anyone be dumb enough to buy that a real terrorist or his handlers would not have tested the device? 

There was very clear evidence from day one that he had been escorted without a passport around airport security. Seems to me if it was not indeed CIA or perhaps Mossad that arranged this then the accomplice would also have long since been brought to trial.

He certainly helped sell a lot of naked body scanners and has been used to justify Team Sexual Assault, even though for all the $Billion$ spent they have as yet to apprehend a real terrorist.

As I have said before you will never find a real terrorist on the no-fly list. Reason is quite simple; Those who know he is a terrorist do not want him to know that they know. 



> Saturday, February 6th, 2010 | Posted by Gordon Duff
> *OEN: CHRISTMAS BOMBING TIED TO MOSSAD/CIA PLOY FOR MORE TERROR FUNDING*
> 
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/0...r-tied-to-mossad-msm-cover-stories-debunked/#2
> *Underwear Bomber Redux – Was Mutallab An Israeli “Secret Weapon”?*
> 
> *By way of deception… thou shalt control key airports*​
> _By Joe Quinn and Niall Bradley For OpEdNews_
> _(*editorial note: VT broke this story initially and thanks Joe Quinn and Naill Bradley for their fine journalism and great investigative work. Gordon Duff for the staff of Veterans Today)*_
> After repeatedly denying that the Christmas Underwear Bomber™ had any help in his misguided attempt to blow up Detroit-bound Flight 253 on Christmas day 2009, or that there was any sign of an accomplice on over 200 hours of Amsterdam airport security tapes, the US government recently, and very quietly, chose to admit that it had been watching Mutallab all along and that it’s now looking for his accomplice at Amsterdam airport.
> In one of only a few mainstream news reports on the US government’s reversal, the Detroit News stated:
> 
> 
> The State Department didn’t revoke the visa of foiled terrorism suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab because federal counter-terrorism officials had begged off revocation, a top State Department official revealed Wednesday.
> 
> 
> Patrick F. Kennedy, an undersecretary for management at the State Department, said Abdulmutallab’s visa wasn’t taken away because intelligence officials asked his agency not to deny a visa to the suspected terrorist over concerns that a denial would’ve foiled a larger investigation into al-Qaida threats against the United States.
> 
> 
> “Revocation action would’ve disclosed what they were doing,” Kennedy said in testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security. Allowing Adbulmutallab to keep the visa increased chances federal investigators would be able to get closer to apprehending the terror network he is accused of working with, “rather than simply knocking out one soldier in that effort.”
> 
> 
> ABC News also reported:
> Federal agents also tell ABCNews.com they are attempting to identify a man who passengers said helped Abdulmutallab change planes for Detroit when he landed in Amsterdam from Lagos, Nigeria.
> 
> 
> Of course, that’s not an admission that Mutallab had an accomplice, but it says a lot following six weeks of repeated denials on the existence of accomplices.


----------



## i-rui

krs said:


> Since when are terrorists considered "soldiers"?
> 
> Child "terrorist" - yes, but definitely not a Child "soldier"


who exactly was he terrorizing? the US soldiers that were trying to kill him? (and nearly did!).

i think everyone really needs to examine these labels and look at the situation. Resistance does not equal "terrorism" just because the US military says so.


----------



## SINC

i-rui said:


> who exactly was he terrorizing? the US soldiers that were trying to kill him? (and nearly did!).
> 
> i think everyone really needs to examine these labels and look at the situation. Resistance does not equal "terrorism" just because the US military says so.


Nor do Canadians have to believe you and your ilk that Khadar is somehow nothing to be concerned about. I'm more concerned about Canadians with your view than I am with any terrorist.


----------



## krs

i-rui said:


> who exactly was he terrorizing? the US soldiers that were trying to kill him? (and nearly did!).


Read up on where he was and what he was doing when he was captured.
The Wiki is a good place to start.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> This one provable in that the CIA eventually came right out and admitted that the crotch bomber was indeed one of their own..


Your article reference does not make this point.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Nor do Canadians have to believe you and your ilk that Khadar is somehow nothing to be concerned about. I'm more concerned about Canadians with your view than I am with any terrorist.


'you and your ilk'? My that's a pretty personal low blow don't we think?

Now back on topic, I happen to agree with i-rui, the situation as it has been well described sounds to me, to be an enemy combatant. Not a terrorist. Calling him a terrorist is ridiculous. So every time we go to war with anyone, every enemy soldier is now considered, a ;terrorist'?

Seems some should consult wiki to learn the meaning of a terrorist vs an enemy soldier.

Treat him simply as an enemy combatant.


----------



## i-rui

krs said:


> Read up on where he was and what he was doing when he was captured.
> The Wiki is a good place to start.


???

i'm very familiar with the incident. I have no idea what your referencing. Even with all the contradictions in the firsthand accounts from the US Military I don't see how anyone could possibly describe his actions as "terrorism". At most he was a participant in a firefight, at worst he was an unarmed casualty (depending on what account you believe).

The only incriminating "evidence" against him was the confession he was forced to sign to end his illegal incarceration at Gitmo, and by any reasonable western standard those types of coerced confessions aren't worth a damn.


----------



## fjnmusic

Terrorist is a stupid word. It means nothing. One country's terrorist is another country's war hero. 

Say, who won the war on terror anyway? I'm inclined to say Osama Bin Laden in that he managed to get Americans to feel the same kind of fear and paranoia that many people in other countries have felt all their lives. Despite all the arms and missiles and border security, the WTC's could be destroyed using box cutters, plastic knives and hijacked planes. No WMD's necessary. If Defence aircraft couldn't mobilize quickly enough to deal with this threat, it's a pretty sad statement about what would happen if a large foreign threat one day decided to attack. Retaliation doesn't save any lives.

The was on terror is alive and well, friends. It's hard to win a war against an abstract noun.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Terrorist is a stupid word. It means nothing. One country's terrorist is another country's war hero.
> 
> Say, who won the war on terror anyway? I'm inclined to say Osama Bin Laden in that he managed to get Americans to feel the same kind of fear and paranoia that many people in other countries have felt all their lives. Despite all the arms and missiles and border security, the WTC's could be destroyed using box cutters, plastic knives and hijacked planes. No WMD's necessary. If Defence aircraft couldn't mobilize quickly enough to deal with this threat, it's a pretty sad statement about what would happen if a large foreign threat one day decided to attack. Retaliation doesn't save any lives.
> 
> The was on terror is alive and well, friends. It's hard to win a war against an abstract noun.



No, Bin Laden lost--if you still feel terrorized, they beat only you.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> No, Bin Laden lost--if you still feel terrorized, they beat only you.


Bin Laden won, and won much bigger than he could ever have hoped to. Not only did he manage to cause far greater damage economically and in terms of lives than could've been expected, he triggered exactly the sort of military reprisals against Islamic countries necessary to drive countless thousands into Al Qaeda's arms. Furthermore, now Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, now live under constant threat and surveillance by their own governments. Not only are the people less free, the governments are afraid of shadows.

So there's no way to view the 9/11 attacks as anything other than a smashing victory for Bin Laden, and everything after that was gravy.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> No, Bin Laden lost--if you still feel terrorized, they beat only you.


HAH! Yeah it's only fjn... :lmao:

Just ask the americans practically bankrupting themselves with the billions they're squandering on security and chasing terrorists everywhere about it.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Bin Laden won, and won much bigger than he could ever have hoped to. Not only did he manage to cause far greater damage economically and in terms of lives than could've been expected, he triggered exactly the sort of military reprisals against Islamic countries necessary to drive countless thousands into Al Qaeda's arms. Furthermore, now Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, now live under constant threat and surveillance by their own governments. Not only are the people less free, the governments are afraid of shadows.
> 
> So there's no way to view the 9/11 attacks as anything other than a smashing victory for Bin Laden, and everything after that was gravy.


No, the governments involved have always hankered after this sort of power. Its part of wishing a nanny-state government on one's self. The surveillance is only part of the clarion call of Progressivisim.


----------



## groovetube

interesting that a far right government hankered after a nanny state!


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> No, the governments involved have always hankered after this sort of power. Its part of wishing a nanny-state government on one's self. The surveillance is only part of the clarion call of Progressivisim.


:lmao::lmao::lmao::clap:

Probably the only person on the planet who views The Shrub as progressive.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> who exactly was he terrorizing? the US soldiers that were trying to kill him? (and nearly did!).
> 
> i think everyone really needs to examine these labels and look at the situation. Resistance does not equal "terrorism" just because the US military says so.


He was at a terrorist training camp for God's sake! He was a terrorist in the making learning how to make bombs, a documented fact. Anyone who wants to split hairs about such "labelling" is either naive, ill informed or quite simply in denial to suit their own political inclinations.


----------



## Rps

screature said:


> he was at a terrorist training camp for god's sake! He was a terrorist in the making learning how to make bombs, a documented fact. Anyone who wants to split hairs about such "labelling" is either naive, ill informed or quite simply in denial to suit their own political inclinations.


"what he said!!!!!!!" I mean really, you guys would be all over any politician that charged you one cent as a user fee screaming that you promised no new taxes,.... each one chanting' if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck .... it's a duck. But in this case .... he's a resistance fighter....... get real.....screature is bang on.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> :lmao::lmao::lmao::clap:
> 
> Probably the only person on the planet who views The Shrub as progressive.


Bush never suggested he was a conservative. He was a Republican. Massive increases in education spending and a drug entitlement program are conservative?

Compared to the current administration, he may appear conservative, but he really was not.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> He was at a terrorist training camp for God's sake! He was a terrorist in the making learning how to make bombs, a documented fact. Anyone who wants to split hairs about such "labelling" is either naive, ill informed or quite simply in denial to suit their own political inclinations.


His father was a terrorist money man, that's been documented. But the "crimes of the father are not those of the son". That is the educated position of any modern day culture.

The crimes he was being held for at Gitmo do not fall under the label "terrorism" by any reasonable standard. "Terrorism" is targeting innocent civilians or non military targets to induce fear.

Really disappointed that people are championing the idea of incarcerating a boy for life under the guise of him being a "terrorist in the making". As if doing pre-emptive punishment without due-process is now the standard our system of law should strive for. How far away are we from thought crimes?


----------



## groovetube

Rps said:


> "what he said!!!!!!!" I mean really, you guys would be all over any politician that charged you one cent as a user fee screaming that you promised no new taxes,.... each one chanting' if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck .... it's a duck. But in this case .... he's a resistance fighter....... get real.....screature is bang on.


What did he bomb? Did he wear a suicide bomb? How exactly, other than where his dad put him, was he a 'terrorist'?

Is anyone who throws a grenade in battle... a 'terrorist'?

It seems people are just throwing around the term terrorist whenever they feel it convenient.


----------



## eMacMan

I am sticking with my normal outlook. The "official" view being promoted is that he is nothing short of a monster. As usual I feel safe in discounting any threat from the Monster. Instead I wait to see how this boogeyman will be used to promote further assaults on our basic human rights here in Canada.

Fear not the Boogeyman, the real Monsters are those that would use that fear to steal everything you value.


----------



## fjnmusic

i-rui said:


> His father was a terrorist money man, that's been documented. But the "crimes of the father are not those of the son". That is the educated position of any modern day culture.
> 
> The crimes he was being held for at Gitmo do not fall under the label "terrorism" by any reasonable standard. "Terrorism" is targeting innocent civilians or non military targets to induce fear.
> 
> Really disappointed that people are championing the idea of incarcerating a boy for life under the guise of him being a "terrorist in the making". As if doing pre-emptive punishment without due-process is now the standard our system of law should strive for. How far away are we from thought crimes?


No no—pre-emotive is good! It's like being well organized. The US launched a pre-emptive strike against Iraq damn near ten years ago for probably having weapons of mass destruction, and see how well that turned out!


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> I am sticking with my normal outlook. The "official" view being promoted is that he is nothing short of a monster. As usual I feel safe in discounting any threat from the Monster. Instead I wait to see how this boogeyman will be used to promote further assaults on our basic human rights here in Canada.
> 
> Fear not the Boogeyman, the real Monsters are those that would use that fear to steal everything you value.


And yet the catholic pope himself, was a member of the Hitler Youth when he was 15.

And people want to condescend to others about what and who is a terrorist?

pfffft.


----------



## eMacMan

I told my wife on 9/11 that I was not in the least afraid of terrorists. That the real threat was what we would do to ourselves. Sadly that view has been proven to be far too optimistic.

I believe that BO within the past week continued the State of Emergency and along with it the continued suspension of all human rights south of the border.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> His father was a terrorist money man, that's been documented. But the "crimes of the father are not those of the son". That is the educated position of any modern day culture.
> 
> The crimes he was being held for at Gitmo do not fall under the label "terrorism" by any reasonable standard. "Terrorism" is targeting innocent civilians or non military targets to induce fear.
> 
> Really disappointed that people are championing the idea of incarcerating a boy for life under the guise of him being a "terrorist in the making". As if doing pre-emptive punishment without due-process is now the standard our system of law should strive for.* How far away are we from thought crimes?*


Ridiculous.

Khadr was at a terrorist training camp being trained to make bombs, there is video footage of him doing so... like I said before "Anyone who wants to split hairs about such "labelling" is either naive, ill informed or quite simply in denial to suit their own political inclinations."


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> I told my wife on 9/11 that I was not in the least afraid of terrorists. That the real threat was what we would do to ourselves. Sadly that view has been proven to be far too optimistic.
> 
> I believe that BO within the past week continued the State of Emergency and *along with it the continued suspension of all human rights south of the border.*


Why must you always state things in the most hyperbolic extremes? Pure nonsense.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> Khadr was at a terrorist training camp being trained to make bombs, there is video footage of him doing so...


what exactly made it a "terrorist" training camp (besides the label you want to assign to it)?

it a serious question. what were the targets of the explosives? US military targets? then it wasn't really terrorism. there are ramifications for an army invading another land, and one of them is that the enemy may very well try to resist in a very violent way. (and this goes beyond whether the Afghan mission is a righteous one which is a separate debate).

The world is not a black and white place. There very rarely are good guys and bad guys, men with white hats and men with black ones. Often people's opinions are shaped by what side of the fence they lay, instead of looking at something objectively.

Was the French Resistance to the Nazis in WW2 "terrorism"? By the same standards you want to apply to Khadr it would be.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> *what exactly made it a "terrorist" training camp* (besides the label you want to assign to it)?
> 
> it a serious question. what were the targets of the explosives? US military targets? then it wasn't really terrorism. there are ramifications for an army invading another land, and one of them is that the enemy may very well try to resist in a very violent way. (and this goes beyond whether the Afghan mission is a righteous one which is a separate debate).
> 
> The world is not a black and white place. There very rarely are good guys and bad guys, men with white hats and men with black ones. Often people's opinions are shaped by what side of the fence they lay, instead of looking at something objectively.
> 
> Was the French Resistance to the Nazis in WW2 "terrorism"? By the same standards you want to apply to Khadr it would be.


Uhhmm a little organization called Al Qaeda...

Sigh, keep on with your sympathies for those who would wish to engage in a religious jihad against the West and non-Muslim's. Your view is anything but objective so don't try and claim any high ground on that front. 

We are never going to agree on this issue so we will simply have to agree to disagree.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> We are never going to agree on this issue so we will simply have to agree to disagree.


i agree, but never the less this needs to be addressed :



screature said:


> Uhhmm a little organization called Al Qaeda...


Al Qaeda is not a card carrying organization, and certainly not the monolithic army that many want to portray it as. Often groups referred to as "Al Qaeda" only have passing ties with them (tribal factions that often share certain objectives...i.e driving out the US military from their land) but they are not really the same group.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> i agree, but never the less this needs to be addressed :
> 
> 
> 
> Al Qaeda is not a card carrying organization, and certainly not the monolithic army that many want to portray it as. Often groups referred to as "Al Qaeda" only have passing ties with them (tribal factions that often share certain objectives...i.e driving out the US military from their land) but they are not really the same group.


If it walks like a duck... you know the rest. In this case jihadists.


----------



## groovetube

I find it interesting the double standards, that no one wants to touch. We have a 'terrorist' for a pope.

But that's different.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> I find it interesting the double standards, that no one wants to touch. We have a 'terrorist' for a pope.
> 
> But that's different.


"We" do not have a terrorist for a pope; only Catholics do. Protestants, Jews, and Muslims, for example, do not recognize papal authority and therefore can't be hypocrites in this regard.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> "We" do not have a terrorist for a pope; only Catholics do. Protestants, Jews, and Muslims, for example, do not recognize papal authority and therefore can't be hypocrites in this regard.


Not so fast. I don't see anyone getting upset over the pope and his influence, given -his- past.

I'm simply pointing out a double standard here. If we're going to hold someone accountable for their actions at the age of 15, whether "required" or not, and have to put up with some who slam others over the definition of terrorist, I'm certainly not going see arguments that Khadr is anymore a terrorist than the pope was as being credible.


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> I find it interesting the double standards, that no one wants to touch. We have a 'terrorist' for a pope.
> 
> But that's different.


I would hope that WWII had a life changing impact on the Pope. It certainly did on a number of my family members.

I also saw a huge impact on friends that went to Vietnam, sometimes good, sometimes bad but always a change.

One can only hope that Omar is able to forgive all that he has endured over the past 10 years. The alternative is that he will live out his his life with his stomach in knots and seeking revenge. If he has that capacity then it is quite possible he will turn out to be a better human being than those who simply buy into our own propaganda. 

I do hope I live long enough to know which way his life turns.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> One can only hope that Omar is able to forgive all that he has endured over the past 10 years. .


One can only hope the families of the people he killed can forgive _him_.


----------



## groovetube

people? I thought it was one. Has the number grown now?


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *"We" do not have a terrorist for a pope; only Catholics do.* Protestants, Jews, and Muslims, for example, do not recognize papal authority and therefore can't be hypocrites in this regard.


Exactly how is it that even Catholics have a terrorist Pope with the current or even recent past Popes?


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> One can only hope the families of the *people* he killed can forgive _him_.


Just a slight correction... *person* he killed.


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> people? I thought it was one. Has the number grown now?


Not even sure about that one as the original report did not mention it. This was changed but whether or not it was because it had simply been omitted or because Command wanted an excuse to ship him to Guantanamo is unknown. His defense council was not allowed to pursue that line of questioning or even to talk to any of the soldiers who captured him. 

A fair trial to be sure at least in Nazi Germany, Israel, Soviet Russia or Communist China. To call it that in the US they had to bypass the Constitution.


----------



## lukasf

As for pope's past ... Do you know usual punishment for not joining HitlerJugen and/or army in Nazi Germany during war?


----------



## groovetube

maybe the same punishment for not following orders to gas people in concentration camps?

Though it wasn't since my mother's side grew up in the middle of it.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> I would hope that WWII had a life changing impact on the Pope. It certainly did on a number of my family members.
> 
> I also saw a huge impact on friends that went to Vietnam, sometimes good, sometimes bad but always a change.
> 
> *One can only hope that Omar is able to forgive all that he has endured over the past 10 years. *The alternative is that he will live out his his life with his stomach in knots and seeking revenge. If he has that capacity then it is quite possible he will turn out to be a better human being than those who simply buy into our own propaganda.
> 
> I do hope I live long enough to know which way his life turns.


 One can only hope that Omar will forgive his father for the consequences that were brought to bear on him because of the actions of his father as they pertain to his own actions... but something tells me Omar doesn't see anything wrong with what his father did to him or others or his father's intentions and his own.

A formal denouncement of his father, his father's actions, his own actions and the jihadist movement would go along way to granting him parole if I were on the board. 

Without that he can stay in Millhaven until he is an old man as far as I am concerned. Even with that he should be on parole for at least 5 years after his release IMO.


----------



## screature

lukasf said:


> As for pope's past ... Do you know usual punishment for not joining HitlerJugen and/or army in Nazi Germany during war?


*Recent* past Popes.


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> I would hope that WWII had a life changing impact on the Pope. It certainly did on a number of my family members.
> 
> I also saw a huge impact on friends that went to Vietnam, sometimes good, sometimes bad but always a change.
> 
> One can only hope that Omar is able to forgive all that he has endured over the past 10 years. The alternative is that he will live out his his life with his stomach in knots and seeking revenge. If he has that capacity then it is quite possible he will turn out to be a better human being than those who simply buy into our own propaganda.
> 
> I do hope I live long enough to know which way his life turns.


A rather startling admission by our genius of a public safety minister:
Minister's Khadr comments threaten parole system's integrity: lawyers - The Globe and Mail


> ...and that the decade Mr. Khadr spent in prison had “radicalized” him.


A rare shot of clarity on his part perhaps...


----------



## lukasf

> maybe the same punishment for not following orders to gas people in concentration camps?
> 
> Though it wasn't since my mother's side grew up in the middle of it.


Small difference you probably didn't notice ... Serving in SS troops was voluntary ...


----------



## groovetube

Oh I see they could refuse orders without any fear of penalties.

Yeah I can see how that could be credible.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> To call it that in the US they had to bypass the Constitution.


The U.S. Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens.


----------



## screature

lukasf said:


> Small difference you probably didn't notice ... Serving in SS troops *was voluntary* ...


As was Omar's choice... some may say "well given his culture he had no choice" but people *always* have a choice it is just whether you are strong willed enough to opt for the choice that is out of favour with your culture, government or family. (Draft Dodgers anyone?)

I know because I was the "black sheep" in my family and rejected what my parents wanted me to do... it was a tough decision but either you live true to yourself or the will of others...

If Omar was living up to the "will of others" he should have no problem denouncing his father, etc. and getting parole, if he was being true to himself then he can stay in Millhaven for a very long time AFAIAC.


----------



## lukasf

> Oh I see they could refuse orders without any fear of penalties.


Nope. But they did choose to serve in killing troops, it was their free decision ...


----------



## lukasf

> As was Omar's choice... some may say "well given his culture he had no choice" but people always have a choice it is just whether you are strong willed enough to opt for the choice that is out of favour will you culture, government or family. (Draft Dodgers anyone?)


So as my granfather ... luckily it was before the WW2 started, he just had to spend about 8 year in Konzentrationslager ... after 1939 it would be death penalty ...


----------



## i-rui

so your point is the pope didn't have a choice.....

...but Omar Khadr had a choice of who his dad was? or that a 11 year old kid should have made the choice to leave his father when they were in pakistan/afghanistan and walked back to canada if and when he became aware that what his father was doing wasn't exactly a good thing?


----------



## lukasf

By me Pope had way smaller choice then Omar ... 

And how they behaved after shows big difference between them too (BTW I'm not catholic, I'm a lutheran).


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> As was Omar's choice... some may say "well given his culture he had no choice" but people *always* have a choice it is just whether you are strong willed enough to opt for the choice that is out of favour will you culture, government or family. (Draft Dodgers anyone?)
> 
> I know because I was the "black sheep" in my family and rejected what my parents wanted me to do... it was a tough decision but either you live true to yourself or the will of others...
> 
> If Omar was living up to the "will of others" he should have no problem denouncing his father, etc. and getting parole, if he was being true to himself then he can stay in Millhaven for a very long time AFAIAC.


You aren't seriously, trying to compare you being a... What was it, a black sheep with Khadr's situation as a kid.

Now that. Is nuts

I think Khadr as a kid has more than done his time in a place like Guantanamo. My point with the pope is that obviously, he didn't get the same sort of punishment for being an organization at 15 (and went on to bigger things later). Double standards it seems.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> so your point is the pope didn't have a choice.....
> 
> ...*but Omar Khadr had a choice of who his dad was*? or that a 11 year old kid should have made the choice to leave his father when they were in pakistan/afghanistan and walked back to canada if and when he became aware that what his father was doing wasn't exactly a good thing?


Ok, sorry I have to engage with you again... *No one* has a choice of father. That is completely a red herring and is beside the point. The *only* choices *any* individual has is in terms of what you do or don't do, regardless of your culture, government, family, or other influences.


----------



## groovetube

yea. Sorta like going to community college rather than going to Harvard like daddy wanted.


----------



## jimbotelecom

I trust the general on this. 

Support the Troops!

Khadr's rehabilitation undermined by Tories, Dallaire says - Politics - CBC News


----------



## SINC

jimbotelecom said:


> I trust the general on this.
> 
> Support the Troops!
> 
> Khadr's rehabilitation undermined by Tories, Dallaire says - Politics - CBC News


And I don't. Dallaire's skills as a politician match his skills as a failed commander in Rwanda and has zero credibility with many Canadians who consider Khadr a threat.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> And I don't. Dallaire's skills as a politician match his skills as a failed commander in Rwanda and has zero credibility with many Canadians who consider Khadr a threat.


+1. Well stated.


----------



## jimbotelecom

SINC said:


> And I don't. Dallaire's skills as a politician match his skills as a failed commander in Rwanda and has zero credibility with many Canadians who consider Khadr a threat.


On this we fully disagree. I know i'm not the only one.


----------



## SINC

jimbotelecom said:


> On this we fully disagree. I know i'm not the only one.


Nor am I, and I just might be in the majority on this one.


----------



## jimbotelecom

SINC said:


> Nor am I, and I just might be in the majority on this one.


It might be my Ottawa centric perspective SINC, but, I think you are among minority opinion with respect to the General.

The man wrote one of the great books of the century. He is a great Canadian.


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> *It might be my Ottawa centric perspective *SINC, but, I think you are among minority opinion with respect to the General.
> 
> The man wrote one of the great books of the century. He is a great Canadian.


What makes you think your opinion represents the opinion of Ottawa? I mean seriously!


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> It might be my Ottawa centric perspective SINC, but, I *think you are among minority opinion with respect to the General.
> 
> The man wrote one of the great books of the century. He is a great Canadian*.


Great Canadian? Really? All he did was admit to the atrocities that he stood idly by and watched and did nothing about and then write a book about how much it affected him personally, be appointed a Senator and then continue to defend the UN.... I mean seriously?


----------



## jimbotelecom

Hook line and sinker for you fellaws.


----------



## jimbotelecom

screature said:


> Great Canadian? Really? All he did was admit to the atrocities that he stood idly by and watched and did nothing about and then write a book about how much it affected him personally, be appointed a Senator and then continue to defend the UN.... I mean seriously?


Hope he gets a pension.


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> Hook line and sinker for you fellaws.


Really? How? Please explain... Since you seem so sure of your own sense of self importance or would you rather only be a big fish in a small pond and only speak to those who agree with you?


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> Hope he gets a pension.


He already gets more than well paid for a job that he decides if and when he shows up for and still gets paid... and then he gets his Military pension on top of that...

Trust me he gets many times better paid than any grunt who experienced first hand and worse than what he did in Rwanda and isn't rich because of it.


----------



## groovetube

jimbotelecom said:


> Hook line and sinker for you fellaws.


shhhh. They think it's all his fault.


----------



## SINC

Well, well, even the majority of reader feedback over at CBC-TV are anti Khadr and anti Dallaire:

5 questions about the future of Omar Khadr - Canada - CBC News


----------



## krs

SINC said:


> Well, well, even the majority of reader feedback over at CBC-TV are anti Khadr and anti Dallaire:
> 
> 5 questions about the future of Omar Khadr - Canada - CBC News


Lots of good reader comments on CBC including this one:



> Constitutional and human rights lawyer Paul Champ told CBC News that because Khadr is considered a child soldier, Canada would have an obligation to provide rehabilitation and counselling to him under international law.
> _________
> It's hard to let this comment go unanswered, yet CBC does. Under what international law does Mr. Champ consider Khadr a child soldier? The UN doesn't consider him a child soldier under the guiding document that was in force on the day he was captured known as Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (now known as the 1st optional protocol as it has since been ammended to adjust the age but it was not made rhetrocative). In paragraph 5 of the protocol is states "Noting the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, in particular, the inclusion therein as a war crime, of conscripting or enlisting children under the age of 15 years or using them to participate actively in hostilities in both international and non-international armed conflict"
> 
> It goes on in several places to re-state that any person under the age of 15 must be treated as a child soldier and receive medical and mental health treatment versus internment and trial. Khadr was not under the age of 15 when captured he was almost 16. While a few months of age may seem like symantics to some, the law is symantics in every way shape and form and in this case he doesn't qualify by law for any special status regardless of whether or not a Senator or a profession or human rights activist suggests otherwise.


----------



## Macfury

If he were released today, the progressive wing would either say:

a) of course he's harmless, he was a child soldier who bore no malice; or
b) of course he want haywire, he was indoctrinated at Gitmo.

Either way, the stories are already written.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> If he were released today, the progressive wing would either say:
> 
> a) of course he's harmless, he was a child soldier who bore no malice; or
> b) of course he want haywire, he was indoctrinated at Gitmo.


Any reasonable person (i.e. most "progressives") would argue that it would be insane to release him because of both of these factors. He was indoctrinated by a culture that made a child soldier out of him; so he's not properly socialized in the first place. And then he was further removed from normal social development as a prisoner in Guantanamo.

Malice dosen't even need to enter into it; but you can hardly fault the guy for being full of malice after the kind of life he's experienced. 

Clearly his rights have been abused since childhood, and clearly he's not someone that could be trusted to behave in socially acceptable ways because of it.

The only difference between the progressives and the law-and-order types here is that the progressives recognize that the way he's been treated by the system is part of the problem, and while it may be too late to undo the damage that has been done to him, it's not too late to examine how and why the system failed, and to try to correct those problems so they don't happen again.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> Any reasonable person (i.e. most "progressives") would argue that it would be insane to release him because of both of these factors. He was indoctrinated by a culture that made a child soldier out of him; so he's not properly socialized in the first place. And then he was further removed from normal social development as a prisoner in Guantanamo.
> 
> Malice dosen't even need to enter into it; but you can hardly fault the guy for being full of malice after the kind of life he's experienced.
> 
> Clearly his rights have been abused since childhood, and clearly he's not someone that could be trusted to behave in socially acceptable ways because of it.
> 
> The only difference between the progressives and the law-and-order types here is that the progressives recognize that the way he's been treated by the system is part of the problem, and while it may be too late to undo the damage that has been done to him, it's not too late to examine how and why the system failed, and to try to correct those problems so they don't happen again.


The, 'non progressives' have no concept of what happens when you put someone in a place like gitmo, strip them of any rights and put them through a decade of torture, and other abuses. Especially a teenager growing up. The same bunch are likely the ones who are scratching their heads when you put countries though decades of installed murderous dictators, and when young generations grow up after watching their parents and sibling blown to pieces or raped and tortured/murdered, they become er, 'terrorists.

They're crazy! 

Yeah.


----------



## SINC

> In an interview with The Canadian Press, former sergeant Layne Morris denounced Khadr, 26, as a “horrific security risk,” and blasted the American government.


Omar Khadr’s transfer to Canada infuriates blinded U.S. soldier Layne Morris | News | National Post


----------



## groovetube

> Many of those who have worked closely with Khadr over the years — American soldiers, mental-health experts and a succession of defence lawyers — paint a very different picture. It’s a portrait of someone smart and gentle who desperately wants to get on with a “normal” life and has been trying to upgrade his education.


Hmmm.


----------



## krs

> Many of those who have worked closely with Khadr over the years — American soldiers, mental-health experts and a succession of defence lawyers — paint a very different picture. It’s a portrait of someone smart and gentle who desperately wants to get on with a “normal” life and has been trying to upgrade his education.


That is a really meaningless general statement in the article.
No names or even an indication where and under what circumstances these "other" people commented.
Defence lawyers? - of course they are going to paint the most positive picture possible.

Canadian soldiers were deployed in Afghanistan and Khadr, a Canadian citizn by birth, went over there specifically to fight against them.
Isn't there something wrong with this picture?
And now he wants to get on with his life and is "Smart and gentle" - smart - yes, the way he manipulated his plea bargaining, gentle, well.....


----------



## Macfury

krs said:


> that is a really meaningless general statement in the article.
> No names or even an indication where and under what circumstances these "other" people commented.
> Defence lawyers? - of course they are going to paint the most positive picture possible.
> 
> Canadian soldiers were deployed in afghanistan and khadr, a canadian citizn by birth, went over there specifically to fight against them.
> Isn't there something wrong with this picture?
> And now he wants to get on with his life and is "smart and gentle" - smart - yes, the way he manipulated his plea bargaining, gentle, well.....


+1


----------



## SINC

^

Yep!


----------



## i-rui

krs said:


> That is a really meaningless general statement in the article.


the entire article is meaningless. A soldier who lost his eye in the firefight still holds a grudge? STOP THE PRESS!

He didn't even have any contact with the boy since the incident. How is his opinion relevant on if Khadr poses any threat? 



krs said:


> Canadian soldiers were deployed in Afghanistan and Khadr, a Canadian citizn by birth, went over there specifically to fight against them.


no, he went there because his father and family took him there. I'm shocked that people still can't get through their head, that at 10 years old (when his family moved back to pakistan & afghanistan) a kid doesn't exactly have a lot of options on who his family is, or where he lives.


----------



## SINC

i-rui said:


> I'm shocked that people still can't get through their head, that at 10 years old (when his family moved back to pakistan & afghanistan) a kid doesn't exactly have a lot of options on who his family is, or where he lives.


And I am shocked that some people are naive enough not to recognize his family was grooming him to become a terrorist at that age. Those people think differently than westerners.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> And I am shocked that some people are naive enough not to recognize his family was grooming him to become a terrorist at that age. Those people think differently than westerners.


Maybe we just barge into those countries right now, grab all their kids, and throw them into prisons like gitmo because of what they might do.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> Maybe we just barge into those countries right now, grab all their kids, and throw them into prisons like gitmo because of what they might do.


Um... isn't that rather what the Taliban is arguing we have done (not to mention bombing the sh*t out of them)? Hence the argument that our intervention in Afghanistan is counter productive.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Maybe we just barge into those countries right now, grab all their kids, and throw them into prisons like gitmo because of what they might do.


Don't be absurd. No one is going to go into a country and do such a thing. That noted, it becomes our business *when a Canadian citizen goes back* to that country to train his family in anti-western protest techniques, commonly known as terrorism.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Don't be absurd. No one is going to go into a country and do such a thing. That noted, it becomes our business *when a Canadian citizen goes back* to that country to train his family in anti-western protest techniques, commonly known as terrorism.


Yes, but there's still a pervasive ring of "guilty until proven innocent" in your posts on this subject, Don, based on the upbringing a child receives. The fear may be well-founded, but in this country, you have to wait until someone commits a crime before they can be tried and convicted. In Khadr's case, the prosecution had circumstantial evidence at best. Without his guilty plea, they may never have been able to convict, though that didn't stop the US authorities from detaining him without being charged with a crime for several years. Whether I personally like/trust/advocate for/hate/distrust/denounce Khadr is irrelevant. His case was a clear miscarriage of justice. Is this the process you would want for yourself if you were accused of a crime?


----------



## krs

fjnmusic said:


> In Khadr's case, the prosecution had circumstantial evidence at best. Without his guilty plea, they may never have been able to convict.....


Are you saying he wasn't actually there and this is all made up or that he was just an innocent bystander?


----------



## groovetube

The bottom line here, no matter what you think of Khadr, or what his crime may have been, he was given a deal in return for a guilty plea. He should get his deal, serve his time, and be afforded any of the rights a convicted Canadian gets once they complete their sentence.


----------



## SINC

An eight year sentence is the total time of the sentence given. The biggest fear most people have is that Canadian courts will weaken and parole him long before that happens. That is what is wrong with Canadian law. Not to mention releasing him into our midst, the real danger here.


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> An eight year sentence is the total time of the sentence given. The biggest fear most people have is that Canadian courts will weaken and parole him long before that happens. That is what is wrong with Canadian law. Not to mention releasing him into our midst, the real danger here.


However he was already held for at least eight years without being charged. So by any reasonable standard he should be released immediately.

If Canada wants to pursue charges against him the only real possibility is treason. Problem is he was under age and clearly put in a situation that removed any freedom of choice he might have had. I doubt that any objective court would ever convict.


----------



## SINC

eMacMan said:


> However he was already held for at least eight years without being charged. So by any reasonable standard he should be released immediately.
> 
> If Canada wants to pursue charges against him the only real possibility is treason. Problem is he was under age and clearly put in a situation that removed any freedom of choice he might have had. I doubt that any objective court would ever convict.


So, we agree to disagree Bob. While you are giving him that big hug and welcoming him out, if he shows up anywhere near me, I'll be busy forming a protective plan to counter the threat he poses.


----------



## groovetube

Is there any reason to characterize a different opinion as 'giving a big hug'?

Though I can probably think of a few, I don't think anyone suggested big hugs are any real welcomes.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> *However he was already held for at least eight years without being charged. So by any reasonable standard he should be released immediately.*
> 
> If Canada wants to pursue charges against him the only real possibility is treason. Problem is he was under age and clearly put in a situation that removed any freedom of choice he might have had. I doubt that any objective court would ever convict.


Sigh...

If memory serves me correctly 40 years or there about was his sentence in the US. 

It was only his confession and the collected efforts of his and government lawyers that had the sentence reduced....

He confessed in 2010 as part of the plea bargain so his 8 years officially ends in 2018 as his plea bargain was that he would serve 8 years from the date of his plea...

Inform yourself eMacMan.


----------



## fjnmusic

krs said:


> Are you saying he wasn't actually there and this is all made up or that he was just an innocent bystander?


I'm saying he was the sole witness as far as the lobbed grenade goes. No one that is still alive actually saw him do it or not do it.


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> Is there any reason to characterize a different opinion as 'giving a big hug'?
> 
> Though I can probably think of a few, I don't think anyone suggested big hugs are any real welcomes.


Karla Homolka was given a bigger welcome mat, for Pete's sake.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> Sigh...
> 
> If memory serves me correctly 40 years or there about was his sentence in the US.
> 
> It was only his confession and the collected efforts of his and government lawyers that had the sentence reduced....
> 
> He confessed in 2010 as part of the plea bargain so his 8 years officially ends in 2018 as his plea bargain was that he would serve 8 years from the date of his plea...
> 
> Inform yourself eMacMan.


Right-o, absolutely nothing wrong with imprisoning someone without charges or trial for nearly 10 years, forcing a confession that must be suspect given the manner in which it was extracted and then saying all is well. 

Of course neither Bush nor BO enjoy a stellar reputation when it comes to human rights. The Gitmo trial was a sham. Had it been the Soviet Union or China that did this to Khadr, he would have been free the day he returned to Canadian soil. 

The scary part about democracy is that when our guys are wrong we have an obligation to stand up and say so. Saying; "They're our guys so they can't possibly be this evil" is a surefire way to see the rights of a democracy erode to naught.

Like I said if Canada really believes their own and the US propaganda, yes our side is as guilty as anyone, then try him for treason and let the chips fall where they will. But calling the US trial anything but bogus requires a huge stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Sonal

SINC said:


> And I am shocked that some people are naive enough not to recognize his family was grooming him to become a terrorist at that age. *Those people think differently than westerners*.


Those people meaning his family, those people meaning Pakistanis/Afghanis, or those people meaning non-Westerners?

Personally, I am shocked that the Canadian government was so slow to rectify the violation of Khadr's civil rights, even after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that they were violating his rights.


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> So, we agree to disagree Bob. While you are giving him that big hug and welcoming him out, if he shows up anywhere near me, I'll be busy forming a protective plan to counter the threat he poses.


Generally speaking, when someone tells me to be afraid, I have found the biggest threat is from those trying to make me cower in fear. 

Perhaps I am biased as I have met people who were growing up in Germany as Hitler was transforming their homeland. Every single one of them refers to W as Little Hitler. The reason being is that he used hatred and fear to justify his actions. While it is easy to manipulate people with those two tools it is never healthy or right.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Karla Homolka was given a bigger welcome mat, for Pete's sake.


Really? How so? She was imprisoned in Canada and who exactly laid out the welcome mat for her?


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Perhaps I am biased as I have met people who were growing up in Germany as Hitler was transforming their homeland. Every single one of them refers to W as Little Hitler.


I think you are biased. W is the littlest Hitler of all time in that he left power four years ago under the terms of the Constitution.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> I think you are biased. W is the littlest Hitler of all time in that he left power four years ago under the terms of the Constitution.


Having been born there, and given my mother's entire side grew up under Hitler, (and after) I can say, he isn't biased at all. And yes, I've heard a great number of them refer to w as a 'hitler' of sorts


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> I think you are biased. W is the littlest Hitler of all time in that he left power four years ago under the terms of the Constitution.


You left out the part of the quote about fear and hatred. Those tools worked for Hitler and worked for Bush. Great for funneling money to the MIC via wars, not so good for those living in countries governed or attacked by the leaders using those tools.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> You left out the part of the quote about fear and hatred.


This was Hitler's invention?


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> You left out the part of the quote about fear and hatred. Those tools worked for Hitler and worked for Bush. Great for funneling money to the MIC via wars, not so good for those living in countries governed or attacked by the leaders using those tools.


Which of the countries that Hitler invaded actually invaded Germany first? The US had a reason to be fearful, just a little event referred to as 9/11.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Which of the countries that Hitler invaded actually invaded Germany first? The US had a reason to be fearful, just a little event referred to as 9/11.


Perhaps the US should pay more attention to its foreign policy and the way it treats dependent and/or islamic countries (e.g. sanctions which create a hungry and resentful population) than all of the money it pours into military efforts. Think about it: on 9/11 the targets were symbols of economic power, not military targets. The US, for all its military prowess, was defenceless. Four jet liners were hijacked with nothing but box cutters and plastic knives and a suicidal mission, and there were NO missiles or stealth planes or anything to provide a counter-attack. Weapons of Mass Destruction were not employed or needed. 

The US was wasn't invaded; it was a terrorist attack. The hijackers had no desire to take over and occupy the country they were attacking—they were attempting to send a message. Lunatics certainly, and dangerous, but they also carried out their plan very well from a strategic point of view. They inspired the same kind of fear and anxiety in the US that citizens in places like Afghanistan and Iraq live with daily.

All of this has little to do with Omar Khadr directly of course. If the US had a stellar reputation for hitting its intended targets with no collateral damage, he might have been better off not to try any countermeasures to protect himself. But just as you can use self-defense to rationalize the US response to 9/11, shouldn't Khadr have the same right to self-defense when the building he is in is under attack? I'm pretty sure you would claim the right to self-defence right here at home if an intruder came to attack you, whether he was a fellow Canadian or not. That is not treason.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Perhaps the US should pay more attention to its foreign policy and the way it treats dependent and/or islamic countries (e.g. sanctions which create a hungry and resentful population) than all of the money it pours into military efforts.


So the US deserved the 9/11 attack in your eyes?



fjnmusic said:


> Think about it: on 9/11 *the targets were symbols of economic power, not military targets.* The US, for all its military prowess, was defenceless. Four jet liners were hijacked with nothing but box cutters and plastic knives and a suicidal mission, and there were NO missiles or stealth planes or anything to provide a counter-attack. Weapons of Mass Destruction were not employed or needed.


The Pentagon isn't a military target????



fjnmusic said:


> *The US was wasn't invaded*; it was a terrorist attack. The hijackers had no desire to take over and occupy the country they were attacking—they were attempting to send a message. Lunatics certainly, and dangerous, but they also carried out their plan very well from a strategic point of view. They inspired the same kind of fear and anxiety in the US that citizens in places like Afghanistan and Iraq live with daily.


I never said the US was invaded the word invaded was used because it was in reference to Hitler, Germany and WWII... for semantic clarity, attacked would have been a better choice of words on my part.



fjnmusic said:


> *All of this has little to do with Omar Khadr directly of course.* If the US had a stellar reputation for hitting its intended targets with no collateral damage, he might have been better off not to try any countermeasures to protect himself. But just as you can use self-defense to rationalize the US response to 9/11, *shouldn't Khadr have the same right to self-defense when the building he is in is under attack? I'm pretty sure you would claim the right to self-defence right here at home if an intruder came to attack you, whether he was a fellow Canadian or not. That is not treason.*


9/11 has everything to do with Khadr directly... No 9/11, no allied invasion into Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda terrorists... 

Sigh... he was in a terrorist training camp learning to make bombs to blow up innocents all for the jihadist cause... it wasn't a "home" by any stretch of imagination and your comparison is quite frankly ridiculous.


----------



## groovetube

And here the discussion always gets there. If someone suggests that perhaps the US's installing of murderous dictators in countries they have interests in may have created some real anti-american sentitments that could lead to reprisals, it almost always gets tossed. "what you think Americans deserved it???"

What a ridiculous statement. Absolutely, ridiculous.

Who would actually think innocent civilians deserve to die brutal deaths? Why even drop to that level in a conversation if only because, you've got nothing.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> So the US deserved the 9/11 attack in your eyes?


I don't think they deserved to be attacked, but obviously many disgruntled around the world believed they did and cheered when the towers fell.



> The Pentagon isn't a military target????


You're right; my bad. But for whatever reason, the plane that flew into the Pentagon missile-style, leaving no airplane parts in its wake, doesn't get the same attention in the media. It seems civilian targets get a lot more press. Interestingly, nobody ever suggested terrorists at work in Oklahoma City—just good old homegrown boys with a grudge.



> I never said the US was invaded the word invaded was used because it was in reference to Hitler, Germany and WWII... for semantic clarity, attacked would have been a better choice of words on my part.


Fair enough.



> 9/11 has everything to do with Khadr directly... No 9/11, no allied invasion into Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda terrorists...


...and then no need to train to defend oneself/kill the infidels once the the US Occupy movement decides to live in Afghanistan for ten years. But that's still indirect as far as Khadr goes.



> Sigh... he was in a terrorist training camp learning to make bombs to blow up innocents all for the jihadist cause... it wasn't a "home" by any stretch of imagination and your comparison is quite frankly ridiculous.


The point isn't the "home" reference but rather the right to self-defense. If you were attacked, either at home or abroad, would you have the right to defend yourself by whatever means necessary? Or are you just expected to die and keep quiet? You can design and build bombs in your own country, that's not actually illegal, depending on the country. People do it in the US all the time. As far as occupying foreign countries goes...the legalities of that are a fair bit dodgier. 

Bottom line is that Khadr, if he actually threw the grenade that killed the US soldier (and I have reservations about that, since the admittance was part of a plea bargain), it was still not treason, since he was a Canadian citizen. Canadians do not swear an oath of allegiance to the US, but rather to Canada and by extension the English monarch. England was not under attack, and the United States are not part of the British commonwealth. In any event, it seems to me that treason is a word reserved for soldiers who actually sign up for battle, not 15 year old children in a war zone.

And Khadr's detainment and trial still represents a miscarriage of justice. If he didn't have a strong reason to become a terrorist before, we sure have given him one now.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> nd Khadr's detainment and trial still represents a miscarriage of justice. If he didn't have a strong reason to become a terrorist before, we sure have given him one now.


Think carefully before committing to such a statement. Sounds like you are justifying future terrorism here.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> If he didn't have a strong reason to become a terrorist before, we sure have given him one now.


This is exactly why he is such a danger and should not be released unless under strictly controlled conditions.


----------



## Gerbill

I think that this young man and his lovely family have suffered enough with living in one of the corrupt western democracies that they hate so much. As a humanitarian gesture, they should all be given a complimentary one-way ticket to whatever centre of Islamic enlightenment that they prefer, whether it be Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or wherever.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Really? How so? She was imprisoned in Canada and who exactly laid out the welcome mat for her?


She was let out of prison as per the terms of her plea bargain once her sentence was finished. I can see a much greater danger in her being free than I can from Omar Khadr, yet today she is a free woman, perfectly capable of orchestrating another homicide. The difference is that in one case, a Canadian citizen's rights under the law were upheld, no matter how much we may find that individual's behaviour reprehensible, whereas in the other case they were not.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Think carefully before committing to such a statement. Sounds like you are justifying future terrorism here.


Not justifying. Rationalizing. There's a difference. Let me tell you the story in April 2003 of a man who went to the market one day. While he was there, the US forces decided to bomb the restaurant across from his house because Saddam Hussein and his sons were believed to be inside. Well, the US forces missed their target—badly. They hit the building where the man's wife and children were. None of them survived. He came home to a big crater in the ground and the violent death of all his loved ones. "Collateral damage" they call it. In this country we cannot relate except for auto accidents or natural disasters. Their deaths were a result of a deliberate choice by the US military. He did nothing wrong. But it certainly gives him a very good reason to hate the US and take up arms against the US. In this instance it is who we regard as the "good guys" that are in fact the terrorists.

Think carefully when you use a loaded term like "terrorism." Consider how it all looks from the other guy's point of view.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Not justifying. Rationalizing. There's a difference. Let me tell you the story in April 2003 of a man who went to the market one day. While he was there, the US forces decided to bomb the restaurant across from his house because Saddam Hussein and his sons were believed to be inside. Well, the US forces missed their target—badly. They hit the building where the man's wife and children were. None of them survived. He come home to a big crater in the ground and the violent death of all his loved ones. "Collateral damage" they call it. In this country we cannot relate except for auto accidents or natural disasters. Their deaths were a result of a deliberate choice by the US military. He did nothing wrong. But it certainly gives him a very good reason to hate the US and take up arms against the US. In this instance it is who we regard as the "good guys" that are in fact the terrorists.
> 
> Think carefully when you use a loaded term like "terrorism." Consider how it all looks from the other guy's point of view.


Tell me the name of the man.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Tell me the name of the man.


Sure - gotta have proof. 'Cause that sort of thing _never happens_. (where's the damn sarcasm emoticon?)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Sure - gotta have proof. 'Cause that sort of thing _never happens_. (where's the damn sarcasm emoticon?)


My, you're an angry fellow these days.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> My, you're an angry fellow these days.


Not half as angry as most will be if they actually free that guy and let him roam Canada.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Tell me the name of the man.


I wish I could tell you. I remember reading about it in the Edmonton Journal back in April 2003. I don't remember if they said his name. I also remember that they cordoned off the area for months after because they were officially looking for the bodies of Hussein's sons. I think it was because they didn't want anyone to see them removing the bodies of children from the rubble. People lost interest but I remember the story left an impression on me.

But if I can't provide you with a name you'll dismiss it all as fiction, I suppose. Sad.


----------



## Macfury

I'm sure I would accept a real name--it's just that I don't like being lectured with apocryphal stories. I can make up good ones as well.


----------



## groovetube

Are we seriously having this conversation?

Yeah it appears someone is.


----------



## fjnmusic

Here's the story, doubters. As I said, I don't remember the man's name being mentioned, at least not in the first reports of the bombing, but the fact that they missed the restaurant entirely but destroyed three domiciles and left a 60 foot crater does not seem to be in dispute. I'm surprised more people do not keep track of these atrocities—on both sides of the fight.

2pm: Saddam is spotted. 2.48pm: pilots get their orders. 3pm: 60ft crater at target | World news | The Guardian



> It is still not clear whether this particular target was killed or not. The British say not, claiming that President Saddam left the restaurant minutes before the bombing. But the CIA remained hopeful yesterday. A US intelligence force said the agency was "cautiously optimistic they got him".
> 
> What is clear is that 12 minutes after that radio conversation, at about 3pm Baghdad time, Col Swan's bombs left a 60ft crater in the ground where a restaurant once stood in the capital's prosperous Mansour district.
> 
> The hole was made by four bombs in what the air force likes to call a "package". A couple of 2,000lb specially hardened bombs were dropped from 6,000 metres and directed to the target by satellite guidance. They targeted the restaurant and at least one building next door before penetrating deep below, where it was believed there was a series of bunkers used by Iraqi intelligence.
> 
> But Peter Arnett, the sacked NBC reporter, who visited the site of the strike yesterday reported in the Mirror that the al-Sa'ath restaurant was intact, with only its windows blown in. Three adjacent houses were reduced to rubble.
> 
> Right behind those "bunker-busters" were two more bombs, just as big, but set on a 25-millisecond fuse, so that they would detonate underground. The idea was to kill as many people as possible in the bunker but do as little damage as possible above ground. It sounds surgical in theory. In practice, it still leaves a mess. Television pictures of weeping local residents suggested civilian casualties.


If I can find the story of the man I read about, as well as his name, I will submit. I imagine anyone else who wants to discover the truth that day in April 2003 could do the same.


----------



## fjnmusic

> The B1 aircraft dropped two GBU31 bunker-buster bombs shortly after 3pm. After a three-second interval, another two 2,000lb bombs were dropped. American officials claimed that the restaurant had been "pulverised" and that, if Saddam had been inside at the time, he would not have escaped.
> 
> In fact, all four bombs missed. A black banner draped on the rubble behind the restaurant, the wreckage of the destroyed homes, mourns the deaths of four members of one family.
> "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit," it reads. "*Mr Abid Abdul Masih Sami* asks for your condolences after his loved ones were killed in the American bombing." The banner, which carries two white crosses, names the dead as Sanaa, 30, his wife, and their daughters Lana, Miriam and Lava, all under the age of 10.


Smart bombs aimed at Saddam killed families - Telegraph

Satisfied yet? Or will you find another way to deny the truth of this story now that you know the man's name? And tell me, what reason would this man, whose 30 year old wife and his three daughters under the age of 10, have for NOT wanting to exact revenge for the murders of his family? Sometimes our desire to get revenge by declaring war on "terrorism" ends up only breeding more terrorists. We create our own enemies. Deny it all you want, but it happened. And I remembered.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I'm sure I would accept a real name--it's just that I don't like being lectured with apocryphal stories. I can make up good ones as well.


Lecture over. Links provided. Response?


----------



## jimbotelecom

I love the line about Khadr being directly related to 9/11!
Then there's the part about learning explosives to kill innocents. 

I suppose the first mention of Khadr being "Khadr senior" and Omar is his son. 

But the second statement is rich - when deployed in the theatre of war. Boy soldier. Planting incendiary devices on roads and paths during war.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Here's the story, doubters. ...


I don't think there could have been any doubt fjn, I recall the story well, mainly because it was beaten to death by all the big news agencies. Truthfully, either you were simply being baited, or said questioners have no access to outside news. What other explanation could there be for such a well known item?

Conceptually, many on the right who fully support bombing the crap out of the middle east, can't seem to figure out why people would have such anger against the west and would want to strike back. Any suggestions of this is practically committing treason, a declaration that, "America deserves to be attacked". Look at the responses, I'm not making this up. This is what they believe!

Of course none of them have ever had to live under a murderous dictator, or had to watch your wife and children brutally murdered. Or, watched as your parents were executed in the night, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. They can't for the life of them, figure out why, anyone could possibly be angry enough to want to join groups to strike at the west, except for, OH! Islam! That's it! 

There isn't any excuse for -ANY- of the killing, on either side. Period. But it takes far more intelligence than "kick Iraqi butts!!" to figure this out. And continuing to blame one religion or another, based on a group of extremists merely using religion as a cover for their unspeakable acts of violence isn't going to solve anything either.

You won't get anywhere with the baiting, trust me, it's a dead end. Being ignored is a badge of honour...


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Smart bombs aimed at Saddam killed families - Telegraph
> 
> Satisfied yet? Or will you find another way to deny the truth of this story now that you know the man's name? And tell me, what reason would this man, whose 30 year old wife and his three daughters under the age of 10, have for NOT wanting to exact revenge for the murders of his family? Sometimes our desire to get revenge by declaring war on "terrorism" ends up only breeding more terrorists. We create our own enemies. Deny it all you want, but it happened. And I remembered.


What reason did Japanese citizens have for NOT exacting revenge after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?


----------



## groovetube

oh I think the Japanese "exacted revenge" aplenty during WW2.

See what I mean fjn?


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> oh I think the Japanese "exacted revenge" aplenty during WW2.
> 
> See what I mean fjn?


They've done a pretty good number on GM and Chrysler as well.


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> They've done a pretty good number on GM and Chrysler as well.


:lmao:


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> What reason did Japanese citizens have for NOT exacting revenge after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?


Apart from the fact that their ability to make war as a nation had been effectively neutralized, their culture was not one that idolized jihadists. Nevertheless, as has been pointed out already, the Japanese have nurtured a significant resentment of America ever since WWII, and they have taken a measure of revenge in economic terms.

I have no doubt that, were anyone to nuke two cities in the modern world, an innumerable stream of vengeance-seeking "terrorists" would be their reward.

"Terrorist" has become a meaningless word. The era of uniform-wearing soldiers acting on orders from their national government is almost over; violence has been privatized. I certainly see no moral difference between the "security operative" working for Blackwell and any other thug working for a mob-boss. The difference between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist" has largely been reduced to who's writing the PR.

The only qualitative issue is wether civilians are intentionally targeted. And will that's an important ethical distinction, given that civilians are inevitably killed in urban conflicts, the intent is almost beside the point.


----------



## eMacMan

Having talked to German survivors of WWII allied bombings, I know they viewed the allied bombers as terrorists. Pretty sure that Brits who were in London during the Blitzkrieg had the same opinion of the German bombers. Israelis view a small rocket putting a hole in the pavement as a terrorist attack.

I find it impossible to comprehend how anyone today cannot view the bombings of Bagdad as anything but terrorism.


_EDIT: Surprised I left out the Tokyo B-29 raids. One of my relatives had a birds eye view and assures me they came in at much lower altitudes than the reported 5000 feet. Despite official reports claiming the bomber crews were not affected, he said everyone he knew was at least somewhat sickened by them. Made worse by the fact that often they did not know if they were going to be dropping leaflets or incendiaries. For those unfamiliar with these raids they claimed more lives than the two atomic bombs combined._


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> I don't think there could have been any doubt fjn, I recall the story well, mainly because it was beaten to death by all the big news agencies. Truthfully, either you were simply being baited, or said questioners have no access to outside news. What other explanation could there be for such a well known item?
> 
> Conceptually, many on the right who fully support bombing the crap out of the middle east, can't seem to figure out why people would have such anger against the west and would want to strike back. Any suggestions of this is practically committing treason, a declaration that, "America deserves to be attacked". Look at the responses, I'm not making this up. This is what they believe!
> 
> Of course none of them have ever had to live under a murderous dictator, or had to watch your wife and children brutally murdered. Or, watched as your parents were executed in the night, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. They can't for the life of them, figure out why, anyone could possibly be angry enough to want to join groups to strike at the west, except for, OH! Islam! That's it!
> 
> There isn't any excuse for -ANY- of the killing, on either side. Period. But it takes far more intelligence than "kick Iraqi butts!!" to figure this out. And continuing to blame one religion or another, based on a group of extremists merely using religion as a cover for their unspeakable acts of violence isn't going to solve anything either.
> 
> You won't get anywhere with the baiting, trust me, it's a dead end. Being ignored is a badge of honour...


Amen, brother. But I did find the name, as though that makes all the difference.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> What reason did Japanese citizens have for NOT exacting revenge after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?


Exactly. They would have been justified too, since WWII was as good as over by that point. But the biggest bully on the block just had to assert its top dog status to keep the rest of the world in its place. Theres is only one superpower in our lifetime, and they live right next door.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> Apart from the fact that their ability to make war as a nation had been effectively neutralized, their culture was not one that idolized jihadists. Nevertheless, as has been pointed out already, the Japanese have nurtured a significant resentment of America ever since WWII, and they have taken a measure of revenge in economic terms.
> 
> I have no doubt that, were anyone to nuke two cities in the modern world, an innumerable stream of vengeance-seeking "terrorists" would be their reward.
> 
> "Terrorist" has become a meaningless word. The era of uniform-wearing soldiers acting on orders from their national government is almost over; violence has been privatized. I certainly see no moral difference between the "security operative" working for Blackwell and any other thug working for a mob-boss. The difference between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist" has largely been reduced to who's writing the PR.
> 
> The only qualitative issue is wether civilians are intentionally targeted. And will that's an important ethical distinction, given that civilians are inevitably killed in urban conflicts, the intent is almost beside the point.


Well said. Civilian casualties are just as dead whether it was collateral or intentional damage.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Exactly. They would have been justified too, since WWII was as good as over by that point. But the biggest bully on the block just had to assert its top dog status to keep the rest of the world in its place. Theres is only one superpower in our lifetime, and they live right next door.


The Japanese did not retaliate as terrorists. So I would have to say that the decision to become a terrorist is one made freely, even when one suffers abominably and unfairly.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> The Japanese did not retaliate as terrorists. So I would have to say that the decision to become a terrorist is one made freely, even when one suffers abominably and unfairly.


Are you suggesting that the Buddhists and Shinto of the 1940's were different than the Christians and Muslims of the 21st century? Shocking.

No decisions are made "freely." Cultural biases, circumstances, resources, and myriad other factors constrain all human behaviour. There is certainly no reason to think that some modern Japanese people, or Canadians, or any other people wouldn't respond in ways that the political Right would label as "terrorism" if they were sufficiently provoked.

The fact that US foreign policy made the attacks of 9/11 unsurprising does not in any way justify them; nor does it justify the foreign policy that followed. If you want to end terrorism, you've got to end the atrocities that drive people to see blowing themselves up in the hope of taking a few Americans with them as their best course of action.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> The Japanese did not retaliate as terrorists. So I would have to say that the decision to become a terrorist is one made freely, even when one suffers abominably and unfairly.


Hmmm. Interesting point. And can a 15 year old child honestly choose freely to become a terrorist? Any more than they can choose their own religion after being indoctrinated since birth? My point is that there was hope to deprogram Khadr had he been shown some kindness by the Canadian government during his incarceration. Instead, he returns to Canada to serve out his sentence a lonely, confused, and probably resentful fully grown man. Almost half of his life has been spent in Gitmo. What kind of hope does that offer? 

It is very possible that we help to create the very terrorists that we fear so much, largely through our abandonment of the principle of forgiveness, the foundation of the Christian ethics that formed the basis of our Canadian culture.


----------



## groovetube

It's certainly quite a bonanza for the arms businesses!

I see Romney today is busy committing huge amounts of more tax dollars using fear.

Should be interesting to see how he wishes to pay for all of that. Probably will use the same arithmetic as the Bush years.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Hmmm. Interesting point. And can a 15 year old child honestly choose freely to become a terrorist? Any more than they can choose their own religion after being indoctrinated since birth?


At age 14 when I finished the eighth grade, I told my parents I would no longer be attending church with them. I had made a decision that it was not for me. I was an air cadet officer, a fully qualified instructor in gun safety and owned three firearms myself. I was quite capable of killing an animal, but would never consider using them against any human being. I drove trucks and combines and tractors on the farm and had been doing so since I was 12, often for 14 hour days during harvest.

Sorry, but ANY reasonable 15-year-old has the same capabilities I had. Khadr chose a different path and should pay for it.


----------



## groovetube

I'm not sure that Khadr shouldn't have to pay for his crime.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> At age 14 when I finished the eighth grade, I told my parents I would no longer be attending church with them. I had made a decision that it was not for me. I was an air cadet officer, a fully qualified instructor in gun safety and owned three firearms myself. I was quite capable of killing an animal, but would never consider using them against any human being. I drove trucks and combines and tractors on the farm and had been doing so since I was 12, often for 14 hour days during harvest.
> 
> Sorry, but ANY reasonable 15-year-old has the same capabilities I had. Khadr chose a different path and should pay for it.


Perhaps you were mature for your age. I can introduce you to a ton of 15 year old students that I teach who also quite happily do not go to church, but I would never trust them to hold a gun, drive a vehicle even with a learner's permit, or make a career decision at this age. They are simply too immature, too inexperienced in the world at this point, which is why they usually just parrot their parents' political and religious views. 

I'm not saying that Khadr didn't throw the grenade he admitted to. I am saying there was a much better chance at rehabilitation if he had been treated with some compassion at some point. And if he is treated with some compassion now, he has a better chance than he will if we shun him for the remainder of his incarceration. After another eight years in prison, he'll be out, whether he —or we—are ready or not.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Perhaps you were mature for your age. I can introduce you to a ton of 15 year old students that I teach who also quite happily do not go to church, but I would never trust them to hold a gun, drive a vehicle even with a learner's permit, or make a career decision at this age. They are simply too immature, too inexperienced in the world at this point, which is why they usually just parrot their parents' political and religious views.


And do I have to tell you who is to blame for that?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Are you suggesting that the Buddhists and Shinto of the 1940's were different than the Christians and Muslims of the 21st century? Shocking.
> 
> No decisions are made "freely." Cultural biases, circumstances, resources, and myriad other factors constrain all human behaviour. There is certainly no reason to think that some modern Japanese people, or Canadians, or any other people wouldn't respond in ways that the political Right would label as "terrorism" if they were sufficiently provoked.


Sounds like your saying that the likelihood of becoming a terrorist varies with culture.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> And do I have to tell you who is to blame for that?


Well, I'd start with the parents. However, being young means there is still a chance to be educated, to see the light quite literally. But the young person must be open to seeing another way. All depends how deep the programming runs and how persuasive the teacher is.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Sounds like your saying that the likelihood of becoming a terrorist varies with culture.


:clap:

Perhaps the more subtle point you're missing is that the likelihood of describing a given action as "terrorism" depends _entirely_ on culture.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> Sorry, but ANY reasonable 15-year-old has the same capabilities I had.


Ironically, I think you're being far to generous in your estimation of others here, Don. By the sounds of it you were an exceptionally mature and capable young man. In my experience, most 15-year-olds, as sporadically brilliant as they may be, aren't reliably capable of choosing which brand of bubble gum to steal^H^H^H^Hbuy. Even if not under pressure by their peers, family, and cultural idols to do something stupid, they'll often do something stupid just to see what happens.

Biologically, adolescent male primates are just about the dumbest things on earth. Our species has become spectacularly successful because our young males are biologically programmed to try stupid stuff almost constantly; many of them get killed, and most of them just look like idiots, but a very small fraction of them discover some useful trick. And because of our capacity to communicate and learn from others, the dumb-luck of those rare success stories propagates to the rest of us, and we all win.

I'm not saying I think Khadr is some kind of hero or that we should feel sorry for him and let him go; but he was a child soldier - a victim - and our government and judicial system failed to respect his rights as a Canadian citizen. He's probably damaged beyond redemption at this point, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be angry at how poorly our government performed here, or that we should pretend it didn't happen. I agree the guy is probably dangerous and should be kept locked up. But we need to make sure our government knows it failed in its duty to protect the civil rights of a Canadian citizen, and we should demand some evidence that this failure won't happen again.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Well, I'd start with the parents.





bryanc said:


> Ironically, I think you're being far to generous in your estimation of others here, Don. By the sounds of it you were an exceptionally mature and capable young man. In my experience, most 15-year-olds, as sporadically brilliant as they may be, aren't reliably capable of choosing which brand of bubble gum to steal^H^H^H^Hbuy. Even if not under pressure by their peers, family, and cultural idols to do something stupid, they'll often do something stupid just to see what happens.


Nope, sorry, that's part of it, but the core reason for 15-year-olds being as immature as you describe them belongs with the education boards and our schools.

When I attended school, beginning in grade one, a student soon learned that you were there to receive an education, not a coddling. Misbehaviour brought consequences and the older you got, the more severe the consequence for an action. 

Lateness was not tolerated, one was sent home or to the principal's office and detention followed the school day. Homework not done got you two things, more detention and a big fat zero on that part of your lesson. Failure was not tolerated. Screw up and you were failed and repeated the year with a class a year younger than you.

Bully in the schoolyard, or gym or washroom? That got you the strap and quickly. Sass a teacher and depending on what teacher at the least you got was to stand in the hall with your nose to the wall for the entire period.

Today's students get away with whatever they choose because teachers are hand-cuffed and cannot discipline them. The system is so busy moddycoddling today's youth that they cannot see the damage they are doing. No zeros, no fails, just do it your own way and carry on.

It's turning out one generation after another who know nothing about math or writing or science or physics or how to behave properly in society. They are so uneducated it is a national embarrassment.

In my day, even kids with mediocre or just plan bad parents turned out just fine due to the rigid and real lessons they learned in effective classrooms. Sadly, that is lost in today's school environment.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Exactly. They would have been justified too, since WWII was as good as over by that point. But the biggest bully on the block just had to assert its top dog status to keep the rest of the world in its place. *Theres is only one superpower in our lifetime, and they live right next door.*


What??? The USSR wasn't a super power??? Actually rolling tanks into the streets of the Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, etc...  Not to mention their capability to blow up the rest of the planet many times over... I mean seriously! 

Your knowledge/memory of recent history is highly selective to say the least.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Are you suggesting that the Buddhists and Shinto of the 1940's were different than the Christians and Muslims of the 21st century? Shocking.
> 
> No decisions are made "freely." Cultural biases, circumstances, resources, and myriad other factors constrain all human behaviour. There is certainly no reason to think that some modern Japanese people, or Canadians, or any other people wouldn't respond in ways that the political Right would label as "terrorism" if they were sufficiently provoked.
> 
> The fact that US foreign policy made the attacks of 9/11 unsurprising does not in any way justify them; nor does it justify the foreign policy that followed. If you want to end terrorism, *you've got to end the atrocities that drive people to see blowing themselves up in the hope of taking a few Americans with them as their best course of action.*


Uhhmm there is this thing in Muslim society adhered to by some called a jihad... a "Holy War" (not unlike the Crusades) where killing others who are "infidels" and do not believe in their god or way of life is completely justifiable and desirable simply based on the fact that they do not adhere your beliefs... That sir has absolutely nothing, zero, nada, rien, zilch to do with the foreign policy of the US.

Al-Qaeda is part of the jihadist movement so guess what...? They just want to kill all infidels...

Not to mention their "own" who disagree with them:



> Al-Qaeda is also responsible for instigating sectarian violence among Muslims.[31] Al-Qaeda is intolerant of non-Sunni branches of Islam and denounces them by means of excommunications called "takfir". Al-Qaeda leaders regard liberal Muslims, Shias, Sufis and other sects as heretics and have attacked their mosques and gatherings.[32] Examples of sectarian attacks include the Yazidi community bombings, the Sadr City bombings, the Ashoura Massacre and the April 2007 Baghdad bombings.[33]


al-Qaeda


----------



## screature

SINC said:


> At age 14 when I finished the eighth grade, I told my parents I would no longer be attending church with them. I had made a decision that it was not for me. I was an air cadet officer, a fully qualified instructor in gun safety and owned three firearms myself. I was quite capable of killing an animal, but would never consider using them against any human being. I drove trucks and combines and tractors on the farm and had been doing so since I was 12, often for 14 hour days during harvest.
> 
> *Sorry, but ANY reasonable 15-year-old has the same capabilities I had. Khadr chose a different path and should pay for it.*


Here, here! I knew what was right and wrong at 15. I was "programmed" to be a Catholic but by that age I could see the hypocrisy of the church and many a church goer so I redirected the religion and stopped going to church.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> Here, here! I knew what was right and wrong at 15. I was "programmed" to be a Catholic but by that age I could see the hypocrisy of the church and many a church goer so I redirected the religion and stopped going to church.


So if when you were ten or eleven, your parents had announced they were moving to a country which your overly advanced mind believed was bad, you would been able to demand to remain behind and the wherewithal to survive???


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> I love the line about Khadr being directly related to 9/11!
> Then there's the part about learning explosives to kill innocents.
> 
> I suppose the first mention of Khadr being "Khadr senior" and Omar is his son.
> 
> But the second statement is rich - when deployed in the theatre of war. Boy soldier. Planting incendiary devices on roads and paths during war.


So tell me smart guy exactly why there would be allied forces in Afghanistan if it weren't for 9/11 resulting in the situation that Khadr found himself in... Please do explain since you see the connection as being comical?

He was in an al-Qaeda training camp, you know those guys that just want to blow you up because you are from the West and aren't Muslim... I guess like jihadists you see Westerns and non-Muslims as being infidels and therefore cannot be innocents...


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> So if when you were ten or eleven, your parents had announced they were moving to a country which your overly advanced mind believed was bad, you would been able to demand to remain behind and the wherewithal to survive???


Obviously not the point... he had no choice but to go... he did have a choice whether or not to build bombs and lob grenades...


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> At age 14 when I finished the eighth grade, I told my parents I would no longer be attending church with them. I had made a decision that it was not for me. I was an air cadet officer, a fully qualified instructor in gun safety and owned three firearms myself. I was quite capable of killing an animal, but would never consider using them against any human being. I drove trucks and combines and tractors on the farm and had been doing so since I was 12, often for 14 hour days during harvest.
> 
> *Sorry, but ANY reasonable 15-year-old has the same capabilities I had. Khadr chose a different path and should pay for it.*


I'm guessing your upbringing was drastically different than Khadr's. Now, before anyone gets too too excited, that isn't to imply Khadr should be punished for his crimes. But if I hear one more person try to compare their whitebread childhood's to Khadr's I think I'll barf.


----------



## i-rui

SINC said:


> I was an air cadet officer, a fully qualified instructor in gun safety and owned three firearms myself. I was quite capable of killing an animal, but would never consider using them against any human being.


but were you ever in a war zone, surrounded by an elite force of the world's military superpower, and shot 3 times in the back? Would you have defended yourself then?

if Khadr did indeed throw a grenade, then those circumstances are so far removed from what you ever experienced as a 15 year as to render your comparison meaningless. 

context matters. 



screature said:


> Uhhmm there is this thing in Muslim society adhered to by some called a jihad... a "Holy War" (not unlike the Crusades) where killing others who are "infidels" and do not believe in their god or way of life is completely justifiable and desirable simply based on the fact that they do not adhere your beliefs... *That sir has absolutely nothing, zero, nada, rien, zilch to do with the foreign policy of the US.*


Al Queda was born under the soviet occupation of afghanistan, and propped up by the US to combat them. Al Queda wants US military bases out of Saudi Arabia and the middle east. Clearly it has a *hell of a lot* to do with US foreign policy.



screature said:


> Al-Qaeda is part of the jihadist movement so guess what...? They just want to kill all infidels...


they actually want to drive foreigners out of muslim holy land. 

Not saying that justifies their actions, because it clearly doesn't, but It's important to identify what their goals actually are.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> but were you ever in a war zone, surrounded by an elite force of the world's military superpower, and shot 3 times in the back? Would you have defended yourself then?
> 
> if Khadr did indeed throw a grenade, then those circumstances are so far removed from what you ever experienced as a 15 year as to render your comparison meaningless.
> 
> context matters.
> 
> 
> 
> Al Queda was born under the soviet occupation of afghanistan, and propped up by the US to combat them. Al Queda wants US military bases out of Saudi Arabia and the middle east. Clearly it has a *hell of a lot* to do with US foreign policy.
> 
> 
> 
> they actually want to drive foreigners out of muslim holy land.
> 
> Not saying that justifies their actions, because it clearly doesn't, but It's important to identify what their actual goals actually are.


Did someone actually make the statement that it had nothing to do with US foreign policy?

Uhhh... wow.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> Al Queda was born under the soviet occupation of afghanistan, and propped up by the US to combat them. Al Queda wants US military bases out of Saudi Arabia and the middle east. Clearly it has a *hell of a lot* to do with US foreign policy.


So essentially, everything else mentioned here about creating terrorists is window dressing. There will still be terrorists because the Saudis want U.S. bases in their country. 

The only answer then, is to remove those bases?


----------



## SINC

i-rui said:


> if Khadr did indeed throw a grenade, then those circumstances are so far removed from what you ever experienced as a 15 year as to render your comparison meaningless.


Only a sympathizer to Khadr could make an observation like that. The real point is that 15 year old teens can and do know right from wrong if they are normal. Not so much if they have ulterior motives.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> What??? The USSR wasn't a super power??? Actually rolling tanks into the streets of the Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, etc...  Not to mention their capability to blow up the rest of the planet many times over... I mean seriously!
> 
> Your knowledge/memory of recent history is highly selective to say the least.


And your ability to swallow the propaganda hook, line and sinker is sadly quite common. I know about the cold war, I was raised and educated in the same period of history as you were, but the lies upon lies told to justify the invasion of Iraq (enriched plutonium from Africa, the ability to launch WMD's against the United States with 45 minutes warning) made me start to question EVERY war and the rationale we are told for the war effort and what the enemy is like. Only a few guys like Sting had the audacity to wonder if the Russians loved their children too. 

Also, tanks are not weapons of mass destruction. A little too clunky for that. So I wonder given all the talk of the two superpowers, the US and the USSR, with mutual deterrence guns-to-each-other's-head imagery, and then the eventual dismantling of the USSR, how we come we haven't heard any serious talk of the all those weapons the USSR used to possess? Where did they all go? What happened to the disarmament program? I'm starting to wonder if the whole thing was another trumped up fiction. Just sayin'.


----------



## groovetube

Why do people insist on trying to paint others as "sympathizers"? Does it help your argument or something? Is it possible to debate something without slamming others with these sorts of demeaning labels???

Beyond how much Khadr knew (or didn't) what he was doing, the point remains, it's beyond ridiculous to compare one's life with his circumstance as if could provide any context whatsoever.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> So essentially, everything else mentioned here about creating terrorists is window dressing.


not at all. of course other things are factors. the world is a complicated place. actions beget reactions...and so on.



Macfury said:


> There will still be terrorists because the Saudis want U.S. bases in their country.


well, qualify "the Saudis" as being the ruling Monarchy and you may be correct. the population may feel otherwise.



Macfury said:


> The only answer then, is to remove those bases?


I'm not saying that is "the answer". i'm not championing the Al Queda cause, i'm simply trying to define it so perhaps the debate can be steered away from "us good, them evil"

any solution to the middle east problem(s) won't be an easy one. but it will have to start with a realistic world view.



SINC said:


> Only a sympathizer to Khadr could make an observation like that.


you mean the observation that having a US Elite Military Force trying to kill you in a war zone in Afghanistan isn't a tiny bit different that a teenager growing up on a (relatively) safe farm in Alberta? 

seems fairly obvious to me.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *And your ability to swallow the propaganda hook, line and sinker is sadly quite common.* I know about the cold war, I was raised and educated in the same period of history as you were, but the *lies upon lies told to justify the invasion of Iraq* (enriched plutonium from Africa, the ability to launch WMD's against the United States with 45 minutes warning) made me start to question EVERY war and the rationale we are told for the war effort and what the enemy is like. *Only a few guys like Sting had the audacity to wonder if the Russians loved their children too. *
> 
> *Also, tanks are not weapons of mass destruction. A little too clunky for that.* So I wonder given all the talk of the two superpowers, the US and the USSR, with mutual deterrence guns-to-each-other's-head imagery, and then the eventual dismantling of the USSR, *how we come we haven't heard any serious talk of the all those weapons the USSR used to possess?* Where did they all go? What happened to the disarmament program? I'm starting to wonder if the whole thing was another trumped up fiction. Just sayin'.


OMG...  

I didn't realize you were in that camp of conspiracy theorists and history-deniers... How is this any way relevant to Khadr.. you didn't even think 9/11 was relevant for Ch***t's sake!

Sting?! Rally? He is some sort of international diplomatic hero now? I would think at the very least you would hold Sir Bob Geldof, or Bono in higher esteem. 

You were the one to bring weapons of mass destruction into the discussion and I fail to see how it has any relevance to Khadr, terrorism, 9//11, al-Qaeda, or the Easter Bunny... But BTW, when you have enough tanks (which the Soviets most certainly did and now Russia still does) they are most certainly weapons of mass destruction.

Because they still possess them!!!


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> And your ability to swallow the propaganda hook, line and sinker is sadly quite common. I know about the cold war, I was raised and educated in the same period of history as you were, but the lies upon lies told to justify the invasion of Iraq (enriched plutonium from Africa, the ability to launch WMD's against the United States with 45 minutes warning) made me start to question EVERY war and the rationale we are told for the war effort and what the enemy is like. Only a few guys like Sting had the audacity to wonder if the Russians loved their children too.
> 
> Also, tanks are not weapons of mass destruction. A little too clunky for that. So I wonder given all the talk of the two superpowers, the US and the USSR, with mutual deterrence guns-to-each-other's-head imagery, and then the eventual dismantling of the USSR, how we come we haven't heard any serious talk of the all those weapons the USSR used to possess? Where did they all go? What happened to the disarmament program? I'm starting to wonder if the whole thing was another trumped up fiction. Just sayin'.


Looks like your little funny on Sting went boom boom... :lmao:


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> OMG...
> 
> I didn't realize you were in that camp of conspiracy theorists and history-deniers... How is this any way relevant to Khadr.. you didn't even think 9/11 was relevant for Ch***t's sake!
> 
> You were the one to bring weapons of mass destruction into the discussion and I fail to see how it has any relevance to Khadr, terrorism, 9//11, al-Qaeda, or the Easter Bunny... But BTW, when you have enough tanks (which the Soviets most certainly did and now Russia still does) they are most certainly weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Sting?! Rally? He is some sort of international diplomatic hero now? I would think at the very least you hold Sir Bob Geldof, or Bono in higher esteem.
> 
> Because they still possess them!!!


This is getting really hard to follow and even harder to swallow. Now it seems that Soviet Tanks are considered WMDs whereas US or Canadian Tanks in Afghanistan or Iraq are not. Whooda thunk it?


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> *This is getting really hard to follow *and even harder to swallow.* Now it seems that Soviet Tanks are considered WMDs/ whereas US or Canadian Tanks in Afghanistan or Iraq are not . Whooda thunk it?*


*

Don't sweat it. Having to help care for my 92 year old mother-in-law (who recently broke her hip) and her 94 year old husband (my father-in-law) I know how age can ravage the brain. 

Who exactly said that? I have searched all over this thread and can't seem to find where anyone said that...

And BTW the US sent tanks into Afghanistan only recently (BO's admin and Canada never had any tanks in Afghanistan...

U.S. sending tanks to Afghanistan for the first timeI*


----------



## SINC

i-rui said:


> you mean the observation that having a US Elite Military Force trying to kill you in a war zone in Afghanistan isn't a tiny bit different that a teenager growing up on a (relatively) safe farm in Alberta?


Actually I grew up in Saskatchewan. Doesn't change the fact that I, at that age was able to distinguish between right and wrong. Khadr wasn't. Tough.


----------



## i-rui

SINC said:


> Actually I grew up in Saskatchewan. Doesn't change the fact that I, at that age was able to distinguish between *right and wrong*. Khadr wasn't. Tough.


yes, right/wrong, black/white. Khadr should have never tried to defend himself because he was clearly one of the "bad guys". perhaps he just didn't read the script?

the world is so simple when your narrative reduces events to something so simple. 

of course it falls apart once reality creeps in.


----------



## SINC

i-rui said:


> of course it falls apart once reality creeps in.


Nope, it falls apart when do-gooders get involved and want to release him here in Canada. The people who promote this are as big a danger to Canada as Khadr.


----------



## groovetube

And it still doesn't change the fact that comparing one's privileged safe Canadian upbringing to Khadr's (with his becoming a child soldier) as completely laughable.


----------



## i-rui

SINC said:


> The people who promote this are as big a danger to Canada as Khadr.


so, no *legitimate* danger at all?

i feel sorry for anyone is is actually scared of Khadr. He will be watched closely for the rest of his life in the west. The notion that any terrorist affiliate will risk communicating with him is ridiculous. He simply will have too much "heat" on him.

but of course there will be those who will try to build him up as a boogeyman, despite the fact that the rest of his family have lived here for years and have yet to blown up anything in Toronto or the rest of Canada.

but hide under your bed. just incase.


----------



## SINC

i-rui said:


> so, no *legitimate* danger at all?
> 
> i feel sorry for anyone is is actually scared of Khadr. He will be watched closely for the rest of his life in the west. The notion that any terrorist affiliate will risk communicating with him is ridiculous. He simply will have too much "heat" on him.
> 
> but of course there will be those who will try to build him up as a boogeyman, despite the fact that the rest of his family have lived here for years and have yet to blown up anything in Toronto or the rest of Canada.
> 
> but hide under your bed. just incase.


Hold on to those pure thoughts. One day many will live to regret them. Forewarned is forearmed.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> OMG...
> 
> I didn't realize you were in that camp of conspiracy theorists and history-deniers... How is this any way relevant to Khadr.. you didn't even think 9/11 was relevant for Ch***t's sake!
> 
> Sting?! Rally? He is some sort of international diplomatic hero now? I would think at the very least you would hold Sir Bob Geldof, or Bono in higher esteem.
> 
> You were the one to bring weapons of mass destruction into the discussion and I fail to see how it has any relevance to Khadr, terrorism, 9//11, al-Qaeda, or the Easter Bunny... But BTW, when you have enough tanks (which the Soviets most certainly did and now Russia still does) they are most certainly weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Because they still possess them!!!


Take a chill pill, Screach. No, tanks are not weapons of mass destruction; they are weapons of limited destruction in the immediate geographical area. They are not launched from planed or fired from one continent to another. They are not WMD's. Atomic bombs are WMD's. I just don't understand how since 9/11 Islamic terrorism has become the cause de jour why we stopped talking about all those weapons the Soviets possessed. Did that become boring or something? 

More on this another time. In the meantime, you should really listen to Sting's song from 28 years ago. It possesses a lot of insight you seem to have missed in your travels.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I just don't understand how since 9/11 Islamic terrorism has become the cause de jour why we stopped talking about all those weapons the Soviets possessed. Did that become boring or something?


They stopped threatening to use them.


----------



## groovetube

probably because there was no longer a need to. Not to mention they were going broke. (After watching Romney's foreign policy speech yesterday it seems even that won't stop some nutbats from screeching about what to fear...)

See how that works? Naw probably not.


----------



## groovetube

Interesting that there was this article on child soldiers on cnn. Ex-child-soldier: 'Shooting became just like drinking a glass of water' - CNN.com

Interesting that they stayed with those kids despite during their transition they actually attacked the staff. I'm sure a few here woulda tossed them into jail for life and thrown away the key. Perhaps that's why a country like the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Seems to be working pretty well for them...


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Take a chill pill, Screach. No, tanks are not weapons of mass destruction; they are weapons of limited destruction in the immediate geographical area. They are not launched from planed or fired from one continent to another. They are not WMD's. Atomic bombs are WMD's. I just don't understand how since 9/11 Islamic terrorism has become the cause de jour why we stopped talking about all those weapons the Soviets possessed. Did that become boring or something?
> 
> More on this another time. In the meantime, *you should really listen to Sting's song from 28 years ago. It possesses a lot of insight you seem to have missed in your travels.*


I know the song well and you can cut the condescension... you still have not pointed out how exactly these points are relevant to Khadr...


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> I know the song well and can cut the condescension... you still have not pointed out how exactly these points are relevant to Khadr...


I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you. The point of Sting's song "Russians" is that we are misled by propaganda on both sides into thinking the other side is wrong and we are right. Religion and politics is notorious for promoting this us/them black/white thinking. Each side needs a scapegoat. But if we start to view the other side as human just like us, the rationale for going to war disappears.

Much the same is true of Khadr. I have read many strong opinions against the man from people who know him no better than I. It's far easier to be prejudiced and make our minds up that the guy is evil and should be locked away, whether he actually is evil or not. But he will be finished his sentence in a few short years, so if we don't begin to show some compassion and understanding now, just as we did for the Russians, it may only make matters worse. That's what I'm saying.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> But if we start to view the other side as human just like us, the rationale for going to war disappear.


Really? I would judge a decision to go to war on the actions of the other party, not their cultural attributes. FDR declared war on Japan not because it was populated by the Japanese, but because their soldiers bombed Hawaii.

That song? Der Stingel preaching again from his lofty pop star perch. Russians may love their children too, but they can't occupy Amchitka without consequences.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you. The point of Sting's song "Russians" is that we are misled by propaganda on both sides into thinking the other side is wrong and we are right. Religion and politics is notorious for promoting this us/them black/white thinking. Each side needs a scapegoat. But if we start to view the other side as human just like us, the rationale for going to war disappears.*
> 
> Much the same is true of Khadr. I have read many strong opinions against the man from people who know him no better than I. It's far easier to be prejudiced and make our minds up that the guy is evil and should be locked away, whether he actually is evil or not. But he will be finished his sentence in a few short years, so if we don't begin to *show some compassion and understanding now, just as we did for the Russians, it may only make matters worse.* That's what I'm saying.


You didn't have to spell it out for me... I know what the song is saying. I just don't agree with the basic premise that each side is equally good or bad... History tells us that the USSR was far worse than the US in terms of oppression. They slaughtered and oppressed their own people as well as invaded and oppressed far, far many more other people than the US ever did... When it comes to invasion and oppression the US were amateurs compared to the USSR.

Also the other side isn't "just like us" it is a complete fallacy... we share a common ancestor and genes but beyond that in every way that is significant, philosophy, lineage, language, culture, geography, *politics and religion*, etc. etc.etc., we are different and unlike Sting's naivety, you can't discount politics and religion because they are two principle parts of the human condition. 

You may as well ask what it is like to be a human being without consideration of having opposable thumbs and self awareness... the question is moot because it isn't a possible consideration as those properties are intrinsic properties of being a "normal" human being (notwithstanding those human beings born genetically human without those attributes, i.e. taking into consideration exceptional birth defects and other exceptional physical and mental conditions).

We only showed "compassion" for the Russians (a misnomer actually, properly it should be said Soviets) once they renounced Communism... And as I have posted before if Omar formally denounces his father and terrorism and the jihad cause then he should be considered for parole.


----------



## groovetube

well thank god we have the Russians to at least make us look good.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Really? I would judge a decision to go to war on the actions of the other party, not their cultural attributes. FDR declared war on Japan not because it was populated by the Japanese, but because their soldiers bombed Hawaii.
> 
> That song? Der Stingel preaching again from his lofty pop star perch. Russians may love their children too, but they can't occupy Amchitka without consequences.


So what is your view on preemptive strikes?


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> So what is your view on preemptive strikes?


I generally don't favour them. It would probably be better, for example, to flatten Iran only after it lobbed a nuke.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> I generally don't favour them. It would probably be better, for example, to flatten Iran only after it lobbed a nuke.


:lmao:


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I generally don't favour them. It would probably be better, for example, to flatten Iran only after it lobbed a nuke.


Of course, as the great and wise Condi Rice once proclaimed, you don't want your first warning to come in the shape of a mushroom cloud... ;-)


----------



## i-rui

Undermining the rule of law: The case of Omar Khadr - thestar.com



> In fact, Omar Khadr was never charged with U.S. criminal offences or internationally recognized war crimes. Years after he was captured on the battlefield in 2002, he was charged with newly minted offences under the 2006 Military Commissions Act, even though international law forbids prosecution for offences created after the fact.





> The behaviour of the government in the case of Omar Khadr demonstrates a profound lack of respect for Canada’s courts and the United Nations human rights system. Our government’s continued vilification of Omar Khadr undermines public respect for law and thwarts the fulfilment of Canada’s obligations under the child soldier protocol to ensure Khadr’s rehabilitation and reintegration into Canadian society. Canadian ministers and officials must stop ignoring the courts and flouting international law, and start treating Khadr — and all persons in Canada — according to Canadian and international law.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## eMacMan

A quick minute and a half primer on how to recognize the real terrorists.

If I Were A Terrorist A James Pence Video! - YouTube


----------



## CubaMark

This has already been posted in the Canadian Politics thread, but I thought it useful to have all the related material continue in this one...

Omar Khadr Interview Nixed After 'Overt Political Influence'

Omar Khadr prison interview overruled by Vic Toews' office - Politics - CBC News


----------



## SINC

Might there be certain conditions imposed by the U.S. that Canada agreed to follow before the Yanks would release him, regarding interviews and publicity?


----------



## groovetube

That would be highly unlikely.

It wasn't as if Canada wanted Khadr and was willing to agree to any conditions to get him.

Looks like interference to me.


----------



## fjnmusic

The US has allowed prison interviews with Charles Manson, a homegrown terrorist who has certainly done far more damage than Khadr has done. I wonder why there is so much fear about letting his story be heard?


----------



## iMouse

Torture?


----------



## Macfury

Let him speak. The story is so old and relatively unimportant that preventing the interview is giving it more focus than it deserves.


----------



## SINC

Omar Khadr has been transferred to Edmonton Institution



> EDMONTON - Omar Khadr arrived at Edmonton’s maximum-security prison Tuesday evening, ending two months of negotiations for a transfer from Millhaven Institution, where his safety was threatened, said Edmonton lawyer Dennis Edney.


Omar Khadr has been transferred to Edmonton Institution


----------



## iMouse

If he is killed in jail, it must be the Will of Allah.


----------



## SINC

I'm not sure why they would think that moving him to Edmonton Institution will make him any safer:

Prisoner deaths probed at Edmonton max, Remand Centre - Edmonton - CBC News

Stabbing death at Edmonton Institution under investigation - The Globe and Mail

Investigation launched into death of prisoner at Edmonton Institution | CTV News

Sun News : Edmonton inmate who may have had tip in girl's death dies

Correctional Service of Canada: Update: Inmate Death and Lockdown at Edmonton Institution | Vegreville Observer Online

edmonton institution death > other police matters > deadmonton 2006 > deadmonton > edmonton > last link on the left


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> I'm not sure why they would think that moving him to Edmonton Institution will make him any safer:
> 
> Shirley! You jest.


----------



## Macfury

Someone change the thread title to "Bound in Canada."


----------



## Kosh

I can't believe our government is so stupid. The guy asks to be inprisoned away from his family which are a bad influence, they put him nearby his family. He wants to get an education and be rehabilitated, they do the opposite. This guy is leaving prison in what, 2-3 years? I'd rather give him a chance to be rehabilitated so that he becomes a contributing member of society, rather than a drain on society by staying or going back to prison.


----------



## groovetube

Kosh said:


> I can't believe our government is so stupid. The guy asks to be inprisoned away from his family which are a bad influence, they put him nearby his family. He wants to get an education and be rehabilitated, they do the opposite. This guy is leaving prison in what, 2-3 years? I'd rather give him a chance to be rehabilitated so that he becomes a contributing member of society, rather than a drain on society by staying or going back to prison.


that makes far too much sense. I'd be careful though because the 'hug-a-thug' shrieks may get deafening.


----------



## iMouse

You suspect there are some John Howards' in our midst?


----------



## CubaMark

*Prisons ombudsman raps officials over Omar Khadr*

_Canadian correctional authorities have unfairly classified former Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr even though they lowered his risk rating from maximum to medium security, the federal prisons ombudsman complains.

In a letter obtained by The Canadian Press, the Office of the Correctional Investigator urges prison authorities to take into account evidence that Khadr poses minimal threat and should be classified as such.

"(Correctional Service of Canada) officials also note that there is no evidence Mr. Khadr has maintained an association with any terrorist organization," the letter to CSC's senior deputy commissioner states.

"It is well documented by CSC officials that Mr. Khadr is fully engaged in his correctional plan and he has actively developed a strong, pro-social network of support since his incarceration."_

* * *​
_Corrections recently reclassified Khadr, 27, and transferred him from the maximum security Edmonton Institution to the medium security Bowden Institution in Innisfail, Alta.

But the ombudsman argues the change doesn't go far enough, given that Khadr pleaded guilty in October 2010 before a U.S. military commission to war crimes he committed in Afghanistan as a 15 year old.

Canadian prison authorities have called Khadr "polite, quiet and rule-abiding," and someone who "does not espouse the criminal attitudes or code of conduct held by most typical federal offenders."

Most importantly, perhaps, CSC officials note they have no information to indicate he "espouses attitudes that support terrorist activities or any type of radicalized behaviour."_

* * *​
_Among other things, the letter notes Khadr's status as a 15-year-old "child soldier" when the U.S. accused him of throwing a grenade that killed an American special forces soldier.

"The issues are complex," the letter states. "The human-rights consequences are grave."

In an affidavit in December, Khadr said he only pleaded guilty to war crimes as a way out of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

He said he had no memories of the firefight in Afghanistan or of the grenade that killed Sgt. Christopher Speer, and insisted he did not attack any U.S. forces who entered the compound after the battle was over._

(CBC)


----------



## krs

I wonder when the commotion about this one individual will stop.

According to the Wiki:


> Under Canadian law he was eligible for parole in mid-2013


What happened at the parole hearing?
This is 2014 - the Wiki says nothing about that.
He was obviously not deemed rehabilitated enough to make parole


----------



## Macfury

krs said:


> I wonder when the commotion about this one individual will stop.
> 
> According to the Wiki:
> 
> 
> What happened at the parole hearing?
> This is 2014 - the Wiki says nothing about that.
> He was obviously not deemed rehabilitated enough to make parole


I believe he didn't apply for parole.


----------



## krs

Macfury said:


> I believe he didn't apply for parole.


You're right.

Took me a while googling to find it; most hits talked about him being eligible for parole but none mentioned what actually happened.

Omar Khadr to remain in federal prison, Edmonton judge rules | CTV News


----------



## CubaMark

Quite likely that he / his lawyers recognized that given the current ideology-fuelled political climate in Canada and the rhetoric coming out of the Harper government's minions that there was no chance in hell he'd be granted parole.


----------



## Macfury

Stop with the ludicrous political innuendo. They did not apply because he was still in maximum security prison at the time, and few paroles are granted for maximum security prisoners.



CubaMark said:


> Quite likely that he / his lawyers recognized that given the current ideology-fuelled political climate in Canada and the rhetoric coming out of the Harper government's minions that there was no chance in hell he'd be granted parole.


----------



## CubaMark

*Omar Khadr faces $50M suit by blinded U.S. soldier, widow*



> The widow of a U.S. special forces soldier killed in Afghanistan and an American soldier blinded by a grenade are suing Canada's Omar Khadr for close to $50 million, The Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> In the lawsuit, which will be filed Friday in Utah, Tabitha Speer and Sgt. Layne Morris allege Khadr, then 15, was responsible for the death of Sgt. Christopher Speer and Morris's injuries in July 2002.
> 
> The factual basis for the suit, according to their lawyer, is Khadr's guilty plea to five war crimes before a U.S. military commission in Guantanamo Bay in October 2010 that saw him sentenced to a further eight years in prison.
> 
> The plea deal included a stipulation of facts in which Khadr, now 27, admitted to murder and attempted murder in violation of the rule of war, and three other war crimes.
> 
> "We took his own very words," lawyer Don Winder said in an interview from Salt Lake City. "We do not think there is any basis for his denial."
> 
> The Toronto-born Khadr, currently incarcerated in the Bowden Institution in Innisfail, Alta., has since said he only pleaded guilty to get out of Guantanamo Bay and be returned to Canada.





> The suit asks for $2.5 million for Morris's injuries, $38 million for Speer's wrongful death and another $2 million for his suffering before he died. The suit also asks for treble the damages awarded as punitive damages, meaning the final amount, if successful, could exceed more than US$130 million.
> 
> Winder said provisions under Canadian anti-terrorism laws would make a judgment against Khadr enforceable in Canada.


(CBC)


----------



## Macfury

I think he'll likely declare bankruptcy.


----------



## FeXL

The SOB is in Bowden? 

Too close...


----------



## fjnmusic

Waa waa waa. Since when do soldiers get to sue enemy combatants for injuries sustained in battle? That's what pensions are for. And since when do soldiers get to sue children period? Let's not forget Khadr was 15 at the time. You become a soldier, you know you've signed up for something in which you could be injured or killed. Khadr has sacrificed more than nearly anyone in the past dozen years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Khadr has sacrificed more than nearly anyone in the past dozen years.


Than nearly anyone? That's quite a record.


----------



## CubaMark

_A sampling of comments from the CBC facebook page....
_
*Shaun Siever *
So does this mean the 1.2 million murdered Iraqi civilians will be able to sue the America soldiers?

*Diana Kinnear *
this is ridiculous. He was a 15 year old kid, not there of his choosing, he didn't kill anyone, it is the americans who chose to go to war in another country - he has paid enough the US detained and tortured him in violation of UN treatment of children of war - 15 years old is a CHILD - and he didn't bring himself to that country. He was in a village with elderly women when the Americans attacked

*Daniel Foley *
you shoot me a couple times, after storming my compound and killing all my friends and relatives... in a last effort before i go unconscious i throw a grenade, at the heavily armed professional attackers who just tried to kill me....
we can be sued for that? and considered a murdered... Who are the bad guys, who are the good guys? Savage monsters

*Steve Pacholka* 
Wasn't he 14 at the time? Can he even be sued in the US for stuff he supposedly committed at age 14? Sue his Dead Dad. Hes the one responsible if any1...
CBC, thank you for admitting he was a special forces solider who was killed. Not a medic like the US media keeps portraying. Its nice to see a bit of truth from CBC again.

*Nadia LeBlanc *
In 2013 as part of an ongoing 20 million Dollar civil suit against Canada, Khadr said: "I have no memory at all of that day or anything at all about a grenade being thrown at any U.S. soldiers," that the plea agreement was "constructed by the U.S. government in its entirety," and that he had signed it only to escape the "continued abuse and torture" at Guantanamo Bay


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Than nearly anyone? That's quite a record.


I beg to differ as well. I'd bet the farm the children and widow of the medic he exploded suffer more than this jr. terrorist. Oh and the guy living the rest of his life blind in one eye from the grenade he threw at them. 
I hope that this case goes ahead to assure us that when the lefties decide to make this jihadist/hero a multimillionaire for his crimes, the real victims can strip it away from him.
God knows we don't need a jihadist nut job running around free in our country with a 10 million dollar operational budget.

I find the concept absurd that we are obligated to compensate "Canadians" that leave to fight against us and/or our alias with big payouts when things go bad for them. If you leave this country to fight for an enemy force, it should automatically disqualify you of your citizenship and the rights and privileges that it entails.


----------



## Macfury

I dunno MacGuiver--CubaMark has some CBC facebook posts on his side.

Seriously, if Khadr ever wins his lawsuit against Canada, someone needs to strip away that cash. May as well be this widow.


----------



## SINC

I too could cherry pick some CBC comments that oppose those, but what good would it do? Any human at age 14 or more fully understands life from death and Khadar chose death when he picked up the grenade. He should never be set free to commit more crimes agaist Canadians. Let him rot where he is.


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> I too could cherry pick some CBC comments that oppose those, but what good would it do? Any human at age 14 or more fully understands life from death and Khadar chose death when he picked up the grenade. He should never be set free to commit more crimes agaist Canadians. Let him rot where he is.


Except for the obvious as eventually reported by the Globe and Mail:



> The Globe and Mail wrote:
> GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba — A U.S. military commander altered a report on a firefight in Afghanistan to cast blame for the death of a Delta Force commando on a Canadian youth who was captured after the shooting stopped, a defence lawyer said Thursday.
> 
> The lawyer, Navy Lieutenant-Commander William Kuebler, made the allegation at a pretrial hearing as he argued for access to the officer, identified only as “Col. W,” as well as details about interrogations that he said might help clear his client of war-crimes charges.
> 
> The U.S. military has charged Omar Khadr with murder for throwing a grenade that killed Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer during a U.S. military raid on July 27, 2002, on an al-Qaeda compound in eastern Afghanistan. Mr. Khadr's case is on track to be the first to go to trial under a military tribunal system at this U.S. Navy base in southeast Cuba.
> 
> The military commander's official report the day after the raid originally said the assailant who threw the grenade was killed, which would rule out Mr. Khadr as the suspect. But the report was revised months later, under the same date, to say a U.S. fighter had only “engaged” the assailant, according to Cdr. Kuebler, who said the later version was presented to him by prosecutors as an “updated” document.
> 
> Cmdr. Kuebler told reporters after the hearing that it appears “the government manufactured evidence to make it look like Omar was guilty.”


As far as I can remember Col W was never made available to the defense lawyers or required to stand by the modified report under oath.

Those that do not depend on the lame stream were well aware of this long before 2008. Course back then it was tin foil cap stuff before it hit the back pages of the lame stream media.


----------



## Macfury

" A defence lawyer said..."


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> " A defence lawyer said..."


That report was around for a long time before Khadr even had a defence attorney. If it was inaccurate you can bet the farm that Col W. would have been available to defend the report under oath.


----------



## fjnmusic

If soldiers are allowed to sue civilians for their injuries, let alone sue other soldiers, that opens up a whole new realm of ridiculous and expensive litigation for no good reason whatsoever. You enlist. You go to war. People die or get injured. No one comes back unscathed. Better not to go to war in the first place if you can help it. But there's definitely no lawsuits when soldiers fully realize what they're signing up for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> If soldiers are allowed to sue civilians for their injuries, let alone sue other soldiers, that opens up a whole new realm of ridiculous and expensive litigation for no good reason whatsoever. You enlist. You go to war. People die or get injured. No one comes back unscathed. Better not to go to war in the first place if you can help it. But there's definitely no lawsuits when soldiers fully realize what they're signing up for.


Soldiers suing other soldiers, I would agree is going too far. However, nobody can stop a soldier from suing a citizen.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> " A defence lawyer said..."


Yep, that is the beginning and should be the end. Hearsay anyone? As for signing up as a soldier, did he? Or was he a brain dead 14 year old who thought it might be fun to toss a grenade, be damned the consequences he was surely aware of in that kind of environment?


----------



## Joker Eh

SINC said:


> I too could cherry pick some CBC comments that oppose those, but what good would it do? Any human at age 14 or more fully understands life from death and Khadar chose death when he picked up the grenade. He should never be set free to commit more crimes agaist Canadians. Let him rot where he is.


Hear Hear.


----------



## krs

SINC said:


> Yep, that is the beginning and should be the end. Hearsay anyone? As for signing up as a soldier, did he? Or was he a brain dead 14 year old who thought it might be fun to toss a grenade, be damned the consequences he was surely aware of in that kind of environment?


Trouble is that there were no credible, independent witnesses.

Could one not also argue that Khadr acted in self-defense? The soldiers were armed and had already killed some of his cohorts - what's to say that he wasn't going to be next?


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> Yep, that is the beginning and should be the end. Hearsay anyone? As for signing up as a soldier, did he? Or was he a brain dead 14 year old who thought it might be fun to toss a grenade, be damned the consequences he was surely aware of in that kind of environment?


I believe he did not toss the grenade. Simple reason: A US Special Forces team would have simply gunned him down had they seen him toss that grenade. It was a war zone the US was attacking, they had seen fellow soldiers fall, they were trained to kill, it is beyond unbelievable they would have spared the life of the one who tossed the grenade.

Again there is ample evidence that the original report was rewritten at a much later date, so why on earth did the US go to such extreme lengths to avoid having Col W. verify under oath, that his "final" report was completely truthful? That should have been a routine part of any tribunal proceedings, unless of course the Soviet Union, or Communist China wrote the rules. Since Khadr had already been rotting in Guantanamo for several years, a possible delay of a few more days or weeks, could not possibly have entered into that decision.


----------



## heavyall

eMacMan said:


> I believe he did not toss the grenade.


He confessed.


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> He confessed.


A confession under duress does not necessarily reveal the truth. Many people admit to things they didn't do while being tortured or under threat of torture. This is why such admissions are not admissible in a normal courtroom. This particular military tribunal created by the Bush administration had incredibly wide latitude to produce exactly the results it wanted. In no world can any reasonable person suggest Omar Khadr was granted a fair trial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eMacMan

heavyall said:


> He confessed.


As did John McCain!


----------



## eMacMan

Wow the Cons have passed bill C-24. The second con bill in two days that is almost certain to fall when challenged in the supreme court.

First they created a two tier citizenship system via bill C31, where Canadian citizens can be reclassified as: Americans accidentally living in Canada and therefore not protected by the Charter of Rights, or Canadian privacy laws .

Now Bill C24, specifically designed to deport Omar Khadr has passed. I have a big time problem with passing legislation simply to get one individual. I have an even bigger problem when doing so violates the Charter of Rights. That charter is part of the foundation of Canadian democracy. The real enemies of democracy are a lot closer to home than Afghanistan or Libya or the Ukraine. They are the ones who seek to cheapen or dismantle the Charter or Constitution no matter the reason.

Let's be blunt I don't like Khadr. However there was a better way to pursue this. If Canada can prove that Khadr attacked Canadian troops in Afghanistan, then charge him with treason, whatever his other loyalties he claims Canadian citizenship. That entitles him to the same constitutional protections and responsibilities as any other Canadian citizen. It is one thing to stand up and say Canada had no legitimate reason to participate in the war in Afghanistan. If that is your belief, it is your right and even your responsibility to do so. 

*OTOH traveling to a foreign nation with the intent to fight against or kill Canadian soldiers is or certainly should be treasonous. If the Cons wish to pursue those charges against Khadr and can show sufficient evidence for a Canadian jury to convict Khadr then do exactly that. *

Failing that, once he is released from prison, I am sure the various Canadian spy agencies will be following his every move. The tiniest slip and he will be behind bars again. If he makes no slips I am sure we can count on Harper to make something Khadr is doing legally, illegal, simply to get him back behind bars.


----------



## fjnmusic

You know of course that a) he didn't kill any Canadian soldiers, therefore not treason in any event, and b) he didn't travel anywhere with an intent to kill, since he was only 15 and would not have even owned a driver's license. The charge (and conviction) against him is even debatable. I'm not saying I like the guy either, but c'mon Mr. Harper; human rights are human rights. Whatever happened to those American soldiers that killed four Canadian soldiers—in fact, Canada's first casualties in Afghanistan? I don't believe they spent even one second in jail. If treason is killing soldiers on your own side, or by extension your allies, then that could have been quite clearly a case if treason. Except that no jury in the world would convict. Ultimately, Omar Khadr's case is about racism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

No, it is about a teen old enough to know right from wrong who made the wrong choice and is now paying the price.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> No, it is about a teen old enough to know right from wrong who made the wrong choice and is now paying the price.


Right from wrong, hey? What would you do if you were being attacked? Would you defend yourself? Everyone thinks "right and wrong" is such a clear concept, but not so much in the middle of a war. "Thou shall not kill" goes right out the window when it is war or when you are protecting your person or your property. So easy it is to judge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

It's even easier to recognize right from wrong with a demonstration such as Khadar's.


----------



## fjnmusic

Such a simplistic world view. Must be very easy to sit in judgement. At least it avoids having to deal with concepts like empathy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

You mentioned that same thing in your last post. It does not change my take on the matter, even when repeated. Wrong is wrong.


----------



## eMacMan

fjnmusic said:


> You know of course that a) he didn't kill any Canadian soldiers, therefore not treason in any event, and b) he didn't travel anywhere with an intent to kill, since he was only 15 and would not have even owned a driver's license. The charge (and conviction) against him is even debatable. I'm not saying I like the guy either, but c'mon Mr. Harper; human rights are human rights. Whatever happened to those American soldiers that killed four Canadian soldiers—in fact, Canada's first casualties in Afghanistan? I don't believe they spent even one second in jail. If treason is killing soldiers on your own side, or by extension your allies, then that could have been quite clearly a case if treason. Except that no jury in the world would convict. Ultimately, Omar Khadr's case is about racism.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No Bill C 24 has made it about a government passing legislation that contravenes the Charter of Rights and the Constitution in order to persecute a single individual.

The real enemies of Canada are not Khadr but a government that would even consider such an attack on the foundations of Canadian democracy.


----------



## fjnmusic

eMacMan said:


> No Bill C 24 has made it about a government passing legislation that contravenes the Charter of Rights and the Constitution in order to persecute a single individual.
> 
> The real enemies of Canada are not Khadr but a government that would even consider such an attack on the foundations of Canadian democracy.


There is stubborn and there is damn stubborn. And then there is Harper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> No Bill C 24 has made it about a government passing legislation that contravenes the Charter of Rights and the Constitution in order to persecute a single individual.
> 
> *The real enemies of Canada are not Khadr but a government that would even consider such an attack on the foundations of Canadian democracy.*


C-24 has notihng to do with democracy. 

Once again you are mixing apples with oranges.

Omar Khadr was Canadian born so he would not face extradition and loss of citizenship but his parents and relatives would.

Get your facts straight.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> C-24 has notihng to do with democracy.
> 
> Once again you are mixing apples with oranges.
> 
> Omar Khadr was Canadian born so he would not face extradition and loss of citizenship but his parents and relatives would.
> 
> Get your facts straight.


This quote would seem to indicate that Khadr would indeed be vulnerable. Note that it says: "any dual citizen" and is seemingly retroactive.


> 3. *Revocation of citizenship:* The government will have the ability to revoke citizenship from dual citizens who have been found guilty of treason, high treason, terrorism, spying or certain offences under the National Defence Act. More complicated cases involving war crimes, security, human rights or international rights would be decided by the Federal Court.
> *The proposed legislation would also give the citizenship and immigration minister the power to revoke any dual citizens’ Canadian citizenship if that individual served as a member of an armed force of a country or as a member of an organized armed group that was engaged in a conflict with Canada.* According to Alexander, there are more than 130 known Canadians involved in extremist activities abroad.
> *If Bill C-24 passes, these provision can be applied to any dual citizens before or after the law comes into force.*


Either way you were right that it has nothing to do with democracy. That portion of the bill is indeed anti-democratic, hence the upcoming constitutional/charter challenge. Other than this provision I would suggest this is a fairly solid bill.

I am also opposed to including that catch all: "terrorism". That word is so poorly defined it could probably be applied to someone in the parliamentary viewing gallery who stands up and demands that the PM tell the truth.

Again citizenship has responsibilities as well as rights. But there is no way I am willing to believe that there are not existing laws that adequately deal with the Khadr situation.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> Ahh my understanding is the bill would indeed allow him to be deported as long as he had not renounced his second citizenship. It certainly has been presented as such by the lamestream. I do accept that the lamestream seldom gets it right.
> 
> OTOH this quote would seem to indicate that Khadr would indeed be vulnerable. Note that it says "any dual citizen" and also applies to actions taken before the passage of the bill.
> Either way you were right that it has nothing to do with democracy. That portion of the bill is indeed anti-democratic, hence the upcoming constitutional/charter challenge. Other than this provision I would suggest this is a fairly solid bill.
> 
> *I am also opposed to including that catch all: "terrorism". That word is so poorly defined it could probably be applied to someone in the parliamentary viewing gallery who stands up and demands that the PM tell the truth.*
> 
> Again citizenship has responsibilities as well as rights. But there is no way I am willing to believe that there are not existing laws that adequately deal with the Khadr situation.


Thank you eMacman for your calm post. I apologize for the terse tone of my previous post. 

See that is the bit of hyperbole that really gets my back up and is simply categorically false and not even remotely funny considering when there are other parts of the world where it is true. I think we all understand what terrorism is whether it be international or domestic.

I will have to check the details of the legislation and its interpretation by the Library of Parliament, but my understanding of citizenship in Canada is that if you are born here you are Canadian first i.e. logically it is your country of origin/you are a first generation Canadian.

As far as I know that is the way it has been (logically) basically since the beginning of Confederation.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> Thank you eMacman for your calm post. I apologize for the terse tone of my previous post.
> 
> See that is the bit of hyperbole that really gets my back up and is simply categorically false and not even remotely funny considering when there are other parts of the world where it is true. I think we all understand what terrorism is whether it be international or domestic. It is only the terrorists who want to try and pretend they are "freedom fighters" (or some other oxymoron).
> 
> I will have to check the details of the legislation and its interpretation by the Library of Parliament, but my understanding of citizenship in Canada is that if you are born here you are Canadian first i.e. logically it is your country of origin/you are a first generation Canadian.
> 
> As far as I know that is the way it has been (logically) basically since the beginning of Confederation.


It may sound a bit crazy but I think legislation as serious as stripping someone of their citizenship should not depend on interpretations but rather should be crystal clear. Giving that more thought I believe that should involve amending the Charter of Rights and all the headaches that entails.

My example was intentionally extreme and intended to be at least somewhat sarcastic, but again; "We all understand" is absolutely no substitute for a clear definition, and the word terrorist has been at the centre of all sorts of legalized abuse south of the border. No reason on earth to allow that to creep north of the border. IMO that word Terrorist should be either stricken or very clearly defined.

I am for any number of reasons opposed to retroactive legislation whether or not it otherwise contravenes the Charter or Constitution. The concept of making something illegal after the fact surely has to enter somewhere into the definition of; "Tyranny"


----------



## fjnmusic

Terrorist is a completely pejorative term. It has no meaning, not did it ever. Everything depends on your point of view. If you were living in, say, a sovereign nation and some other country started bombing the crap out of your city on the pretext that your government was about to launch an attack on their nation, even though it had been demonstrated time and again for the past ten years that your country has no weapons of mass destruction, wouldn't you think the country that launched the "pre-emptive strike" against your nation was actually the terrorist? They would certainly have created a sense of terror among the citizens in the midst of the destruction, at least as much terror as was created ing the US citizens after 9/11. Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder, and we certainly do not all agree on what the word means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

That's ridiculous. _Terrorist_ has an actual meaning. It's one who seeks to influence others primarily by creating a state of fear relating to acts of violence or threats of violence, or one who belongs to a group employing this tactic. 

Someone who simply subjugates another through superior military force is not a terrorist.

You must live in a very confusing world where words have no meaning, nor did they ever.




fjnmusic said:


> Terrorist is a completely pejorative term. It has no meaning, not did it ever. Everything depends on your point of view. If you were living in, say, a sovereign nation and some other country started bombing the crap out of your city on the pretext that your government was about to launch an attack on their nation, even though it had been demonstrated time and again for the past ten years that your country has no weapons of mass destruction, wouldn't you think the country that launched the "pre-emptive strike" against your nation was actually the terrorist? They would certainly have created a sense of terror among the citizens in the midst of the destruction, at least as much terror as was created ing the US citizens after 9/11. Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder, and we certainly do not all agree on what the word means.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> That's ridiculous. _Terrorist_ has an actual meaning. It's one who seeks to influence others primarily by creating a state of fear relating to acts of violence or threats of violence, or one who belongs to a group employing this tactic.
> 
> Someone who simply subjugates another through superior military force is not a terrorist.
> 
> You must live in a very confusing world where words have no meaning, nor did they ever.


By that definition the US military is the worlds largest terrorist organization, closely followed and financed by the IRS.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> It may sound a bit crazy but I think legislation as serious as stripping someone of their citizenship should not depend on interpretations but rather should be crystal clear. Giving that more thought I believe that should involve amending the Charter of Rights and all the headaches that entails.
> 
> My example was intentionally extreme and intended to be at least somewhat sarcastic, but again; "We all understand" is absolutely no substitute for a clear definition, and the word terrorist has been at the centre of all sorts of legalized abuse south of the border. No reason on earth to allow that to creep north of the border. IMO that word Terrorist should be either stricken or very clearly defined.
> 
> I am for any number of reasons opposed to *retroactive legislation* whether or not it otherwise contravenes the Charter or Constitution. The concept of *making something illegal after the fact* surely has to enter somewhere into the definition of; "Tyranny"


What do you mean by these statements? I really have no idea.


----------



## eMacMan

eMacMan said:


> It may sound a bit crazy but I think legislation as serious as stripping someone of their citizenship should not depend on interpretations but rather should be crystal clear. Giving that more thought I believe that should involve amending the Charter of Rights and all the headaches that entails.
> 
> My example was intentionally extreme and intended to be at least somewhat sarcastic, but again; "We all understand" is absolutely no substitute for a clear definition, and the word terrorist has been at the centre of all sorts of legalized abuse south of the border. No reason on earth to allow that to creep north of the border. IMO that word Terrorist should be either stricken or very clearly defined.
> 
> I am for any number of reasons opposed to retroactive legislation whether or not it otherwise contravenes the Charter or Constitution. The concept of making something illegal after the fact surely has to enter somewhere into the definition of; "Tyranny"





screature said:


> What do you mean by these statements? I really have no idea.


Let's see. If the cons are going to pass legislation that will allow the government to take away someones Canadian citizenship, this should be done not as legislation but by amending the Charter of Rights. Seems crystal clear to me. This is a very serious punishment, it clearly violates the Charter of Rights and should therefore only be done by amending the Charter. To give this power to the government or one of its ministers is, to put it mildly, tyrannical.

If you are going to include terrorist as a potential reason, the word has to be very clearly defined. Under MFs definition the US military would have to be the worlds biggest terrorist organization. The IRS helps finance the US military, therefore anyone who ever contributed to the IRS would therefore be a terrorist, thus making many Can-Ams subject to the loss of Canadian citizenship. Obviously not this governments intent but a good illustration as to why if you include the word "terrorist" as a trigger to a governmental assault on citizenship, the word "terrorist" must be very clearly defined. "Every one understands the meaning" just won't cut it.

As to abuse south of the border, based on the word terrorist. We can start with the (anti) Patriot Act and go on for weeks or months. How about the NSA?

Not sure why my opposition to retroactive legislation should be in the least confusing. That is the sort of thing one would have expected from Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Franco Spain.... Want rid of someone? Just make something retroactively illegal and poof. While this may be expected of and practiced by tyrants it has no place in what is supposedly a democracy.


----------



## fjnmusic

eMacMan said:


> By that definition the US military is the worlds largest terrorist organization, closely followed and financed by the IRS.


Bingo. For you MF: do not be concerned about the sliver in your neighbor's eye when you have a poke sticking out of your own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> Let's see. If the cons are going to pass legislation that will allow the government to take away someones Canadian citizenship, this should be done not as legislation but by amending the Charter of Rights. Seems crystal clear to me. This is a very serious punishment, it clearly violates the Charter of Rights and should therefore only be done by amending the Charter. To give this power to the government or one of its ministers is, to put it mildly, tyrannical.
> 
> If you are going to include terrorist as a potential reason, the word has to be very clearly defined. Under MFs definition the US military would have to be the worlds biggest terrorist organization. The IRS helps finance the US military, therefore anyone who ever contributed to the IRS would therefore be a terrorist, thus making many Can-Ams subject to the loss of Canadian citizenship. Obviously not this governments intent but a good illustration as to why if you include the word "terrorist" as a trigger to a governmental assault on citizenship, the word "terrorist" must be very clearly defined. "Every one understands the meaning" just won't cut it.
> 
> As to abuse south of the border, based on the word terrorist. We can start with the (anti) Patriot Act and go on for weeks or months. How about the NSA?
> 
> Not sure why my opposition to retroactive legislation should be in the least confusing. That is the sort of thing one would have expected from Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Franco Spain.... Want rid of someone? Just make something retroactively illegal and poof. While this may be expected of and practiced by tyrants it has no place in what is supposedly a democracy.


Ok now that you have had time to vent could you please answer my very simple question.

It would be appreciated that you weed out all your other anti-Harper/government and just answer my question, because your post does not do that.

Focus... Focus.


----------



## fjnmusic

eMacMan said:


> Let's see. If the cons are going to pass legislation that will allow the government to take away someones Canadian citizenship, this should be done not as legislation but by amending the Charter of Rights. Seems crystal clear to me. This is a very serious punishment, it clearly violates the Charter of Rights and should therefore only be done by amending the Charter. To give this power to the government or one of its ministers is, to put it mildly, tyrannical.
> 
> If you are going to include terrorist as a potential reason, the word has to be very clearly defined. Under MFs definition the US military would have to be the worlds biggest terrorist organization. The IRS helps finance the US military, therefore anyone who ever contributed to the IRS would therefore be a terrorist, thus making many Can-Ams subject to the loss of Canadian citizenship. Obviously not this governments intent but a good illustration as to why if you include the word "terrorist" as a trigger to a governmental assault on citizenship, the word "terrorist" must be very clearly defined. "Every one understands the meaning" just won't cut it.
> 
> As to abuse south of the border, based on the word terrorist. We can start with the (anti) Patriot Act and go on for weeks or months. How about the NSA?
> 
> Not sure why my opposition to retroactive legislation should be in the least confusing. That is the sort of thing one would have expected from Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Franco Spain.... Want rid of someone? Just make something retroactively illegal and poof. While this may be expected of and practiced by tyrants it has no place in what is supposedly a democracy.


Bingo again. Why is it always the other guys that are the terrorists? Did we ever ask ourselves that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Bingo again. Why is it always the other guys that are the terrorists? Did we ever ask ourselves that?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Really? You are going to ask that? The answer is quite obvious.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Really? You are going to ask that? The answer is quite obvious.


It's incredible how he drags out these old saws as though they were precious gems.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> Ok now that you have had time to vent could you please answer my very simple question.
> 
> It would be appreciated that you weed out all your other anti-Harper/government and just answer my question, because your post does not do that.
> 
> Focus... Focus.


I consider retroactively enforceable legislation, an anti democratic tool of tyrants. Yet there it is included as part of section 3 of C-24.

Further taking someones citizenship should fall to the Supreme Court and never be even partially at the the whim of the government or one of its ministers, again an anti-democratic tool of tyrants. Again included as part of section 3 of C-24.

Terrorism is too vague a term (as I have adequately illustrated) to be used as a basis for revoking citizenship. Define it clearly or drop it.

Can't make it any simpler than that. Something tells me the Supreme Court will again tell Harpo where to shove this one.

If the summary of section 3 that I quoted earlier is incorrect feel free to post the correct version


> 3. *Revocation of citizenship:* *The government will have the ability to revoke citizenship from dual citizens* who have been found guilty of treason, high treason, terrorism, spying or certain offences under the National Defence Act. More complicated cases involving war crimes, security, human rights or international rights would be decided by the Federal Court.
> *The proposed legislation would also give the citizenship and immigration minister the power to revoke any dual citizens’ Canadian citizenship* if that individual served as a member of an armed force of a country or as a member of an organized armed group that was engaged in a conflict with Canada. According to Alexander, there are more than 130 known Canadians involved in extremist activities abroad.
> *If Bill C-24 passes, these provision can be applied to any dual citizens before or after the law comes into force.*


----------



## screature

Good god almighty It is not hard.

A terrorist is a person who Is not sanctioned by any known Nation/State to commit threats or acts of violence against any other known group of people or Nation/State.

It ain't rocket science.

By way of example the Nazi's were not terrorists, the were invaders and expansionists because what they did was by way of a National edict.

The FLQ were terrorists because they acted without any National/State sanction. 

C'est clear ca?


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> Good god almighty It is not hard.
> 
> A terrorist is a person who Is not sanctioned by any known Nation/State to commit threats or acts of violence against any other known group of people or Nation/State.
> 
> It ain't rocket science.
> 
> By way of example the Nazi's were not terrorists, the were invaders and expansionists because what they did was by way of a National edict.
> 
> The FLQ were terrorists because they acted without any National/State sanction.
> 
> C'est clear ca?


You cannot define a term by using the term. That simple. 

Under current rules someone contributing to help rebuild bombed out homes in Palestine can and has been labeled a terrorist activity whereas giving to the IRS is somehow legit even though the actions abroad are clearly an elevated form of extortion on a scale never before seen.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> I consider *retroactively enforceable legislation,* an anti democratic tool of tyrants. Yet there it is included as part of section 3 of C-24.
> 
> Further taking someones citizenship should never be left to the whim of the government or one of its ministers, again an anti-democratic tool of tyrants. Again included as part of section 3 of C-24.
> 
> Can't make it any simpler than that. Something tells me the Supreme Court will agree on this one.
> 
> If the summary of section 3 that I quoted earlier is incorrect feel free to post the correct version


What do mean by that?

How is it applicable here? Despite all your protestation you still have not indicated how this is retroactive legislation.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word:

*retroactive |ˌretrōˈaktiv|*
adjective
(esp. of legislation) taking effect from a date in the past:.

Clearly this is not the case here.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> What do mean by that?
> 
> How is it applicable here? Despite all your protestation you still have not indicated how this is retroactive legislation.
> 
> I don't think you understand the meaning of the word:
> 
> *retroactive |ˌretrōˈaktiv|*
> adjective
> (esp. of legislation) taking effect from a date in the past:.
> 
> Clearly this is not the case here.
> 
> There is no revocation of past citizenship just current citizenship.


There it is in black and white.


> *If Bill C-24 passes, these provision can be applied to any dual citizens before or after the law comes into force.*


Applying the penalties of a law for actions that took place before the law was enacted makes it a retroactive law. A tool that only belongs in tyrants tool belts.

Harpers contempt for both Canadians, and their rights under the Constitution and Charter is becoming undeniably evident.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> There it is in black and white.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Bill C-24 passes, these provision can be applied to any dual citizens before or after the law comes into force.
> 
> 
> 
> Applying the penalties of a law for actions that took place before the law was enacted makes it a retroactive law. A tool that only belongs in tyrants tool belts.
> 
> Harpers contempt for both Canadians, and their rights under the Constitution and Charter is becoming undeniably evident.
Click to expand...

Ok. I can see your point (despite the hyperbole which is completely unnecessary) if what you say is true but at this point all I have is your word for it with no link to the actual legislation.

Care not to be so lazy in posting and provide an actual link beyond your own words that you put in a quotation box without the source?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> It's incredible how he drags out these old saws as though they were precious gems.


It's incredible how you simply just. Don't. Get it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

eMacMan said:


> I consider retroactively enforceable legislation, an anti democratic tool of tyrants. Yet there it is included as part of section 3 of C-24.
> 
> Further taking someones citizenship should fall to the Supreme Court and never be even partially at the the whim of the government or one of its ministers, again an anti-democratic tool of tyrants. Again included as part of section 3 of C-24.
> 
> Terrorism is too vague a term (as I have adequately illustrated) to be used as a basis for revoking citizenship. Define it clearly or drop it.
> 
> Can't make it any simpler than that. Something tells me the Supreme Court will again tell Harpo where to shove this one.
> 
> If the summary of section 3 that I quoted earlier is incorrect feel free to post the correct version


Terrorists never see themselves as terrorists. In an age when French fries became Freedom fries and conscientious objection to an idiot-for-president resulted in burned Dixie Chicks albums, lies somehow did become the truth. You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. There's another old saw for you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> It's incredible how you simply just. Don't. Get it.


Best take a peek in a mirror.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Good god almighty It is not hard.
> 
> A terrorist is a person who Is not sanctioned by any known Nation/State to commit threats or acts of violence against any other known group of people or Nation/State.
> 
> It ain't rocket science.
> 
> By way of example the Nazi's were not terrorists, the were invaders and expansionists because what they did was by way of a National edict.
> 
> The FLQ were terrorists because they acted without any National/State sanction.
> 
> C'est clear ca?


About as clear as "history is written by the victors." From the Iraqi point of view, George W. Bush was the biggest terrorist of the 21st century, but you probably wouldn't see that since it was state-sanctioned. However, it did result in terrorizing the Iraqi citizens who were pretty much defenseless against the invading forces. And if they had WMD's, why on earth didn't they use them? Oh yeah, because the Iraqis WERE NOT TERRORISTS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Best take a peek in a mirror.


Touché, Don, touché.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eMacMan

It was from an over all summary that I cannot find this morning. I do recall that it was a stand alone summary not part of an article, nor was there any accompanying editorialization.

I am well aware that there are possibly errors, although a quick review convinces me that the portion relating to the government having the power to revoke the citizenship of duals under some conditions was correct as was the retroactive aspect. I was not aware that it applied to duals born in Canada, and not to those who acquired their Canadian Citizenship via the normal Permanent Residence route.

These quotes come from the Canadian Bar Associations review of the bill.
http://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/pdf/14-22-eng.pdf



> Individuals should have adequate notice of the consequences of their actions. If Parliament sets a precedent allowing for retrospective banishment, citizens are unable to determine with certainty what conduct may place them at risk. The use of banishment as a punishment and its retrospective application are unacceptable and likely unconstitutional.





> The proposed grounds for revoking citizenship are broad. The rationale for the list of offences subject to revocation appears to be connected to loyalty to Canada or certain Canadian ideals. However, it is not clear why the loyalty of dual nationals should be put into question more than that of other Canadians. Once the precedent is established for banishing dual nationals, other forms of conduct may be added to the list.
> 
> One offence that would permit the Minister to revoke citizenship, under proposed s. 10(2)(b), is a terrorism offence under the Criminal Code or the Canadian equivalent for an offence committed outside of Canada, for which the citizen received at least a five-year sentence. In many countries, allegations of terrorism are used to punish political opponents, facilitated by low thresholds for convictions and harsh sentences. An analysis of whether the conviction is the equivalent of a terrorism offence in Canada is complex, and would be at the discretion of an individual officer.





> Bill C-24 eliminates the right to a Federal Court hearing for those subject to revocation of citizenship, except in limited circumstances. In all other cases, the Minister will make the decision without being required to hold a formal hearing. The CBA Section believes that for a matter as serious as the revocation of citizenship, a formal hearing before an independent and impartial decision-maker must be maintained.
> 
> Another aspect of concern is the absence of consideration of equitable factors. Neither the Minister nor the Federal Court would be able to do so. The involvement of the Governor in Council, which can consider these factors under the Act, would be eliminated.
> 
> This stands in stark contrast to the procedural protections given to permanent residents in similar circumstances. The CBA Section is of the view that given the importance of citizenship, a statutory tribunal like the Immigration Appeal Division ought to have jurisdiction to consider not only the validity of the decision to terminate citizenship if ministerial revocation is maintained, but also whether there exist humanitarian and compassionate factors to warrant retention of permanent residence if not citizenship.


It sure sounds to me like this portion of the bill was drafted specifically as a sledge hammer aimed squarely at Omar Khadr.


----------



## zen.state

Bottom line... he is a Canadian citizen, so if granted freedom he has the right to enter Canada; regardless of anyones personal view.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> About as clear as *"history is written by the victors."* From the Iraqi point of view, *George W. Bush was the biggest terrorist of the 21st century, but you probably wouldn't see that since it was state-sanctioned. *However, it did result in terrorizing the Iraqi citizens who were pretty much defenseless against the invading forces. And if they had WMD's, why on earth didn't they use them? Oh yeah, because the Iraqis WERE NOT TERRORISTS.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes that is clear as well.

No he wasn't a terrorist. You seem to have a problem with the very clear and obvious distinctions between an invader and a terrorist.

George Bush, both senior and junior, were invaders, maybe even war criminals, but they weren't terrorists. 

Different words have different meanings and thus why we use them differently. You seem to have difficulty in accepting that fact. 

As an educator I would hope that you would endeavour to illustrate and define the differences between things and not conflate differing things into being one and the same when they clearly are not.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Yes that is clear as well.
> 
> No he wasn't a terrorist. You seem to have a problem with the very clear and obvious distinctions between an invader and a terrorist.
> 
> George Bush, both senior and junior, were invaders, maybe even war criminals, but they weren't terrorists.
> 
> Different words have different meanings and thus why we use them differently. You seem to have difficulty in accepting that fact.
> 
> As an educator I would hope that you would endeavour to illustrate and define the differences between things and not conflate differing things into being one and the same when they clearly are not.


Weak, Screature, even for you. Perhaps you should do some simple research yourself. Wikipedia is always an easy and current place to start.

"The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[23] In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian Parliament, stated:

"The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term floundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination.[1]"

In short, with over 100 commonly accepted definitions for the term, it is fair to say the word "terrorist" is loaded and pejorative and therefore not precise enough to use when creating legislation that could either retroactively or going forward remove Canadian's citizenship. Omar Khadr, in short, was not and is not now a terrorist. He may or may not be a murderer, but the only way a conviction in any mon-military can stand is if he admits to being a murderer, which it appears he did under duress in order to leave Guantanamo Bay. Canadian citizens under the age of 18 who commit murder still have rights under the law, and one who is protecting himself or his family from attack is usually not tried as a "terrorist" in any event. Omar Khadr was targeted because he was a child SND because the Harper government was looking for a scapegoat.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Just because you exist in a perpetual state of confusion, fjn, or seek out additional confused people and sources does not mean others are conflicted or confused.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *Weak, Screature, even for you*. Perhaps you should do some simple research yourself. Wikipedia is always an easy and current place to start.
> 
> "The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[23] In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian Parliament, stated:
> 
> "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term floundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination.[1]"
> 
> In short, with over 100 commonly accepted definitions for the term, it is fair to say the word "terrorist" is loaded and pejorative and therefore not precise enough to use when creating legislation that could either retroactively or going forward remove Canadian's citizenship. *Omar Khadr, in short, was not and is not now a terrorist. He may or may not be a murderer, but the only way a conviction in any mon-military can stand is if he admits to being a murderer, which it appears he did under duress in order to leave Guantanamo Bay. Canadian citizens under the age of 18 who commit murder still have rights under the law, and one who is protecting himself or his family from attack is usually not tried as a "terrorist" in any event. Omar Khadr was targeted because he was a child SND because the Harper government was looking for a scapegoat.
> *
> 
> Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Really? "Weak *even for me*." tptptptp p**s up a rope fjnmusic with your *more *than condescending post.

I could say the same of your previous posts where you deliberately ignored logic and the fact that different words exist to describe different things for a reason, despite your willingness to conflate them. But I didn't go there, you did.

Why do you think there is controversy over the word terrorism in the international community? It exists largely because of non-democratic nations (many of which who are Islamist) who are the descendenters. Stop and think instead of just making knee jerk *insulting* posts.

You may have missed it but the discussions of late have gone well beyond speaking to the specifics of the Omar Khadr case.

But, IMO and I think the recent Bill addresses this, Khadr was Canadian born so even though he is a terrorist he could not be deported. We unfortunately have to pay for his incarceration.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Just because you exist in a perpetual state of confusion, fjn, or seek out additional confused people and sources does not mean others are conflicted or confused.


Uh...apparently it does. You don't know what a terrorist actually is. Nor does anyone else for that matter. You may not be conflicted, but you most definitely are confused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Really? "Weak *even for me*." tptptptp p**s up a rope fjnmusic with your *more *than condescending post.
> 
> I could say the same of your previous posts where you deliberately ignored logic and the fact that different words exist to describe different things for a reason, despite your willingness to conflate them. But I didn't go there, you did.
> 
> Why do you think there is controversy over the word terrorism in the international community? It exists largely because of non-democratic nations (many of which who are Islamist) who are the descendenters. Stop and think instead of just making knee jerk *insulting* posts.
> 
> You may have missed it but the discussions of late have gone well beyond speaking to the specifics of the Omar Khadr case.
> 
> But, IMO and I think the recent Bill addresses this, Khadr was Canadian born so even though he is a terrorist he could not be deported. We unfortunately have to pay for his incarceration.


Just like we have to pay for the incarceration of thousands of other Canadian born criminals. Would you rather have them out on the streets at no cost to the taxpayer? I personally believe the evidence against Khadr was weak and relied entirely on his own self-incriminating testimony, something he would have been protected from in any normal courtroom. In other words, the only way to get him, if you remember, was for him to admit guilt. There were no other witnesses. Not live one anyway. But longer story short, he cut a deal and copped a guilty plea in order to be extradited to a Canadian prison from Gitmo. The Harper gov't took an AWFULLY long time following through on their promise if you remember correctly.

Regarding the new legislation, it relies heavily on some common understanding of the term "terrorist" which has been demonstrated to you seven ways from Sunday has no universal meaning. It is a pejorative term, loaded with emotional and political baggage. You cannot make a law that has such weal definitions at the start. The law must be presented in such a way that it cannot be misinterpreted or misapplied. You would have an easier time defining the word "murderer" than the word "terrorist."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Uh...apparently it does. You don't know what a terrorist actually is. Nor does anyone else for that matter. You may not be conflicted, but you most definitely are confused.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You believe your haze of confusion extends to others. Your conflicted and endlessly introspective ruminations don't affect the outside world.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> You would have an easier time defining the word "murderer" than the word "terrorist."


No, but perhaps you would--provided you were to selectively set aside your endless intellectual masturbation.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> No, but perhaps you would--provided you were to selectively set aside your endless intellectual masturbation.


Really Macfury? Is this what you ruminate on? On second thought, please don't answer that.

I don't know why you choose to hurl insults rather than face truth: I gave you a link that illustrates the problems with using the T word, yet you continue to be obtuse on the subject. Perhaps you can provide a link that demonstrates that the meaning of the word "terrorism" is consistent across all courts in all countries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I'm not insulting you. I'm describing you. Why does the definition need to be the same across all courts and in all countries? It need only be defined here in Canada. 

This endless confusion and deliberation of yours is a terrible thing to behold. How do you actually make the decisions leading up to eating? Do you ask yourself whether the food is real or whether you're just eating food prepared by the Matrix?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I'm not insulting you. I'm describing you. Why does the definition need to be the same across all courts and in all countries? It need only be defined here in Canada.
> 
> This endless confusion and deliberation of yours is a terrible thing to behold. How do you actually make the decisions leading up to eating? Do you ask yourself whether the food is real or whether you're just eating food prepared by the Matrix?


Dude. I'm impressed. That one was actually kind of funny. :clap:


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Uh...apparently it does. *You don't know what a terrorist actually is. Nor does anyone else for that matter. *You may not be conflicted, but you most definitely are confused.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


:lmao:

Quack! if it walks like a duck....

Terrorists often look like this:

















































































Soldiers tend to look like this:


















































































Can you spot the difference?

I can.


----------



## fjnmusic

Afghan with no gun = civilian = friendly

Afghan with gun = potential terrorist = unfriendly (unless of course they're on your side)

Can you spot the difference? I can't, except for the gun. This information I learned from a Canadian soldier who actually did fight in Afghanistan by the way.


----------



## fjnmusic

WARNING: Disturbing images.

Drone strikes (unpiloted planes) that minimize American casualties but appear to cause the deaths and injuries of a large number of civilians, including children, for the country being attacked. Who is the terrorist now?


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> WARNING: Disturbing images.
> 
> Drone strikes (unpiloted planes) that minimize American casualties but appear to cause the deaths and injuries of a large number of civilians, including children, for the country being attacked. Who is the terrorist now?


And you know this to be fact how?

Did the victims themselves tell you it actually happened? Did the country in which the so-called attack took place and perhaps harbouring terrorists tell you? Or did you fall for media reports and controlled government propaganda yet again?

Just asking.


----------



## CubaMark

fjnmusic said:


> WARNING: Disturbing images.
> 
> Drone strikes (unpiloted planes) that minimize American casualties but appear to cause the deaths and injuries of a large number of civilians, including children, for the country being attacked. Who is the terrorist now?


I agree with fjnmusic - the use of drones, with the result being far-too-often civilian casualties and the "bad guy" getting away or being the wrong target anyway - qualifies as a terrorist act, and not the act of an invader.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> I agree with fjnmusic - the use of drones, with the result being far-too-often civilian casualties and the "bad guy" getting away or being the wrong target anyway - qualifies as a terrorist act, and not the act of an invader.


It is the act of an invader using remote weaponry. Simple.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> And you know this to be fact how?
> 
> Did the victims themselves tell you it actually happened? Did the country in which the so-called attack took place and perhaps harbouring terrorists tell you? Or did you fall for media reports and controlled government propaganda yet again?
> 
> Just asking.


Wow.


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> I agree with fjnmusic - the use of drones, with the result being far-too-often civilian casualties and the "bad guy" getting away or being the wrong target anyway - qualifies as a terrorist act, and not the act of an invader.


It's amazing to me that there are so many people who can honestly say they don't know about this. It is one of the biggest criticisms worldwide of the Obama administration. And kind of a chicken-sh&t way of "fighting a war" if you ask me. There's no honour in sending a drone to get the "bad guys" and experience the "collateral damage" of civilian deaths, including those of children, and then wonder why the people see you as occupiers instead of liberators. Turns war and death into a video game and spits on the sacrifice of all of those allied soldiers we saw a few posts back.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *It's amazing to me that there are so many people who can honestly say they don't know about this. *It is one of the biggest criticisms worldwide of the Obama administration. *And kind of a chicken-sh&t way of "fighting a war" if you ask me.There's no honour in sending a drone to get the "bad guys" and experience the "collateral damage" of civilian deaths, including those of children, and then wonder why the people see you as occupiers instead of liberators. Turns war and death into a video game and spits on the sacrifice of all of those allied soldiers we saw a few posts back.*


Do you know anything of the history of modern warfare?

Ever hear of artillery that can be fired from dozens of kilometres away (the Gustav Gun), buzz bombs, Exocet missiles, Scud missiles, cruise missiles, nukes, etc... all ways of killing the enemy remotely without any direct human contact. Drones are just the most recent development in remote warfare.

Your apparent ignorance of this fact is "*amazing to me*".

Where the hell have you been for the last seventy years or so?


----------



## CubaMark

screature said:


> Do you know anything of the history of modern warfare?
> 
> Ever hear of artillery that can be fired from dozens of kilometres away (the Gustav Gun), buzz bombs, Exocet missiles, Scud missiles, cruise missiles, nukes, etc... all ways of killing the enemy remotely without any direct human contact. Drones are just the most recent development in remote warfare.


I would say there is a considerable difference between such weapons being used in a theatre of war (i.e., declared war and an obvious battleground) and the use of drones to effect targeted strikes in often residential / urban areas where the inhabitants are not expecting to be blasted to bits. You know, like wedding parties (Afghanistan; Yemen; Afghanistan again) in countries which are not in any declared war with the United States or its allies.


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> *I would say there is a considerable difference between such weapons being used in a theatre of war (i.e., declared war and an obvious battleground) and the use of drones to effect targeted strikes in often residential / urban areas where the inhabitants are not expecting to be blasted to bits. You know, like wedding parties* (Afghanistan; Yemen; Afghanistan again) in countries which are not in any declared war with the United States or its allies.


And on that front you would be wrong.

Just ask the citizens of London during WWII who were repeatedly and indiscriminately buzz bombed.

Your comment is factually inaccurate. 

As I stated previously the history of remote warfare is at least 70 years old. That you and fjnmusic choose to try and portray it as being otherwise displays ignorance of the history of modern warfare if not an outright attempt at deception or at the very least a distortion of the truth to support your arguments IMO.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> And on that front you would be wrong.
> 
> Just ask the citizens of London during WWII who were repeatedly and indiscriminately buzz bombed.
> 
> Your comment is factually inaccurate.
> 
> As I stated previously the history of remote warfare is at least 70 years old. That you and fjnmusic choose to try and portray it as being otherwise displays ignorance of the history of modern warfare if not an outright attempt at deception or at the very least a distortion of the truth to support your arguments IMO.


Kinda scary using Nazi Germany as a shining example/excuse for our guys waging remote warfare against nations we are not even at war with.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> Kinda scary using Nazi Germany as a shining example/excuse for our guys waging remote warfare against nations we are not even at war with.


You are do wrong on so many levels I really don't have the time...

Continue to live in your glass bubble of misinformation and ignorance, at this point I couldn't give a s**t.

Peace out.  beejacon


----------



## fjnmusic

Screature, I WISH you couldn't give a sh*t so that you'd stop beaking off when other people are trying to have a decent conversation. If you have nothing to gain from reading others' opinions and it bothers you that people like Mark and I happen to agree about things like drone strikes, then for god's sake stop reading it and responding to it.

On a different note, any cool places to visit in Cuba, Mark? The fam is planning to go there in July. Probably not going to Gitmo though. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *Screature, I WISH you couldn't give a sh*t so that you'd stop beaking off when other people are trying to have a decent conversation. If you have nothing to gain from reading others' opinions and it bothers you that people like Mark and I happen to agree about things like drone strikes, then for god's sake stop reading it and responding to it.
> *
> On a different note, any cool places to visit in Cuba, Mark? The fam is planning to go there in July. Probably not going to Gitmo though.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


fjnmusic my post had *nothing* to do with you or Mark. It was directed at eMacMac, if you choose to be his defender that is your choice.

Breaking off!!??? Since when and since when were you trying to have a decent conversation with me since your 'even for you" comment!!

On this matter I am indeed embroiled because I think you, ehMacMac and CM are fundamentally wrong and have no appreciation for the meaning words or of history.

Also where do you get off complaining 



> If you have nothing to gain from reading others' opinions


Take a hard long look in the mirror. YOU started down that road.

Once again YOU are the one being arrogant and condescending.


----------



## fjnmusic

Arrogant and condescending, possibly. I'll take that as a compliment. Clearly you do give a sh*t after all. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *Arrogant and condescending, possibly. I'll take that as a compliment.*
> 
> Clearly you do give a sh*t after all.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


EmacMan is that you?? Why are you speaking for him? I think he is a big boy now and can speak for himself.

Really do you even understand what you are saying at this point?

I know you think you are being "clever", but you are just being condescending once again...

Congratulations I think you may have made a new record in that department. 

Rather typical of you of late, mixing apples and oranges.


----------



## fjnmusic

Screature, relax man. You're way too serious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Screature, relax man. You're way too serious.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Really?

How about an apology for your condescending words, maybe then I could "relax".

Sorry fjnmusic, in case if you haven't gotten it by words and illustrations you really p**sed me off and I think you were deliberately/intentionally being personally insulting.

How could I not take offence? 

I suspect you would and you would be right in doing so if I said the same words to you.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Your apparent ignorance of this fact is "*amazing to me*".
> 
> Where the hell have you been for the last seventy years or so?


Uh...I could apologize, but it appears you give as good as you get. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. Apparently I do not have the familiarity with the past 70 years of modern warfare that you have, but I am still entitled to make my point without being insulted. And please, call me Frank; fjnmusic is so formal. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Uh...I could apologize, but it appears you give as good as you get. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. Apparently I do not have the familiarity with the past 70 years of modern warfare that you have, but I am still entitled to make my point without being insulted. And please, call me Frank; fjnmusic is so formal.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Great.

Pleased to meet you Frank.

Friends call me Steve.

And probably others who don't consider me their friend...


----------



## CubaMark

screature said:


> And on that front you would be wrong.
> 
> Just ask the citizens of London during WWII who were repeatedly and indiscriminately buzz bombed.


Screature, my point on this - perhaps I wasn't clear - is that in the case of WWII, there was a declare state of war. Citizens of both nations knew what to expect.

In the case of contemporary warfare a la the USA, there is no state of war declared between the USA and Afghanistan, or Yemen, or Pakistan - and yet the USA is launching drone-based deadly attacks that have killed many civilians, those who had no idea they were in what the USA considers a "war zone".

To me, that's terrorism - when innocents, going about their daily lives, are suddenly and unexpectedly obliterated by a hostile foreign force.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> To me, that's terrorism - when innocents, going about their daily lives, are suddenly and unexpectedly obliterated by a hostile foreign force.


The terror felt by the locals in this case is simply collateral. The intention is to kill certain individuals, not to frighten or terrorize those who share their space.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> The terror felt by the locals in this case is simply collateral. The intention is to kill certain individuals, not to frighten or terrorize those who share their space.


And yet the drone strikes seem only able to hit civilians with any accuracy....


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> Screature, my point on this - perhaps I wasn't clear - is that in the case of WWII, there was a declare state of war. Citizens of both nations knew what to expect.
> 
> In the case of contemporary warfare a la the USA, there is no state of war declared between the USA and Afghanistan, or Yemen, or Pakistan - and yet the USA is launching drone-based deadly attacks that have killed many civilians, those who had no idea they were in what the USA considers a "war zone".
> 
> To me, that's terrorism - when innocents, going about their daily lives, are suddenly and unexpectedly obliterated by a hostile foreign force.


And lest we forget Pakistan, where a great number of drone strikes by the US have taken place. This visual may help:

Out of Sight, Out of Mind: A visualization of drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> And yet the drone strikes seem only able to hit civilians with any accuracy....


They're considering using them in Iraq right now. They can hit anyone, whether civilian or military, but aren't as much use in general warfare. The US could send giant bombs to Yemen or Pakistan as well, but drones provide greater precision in these cases.



fjnmusic said:


> And lest we forget Pakistan, where a great number of drone strikes by the US have taken place. This visual may help:
> 
> Out of Sight, Out of Mind: A visualization of drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004


It doesn't matter how many drones have been launched in any of the three major target countries. The fact that the locals are terrified of them does not make their use acts of terror--the primary goal is to eliminate militant individuals,.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> They're considering using them in Iraq right now. They can hit anyone, whether civilian or military, but aren't as much use in general warfare. The US could send giant bombs to Yemen or Pakistan as well, but drones provide greater precision in these cases.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter how many drones have been launched in any of the three major target countries. The fact that the locals are terrified of them does not make their use acts of terror--the primary goal is to eliminate militant individuals,.


So you would have no problems with say Mexico launching drones at the US to take out individuals they find objective? Say someone like Senator Cruz? No problems if they took out a few innocents at the same time?


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> So you would have no problems with say Mexico launching drones at the US to take out individuals they find objective? Say someone like Senator Cruz? No problems if they took out a few innocents at the same time?


I didn't say I have no problem with the US drone program. I said it was not terrorism.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> I didn't say I have no problem with the US drone program. I said it was not terrorism.


I am completely guessing, but a 90% "collateral damage" number would have the drone strikes in line with the rest of of the US military efforts. I am not guessing in the least when I say the relatives of that 90% would call the strikes terrorism. 

FWIW I suspect Londoners called Hitlers bombing tactics, terrorism. As did the survivors of the Dresden incendiary bombings. As did the families of the one and a half million Japanese that General LeMay torched in those low level B-29 raids.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> I am completely guessing, but a 90% "collateral damage" number would have the drone strikes in line with the rest of of the US military efforts. I am not guessing in the least when I say the relatives of that 90% would call the strikes terrorism.
> 
> FWIW I suspect Londoners called Hitlers bombing tactics, terrorism. As did the survivors of the Dresden incendiary bombings. As did the families of the one and a half million Japanese that General LeMay torched in those low level B-29 raids.


The survivors may very well have called them terrorism, but it really amounts to why the attacks were launched. In Dresden, you would have to decide why the Allies bombed that city--industrial centre or simply to kill people. The definition of terrorism is not in question, it's what the RCAF intended.


----------



## fjnmusic

eMacMan said:


> I am completely guessing, but a 90% "collateral damage" number would have the drone strikes in line with the rest of of the US military efforts. I am not guessing in the least when I say the relatives of that 90% would call the strikes terrorism.
> 
> FWIW I suspect Londoners called Hitlers bombing tactics, terrorism. As did the survivors of the Dresden incendiary bombings. As did the families of the one and a half million Japanese that General LeMay torched in those low level B-29 raids.


Not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It always looks a lot more like terrorism when the weapons are aimed at you. And for what it's worth, the United States did not have the blessing of most of the international community when it launched its "pre-emptive strike" against Iraq in March of 2003. They were aiming for the same kind of "shock and awe" response that they got on, say, Sept 11, 2001. Except the attack lasted far longer than one day. If that isn't terrorism, then we're definitely going to need a new word.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It always looks a lot more like terrorism when the weapons are aimed at you.


Exactly. That's why you need an objective definition.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> The survivors may very well have called them terrorism, but it really amounts to why the attacks were launched. In Dresden, you would have to decide why the Allies bombed that city--industrial centre or simply to kill people. The definition of terrorism is not in question, it's what the RCAF intended.


I believe it is in question. I don't think you have defined it yet, for example, and you certainly don't seem to like the definitions and examples offered here in this thread so far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I haven't seen any real definitions offered by you other than somebody needs to be scared while being attacked.


----------



## screature

I offered a definition and I still believe it to be valid:



> A terrorist is a person who Is not sanctioned by any known Nation/State to commit threats or acts of violence against any other known group of people or Nation/State.


----------



## SINC

screature said:


> I offered a definition and I still believe it to be valid:
> 
> A terrorist is a person who Is not sanctioned by any known Nation/State to commit threats or acts of violence against any other known group of people or Nation/State.


This exactly fits what I consider to be a terrorist. Further it eliminates many examples given in this thread from being terrorists.


----------



## screature

SINC said:


> This exactly fits what I consider to be a terrorist. *Further it eliminates many examples given in this thread from being terrorists*.


Thanks SINC.

That wasn't my intent. But it just sort of came out in the logical wash.

Definitions are not generally long and convoluted. They tend to be precise and to the point, that is what I strove for...

Let us see if our friends can come up with an equally short and distinct definition without having to add "addendums" and "exclusions", without distorting history or lived reality, all the while respecting language and why different words have different meanings and not conflating them into being one and the same the same thing.

Time will tell.


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> Screature, my point on this - perhaps I wasn't clear - is that in the case of WWII, there was a declare state of war. Citizens of both nations knew what to expect.
> 
> In the case of contemporary warfare a la the USA, there is no state of war declared between the USA and Afghanistan, or Yemen, or Pakistan - and yet the USA is launching drone-based deadly attacks that have killed many civilians, those who had no idea they were in what the USA considers a "war zone".
> 
> To me, that's terrorism - when innocents, going about their daily lives, are suddenly and unexpectedly obliterated by a hostile foreign force.


Just a bit of history for you...

Attack on Pearl Harbor

The Japanese never declared war on the US, they simply attacked. 

It was the US who declared war on the Japanese after Pearl Harbour and rightfully so.



> The following day (December 8), the United States declared war on Japan


So *no* there is not any formal declaration necessary to announce to other nations that you have to first issue a "warning" that "we are at war with you" before invading.

But how "genteel" of you to think that it has ever been the case in actuality. 

The US simply made a formal statement, but it really wasn't necessary or required by any international law or edict.

So based on that one example alone (there are countless others) I completely dispute/reject your post and premise as being historically accurate as IMO it does not reflect the historical truth/facts as we "know" them.

Peace Out.


----------



## fjnmusic

Seems relevant. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

And before you attack me with "how is that relevant?" Let me explain. I maintain that the "war" on Iraq (technically a pre-emptive strike) was morally and strategically wrong. So was the war on Afghanistan, if it was supposedly part of what George W. Bush called a "war on terror." 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, as was Osama Bin Laden. But you don't attack Saudi Arabia because they are big and powerful. You also don't describe their extremist fringe as terrorists because again, they are big and powerful. In fact, the only nations who are not terrorists (at least in their own eyes), are the big and powerful ones, because they make the rules and invent the definitions and call the shots. It it were a schoolyard, they would be the schoolyard bullies.

No country refers to itself as a bully, much less one that produces terrorists. And yet every country that has weapons also creates it's own terrorists, including the United States. Take the Oklahoma City bombing, for example. Homegrown terrorism. When the US declared a "war on terror" (a cool phrase which means nothing), was it also including itself among the threats in the world? What if, in the eyes of Iraqi or Afghani or Pakastani citizens, you are now the terrorist? Will you destroy yourself eventually because you hold true to the cause?

Terrorism has no internationally accepted definition among the courts of the world, which is why it is so difficult to prosecute. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. This is what I offered a number of pages ago in this thread. Some of you were outright dismissive of this fact, yet the fact remains. If you declare war on a country, eventually that country can surrender or be defeated. With a "war on terror", there is never a deciding moment of victory because there are always more terrorists in the world. And you have to be damn careful you haven't become the terrorist yourself with the methods you have chosen, like drone strikes for example, which kill a disproportionate number of civilians, particularly children.

I have respect for soldiers. They are sacrificing their lives for the sake of an ideal, like "freedom" or "security." It is not their choice where and when they will fight. But the leaders and commentators, like the ones this vet lists, had better make damned sure they are sending people off to die for legitimate reasons. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

That's right fjn, the US will attack and destroy itself because Pakistan says it's a bully. 

Thanks for that.

(Ouch)


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> That's right fjn, the US will attack and destroy itself because Pakistan says it's a bully.
> 
> Thanks for that.
> 
> (Ouch)


Sadly that's all you have to say in response to a reasoned argument. 

You need to read not only between the lines…you need to read the actual lines themselves. What you seem to miss over and over again is that the United States is not the only country that gets to decide what terrorism is. Just because they're the most powerful nation in the world does not mean they are always right. And yes, Pakistan has as much right as any other country not to have its civilians killed indiscriminately, even by what we call "collateral damage." The language can be very dehumanizing. It's like referring to people as "targets" instead of human beings.


----------



## Macfury

Uh-huh.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Uh-huh.


Good effort. Here's a pretty straightforward definition from Dictionary.com:

terrorism[ ter-uh-riz-uhm ]
noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.









This would certainly appear to open the possibilities of what constitutes terrorism right up, reinforcing what some of us have been saying all along. War itself is an act of terrorism if the aim is to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. What kind of a war does not do that? No war. No war at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Yes, but what if there are people on the Moon who consider it to be terrorism when they are greeted with a handshake? Then we have to throw everything out the window because our Earthbound notion of terrorism is too Earthcentric.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Yes, but what if there are people on the Moon who consider it to be terrorism when they are greeted with a handshake? Then we have to throw everything out the window because our Earthbound notion of terrorism is too Earthcentric.


I suppose if you believe a handshake could be construed as violent or intimidating, you could be on to something. Or you could just be on something. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

May as well include the Martians while you're at it. But let's form a committee of everyone on Earth to ensure we can agree on what all words mean first.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> May as well include the Martians while you're at it. But let's form a committee of everyone on Earth to ensure we can agree on what all words mean first.


Hyperbole much?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Perhaps a more scholarly definition of terrorism is in order to help focus the discussion here and to determine whether it is fair to classify Omar Khadr as a terrorist. Remember Omar Khadr? The guy that inspired this thread in the first place? Him.



> What is Terrorism?
> 
> Terrorism is not new and even though it has been used since the beginning of recorded history, *it can be relatively hard to define terrorism*.
> 
> Terrorism has been described variously as both a tactic and strategy; a crime and a holy duty; a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable abomination. *Obviously, a lot depends on whose point of view is being represented*. Terrorism has often been an effective tactic for the weaker side in a conflict. As an asymmetric form of conflict, it confers coercive power with many of the advantages of military force at a fraction of the cost. Due to the secretive nature and small size of terrorist organizations, they often offer opponents no clear organization to defend against or to deter.
> 
> That is why preemption is being considered to be so important. In some cases, terrorism has been a means to carry on a conflict without the adversary realizing the nature of the threat, mistaking terrorism for criminal activity. Because of these characteristics, terrorism has become increasingly common among those pursuing extreme goals throughout the world. *But despite its popularity, terrorism can be a nebulous concept. Even within the U.S. Government, agencies responsible for different functions in the ongoing fight against terrorism and extremism use different definitions.*…
> 
> ...The strategy of terrorists is *to commit acts of violence that draws the attention of the local populace, the government, and the world to their cause*. The terrorists plan their attack to obtain the greatest publicity, choosing targets that symbolize what they oppose. The effectiveness of the terrorist act lies not in the act itself, but in the public’s or government’s reaction to the act. For example, in 1972 at the Munich Olympics, the Black September Organization killed 11 Israelis. The Israelis were the immediate victims. *But the true target was the estimated 1 billion people watching the televised event. Those billion people watching were to be introduced to fear - which is terrorism's ultimate goal*…
> 
> ...*There are three perspectives of terrorism: the terrorist’s, the victim’s, and the general public’s*. The phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is a view terrorists themselves would gladly accept. *Terrorists do not see themselves as evil*. They believe they are legitimate combatants, fighting for what they believe in, by whatever means possible to attain their goals. *A victim of a terrorist act sees the terrorist as a criminal with no regard for human life. The general public’s view though can be the most unstable*. The terrorists take great pains to foster a “Robin Hood” image in hope of swaying the general public’s point of view toward their cause. This sympathetic view of terrorism has become an integral part of their psychological warfare and has been countered vigorously by governments, the media and other organizations.
> 
> <bold mine>


Terrorism Research - What is Terrorism?

This certainly raises the question with the classification of Omar Khadr as a terrorist: if he is, what organization is he representing exactly? Did he intend to kill a specific soldier or did he lob a grenade not knowing whom it would kill? Is there any proof beyond his own testimony that he lobbed the grenade that killed the soldier at all? What if the guilt admission were actually a strange type of plea bargain to be transferred from Guantanamo Bay to Canada? Are soldiers who shoot adversaries also classifiable as terrorists, or does that term only apply to civilians? The Omar Khadr story has certainly "drawn the attention of the media," at least for a little while, but again, what is the cause? What organization was he working on behalf of? Or is it possible he was a 15 year old kid that was caught in the crossfire?

There are serious questions; serious and thoughtful replies would be appreciated.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Did he intend to kill a specific soldier or did he lob a grenade not knowing whom it would kill?


This.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Perhaps a more scholarly definition of terrorism is in order to help focus the discussion here and to determine whether it is fair to classify Omar Khadr as a terrorist. Remember Omar Khadr? The guy that inspired this thread in the first place? Him.
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism Research - What is Terrorism?
> 
> *This certainly raises the question with the classification of Omar Khadr as a terrorist: if he is, what organization is he representing exactly?* Did he intend to kill a specific soldier or did he lob a grenade not knowing whom it would kill? Is there any proof beyond his own testimony that he lobbed the grenade that killed the soldier at all? What if the guilt admission were actually a strange type of plea bargain to be transferred from Guantanamo Bay to Canada? Are soldiers who shoot adversaries also classifiable as terrorists, or does that term only apply to civilians? The Omar Khadr story has certainly "drawn the attention of the media," at least for a little while, but again, what is the cause? What organization was he working on behalf of? Or is it possible he was a 15 year old kid that was caught in the crossfire?
> 
> There are serious questions; serious and thoughtful replies would be appreciated.


At the very least he was terrorist in training, that is simply a well know fact. He was in training to be part of Al-Qaeda.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> At the very least he was terrorist in training, that is simply a well know fact. He was in training to be part of Al-Qaeda.


Having paid the dues to reach that point in life called "Old Fartdom" I have learned to recognize some very key phrases: "A well known fact", "Every body knows", "We all know", "I am a good Christian". 

Bet the farm they really mean either; "I have nothing to back this up", or "This is a bald faced lie"

Colin Powell's speech to the UN before the IRAQ invasion should serve as a great illustration.


----------



## BigDL

fjnmusic said:


> Perhaps a more scholarly definition of terrorism is in order to help focus the discussion here and to determine whether it is fair to classify Omar Khadr as a terrorist. Remember Omar Khadr? The guy that inspired this thread in the first place? Him.
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism Research - What is Terrorism?
> 
> This certainly raises the question with the classification of Omar Khadr as a terrorist: if he is, what organization is he representing exactly? Did he intend to kill a specific soldier or did he lob a grenade not knowing whom it would kill? Is there any proof beyond his own testimony that he lobbed the grenade that killed the soldier at all? What if the guilt admission were actually a strange type of plea bargain to be transferred from Guantanamo Bay to Canada? Are soldiers who shoot adversaries also classifiable as terrorists, or does that term only apply to civilians? The Omar Khadr story has certainly "drawn the attention of the media," at least for a little while, but again, what is the cause? What organization was he working on behalf of? Or is it possible he was a 15 year old kid that was caught in the crossfire?
> 
> There are serious questions; serious and thoughtful replies would be appreciated.


There you go again, interjecting reason and facts into an argument, where do you suppose that will take us?

How are we suppose rale on with emotional responses if we are limit ourselves to facts and reason? 



eMacMan said:


> Having paid the dues to reach that point in life called "Old Fartdom" I have learned to recognize some very key phrases: "A well known fact", "Every body knows", "We all know", "I am a good Christian".
> 
> Bet the farm they really mean either; "I have nothing to back this up", or "This is a bald faced lie"
> 
> Colin Powell's speech to the UN before the IRAQ invasion should serve as a great illustration.


With your observations I can not possibly argue against your points.

I should also like to add that, Omar Khadr, was 15 years old when seized by US Forces. 

He was taken to Afghanistan at younger age. As such he should be considered, tantamount, to a child soldier, however, he was not a soldier, then at worst, he should be considered a child combatant.

A child combatant should not be blamed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.


----------



## fjnmusic

BigDL said:


> There you go again, interjecting reason and facts into an argument, where do you suppose that will take us?
> 
> How are we suppose rale on with emotional responses if we are limit ourselves to facts and reason?
> 
> With your observations I can not possibly argue against your points.
> 
> I should also like to add that, Omar Khadr, was 15 years old when seized by US Forces.
> 
> He was taken to Afghanistan at younger age. As such he should be considered, tantamount, to a child soldier, however, he was not a soldier, then at worst, he should be considered a child combatant.
> 
> A child combatant should not be blamed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.


And certainly not saddled with the label "terrorist" for the rest of his adult life. I mean, what a crappy kind of terrorist organization completely abandons its front line workers? When does Omar get his seventy-two virgins? Abandoned in this life and abandoned in the next as well. He should write a book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> Having paid the dues to reach that point in life called "Old Fartdom" I have learned to recognize some very key phrases: "A well known fact", "Every body knows", "We all know", "I am a good Christian".
> 
> Bet the farm they really mean either; "I have nothing to back this up", or "This is a bald faced lie"
> 
> Colin Powell's speech to the UN before the IRAQ invasion should serve as a great illustration.


He was in a training camp terrorists. Fact. His father brought him there to carry on his legacy. Fact.

Do you ever read anything beyond your conspiracy theory sites. I mean seriously.

No need to take the hyperbolic route... just read and learn and stop trying to pretend that due to advancing age you have anything more than the rest of us to contribute just because you are potentially one day closer to to death. We all are!

Age is in fact not a factor when it comes having a repository of balanced opinion and knowledge... sometimes it can indicate the exact opposite. Prejudice and ignorance.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> There you go again, interjecting reason and facts into an argument, where do you suppose that will take us?
> 
> How are we suppose rale on with emotional responses if we are limit ourselves to facts and reason?
> 
> With your observations I can not possibly argue against your points.
> 
> I should also like to add that, Omar Khadr, was 15 years old when seized by US Forces.
> 
> *He was taken to Afghanistan at younger age. As such he should be considered, tantamount, to a child soldier, however, he was not a soldier, then at worst, he should be considered a child combatant.
> 
> A child combatant should not be blamed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.*


He could have run away from his domineering terrorist father if he really wanted to, kids have run away from their parents or declared emancipation from their parents for far less.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> And certainly not saddled with the label "terrorist" for the rest of his adult life. I mean, what a crappy kind of terrorist organization completely abandons its front line workers? When does Omar get his seventy-two virgins? Abandoned in this life and abandoned in the next as well. *He should write a book.*
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If he has the smarts he undoubtedly will.


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> There you go again, interjecting reason and facts into an argument, where do you suppose that will take us?
> 
> How are we suppose rale on with emotional responses if we are limit ourselves to facts and reason?
> 
> With your observations I can not possibly argue against your points.
> 
> I should also like to add that, Omar Khadr, was 15 years old when seized by US Forces.
> 
> He was taken to Afghanistan at younger age. As such he should be considered, tantamount, to a child soldier, however, he was not a soldier, then at worst, he should be considered a child combatant.
> 
> A child combatant should not be blamed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.


Nice to see you still continue to ignore the facts. 

Any 15 year old knows right from wrong and death from life and when your family takes you to a terrorist camp, you pay the price. He did not have to touch that grenade. He sealed his fate when he picked it up and is and should be paying the price. Further he should be deported if ever released.

He is and always will be a clear and present danger to any Canadian.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> He was in a training camp terrorists. Fact. His father brought him there to carry on his legacy. Fact.
> 
> Do you ever read anything beyond your conspiracy theory sites. I mean seriously.
> 
> No need to take the hyperbolic route... just read and learn and stop trying to pretend that due to advancing age you have anything more than the rest of us to contribute just because you are potentially one day closer to to death. We all are!
> 
> Age is in fact not a factor when it comes having a repository of balanced opinion and knowledge... sometimes it can indicate the exact opposite. Prejudice and ignorance.


I was just saying that I have found it unwise to ignore the things I have learned over a lifetime. 

Age and parental dominance, plus being outside of the Canadian environment have a real impact on whether he should be labeled a "wannabe terrorist" or perhaps more accurately a "Shanghaied youth". Without meeting him personally, I will only go so far as to say "Shanghaied youth" seems more likely. Even so I would no more suggest that as a "Well known fact" than I am willing to accept your version as such.

Again your "Well known fact" bit misses the mark. 

I really have to question how many 13 or 14 year olds, having been brought up to believe a cause is righteous, and having been dragged half a world away from home would have been able to break away and find their way home again. Probably very few. Hell there were lots of much older men pressed into uniforms, blue or grey during the civil war. How many American youth went to and died in Vietnam? Even though they did not buy into the cause, but did not have the courage to turn their backs on their nation when their number came up in the draft?

More specifically drafting a portion of Bill C-24 whose only reason for existence is to allow the Harpolites to strip a born in Canada Canadian citizen of that citizenship is way beyond anything Canadians should tolerate. It is also anti-Charter, anti-Constitution, anti-democratic and anti-Canadian.


----------



## screature

SINC said:


> Nice to see you still continue to ignore the facts.
> 
> Any 15 year old knows right from wrong and death from life and when your family takes you to a terrorist camp, you pay the price. He did not have to touch that grenade. He sealed his fate when he picked it up and is and should be paying the price. *Further he should be deported if ever released.*
> 
> *He is and always will be a clear and present danger to any Canadian.*


I don't agree with that as he was Canadian born and has no dual citizenship as far as I know and so would have nowhere to be deported to, i.e. country that would accept him as a citizen.

I also don't know if I believe that to be true. From all accounts he has been a model prisoner, educating himself and such.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> I don't agree with that as he was Canadian born and has no dual citizenship as far as I know and so would have nowhere to be deported to, i.e. country that would accept him as a citizen.
> 
> I also don't know if I believe that to be true. From all accounts he has been a model prisoner, educating himself and such.


Yes citizenship does place obligations on the nation as well as the individual. 

I believe the contention is that he inherited Pakistani? citizenship from his parents, more or less in the same manner that many other Canadians are now discovering can be an extreme liability.


----------



## screature

[No message]


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> Yes citizenship does place obligations on the nation as well as the individual.
> 
> I believe the contention is that *he inherited Pakistani? citizenship from his parents*, more or less in the same manner that many other Canadians are now discovering can be an extreme liability.


I can find nothing that indicates that is the case. if you can please post the link. At any rate it is still a moot point as he was Canadian born and according to C-24 if you are Canadian born the deportation option (even for dual citizens) is not on the table for acts of treason or international terrorism... you simply go straight to jail.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> I can find nothing that indicates that is the case. if you can please post the link. At any rate it is still a moot point as he was Canadian born and according to C-24 if you are Canadian born the deportation option (even for dual citizens) is not on the table for acts of treason or international terrorism... you simply go straight to jail.


As quoted earlier the Canadian Bar Association submission says exactly the opposite. Specifically that the bill would retroactively allow a minister of the Government (under vaguely defined conditions) to deport a Canadian born citizen who has dual citizenship.
http://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/pdf/14-22-eng.pdf

I share their objections.



> Canadian courts have long recognized that citizenship is not just a status but much more. Severy(sic) citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada”. The Supreme Court has said that “the central thrust of s. 6(1) is against exile and banishment, the purpose of which is the exclusion of membership in the national community.”7 Exile is a prohibited form of punishment and may constitute grave human rights breach.8
> 7 8
> 
> Canada’s citizenship law currently makes only one distinction between citizens – a naturalized Canadian can lose their citizenship if it was obtained by fraud or under false pretenses. This proposal will create a new distinction between Canadians – those who are subject to exile and banishment and those who are not. Fundamentally changing the concept of citizenship to permit the exclusion of those born here, because they have committed an offence and may have a claim to citizenship in another state through a parent or more distant relative, is of very serious concern to the CBA Section. It appears to impose exile as an additional form of punishment.
> _See for example, United States of America v. Cotroni, [1989] 1 SCR 1469 at para 19; United States of America v. Burns, [2001] 1 SCR 283 at para. 41; Canada v. Schmidt, [1987] 1 SCR 500; Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2013 SCC 47 at para 28; Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer), [2002] 3 SCR 519.
> See Article 12.4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force Mar. 23, 1976 (“No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country”). See also Article 9, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (1948) (“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”); Human Rights Committee, General Comment 27, Freedom of movement (Art.12), U.N. Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9 (1999); Ngalula Mpandanjila et al. v. Zaire, Communication No. 138/1983, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2 at 164 (1990) at para 10.
> Page 18 Submission on Bill C-24,
> Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act_
> 
> The CBA Section supports Canada’s tradition of allowing dual citizenship. This tradition is undermined if dual citizens face banishment. It would not matter under what circumstances an individual possesses dual citizenship. These provisions allow for the revocation of citizenship from someone born and raised in Canada, even someone born to generations of Canadians.
> 
> The only criteria would be that they can make a claim to citizenship in another country. Accordingly, the proposed legislation would create four classes of citizens:
> 
> a) Canadian born who do not have another nationality. These “true” citizens would be most secure in their status. There is no mechanism proposed for revoking their citizenship, even if they commit the most egregious crimes against Canada or its people.
> 
> b) Naturalized citizens without another nationality. These would be the equivalent of all naturalized citizens under the current legislation. The only way they could risk losing their citizenship is if it was originally obtained by misrepresentation.
> 
> c) Canadian born citizens with another nationality. Apart from misrepresentation (that would rarely apply to this group), the full range of revocation provisions would apply, including those that might be proposed in the future.
> 
> d) Naturalized citizens with another nationality. These truly “third class” citizens would face the full range of retrospective revocation provisions being proposed, including those that might be proposed in the future.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> As quoted earlier the Canadian Bar Association submission says exactly the opposite. Specifically that the bill would retroactively allow a minister of the Government (under vaguely defined conditions) to deport a Canadian born citizen who has dual citizenship.
> http://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/pdf/14-22-eng.pdf
> 
> I share their objections.


What the CBA does say is:



> It *appears *to impose exile as an additional form of punishment.


They don't know it is just their interpretation of the Bill and they have said as much.

Here is what happened and was said in QP on the subject:



> Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP):
> Mr. Speaker, millions of Canadians have dual citizenship. The minister is creating two classes of citizens with this bill. On one hand, there will be citizens who could have their citizenship arbitrarily revoked. On the other hand, there will be citizens for whom that is not the case.
> Can the minister explain why Canadians such as I, who have dual citizenship, are going to be treated like second-class citizens?
> 
> Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
> Mr. Speaker, the NDP seems to agree that it is okay to revoke an individual's citizenship if it has been fraudulently obtained. They agree with that, but they do not agree that citizenship should be revoked for crimes as serious as treason, espionage, and terrorism. Every NATO country revokes citizenship for those crimes, except for maybe Portugal.
> Why does the NDP not understand how common and necessary this is, and how inevitable it is that the House is going to pass this measure?
> 
> Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP):
> Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Bar Association, UNICEF, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Amnesty International, the Canadian Council for Refugees and many other experts agree that Bill C-24 does not comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or international law.
> They believe that some parts of the bill are unconstitutional. If the Conservatives really want to improve the Citizenship Act, why are they stubbornly ignoring these experts? Why not amend Bill C-24?
> 
> Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
> Mr. Speaker, virtually all Canadians believe that citizenship should be revoked if it was obtained—
> Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
> 
> 
> The Speaker:
> Order, please. Members know that they are supposed to wait until the minister is finished answering the question to applaud. I am sure they will be happy to give him their applause when he is finished answering the question, but we should wait until then.
> The hon. Minister of Immigration.
> 
> Hon. Chris Alexander:
> Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members do not want to listen to us, then we do not understand why they ask questions.
> Canadians are virtually unanimous in accepting that citizenship be revoked when it has been obtained fraudulently, as we already do and have the power to do. It is very popular, under the authority of the Federal Court, that power be expanded to allow citizenship to be revoked when new Canadians have misled us with regard to war crimes that they have committed in the past, or human rights violations that they committed in the past. We consider it completely acceptable that dual nationals should lose their citizenship for treason, for spying, and for terrorism.
> 
> Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP):
> Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty liberal definition of the word “unanimous”.
> The Canadian Bar Association, UNICEF, Amnesty International, and the Canadian Council for Refugees have all raised concerns about this bill. Now the Constitutional Rghts Centre says that it will challenge this in court if the Conservatives let this stand. Will Conservatives stop ramming through a bill that they know is going to be dragged through Canadian courts for years?
> 
> Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
> Mr. Speaker, once again, the members opposite are not listening. The power to revoke citizenship already exists for administrative reasons when it has been fraudulently obtained. Under the new act, we would have the power to revoke it when someone has refused to reveal that they have committed crimes, committed human rights abuses, committed war crimes. And yes, Canadians find it entirely acceptable that we should revoke the citizenship of dual nationals for terrorism, spying, or treason.
> 
> Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP):
> Mr. Speaker, how much bad legislation can one government draft? It seems that for these Conservatives, the sky is the limit.
> Let us enumerate: a Supreme Court pick, rejected; the crime bill is overturned; the Senate reform proposal, ruled unconstitutional. And that was just the spring session.
> Now the Conservatives are stubbornly forging ahead with another unconstitutional bill. Will the Conservatives listen to Canadians, start respecting Canadians' rights, and withdraw this bill?
> 
> Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
> Mr. Speaker, that question speaks to the pitiful quality of opposition criticism and commentary throughout this debate on Bill C-24. We will stand behind a bill if the main opponent to it is the disgraced ideological former lawyer of the Khadr family.
> 
> Citizenship and Immigration
> 
> Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP):
> Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration took evasive action after being asked about the constitutionality of his immigration bill. He refused to answer the question, but he did manage to make an unrelated reference to the “disgraced ideological former lawyer of the Khadr family”.
> Could the minister tell us how his latest smear job is even remotely relevant to the constitutionality of Bill C-24?
> 
> Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
> Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that we were given a strong mandate as a government to reinforce the value of Canadian citizenship, and citizenship is based on allegiance.
> Liberals had 13 years to try to sort these issues with backlogs. New Democrats have not had the chance, and if all goes well, they will never have it, but Canadians think it is absolutely legitimate for dual nationals who have committed acts of treason, of terrorism, of espionage to forfeit their Canadian citizenship.
> That is a violation of—
> 
> The Speaker:
> The hon. member for Davenport.
> 
> Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP):
> Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that this bill proposes new powers to deport a Canadian-born citizen to a country to which they have no connection. This is nonsensical, and it is most likely unconstitutional.
> The hon. member knows there is a public outcry and he knows people are asking to compromise, yet he stubbornly steams ahead, ignoring all criticism.
> Why did the government turn down every single suggestion put forward to try to fix this bill?
> 
> Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
> Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that the member opposite is lost in the thicket of his own ideology. There is absolutely no new provision in this bill to deport or to strip the citizenship of Canadian citizens who have only one nationality.
> *It is offensive for the members opposite to be drawing a false distinction between who are naturalized Canadians and those who are Canadian born. The law applies to them equally, and we will continue to take our advice from lawyers who know the difference between a removal and a revocation, which the lawyer he mentioned clearly does not.*
> 
> Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP):
> Mr. Speaker, the minister no longer knows what to say to salvage his credibility.
> A number of experts, including the Canadian Bar Association, believe that the citizenship bill is unconstitutional. Yesterday, in a CBC interview, the minister dismissed the criticism, saying that Bill C-24 is similar to what is being done in other NATO countries, but what does NATO have to do with a debate on access to Canadian citizenship? It is completely ridiculous.
> Will our fundamental rights in Canada now depend on the mood of our NATO allies?
> 
> Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
> Mr. Speaker, what does NATO have to do with this debate? Our allies and partners think it is important to show allegiance to their system of law and their country.
> Canadians also think that is important. That is why we have a citizenship bill that will strengthen the value of citizenship and protect us from terrorists, traitors and spies.
> It is high time that the NDP realized that these people exist, that they pose a threat and that we have to take action to deal with those threats.
> 
> Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP):
> Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, the minister had to apologize to an immigration consultant whose name he unfairly dragged through the mud. The minister also attacked the Canadian Bar Association for its position on Bill C-24, and yesterday, he went after Toronto constitutional expert Rocco Galati, who was another victim of the minister's mood swings.
> Why is the minister ignoring or attacking everyone who does not agree with him? Does he not realize that this attitude, which is typical of the Conservatives, is completely ridiculous and inappropriate?
> 
> Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
> Mr. Speaker, the real question is how the NDP can justify defending terrorism, treason and espionage as a cornerstone of our citizenship. How can the NDP say that these people should keep their citizenship, even if they are dual citizens? We will not accept that.
> Canadians have been clear in this regard, and we do not think that the few lawyers who expressed an opinion on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association speak for the lawyers of this country. Most Canadians agree that we must protect the value of Canadian citizenship and allegiance to the Crown and this country.


So the Minister is not being totally clear, it was my understanding that Canadian born dual citizens are not subject to the new provisions.

Even the CBA is not sure. The nitty gritty will come out as C-24 works its way through Committee.

Going to be "fun" in the Fall.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> What the CBA does say is:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't know it is just their interpretation of the Bill and they have said as much.
> 
> Here is what happened and was said in QP on the subject:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Minister is not being totally clear, it was my understanding that Canadian born dual citizens are not subject to the new provisions.
> 
> Even the CBA is not sure. The nitty gritty will come out as C-24 works its way through Committee.
> 
> Going to be "fun" in the Fall.


If they can't figure it out for sure, then it is indeed very badly written legislation and that portion of it should be scrapped forthwith.

Still given the con history of deception, I'll take the CBA's best guess over the cons claimed intent any day of the week.


----------



## fjnmusic

eMacMan said:


> If they can't figure it out for sure, then it is indeed very badly written legislation and that portion of it should be scrapped forthwith.
> 
> Still given the con history of deception, I'll take the CBA's best guess over the cons claimed intent any day of the week.


And what do we pay these guys again?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> And what do we pay these guys again?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What the hell is that supposed to mean or is any way relevant to the discussion at hand?

So much for wanting to have an adult informed/educated discussion about anything political.

Sorry fjnmusic, it seems you only want to have that kind of discussion when your back is up against a wall, i.e., "Please don't shoot me, let's talk about this."

Otherwise all bets are off.


----------



## Macfury

I've been pretty silent here simply because I see the situation exactly as you do. Not much point in even discussing things with people who insist that any terms of reference must be vetted by all cultures of the world.




screature said:


> What the hell is that supposed to mean or is any way relevant to the discussion at hand?
> 
> So much for wanting to have an adult informed/educated discussion about anything political.
> 
> Sorry fjnmusic, it seems you only want to have that kind of discussion when your back is up against a wall, i.e., "Please don't shoot me, let's talk about this."
> 
> Otherwise all bets are off.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> What the hell is that supposed to mean or is any way relevant to the discussion at hand?
> 
> So much for wanting to have an adult informed/educated discussion about anything political.
> 
> Sorry fjnmusic, it seems you only want to have that kind of discussion when your back is up against a wall, i.e., "Please don't shoot me, let's talk about this."
> 
> Otherwise all bets are off.


Cool your jets, screature. We're currently talking about the legislation and my concern is, for what these guys are getting paid, you'd think they could come up with a clear and coherent bill to make its way through parliament. If two legal experts read the same legislation and come to opposite conclusions, then there's something seriously wrong.

That's what the hell that is supposed to mean. Pay attention and follow the thread. Maybe try reducing your caffeine intake. You seem a little jumpy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> If two legal experts read the same legislation and come to opposite conclusions, then there's something seriously wrong.[/URL]


It's not legislation. It's still in the formative stage.

There may also, however, be something seriously wrong with the other two parties who are confused.


----------



## fjnmusic

From a Wikipedia entry on Omar Khadr: Omar Khadr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> In a post-interrogation report, Canadian intelligence authorities had initially determined that Khadr had little knowledge of his father's alleged activities, since "he was out playing or simply not interested".[20] The stipulation of facts document,[21] which Khadr signed as part of his plea-agreement with the prosecution held that Khadr had "extensive firsthand knowledge" of his father's supportive role in al- Qaeda operations.[22] On September 29, 2012 Khadr was repatriated to Canada. He will serve the remainder of his sentence in Canadian custody.[23] Under Canadian law he was eligible for parole in mid-2013.[24]
> 
> In 2013 as part of an ongoing 20 million Dollar civil suit against Canada, Khadr said: "I have no memory at all of that day or anything at all about a grenade being thrown at any U.S. soldiers," that the plea agreement was "constructed by the U.S. government in its entirety," and that he had signed it only to escape the "continued abuse and torture" at Guantanamo Bay.


According to his own words in the plea bargain, which are the only thing available for his conviction since there were no other living witnesses, Khadr had "extensive firsthand knowledge" of his father's supportive role in al-Qaeda operations. Later he denies any memory of the events of that day. Since his testimony is so crucial to his conviction, and since he lied—either the first time admitting knowledge or the second time admitting ignorance—his memory is in question. Those who are skeptical of his innocence will say that he is lying the second time and telling truth the first time; those who are skeptical of his guilt will say exactly the opposite. The one thing they have in common is that he lied at some point, and they will both be right. This case is much like Schrodinger's cat, or perhaps The Lady or the Tyger; the answer depends much more on the person reading the story than the actual man in prison. Either way, he is a liar.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> It's not legislation. It's still in the formative stage.
> 
> There may also, however, be something seriously wrong with the other two parties who are confused.


There may indeed. And my apologies: _proposed_ legislation.


----------



## fjnmusic

Joshua Claus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now here's a guy whose name hasn't come up much in the discussion so far, if at all. And yet, his character would certainly be relevant, don't you think?


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Cool your jets, screature. We're currently talking about the legislation and my concern is, for what these guys are getting paid, you'd think they could come up with a clear and coherent bill to make its way through parliament. If two legal experts read the same legislation and come to opposite conclusions, then there's something seriously wrong.
> 
> That's what the hell that is supposed to mean. *Pay attention and follow the thread.* Maybe try reducing your caffeine intake. You seem a little jumpy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Really? Seriously? You are the one taking things off course as you have a penchant for...

Sorry no you are the jumpy one. Maybe a little more ghanja will help.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Really? Seriously? You are the one taking things off course as you have a penchant for...
> 
> Sorry no you are the jumpy one. Maybe a little more ghanja will help.


Nice comeback, eh. Have a snort yourself.  :clap:


----------



## BigDL

*Ahhhhh! The Joys of EhMac*

Well we descended into the rational, reason bases, dispassionate mud slinging personal attack, that passes for discourse here at EhMac.

It is little wonder many citizens have left or seldom visit here.

Please debate the issue(s) with facts. Remember when mud slinging you are already losing ground.

If you haven't any new facts that form the bases of an argument to refute any opposing facts then please attend the STFU Universe. 

Please do not allow your emotion to rule you, even if emotion, not reason, is at the base of your argument.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> It's not legislation. It's still in the formative stage.
> 
> There may also, however, be something seriously wrong with the other two parties who are confused.


Hardly the formative stage. Well past the point where the con-Meißters will allow any amendments or other changes.

OTOH as the cons claimed in committee hearings to have been unaware of Peter Hoggs excellent Charter related submission on the FATCA portion of bill C-31, it seems very likely they have not read the CBAs bill C-24 submission either.


----------



## Macfury

This is extremely funny coming from you, BigDL, the guy who can't stop himself from gibbering and mudslinging to save his own life! 



BigDL said:


> Well we descended into the rational, reason bases, dispassionate mud slinging personal attack, that passes for discourse here at EhMac.
> 
> It is little wonder many citizens have left or seldom visit here.
> 
> Please debate the issue(s) with facts. Remember when mud slinging you are already losing ground.
> 
> If you haven't any new facts that form the bases of an argument to refute any opposing facts then please attend the STFU Universe.
> 
> Please do not allow your emotion to rule you, even if emotion, not reason, is at the base of your argument.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Nice comeback, eh. Have a snort yourself.  :clap:


Seriously, what's your interest in trying to revive the thread over and over? You believe that it is too difficult to define terrorism or acts of terrorism and as a result can't being yourself to call Khadr a terrorist. Are you just hoping for others to adopt your own sense of ambiguity and confusion?


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> This is extremely funny coming from you, BigDL, the guy who can't stop himself from gibbering and mudslinging to save his own life!


Yep, check his sig line as a prime example of not practicing what you preach.


----------



## Macfury

I was laughing at that as he came here to deliver his dour little sermon! It's so much a part of his personality that he didn't even think to check his sig line before he rose to the pulpit.



SINC said:


> Yep, check his sig line as a prime example of not practicing what you preach.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Seriously, what's your interest in trying to revive the thread over and over? You believe that it is too difficult to define terrorism or acts of terrorism and as a result can't being yourself to call Khadr a terrorist. Are you just hoping for others to adopt your own sense of ambiguity and confusion?


I just provided a very workable definition, one you might actually agree with. Why not just read it and provide some kind of response instead of being so dismissive? And if you're no longer interested in this thread, why do you keep coming here to complain about it? Believe it or not, I might be looking for a response from someone other than you, Mister Negative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Your definition obviously didn't intrigue or engage anyone.

And I hadn't remotely expected you wanted a response from me. I just don't deal in foggy ambiguity.




fjnmusic said:


> I just provided a very workable definition, one you might actually agree with. Why not just read it and provide some kind of response instead of being so dismissive? And if you're no longer interested in this thread, why do you keep coming here to complain about it? Believe it or not, I might be looking for a response from someone other than you, Mister Negative.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Your definition obviously didn't intrigue or engage anyone.
> 
> And I hadn't remotely expected you wanted a response from me. I just don't deal in foggy ambiguity.


You can be so obtuse. You should read before you comment on something you obviously haven't looked at. And it's certainly not my definition. 

http://www.terrorism-research.com


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

yes, I have read your link the first time you posted it. What difference does it make? Why would it interest me if someone committing violence doesn't consider themselves a terrorist or doesn't consider themselves to be evil?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> yes, I have read your link the first time you posted it. What difference does it make? Why would it interest me if someone committing violence doesn't consider themselves a terrorist or doesn't consider themselves to be evil?


Perhaps I wasn't posting it for you, since it's pretty obvious your views will never change. Your contribution seems to be to knock down what other people say and pat yourself on the back for how obviously right you are about everything rather than put forward any ideas yourself. Kind of boring to be honest, which is why hoping to hear from one of the other people who still frequent these forums. 

Incidentally, this is a picture of Omar Khadr at the time of his capture. He was still alive, but barely.









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eMacMan

fjnmusic said:


> Perhaps I wasn't posting it for you, since it's pretty obvious your views will never change. Your contribution seems to be to knock down what other people say and pat yourself on the back for how obviously right you are about everything rather than put forward any ideas yourself. Kind of boring to be honest, which is why hoping to hear from one of the other people who still frequent these forums.
> 
> Incidentally, this is a picture of Omar Khadr at the time of his capture. He was still alive, but barely.
> View attachment 47282
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Interesting those look like exit wounds, which would support the original testimony that they found him cowering under cover and shot him twice in the back. As opposed to the revised testimony that said he was reaching for a gun or grenade and they shot him twice in the chest.


----------



## Macfury

Clearly you were posting it for eMacMan. 




fjnmusic said:


> Perhaps I wasn't posting it for you, since it's pretty obvious your views will never change. Your contribution seems to be to knock down what other people say and pat yourself on the back for how obviously right you are about everything rather than put forward any ideas yourself. Kind of boring to be honest, which is why hoping to hear from one of the other people who still frequent these forums.


----------



## fjnmusic

What struck me about this photo was 1) how young the "enemy combatant" was at the time, and 2) how he resembles a victim a great deal more than a perpetrator. After this ordeal and having being fixed up by US medics, he was often hung by his hands from a doorway, which would have been excruciatingly painful with those chest wounds. Also, he became blind in his left eye due to the shrapnel from the grenade lobbed at him, not the other way around. And despite all the torture and abuse by his captors, notably Joshua Claus, including being defecated on, he still became a model prisoner to this day. Doesn't sound like the makings of a terrorist to me. Entirely possible they got the wrong man and have now taken away over half of his life without even charging him with a crime for the first decade. Yup, that military justice is sure something to be proud of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eMacMan

fjnmusic said:


> What struck me about this photo was 1) how young the "enemy combatant" was at the time, and 2) how he resembles a victim a great deal more than a perpetrator. After this ordeal and having being fixed up by US medics, he was often hung by his hands from a doorway, which would have been excruciatingly painful with those chest wounds. Also, he became blind in his left eye due to the shrapnel from the grenade lobbed at him, not the other way around. And despite all the torture and abuse by his captors, notably Joshua Claus, including being defecated on, he still became a model prisoner to this day. Doesn't sound like the makings of a terrorist to me. Entirely possible they got the wrong man and have now taken away over half of his life without even charging him with a crime for the first decade. Yup, that military justice is sure something to be proud of.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So the wounds are likely shrapnel. Not seeing any bullet entry wounds to the chest, so the original report that he was shot twice in the back still seems the more likely of the two versions. The two reports agree that he was shot twice, the difference is; Was it to his chest or back?


----------



## fjnmusic

eMacMan said:


> So the wounds are likely shrapnel. Not seeing any bullet entry wounds to the chest, so the original report that he was shot twice in the back still seems the more likely of the two versions. The two reports agree that he was shot twice, the difference is; Was it to his chest or back?


Well, they're pretty big holes for bullet entry wounds. The picture is from the Omar Khadr entry on Wikipedia, with a reasonably detailed description of his capture, including the remembrances of some of the American soldiers who were there. Sounds like there were plenty if grenades flying in both directions that day, not to mention gunfire and other dangers.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

If he was shot after lobbing the grenade, what difference does it make?



fjnmusic said:


> What struck me about this photo was 1) how young the "enemy combatant" was at the time, and 2) how he resembles a victim a great deal more than a perpetrator. After this ordeal and having being fixed up by US medics, he was often hung by his hands from a doorway, which would have been excruciatingly painful with those chest wounds. Also, he became blind in his left eye due to the shrapnel from the grenade lobbed at him, not the other way around. And despite all the torture and abuse by his captors, notably Joshua Claus, including being defecated on, he still became a model prisoner to this day. Doesn't sound like the makings of a terrorist to me. Entirely possible they got the wrong man and have now taken away over half of his life without even charging him with a crime for the first decade. Yup, that military justice is sure something to be proud of.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> If he was shot after lobbing the grenade, what difference does it make?


What difference it makes is that nobody actually saw him lob the grenade, nor does he have any memory of doing it himself. They shot him because he was crouched down, in pain no doubt, and might have been going to grab a weapon of some sort. That the American soldier was killed by a grenade blast is not in doubt; the identity of the person who threw it was what was in question. If the military was so sure it was him, why didn't they charge him right away instead of waiting ten years? Simple: they weren't sure, but they sure as hell needed a scapegoat, not to mention a reason for detaining a Canadian citizen in Gitmo for over ten years without charging him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

How does that photo demonstrate that either one story or the other is true?


----------



## CubaMark

fjnmusic said:


> What difference it makes is that nobody actually saw him lob the grenade, nor does he have any memory of doing it himself.


fjnmusic, these and other details that have cast doubt on the U.S. version of events have been presented (over and over) in this thread. It doesn't matter - people here have made up their minds that this kid was an evil mastermind on the level of Pol Pot and got what he deserved.

The lack of compassion for Khadr's situation shown by some members has been... disappointing.


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> fjnmusic, these and other details that have cast doubt on the U.S. version of events have been presented (over and over) in this thread. It doesn't matter - people here have made up their minds that this kid was an evil mastermind on the level of Pol Pot and got what he deserved.
> 
> The lack of compassion for Khadr's situation shown by some members has been... disappointing.


Well, it certainly speaks volumes about the people with that viewpoint, doesn't it? I think half the problem is that "terrorism" has come to mean whatever someone wants it to mean, as opposed to the targeted, planned and very political practice of killing a selection of civilians in order to get the media's attention. When the word is extended to describe a 15 year old casualty who might've some day grown up to become a terrorist (or might not), we end up with exactly what we were looking for: a scapegoat. And then we must invent a history that makes it clear the guy was a threat, or we are forced to admit that we sanctioned the torture and near murder of a child for the sake of an ideology.

As for, Cuba, Mark, I do look forward to seeing the other side of it—literally. We will be spending a week in July in Varadaros. Ain't never been there, but the brochure looks nice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> How does that photo demonstrate that either one story or the other is true?


It doesn't. It doesn't need to. It's a reminder that he is human for all those who think of him as a monster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> *Well, it certainly speaks volumes about the people with that viewpoint, doesn't it?*


You see, there is where you are making accusations about me and others who do not share your viewpoint as being somehow inferior, and that is uncalled for Frank.

I believe just as strongly as you do, that you are as wrong as you think I am, but I have yet to make any similar statements about you or others who share your opinion.

After all, this thread is now not so much about Omar Khadr, as it is about differing opinions regarding his actions. I think he is guilty and was old enough to make a decision to intentionally harm someone by his direct actions, while you don't. 

Trying to play the compassion card is an empty accusation.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> You see, there is where you are making accusations about me and others who do not share your viewpoint as being somehow inferior, and that is uncalled for Frank.
> 
> I believe just as strongly as you do, that you are as wrong as you think I am, but I have yet to make any similar statements about you or others who share your opinion.
> 
> After all, this thread is now not so much about Omar Khadr, as it is about differing opinions regarding his actions. I think he is guilty and was old enough to make a decision to intentionally harm someone by his direct actions, while you don't.
> 
> Trying to play the compassion card is an empty accusation.


You are reading "speaks volumes" as a negative aspersion, Don. It is a phrase that does not say anything specific about anyone. My rants speak volumes as well, and one might very well see me as naive regarding a possible terrorist's intents. This is what dialogue is about, and I thank you for not snooping to the level of insulting one another. I apologize if I have insulted you in any way.

I agree that Khadr at 15 was old enough to make a decision about whether to intentionally harm someone and face the consequences if his actions. I just believe there is a great deal of uncertainty about the events of that day and that a "confession" obtained through torture should be inadmissible in court. Sometimes innocent people go to jail and sometimes guilty people go free, but every one is entitled to a fair trial. This trial was anything but fair. I can't blame Khadr for adopting a guilty plea considering the living conditions at Gitmo, whether he was actually guilty or not. But those who want to see him continue to he punished after he has served his time....well these people simply do jot understand what incarceration and rehabilitation are for. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> It doesn't. It doesn't need to. It's a reminder that he is human for all those who think of him as a monster.


As SINC noted about your other post, the judgmental nature of this post is unwarranted. Who here has said Khadr is a monster? Why are you unable to believe that others here see Khadr as human? Why do you believe that you are in a position to "remind" them of something they already know?



fjnmusic said:


> But those who want to see him continue to he punished after he has served his time....well these people simply do jot understand what incarceration and rehabilitation are for.


Who are "these people"? Who has suggested that he be punished after serving his time?


----------



## BigDL

fjnmusic said:


> You are reading "speaks volumes" as a negative aspersion, Don. It is a phrase that does not say anything specific about anyone. My rants speak volumes as well, and one might very well see me as naive regarding a possible terrorist's intents. This is what dialogue is about, and I thank you for not snooping to the level of insulting one another. I apologize if I have insulted you in any way.
> 
> I agree that Khadr at 15 was old enough to make a decision about whether to intentionally harm someone and face the consequences if his actions. I just believe there is a great deal of uncertainty about the events of that day and that a "confession" obtained through torture should be inadmissible in court. Sometimes innocent people go to jail and sometimes guilty people go free, but every one is entitled to a fair trial. This trial was anything but fair. I can't blame Khadr for adopting a guilty plea considering the living conditions at Gitmo, whether he was actually guilty or not. But those who want to see him continue to he punished after he has served his time....well these people simply do jot understand what incarceration and rehabilitation are for.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I must say I do applaud your posts. You inform members here of your opinion(s) and post the facts that informed your opinion. 

Other here may not detail any facts but may share their opinion and link other opinions that they agree or strongly agree with.

Then there are what I refer to as the "sideswipers." 

The sideswipers take a statement and put an interpretation that any reasonable person would never come to. If the poster tries to clarify the intent of the statement then the sideswiper has achieved his/her goal. Knock you off topic and into the ditch.

If a sideswiper can get a poster into the ditch and muddy "them up"...well so much the better, even better still, if the sideswiper can have the target poster frustrated enough to fling mud back, then the sideswiper is in the bonus round. The next step for the sideswiper is to blame the poster for intolerable behaviour and then accuse the poster of being a poor citizen of this land.

I must say I do appreciate the clarity of your posts. 

I am pleased with the information that you and others have provided here. I have given this issue far more consideration than I other wise might have.


----------



## SINC

^ 

So says the sideswiper who use his sig to sideswipe his favourite target. Hypocrisy much?


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> ^
> 
> So says the sideswiper who use his sig to sideswipe his favourite target. Hypocrisy much?


I love it. BigDL digs his own grave with his tongue.


----------



## fjnmusic

BigDL said:


> I must say I do applaud your posts. You inform members here of your opinion(s) and post the facts that informed your opinion.
> 
> Other here may not detail any facts but may share their opinion and link other opinions that they agree or strongly agree with.
> 
> Then there are what I refer to as the "sideswipers."
> 
> The sideswipers take a statement and put an interpretation that any reasonable person would never come to. If the poster tries to clarify the intent of the statement then the sideswiper has achieved his/her goal. Knock you off topic and into the ditch.
> 
> If a sideswiper can get a poster into the ditch and muddy "them up"...well so much the better, even better still, if the sideswiper can have the target poster frustrated enough to fling mud back, then the sideswiper is in the bonus round. The next step for the sideswiper is to blame the poster for intolerable behaviour and then accuse the poster of being a poor citizen of this land.
> 
> I must say I do appreciate the clarity of your posts.
> 
> I am pleased with the information that you and others have provided here. I have given this issue far more consideration than I other wise might have.


Thanks, BigDL. I appreciate that. As for the sideswipers? Haters gonna hate. Or if you prefer, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

BigDL said:


> The sideswipers take a statement and put an interpretation that any reasonable person would never come to. If the poster tries to clarify the intent of the statement then the sideswiper has achieved his/her goal. Knock you off topic and into the ditch.


Lefty logic fail. If the OP clarifies the intent of his/hers/its post, then they are, in fact, on topic, not off topic.

Try again?

BTW, righty's call the type of person who derails a thread a troll. You will find one in the mirror...


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> Lefty logic fail. If the OP clarifies the intent of his/hers/its post, then they are, in fact, on topic, not off topic.
> 
> Try again?
> 
> BTW, righty's call the type of person who derails a thread a troll. You will find one in the mirror...


What does this have to do with Omar Khadr? Gotcha! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

So, pointing out to a troll that he's a troll is trolling? Fine. I can live with that. Ain't the worst I've been called on these boards...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> So, pointing out to a troll that he's a troll is trolling?


I believe the OP might have thought that such a hackneyed observation was novel and glib.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> I believe the OP might have thought that such a hackneyed observation was novel and glib.


Well, part of the post I actually agreed with. The first two paragraphs & the last two paragraphs make a certain amount of sense (things I have noted myself in the past) and/or express thx. Great. No issues. Kudos are always welcome.

He goes off the tracks with the middle three paragraphs, headed into some far off la-la land. Eliminate that portion of the post & there was nothing to contest, even if it didn't pertain to the thread topic.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Well, part of the post I actually agreed with. The first two paragraphs & the last two paragraphs make a certain amount of sense (things I have noted myself in the past) and/or express thx. Great. No issues. Kudos are always welcome.
> 
> He goes off the tracks with the middle three paragraphs, headed into some far off la-la land. Eliminate that portion of the post & there was nothing to contest, even if it didn't pertain to the thread topic.


If you could only view this topic from la-la land, then things would be different!


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> So, pointing out to a troll that he's a troll is trolling? Fine. I can live with that. Ain't the worst I've been called on these boards...


As long as no one's calling you a hackneyed and glib troll. Or a terrorist troll, no matter what age you are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> As long as no one's calling you a hackneyed and glib troll. *Or a terrorist* troll, *no matter what age you are.*
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That can in fact can be the case. That you think that it is impossible to be so says something about your politics and not about the definition of what it means to be a terrorist.

I guess in your books it is impossible for one to be a 15 or 16 year old murder?

Thank god we have a judicial system and judges in this country and around the world that disagree with you.


----------



## fjnmusic

Murder is a legal term. Is it possible for a 15 year old to kill someone? Certainly? Intentionally? Absolutely, first, second or third degree. Can a murder take place where the murderer is not aware of the consequences if their actions? You bet! Ever read Of Mice and Men? Lennie didn't know what he was doing, but Curley's wife was just as dead as if he did, and George was forced to commit murder himself as the only humane reaction to the situation.

The problem with the Khadr situation is intention. No, I don't think it is likely for a 15 year old to be a terrorist, mostly because he would have had very little experience to that point and terrorism seems to be a much bigger lifelong devotion to a cause, right or wrong. Khadr would have chosen terrorism in the same way I chose to be Roman Catholic—it was never a choice, but rather an assumption. Womb to tomb, baby. Get 'me while they're young.

Was Khadr protecting himself or actively seeking out "bad guys" to throw grenades at. I believe this is not a very simple case. At all. But since Khadr WILL be released at some point, the best bet would be some kind of rehabilitation, a tactic many people on this forum do not seem comfortable with. Buy like it or not, after serving his time, he will be a free man. What kind of a man depends on more than just Mr. Khadr.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Murder is a legal term. Is it possible for a 15 year old to kill someone? Certainly? Intentionally? Absolutely, first, second or third degree. Can a murder take place where the murderer is not aware of the consequences if their actions? You bet! Ever read Of Mice and Men? Lennie didn't know what he was doing, but Curley's wife was just as dead as if he did, and George was forced to commit murder himself as the only humane reaction to the situation.
> 
> The problem with the Khadr situation is intention. *No, I don't think it is likely for a 15 year old to be a terrorist*, mostly because he would have had very little experience to that point and terrorism seems to be a much bigger lifelong devotion to a cause, right or wrong. Khadr would have chosen terrorism in the same way I chose to be Roman Catholic—it was never a choice, but rather an assumption. Womb to tomb, baby. Get 'me while they're young.
> 
> Was Khadr protecting himself or actively seeking out "bad guys" to throw grenades at. I believe this is not a very simple case. At all. But since Khadr WILL be released at some point, the best bet would be some kind of rehabilitation, a tactic many people on this forum do not seem comfortable with. Buy like it or not, after serving his time, he will be a free man. What kind of a man depends on more than just Mr. Khadr.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You entire post is nothing but your own speculation on what poor baby Khadr was or was not cognizant of at his age. 

Personally I was very well cognizant at his age of the difference between life and death (as I had seen plenty of death at that point in my life).

On this point we shall have to disagree as I new plenty of 10 (even 8) year old's in my time who knew exactly what they were doing when they chose to bully/terrorize (which based on your ridiculously broad definition of what constitutes terrorism, bullying should be include) of me...

My god all things seem to have been bright and rosy and IGNORANT in your childhood/view of childhood. 

Personally, mine was not all that bright, rosy or ignorant. 

I had a brother who died of cancer at age 6 when I was 2, so I didn't fully appreciate it at that time, but how many kids do you know who lie awake at night at six years old wondering what it is like to be dead and experience nothing? 

Probably none based on your posts.

But I did and I know there are countless others who did at 6 years old, whether it was due to disease, famine, murder, terrorism, war, natural disaster, etc... let alone being trained to make bombs and *kill *people. (I highly doubt death was an abstract notion to Omar and he was just a babe in the woods as you seem to want to portray him.)

And there was plenty of death in the family following that until I was the age of Khadr and beyond, so trust me, at 15 or 16 I fully understood death and the consequences of ones actions that can lead to death.

By the time I was 12 years old I was probably about as worldly wise as many protected 25 year old's today when it comes to death.

Maybe instead of living in your wilfully small and ignorant glass bubble world view of what one can understand at Khadr's age you should read a little something of just how much can be understood/comprehended by people of his age, even if it is simply what I just told you.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> You entire post is nothing but your own speculation on what poor baby Khadr was or was not cognizant of at his age.
> 
> Personally I was very well cognizant at his age of the difference between life and death (as I had seen plenty of death at that point in my life).
> 
> On this point we shall have to disagree as I new plenty of 10 (even 8) year old's in my time who knew exactly what they were doing when they chose to bully/terrorize (which based on your ridiculously broad definition of what constitutes terrorism, bullying should be include) of me...
> 
> My god all things seem to have been bright and rosy and IGNORANT in your childhood/view of childhood.
> 
> Personally, mine was not all that bright, rosy or ignorant.
> 
> I had a brother who died of cancer at age 6 when I was 2, so I didn't fully appreciate it at that time, but how many kids do you know who lie awake at night at six years old wondering what it is like to be dead and experience nothing?
> 
> Probably none based on your posts.
> 
> But I did and I know there are countless others who did at 6 years old, whether it was due to disease, famine, murder, terrorism, war, natural disaster, etc... let alone being trained to make bombs and *kill *people. (I highly doubt death was an abstract notion to Omar and he was just a babe in the woods as you seem to want to portray him.)
> 
> And there was plenty of death in the family following that until I was the age of Khadr and beyond, so trust me, at 15 or 16 I fully understood death and the consequences of ones actions that can lead to death.
> 
> By the time I was 12 years old I was probably about as worldly wise as many protected 25 year old's today when it comes to death.
> 
> Maybe instead of living in your wilfully small and ignorant glass bubble world view of what one can understand at Khadr's age you should read a little something of just how much can be understood/comprehended by people of his age, even if it is simply what I just told you.


You've got to stop hurling insults every three sentences because just when I am getting interested in what you're saying, you make another assumption about my childhood or my world view and it is off-putting. Not good for conversation. I shall try to look past these assumptions to what you are really saying.

I am sorry to hear about the trauma you've experienced, particularly losing your 6 year old brother when you were only 2. That is hard. I am sorry to hear about the bullying you experienced growing up. Again, that is hard. Believe it or not, I experienced the death of loved ones and bulling as well, so I can relate. Perhaps that is why I am much more likely to call out bullies now, as an adult, whether I see it in kids or adults. Most people should know right from wrong by the time they'e school age, emphasis on SHOULD.

The definition I have put forth on terrorism is from Wikipedia and other sources, not from me. Terrorism as a legal term is not easy to define, as one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter or revolutionary. All depends on which side you're viewing the situation from. Not to mention that when you attack "the terrorists" you may end up inadvertently creating more terrorists, so you have to be careful with that. 

Have you seen the film Captain Phillips? I believe that film was a pretty accurate depiction of the way terrorists work, this time from Somalia. When a person believes in their cause so wholeheartedly that they are willing to kill or die for it, that's when you have a very difficult situation on your hands. Americans are not generally willing to die for a cause, save for soldiers at war, so the prospect of suicide bombers for instance is a kind of logic and self-sacrifice that we westerners simply cannot relate to, no matter how many virgins you get in the afterlife. There is no more formidable enemy than one who has nothing left to lose.

You and I can argue until we're blue in the face as to what kind of person Omar Khadr is or was, or what he was up to, or what kind of person he would have become if he hadn't been caught. I'm guessing a dead person within a few days based on those chest wounds. It doesn't matter. There are international provisions on children's rights in war time, and his rights as a child were clearly violated. Children still have rights no matter what country they are from, whether you and I like it or not. He has now swerved a dozen years of a sentence that he was not charged for for the first ten years, and he will be out one day. It's too late for rehabilitation at that point, so we may wish to consider what we can do to prepare for his reintegration, which will be inevitable. If you saw him at the corner store, how would you react?

Personally. I am a lot more concerned about the release of Vince Li, the man who brutally killed TimMcLean on a bus, back into society. I believe mentally ill people also have rights, but what this man did was savage, and I can see how he would do it again under similar circumstances. You don't have to be a terrorist to represent a danger to society.

Killing of Tim McLean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Terrorism as a legal term is not easy to define, as one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter or revolutionary. All depends on which side you're viewing the situation from.


You keep saying this as though it is something profound. Why should I care if a terrorist sees himself as a freedom fighter? That has no bearing on how the situation affects Canada.



fjnmusic said:


> Have you seen the film Captain Phillips? I believe that film was a pretty accurate depiction of the way terrorists work, this time from Somalia. When a person believes in their cause so wholeheartedly that they are willing to kill or die for it, that's when you have a very difficult situation on your hands.


The terrorists in the film were bullied by their leaders and so poor, frightened and downtrodden that they could not escape. I didn't see a lot of evidence that they believed in any cause except survival. Many terrorists are not in the same position, coming from privileged and educated backgrounds.




fjnmusic said:


> Americans are not generally willing to die for a cause, save for soldiers at war, so the prospect of suicide bombers for instance is a kind of logic and self-sacrifice that we westerners simply cannot relate to, no matter how many virgins you get in the afterlife. There is no more formidable enemy than one who has nothing left to lose.


Sounds like the talk of the frightened during WWII when Japanese suicide bombers were encountered. The US won that one.


----------



## fjnmusic

Me: I see dark grey.
Macfury: It's white.
Me: Now that I look closer, I see several shades of grey and even some black parts.
Macfury: It's white.
Me: Well I'll admit I see some white parts too, but there's so much variation between black and white, so many shades of grey...
Macfury: It's white. The sky is blue, the clouds are white.









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

More like this. I'm having problems with a deer that's eating my vegetable garden. Helpful fjn keeps telling me that although I focus on the head of the deer eating my vegetables, many people never see its head, just the deer's ass as it runs away. To these observers, the deer is primarily an ass, not a head. How does this help to protect my veggie garden? It does not, but fjn seems extraordinarily pleased with his observation.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury has a deer eating stuff from his vegetable garden. It has a white ass. Not a grey ass, not a variegated light grey/charcoal with bits of white ass, just a big white ass. He would blow it away himself if it were in season, but then he'd have to pay a fine and perhaps have to spend some time in jail. And since everyone knows only bad people and terrorists go to jail, he decides against that option. He tries to persuade fjn to kill the deer on his behalf, but fjn, a bit of a white ass himself, responds by saying "not my circus; not my monkeys." They stare at each other in stunned silence for another minute or so and then head off in opposite directions, each no wiser than before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I would gain the wisdom of never consulting fjn about deer asses again. He simply mistakes confusion for deep thought.


----------



## fjnmusic

Just as Macfury mistakes veiled and not-so-veiled insults and criticism for edifying conversation and polite debate. Have a good weekend, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

No mistake! Can I make it any clearer? I'm insinuating that your approach to these matters is a disability, not a superpower!


----------



## fjnmusic

Let it go, Macfury. You're beginning to make an ass of yourself, moreso than the one big white one alluded to in the previous parable, and you appear to have no intention of even trying to play nicely with others. Fine, I really have nothing further to discuss with you on this subject. May you find all the peace and happiness you deserve on your journey.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Let it go, Macfury. You're beginning to make an ass of yourself, moreso than the one big white one alluded to in the previous parable, and you appear to have no intention of even trying to play nicely with others. Fine, I really have nothing further to discuss with you on this subject. May you find all the peace and happiness you deserve on your journey.


I've watched people discuss a point with you until the matter at hand is at least reduced to something that can be addressed in a linear fashion--at which point you attempt to change the entire course of the discussion or suddenly introduce oblique material and observations that don't relate to a discussion in which they've invested some time and energy. You've made it clear to SINC that your point is simply that you wish people to doubt their own opinions as much as you doubt yourself.

I still may comment on what you write from time to time, but I won't expect a response.


----------



## SINC

To be clear, I have no doubt about Khadar's guilt. Having noted that, I have much doubt about fjn's insistance about his innocence. Anyone who wastes that much time defending him has something going on. I am done with this issue.


----------



## fjnmusic

You boys should really watch Twelve Angry Men sometime. It is a story of how one juror gets the other eleven to take a cold hard look at the evidence presented at trial and reconsider their fairly entrenched positions.

For the record, I do not believe Omar Khadr is entirely innocent. But I believe there is a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, and there are some serious considerations about the fairness of his military trial and subsequent plea bargain. Anybody who glosses over those details is disregarding important facts and I would hope they never serve jury duty themselves. To be fair, one must consider all the evidence and not just cherry pick the parts you like. Call me what you will, but at least I try to consider all sides of the issue. 

And on that note, once again, Happy Canada Day long weekend. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Call me what you will, but at least I try to consider all sides of the issue.


Yes, that is what you do. But without the logic and persuasiveness of Juror #8.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Yes, that is what you do. But without the logic and persuasiveness of Juror #8.


Hey! I'm impressed. And which juror would you consider yourself to be most similar to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Hey! I'm impressed. And which juror would you consider yourself to be most similar to?


I would honestly place myself somewhere between #8 and #9. Somewhat skeptical, and willing to be convinced by a strong, logical argument. 

In real life, probably most like Jack Klugman.


----------



## fjnmusic

Well at least we can agree that that was a pretty good piece of film-making. I liked the down time part where No. 6 (Klugman) throws a paper ball, which bounces off the fan and hits No. 9 in the head, who relies, "That was a damn fool thing to do." 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Yep, that's me with the paper ball. And you?


----------



## fjnmusic

Somewhere between No. 8 and No. 3. Which means I relate to all of them a little, but I admire the tenacity of Henry Fonda's character most. The guy with piglet's voice (No. 2) is great when he stands up to No. 3. On a related note, I have an audio tape of Lee J. Cobb (No. 3) doing a great job as Willy Loman. Brilliant actors, all if them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *You've got to stop hurling insults every three sentences *because just when I am getting interested in what you're saying, you make another assumption about my childhood or my world view and it is off-putting. Not good for conversation. I shall try to look past these assumptions to what you are really saying.
> 
> I am sorry to hear about the trauma you've experienced, particularly losing your 6 year old brother when you were only 2. That is hard. I am sorry to hear about the bullying you experienced growing up. Again, that is hard. Believe it or not, I experienced the death of loved ones and bulling as well, so I can relate. Perhaps that is why I am much more likely to call out bullies now, as an adult, whether I see it in kids or adults. Most people should know right from wrong by the time they'e school age, emphasis on SHOULD.
> 
> The definition I have put forth on terrorism is from Wikipedia and other sources, not from me. Terrorism as a legal term is not easy to define, as one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter or revolutionary. All depends on which side you're viewing the situation from. Not to mention that when you attack "the terrorists" you may end up inadvertently creating more terrorists, so you have to be careful with that.
> 
> Have you seen the film Captain Phillips? I believe that film was a pretty accurate depiction of the way terrorists work, this time from Somalia. When a person believes in their cause so wholeheartedly that they are willing to kill or die for it, that's when you have a very difficult situation on your hands. Americans are not generally willing to die for a cause, save for soldiers at war, so the prospect of suicide bombers for instance is a kind of logic and self-sacrifice that we westerners simply cannot relate to, no matter how many virgins you get in the afterlife. There is no more formidable enemy than one who has nothing left to lose.
> 
> You and I can argue until we're blue in the face as to what kind of person Omar Khadr is or was, or what he was up to, or what kind of person he would have become if he hadn't been caught. I'm guessing a dead person within a few days based on those chest wounds. It doesn't matter. There are international provisions on children's rights in war time, and his rights as a child were clearly violated. Children still have rights no matter what country they are from, whether you and I like it or not. He has now swerved a dozen years of a sentence that he was not charged for for the first ten years, and he will be out one day. It's too late for rehabilitation at that point, so we may wish to consider what we can do to prepare for his reintegration, which will be inevitable. If you saw him at the corner store, how would you react?
> 
> Personally. I am a lot more concerned about the release of Vince Li, the man who brutally killed TimMcLean on a bus, back into society. I believe mentally ill people also have rights, but what this man did was savage, and I can see how he would do it again under similar circumstances. You don't have to be a terrorist to represent a danger to society.
> 
> Killing of Tim McLean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


At least according to you I wait for three sentences before insulting you... 

Until you apologize for (the first statement in your post):


> That is really weak even coming from you.


All bets are off because you were the one hurling insults. It must be nice living in your glass house/bubble. Pretending that you exist on some abstract moral high ground.

I presented real life lived experience and all you post back is movie quotes, you did it again just recently. 

How about having the balls to put down the mask and talk about your real life experiences instead of just "book/movie learning". I would be really interested to see if you could do that in a way that is relevant to the discussion at hand.


----------



## fjnmusic

Let it go Screach. I'm on summer holidays now. Have an excellent Sunday evening. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> My god all things seem to have been bright and rosy and IGNORANT in your childhood/view of childhood.


This. Sure seems kind of insulting if you take the words at face value. And as I said, I sympathize with the hardships you revealed in your post. However, I don't believe that means I need to bring up something equally personal or traumatic from my own past, and I don't think you have the right to challenge me to do so. I have experienced plenty, including bullying, including death, though not of a sibling, but certainly of friends and family. It is never easy, and there are no easy answers. If this was a thread titled "Personal Tragedies" I might be more inclined to share that kind of personal information, but I don't think it is necessary or relevant for me to do that here. We are talking about a public figure, a celebrity if you will, a possible terrorist or at least terrorist in the making, although several others and I do not believe he fits the profile very well. 

Ask yourself: what would you have done in his shoes? And before you say, "I would never be in his shoes" (count yourself lucky), imagine, for the sake of argument, that you were accused of something you did not do and realize that the only way out of the situation is to admit that you did it. Would you lie to get out of prison faster? Would you plea bargain? Many times guilty people get smaller sentences through plea bargaining, and innocent people go to jail to serve sentences for crimes they did not commit. In fact, those who protest their innocence often serve very long sentences, even though it may be discovered later on that they actually were innocent. I try to consider the personality and behaviour of the individual when trying to decide as an armchair critic whether they are actually guilty or not. OJ Simpson's narcissism and lack of expressed concern about his wife and children after learning of her death, as evidenced by the Ford Bronco chase with a gun to his head (like a scene from Bkazing Saddles—yes, another movie reference for you) as well as his lack of success finding "the real killers" despite checking every golf course in America, leads me to believe that he was not being entirely honest when he claimed he was "absolutely 100% not guilty." I did watch a documentary where he talks about the trial from his point of view, and though racism certainly seemed evident during the trial, OJ's narcissism overpowers all in my opinion. 

I have never been to prison myself, so I can't really talk about that with any authority. I have friends who have, however, former hockey buddies when I was a kid, who eventually got caught after robbing a bank in their 20's, following a childhood of learning how to drive at the workers compensation board parking lot on stolen cars. You could see the trajectory pretty well from childhood, especially looking back, and one guy was in for manslaughter after the passenger in the car he was driving died. I do not know all if the details, and I'm not sure I want to know. One of the guys I saw years later in a lineup at the bank, ironically, and I offered him a ride home. His arms were like tree trunks. I did not fear him because we never had that sort if relationship. We were old hockey buddies. See, that's the thing: every member of the prison system will be free more or less after time served, and we have to figure out how to help them reintegrate into society. Shunning doesn't seem to work very well. I have yet to see any solutions in this forum as to how we help Omar Khadr to reintegrate after time served. Whether he is actually guilty or not, he has spent at least a dozen years in jail, nearly half his life, and that changes a person.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> I have yet to see any solutions in this forum as to how we help Omar Khadr to reintegrate after time served.


Might that be because so many people have no desire to 'help' him?


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Might that be because so many people have no desire to 'help' him?


That's exactly why, Don. But out he will be at some point. What do you do if he moves into your neighborhood? I mean, I certainly wouldn't hire him as a babysitter, but I would hope I'm not above a "hello" at the corner store. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

And so it begins:

Breaking news . . .

Omar Khadr going to provincial jail

The Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled Omar Khadr’s eight-year sentence should be served in a provincial correctional facility and not a federal penitentiary.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> And so it begins:
> 
> Breaking news . . .
> 
> Omar Khadr going to provincial jail
> 
> The Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled Omar Khadr&#146;s eight-year sentence should be served in a provincial correctional facility and not a federal penitentiary.


So how much time is left? Eight years? Or has part if that already been served? In any event, as far as prisons go, same s**t, different pile. At least in this country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

More here:

Court rules Omar Khadr should be transferred to provincial jail


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> More here:
> 
> Court rules Omar Khadr should be transferred to provincial jail


I'm not sure what his mind set is now that he's an adult and has had plenty of time to build a grudge, but for sure he should have been treated and tried as a child in the first place. It's going to take a lot of rehabilitation to fix him now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> I'm not sure what his mind set is now that he's an adult and has had plenty of time to build a grudge, but for sure he should have been treated and tried as a child in the first place. It's going to take a lot of rehabilitation to fix him now.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


For serious crimes of a heinous nature people under the age of 18 get tried as adults in many modern democracies all the time. 

Why exactly should Khadr be an exception?


----------



## CubaMark

screature said:


> For serious crimes of a heinous nature people under the age of 18 get tried as adults in many modern democracies all the time.
> 
> Why exactly should Khadr be an exception?


*Well, perhaps this is why:*

*Omar Khadr Shouldn't Have Been Charged With War Crimes, Secret U.S. Memo Suggests*

A previously secret memo on CIA involvement in drone killings is casting new doubt on whether the American government had any legal basis to prosecute Canada's Omar Khadr for war crimes.

In fact, Khadr's lawyers argue in new filings to the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review, the document by the Dept. of Justice emphatically rejects any such legal foundation, and say his convictions at Guantanamo Bay should be set aside immediately.

The memo — produced in July 2010 in relation to the drone targeting of U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki — only came to light last month after a court ordered it disclosed in a hard-fought freedom of information case by the New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Specifically, the U.S. Dept. of Defence wanted to know whether CIA agents who operated drones — but who are not part of the military and do not wear uniforms — could be considered "unprivileged belligerents" and therefore be guilty potentially of war crimes.

In the detailed opinion several months before Khadr pleaded guilty before a widely maligned military commission, the office of legal counsel in the Dept. of Justice concluded war criminality turns on a person's actions, not on factors such as whether the person is officially part of an army or wears a uniform.

"That completely blows away one of the major prongs of the government's theory in all these Guantanamo cases," Sam Morison, Khadr's Pentagon-based lawyer, said in an interview Wednesday.​
(HuffPo)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *Well, perhaps this is why:*


That has nothing to do with screature's question--why can't he be tried as an adult?


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> That has nothing to do with screature's question--why can't he be tried as an adult?


Well, if you could take the time to read the article cited above:

_“In summary,* the eight-year sentence imposed on Khadr in the United States could only have been available as a youth sentence under Canadian law*, and not an adult one, had the offences been committed in Canada.”

Lawyer Nate Whitling, a defence lawyer working with Edney, says the decision is another setback to the federal government.

“The court clearly rejected their interpretation,” said Whitling.

Edney said the appeal court decision will put Khadr into provincial corrections system and out of the hands of the “hostile” Harper government.

“This government chose to misinterpret the International Transfer of Offenders Act place Omar in a maximum-security prison where he spent the first 7 months in solitary confinement instead treating him as a youth as required under both Canadian and international law,” said Edney.

“This is a long series of judgments against this intractable, hostile government.

“It would rather pander to politics than to apply the rule of law fairly to each and every Canadian citizen.”​_


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> Well, if you could take the time to read the article cited above:
> 
> _“In summary,* the eight-year sentence imposed on Khadr in the United States could only have been available as a youth sentence under Canadian law*, and not an adult one, had the offences been committed in Canada.”
> 
> Lawyer Nate Whitling, a defence lawyer working with Edney, says the decision is another setback to the federal government.
> 
> “The court clearly rejected their interpretation,” said Whitling.
> 
> Edney said the appeal court decision will put Khadr into provincial corrections system and out of the hands of the “hostile” Harper government.
> 
> “This government chose to misinterpret the International Transfer of Offenders Act place Omar in a maximum-security prison where he spent the first 7 months in solitary confinement instead treating him as a youth as required under both Canadian and international law,” said Edney.
> 
> “This is a long series of judgments against this intractable, hostile government.
> 
> “It would rather pander to politics than to apply the rule of law fairly to each and every Canadian citizen.”​_


Clearly they are mixing apples and oranges. Khadr was not tried in Canada and he *could* have been tried as adult if the Crown in Canada decided to do so...


----------



## CubaMark

screature said:


> Clearly they are mixing apples and oranges. Khadr was not tried in Canada and he *could* have been tried as adult if the Crown in Canada decided to do so...





> The appeal court clearly rejected the federal government argument that the single, eight-year sentence given Khadr in a 2010 plea bargain was eight years for each of five crimes, to be served at the same time.
> 
> The federal approach “alters and inflates the single sentence imposed by the Convening Authority ...” says the judgment,
> 
> “This is not consistent with reality ... Nor is it required by the laws of Canada.”
> 
> *A single, eight-year sentence for multiple crimes including murder, must be considered a youth sentence, as an adult sentence would be much longer, the appeal court said.
> 
> “In summary, the eight-year sentence imposed on Khadr in the United States could only have been available as a youth sentence under Canadian law, and not an adult one,* had the offences been committed in Canada.”
> 
> Lawyer Nate Whitling, a defence lawyer working with Edney, says the decision is another setback to the federal government.
> 
> “The court clearly rejected their interpretation,” said Whitling.


*I don't see how it can be stated any more clearly...*.


----------



## Macfury

That's a pack of nonsense. His sentence was the result of a plea deal. Whether that length conforms to what might be expected of an adult murder charge is irrelevant.




CubaMark said:


> Well, if you could take the time to read the article cited above:
> 
> _“In summary,* the eight-year sentence imposed on Khadr in the United States could only have been available as a youth sentence under Canadian law*, and not an adult one, had the offences been committed in Canada.”
> 
> Lawyer Nate Whitling, a defence lawyer working with Edney, says the decision is another setback to the federal government.
> 
> “The court clearly rejected their interpretation,” said Whitling.
> 
> Edney said the appeal court decision will put Khadr into provincial corrections system and out of the hands of the “hostile” Harper government.
> 
> “This government chose to misinterpret the International Transfer of Offenders Act place Omar in a maximum-security prison where he spent the first 7 months in solitary confinement instead treating him as a youth as required under both Canadian and international law,” said Edney.
> 
> “This is a long series of judgments against this intractable, hostile government.
> 
> “It would rather pander to politics than to apply the rule of law fairly to each and every Canadian citizen.”​_


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> *I don't see how it can be stated any more clearly...*.


It was an appeal court decision, we shall see if the ruling stands up in a higher court.

Appeal court judges get it wrong frequently.

They are basically judicial bureaucrats pushing files through the system, once they are done ruling it is one less case they have to care about and it becomes the concern and work load for someone else and they are happy to be done with it, right or wrong.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> That's a pack of nonsense. *His sentence was the result of a plea deal. Whether that length conforms to what might be expected of an adult murder charge is irrelevant.*


Exactly.


----------



## CubaMark

screature said:


> Exactly.


So you're okay with finding an exception -in your minds- because the sentence was a plea deal, but you're not at all perturbed by the fact that this plea deal was made -a confession was made- for the sole reason of getting the hell out of Guantanamo Bay prison, to potentially have hope that he might someday find a way to attempt to live a life outside of prison?

A plea deal which was the lesser of two evils - the other being life (death) in prison for a crime he says - and which much evidence also appears to show - he did not commit?

You folks have some interesting "logic" going on here....


----------



## Macfury

A minute ago you were arguing that the length of the sentence made Khadr a child offender. Now you're arguing about whether or not Khadr should have made a plea deal at all. What kind of logic is that?



CubaMark said:


> So you're okay with finding an exception -in your minds- because the sentence was a plea deal, but you're not at all perturbed by the fact that this plea deal was made -a confession was made- for the sole reason of getting the hell out of Guantanamo Bay prison, to potentially have hope that he might someday find a way to attempt to live a life outside of prison?
> 
> A plea deal which was the lesser of two evils - the other being life (death) in prison for a crime he says - and which much evidence also appears to show - he did not commit?
> 
> You folks have some interesting "logic" going on here....


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> So you're okay with finding an exception -in your minds- because the sentence was a plea deal, but you're not at all perturbed by the fact that this plea deal was made -*a confession was made- for the sole reason of getting the hell out of Guantanamo Bay prison*, to potentially have hope that he might someday find a way to attempt to live a life outside of prison?
> 
> A plea deal which was the lesser of two evils - the other being life (death) in prison for a crime he says - *and which much evidence also appears to show *- he did not commit?
> 
> You folks have some interesting "logic" going on here....


Personal logic aside, we ought to be able to discuss this politely. That noted, I have two doubts with your morst recent post, Mark.

First, I have seen zero evidence that this is in fact true. Could it simply be a strategic move to reduce punishment?

Again, there is no direct evidence as you acknowledge by the words "appears to show".

Those are the things that keep me convinced the man is as guilty today as the teen was back then.


----------



## eMacMan

I am sure the Harpolites can and probably will incinerate big wad of taxpayer cash appealing this decision. Even so I really don't see what difference it makes where he serves out his sentence. I do hate to see the PM wasting money pursuing what has clearly become some sort of personal vendetta. 

Even though this government seems completely unfamiliar with the concept of a balanced budget I would still suggest the money can be put to much better use.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> I am sure the Harpolites can and probably will incinerate big wad of taxpayer cash appealing this decision. Even so I really don't see what difference it makes where he serves out his sentence. I do hate to see the PM wasting money pursuing what has clearly become some sort of personal vendetta.
> 
> *Even though this government seems completely unfamiliar with the concept of a balanced budget* I would still suggest the money can be put to much better use.


:lmao: 

The budget is essentially balanced now. Flaherty put aside a contingency fund (of I believe $30B) in his last budget in case of further international economic turmoil, otherwise the books are balanced right now and they will be next year in full with a projected surplus to pay down our debt.

Read a little. 

You really are a tired old man who has a personal vendetta of your own and in another thread you completely and deliberately posted just to spite me. 

At least when I talk to you about FATCA I do it in the appropriate thread and don't hunt you down and ambush you like like the troll that you are.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> :lmao:
> 
> The budget is essentially balanced now. Flaherty put aside a contingency fund (of I believe $30B) in his last budget in case of further international economic turmoil, otherwise the books are balanced right now and they will be next year in full with a projected surplus to pay down our debt.
> 
> Read a little.


In that case, maybe you had best define "balanced." 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> In that case, maybe you had best define "balanced."
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Uhh, it is not hard. Expenses and revenues equal each other. Duh.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Uhh, it is not hard. Expenses and revenues equal each other. Duh.


Yeah, but that's not how people in Sanfrankakistan define it. You can keep your crazy logical definitions to yourself.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Yeah, but that's not how people in Sanfrankakistan define it. You can keep your crazy logical definitions to yourself.


Sorry I don't know what came over me. Mea Culpa.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Uhh, it is not hard. Expenses and revenues equal each other. Duh.


Uh huh. Like when Ralph Klein declared not only that Alberta had balanced budgets and then budget surpluses, and then proclaimed loudly to the rest of the nation that our debt was paid in full, not bothering to mention at the time that the government still owed at least 6 billion dollars to the unfunded liability for teachers, let alone whatever other debts it was hiding. It certainly ain't balanced anymore. 

Does your definition of "balanced" and that of your beloved Harper government include debt servicing, or do you suppose that Canada is no longer in debt? That's what I mean by defining your terms. Duh.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Yeah, but that's not how people in Sanfrankakistan define it. You can keep your crazy logical definitions to yourself.


That's pretty insulting for a guy who was attempting to be nice only a few short days ago. My real world includes all actual debts, not just the ones the government feels inclined to tell you about.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> That's pretty insulting for a guy who was attempting to be nice only a few short days ago. My real world includes all actual debts, not just the ones the government feels inclined to tell you about.


I wasn't attempting to be nice--it's just your shifting perception of who I am.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I wasn't attempting to be nice--it's just your shifting perception of who I am.


PM's aside, I am not surprised in the least. To you, being right is more important than being kind and probably always will be. So good luck with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I am almost always right and almost always kind--they aren't qualities at odds with each other. However, I tend to enjoy the company best of people who have thick skins, and argue vigorously, without compromise. Seems you're easily offended when someone has a little good-natured fun at your expense and label that as unkindness. However, your own sanctimony, judgmental posturing and self-congratulation seems to fly beneath your personal radar. It's an incredible world of contradictions!



fjnmusic said:


> PM's aside, I am not surprised in the least. To you, being right is more important than being kind and probably always will be. So good luck with that.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I am almost always right and almost always kind--they aren't qualities at odds with each other. However, I tend to enjoy the company best of people who have thick skins, and argue vigorously, without compromise. Seems you're easily offended when someone has a little good-natured fun at your expense and label that as unkindness. However, your own sanctimony, judgmental posturing and self-congratulation seems to fly beneath your personal radar. It's an incredible world of contradictions!


If that's how you see it. I call it narcissism, but whatever floats your boat. Your "argumentative" nature here is often not argumentative at all; just veiled and not-so-veiled insults a lot of the time. If you were really interested in a good argument, you'd avoid the conversation killers and put downs you so frequently employ under the guise of being clever. A good argument implies a level of mutual respect that sadly I have not seen in my discussions with you so far. People can change I suppose, but I'm not holding my breath. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Respect is earned, not simply granted by posting here and a good argument requires both parties to stay on track and follow a path of logical discourse. I have no problem admitting that I will eventually poke fun at the bearers of intensely illogical arguments who continue to move the goal posts, engage in non sequiturs or argue in circles.


----------



## fjnmusic

In the Canadian and US court system, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. Buy Omar Khadr was not proven guilty. He admitted guilt for the sake of a plea bargain. This is not the same as proving someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not based on a preponderance of evidence, as civil law requires. In fact, without Khadr's own guilty plea, the tribunal may not have had enough to go on. In the US, people have a right to protect themselves from possible self-incrimination, what they call "pleading the fifth" if I'm not mistaken. But he was not tried in the US, although he was tried BY the US, and he was certainly not tried under Canadian law. What would have happened if he hadn't opted for the plea bargain, do you think?

Discuss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> In the Canadian and US court system, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. Buy Omar Khadr was not proven guilty. He admitted guilt for the sake of a plea bargain.


This statement is pure nonsense. An admission of guilt does not leave the person in some sort of indeterminate state where they are still innocent before the law. 

Next.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> This statement is pure nonsense. An admission of guilt does not leave the person in some sort of indeterminate state where they are still innocent before the law.
> 
> Next.


Again, you miss the point. He was not proven guilty because there was not enough evidence to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, there were no witness and there was no evidence at all beyond circumstantial suppositions. It would have been inadequate to obtain a conviction in a US or Canadian court of law. Try considering the whole statement instead of cherry picking the first line.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Again, you miss the point. He was not proven guilty because there was not enough evidence to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, there were no witness and there was no evidence at all beyond circumstantial suppositions. It would have been inadequate to obtain a conviction in a US or Canadian court of law. Try considering the whole statement instead of cherry picking the first line.


This is simply nonsensical stuff. Pass.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> This is simply nonsensical stuff. Pass.


Nice rebuttal. Probably the laziest I've read so far. Why don't you try laying out tall the evidence of his guilt here, the evidence as presented at trial, if you're so sure?


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Nice rebuttal. Probably the laziest I've read so far. Why don't you try laying out tall the evidence of his guilt here, the evidence as presented at trial, if you're so sure?


Because you've stated yourself that such linear reasoning is alien to your thought process. Or do you turn it off and on like a light switch when it suits you?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Because you've stated yourself that such linear reasoning is alien to your thought process. Or do you turn it off and on like a light switch when it suits you?


Even one argument, one piece of evidence drawn completely at random, would be an improvement. This thread is about Omar Khadr, after all.


----------



## Macfury

Why are you asking for evidence all of a sudden? What's with the sudden demand for a linear thought process?


----------



## SINC

Omar Khadr to stay in federal prison - Calgary - CBC News


----------



## screature

Prisoners 

Watched it for the 2nd time today. IMO a very good movie.

It seemed quite relevant to recent discussions regarding empathy and morality.

What do you think?


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Prisoners
> 
> Watched it for the 2nd time today. IMO a very good movie.
> 
> It seemed quite relevant to recent discussions regarding empathy and morality.
> 
> What do you think?


Apart from the fact that Omar Khadr didn't own a dilapidated RV that had earlier been parked on their street, was 15 at the time of his arrest after having been nearly killed by American forces, spent more than ten years in prison before even being charged, agreed to a plea bargain to be moved to his own country after spending more than a third of his life in Guantanamo Bay, with his own government resisting every step of the way, being a model prisoner despite some pretty severe lapses in procedure while in custody, and never abducting anyone, yeah, I can see the similarities. 

Got any specific points of reference?


----------



## Macfury

There you go again, fjn, demanding point for point comparisons, but expecting others to cut you miles of slack when you exercise no efforts at organizing your ideas. That isn't fair.


----------



## SINC

Is there any real comparison between empathy and lunacy? Doesn't releasing anyone with that kind of track record border on the latter?


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Apart from the fact that Omar Khadr didn't own a dilapidated RV that had earlier been parked on their street, was 15 at the time of his arrest after having been nearly killed by American forces, spent more than ten years in prison before even being charged, agreed to a plea bargain to be moved to his own country after spending more than a third of his life in Guantanamo Bay, with his own government resisting every step of the way, being a model prisoner despite some pretty severe lapses in procedure while in custody, and never abducting anyone, yeah, I can see the similarities.
> 
> Got any specific points of reference?


What an arse.
*
Clearly*, my post was directed at people who have actually watched the movie.

Watch the phreaking movie, then maybe you can have a point of reference to comment on my post.

Until then shut to F**K up... it isn't all about you, even though you seem to think it is.

I mean seriously... Try and show a smidgen of respect from time to time....



Simply by referring to a movie I have extended to you the respect that you never provided to me when I asked you and the community to enter into a dialectical discussion.

You declined the offer (as is your right) saying (mistakenly) that I was trying to control the discussion with political motivations even though you you never offered any evidence to defend your statement.

Subsequently, after few posts from me, I posed a general question to the community at large (not addressed to you) and yet you still seem to have the ego to assume that I was making a general question that was directed at you!!!!

Get over yourself and me...

We will both be better off.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> There you go again, fjn, demanding point for point comparisons, but expecting others to cut you miles of slack when you exercise no efforts at organizing your ideas. That isn't fair.


Who said life is fair? Where is that written? Can't remember who said it, but I know it was an old male Jewish character.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> What an arse.
> *
> Clearly*, my post was directed at people who have actually watched the movie.
> 
> Watch the phreaking movie, then maybe you can have a point of reference to comment on my post.
> 
> Until then shut to F**K up... it isn't all about you, even though you seem to think it is.
> 
> I mean seriously... Try and show a smidgen of respect from time to time....
> 
> 
> 
> Simply by referring to a movie I have extended to you the respect that you never provided to me when I asked the community to enter into a dialectical discussion.
> 
> You declined the offer (as is your right) saying (mistakenly) that I was trying to control the discussion with political motivations even though you you never offered any evidence to defend your statement.
> 
> Subsequently, after few posts from me, I posed a general question to the community at large (not addressed to you) and yet you still seem to have the ego to assume that I was making a general question that was directed at you!!!!
> 
> Get over yourself and me...
> 
> We will both be better off.


And I'm the arse. :lmao:


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> And I'm the arse. :lmao:


Yep, you are. 

If you can't defend yourself otherwise...

Emoticons can only go so far... then they begin to belie your inability to participate in a rational discussion.

Use your words.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Yep, you are.
> 
> If you can't defend yourself otherwise.


Whatever. I apologized in the other thread if you care to check. You could be a little more mannerly yourself sometimes.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Whatever. I apologized in the other thread if you care to check. You could be a little more mannerly yourself sometimes.


And yet you continue to insult me so your apologies mean nothing.... Check the record yourself.


----------



## fjnmusic

Not worth it.


----------



## fjnmusic

.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Not worth it.


Suit yourself, as you always do...

Never any consideration for anyone else here unless they agree with you and participate according to your self appointed rules of engagement.

You might be better off in the ghost town/small pond that is Macdiscussion rather than living in the real world where people have differing unfiltered points of view.

Despite all that unfiltered difference of point of view I wish all the best to you and yours.

I hope you have a great, long and healthy life.

Peace out.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Suit yourself, as you always do...
> 
> Never any consideration for anyone else here unless they agree with you and participate according to your self appointed rules of engagement.
> 
> You might be better off in the ghost town/small pond that is Macdiscussion rather than living in the real world where people have differing unfiltered points of view.
> 
> Despite all that unfiltered difference of point of view I wish all the best to you and yours.
> 
> I hope you have a great, long and healthy life.
> 
> Peace out.


Please don't bother with any pleasantries after the insults you just hurled. 

You hate apologies from others because they distract from what you really love: having a scapegoat to blame for your own issues. You may want to check Macdiscussion yourself; it has people getting along quite civilly, many people who have abandoned this ghost town of a forum long ago, a forum run by wild dogs who love to stick their noses into everybody's business. Yes, that would be you. You could learn from their etiquette, though I doubt they would have you as a member. Many are amazed with the patience I've displayed to you so far. 

When I write a comment here on ehMac, I long to speak to anyone here other than you because, quite frankly, you've proven yourself to be waste of my time and effort. The adjectives you use to describe me are ironically really describing yourself. I'm not going to humour you with an insincere wish for happiness because truthfully, I just don't care anymore. Goodbye, scripture.


.


----------



## BigDL

fjnmusic said:


> Please don't bother with any pleasantries after the insults you just hurled.
> 
> You hate apologies from others because they distract from what you really love: having a scapegoat to blame for your own issues. You may want to check Macdiscussion yourself; it has people getting along quite civilly, many people who have abandoned this ghost town of a forum long ago, a forum run by wild dogs who love to stick their noses into everybody's business. Yes, that would be you. You could learn from their etiquette, though I doubt they would have you as a member. Many are amazed with the patience I've displayed to you so far.
> 
> When I write a comment here on ehMac, I long to speak to anyone here other than you because, quite frankly, you've proven yourself to be waste of my time and effort. The adjectives you use to describe me are ironically really describing yourself. I'm not going to humour you with an insincere wish for happiness because truthfully, I just don't care anymore. Goodbye, scripture.
> 
> 
> .


Where's that dang "LIKE" button? Anyways: Like!


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Where's that dang "LIKE" button? Anyways: Like!


Don't they have one on MacDiscussions, where never is [allowed to be] heard a discouraging word? Or perhaps it's already gone because "like buttons" are a "trigger" for some of the softshell crabs who frequent it.


----------



## fjnmusic

BigDL said:


> Where's that dang "LIKE" button? Anyways: Like!



I think we had a 'thanks' button once...but nobody liked it. Contemplate that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I think we had a 'thanks' button once...but nobody liked it. Contemplate that.


You may recall that people believed that thanks were more meaningful when expressed than when they were "clicked" a la Facebook. Contemplate that.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You may recall that people believed that thanks were more meaningful when expressed than when they were "clicked" a la Facebook. Contemplate that.


I think it was the word choice. "Thanks" just diet convey the same meaning as "like", although the big honking thumbs up that went with the thanks was in the same ballpark. I think applause guy :clap: probably comes the closest tbh.


----------



## Macfury

Thank goodness we still have Applause Guy. Though I think he is most often used by people on their own posts.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Thank goodness we still have Applause Guy. Though I think he is most often used by people on their own posts.



:clap:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

All things considered it comes down to this: about half here beieve he was a child who did not commit the crime and the other half think he committed the crime and was old enough to know better and as a result got what he deserved. My bet is the majority of Canadians believe the latter and have little sympathy for Khadr.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> All things considered it comes down to this: about half here beieve he was a child who did not commit the crime and the other half think he committed the crime and was old enough to know better and as a result got what he deserved. My bet is the majority of Canadians believe the latter and have little sympathy for Khadr.



I believe you're right, Don. I believe there is also an uncomfortably large number of Americans who still believe Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction made using enriched plutonium from North Africa (according to British intelligence) that could be launched against US targets inside of 45 minutes, which was the all the rationale that was needed to launch a non-UN-approved pre-emptive strike against Iraq that would last more than 10 years. I just wonder why they never used these weapons in self defense....since they were never found, they must still be there. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *Please don't bother with any pleasantries after the insults you just hurled. *
> 
> You hate apologies from others because they distract from what you really love: having a scapegoat to blame for your own issues. You may want to check Macdiscussion yourself; it has people getting along quite civilly, many people who have abandoned this ghost town of a forum long ago, a forum run by wild dogs who love to stick their noses into everybody's business. Yes, that would be you. You could learn from their etiquette, though I doubt they would have you as a member. Many are amazed with the patience I've displayed to you so far.
> 
> When I write a comment here on ehMac, I long to speak to anyone here other than you because, quite frankly, you've proven yourself to be waste of my time and effort. The adjectives you use to describe me are ironically really describing yourself. I'm not going to humour you with an insincere wish for happiness because truthfully, I just don't care anymore. Goodbye, scripture.
> 
> 
> .


I continue to hurl them because you have never apologized for your insult to me:



> That is low, *even for you.*


Apologize for that insult first and then my insults will stop. As I said to you at the time of your initial post. All bets are off until you apologize...

Everything rude, distasteful, or derogatory that I have said to you since has been spawned because of your own pride stemming from your lack of willingness to be a decent human being to me, so no I owe you no respect until you show some to me.

It is FeXL and gt all over again and now I understand where FeXL was coming from.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> I continue to hurl them because you have never apologized for your insult to me:
> 
> 
> 
> Apologize for that insult first and then my insults will stop. As I said to you at the time of your initial post. All bets are off until you apologize...
> 
> Everything rude, distasteful, or derogatory that I have said to you since has been spawned because of your own pride stemming from your lack of willingness to be a decent human being to me, so no I owe you no respect until you show some to me.
> 
> It is FeXL and gt all over again and now I understand where FeXL was coming from.


Don't hold your breath.

.


----------



## fjnmusic

An update on Omar Khadr and his failing eyesight in the one eye he has left. I can pretty much predict how the reaction to this story is going to go... 

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/touch/story.html?id=10457889


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Why is this even in the newspaper? Like all prisoners, he will receive free medical care. Any vaccinations coming up for Omar Khadr? The_ Journal _is here to let you know!



fjnmusic said:


> An update on Omar Khadr and his failing eyesight in the one eye he has left. I can pretty much predict how the reaction to this story is going to go...
> 
> Omar Khadr needs surgery to restore failing eyesight, tutor says
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

I have been on a waiting list for surgery on both eyes for 14 months now. Want to bet he gets his before I get mine?


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> I have been on a waiting list for surgery on both eyes for 14 months now. Want to bet he gets his before I get mine?


This his tutor talking, SINC-you only have your doctor backing you up.


----------



## screature

SINC said:


> I have been on a waiting list for surgery on both eyes for 14 months now. Want to bet he gets his before I get mine?





Macfury said:


> This his tutor talking, SINC-you only have your doctor backing you up.


If you are in prison or a refugee claimant you should go straight to the front of the line when it comes to health care, doncha you know that SINC and MF. It only makes sense.


----------



## fjnmusic

Fingers crossed for this young man. And I'm fine if he were to move in right next door.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Fingers crossed for this young man. And I'm fine if he were to move in right next door.


Thanks for letting us know.


----------



## FeXL

That makes it 5 hours from me.

Still too close...


----------



## SINC

I hope his bleeding heart lawyer, who want to take him in, does not live in Edmonton. He is far too close to me where he is now.


----------



## CubaMark

*Why Omar Khadr deserves bail*



> *The U.S. tried twice to convict Mr. Khadr* of being an illegal enemy combatant in secretive military tribunals at Guantanamo. *The first attempt failed; the second stalled*.
> 
> *The U.S. then explored the possibility of returning Mr. Khadr to Canada.* In 2010, they struck a deal in which he pleaded guilty to one count of “murder in violation of the laws of war,” as well as four other charges, in exchange for an eight-year sentence and the chance of being sent home to serve his time. He has been in prison in Alberta since 2012.
> 
> Mr. Khadr, now 28, has recanted his confession. *He is appealing his convictions in the U.S. on the grounds that he was prosecuted retroactively for violating war-crimes laws that were created years after his capture*. By all accounts, he is a model prisoner and well-adjusted, given what he’s been through. No one debates this.
> 
> But lawyers for the Department of Justice argued this week that Mr. Khadr shouldn’t get bail because Canada has an obligation to enforce the U.S. sentences of prisoners transferred home. “Omar Ahmed Khadr pleaded guilty to heinous crimes.... We have vigorously defended against any attempt to lessen his punishment for these crimes,” says a spokesperson for the Minister of Public Safety.
> 
> Under different circumstances, we might agree. But *Mr. Khadr was not tried in anything resembling a normal, First World legal process. He pleaded guilty under duress: He faced indefinite incarceration without trial unless he pled guilty. The crimes themselves were invented retroactively. The court did not follow normal American domestic or military law, and it denied standard legal protections to the accused, who was a child when he was captured.*


(Globe & Mail)


----------



## SINC

> By all accounts, he is a model prisoner and well-adjusted, given what he’s been through. No one debates this.


No one? Well, strike that comment because I for one debate that. My bet is there are plenty more Canadians who also debate that statement.

How he now appears to behave is his only chance to get out, and that can easily be part of a larger plan to gain release to get out to do what his real goal is, and I don't much care for what that goal might be which could cost Canadian lives.


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> No one? Well, strike that comment because I for one debate that. My bet is there are plenty more Canadians who also debate that statement.
> 
> How he now appears to behave is his only chance to get out, and that can easily be part of a larger plan to gain release to get out to do what his real goal is, and I don't much care for what that goal might be which could cost Canadian lives.


I doubt you'd find many 30-year-olds who still give a damn about what their father wanted them to do when they were 15 years old... if they even still remember what that was.

I don't understand your stand on this one, Don. There's plenty of evidence of horrific wrongdoing in this case, from his shooting, capture, imprisonment, inability to convict in a US military court created specifically for so-called 'enemy combatants' (extra-legal courts at that), and the long delay in his repatriation to Canada. 

Where is the evidence that Omar Khadr is a threat to Canadian society today?


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> Where is the evidence that Omar Khadr is a threat to Canadian society today?


As I pointed out in my earlier post, I fear his innocent behaviour is a sham to get out and do some real damage. That too is a very real possibility and I vote in favour of erring on the safe side.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> ...There's plenty of evidence of horrific wrongdoing in this case, from his shooting, capture, imprisonment, inability to convict in a US military court created specifically for so-called 'enemy combatants' (extra-legal courts at that)...


There's nothing "extra-legal" about the court procedure--this is an established method of dealing with non-soldiers involved in attacks that goes back to WWII.

I recall you saying that Cuba could steal the property of private citizens simply by passing a law making it legal. The US passed a law making this legal in the 1940s.


----------



## eMacMan

We have a local meth/booze addict. Over the years he has injured several people, once after stealing a cab and running down a couple of people standing in front of him as he made his getaway.

Will trade this piece of •••• straight up for Khadr. I am absolutely certain that Khadr would be less of a threat to our community than the afore-mentioned $#!thead. If we lodge Khadr next door to our former mayor, the one that diverted a million or so in grant money away from the community to his con(sultant) buds in Edmonton, then even if the Mounties bash in the wrong door while harassing Khadr, no real harm will be done.


----------



## Macfury

Khadr is better than a violent junkie? A ringing endorsement, for sure.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> Khadr is better than a violent junkie? A ringing endorsement, for sure.


Maybe, maybe not. 

I still say his motives could be very dangerous, left unmonitored if released into the general population. 

Since we have no guarantee, he is better left where he is.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> There's nothing "extra-legal" about the court procedure--this is an established method of dealing with non-soldiers involved in attacks that goes back to WWII.


Have you missed - or chosen to ignore - the international chorus of lawyers and civil rights advocates who have expressly labelled US military proceedings in Guantanamo Bay as being completely beyond any legal validity? Khadr's 'conviction' on charges that did not exist at the time of the supposed offence are precisely what led to an Australian former Guantanamo inmate (David Hicks) succeeding in his lawsuit:

_Of the almost 800 people who have been imprisoned at the Guantanamo hellhole since 2002, only six have been convicted by the military commissions. Three of those verdicts, including Hicks’s, were overturned after the prisoners’ release with the other three currently being appealed.

Hicks’s “terrorism” conviction violated due process and was invented after the Australian citizen had already been imprisoned. It was imposed as part of a US military commission plea deal for his release in 2007._​


Macfury said:


> I recall you saying that Cuba could steal the property of private citizens simply by passing a law making it legal. The US passed a law making this legal in the 1940s.


I'd be interested in seeing the post where I said that! ON the matter of nationalizations of property in Cuba, most (all?) governments have that power. I believe I have only ever said that Cuba acted within its rights when it nationalized foreign-owned properties.


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> Maybe, maybe not.
> 
> I still say his motives could be very dangerous, left unmonitored if released into the general population.
> 
> Since we have no guarantee, he is better left where he is.


This is getting to be a little too "Minority Report" for my liking... :yikes:


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> This is getting to be a little too "Minority Report" for my liking... :yikes:


Never heard tell of Minority Report and I can assure you it has no bearing on my views on Khadr. He is, to borrow a phrase, a real and present danger to the safety of this country and its citizens and no do-gooder will convince me otherwise.


----------



## heavyall

The only miscarriage of justice in Khadr's case is that he was not executed on the spot.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Have you missed - or chosen to ignore - the international chorus of lawyers and civil rights advocates who have expressly labelled US military proceedings in Guantanamo Bay as being completely beyond any legal validity?


They're wrong. These laws have been on the books since 1942.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> They're wrong. These laws have been on the books since 1942.


Do you have anything to counter the following (from 2013)?

*How could the detention center be legal at all if Congress has blocked funding for any trials for those still imprisoned there?*

There’s no clear answer. The US Supreme Court, in four important decisions, Rasul v. Bush, Boumediene v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, held that international law applies to Guantanamo detainees, that they cannot be held indefinitely without trial, that constitutional habeas corpus protections apply to them, and that the combatant status review tribunals were unconstitutional and violated the Geneva Conventions. 

Yet Congress and the executive branch have, through policy and legislation, strenuously avoided implementation of these decisions. 

The United States has also been chastised repeatedly by other states and the United Nations and its human rights organs that its interpretation of the laws of war concerning the detainees is wrong and against international consensus. 

Since 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States has issued and reextended precautionary measures against the United States (the equivalent of domestic law injunctive orders), requesting that the United States take urgent measures necessary to have the legal status of the detainees determined by a “competent tribunal.”​
(Boston University School of Law)

_on June 12, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that detainees held at Guantánamo are entitled, under the U.S. Constitution, to habeas corpus.
More than six years after the first detainees were transferred to Guantánamo, only six people have had their cases adjudicated – the majority taking plea deals rather than fighting their case in a courtroom heavily stacked against them. Only a handful of others have even been charged._​
(Amnesty International)


----------



## Macfury

Right, so how does this apply to Omar Khadr? The Supreme Court ruling applies only to those still at Guantanamo.



CubaMark said:


> Do you have anything to counter the following (from 2013)?
> 
> *How could the detention center be legal at all if Congress has blocked funding for any trials for those still imprisoned there?*
> 
> There’s no clear answer. The US Supreme Court, in four important decisions, Rasul v. Bush, Boumediene v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, held that international law applies to Guantanamo detainees, that they cannot be held indefinitely without trial, that constitutional habeas corpus protections apply to them, and that the combatant status review tribunals were unconstitutional and violated the Geneva Conventions.
> 
> Yet Congress and the executive branch have, through policy and legislation, strenuously avoided implementation of these decisions.
> 
> The United States has also been chastised repeatedly by other states and the United Nations and its human rights organs that its interpretation of the laws of war concerning the detainees is wrong and against international consensus.
> 
> Since 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States has issued and reextended precautionary measures against the United States (the equivalent of domestic law injunctive orders), requesting that the United States take urgent measures necessary to have the legal status of the detainees determined by a “competent tribunal.”​
> (Boston University School of Law)
> 
> _on June 12, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that detainees held at Guantánamo are entitled, under the U.S. Constitution, to habeas corpus.
> More than six years after the first detainees were transferred to Guantánamo, only six people have had their cases adjudicated – the majority taking plea deals rather than fighting their case in a courtroom heavily stacked against them. Only a handful of others have even been charged._​
> (Amnesty International)


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> The only miscarriage of justice in Khadr's case is that he was not executed on the spot.



Good lord. This kind of attitude is an embarrassment to Canadians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Never heard tell of Minority Report and I can assure you it has no bearing on my views on Khadr. He is, to borrow a phrase, a real and present danger to the safety of this country and its citizens and no do-gooder will convince me otherwise.



Would you still feel the same if it turned out he never threw a grenade at all?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Would you still feel the same if it turned out he never threw a grenade at all?


There is zero proof of that.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Would you still feel the same if it turned out he never threw a grenade at all?


I would feel pretty good about most murderers if it turned out they never killed anyone.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> There is zero proof of that.



Actually there is zero proof that he threw one. The only thing they have is Omar's own confession which was obtained under torture. There were no eyewitnesses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Actually there is zero proof that he threw one. The only thing they have is Omar's own confession which was obtained under torture. There were no eyewitnesses.


If there were no eyewitnesses, it follows there is no proof he was tortured either. Perhaps a story concocted by Omar as part of his master plan?


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> Good lord. This kind of attitude is an embarrassment to Canadians.


What is an embarrassment to Canadians is that some people are still defending this terrorist traitor.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> There is zero proof of that.



There is zero proof the other way as well. But you fail to answer the question: would you feel differently if it turned out Omar did not throw the grenade after all?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

I cannot answer a question that is based on a supposition. If that proof ever surfaces, ask me then. For now he is a threat to all Canadians unless proven otherwise that he does not have a hidden agenda to blow up or kill someone else.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> I cannot answer a question that is based on a supposition. If that proof ever surfaces, ask me then. For now he is a threat to all Canadians unless proven otherwise that he does not have a hidden agenda to blow up or kill someone else.



Interesting. So you cannot imagine the world to be anything other than what you "know" to be true. I suppose I am much the same way, except that I find it difficult to believe that Khadr is anything more than a pawn in a political game, vilified by his own government that really wanted a scapegoat. People like Steven Truscott come to mind for comparison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Interesting. So you cannot imagine the world to be anything other than what you "know" to be true. I suppose I am much the same way, except that I find it difficult to believe that Khadr is anything more than a pawn in a political game, vilified by his own government that really wanted a scapegoat. People like Steven Truscott come to mind for comparison.


Sorry, but I don't live in your imaginary world. I live in the present and have learned from too many events in the past not to trust any radical religious types of dubious background or behaviour. And no, Steven Truscott never came to my mind as fitting that particular description.


----------



## fjnmusic

How about Amanda Knox? There's an example from your present day real world of a person they were sure was guilty who was exonerated ultimately. Judicial systems, especially military ones, may often get it wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

I believe the record of military courts has more cases that get it right than get it wrong. Knox is no comparison either. She was not even remotely associated with a war zone or grenades.


----------



## CubaMark

*Omar Khadr granted bail*










A judge granted bail this morning to convicted war criminal Omar Khadr.

Court of Queen's Bench Justice June Ross, in a 23-page decision, granted Khadr's bail request Friday morning.

"Even though the Applicant has pled guilty to serious offences, he should be granted judicial interim release," the judge wrote, "because he has a strong basis for an appeal, and the risk to public safety is not such that it is in the public's best interest that he remain in pre-appeal detention in a manner that could render his appeal irrelevant."

Khadr has been in custody since he was arrested in 2002 when he was 15 years old. He was accused of throwing a grenade in Afghanistan that killed an American soldier.

Sent to Guantanamo Bay in 2002, Khadr later confessed to an American military tribunal. He was sentenced to eight years behind bars in 2010. 

Transferred to Canada in 2012, Khadr, 28, has been serving what's left of his sentence at the Bowden Institution near Innisfail, Alta. Khadr has recanted his confession and sought an appeal of his conviction.

King's University College in Edmonton has offered Khadr the chance to study as a mature student. Dennis Edney, Khadr's attorney for the last decade, has welcomed his client to live with him and his wife.

Earlier this month, the prosecutor in the case argued a Canadian court has no jurisdiction to decide on Khadr's bail.​
(CBC)


----------



## Macfury

Looka that smile--he's a teddy bear!


----------



## macintosh doctor

Macfury said:


> Looka that smile--he's a teddy bear!


:clap::lmao:

Everything that is wrong with Canada, convicted Jihadist Murder out on Bail, which he comes from a long list of Jihadist family which support Terror.. I hope Justin Trudeau does his photo op with him before he goes missing. [ seems this Liberal Justice knows something I don't ]


----------



## CubaMark

macintosh doctor said:


> .... convicted Jihadist Murder


I see you're an aficionado of the Goebbels / Hitler propaganda concept of repeating a lie until it's seen as true (and you come to believe it yourself).

We've gone over this a gazillion times, but it's not apparently penetrating your skull. Khadr was not convicted despite 3 attempts to do so. He pleaded guilty to get a plea deal that would allow him to be transferred from Gitmo to a Canadian prison. 

There has been ample discussion about the reliability of supposed eyewitnesses to Khadr throwing the grenade, certainly more than sufficient for 'reasonable doubt' to be brought into play if he were an adult in a regular (non-US military fabricated) court. 

As it is, he was a child at the time of the battle with US forces, and should have been treated as a child soldier. He was not - a violation of his rights - and the Government of Canada, of which he is a citizen (born in Toronto), did not due its due diligence in protecting him.

You and others in this thread obviously are not in favour of Khadr's rights being protected - but you have no choice but to accept it. If the government is allowed to pick and choose what rights of its citizens it decides to protect, then we are entering dangerous territory.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> If the government is allowed to pick and choose what rights of its citizens it decides to protect, then we are entering dangerous territory.


You're perfectly quiet when gun rights are abrogated. You're extremely selective about what constitutes "dangerous territory."


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


> ....
> 
> You and others in this thread obviously are not in favour of Khadr's rights being protected - but you have no choice but to accept it. If the government is allowed to pick and choose what rights of its citizens it decides to protect, then we are entering dangerous territory.


This has already been done via the second class Canadian Citizenship Act, which in effect declares that any Canadian Citizen who is also a citizen of another country does not receive full recognition of his rights as a Canadian Citizen.

Last years omnibus budget bill did a similar disservice to any Canadian Citizen with the misfortune to have distant ties to the US. This was done in the form of an agreement between the Government of Canada and the IRS, which will allow the IRS to loot the bank accounts of many Canadian Citizens as well as allowing the IRS to launch fiscal attacks on Canadian Financial Institutions including the big-5 Canadian Banks. The ultimate insult was making the agreement effective on Canada Day.


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> *Omar Khadr granted bail*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A judge granted bail this morning to convicted war criminal Omar Khadr.
> 
> 
> 
> Court of Queen's Bench Justice June Ross, in a 23-page decision, granted Khadr's bail request Friday morning.
> 
> 
> 
> "Even though the Applicant has pled guilty to serious offences, he should be granted judicial interim release," the judge wrote, "because he has a strong basis for an appeal, and the risk to public safety is not such that it is in the public's best interest that he remain in pre-appeal detention in a manner that could render his appeal irrelevant."
> 
> 
> 
> Khadr has been in custody since he was arrested in 2002 when he was 15 years old. He was accused of throwing a grenade in Afghanistan that killed an American soldier.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent to Guantanamo Bay in 2002, Khadr later confessed to an American military tribunal. He was sentenced to eight years behind bars in 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> Transferred to Canada in 2012, Khadr, 28, has been serving what's left of his sentence at the Bowden Institution near Innisfail, Alta. Khadr has recanted his confession and sought an appeal of his conviction.
> 
> 
> 
> King's University College in Edmonton has offered Khadr the chance to study as a mature student. Dennis Edney, Khadr's attorney for the last decade, has welcomed his client to live with him and his wife.
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier this month, the prosecutor in the case argued a Canadian court has no jurisdiction to decide on Khadr's bail.​


Finally! Now he can get back to planning that jihad we've been so worried about. 





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I don't think you start planning one of those on the spur of the moment. More of a long-term thing.


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> If the government is allowed to pick and choose what rights of its citizens it decides to protect, then we are entering dangerous territory.


The government has now exposed us all to that 'dangerous territory' of which you speak by releasing a threat among us.


----------



## macintosh doctor

CubaMark said:


> , but it's not apparently penetrating your skull. Khadr was not convicted despite 3 attempts to do so. He pleaded guilty to get a plea deal that would allow him to be transferred from Gitmo to a Canadian prison..


Well, then; his evil family will standby him with open arms once again. [ that is those who have not completed their suicide missions].

Otherwise I think Justin Trudeau should taken upon himself to prove us thick headed skulled individuals wrong and let him run as a liberal in the next election since he is innocent and jailed without cause and improperly since he was a child.. Perfect candidate for the Liberals, hopefully they give him remuneration for our past sins against him as a country.. 
Now that is a story : From Terrorist to Liberal MP LOL


----------



## macintosh doctor

family tree of Omar
Maha Elsamnah -- Family matriarch
Known as the female head of the Khadr family, Maha Elsamnah was born in Palestine but eventually moved to Canada where she married her husband.
She’s been quoted as saying that she didn’t want to raise her children in Canada because they would have become involved in “drugs and homosexual relationships.”

Ahmed Said Khadr - father
Khadr was arrested in connection with the 1995 bombing of the Egyptian embassy in Pakistan, but was released a year later with the help of Prime Minister Jean Chretien. [LIBERAL}
Khadr was killed in a gun battle with Pakistani forces near the Afghanistan border in 2003.

Abdullah Khadr -- The eldest Khadr brother
The 30-year-old Abdullah has also been accused of running an al Qaeda training camp in the 1990s -- a charge he denies. It’s also been alleged that he’s conspired to kill Americans overseas. He lives in Toronto.
[ Perfect friends of the Liberals ]

Keeping up with the Khadrs: A family tree | CTV News


----------



## CubaMark

Guilt by association. Is that what we're basing our legal code upon these days?


----------



## CubaMark

*After Omar Khadr's arrest: an excerpt from Guantanamo's Child*

_Michelle Shephard has been following Omar Khadr’s story since his arrest in 2002. Her book Guantanamo’s Child: The untold story of Omar Khadr was published in 2008. The book reconstructs the life of Omar Khadr from his childhood shuttled between Scarbrough, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, his exposure through his father to al-Qaeda’s elite, and his torture and detention after his arrest._​


> There had been other teenagers at Bagram, most of them inadvertently scooped up with their relatives and held until the military could figure out what to do with them. But Omar looked young, even for fi fteen, and his injuries were some of the worst Begg had seen.





> Omar retreated immediately to the back of the cell and sat down. Begg said he heard one of the guards say to him, “I hope you pay for what you’ve done,” but Omar didn’t look up. There were raw scars on his chest where there had once been two deep holes. Shrapnel had punctured the skin along his arms and legs.





> Omar’s introduction to Bagram was harsher than that of most detainees. Begg said the guards singled him out for the worst treatment, payback for allegedly killing one of their own.





> Each time, they walked past his cell they would yell: Murderer! Killer! Butcher! “It was very, very hard to hear that because it was evident he was just a kid. Not only that, he was terribly wounded,”





> DAMIEN CORSETTI was one interrogator who started in Bagram and moved to Abu Ghraib. Like the others, he had been given little training and lots of responsibility. Corsetti weighed close to 300 pounds, stood more than six feet tall, had a thick neck, dark bushy eyebrows that hung heavily over his eyes and had a booming voice he used to shout at the prisoners when they first arrived. He was an intimidator and he was good at it.





> orsetti vividly remembered Omar. He was part of a screening team who visited Omar when he fi rst arrived at the base hospital. When Corsetti saw the hole on the top of Omar’s back, he held a Coke can to the wound.
> “You could have fit that can of Coke in the back of his head. He was really messed up,” Corsetti recalled.





> Corsetti made a point of talking to Omar as often as he could, bringing him chocolates or letting him watch movies on his laptop. They talked mainly about basketball but sometimes they would talk about Omar’s family. “Honestly, he seemed like a young kid who got swept up into something because of his family ties and never got the opportunity to make a choice for himself whether it was right or wrong,” Corsetti said.
> Begg used to watch Corsetti and Omar talk, happy to see the teenager being shown some compassion. “He treated Omar very well after he got to speak to him, after he got to know him. I think that’s indicative to how people reacted to Omar,” Begg said. “There’s Omar the myth, and there’s Omar the person.”


(TorontoStar)


----------



## macintosh doctor

CubaMark said:


> Guilt by association. Is that what we're basing our legal code upon these days?


Okay I give up.. Please if he is so innocent and his family is guiltily - please take him in, under your guidance I hope he will be the better person; you truly think he is.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *Guilt by association*. Is that what we're basing our legal code upon these days?


Any time you see a scientist who disagrees with AGW, you scream that they're funded by the Koch brothers, so the science is incorrect. Hypocrite!


----------



## macintosh doctor

Macfury said:


> Any time you see a scientist who disagrees with AGW, you scream that they're funded by the Koch brothers, so the science is incorrect. Hypocrite!


Omar's whole family is guilty - its genetic; even when the Liberals bailed out the Father the 
first time he was guilty he repeated with tragic results.. 
so I guess CubaMark is not seeing it. The family hates Canada, but stayed and had kids - which where guilty as well..
I do not get it.


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> *After Omar Khadr's arrest: an excerpt from Guantanamo's Child*
> 
> 
> 
> _Michelle Shephard has been following Omar Khadr&#146;s story since his arrest in 2002. Her book Guantanamo&#146;s Child: The untold story of Omar Khadr was published in 2008. The book reconstructs the life of Omar Khadr from his childhood shuttled between Scarbrough, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, his exposure through his father to al-Qaeda&#146;s elite, and his torture and detention after his arrest._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (TorontoStar)



I appreciate the effort, Mark, and clearly some people don't understand why a confession obtained under torture is not admissible in a normal court of law. The accounts you describe concur with the characterizations I have read as well, including testimony given by his captors in Gitmo. Even if he did lob a grenade, which I believe he only admitted as a plea bargain, he has shown all of the qualities one looks to see in a reformed prisoner. He is no threat, but you're never going to convince some of the knuckle walkers around here of that. I just wanted to commend you for your effort despite the rude intolerance some people display. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Truth is that Khadr's story is mired in half-truths and wishes. Nobody can truly say what happened in its entirety. Please don't insult others because you believe you've fine tuned your magic mirror.



fjnmusic said:


> I appreciate the effort, Mark, and clearly some people don't understand why a confession obtained under torture is not admissible in a normal court of law. The accounts you describe concur with the characterizations I have read as well, including testimony given by his captors in Gitmo. Even if he did lob a grenade, which I believe he only admitted as a plea bargain, he has shown all of the qualities one looks to see in a reformed prisoner. He is no threat, but you're never going to convince some of the knuckle walkers around here of that. I just wanted to commend you for your effort despite the rude intolerance some people display.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## macintosh doctor

Macfury said:


> Truth is that Khadr's story is mired in half-truths and wishes. Nobody can truly say what happened in its entirety. Please don't insult others because you believe you've fine tuned your magic mirror.


but that is the way of ehmac, if others do not see it their way, we are thick skulled and now knuckle draggers.. wow.. how offensive? more offensive than having a terrorist walking free amongst us supported by liberals.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> I appreciate the effort, Mark, and clearly some people don't understand why a confession obtained under torture is not admissible in a normal court of law. The accounts you describe concur with the characterizations I have read as well, including testimony given by his captors in Gitmo. Even if he did lob a grenade, which I believe he only admitted as a plea bargain, he has shown all of the qualities one looks to see in a reformed prisoner. He is no threat, *but you're never going to convince some of the knuckle walkers around here of that*. I just wanted to commend you for your effort despite the rude intolerance some people display.


Speaking of rude intolerance, that line from a guy who only has an opinion, but zero proof of any of his claims about the terrorist a misguided judge set upon us.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Speaking of rude intolerance, that line from a guy who only has an opinion, but zero proof of any of his claims about the terrorist a misguided judge set upon us.



I never said YOU were a knuckle walker, Don. Interesting how you would infer that. Fact is, there is zero proof that Khadr actually lobbed a grenade that killed or injured anyone. There are no witnesses that saw him do it. There is evidence however that he was blinded on one eye in the fire fight just like the American soldier was. His entire guilt or innocence rests on his confession, and under US law, one has the fifth amendment to protect against self-incrimination. Without his confession, one obtained under torture (inadmissible in court), there is NO evidence against him. Those who describe him as "convicted terrorist" who committed "heinous crimes" are just playing word games. It's simple: no confession; no conviction. Even the sentence of eight years is ridiculous since he has already served thirteen. Now that he is in his own country again, he wishes to appeal his conviction as is his or anyone's else's right under Chapter 7 of the Canadian Charts and Freedoms. People would do well to do a little research before talking out if their ass here. It's grade 9 social studies in my province.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> I never said YOU were a knuckle walker, Don. Interesting how you would infer that. Fact is, there is zero proof that Khadr actually lobbed a grenade that killed or injured anyone. There are no witnesses that saw him do it. There is evidence however that he was blinded on one eye in the fire fight just like the American soldier was. His entire guilt or innocence rests on his confession, and under US law, one has the fifth amendment to protect against self-incrimination. Without his confession, one obtained under torture (inadmissible in court), there is evidence against him. Now that he is in his own country again, he wishes to appeal his conviction as is his or anyone's else's right under Chapter 7 of the Canadian Charts and Freedoms. People would do well to do a little research before talking out if their ass here. It's grade 9 social studies in my province.


Again that is just YOUR opinion. There is no proof that any of what you wrote, and obviously believe, is true. It is nothing more than supposition on your part from what you have read and nothing more.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I never said YOU were a knuckle walker, Don.


You said that people who could not be convinced that Khadr was not a threat were knuckle walkers. Don believes Khadr is a threat.

Can you see how that inference works?


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Again that is just YOUR opinion. There is no proof that any of what you wrote, and obviously believe, is true. It is nothing more than supposition on your part from what you have read and nothing more.



And testimony as provided by the military commission that tried him in Cuba. Have you not read not? I'm talking about the prosecution. They were stymied because they had only circumstantial evidence. Without his confession the case would be very difficult to prove.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You said that people who could not be convinced that Khadr was not a threat were knuckle walkers. Don believes Khadr is a threat.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you see how that inference works?



Take it in what sense thou wilt, Mac. See how that works?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Speaking of rude intolerance, that line from a guy who only has an opinion, but zero proof of any of his claims about the terrorist a misguided judge set upon us.


I DID go back to the original witness report and it seems quite well reasoned. Of four people in the compound, two were dead and buried under rubble when US soldiers entered:



> Based on his extensive combat experience, believed that KHADR and the man at the back of the alley with the AK rifle were the only two alive at the time of the assault. He felt that due to the grenade being thrown simultaneously to the directed rifle fire that the grenade was thrown by someone other than the man who was firing the rifle. Due to the positioning of the rifle, the fact his shots at the men located in the back of the alley hit that man in the chest, the location of the AK rifles, and the speed of his advance on the alley, believes that the man in the back of the alley (not KHADR) was the man who fired the rifle as he entered the compound. Though the dust and angle of the walls prevented him from seeing who threw the grenade, believes that KHADR threw the grenade. conclusion that KHADR threw the grenade was drawn after excluding two of the men because of their earlier death (which was not consistent with any of his actions as they were buried under rubble without gunshot wounds); after excluding the third man (sic) his position was consistent with shooting simultaneously to the grenade being thrown; after concluding that the nature of the grenade lob was such that it was inconsistent with being thrown by someone who was shooting in a controlled manner at the same time; and after concluding that the condition and position of KHADR was consistent with having been able to throw a grenade over his head, but not fire a rifle at the US forces.


----------



## Macfury

Demonstrate some moral courage and stick by your words.



fjnmusic said:


> Take it in what sense thou wilt, Mac. See how that works?


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Any time you see a scientist who disagrees with AGW, you scream that they're funded by the Koch brothers, so the science is incorrect. Hypocrite!


The fact that you are unable to distinguish between those two scenarios speaks volumes, MF.


----------



## CubaMark

An interesting interview with two soldiers involved with Khadr: one is Sgt. Morris, who was partially blinded in the attack on the compound where Khadr was found (and who rather inelegantly parrots the same non-evidence-based talking points of those who want Khadr to never see the light of day) and the interrogator at Bagram base, Damien Corsetti. This is Corsetti's bit from the interview:

*Did you think about Omar Khadr after he left Bagram?*

I certainly do...I think about Omar Khadr a lot. I thank Omar Khadr because he definitely helped keep me, uh, I'm not going to say I was exactly a nice guy over there but he definitely kept me a lot kinder than I would have been had I not known him.

*Why was that, what did he do...what did he bring to you that changed the way that you behaved?*

Humanity. And that's a very rare commodity in a war zone. If it hadn't been for him I think I would have lost even more than I already did. He made me have compassion for someone who was the enemy. It is something that I value today.

*If you had a chance to speak with Omar Khadr again what would you say to him?*

I'd tell him I was sorry for having taken part in the U.S. campaign against him. For having anything to do with that. For not doing anything more, for not speaking up for him over there more than I did. I would just apologize to Omar Khadr and I would congratulate him if he is granted bail on his freedom however permanent or temporary it may be.​


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I DID go back to the original witness report and it seems quite well reasoned. Of four people in the compound, two were dead and buried under rubble when US soldiers entered:



Exactly. So by process of elimination he "must" have thrown the grenade. Except that nobody actually saw him do it. No witnesses. Thanks for emphasizing that point again in a clear and coherent fashion. There is too much reasonable doubt to ever stand up in a normal court of law. You cannot convict a man based on, "Your Honour, I think he probably did it."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eMacMan

fjnmusic said:


> Exactly. So by process of elimination he "must" have thrown the grenade. Except that nobody actually saw him do it. No witnesses. Thanks for emphasizing that point again in a clear and coherent fashion. There is too much reasonable doubt to ever stand up in a normal court of law. You cannot convict a man based on, "Your Honour, I think he probably did it."
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


All of the evidence against Khadr was provided by the same propaganda machine that brought us WMDs, Al Queda in Iraq, Saddam has nukes, and my personal favourite "What WT7?". 

Given their O for xxx average, one should view the evidence against Khadr with extreme skepticism.


----------



## fjnmusic

eMacMan said:


> All of the evidence against Khadr was provided by the same propaganda machine that brought us WMDs, Al Queda in Iraq, Saddam has nukes, and my personal favourite "What WT7?".
> 
> Given their O for xxx average, one should view the evidence against Khadr with extreme skepticism.



Thank you. 👍😉+1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> An interesting interview with two soldiers involved with Khadr: one is Sgt. Morris, who was partially blinded in the attack on the compound where Khadr was found (and who rather inelegantly parrots the same non-evidence-based talking points of those who want Khadr to never see the light of day) and the interrogator at Bagram base, Damien Corsetti. This is Corsetti's bit from the interview:
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you think about Omar Khadr after he left Bagram?*
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly do...I think about Omar Khadr a lot. I thank Omar Khadr because he definitely helped keep me, uh, I'm not going to say I was exactly a nice guy over there but he definitely kept me a lot kinder than I would have been had I not known him.
> 
> 
> 
> *Why was that, what did he do...what did he bring to you that changed the way that you behaved?*
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity. And that's a very rare commodity in a war zone. If it hadn't been for him I think I would have lost even more than I already did. He made me have compassion for someone who was the enemy. It is something that I value today.
> 
> 
> 
> *If you had a chance to speak with Omar Khadr again what would you say to him?*
> 
> 
> 
> I'd tell him I was sorry for having taken part in the U.S. campaign against him. For having anything to do with that. For not doing anything more, for not speaking up for him over there more than I did. I would just apologize to Omar Khadr and I would congratulate him if he is granted bail on his freedom however permanent or temporary it may be.​



It is interesting that Sgt. Morris, a soldier, feels resentment for being partially blinded in the firefight, while Khadr, a child, was also blinded on one side from that same firefight while trying to defend himself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL

By all means, release him...

Linky1

Linky2


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> By all means, release him...
> 
> Linky1
> 
> Linky2


Linky 1 would seem to defy what his supporters say about him. Anyone that smirks holding severed human body parts is a danger to us all.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Linky 1 would seem to defy what his supporters say about him. Anyone that smirks holding severed human body parts is a danger to us all.



No doubt, that first link is indeed disturbing. But so are photos of American soldiers doing the same thing, which is why they try to keep them out of circulation. I'd like to know more of the back story behind that first picture, and I would think as a condition of his bail, he should have to explain a picture like that. Make no mistake: he will be free one day like anyone else who has completed their sentence is. Has he been at all rehabilitated in the last 13 years?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

You can convict someone on: "Your Honour, he was the only one who could have done it."



fjnmusic said:


> You cannot convict a man based on, "Your Honour, I think he probably did it."


----------



## Macfury

The fact that you are unable to see your own hypocrisy means you are simply an unapologetic hypocrite.



CubaMark said:


> The fact that you are unable to distinguish between those two scenarios speaks volumes, MF.


----------



## Macfury

So what you're saying is that unless Khadr explains that picture, he should not receive early release...



fjnmusic said:


> No doubt, that first link is indeed disturbing. But so are photos of American soldiers doing the same thing, which is why they try to keep them out of circulation. I'd like to know more of the back story behind that first picture, and I would think as a condition of his bail, he should have to explain a picture like that.





fjnmusic said:


> Make no mistake: he will be free one day like anyone else who has completed their sentence is.


Why are you even saying this?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> So what you're saying is that unless Khadr explains that picture, he should not receive early release...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you even saying this?



I'm saying it is a disturbing picture and I've never seen it before. It certainly seems to contradict the testimony of his caregivers. It was also a long time ago. People can be rehabilitated, and some can't. If there is genuine remorse about the incident(s) that led to the picture, I'd be more inclined to believe there is hope for him. After all these debates, why on earth didn't you post that picture before now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You can convict someone on: "Your Honour, he was the only one who could have done it."



Actually, no you can't. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and process of elimination is not sufficient as evidence. You must also remember that a confession obtained by torture is not admissible in court, whether the person did it or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Say what you will, Ezra gets it.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## macintosh doctor

SINC said:


> Say what you will, Ezra gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


SINC, i appreciate your efforts in the matter but the bleeding heart liberals have an agenda, they will not change until it blows up in their faces..when it does fail miserably they will just blame everyone for jailing an innocent child :lmao:
[ also it is amazing that a terrorist child that grew up in jail, has an university level grasp of the english language.. I am thinking the articles he wrote in prison and published in the Ottawa papers are that of his handlers. ]


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Actually, no you can't. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and process of elimination is not sufficient as evidence.


Where do you get this stuff, fjn? You're spectacularly wrong on this, because the Supreme Court of Canada says otherwise:

CanLII - 2009 SCC 28 (CanLII)


> The essential component of an instruction on circumstantial evidence is to instill in the jury that in order to convict, they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the only rational inference that can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence is that the accused is guilty.





fjnmusic said:


> You must also remember that a confession obtained by torture is not admissible in court, whether the person did it or not.


The Gunatanamo court convicted him specifically on evidence _not_ based on torture. Were you not following the trial? 

Judge allows evidence Khadr's lawyers say was obtained through torture



> *The most damning evidence against Omar Khadr is admissible at his trial since it is not the product of torture, the military judge in the prosecution of the Canadian-born terrorism suspect ruled Monday*.
> 
> The decision by army Col. Patrick Parrish covers a series of self-incriminating statements Khadr made during interrogations, and a video that appears to show him helping to build and plant roadside bombs with other al-Qaida suspects.





> But air force Capt. Chris Eason, one of the prosecutors, said Khadr had switched to speaking in detail about his alleged actions not because he had faced any tough interrogation, but after the United States presented him with a video U.S. forces had found that showed the Toronto native appearing to take part in a mine-making and laying operation.
> 
> Eason quoted from the earlier testimony of one of the interrogators, who said: "That's when the floodgates opened."
> 
> According to Eason, Khadr's self-incriminating statements were "truth that we can rely on."


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> After all these debates, why on earth didn't you post that picture before now?


I didn't post the picture.

I DID check it out and the photo involves the hands and feet of various people being cut off in Kabul at a public punishment. It was taken in 2002 and posted by the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan. It appears to be Omar Khadr, but RAWA does not identify him.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I didn't post the picture.
> 
> 
> 
> I DID check it out and the photo involves the hands and feet of various people being cut off in Kabul at a public punishment. It was taken in 2002 and posted by the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan. It appears to be Omar Khadr, but RAWA does not identify him.



Well it certainly does give one pause. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Where do you get this stuff, fjn? You're spectacularly wrong on this, because the Supreme Court of Canada says otherwise:
> 
> 
> 
> CanLII - 2009 SCC 28 (CanLII)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Gunatanamo court convicted him specifically on evidence _not_ based on torture. Were you not following the trial?
> 
> 
> 
> Judge allows evidence Khadr's lawyers say was obtained through torture



The Guantanamo court didn't convict him; he copped a guilty plea. Big difference. Also, the "beyond a reasonable doubt" is key. There were two people behind the wall, once of them lobbed a grenade that killed a US soldier and blinded another, and the other one who was behind the wall with Khadr was also killed. That means the only way to get Khadr definitely was for him to plead guilty. And apparently the guilty plea was to get out of Gitmo as part of a plea bargain, which he is now appealing. Weren't YOU watching the case?

Having said that, if the boy in the picture is not Khadr, then his actions all along appear to be consistent and he is not a threat to society any longer. If it is Khadr, then it stands squarely in the face of the rest of his demeanour. If I this him, then he needs to explain it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> The Guantanamo court didn't convict him; he copped a guilty plea. Big difference.


In Canada, conviction follows either presentation of evidence OR a plea of guilty. There is no difference between the two, as in BC:

Convicted of a Crime - JusticeBC - Criminal Justice Information and Support - Province of British Columbia


> If you are convicted (*after pleading or being found guilty*), the judge will make an order setting out the consequences of your crime.


Big difference to you, no difference in fact.



fjnmusic said:


> The Guantanamo court didn't convict him; he copped a guilty plea. Big difference. Also, the "beyond a reasonable doubt" is key. There were two people behind the wall, once of them lobbed a grenade that killed a US soldier and blinded another, and the other one who was behind the wall with Khadr was also killed. That means the only way to get Khadr definitely was for him to plead guilty.


Even if you believe there was reasonable doubt, that was not what the judge believed. He did not require a guilty plea, just a strong case from the prosecution. You were not the judge on the case, so you cannot change the outcome.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> In Canada, conviction follows either presentation of evidence OR a plea of guilty. There is no difference between the two, as in BC:
> 
> 
> 
> Convicted of a Crime - JusticeBC - Criminal Justice Information and Support - Province of British Columbia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference to you, no difference in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you believe there was reasonable doubt, that was not what the judge believed. He did not require a guilty plea, just a strong case from the prosecution. You were not the judge on the case, so you cannot change the outcome.



I see. And do you believe that most of the trials held at Guantanamo Bay were fair trials that respected the rights of the accused so that the trial could not be questioned later?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> Say what you will, Ezra gets it.


 SINC, I have to disagree with you completely.

....unless by "gets it" you mean that this mealy-mouthed dirtbag "gets" how to manipulate this issue by pressing all the usual hot-button triggers for angry old white male conservatives. Spinning "what if" scenarios designed to strike fear into the hearts of god-fearin' true blue Canadians... And his attack on Khadr's lawyer - oh, so classy.... 

And what exactly does "ghost writed" mean?


----------



## Macfury

Is this your argument now, fjn--that the trials were not fair? If so, why waste time with the other tissue-thin arguments you presented?



fjnmusic said:


> I see. And do you believe that most of the trials held at Guantanamo Bay were fair trials that respected the rights of the accused so that the trial could not be questioned later?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> The Gunatanamo court convicted him specifically on evidence _not_ based on torture. Were you not following the trial?


The "evidence" of which you speak is relevant to his participation in making IEDs, not to the supposed murder of Speer.

And as I understand it, Omar was never convicted on the base of any evidence, but on his confession. A confession made as part of a plea deal to get him the hell out of Guantanamo and sent to Canada. 

What would *you* say or agree to, if it meant not spending 30 years-to-life in an unlawful prison located on occupied territory at the hands of a military power that has shown no regard for its own constitution or the rights of people (the majority never charged with any crime) it has incarcerated for years?


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Even if you believe there was reasonable doubt, that was not what the judge believed. He did not require a guilty plea, just a strong case from the prosecution. You were not the judge on the case, so you cannot change the outcome.


By that reasoning every confession obtained by the Inquisition, The KGB, or the Gestapo is unassailable. Only difference between those august predecessors and Gitmo is that Gitmo is still cooking convictions.


----------



## screature

Just from a fiscal point of view, Omar Ahmed Khadr has spent almost half his life in one prison or another, the tax payer pays for that.

Personally I don't see him as being a threat of repeating his offense, seeing that he is unlikely to be in such circumstances again any time soon.

He may be a threat for inciting violence but we can't keep him in jail just based upon far fetched possibilities.

I say grant him his bail and see how he does...

God knows he will be under constant scrutiny for the rest of his life no matter what he does. So if he is able to promote violence the failure will rest upon those watching him.

I dare say he has probably learned his lesson by now. If we do anything further to punish him I think it is the government that is on trial and not Omar Ahmed Khadr.

Let's save some money and see how he does. If he runs afoul of his bail terms he will be back in jail before you can blink an eye.


----------



## Macfury

Instead of the cool and calm views of wing-nut marginalized academic progressives ?



CubaMark said:


> SINC, I have to disagree with you completely.
> 
> ....unless by "gets it" you mean that this mealy-mouthed dirtbag "gets" how to manipulate this issue by pressing all the usual hot-button triggers for angry old white male conservatives.


----------



## Macfury

I don't know what I would have said. We only know what Khadr said. And yes, when the court received his confession there was no longer any reason to look at the evidence.

And since when do you cite the US Constitution? You spit on it with regards to the right to bear arms.



CubaMark said:


> The "evidence" of which you speak is relevant to his participation in making IEDs, not to the supposed murder of Speer.
> 
> And as I understand it, Omar was never convicted on the base of any evidence, but on his confession. A confession made as part of a plea deal to get him the hell out of Guantanamo and sent to Canada.
> 
> What would *you* say or agree to, if it meant not spending 30 years-to-life in an unlawful prison located on occupied territory at the hands of a military power that has shown no regard for its own constitution or the rights of people (the majority never charged with any crime) it has incarcerated for years?


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> I don't know what I would have said. We only know what Khadr said. And yes, when the court received his confession there was no longer any reason to look at the evidence.


So you happily accept as truth a confession coerced by the situation in which Khadr found himself, a man desperate to get away from the clutches of a military and government acting outside the realm of accepted international law. eMacman is spot-on.



Macfury said:


> And since when do you cite the US Constitution? You spit on it with regards to the right to bear arms.


The US constitution is one of the most important legal documents in the history of the world. Sadly, few in power abide by it. And fewer still interpret it in a way that is anything but self-serving. And I really don't think we need to get into yet another useless debate about what the Founding Fathers intended with the Second Amendment. What matters is that those who profess to protect and follow it, most often flout it.


----------



## screature

Just from a fiscal point of view, Omar Ahmed Khadr has spent almost half his life in one prison or another, the tax payer pays for that.

Personally I don't see him as being a threat of repeating his offense, seeing that he is unlikely to be in such circumstances again any time soon.

He may be a threat for inciting violence but we can't keep him in jail just based upon far fetched possibilities.

I say grant him his bail and see how he does...

God knows he will be under constant scrutiny for the rest of his life no matter what he does. So if he is able to promote violence the failure will rest upon those watching him.

I dare say he has probably learned his lesson by now. If we do anything further to punish him I think it is the government that is on trial and not Omar Ahmed Khadr.

Let's save some money and see how he does. If he runs afoul of his bail terms he will be back in jail before you can blink an eye. Especially if Bill C-51 passes. Which it will and I don't feel threatened by its passing and coming into law. I suspect most Canadians aren't too worried about it either.


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> SINC, I have to disagree with you completely.
> 
> ....unless by "gets it" you mean that this mealy-mouthed dirtbag "gets" how to manipulate this issue by pressing all the usual hot-button triggers for angry old white male conservatives. Spinning "what if" scenarios designed to strike fear into the hearts of god-fearin' true blue Canadians... And his attack on Khadr's lawyer - oh, so classy....
> 
> And what exactly does "ghost writed" mean?


His take that Khadr will become a propaganda machine for Jihadists is spot on. That will be his biggest threat to us when put on a pedestal by supporters to rail against our government and promote his warped views to impressionable young people to join the movement.

As for that slip re writed, I supposed you have never done this on live TV? It happens to the best of broadcasters at the CBC too.


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> His take that Khadr will become a propaganda machine for Jihadists is spot on.


Dennis Edney is a jihadist?  




SINC said:


> That will be his biggest threat to us when put on a pedestal by supporters to rail against our government and promote his warped views to impressionable young people to join the movement.


What "warped views" are those? The only record of public comments from Omar that I can find is the Ottawa Citizen article (the one Levant disparaged in the video you posted). I've gone through the article a second time, and I see nothing diabolical in the text. Do you have another source for Omar's views that you could share?



SINC said:


> As for that slip re writed, I supposed you have never done this on live TV? It happens to the best of broadcasters at the CBC too.


Having spent a decade doing on-air news in Halifax, I'm sure I made my fair share of blunders live. But given that this was a taped segment, I'm surprised he didn't re-shoot it.


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> What "warped views" are those?


Oh, when speaking of his experiences to followers he can always say, ' you should have seen me the time I held up a pair of human hands that were just cut off some poor non-believer. But wait, there's more . . . '


----------



## CubaMark

I've just read through the witness statement regarding the attack on the compound in Afghanistan where Khadr was captured.

These passages are interesting:



> He believed it was from a rifle because of the volume of dust blown, though he could not rule out that it was a pistol. He characterized the shooting as "directed fire" that was aimed and was not wild or random. He believed the shooting originated from one rifle, but could not be certain there was not more.
> 
> As the fire continued, he saw a hand grenade "lobbed" over the corner wall that lead into the alley. He estimated the wall was about eight feet tall. The grenade went over his head in an arching pattern. *The grenade traveled approximately 30 to 80 feet* with the distance depending on how deep from in the alley the grenade was thrown. *The grenade landed and estimated 30 to 50 feet from the opening of the alley. *
> 
> XXXX ran toward the gunfire to avoid the grenade (Attachment 5). He decided to run across the opening of the alley to get further away from the grenade. *As he ran past the opening of the alley he fired 12 rounds from his M-4 rifle into the alley*. At that time the alley was filled with dust from the gunfire and he could not see who was there (see Attachment 6)





> When the dust rose, he saw a second man sitting up facing away from him leaning against brush. This man later identified as KHADR, was moving. ( XXXX identified this man as the man photographed in Attachment 8.) *XXXX fired two rounds both of which struck KHADR in the back*.





> In addition to the two bullet wounds from XXXX rounds, *KHADR also had shrapnel wounds to his chest. XXXX also recalled KHADR had an eye injury of some type*...


From my reading of this report, Khadr - found with the two bullet wounds to his back from the soldier's strafing run across the alley opening - also had shrapnel wounds to his chest and head. If you'll recall earlier posts about his physical condition, then the wounds that were not caused by the bullets would appear to be from the airstrikes or the grenade lobbed by the US forces.

So Khadr with pretty horrific wounds to his chest and head, is alleged to have thrown a grenade between 30 and 80 feet, prior to being shot in the back.

Jesus, that *kid* must have been, like, an Al-Qaeda version of Rambo!


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> Oh, when speaking of his experiences to followers he can always say, ' you should have seen me the time I held up a pair of human hands that were just cut off some poor non-believer. But wait, there's more . . . '


In other words, _hypothetical_ "views", that you have imagined to serve your narrative.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Is this your argument now, fjn--that the trials were not fair? If so, why waste time with the other tissue-thin arguments you presented?



Perhaps you could answer my question first, O evasive one. If that Linky picture is Khadr; that is concerning evidence. If it is not, it is still disturbing but irrelevant. Looking more closely at the face, it doesn't exactly look like him, even though "all those people look the same." Begs the question why it hasn't been labelled as him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

An M67 Fragmentation Grenade can be thrown 130 feet by an average soldier, with a killing radius of 16 feet. For the grenade to kill the soldier, but not Khadr, it would have had to be thrown as few as 17 feet and as many as 64 feet. That's not superhuman.

Khadr's shrapnel wounds to the chest could have been the result of throwing the grenade a short distance.



CubaMark said:


> I've just read through the witness statement regarding the attack on the compound in Afghanistan where Khadr was captured.
> 
> .....So Khadr with pretty horrific wounds to his chest and head, is alleged to have thrown a grenade between 30 and 80 feet, prior to being shot in the back.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> An M67 Fragmentation Grenade can be thrown 130 feet by an average soldier, with a killing radius of 16 feet. For the grenade to kill the soldier, but not Khadr, it would have had to be thrown as few as 17 feet and as many as 64 feet. That's not superhuman.
> 
> Khadr's shrapnel wounds to the chest could have been the result of throwing the grenade a short distance.


The grenade went over a wall and landed at least 30 metres away from the alley. Seems rather doubtful that the shrapnel would explode upward and back toward Khadr, then boomerang around a 10- to 12-foot tall wall...


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> The grenade went over a wall and landed at least 30 metres away from the alley. Seems rather doubtful that the shrapnel would explode upward and back toward Khadr, then boomerang around a 10- to 12-foot tall wall...


You were the one who said it had to be thrown between 30 and 80 feet, not me.


----------



## fjnmusic

Either way, it would have to be thrown at a non-specific target since he can't see over an 8 foot wall. It was also thrown in self-defense as he was being attacked. This does not rise to the level of murder, but rather manslaughter, best-case scenario, if he was even the one he threw the grenade at all. Certainly doesn't warrant 13 years already served on an 8 year sentence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> In other words, _hypothetical_ "views", that you have imagined to serve your narrative.


No, actually *real possibilities* for a person so warped they would hold up severed human hands and pose for a picture.


----------



## Macfury

The Linky was not mine. I can only say it looks like him, but I don't know. I only know Khadr was in Afghanistan when the shot was taken.

Given the complex situation, the nature of enemy combatants, the fact that the court was legal according to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, that Khadr is not guaranteed any rights under the US Constitution, and that Khadr received no torture, I believe the trial was fair. The length of time before charges were laid and the case was heard would be my main complaint.



fjnmusic said:


> Perhaps you could answer my question first, O evasive one. If that Linky picture is Khadr; that is concerning evidence. If it is not, it is still disturbing but irrelevant. Looking more closely at the face, it doesn't exactly look like him, even though "all those people look the same." Begs the question why it hasn't been labelled as him.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> You were the one who said it had to be thrown between 30 and 80 feet, not me.


 Are you intentionally confused? 

My point is - given the wounds described by the eyewitness (US soldier) and the wounds with which Khadr arrived at the Bagram airbase, it seems unlikely that he would have been physically able to throw a grenade 5 feet, let alone 30- to 80-feet (the distance figure cited by the witness).


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> No, actually *real possibilities* for a person so warped they would hold up severed human hands and pose for a picture.


The (unspoken, assumed) views of a child from over a decade ago, which you have imagined based upon a photograph of a person who may or may not be Omar Khadr.

There's intransigence and then there's this, SINC....


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> ...the court was legal according to the Military Commissions Act of 2006


Has anyone other than the US recognized these courts as legal? This kid was taken as a prisoner after the US attacked a compound in Afghanistan, transported halfway 'round the world to a prison that is on disputed territory, a process which was viewed by most as completely outside of any norms of international law of the period.



Macfury said:


> Khadr is not guaranteed any rights under the US Constitution,


No rights at all. Not human. Just a meat suit, to be dealt with as the butcher deems appropriate, then?



Macfury said:


> ...the court was legal according to the Military Commissions Act and that Khadr received no torture, I believe the trial was fair.


Both ridiculous claims, held by none other than those who wanted his head.


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> The (unspoken, assumed) views of a child from over a decade ago, which you have imagined based upon a photograph of a person who may or may not be Omar Khadr.
> 
> There's intransigence and then there's this, SINC....


Yeah, there is and that is what worries me about him on the loose. He has far too much baggage to be truly rehabilitated and I will never trust him to live openly among us. You and other bleeding heart types will never change my mind. I just hope that one day I don't have to say, 'I told you so'. What would you do then if his actions killed or injured real people?


----------



## SINC

Here is a first hand witness account. This soldier's final sentence seals the deal for me.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> Just from a fiscal point of view, Omar Ahmed Khadr has spent almost half his life in one prison or another, the tax payer pays for that.
> 
> Personally I don't see him as being a threat of repeating his offense, seeing that he is unlikely to be in such circumstances again any time soon.
> 
> He may be a threat for inciting violence but we can't keep him in jail just based upon far fetched possibilities.
> 
> I say grant him his bail and see how he does...
> 
> God knows he will be under constant scrutiny for the rest of his life no matter what he does. So if he is able to promote violence the failure will rest upon those watching him.
> 
> I dare say he has probably learned his lesson by now. If we do anything further to punish him I think it is the government that is on trial and not Omar Ahmed Khadr.
> 
> Let's save some money and see how he does. If he runs afoul of his bail terms he will be back in jail before you can blink an eye.


Agreed!


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> Here is a first hand witness account. This soldier's final sentence seals the deal for me.


Actually, SINC, I daresay you've provided the other side with a bit of ammunition. I didn't know that Sgt. Morris (interviewed in that clip, and cited earlier) sued (with Speers' widow) the Khadr estate, and were awarded over $100-million USD.

*Morris flat-out lied in that interview*. He stated that after all the other combatants had been killed and "we went in", that Omar popped up, threw a grenade and fired his pistol. 

Morris said that Khadr "chose to start that firefight". 

This contradicts the official statement that I cited and linked above.

Also, according to the Wikipedia entry on Morris:

_In the Feb 6, 2008 interview, Layne Morris admitted that he was outside the compound when injured, and couldn't see who injured him. *Sgt. Morris said he was airlifted out before the special forces group entered the compound. He could not have witnessed anything inside,* including the death of Sgt Speer.​_
I'd say that guy's credibility is pretty much toast.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> No, actually *real possibilities* for a person so warped they would hold up severed human hands and pose for a picture.



Are you sure that's him? I mean, I know they all look the same to most white folk 😳, but if it is him, why wouldn't the picture be identified as such?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> Actually, SINC, I daresay you've provided the other side with a bit of ammunition. I didn't know that Sgt. Morris (interviewed in that clip, and cited earlier) sued (with Speers' widow) the Khadr estate, and were awarded over $100-million USD.
> 
> 
> 
> *Morris flat-out lied in that interview*. He stated that after all the other combatants had been killed and "we went in", that Omar popped up, threw a grenade and fired his pistol.
> 
> 
> 
> Morris said that Khadr "chose to start that firefight".
> 
> 
> 
> This contradicts the official statement that I cited and linked above.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, according to the Wikipedia entry on Morris:
> 
> 
> 
> _In the Feb 6, 2008 interview, Layne Morris admitted that he was outside the compound when injured, and couldn't see who injured him. *Sgt. Morris said he was airlifted out before the special forces group entered the compound. He could not have witnessed anything inside,* including the death of Sgt Speer.​_
> 
> 
> I'd say that guy's credibility is pretty much toast.



People believe what they want to believe, and haters gonna hate. True in wartime or in peacetime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

And progressives gonna love them some criminals...



fjnmusic said:


> People believe what they want to believe, and haters gonna hate. True in wartime or in peacetime.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> And progressives gonna love them some criminals...



You overgeneralize and jump to some pretty bizarre conclusions. There are a great many criminals who should stay incarcerated in my view. Take Gavin Mandin, for example, the nice 15 year old St Albert boy who killed his mother, stepfather, and two younger sisters back in the early 90's. Well guess what? He's been out for a couple years now whether we like it or not. I have a lot more concerns about that individual than I do about Omar Khadr, whose story is far less conclusive, and who does the have the right, whether you like it or not, to have his appeal heard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> You overgeneralize...


Just responding to your ridiculous overgeneralization.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Are you sure that's him? I mean, I know they all look the same to most white folk 😳, but if it is him, why wouldn't the picture be identified as such?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm as sure about that as you are about his innocence.


----------



## Macfury

My feeling about this guy is that it's too bad his parents treated him so poorly, but he's probably guilty as charged. He's now become a tool of the left-wing propaganda machine. Regardless, I think he's served enough time for murder. I agree with screature. Between scrutiny from those on the left who want to prove that he's been thoroughly rehabilitated to those who don't drink unicorn milk for breakfast and believe he has not, there won't be much opportunity for hatching some super plan.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> My feeling about this guy is that it's too bad his parents treated him so poorly, but he's probably guilty as charged.


...because you have dismissed out of hand the inconsistencies in the evidence against him? 

And even *if* he fought back against attacking US soldiers (who, after the initial call for surrender to the entire group in the compound, offered no second chance to do so, according to the witness statement) in self-defense, the fact remains that he was a child.

One thing I've never been clear on: *what jurisdiction* did the US have to remove a Canadian child from an Afghanistan province to transport him halfway 'round the world to their illegal prison on occupied soil?


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> I'm as sure about that as you are about his innocence.


Dare I ask if your opinion of Morris is unchanged, given the information I posted above?


----------



## SINC

My opinion of Morris is changed, yes, but of Khadr being freed, no.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> ...because you have dismissed out of hand the inconsistencies in the evidence against him?


Not out of hand. I just believe that he's likely guilty.



CubaMark said:


> And even *if* he fought back against attacking US soldiers (who, after the initial call for surrender to the entire group in the compound, offered no second chance to do so...


One chance to surrender in a military situation is enough. 



CubaMark said:


> ... the fact remains that he was a child.


Child Soldiers International - International Standards



> The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: Adopted by the UN General Assembly on 20 November 1989, entered into force on 2 September 1990. The Convention on the Rights of the Child generally defines a child as any person under the age of 18. *However, Article 38 uses the lower age of 15 as the minimum for recruitment or participation in armed conflict.* This language is drawn from the two Additional Protocols to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949.





CubaMark said:


> One thing I've never been clear on: *what jurisdiction* did the US have to remove a Canadian child from an Afghanistan province to transport him halfway 'round the world to their illegal prison on occupied soil?


What jurisdiction did Canada have to transport German soldiers to Canadian POW camps during WWII?


----------



## SINC

Yep, age 15 has always been and is my understanding. Any average 15-year-old knows right from wrong and is responsible for their own decisions. To decide to participate was his undoing.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Yep, age 15 has always been and is my understanding. Any average 15-year-old knows right from wrong and is responsible for their own decisions. To decide to participate was his undoing.


Even if he had been coerced, he could have surrendered at that point.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Even if he had been coerced, he could have surrendered at that point.


At what point?

The others in the compound opened fire on the two Afghani interpreters who approached, killing them.

Khadr, a 15-year-old boy at the time under their control, should have stood up and said, "Hey, guys, you, know what? I'm outta here". I'm sure that would have gone well.

He had no other opportunity to surrender once the firefight began. Once the airstrike ended, the US forces moved in, firing as they went (refer again to witness statement above).

It's unknown if Khadr would have been capable of signalling surrender, given that his back was to the entry point where US troops came in, striking him twice in the back.

In any case - this discussion has gotten 'waaaay off track....


----------



## Macfury

Not going well for you, eh?



CubaMark said:


> In any case - this discussion has gotten 'waaaay off track....


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> Yep, age 15 has always been and is my understanding. Any average 15-year-old knows right from wrong and is responsible for their own decisions. To decide to participate was his undoing.


That attitude would have interesting repercussions if applied to a variety of other legal contexts, even in Canada. 15-year-olds are treated differently by the legal system precisely because it is accepted as fact that they sure as hell don't know what they're doing at that age....


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Not going well for you, eh?


If I were the type to keep a scorecard, MF, I daresay I'd be doing pretty well for myself so far.

I'm just getting tired of rehashing the same old **** with people who are unable to see any perspective other than their own.

I'd challenge any of you who want Khadr's head to put yourself in his position, under the control of a domineering father, taken to another country, and put into service of Al Qaeda. You're that 15 year old kid, sitting in a compound with other heavily armed fighters. The US military comes knocking at your door.

What would YOU do, realistically?

Or is doing this kind of touchy-feely role-playing too bleeding heart liberal for ya?


----------



## Macfury

I would try to protect myself--however, I would still be guilty of manslaughter. The question is, given the circumstances, what level of punishment is justified.




CubaMark said:


> If I were the type to keep a scorecard, MF, I daresay I'd be doing pretty well for myself so far.
> 
> I'm just getting tired of rehashing the same old **** with people who are unable to see any perspective other than their own.
> 
> I'd challenge any of you who want Khadr's head to put yourself in his position, under the control of a domineering father, taken to another country, and put into service of Al Qaeda. You're that 15 year old kid, sitting in a compound with other heavily armed fighters. The US military comes knocking at your door.
> 
> What would YOU do, realistically?
> 
> Or is doing this kind of touchy-feely role-playing too bleeding heart liberal for ya?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I would try to protect myself--however, I would still be guilty of manslaughter. The question is, given the circumstances, what level of punishment is justified.



Manslaughter generally has a much shorter period of confinement than murder does, which is what Omar Khadr was convicted of. In any event, he has now served thirteen years of his eight year sentence....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Mm-hmm. I said it's time to let him go, even though I don't have a good feeling about it.



fjnmusic said:


> Manslaughter generally has a much shorter period of confinement than murder does, which is what Omar Khadr was convicted of. In any event, he has now served thirteen years of his eight year sentence....
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CubaMark

Canadian Government To Seek Emergency Stay Of Bail For Omar Khadr


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> Canadian Government To Seek Emergency Stay Of Bail For Omar Khadr


Good to know our government is trying to protect us all against people like this. I wish them every success in keeping him incarcerated for a very long time. :clap:


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> Good to know our government is trying to protect us all against people like this. I wish them every success in keeping him incarcerated for a very long time. :clap:


Let's just say I think we need to worry far more about the actions of our Government than the actions of people it claims to be protecting us from!

1 Million Canadians tainted by US blood under the Harper omnibus.

Several million Canadians who hold dual citizenship under the Harper blunderbus.

Nearly 3/4 of a Million veterans under a Harper omni/blunderbus.

Two Canadians who might or might not have been killed by terrorists. For whatever reason tox results have not been released on the two so-called radicalized terrorists responsible. And how on earth did the press know they had been radicalized before the bodies even hit the ground? Was it CSIS that radicalized them?


----------



## SINC

eMacMan said:


> Let's just say I think we need to worry far more about the actions of our Government than the actions of people it claims to be protecting us from!
> 
> 1 Million Canadians tainted by US blood under the Harper omnibus.
> 
> Several million Canadians who hold dual citizenship under the Harper blunderbus.
> 
> Nearly 3/4 of a Million veterans under a Harper omni/blunderbus.
> 
> Two Canadians who might or might not have been killed by terrorists. For whatever reason tox results have not been released on the two so-called radicalized terrorists responsible. And how on earth did the press know they had been radicalized before the bodies even hit the ground? Was it CSIS that radicalized them?


That's a lot of verbage to defend an unknown threat if he is released.

Mine is much shorter. Throw away the key. Now.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Good to know our government is trying to protect us all against people like this. I wish them every success in keeping him incarcerated for a very long time. :clap:


He has now served 13 years of an 8 year sentence, Don. At what point do you think he would be entitled to an actual fair trial in an actual court of law? If he's as guilty as you say, it should be a cake walk. He may be guilty, or he may not, but currently it sure looks a lot like political opportunism on the part of the Harper government.


----------



## CubaMark

*A new report* with something we haven't seen / read before: Omar Khadr's own words and opinions. In comments taken from a recent interview with a prison psychologist, he says:

"I heard Americans. I heard shooting. I was scared. I had a hand grenade. I threw it over my back and it exploded. I wanted to scare them away. I wasn't thinking about the consequences. After that, I was shot,"

"...he clings to the hope it wasn't him that killed Speer. "I still take responsibility," he says. "If I did kill (Speer), that would be a very sad thing."​
*On terrorism:*

"You shouldn't distort things to appease others or to suit your own agenda. I don't believe in al-Qaida killing innocents to further their belief," Khadr says. "I hope there won't be this terrorism nonsense — I'm not going to get involved."​
*On his father:*

"If he could do things over, Khadr says, he would have tried to challenge his father — an associate of the late terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden — who sent him as a 15-year-old to stay with the al-Qaida fighters in Afghanistan, initially to act as a translator for them."

"I didn't really have an opinion but kind of agreed with them — not because I believed it but because it was always talked about," he says.

"The thoughts were impressed upon me. In retrospect, I went along with it. My ideas were all over the place. The morality of it didn't register."​
(HuffPo)


----------



## FeXL

Sounds like the same sort of stuff any red-blooded human would be spoon-feeding the prison psychologist in order to get paroled...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Sounds like the same sort of stuff any red-blooded human would be spoon-feeding the prison psychologist in order to get paroled...


I guess the fact that he threw the hand grenade is now beyond debate... CM had all sorts of doubts 'bout that one.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I guess the fact that he threw the hand grenade is now beyond debate... CM had all sorts of doubts 'bout that one.



Honestly. Throwing a grenade over a wall in self-defense is a far cry from aiming it at an individual person. It is the difference between murder and manslaughter. They have very different meanings and very different consequences in legal terms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Honestly. Throwing a grenade over a wall in self-defense is a far cry from aiming it at an individual person. It is the difference between murder and manslaughter. They have very different meanings and very different consequences in legal terms.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Good grief, even when he admits he was responsible for killing a person you still defend him? That seals the deal for me that he should never be released.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Good grief, even when he admits he was responsible for killing a person you still defend him? That seals the deal for me that he should never be released.



You're saying you really don't understand the difference between murder and manslaughter? 1st degree and 3rd degree? According to your reasoning EVERY soldier should also be tried for murder. And apparently serving 13 years of an 8 year sentence is not enough for a 15 year old perp; he should "never" be released. Do you feel the same way about every Canadian who also commits manslaughter? Do you know how much it would cost you in taxes to keep every prisoner in jail for life? I thought you were fiscally conservative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Good grief, even when he admits he was responsible for killing a person you still defend him? That seals the deal for me that he should never be released.


We started with "he couldn't possibly have thrown the grenade" and when that excuse falls--"Well, it's only manslaughter!"


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> You're saying you really don't understand the difference between murder and manslaughter? 1st degree and 3rd degree? According to your reasoning EVERY soldier should also be tried for murder. And apparently serving 13 years of an 8 year sentence is not enough for a 15 year old perp; he should "never" be released. Do you feel the same way about every Canadian who also commits manslaughter? Do you know how much it would cost you in taxes to keep every prisoner in jail for life? I thought you were fiscally conservative.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I understand the difference very clearly, but you are talking about other Canadians. I am talking about a *terrorist* and that changes the game totally. No *terrorist* who admits taking any life should ever be released.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> I understand the difference very clearly, but you are talking about other Canadians. I am talking about a *terrorist* and that changes the game totally. No *terrorist* who admits taking any life should ever be released.



Interesting. Also starting to smell a lot like racism. Perhaps to an Afghan citizen who loses his whole family in a raid or a "random" shooting WE are the terrorists. Or I suppose terrorism can only be defined from an ethnocentrist point of view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> We started with "he couldn't possibly have thrown the grenade" and when that excuse falls--"Well, it's only manslaughter!"



He admitted throwing the grenade as part if the plea bargain a number of years ago. I suggested that under pain of torture, such an admission is not admissible in any normal court of law. He was tried under a now discredited military tribunal. Nobody has said that he is completely innocent, only that he should be entitled to a fair trial. Good God man. His sentence was for eight years even under the tribunal an has currently served 13 years. Christians are supposed to promote forgiveness, not vengeance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

He recently reiterated it to the prison psychiatrist in CubaMark's post under no threat of torture:

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/100072-omar-khadr-canada-bound-92.html#post1956673



fjnmusic said:


> He admitted throwing the grenade as part if the plea bargain a number of years ago.


----------



## Macfury

I hope that you realize that your mental confusion regarding these matters isn't infectious.



fjnmusic said:


> Interesting. Also starting to smell a lot like racism. Perhaps to an Afghan citizen who loses his whole family in a raid or a "random" shooting WE are the terrorists. Or I suppose terrorism can only be defined from an ethnocentrist point of view.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Interesting. Also starting to smell a lot like racism.


Since when did *terrorist* become a race? No racism involved, but you continue to make assinine accusations.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Since when did *terrorist* become a race? No racism involved, but you continue to make assinine accusations.


This comes of thinking so far inside the box that the thoughts turn incestuous from loneliness.


----------



## BigDL

Good day for Canadian justice. Khdar granted bail. "Free to go," with restrictions.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Good day for Canadian justice. Khdar granted bail. "Free to go," with restrictions.


That was the likely outcome. The conditions seem reasonable.


----------



## fjnmusic

BigDL said:


> Good day for Canadian justice. Khdar granted bail. "Free to go," with restrictions.



This is really going to **** some of our ehMac friends and neighbors off, especially those that contend a convicted terrorist (regardless of how he was convicted) should never be released.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

It was inevitable that he would be released. Any longer in that cell and he would have drowned in the tears of Progressives.



fjnmusic said:


> This is really going to **** some of our ehMac friends and neighbors off, especially those that contend a convicted terrorist (regardless of how he was convicted) should never be released.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

I will resurrect this thread when he makes his first mistake, and he will.


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> Good day for Canadian justice. Khdar granted bail. "Free to go," with restrictions.


So says a Canadian with such a twisted viewpoint that our he thinks our PM is a Korean and insulting all Canadian military members as war mongers by insulting our leader.


----------



## CubaMark

*What Omar Khadr's lawyer said: "Mr. Harper is a bigot"*

_Dennis Edney, one of the Canadian lawyers who has represented Omar Khadr for many years, spoke with passion Thursday after Khadr won bail following 13 years in prison._


*Question: Is there a celebration planned?*

“My wife has been cleaning the house for weeks,” Edney laughed. “She has gone out and bought clothes for him and she has even stolen some clothes off my oldest boy who is in Asia, thinking this will fit. She has every intention of giving him a good family meal.”

* * *​
*Question: Public Safety Minister just put out a statement saying it is a shame he has been released before serving his entire sentence.*

“Well let me say to these guys, why don’t they get a camera and sit with me and challenge me and show me just how stupid I am. Show me and prove to the Canadian public that whatever I have said about Omar Khadr is not true. I would like to ask them, Why don’t they talk about the truth? Why don’t they talk about their own representatives from the department of foreign affairs who went to Guantanamo over the years and provided written reports ordered by the courts, of which I have copies, and every one of those reports talk about Omar Khadr being a wonderful guy.

“And how about when we talk about committing a heinous crime, why do we spend millions of dollars rehabilitating child soldiers along with the Americans in Sierra Leone and yet we know that we had one. We had a young boy at 15 dropped into an abandoned into a house by his father and we give him no mercy. I would love to take Mr. Blaney on and perhaps he could learn some information.”

*Question: Why did Ottawa go this far to keep him behind bars?*

“That is a question that gets asked in Guantanamo. I was asked in Guantanamo a number of times, ‘Why is Canada not doing something for this young man? You would have to ask Mr. Harper. My view is very clear, Mr. Harpers is a bigot. Mr. Harper doesn’t like Muslims. I once said publicly to Mr. Harper, ‘When you put your children to bed, ask yourself if you would like your children abused like Omar Khadr?’ I followed that child to a grown man. I keep saying the mantra, perhaps this is also political. He wants to show he is tough on crime and who does he pick on? A 15-year-old boy who was picked up and put in the hell hole of Guantanamo.”​
(Toronto Star)


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> *What Omar Khadr's lawyer said: "Mr. Harper is a bigot"*
> 
> 
> 
> _Dennis Edney, one of the Canadian lawyers who has represented Omar Khadr for many years, spoke with passion Thursday after Khadr won bail following 13 years in prison._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Question: Is there a celebration planned?*
> 
> 
> 
> &#147;My wife has been cleaning the house for weeks,&#148; Edney laughed. &#147;She has gone out and bought clothes for him and she has even stolen some clothes off my oldest boy who is in Asia, thinking this will fit. She has every intention of giving him a good family meal.&#148;
> 
> 
> 
> * * *​
> 
> 
> *Question: Public Safety Minister just put out a statement saying it is a shame he has been released before serving his entire sentence.*
> 
> 
> 
> &#147;Well let me say to these guys, why don&#146;t they get a camera and sit with me and challenge me and show me just how stupid I am. Show me and prove to the Canadian public that whatever I have said about Omar Khadr is not true. I would like to ask them, Why don&#146;t they talk about the truth? Why don&#146;t they talk about their own representatives from the department of foreign affairs who went to Guantanamo over the years and provided written reports ordered by the courts, of which I have copies, and every one of those reports talk about Omar Khadr being a wonderful guy.
> 
> 
> 
> &#147;And how about when we talk about committing a heinous crime, why do we spend millions of dollars rehabilitating child soldiers along with the Americans in Sierra Leone and yet we know that we had one. We had a young boy at 15 dropped into an abandoned into a house by his father and we give him no mercy. I would love to take Mr. Blaney on and perhaps he could learn some information.&#148;
> 
> 
> 
> *Question: Why did Ottawa go this far to keep him behind bars?*
> 
> 
> 
> &#147;That is a question that gets asked in Guantanamo. I was asked in Guantanamo a number of times, &#145;Why is Canada not doing something for this young man? You would have to ask Mr. Harper. My view is very clear, Mr. Harpers is a bigot. Mr. Harper doesn&#146;t like Muslims. I once said publicly to Mr. Harper, &#145;When you put your children to bed, ask yourself if you would like your children abused like Omar Khadr?&#146; I followed that child to a grown man. I keep saying the mantra, perhaps this is also political. He wants to show he is tough on crime and who does he pick on? A 15-year-old boy who was picked up and put in the hell hole of Guantanamo.&#148;​
> 
> 
> (Toronto Star)



Glad that he's finally getting a taste of freedom, albeit on a short leash. I feel sorry for those who can never let go of their anger to see the good in another human being. I wish Omar well in his studies.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> So says a Canadian with such a twisted viewpoint that our he thinks our PM is a Korean and insulting all Canadian military members as war mongers by insulting their commander in chief.


Sadly ar ...know-it-all...doesn't know who is the commander-in-chief of the military in Canada.



gc.ca said:


> The governor general is commander-in-chief of Canada. This role has been expressly conferred on the governor general as per the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada (1947). As such, the governor general plays a major role in recognizing the importance of Canada’s military at home and abroad.
> 
> As commander-in-chief, the governor general performs many duties:
> 
> Acts on the recommendation of the prime minister regarding the appointment of the chief of the Defence Staff;
> Acts on recommendations of the minister of National Defence regarding the appointment of Royal colonels of Canadian regiments;
> Approves new military badges and insignia;
> Visits Canadian Forces personnel, their families and loved ones, at home and abroad;
> Presents new colours to Canadian Forces units;
> Awards military honours, such as the Order of Military Merit, Meritorious Service and Military Valour decorations, and the Peacekeeping and Special Service medals; and
> Signs commission scrolls.
> 
> Upon appointment, the commander-in-chief receives the Canadian Forces decoration and becomes a colonel of the Governor General’s Foot Guards, the Governor General’s Horse Guards and the Canadian Grenadier Guards, as well as chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit.



https://www.gg.ca/events.aspx?sc=4&lan=eng

As far as the rest of the foolishness...what are you on,about now.


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> Sadly ar ...know-it-all...doesn't know who is the commander-in-chief of the military in Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.gg.ca/events.aspx?sc=4&lan=eng
> 
> As far as the rest of the foolishness...what are you on,about now.


At least I know enough to post subjects in the proper thread, yet another shortcoming of yours.

Now, run along to the echo chamnber over on Magic and tell yer mentor the little drummer boy how you raised havoc here today, and then you two 15 year olds can gloat with each other about how smart you are.


----------



## Macfury

He's being rehabbed immediately--into Edney's spokespuppet!



CubaMark said:


> *What Omar Khadr's lawyer said: "Mr. Harper is a bigot"*
> 
> _Dennis Edney, one of the Canadian lawyers who has represented Omar Khadr for many years, spoke with passion Thursday after Khadr won bail following 13 years in prison._​


​


----------



## fjnmusic

But Mr. Harper IS a bigot. He's also a Christian Zionist, both problematic if you happen to be Muslim.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

You have zero proof of bigotry. But haters such as yourself are gonna hate.



fjnmusic said:


> But Mr. Harper IS a bigot. He's also a Christian Zionist, both problematic if you happen to be Muslim.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You have zero proof of bigotry. But haters such as yourself are gonna hate.



I've learned something from you after all. Bring on the rapture baby!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Why are you in rapture?



fjnmusic said:


> I've learned something from you after all. Bring on the rapture baby!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CubaMark

*Omar Khadr, speaking freely to the Canadian media for the first time since being captured by US troops, 13 years ago:
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLaMbmttOP0


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> *Omar Khadr, speaking freely to the Canadian media for the first time since being captured by US troops, 13 years ago:
> 
> *
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLaMbmttOP0



Sure doesn't sound much like a terrorist to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

He would make a very ineffectual terrorist.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *But Mr. Harper IS a bigot. He's also a Christian Zionist, both problematic if you happen to be Muslim.
> *
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Wow just Wow!!!! :clap:


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Wow just Wow!!!! :clap:


Some fantabulous thought processes going on there!


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> *Omar Khadr, speaking freely to the Canadian media for the first time since being captured by US troops, 13 years ago:
> *
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLaMbmttOP0





fjnmusic said:


> Sure doesn't sound much like a terrorist to me.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I have to say I was impressed. He was much more articulate than I would have expected.

IMO let him stay on parole and see how he does. He certainly doesn't seem to me to be any threat and seeing that his every movement is being watched I don't know how he could be.


----------



## CubaMark

*Omar Khadr's bail conditions:*

_The conditions to his release include:
_

Khadr must wear an electronic monitoring device.
Must live with his lawyer Dennis Edney and wife Patricia in Edmonton.
Must observe a nightly curfew from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
Cannot leave Alberta without prior approval, except to visit Edneys' vacation home in B.C.
May only contact his family by telephone or video under Edneys' supervision, and chat must be in English.
May only have in-person visits with his family with prior approval from bail supervisor.
Any Internet access will be restricted and must be monitored and supervised.

(HuffPo)


----------



## Macfury

Yes, it all seems reasonable.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> I have to say I was impressed. He was much more articulate than I would have expected.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO let him stay on parole and see how he does. He certainly doesn't seem to me to be any threat and seeing that his every movement is being watched I don't know how he could be.



Exactly. It's amazing what you see when you look "the enemy" in the face. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Man, that's hackneyed!


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> I will resurrect this thread when he makes his first mistake, and he will.


 Well T plus 24 hours since Omar Khdar has been released by the Canadian Judiciary and Mr. Khdar mocks you and the Ostentatious Grandiose Lambaster. Nothing has happened...well except...

Mr. Khdar further mocks you and the Ostentatious Grandiose Lambaster's position with public statements of being a reasonable individual such as when Mr. Khdar say: *“I’m going to have to disappoint him. I’m not the person he thinks I am.”*

However Canadians have widely accepted that the Ostentatious Grandiose Lambaster is a bigot and hates Muslims.


----------



## fjnmusic

BigDL said:


> Well T plus 24 hours since Omar Khdar has been released by the Canadian Judiciary and Mr. Khdar mocks you and the Ostentatious Grandiose Lambaster. Nothing has happened...well except...
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Khdar further mocks you and the Ostentatious Grandiose Lambaster's position with public statements of being a reasonable individual such as when Mr. Khdar say: *&#147;I&#146;m going to have to disappoint him. I&#146;m not the person he thinks I am.&#148;*
> 
> 
> 
> However Canadians have widely accepted that the Ostentatious Grandiose Lambaster is a bigot and hates Muslims.



And a Christian Zionist to boot. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> And a Christian Zionist to boot.


What is your evidence and if true, why would you say this is a bad thing?


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> Well T plus 24 hours since Omar Khdar has been released by the Canadian Judiciary and Mr. Khdar mocks you and the Ostentatious Grandiose Lambaster. Nothing has happened...well except...
> 
> Mr. Khdar further mocks you and the Ostentatious Grandiose Lambaster's position with public statements of being a reasonable individual such as when Mr. Khdar say: *“I’m going to have to disappoint him. I’m not the person he thinks I am.”*
> 
> However Canadians have widely accepted that the Ostentatious Grandiose Lambaster is a bigot and hates Muslims.


What a sad and childish post for a grown man. Name calling much? A lack of respect for the country and the office in the extreme, but then again, it is the union way.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> I will resurrect this thread when he makes his first mistake, and he will.





SINC said:


> What a sad and childish post for a grown man....
> ...A lack of respect...


On these points we agree.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> What is your evidence and if true, *why would you say this is a bad thing?*


Exactly.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Yes, it all seems reasonable.


It does indeed.


----------



## macintosh doctor

Video | Stephen Harper maintains his stance on Omar Khadr | Toronto Star


----------



## screature

macintosh doctor said:


> Video | Stephen Harper maintains his stance on Omar Khadr | Toronto Star


Yes we know.

Do you have a comment to make?


----------



## screature

I think at this point in time the Government is wrong when it comes to Khadr.

If it was 10 years ago I would have and did agree. But he has done his time and then some.

His father is to blame but unfortunately we cannot punish him because he is dead. So IMO we should stop punishing Omar for the sins of his father.

I think it is time to let this guy have a life outside of a penitentiary.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> I think at this point in time the Government is wrong when it comes to Khadr.
> 
> 
> 
> If it was 10 years ago I would have and did agree. But he has done his time and then some.
> 
> 
> 
> His father is to blame but unfortunately we cannot punish him because he is dead. So IMO we should stop punishing Omar for the sins of his father.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is time to let this guy have a life outside of a penitentiary.



He seems pretty thankful for the opportunity. I think rehabilitation does work for certain people. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## CubaMark

*Gracious, respectful Omar Khadr confounds Harper government stereotype*

_This is not the Omar Khadr that the Harper government wants us to see. It prefers a world that is black and white, where the bad guys are terrorists who commit heinous crimes and the good guys are one-dimensionally heroic.

Government ministers, and the prime minister himself, refer to the fact that Khadr pled guilty to war crimes, including murder.

They neglect to point out that he made this plea at Guantanamo Bay before a deeply flawed U.S. military commission armed with powers that no regular American or Canadian court is allowed.

They neglect to point out that the alleged war crimes for which Khadr was convicted, including killing an enemy soldier in battle, are not in fact war crimes.

They neglect to point out that Khadr, quite understandably, was willing to agree to anything that would get him out of Guantanamo Bay._​(Toronto Star)


----------



## BigDL

Seems the Ostentatious Grandiose Lambaster is again a big loser, *at the public's expense yet again.*

The Top Court finds in favour of Omar Khadr. | The Chronicle Herald


----------



## Macfury

You neglect to point out that Khadr admitted culpability to that murder to his psychiatrist recently under no threat of coercion. How many times are you going to ignore that and post such thoughtless pap?

Likewise, what does someone's "gracious" demeanour have to do with guilt or the person inside?

Khadr has served enough time for manslaugher, but this ridiculous rehab effort to convert him into a pop star for "progressives" is too much.



CubaMark said:


> *Gracious, respectful Omar Khadr confounds Harper government stereotype*
> 
> _This is not the Omar Khadr that the Harper government wants us to see. It prefers a world that is black and white, where the bad guys are terrorists who commit heinous crimes and the good guys are one-dimensionally heroic.
> 
> Government ministers, and the prime minister himself, refer to the fact that Khadr pled guilty to war crimes, including murder.
> 
> They neglect to point out that he made this plea at Guantanamo Bay before a deeply flawed U.S. military commission armed with powers that no regular American or Canadian court is allowed.
> 
> They neglect to point out that the alleged war crimes for which Khadr was convicted, including killing an enemy soldier in battle, are not in fact war crimes.
> 
> They neglect to point out that Khadr, quite understandably, was willing to agree to anything that would get him out of Guantanamo Bay._​(Toronto Star)


----------



## Macfury

That's good and nobody lost. The result is part of a healthy and rigorous interplay between political and judicial forces. Freedom well earned will stick better than some rubber stamp process.



BigDL said:


> Seems the Ostentatious Grandiose Lambaster is again a big loser, *at the public's expense yet again.*
> 
> The Top Court finds in favour of Omar Khadr. | The Chronicle Herald


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> You neglect to point out that Khadr admitted culpability to that murder to his psychiatrist recently under no threat of coercion. How many times are you going to ignore that and post such thoughtless pap?


You seem rather wound up about this, MF. Perhaps you should go have a tea?

Khadr admitted to throwing a grenade, backwards, over a wall. He was in no position to see or confirm if his grenade was the one that killed the attacking US soldier. He stated, as I posted, that he "hoped" that he wasn't responsible. 

I've ignored nothing, and I find it interesting that you see this discussion as "thoughtless pap". Feel free to stop participating.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> You seem rather wound up about this, MF. Perhaps you should go have a tea?


You should see me when I'm wound up. You would be crying thick, bitter tears!



CubaMark said:


> Khadr admitted to throwing a grenade, backwards, over a wall. He was in no position to see or confirm if his grenade was the one that killed the attacking US soldier. He stated, as I posted, that he "hoped" that he wasn't responsible.


Even when Khadr maturely takes responsibility, you try to take that away from him. Unbelievable.



CubaMark said:


> I've ignored nothing, and I find it interesting that you see this discussion as "thoughtless pap". Feel free to stop participating.


I'm participating at this moment _because _your post was thoughtless pap, not the discussion.


----------



## fjnmusic

BigDL said:


> Seems the Ostentatious Grandiose Lambaster is again a big loser, *at the public's expense yet again.*
> 
> 
> 
> The Top Court finds in favour of Omar Khadr. | The Chronicle Herald



That's three big losses before the Supreme Court for the Harpers now, again all at taxpayer's expense. Apparently Harper's version of the New Testament missed the whole emphasis on forgiveness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BigDL

fjnmusic said:


> That's three big losses before the Supreme Court for the Harpers now, again all at taxpayer's expense. Apparently Harper's version of the New Testament missed the whole emphasis on forgiveness.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yeah, good point, I've been thinking the Christian Right the PM included seem to be more of the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" strain, rather than the "turn the other cheek," kind of Christians.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> That's three big losses before the Supreme Court for the Harpers now, again all at taxpayer's expense. Apparently Harper's version of the New Testament missed the whole emphasis on forgiveness.


How much did it cost?



fjnmusic said:


> Apparently Harper's version of the New Testament missed the whole emphasis on forgiveness.


I keep wondering if you have ever read the Bible. It is not up to Harper to forgive Khadr. Unfortunately, the man Khadr killed is the only one who could have done that.


----------



## fjnmusic

Well, it's been two weeks and no embassies bombed yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

The terrorist union would demand bonus pay for doing that with a homing device strapped to your leg.



fjnmusic said:


> Well, it's been two weeks and no embassies bombed yet.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

In case you didn't see it yet, here is a link to the documentary on Omar Khadr that aired on CBC on May 28, 2015. Do me a favor: watch at least 10 minutes of it before you comment. Thanks.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/ID/2668265371/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> In case you didn't see it yet, here is a link to the documentary on Omar Khadr that aired on CBC on May 28, 2015. Do me a favor: watch at least 10 minutes of it before you comment. Thanks.
> 
> Omar Khadr: Out of the Shadows - CBC Television - CBC Player
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If it was a documentary by anyone else but the CBC I would give it a look, but not a chance from that left wing biased tax sucking corporation.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> If it was a documentary by anyone else but the CBC I would give it a look, but not a chance from that left wing biased tax sucking corporation.



Ha ha! Good to see you're open-minded enough to actually take a look before commenting. Guess the CBC isn't the only one who's biased.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## macintosh doctor

I am so sadden by having to read this in the Star.. they are attempting to glorify him, down play his terrorizing family by rewriting facts...
Omar Khadr in his own words | Toronto Star

why is the media loving this terrorist and his terrorizing family ?


----------



## fjnmusic

macintosh doctor said:


> I am so sadden by having to read this in the Star.. they are attempting to glorify him, down play his terrorizing family by rewriting facts...
> 
> Omar Khadr in his own words | Toronto Star
> 
> 
> 
> why is the media loving this terrorist and his terrorizing family ?



Did you watch any of the documentary?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lewdvig

His family was nuts. He distances himself from them. The letter of the law has been followed and he is now free. No one shoudl have a beef with him.

I have a problem with this whole war criminal business though; He was involved in a small battle, in a time of war. He was injured and killed another combatant. Only North Americans are dumb enough to call that a war crime. That's what war is, killing the 'other' guys.

If either side had completely wiped the other side out in this little battle (as happens every day in war zones)we'd have never heard about any of this.

After the battle, USA decides to call the killing of a US soldier in a time of war 'war crime.' How convenient. It's now against the law to kill American soldiers if you are at war with them. Next I hear they are making Huricanes illegal.


----------



## fjnmusic

lewdvig said:


> His family was nuts. He distances himself from them. The letter of the law has been followed and he is now free. No one shoudl have a beef with him.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a problem with this whole war criminal business though; He was involved in a small battle, in a time of war. He was injured and killed another combatant. Only North Americans are dumb enough to call that a war crime. That's what war is, killing the 'other' guys.
> 
> 
> 
> If either side had completely wiped the other side out in this little battle (as happens every day in war zones)we'd have never heard about any of this.
> 
> 
> 
> After the battle, USA decides to call the killing of a US soldier in a time of war 'war crime.' How convenient. It's now against the law to kill American soldiers if you are at war with them. Next I hear they are making Huricanes illegal.



Exactly. The US had dropped three bombs on this compound and did not expect
To find anyone alive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Ha ha! Good to see you're open-minded enough to actually take a look before commenting. Guess the CBC isn't the only one who's biased.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You lose again Frank. You asked us not to comment on the documentary until we had watched at least 10 minutes. I followed your instructions and did not comment on Khadar, nor the contents of the documentary.

What I did comment on was CBC-TV. Anything they touch is filled with their left wing view of subjects covered and I duly notied that. As for being open minded about the CBC, that organization is for people with holes in their heads to believe anything they produce at face value from their TV news side.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> You lose again Frank. You asked us not to comment on the documentary until we had watched at least 10 minutes. I followed your instructions and did not comment on Khadar, nor the contents of the documentary.
> 
> 
> 
> What I did comment on was CBC-TV. Anything they touch is filled with their left wing view of subjects covered and I duly notied that. As for being open minded about the CBC, that organization is for people with holes in their heads to believe anything they produce at face value from their TV news side.



Only in your world is ignorance a virtue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

lewdvig said:


> His family was nuts. He distances himself from them. The letter of the law has been followed and he is now free. No one shoudl have a beef with him.


But I was surprised at his comments about his family in the article:



> "They have said things that was not very smart - that they shouldn't have said. They're very opinionated," Khadr says of his family. "*I think that they are good people.* (But) they haven't been able to deal with the past and the present. They're really struggling. Some of my siblings have completely cut off their pasts and some of them are living in the past and not accepting the present."
> 
> .....
> 
> He doesn't believe his father was Al Qaeda, despite his friendship with some of its members.





lewdvig said:


> I have a problem with this whole war criminal business though; He was involved in a small battle, in a time of war. He was injured and killed another combatant. Only North Americans are dumb enough to call that a war crime. That's what war is, killing the 'other' guys.
> 
> If either side had completely wiped the other side out in this little battle (as happens every day in war zones) we'd have never heard about any of this.


I agree that these definitions need to be clarified. Of course, what you said almost happened--they just about finished Khadr off, but relented at the last second.


----------



## FeXL

I haven't listened to the documentary & won't, because CBC. That said, I ran across this earlier on SDA. I did listen to the Charles Adler interview with Shephard and, frankly, I do think it's Stockholm Syndrome.

The Canadian Left's Poster Boy for 2015



> Update: Charles Adler interviews Michelle Shephard, the journalist deeply involved in this "documentary". You decide whether she's objective, has Stockholm Syndrome, or wants to date Khadr. One thing's for sure, she's on a crusade and using your tax dollars to fund it!


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> I haven't listened to the documentary & won't, because CBC. That said, I ran across this earlier on SDA. I did listen to the Charles Adler interview with Shephard and, frankly, I do think it's Stockholm Syndrome.
> 
> The Canadian Left's Poster Boy for 2015


That's it in a nutshell. Objectivity? Hardly. She wants to date him? Yeah, great stuff indeed.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Only in your world is ignorance a virtue.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No, not at all, but I draw the line at tax dollars being used to whitewash my thinking, like yours must be to believe that stuff.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> No, not at all, but I draw the line at tax dollars being used to whitewash my thinking, like yours must be to believe that stuff.


Instead of telling us what he thought was significant about the documentary, he wants you to waste an hour on it.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> Instead of telling us what he thought was significant about the documentary, he wants you to waste an hour on it.


And that ain't gonna happen.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Instead of telling us what he thought was significant about the documentary, he wants you to waste an hour on it.



Ten minutes, not an hour. Or don't. You could continue to offer knee jerk reactions based on something you know nothing about. Or you could watch a sample and criticize it then. It is permissible to take a critical look at a source you do not agree with. Of course, that might open you up to changing your mind about something you are so cock sure of—a frightening prospect, no doubt. I understand your fear.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

You appear to be an emotional sort, so I'm unlikely to be moved by the same things that move you. Still, I might spin 10 minutes while I'm cleaning up the place.




fjnmusic said:


> Ten minutes, not an hour. Or don't. You could continue to offer knee jerk reactions based on something you know nothing about. Or you could watch a sample and criticize it then. It is permissible to take a critical look at a source you do not agree with. Of course, that might open you up to changing your mind about something you are so cock sure of—a frightening prospect, no doubt. I understand your fear.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You appear to be an emotional sort, so I'm unlikely to be moved by the same things that move you. Still, I might spin 10 minutes while I'm cleaning up the place.



I think you would find it intriguing, particularly the interviews with the American officer who found Omar at the compound as well as one of the key interrogators.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> You could continue to offer knee jerk reactions based on something you know nothing about.


Or you could as well with your particular brand of knee jerk reaction. 

You know nothing about what actually happened. You were not there. That is fact.

Yet you choose to believe the bleeding heart stories you have heard and they are no more than stories. You, nor anyone else has any solid proof of anything that actually happened. To form such a strong opinion on what you 'think' might have happened, is just that, 'thoughts in your mind'.

Or, as you choose to accuse others of, 'knee jerk reactions.'


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Or you could as well with your particular brand of knee jerk reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing about what actually happened. You were not there. That is fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you choose to believe the bleeding heart stories you have heard and they are no more than stories. You, nor anyone else has any solid proof of anything that actually happened. To form such a strong opinion on what you 'think' might have happened, is just that, 'thoughts in your mind'.
> 
> 
> 
> Or, as you choose to accuse others of, 'knee jerk reactions.'



I know more than you. I know because I have listened to the testimonies of at least two people who were there during the firefight, including one of the men who attacked the compound where Khadr was holed up. I know because I watched the video that you seem to be so afraid to take a look at. When you make up your mind about someone before even knowing anything about them it's called P-R-E-J-U-D-I-C-E. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> I know more than you. I know because I have listened to the testimonies of at least two people who were there during the firefight, including one of the men who attacked the compound where Khadr was holed up. I know because I watched the video that you seem to be so afraid to take a look at. When you make up your mind about someone before even knowing anything about them it's called P-R-E-J-U-D-I-C-E.


Without prejudice: I find your blind acceptance of all things Khadar to be irrational.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Without prejudice: I find your blind acceptance of all things Khadar to be irrational.



I think you're afraid to watch because you might develop feelings of sympathy for the man, which scares you. It's the notion that you may indeed be wrong about him at some level. I think I can safely say that he represents no threat and I would be done if he lived next door to me. You don't know. But worse, you don't want to find out. And you could very well meet him on the street now. How difficult it must be to never be able to forgive someone you don't even know.

Omar admits he remembers throwing a grenade, though his memory is pretty fuzzy, but he is nowhere near the monster you make him out to be. Watch a few minutes, Don. It won't kill you. Then you can make an informed opinion. If you still see him as an unrepentant terrorist, as Stephen Harper does, at least you'll be more justified in your stance.

http://youtu.be/hhzSRZfnXTA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

I am in no way afraid to watch, but like you, I also have an informed opinion. That is, he was, is and remains someone to fear forever. I refuse to even give the time of day to a CBC sponsored, heaily weighted documentary, whose only purpose is to try and raise more support for the misled who believe he is not a threat. "Omar admits he remembers throwing a grenade" is all I need to know.


----------



## eMacMan

Sorry Don If you need to be afraid of someone it should be of those who say you should be afraid of this or that, then pray on those fears as an excuse to rob you of your civil rights and freedoms. Hitler and Stalin were masters at this but Bush, Harper and Obama are no slouches.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> I am in no way afraid to watch, but like you, I also have an informed opinion. That is, he was, is and remains someone to fear forever. I refuse to even give the time of day to a CBC sponsored, heaily weighted documentary, whose only purpose is to try and raise more support for the misled who believe he is not a threat. "Omar admits he remembers throwing a grenade" is all I need to know.



Then it would appear that he is free and you are stuck in a prison of your own choosing. Ironic. A man who chooses not to read and find truth has no advantage over one who can't. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

eMacMan said:


> Sorry Don If you need to be afraid of someone it should be of those who say you should be afraid of this or that, then pray on those fears as an excuse to rob you of your civil rights and freedoms. Hitler and Stalin were masters at this but Bush, Harper and Obama are no slouches.



The greatest fear is fear itself. And I'd say prejudice is a pretty close second.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

EhMac should offer a prize for the largest number of successive posts composed entirely of cliches!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> EhMac should offer a prize for the largest number of successive posts composed entirely of cliches!



An articulate writer avoids clichés like the plague.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> Sorry Don If you need to be afraid of someone it should be of those who say you should be afraid of this or that, then pray on those fears as an excuse to rob you of your civil rights and freedoms. *Hitler* and Stalin were masters at this but Bush, Harper and Obama are no slouches.


Once again emacMan you prove Godwin's law to be true.

Well done. :clap:


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Then it would appear that he is free and you are stuck in a prison of your own choosing. Ironic. A man who chooses not to read and find truth has no advantage over one who can't.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I am in no way stuck in any prison and I won't be ordered by you or anyone else to read propaganda of your choosing. I will be around to say I told you so in years to come when this goes bad. Until then, I have nothing to add but beware.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> I am in no way stuck in any prison and I won't be ordered by you or anyone else to read propaganda of your choosing. I will be around to say I told you so in years to come when this goes bad. Until then, I have nothing to add but beware.


Attaboy SINC if you're gonna read (and believe) propaganda, let the propaganda be of your choosing (such as all the American/Conservative's propaganda) regard Khdar. 

Long live the selective light and truth.


----------



## SINC

Beats reading your immature and offensive sig. Now run along back to Magic and report back to gt.


----------



## BigDL

...but there *you go* reading it at each and every post... :clap:


----------



## macintosh doctor

Macfury said:


> EhMac should offer a prize for the largest number of successive posts composed entirely of cliches!


in that case keeping on theme with fear and liberty lost

" pour thy purse in to thy mind and no man can take it from you" - Ben Franklin.. 
sadly I have no purse or mind they have been both taken by the Provincial liberals. :lmao:



SINC said:


> I am in no way stuck in any prison and I won't be ordered by you or anyone else to read propaganda of your choosing. I will be around to say I told you so in years to come when this goes bad. Until then, I have nothing to add but beware.


agreed 100%


----------



## Macfury

I'm stuck in a prison of being only occasionally and marginally interested in Omar Khadr. Lemme out of here! Lemme out of here!


----------



## FeXL

Oh, there's a surprise...

Things You'll Never See On The CBC

(from a comment at May 29, 2015 3:19 PM)



> "OMAR KHADR: OUT OF THE SHADOWS is produced by White Pine Pictures in association with CBC, Radio-Canada, *Al Jazeera English, Al Jazeera Arabic, Al Jazeera America*, and with the participation of Shaw Media Hot Docs Development Fund, Canada Media Fund, and the Ontario Media Development Corporation."


M'bold.


----------



## Macfury

Perhaps the truth will place the resident fans of this documentary in a prison of their own making.



FeXL said:


> Oh, there's a surprise...
> 
> Things You'll Never See On The CBC
> 
> (from a comment at May 29, 2015 3:19 PM)
> 
> 
> 
> M'bold.


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> Oh, there's a surprise...
> 
> Things You'll Never See On The CBC
> 
> (from a comment at May 29, 2015 3:19 PM)
> 
> 
> M'bold.


:lmao::lmao::clap::clap:


----------



## fjnmusic

Ignorance abounds. You know you can always read or view something and then dismiss it once you've at least considered it, as I do when I am presented with bogus information. Not to even consider contrary evidence would seem to suggest one is afraid they might change their mind about something, which is simply not acceptable among certain world views. Seen one jihadist Islam, you've now seen all Islams. Unmitigated prejudice. At least have the honesty to admit that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

You got hornswaggled by Al Jazeera!!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> You got hornswaggled by Al Jazeera!!



Explain. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Ignorance abounds. You know you can always read or view something and then dismiss it once you've at least considered it, as I do when I am presented with bogus information. Not to even consider contrary evidence would seem to suggest one is afraid they might change their mind about something, which is simply not acceptable among certain world views. Seen one jihadist Islam, you've now seen all Islams. Unmitigated prejudice. At least have the honesty to admit that.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I can freely state that Khadar is a poster boy from the left and the CBC colaborated with sympathizers to make impressionable Canadians view Khadar as he is not. Too bad you bought into such a plot. That is an honest view of the matter.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> I can freely state that Khadar is a poster boy from the left and the CBC colaborated with sympathizers to make impressionable Canadians view Khadar as he is not. Too bad you bought into such a plot. That is an honest view of the matter.



I see. I guess I'm just that gullible. And how many times have you heard him speak? If he is as guilty as you say, surely there must be clues in his mannerisms and the way that he answers questions. You'd think you'd want to find some examples so you can show me how wrong I am.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> I see. I guess I'm just that gullible.


Yep.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Yep.



And you, you seem to be unfamiliar with verbal irony, which is odd for a writer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> And you, you seem to be unfamiliar with verbal irony, which is odd for a writer.


Isn't it odd how attempts at irony often fail and the truth pops out?


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Isn't it odd how attempts at irony often fail and the truth pops out?



Truth of prejudice, certainly. It's hard to believe you can be so willfully blind to the truth, to be honest. Omar has served 13 years of an 8 year sentence. Just how many years do you think he needs to serve?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> Sigh. So the hard-hearted right wingers haven't softened their positions since the last times we covered this topic (1) (2)
> 
> 
> 
> He's a man _now_, raised behind bars in Guantánamo Prison by the U.S. military. But never forget, *he was a child* when he _allegedly_ killed a U.S. soldier (about which there is considerable doubt).
> 
> 
> 
> I'm appalled at what some people consider justice here.



And the hits just keep coming. Alas, Mark, some people are exactly where they were on this when you first started this thread over three years ago. They're not even curious to see what Khadr has to say about the crimes he is accused of. It certainly explains why there is so much hatred and discontent in this world. Unless Khadr is extremely good at hiding his true intentions, what I see is a boy who has grown into a man with surprisingly little bitterness despite all of his lost years. He feels bad for Chris Speers' family, even though the events of the day of the firefight are still pretty fuzzy. I see a man we could all learn much from about the meaning of forgiveness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Truth of prejudice, certainly. It's hard to believe you can be so willfully *blind to the truth*, to be honest. Omar has served 13 years of an 8 year sentence. Just how many years do you think he needs to serve?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


in this case we are all "blind to the truth" because we were not there and did not witness what happened.

The only person living who knows the truth is Omar Khadr, but he may not even at this point. As time goes on memories fade and ones memory starts to become things that you "think" you remember and the details become blurred and fuzzy. Was that my "real" memory of events, or is it just pseudo-memory because that is what I have been told so many times that is what happened that I now believe that is what I remember.

Personally I think Omar has served his time. He has had his youth taken from him by his father and the US and Canadian Governments and possibly his own actions while a minor.

Like the Parole Board, all we can do to grant parole for a certain person is look at who they are now and decide if they are likely to re-offend.

Thus far from the very few words we have heard from Omar it certainly seems he has no such intention and would just like a second chance at life and actually have a life.

Let us not forget that including his incarceration he suffered horrible physical wounds:










If he was older he probably would have died that day.

I personally have no problem with giving the guy a second chance despite my previous objections.

It is a whole helluva lot easier to demonize someone when all you know is what the media and governments serve up to you to take in like pablum.

Having seen him and heard him speak IMO he is not very likely to re-offend and presents like threat to the public. How could he be with the strict conditions of his bail.

Also why would he, unless he has a death wish, which is what be next for him if he were to engage in extremist activity. But I think he wants to live and move on and not die for the extremist cause of his father and family.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Personally I think Omar has served his time.


That's it in a nutshell. I don't know why some people want everyone to love/admire/idolize the guy or see him as some sort of hero or guru who can "teach us so much."


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> ..... I don't know why some people want everyone to love/admire/idolize the guy or see him as some sort of hero or guru who can "teach us so much."...


You (or FeXL?) brought this up earlier. Who is portraying Khadr in that light? From what I've seen, people just want to see this guy treated as someone who was denied his civil rights. Who specifically is calling him a "hero", "guru" or as someone who can "teach us so much"?

Sources?


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> You (or FeXL?) brought this up earlier. Who is portraying Khadr in that light? From what I've seen, people just want to see this guy treated as someone who was denied his civil rights. Who specifically is calling him a "hero", "guru" or as someone who can "teach us so much"?
> 
> Sources?





fjnmusic said:


> I see a man we could all learn much from about the meaning of forgiveness.


thesilentsojourner: Omar Khadr has been released....



> Bless that man. He can teach us so much.


Free City Radio


> Today, what is clear, is that Khadr is a hero. A real hero.


The Canadian Libertarian Forum: Omar Khadr, war hero


> Omar Khadr, war hero


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> thesilentsojourner: Omar Khadr has been released....
> 
> Free City Radio
> 
> The Canadian Libertarian Forum: Omar Khadr, war hero


Heh. Three blogs that nobody has heard of... and one of them a fellow Libertarian! You should be pleased!

The first post, which if you read the entirety for context, I understand. Khadr has come out of his ordeal apparently, incredibly, well-adjusted and harbouring no ill-will. There is something to be learned from his example.

The other two posts - "war hero" - I would disagree with. Khadr is a victim of political violence, but surviving his experience doesn't make him a "hero". Still - this is not the widespread hero worship that one expects to find when you guys bring it up repeatedly as a knock against him (or progressives, or whatever).


----------



## Macfury

You asked me to provide instances where he was _called_ a hero. 

Most of the media is _treating him_ like a hero.

Sort of like this:



fjnmusic said:


> In fact, I think he gives me hope, and probably many others as well.





CubaMark said:


> Heh. Three blogs that nobody has heard of... and one of them a fellow Libertarian! You should be pleased!
> 
> The first post, which if you read the entirety for context, I understand. Khadr has come out of his ordeal apparently, incredibly, well-adjusted and harbouring no ill-will. There is something to be learned from his example.
> 
> The other two posts - "war hero" - I would disagree with. Khadr is a victim of political violence, but surviving his experience doesn't make him a "hero". Still - this is not the widespread hero worship that one expects to find when you guys bring it up repeatedly as a knock against him (or progressives, or whatever).


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> in this case we are all "blind to the truth" because we were not there and did not witness what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> The only person living who knows the truth is Omar Khadr, but he may not even at this point. As time goes on memories fade and ones memory starts to become things that you "think" you remember and the details become blurred and fuzzy. Was that my "real" memory of events, or is it just pseudo-memory because that is what I have been told so many times that is what happened that I now believe that is what I remember.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I think Omar has served his time. He has had his youth taken from him by his father and the US and Canadian Governments and possibly his own actions while a minor.
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Parole Board, all we can do to grant parole for a certain person is look at who they are now and decide if they are likely to re-offend.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus far from the very few words we have heard from Omar it certainly seems he has no such intention and would just like a second chance at life and actually have a life.
> 
> 
> 
> Let us not forget that including his incarceration he suffered horrible physical wounds:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he was older he probably would have died that day.
> 
> 
> 
> I personally have no problem with giving the guy a second chance despite my previous objections.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a whole helluva lot easier to demonize someone when all you know is what the media and governments serve up to you to take in like pablum.
> 
> 
> 
> Having seen him and heard him speak IMO he is not very likely to re-offend and presents like threat to the public. How could he be with the strict conditions of his bail.
> 
> 
> 
> Also why would he, unless he has a death wish, which is what be next for him if he were to engage in extremist activity. But I think he wants to live and move on and not die for the extremist cause of his father and family.



I agree with your post entirely. What amazes me is how optimistic the guy is despite all he's been through. I keep looking for even a trace of the bitterness and resentment or event vacancy you'd expect to see in a so-called "terrorist" and it just isn't there. In fact, I think he gives me hope, and probably many others as well. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Omar "Tony Robbins" Khadr!


----------



## SINC

Other views:

Khadr Facts


----------



## Macfury

The Toronto Star now ponders Khadr's worthiness to receive the Order of Canada. I can't make this stuff up!

Video | Should Omar Khadr get the Order of Canada? | Toronto Star



CubaMark said:


> You (or FeXL?) brought this up earlier. Who is portraying Khadr in that light? From what I've seen, people just want to see this guy treated as someone who was denied his civil rights. Who specifically is calling him a "hero", "guru" or as someone who can "teach us so much"?
> 
> Sources?


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> Other views:
> 
> Khadr Facts


The word "facts" and "Ezra Levant" cannot exist together in this universe. They're like matter and anti-matter.... 

Sad how he grasps at any issue to rile up his misguided fans in an attempt to stay visible now that SunNews is toast...


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> The Toronto Star now ponders Khadr's worthiness to receive the Order of Canada. I can't make this stuff up!


Come now, Salutin is clearly joking. But if that's the best you've got to support your hero worship thesis....


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Come now, Salutin is clearly joking. But if that's the best you've got to support your hero worship thesis....


He's *not* clearly joking. He says he is not _necessarily _nominating him, but clearly believes Khadr is worth recognition of this sort.


----------



## eMacMan

I find it amazing that Khadr, who may or may not have killed a US soldier during an encounter where the Americans killed everyone but Khadr, can generate this sort of fear and blind hatred and even cause the Harpocrits to pass the Second Class Canadian Citizenship bill. Yet somehow the same self righteous types contentedly ignore the deaths of hundreds or even thousands of Native Canadian women right here at home.

BTW giving the Order of Canada to Khadr is absolutely mandatory as there is no other way that my wife and I can continue our unique status as the only two Canadian citizens who have so far managed to avoid that distinction.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> BTW giving the Order of Canada to Khadr is absolutely mandatory as there is no other way that my wife and I can continue our unique status as the only two Canadian citizens who have so far managed to avoid that distinction.


It's a pretty crappy award IMHO. Take a shower 5 days a week and feed a squirrel and you might be nominated.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> It's a pretty crappy award IMHO. Take a shower 5 days a week and feed a squirrel and you might be nominated.


:lmao::clap:


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Other views:
> 
> 
> 
> Khadr Facts



Ezra Levant has no credibility, and worse he has no empathy. Borderline sociopath is who you have cited. This is your hero?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Ezra Levant has no credibility, and worse he has no empathy. Borderline sociopath is who you have cited. This is your hero?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I guess Tapatalk impairs your ability to read, does it? I suggested there were 'other views', without comment and nothing about 'my heroes'. There are more than one man's view on that site. Who is your hero, the tooth fairy? Afraid to read something in case it changes your mind are you? Does that question sound even vaguely familiar to you? And speaking of a 'borderline sociopath', well, I shouldn't have to go there for you regarding Khadr in my view, should I?


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Ezra Levant has no credibility, and worse he has no empathy. Borderline sociopath is who you have cited. This is your hero?


What would your view of a person's empathy have to do with whether they cite factual information? And why would referencing Levant make him someone's hero? Are you saying this because Khadr is your hero?


----------



## fjnmusic

Two responses to one relatively short comment. Seems I may have hit a nerve. 

For what it's worth, yes, I admire Khadr far more than I admire Levant. Khadr has come through incredible hardship and still maintains a sense of hope. Levant has had it relatively easy yet seems pretty bitter and pissy all the time. What's up with that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> Ezra Levant has no credibility


He's got more credibility and integrity than everyone at the CBC *combined*.


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> He's got more credibility and integrity than everyone at the CBC *combined*.


Clearly fjn is blinded by hero worship of Khadr, like his fellow lefty travelers.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Clearly fjn is blinded by hero worship of Khadr, like his fellow lefty travelers.



Better than blinded by shrapnel from US forces attacking you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eMacMan

heavyall said:


> He's got more credibility and integrity than everyone at the CBC *combined*.


Set the bar any lower and Harper could fall into the trench, stub his toe on it and accidentally fall on it.


----------



## Macfury

Better, even, than tossing a grenade at a medic.



fjnmusic said:


> Better than blinded by shrapnel from US forces attacking you.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Omar has been out for a while now, the NDP rule Alberta, and still the sky has not fallen. In fact, the weather is downright pleasant right now and the forecast is even better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

Give him time, Frank, give him time. Might be years even, so enough with the silly updates to promote your love of a man.


----------



## Macfury

Like the optimistic man who fell off a skyscraper said as he counted down the floors--"100, 99, 98... so far, so good."

But seriously, why make such a dense post? Anyone convinced Khadr is a threat does not expect him to do anything over the space of a few days following release. Likewise, it was hard work for the NDP to dismantle the Ontario economic juggernaut--it was not completed in the space of a few weeks. Still, there was enough economic bad news resulting from the Alberta election itsefl. 



fjnmusic said:


> Omar has been out for a while now, the NDP rule Alberta, and still the sky has not fallen.


----------



## FeXL

Funny, I thought the NDP worked _for_ the people of Alberta, not the other way around. See, that's the problem with most politicians & far too many citizens. They think exactly the way you do...



fjnmusic said:


> ...the NDP rule Alberta...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Funny, I thought the NDP worked _for_ the people of Alberta, not the other way around. See, that's the problem with most politicians & far too many citizens. They think exactly the way you do...


fjn is just excited because he thinks teachers are getting a pay raise.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Give him time, Frank, give him time. Might be years even, so enough with the silly updates to promote your love of a man.


I think you can expect daily doses of man love from fjn in the near future.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Give him time, Frank, give him time. Might be years even, so enough with the silly updates to promote your love of a man.



How much time you want, Don? Until you die? Until I die? Until he dies? Heck, we could all be gone a hundred years and still your opinion would not change. Once a terrorist, always a terrorist, eh? Take all the time you need. Omar's not going anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I think you can expect daily doses of man love from fjn in the near future.



When did this turn into a gay thing? Honestly, you two can be repulsive when you're losing an argument. Which is pretty much all the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> When did this turn into a gay thing?


"Man love" is not a term that has anything to do with homosexuality. 



fjnmusic said:


> When did this turn into a gay thing? Honestly, you two can be repulsive when you're losing an argument. Which is pretty much all the time.


Why do you find "man love" repulsive? And losing what argument? I support releasing Khadr, despite his guilt.



fjnmusic said:


> Which is pretty much all the time.


I can't remember the last time you "won an argument" around here. Most debates end with you flailing your virtual arms and saying you think "outside the box."


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> "Man love" is not a term that has anything to do with homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you find "man love" repulsive? And losing what argument? I support releasing Khadr, despite his guilt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't remember the last time you "won an argument" around here. Most debates end with you flailing your virtual arms and saying you think "outside the box."



"Man love" is not repulsive, but your inclusion of the term in this discussion is very strange. Plus you seem to be using it in a derogatory way, so forgive me for assuming. It is fascinating to me that you would support Khadr's release if he is really as dangerous as some people think he is. If I thought the was dangerous, I would be like Harper, trying to find new ways to circumvent the law. 

"Flailing your virtual arms" is funny. I'lol remember that one. Why is it always the other side that is being obtuse?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

"Man love" in this case indicates what appears to be an unusually powerful interest in the person--as though Khadr was a good buddy of yours.

I don't know if Khadr will be dangerous. Anyone who says he either will or won't be is only guessing. It doesn't matter to me if he comes across like Gomer Pyle in interviews. He's simply served enough time for manslaughter and the terms of his parole seem reasonable. 

Sadly, I expect much of his life will be wasted as a propaganda tool until his handlers toss him aside.



fjnmusic said:


> "Man love" is not repulsive, but your inclusion of the term in this discussion is very strange. Plus you seem to be using it in a derogatory way, so forgive me for assuming. It is fascinating to me that you would support Khadr's release if he is really as dangerous as some people think he is. If I thought the was dangerous, I would be like Harper, trying to find new ways to circumvent the law.
> 
> "Flailing your virtual arms" is funny. I'lol remember that one. Why is it always the other side that is being obtuse?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> How much time you want, Don? Until you die? Until I die? Until he dies? Heck, we could all be gone a hundred years and still your opinion would not change. Once a terrorist, always a terrorist, eh? Take all the time you need. Omar's not going anywhere.


I base my prediction on one simple fact. Anyone who has gone through what this terrorist has gone through is bound to have a bent mind and one day it will snap. Tick ... tick ...


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> I base my prediction on one simple fact. Anyone who has gone through what this terrorist has gone through is bound to have a bent mind and one day it will snap. Tick ... tick ...



Anyone, hey? So tell me: have you listened to what he has to say with your own ears? Are there any clues in his speech, any particular reactions that signal to you that this man is not to be trusted? I would think that if he is under that much stress, there are going to be a few red flags. It is also telling that you cannot bring yourself to call him a "man"—only a "terrorist." Seems that maybe it is not Omar who is trapped inside a certain way of thinking that he cannot let go of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Anyone, hey? So tell me: have you listened to what he has to say with your own ears? Are there any clues in his speech, any particular reactions that signal to you that this man is not to be trusted? I would think that if he is under that much stress, there are going to be a few red flags. It is also telling that you cannot bring yourself to call him a "man"—only a "terrorist." Seems that maybe it is not Omar who is trapped inside a certain way of thinking that he cannot let go of.


Seriously, who would take those public interviews as a sign of anything going on inside the man--good or bad?


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Anyone, hey? So tell me: have you listened to what he has to say with your own ears? Are there any clues in his speech, any particular reactions that signal to you that this man is not to be trusted? I would think that if he is under that much stress, there are going to be a few red flags. It is also telling that you cannot bring yourself to call him a "man"—only a "terrorist." Seems that maybe it is not Omar who is trapped inside a certain way of thinking that he cannot let go of.


Get a grip Frank, it was YOU who called hm a terrorist, I simply used your term:



fjnmusic said:


> How much time you want, Don? Until you die? Until I die? Until he dies? Heck, we could all be gone a hundred years and still your opinion would not change. Once a terrorist, always a terrorist, eh? Take all the time you need. Omar's not going anywhere.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Get a grip Frank, it was YOU who called hm a terrorist, I simply used your term:



Sarcasm, Don. I have never believed he was a terrorist, except for a moment when some pot-stirrer sent a linky of some Arabic kid with a bunch of chopped off hands. The picture, of course, was not of Omar Khadr, yet the picture resonates. It was a horrible image. Just not Khadr.

If one does not believe in the power of forgiveness, hope or rehabilitation, I could see how they might view Khadr as a threat. But that says more about you than him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> The picture, of course, was not of Omar Khadr, yet the picture resonates. It was a horrible image. Just not Khadr.


Was it established that the photo was not of Khadr? Best I could do was to support that it was not _definitely_ him.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> Was it established that the photo was not of Khadr? Best I could do was to support that it was not _definitely_ him.


Doesn't matter, whatever supports the love affair with Khadr works in his case.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Was it established that the photo was not of Khadr? Best I could do was to support that it was not _definitely_ him.



Nowhere was it identified as him, or does it look like him (unless you think they all look the same). A better question is, where did the picture come from? What is the source? Year? Place? Positive identification?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Doesn't matter, whatever supports the love affair with Khadr works in his case.



Ignorance is not a virtue, Don, and you seem to be displaying this quality in abundance in the last few posts. You have nothing on which to base your prejudice.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I already provided those. The time and place are right.



fjnmusic said:


> Nowhere was it identified as him, or does it look like him (unless you think they all look the same). A better question is, where did the picture come from? What is the source? Year? Place? Positive identification?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I already provided those. The time and place are right.



You could not say it was not definitely Jesus either. In fact there's a lot of people would could not say it was definitely not as well. The mind boggles. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Here is a link to the Taliban site with the kid holding the severed hands and feet. It is from 1998 and is definitely not Omar Khadr. I know nothing will convince some of you. 

http://www.rawa.org/handcut3.htm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Here is a link to the Taliban site with the kid holding the severed hands and feet.


Yes, that was the link and information I provided in this thread weeks ago. 



fjnmusic said:


> It is from 1998 and is definitely not Omar Khadr.


On you say-so or do you actually have some verifiable information?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Yes, that was the link and information I provided in this thread weeks ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On you say-so or do you actually have some verifiable information?



Well for one, look at the guy. For two, check the age. 1998 was four years before Omar Khadr was picked up in Afghanistan. For three, this child fighter (whom I would describe as a terrorist in training) is Taliban, while the Khadr clan was connected to Al-Qaeda, two different organizations. Brown people do not all look the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Khadr moved to Afghanistan in 1996.



fjnmusic said:


> Well for one, look at the guy. For two, check the age. 1998 was four years before Omar Khadr was picked up in Afghanistan.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Better than blinded by shrapnel from US forces attacking you.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If they weren't there training how to run a jihadist movement then they wouldn't have been attacked by US forces.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Two responses to one relatively short comment. Seems I may have hit a nerve.
> 
> For what it's worth, yes, I admire Khadr far more than I admire Levant. Khadr has come through incredible hardship and still maintains a sense of hope.* Levant has had it relatively easy yet seems pretty bitter and pissy all the time. What's up with that?*
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Replace the name Levant with Mulcair and your statement is equally valid.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Khadr moved to Afghanistan in 1996.



That's not the point. How old does the Taliban kid in the picture look to you?

See, that's the thing with you, Macfury. You believe the kid in the picture is Khadr because you want it to be Khadr, even when no information actually claims it to be so, including the site you got it from. In your world, because I haven't proved it to not be Khadr, it must be Khadr. You're as bad as the people you criticize with respect to greenhouse gases.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Nope. Still not seeing a lot of similarity, apart from that he has two eyes, a nose, a mouth, ears, hair, and dark skin. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> That's not the point. How old does the Taliban kid in the picture look to you?


12 or 13.



fjnmusic said:


> See, that's the thing with you, Macfury. You believe the kid in the picture is Khadr because you want it to be Khadr, even when no information actually claims it to be so, including the site you got it from. In your world, because I haven't proved it to not be Khadr, it must be Khadr. You're as bad as the people you criticize with respect to greenhouse gases.


Don't you follow the thread, fjn? I was the one who said there was no proof that it was Khadr when the photo was first presented here. I'm simply not sure it isn't. Either way, he hasn't been charged with cutting off anyone's hands or parading around with them.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> 12 or 13.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you follow the thread, fjn? I was the one who said there was no proof that it was Khadr when the photo was first presented here. I'm simply not sure it isn't. Either way, he hasn't been charged with cutting off anyone's hands or parading around with them.



If he had been, it would be pretty horrible. But it just does not look like the same guy to my eyes. Whoever that kid was has some serious problems. What I have seen via actual interview of Omar Khadr is certainly not a threatening individual. More like a prisoner of war just re-emerging back into society. Now it's entirely possible that's what he WANTS us to see, and he is really just planning to make his terrorist move......or just maybe he is that good-hearted kid grown up we see in the video. I'd like to believe that Dennis Edney is a good judge of character, and he's defended many people who committed some pretty horrible crimes, but he hasn't invited any others to live at his house. That takes trust. And about his characterization of Stephen Harper as a bigot and Muslim hater, I would have to agree.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Yes, we have all seen "actual" interviews. I am no judge of character based on watching people play to a camera. 

So you'd "like to believe" that Edney is a good judge of character. You think that the publicity stunt of having Khadr live with him is some sort of proof of--what? Edney hasn't invited other murderers into his home because he has seen no media value in doing so. You believe "Stephen Harper as a bigot and Muslim hater." So what? You're simply displaying your own very common "progressive" bias and emotional hand wringing and expecting others to accept it as a substitute for deductive reasoning.



fjnmusic said:


> If he had been, it would be pretty horrible. But it just does not look like the same guy to my eyes. Whoever that kid was has some serious problems. What I have seen via actual interview of Omar Khadr is certainly not a threatening individual. More like a prisoner of war just re-emerging back into society. Now it's entirely possible that's what he WANTS us to see, and he is really just planning to make his terrorist move......or just maybe he is that good-hearted kid grown up we see in the video. I'd like to believe that Dennis Edney is a good judge of character, and he's defended many people who committed some pretty horrible crimes, but he hasn't invited any others to live at his house. That takes trust. And about his characterization of Stephen Harper as a bigot and Muslim hater, I would have to agree.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Yes, we have all seen "actual" interviews. I am no judge of character based on watching people play to a camera.
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd "like to believe" that Edney is a good judge of character. You think that the publicity stunt of having Khadr live with him is some sort of proof of--what? Edney hasn't invited other murderers into his home because he has seen no media value in doing so. You believe "Stephen Harper as a bigot and Muslim hater." So what? You're simply displaying your own very common "progressive" bias and emotional hand wringing and expecting others to accept it as a substitute for deductive reasoning.



And what do you deduce from the same information? You've already deduced that Omar spent enough time behind bars and that it probably wasn't him in the picture. Sounds like you might be getting a little "soft on crime" yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

I deduce that Khadr is most probably guilty of manslaughter and has served the sentence imposed on him. I haven't deduced that the photo of the kid "probably wasn't him" only that it is not "definitely him." Khadr's "Gomer Pyle" media persona means nothing to me. Regarding crime--I am neither soft nor hard on it. I don't _deduce_ "That Khadr has "spent enough time behind bars." I subtracted years served in prison from his sentence. It isn't a value judgement.



fjnmusic said:


> And what do you deduce from the same information? You've already deduced that Omar spent enough time behind bars and that it probably wasn't him in the picture. Sounds like you might be getting a little "soft on crime" yourself.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature

screature said:


> If they weren't there training how to run a jihadist movement then they wouldn't have been attacked by US forces.





screature said:


> Replace the name Levant with Mulcair and your statement is equally valid.


Geesh. I made 2 posts and nobody replied to either of them.

At this place it must mean I was making sense.


----------



## SINC

I had no issue with either post. Some get what they deserve. 

Sadly now, Canadians may get what they don't deserve. Only time will tell.


----------



## Macfury

I could only agree with you.



screature said:


> Geesh. I made 2 posts and nobody replied to either of them.
> 
> At this place it must mean I was making sense.


----------



## screature

Thank you SINC for recognizing my contribution to the discussion.

I have been feeling so insecure these days for unknown reasons... maybe I should start taking my meds again.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> I could only agree with you.


Ok wonderful! Thank you.


----------



## screature

SINC said:


> I had no issue with either post. Some get what they deserve.
> 
> *Sadly now, Canadians may get what they don't deserve. Only time will tell.*


Not sure what you are talking about Don.

Are you referring to Khadr?


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Geesh. I made 2 posts and nobody replied to either of them.
> 
> 
> 
> At this place it must mean I was making sense.



Surprisingly I don't respond to everything I read. Or I respond internally. Sometimes it's just easier to say nothing rather than say something inflammatory. Sometimes the discussion just goes in circles and nobody really learns anything. In any event, even Macfury figures has served his time, so there's not really a whole lot of debate left on whether Omar has earned his freedom. Like most people, I really hope he does not disappoint us, and his intentions (at least on camera) seem sincere. If he does well re-integrating back into Canadian society, it could bode well for relations with the Muslim world. Or not, but at least it's one Canadian citizen saved.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

How do you figure?



fjnmusic said:


> If he does well re-integrating back into Canadian society, it could bode well for relations with the Muslim world.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> How do you figure?



Well, for one, it would demonstrate to Muslims around the world that Canada does not hate them, Mr. Harper's views notwithstanding. We forget that much of what we view as Muslim jihadism or terrorism is actually more reactionary in nature to the sanctions that "we" have foisted upon "them" at some point. I'm not saying violence is excusable, but the US and more and more Canada do not have a clean slate on this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## heavyall

Macfury said:


> I could only agree with you.


Same. Succinct salient points, nothing to add, nothing to rebut.


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Well, for one, it would demonstrate to Muslims around the world that Canada does not hate them, Mr. Harper's views notwithstanding. We forget that much of what we view as Muslim jihadism or terrorism is actually more reactionary in nature to the sanctions that "we" have foisted upon "them" at some point. I'm not saying violence is excusable, but the US and more and more Canada do not have a clean slate on this one.


One dirty slate deserves another.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Well, for one, it would demonstrate to Muslims around the world that Canada does not hate them, Mr. Harper's views notwithstanding. We forget that much of what we view as Muslim jihadism or terrorism is actually more reactionary in nature to the sanctions that "we" have foisted upon "them" at some point. I'm not saying violence is excusable, but the US and more and more Canada do not have a clean slate on this one.


p


----------



## Macfury

It would be like saying that electing President Obama would create a bridge to such countries--in fact many "progressives" said exactly that!


----------



## eMacMan

fjnmusic said:


> Well, for one, it would demonstrate to Muslims around the world that Canada does not hate them, Mr. Harper's views notwithstanding. We forget that much of what we view as Muslim jihadism or terrorism is actually more reactionary in nature to the sanctions that "we" have foisted upon "them" at some point. I'm not saying violence is excusable, but the US and more and more Canada do not have a clean slate on this one.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I understand that under the Mike Duffy diversion the Second Class citizenship bill made it through the Senate and is now law, until it explodes under an expensive constitutional challenge. I suspect Herr Harper drafted this bill specifically with Khadr in mind. Will see if the closet warrior decides to try to enforce an unconstitutional law retroactively and attempt to give Khadr the boot.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> I understand that under the Mike Duffy diversion the Second Class citizenship bill made it through the Senate and is now law, until it explodes under an expensive constitutional challenge. I suspect Herr Harper drafted this bill specifically with Khadr in mind. Will see if the closet warrior decides to try to enforce an unconstitutional law retroactively and attempt to give Khadr the boot.


Have you even read Bill C-24?

Here I will hold your hand don't be frightened now... the truth will set you free:

*
C-24* 

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

*Short Title*

Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act 

You will be amazed at the plethora of information that is available at your fingertips if you only used them to seek out the truth and not conspiracy theories.

From the Parliament of Canada Library:

Legislative Summary of Bill C-24: An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts 



> 2.2.2.1 *New Grounds of Revocation* (Clause 8)
> 
> Bill C-24 introduces new grounds of revocation for convictions related to security and for serving as a member of an armed force in an armed conflict against Canada.
> 
> The new ground for revocation for convictions related to security is subject to an administrative process. In new section 10(2), the Minister may revoke a person’s citizenship if the person is convicted of the following offences that occur before or after the coming into force of this section:
> 
> 
> treason or high treason under section 47 of the Criminal Code (new sections 10(2)(a) and 10(2)(e));24.
> a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code. This section includes offences such as financing or participating in a terrorist group (including leaving Canada to participate), facilitating an activity, giving instructions or harbouring someone likely to commit a terrorist activity (new sections 10(2)(b) and 10(2)(f));25.
> aiding the enemy, in battle or as a prisoner of war (new section 10(2)(c));.
> espionage (new section 10(2)(d)); or.
> communicating safeguarded or operational information (new sections 10(2)(g) and 10(2)(h)).26.
> The new ground for revocation for serving as a member of an armed force in an armed conflict against Canada is subject to a judicial revocation process. When the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has taken up arms in an armed conflict against Canada, he or she must seek a declaration from the Federal Court that the person so served (new section 10.1(2)). That declaration has the effect of revoking citizenship (new section 10.1(3)).
> 
> The consequence of revocation under the new grounds in new sections 10(2) and 10.1(2) is to render the person a foreign national,27 rather than a permanent resident (new section 10.3). The revocation proceeding may not render an individual stateless (new section 10.4(1)), and an individual who claims that he or she would be rendered stateless must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he or she is not a citizen of another country of which the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe the person is a citizen...


That is all that was added to the existing act in terms of revocation of citizenship. So are you or anyone near and dear to you contemplating such acts that it makes you feel like "2nd class" citizen...?

If so. *GOOD!* You aren't welcome here.

Now I doubt that is you (or is it  ) but I think they are valid additional reasons for revocation of citizenship.


----------



## fjnmusic

Re: Bill c-24. Better hope they're crystal clear on what "terrorism" means, and yes, it sure seems like Herr Harper had this drafted with Khadr in mind. In any event, it would be hard to define someone acting in self-defense as a terrorist, regardless if what Khadr agreed to to get out of Guantanamo. He may have associated with terrorists, he may have even qualified as a terrorist on training, but his act of throwing a grenade in retaliation for the compound he was in being bombed hardly qualifies in the big picture as terrorism.

What the Harpers have essentially done is create first and second class citizenship where the distinction did not exist before. I don't really think they've considered all of the implications of that decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

Regarding the "treason" thing, it is hard to describe Khadr's offence in such terms. Treason is the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. If a Canadian citizen kills an American citizen, it could be classed as murder in the first, second or third (manslaughter) degree, but it falls short of the definition of treason. So Harper would not win even on those grounds. Given that Herr Harper has now lost three appeals to the Supreme Court, you'd think he'd take the hint with respect to Khadr and move on. He won't win, and I'm not just referring to the coming election.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

This "Herr Harper" stuff is so embarrassing, fjn--take it up to an adult level OK?


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> This "Herr Harper" stuff is so embarrassing, fjn--take it up to an adult level OK?


OK. How about His Unerring Holiness, Sir Emperor Harper. :clap:


----------



## Macfury

Why imitate Internet trolls? You're better than that.



fjnmusic said:


> OK. How about His Unerring Holiness, Sir Emperor Harper. :clap:


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Why imitate Internet trolls? You're better than that.



Gee, thanks. That's the nicest thing you've said to me all week.

His Right Honourable Prime Minister Stephen Harper (better?) has grown increasingly arrogant over the past mine years in my view and needs to be taken down notch. From his avoidance of media scrums right from the start, this is a man who controls his world as much as he can and does not improvise well. Trudeau improvised well. Ralph Klein improvised well. For me his inability to roll with the punches and his inability to consider things from a different point of view are not qualities I seek in a leader. I think his time is up.

Having said that, I don't know that I trust Thomas Mulcair and I don't Justin Trudeau has his father's eloquence or wisdom, and then there's the fact that two parties on the left and one on the right doesn't boss well mathematically for lefty parties. Mulcair is no Notley; she has charisma and style and intelligence to spare. It won't be enough for him to ride on her coattails, which seems to be his game plan at present.

All this of course has absolutely nothing to do with Omar Khadr, but it's refreshing to take a break from that topic now and again. I hope he does well, I hope he leads a good life, and if rehabilitation has merit, then he may just be the example we have been looking for to reinforce our faith in the system. I sincerely hope he does not let hatred and resentment overcome him. There is enough of that in the world already.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> Regarding the "treason" thing, it is hard to describe Khadr's offence in such terms. Treason is the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. If a Canadian citizen kills an American citizen, it could be classed as murder in the first, second or third (manslaughter) degree, but it falls short of the definition of treason. So Harper would not win even on those grounds. Given that Herr Harper has now lost three appeals to the Supreme Court, you'd think he'd take the hint with respect to Khadr and move on. He won't win, and I'm not just referring to the coming election.


He's a citizen of our country who went off to fight in a military battle against an allied force of which our military is a member. It's as clear of a definition of treason as it gets.


----------



## Macfury

Harper will do fine!The other stuff unfairly compares him to a National Socialist.


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> He's a citizen of our country who went off to fight in a military battle against an allied force of which our military is a member. It's as clear of a definition of treason as it gets.



That's not treason, my friend. An allied country is not the same as your own country, no matter how hard you wish it was. And if self-defense now becomes the same thing as treason, well we have a whole lot of cases of treason happening everyday. That bikini clad African American girl held flat on the ground in McKinney with a policeman's knee to her back was committing treason with that loosy goosey definition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eMacMan

fjnmusic said:


> Re: Bill c-24. Better hope they're crystal clear on what "terrorism" means, and yes, it sure seems like Herr Harper had this drafted with Khadr in mind. In any event, it would be hard to define someone acting in self-defense as a terrorist, regardless if what Khadr agreed to to get out of Guantanamo. He may have associated with terrorists, he may have even qualified as a terrorist on training, but his act of throwing a grenade in retaliation for the compound he was in being bombed hardly qualifies in the big picture as terrorism.
> 
> What the Harpers have essentially done is create first and second class citizenship where the distinction did not exist before. I don't really think they've considered all of the implications of that decision.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Impossible to get an accurate number but it seems very likely that well over 3 Million and possibly as many as 6 million Canadians were demoted to second class citizens under Bill C-24. That of course does not include the spouses and children who might be indirectly put at risk. 

Add them to the veterans that Harper has stabbed in the back, any one with a US connection, any one with a Muslim connection, anyone who believes that spying on your own citizens was reprehensible under the Nazis and Soviets and remains so today, and things are not looking well for the Harper. 

His only strong points were a perceived conservative approach to the nations finances and a determination to avoid the Carbon Tax/Cap & Trade trap. However his neo-con budgets have yielded NDP style deficits without any corresponding benefits to most Canadians and he has even capitulated to the AGW myth.

Add that all together and even the smear and fear tactics the Harper is depending on to win the upcoming election appear doomed to failure.


----------



## Macfury

In Realville, that's what we call "resisting arrest.



fjnmusic said:


> That bikini clad African American girl held flat on the ground in McKinney with a policeman's knee to her back was committing treason with that loosy goosey definition.


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> That's not treason, my friend.



It absolutely is. It's section 46 of the criminal code.



> High treason
> (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,
> 
> (a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;
> (b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or
> (c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.
> Treason
> (2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,
> 
> (a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;
> (b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;
> (c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph[(a);
> (d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or
> (e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph[ (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.
> 
> *It is also illegal for a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada to do any of the above outside Canada.*
> 
> The penalty for high treason is life imprisonment. The penalty for treason is imprisonment up to a maximum of life, or up to 14 years for conduct under subsection (2)(b) or (e) in peacetime.


Criminal Code

You can have an opinion of whether you want to forgive him for his treason, or if he didn't understand what he was doing. You can have an opinion on whether you like that law or not, but there is no wiggle room whatsoever to claim that it was not treason.


----------



## Macfury

There's the money:

*(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.*

Fjn, are you going to attempt to pit your wobbly word definitions against such an unwaveringly clear passage in the Criminal Code?


----------



## SINC

He is without doubt guilty of treason which carries a sentence of life imprisonment and that alone is why he should not be walking our streets freely, never mind what else he did with a grenade.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> He is without doubt guilty of treason which carries a sentence of life imprisonment and that alone is why he should not be walking our streets freely, never mind what else he did with a grenade.


The only wrinkle is that he was not charged with treason.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> In Realville, that's what we call "resisting arrest.



Yeah, well he was suspended and then resigned for this particular encounter. Seems even this officer and his superiors agreed his actions were not appropriate to the situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> He is without doubt guilty of treason which carries a sentence of life imprisonment and that alone is why he should not be walking our streets freely, never mind what else he did with a grenade.



He was not charged with treason for the afore-mentioned reasons spelled out in precious posts. Man, you're even harsher than the military tribunal was, and they are not noted for a "soft on crime" approach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> It absolutely is. It's section 46 of the criminal code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criminal Code
> 
> 
> 
> You can have an opinion of whether you want to forgive him for his treason, or if he didn't understand what he was doing. You can have an opinion on whether you like that law or not, but there is no wiggle room whatsoever to claim that it was not treason.



If it is so clear cut, why do you think he was not charged with treason? Seems the prosecution could have had a field day with this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> If it is so clear cut, why do you think he was not charged with treason? Seems the prosecution could have had a field day with this.


A US tribunal could not charge Khadr with treason against Canada.


----------



## Macfury

Treason?



fjnmusic said:


> Yeah, well he was suspended and then resigned for this particular encounter. Seems even this officer and his superiors agreed his actions were not appropriate to the situation.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic

And the hits just keep coming!

U.S. court ruling “dooms” charges against Khadr, his lawyer says

"Khadr is the only person to be convicted of murder while in a battle, Whitling said."


----------



## eMacMan

Herr Harper has made his hatred of Khadr abundantly clear. If there was a snowballs chance in hell of a conviction, treason charges would already have been filed.


----------



## Macfury

Khadr's lawyer sure seems to be convinced anyway.



fjnmusic said:


> And the hits just keep coming!
> 
> U.S. court ruling “dooms” charges against Khadr, his lawyer says
> 
> "Khadr is the only person to be convicted of murder while in a battle, Whitling said."


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Re: Bill c-24. Better hope they're crystal clear on what "terrorism" means, and yes, it sure seems like *Herr Harper had this drafted with Khadr in mind*. In any event, *it would be hard to define someone acting in self-defense as a terrorist, regardless if what Khadr agreed to to get out of Guantanamo. He may have associated with terrorists, he may have even qualified as a terrorist on training*, but his act of throwing a grenade in retaliation for the compound he was in being bombed hardly qualifies in the big picture as terrorism.
> 
> *What the Harpers have essentially done is create first and second class citizenship where the distinction did not exist before. I don't really think they've considered all of the implications of that decision.*
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No need for the "Herr" in reference to Harper. As I have mentioned before to eMacMan with such references you only prove Godwin's law and the devolution of this thread by your post.

If Bill C-24 had anything specifically to do with Khadr he would have had Bill C-24 introduced years and years ago. The presumption is yours, but there is no evidence that it is the case.

Agreed, but if his father had not brought him there he would not have been put in the position to "defend" himself now would he.

I don't agree and I think they have fully considered the implications of BillC-24. All citizens of Canada have the same rights, freedoms and responsibilities until they partake in the aforementioned activities. There is no 2nd class citizen created by this legislation unless they partake in those activities and then if they do they should IMO be considered 2nd class citizens if they partake in such egregious activities and are also citizens of another country to whom they have a greater allegiance.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> Impossible to get an accurate number but it seems very likely that well over 3 Million and possibly as many as 6 million Canadians were demoted to second class citizens under Bill C-24. That of course does not include the spouses and children who might be indirectly put at risk.
> 
> Add them to the veterans that Harper has stabbed in the back, any one with a US connection, any one with a Muslim connection, anyone who believes that spying on your own citizens was reprehensible under the Nazis and Soviets and remains so today, and things are not looking well for the Harper.
> 
> His only strong points were a perceived conservative approach to the nations finances and a determination to avoid the Carbon Tax/Cap & Trade trap. However his neo-con budgets have yielded NDP style deficits without any corresponding benefits to most Canadians and he has even capitulated to the AGW myth.
> 
> Add that all together and even the smear and fear tactics the Harper is depending on to win the upcoming election appear doomed to failure.


So if it is impossible (which it is not) to get an accurate number where the hell do you come up with the numbers 3-6 million Canadians have dual/multiple citizenship?

With Canada having 35.16 million people in 2013 that means you are suggesting that roughly 11% on the low side and 17% on the high side have dual citizenship. My "spiddy" sense tells me you are grossly inflating the numbers and are pulling numbers out of thin air.

You are also suggesting that 3-6 million Canadians with dual/multiple citizenship are at risk for committing:



> treason or high treason under section 47 of the Criminal Code (new sections 10(2)(a) and 10(2)(e));24.
> a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code. This section includes offences such as financing or participating in a terrorist group (including leaving Canada to participate), facilitating an activity, giving instructions or harbouring someone likely to commit a terrorist activity (new sections 10(2)(b) and 10(2)(f));25.
> aiding the enemy, in battle or as a prisoner of war (new section 10(2)(c));.
> espionage (new section 10(2)(d)); or.
> communicating safeguarded or operational information (new sections 10(2)(g) and 10(2)(h)).26


Those heinous actions are they only way they could be considered 2nd class citizens which they should be while holding valid citizenship in another country.

If you as a dual/multiple citizenship holder demonstrate greater allegiance to any other country of which you are a citizen at the detriment to Canada, then you should revoke your Canadian citizenship. And then if you do not and then commit such heinous acts your Canadian citizenship should be revoked and you should be deported to your other country of citizenship tout suite.

Oh BTW way thank you once again for adding further evidence to support Godwin's law.

At least you are consistent if nothing else in your posts.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Regarding the "treason" thing, it is hard to describe Khadr's offence in such terms. Treason is the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. If a Canadian citizen kills an American citizen, it could be classed as murder in the first, second or third (manslaughter) degree, but it falls short of the definition of treason. So Harper would not win even on those grounds. Given that Herr Harper has now lost three appeals to the Supreme Court, you'd think he'd take the hint with respect to Khadr and move on. He won't win, and I'm not just referring to the coming election.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It is not so cut and dry as you make the definition/understanding/meaning of the word out to be:

Treason 



> Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, *make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor.*
> 
> *Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) his own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, team, religion, social class, or other group to which he may belong.* Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which he is a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group members making the charge. See, for example, race traitor, often used by White supremacists and of people in inter-racial relationships (cf. miscegenation).


Thus the word treason and traitor mean different things to different people and their allegiances.

Clearly Ahmed Khadr had no allegiances to Canada and was just using his Canadian citizenship as a ploy to actually fight against Canada and the West. Then in turn he used that to recruit his son Omar into doing the same. There is no doubt that Ahmed Khadr was a traitor. At the age of 15 and under the tutelage of his father there is some doubt that Omar was a traitor and more than likely just being a "good son" and obeying his father.


----------



## fjnmusic

Omar Khadr just lost a $134 million civil lawsuit launched by Christopher Speers' widow down in Utah, I believe. Not sure how they would collect, since Khadr has no income and was at Bowden when the case was presented. Hopefully now all soldiers who lost their lives during a mission and who were killed by weapons, friendly or other-wise, should like wise by able to get compensation for their families back home. That's a lot of compensation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Hopefully Khadr's lawyer will write a book for him and sign his name to it so it can top the "progressive" bestseller chart. The profits can go to the Speers family.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> No need for the "Herr" in reference to Harper. As I have mentioned before to eMacMan with such references you only prove Godwin's law and the devolution of this thread by your post.
> 
> If Bill C-24 had anything specifically to do with Khadr he would have had Bill C-24 introduced years and years ago. The presumption is yours, but there is no evidence that it is the case.
> 
> Agreed, but if his father had not brought him there he would not have been put in the position to "defend" himself now would he.
> 
> I don't agree and I think they have fully considered the implications of BillC-24. All citizens of Canada have the same rights, freedoms and responsibilities until they partake in the aforementioned activities. There is no 2nd class citizen created by this legislation unless they partake in those activities and then if they do they should IMO be considered 2nd class citizens if they partake in such egregious activities and are also citizens of another country to whom they have a greater allegiance.


BTW Herr is German for "Mister" and implies respect, although we do seem to agree that the Harper has failed to earn the level of respect that Herr implies.

Not true, if a pure Canadian and a dual Canadian commit exactly the same offense, only the dual will risk losing his citizenship. That does indeed put him in the position of being a second class Canadian citizen especially as the definition of terrorist is even more subjective and fluid than that of treason.

BTW I wonder if Bill C-24 also applies to Jews? By the very fact of being Jewish they are eligible for Israeli citizenship, which ironically would also make them second class Canadian citizens. Or has the Harper included a Jewish exemption within Bill C-24?


----------



## fjnmusic

eMacMan said:


> BTW Herr is German for "Mister" and implies respect, although we do seem to agree that the Harper has failed to earn the level of respect that Herr implies.
> 
> Not true, if a pure Canadian and a dual Canadian commit exactly the same offense, only the dual will risk losing his citizenship. That does indeed put him in the position of being a second class Canadian citizen especially as the definition of terrorist is even more subjective and fluid than that of treason.
> 
> BTW I wonder if Bill C-24 also applies to Jews? By the very fact of being Jewish they are eligible for Israeli citizenship, which ironically would also make them second class Canadian citizens. Or has the Harper included a Jewish exemption within Bill C-24?



Stop making sense, eMacMan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CubaMark

fjnmusic said:


> Omar Khadr just lost a $134 million civil lawsuit launched by Christopher Speers' widow down in Utah...


As I understand it, this was a judgement by default, since Khadr presented no defence, nor as far as I know, did he/his lawyer acknowledge the suit.


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> As I understand it, this was a judgement by default, since Khadr presented no defence, nor as far as I know, did he/his lawyer acknowledge the suit.



Yes, and I would hope that it is thrown out on appeal due to the ridiculous nature of a soldier successfully suing either an enemy combatant or a death by "friendly fire." You go to war, there's a good chance you may be killed. A veteran's pension would be appropriate compensation just like any other soldier.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> As I understand it, this was a judgement by default, since Khadr presented no defence, nor as far as I know, did he/his lawyer acknowledge the suit.


That usually doesn't help prevent a conviction.


----------



## FeXL

Oh, wah...

Omar Khadr wants bail eased so he can fly to Toronto to visit family



> Former Guantanamo Bay prisoner Omar Khadr is asking a Canadian court to ease his bail conditions to allow him to fly to Toronto to visit his family, The Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> Among other things, Khadr also wants to be rid of his electronic monitoring bracelet, arguing it's embarrassing and intrusive, and his curfew eased.


They can come see you.

More:



> Khadr says it's time to take off his electronic ankle bracelet, which he calls uncomfortable.


Cheap price to pay for your life. What do you s'pose the soldier you killed is feeling right now?


----------



## macintosh doctor

FeXL said:


> Oh, wah...
> 
> Omar Khadr wants bail eased so he can fly to Toronto to visit family
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap price to pay for your life. What do you s'pose the soldier you killed is feeling right now?


The bleeding heart liberals will buy into his BS, probably allow it.
if his family is full of Terrorists and terror supporting extremists - please explain why he needs to see them?
There was a reason for the restrictions. They will just re assimilate him back to his roots of terror.


----------



## SINC

Go ahead, give him everythig he wants. Then suffer the consequences in the years ahead.


----------



## Macfury

The bum has quickly gone from wide-eyed gratitude to a big-time whiner.


----------



## macintosh doctor

Macfury said:


> The bum has quickly gone from wide-eyed gratitude to a big-time whiner.


no kidding.. 

just waiting for Justin Trudeau to use him as an election tool.


----------



## FeXL

macintosh doctor said:


> just waiting for Justin Trudeau to use him as an election tool.


Halfway there...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Halfway there...


I'm waiting for Justin to start campaigning at all. His lacklustre performance is shocking.


----------



## fjnmusic

FeXL said:


> Oh, wah...
> 
> 
> 
> Omar Khadr wants bail eased so he can fly to Toronto to visit family
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can come see you.
> 
> 
> 
> More:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap price to pay for your life. What do you s'pose the soldier you killed is feeling right now?



Good question. What do you suppose the families of all the civilians, including children, that were killed by Canadian and American soldiers as "collateral damage" are feeling right now? At least that soldier joined the Forces knowing full well that there was a possibility of being injured or killed. There are millions of innocent people that are killed in war time who are not soldiers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## CubaMark

_*Run fer the hills, fellers! That Khadr is comin' ta getcha! *_ 

*Omar Khadr can remove electronic bracelet, visit family in Toronto*








Former Guantanamo Bay prisoner Omar Khadr no longer has to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet, and will be allowed to visit his grandparents in Toronto and speak to them in a language other than English, a judge ruled today.

Justice June Ross of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench also ordered the removal of monitoring software on the laptop computer Khadr uses for school. The software is interfering with the operations of the computer and Alberta Justice has been unable to help resolve the problems. 

When Khadr makes the trip to Toronto this fall, he must travel with his lawyer and meet with authorities there, Ross ruled. 

She called the conditions faced by Khadr "unusually restrictive." 

Khadr, 28, was released on bail in May pending an appeal in the U.S. of his conviction for war crimes, including the murder of an American soldier. He has been living in Edmonton with his lawyer, Dennis Edney.

Last week, Ross agreed to alter some of Khadr's bail conditions to allow him to attend early morning prayers and a night class.

The judge said she wanted to hear from Khadr's bail supervisor before considering his other requests. The bail supervisor said Khadr has followed all his bail conditions up until now. 

He had requested that the electronic monitoring bracelet be removed because it was interfering with his ability to play soccer.

Khadr had to follow a condition where he could only speak to his family in English and in the presence of a chaperone. However, his grandfather doesn't speak English. 

Khadr's mother and one of his sisters made pro al-Qaeda remarks in the past. But Khadr's lawyers say they aren't even in Canada. He told the judge that his client is now mature enough not to be influenced by their views. ​​
(CBC)


----------



## Macfury

Omar Khadr is a crashing bore.


----------



## FeXL

Run? Not likely. 

I'll wait for him right here...



CubaMark said:


> Run fer the hills, fellers! That Khadr is comin' ta getcha!


----------



## macintosh doctor

Omar Khadr's sister Zaynab detained in Turkey | Toronto Star 

But but the liberals and their media said he and his family are miss understood. 
A cheetah will never change its spots. So glad he is free. :/


----------



## fjnmusic

macintosh doctor said:


> Omar Khadr's sister Zaynab detained in Turkey | Toronto Star
> 
> 
> 
> But but the liberals and their media said he and his family are miss understood.
> 
> A cheetah will never change its spots. So glad he is free. :/



So? That's the sister. What, you think we should punish her by proxy by punishing Omar Khadr some more? Sense: your statement makes no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

The media insisted his family had calmed down and could no longer influence Khadr.



fjnmusic said:


> So? That's the sister. What, you think we should punish her by proxy by punishing Omar Khadr some more? Sense: your statement makes no.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> The media....


I must have missed that issue of "Lefty Herald-Tribune".

What nonsense and yet how typical of the enraged Right to employ guilt-by-association.

I'm still waiting for that big exposé on Khadr's trip to visit his grandparents in Toronto, you know, the one which all of you claimed was irresponsible and sure to bring about destruction, where he was finally going to go full-raging-jihadi and massacre the entirety of Yonge Street....



:lmao:


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> I'm still waiting for that big exposé on Khadr's trip to visit his grandparents in Toronto, you know, the one which all of you claimed was irresponsible and sure to bring about destruction, where he was finally going to go full-raging-jihadi and massacre the entirety of Yonge Street....
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao:


Your wait is apparently over:

SHOCKING PHOTO: Omar Khadr on video call with Al Qaida supporter he met in Gitmo - The Rebel


----------



## CubaMark

This obsession you (and Ezra) have with Khadr is a little bit much, eh?

From The Rebel's post you linked:

_It shows Omar Khadr, on an iPhone, doing a video call with another former Guantanamo Bay Al Qaida supporter, now living in the UK, named Moazzam Begg.

Like Khadr, Begg freely admits that he supports the jihad, that he personally attended two different terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, and that bought weapons for the jihad._​
Let's break this down:


I've yet to see any sources that show Begg profession support for Al Qaida. Do you have any?
"now living in the UK" - well, he was born in Binghamton, after all.... 
"Guantanamo Bay" - Held for less than two years; never charged; very rarely provided access to legal counsel; tortured; spent those two years in solitary confinement; 
"freely admits that he supports the jihad" - source? Or is that asking too much?
"attended two different terrorist training camps". If by "terrorist" you mean Anti-Taliban training camps, then yes. See how Ezra manages to twist things to feed his narrative?
"bought weapons for the jihad" - source? Nothing I've seen supports this.

Contact between Khadr and Begg would not appear to violate any of Khadr's bail conditions (despite Ezra's inferences). Additionally, it would not appear to be out of the ordinary considering they are both outspoken critics of the USA's extra-judicial (i.e., illegal) arbitrary detentions of "enemy combatants" at the American gulag in Guantanamo bay.

Also, from 2011::

*British human rights activist denied entry to Canada*

_A well-travelled British human rights activist and former Guantanamo Bay detainee said he was barred from boarding a direct flight from London to Toronto Friday because of concerns the aircraft could be diverted to the U.S.

Moazzam Begg was to speak at a Saturday conference on Islamophobia organized by the Canadian lawyer for Omar Khadr, 24, the Toronto-born Guantanamo prisoner convicted last fall of war crimes._​
(TheStar)

So, it appears, here we have yet another case of Ezra using innuendo to whip up a frenzy among his scared-of-muslim followers based on the flimsiest of 'evidence'.

Well done, Ezra. You are a master at inciting the willing bigots who are your fans...


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> This obsession you (and Ezra) have with Khadr is a little bit much, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> From The Rebel's post you linked:
> 
> 
> 
> _It shows Omar Khadr, on an iPhone, doing a video call with another former Guantanamo Bay Al Qaida supporter, now living in the UK, named Moazzam Begg.
> 
> 
> 
> Like Khadr, Begg freely admits that he supports the jihad, that he personally attended two different terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, and that bought weapons for the jihad._​
> 
> 
> Let's break this down:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see any sources that show Begg profession support for Al Qaida. Do you have any?
> 
> "now living in the UK" - well, he was born in Binghamton, after all....
> 
> "Guantanamo Bay" - Held for less than two years; never charged; very rarely provided access to legal counsel; tortured; spent those two years in solitary confinement;
> 
> "freely admits that he supports the jihad" - source? Or is that asking too much?
> 
> "attended two different terrorist training camps". If by "terrorist" you mean Anti-Taliban training camps, then yes. See how Ezra manages to twist things to feed his narrative?
> 
> "bought weapons for the jihad" - source? Nothing I've seen supports this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contact between Khadr and Begg would not appear to violate any of Khadr's bail conditions (despite Ezra's inferences). Additionally, it would not appear to be out of the ordinary considering they are both outspoken critics of the USA's extra-judicial (i.e., illegal) arbitrary detentions of "enemy combatants" at the American gulag in Guantanamo bay.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, from 2011::
> 
> 
> 
> *British human rights activist denied entry to Canada*
> 
> 
> 
> _A well-travelled British human rights activist and former Guantanamo Bay detainee said he was barred from boarding a direct flight from London to Toronto Friday because of concerns the aircraft could be diverted to the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> Moazzam Begg was to speak at a Saturday conference on Islamophobia organized by the Canadian lawyer for Omar Khadr, 24, the Toronto-born Guantanamo prisoner convicted last fall of war crimes._​
> 
> 
> (TheStar)
> 
> 
> 
> So, it appears, here we have yet another case of Ezra using innuendo to whip up a frenzy among his scared-of-muslim followers based on the flimsiest of 'evidence'.
> 
> 
> 
> Well done, Ezra. You are a master at inciting the willing bigots who are your fans...



It's Ezra Levant. Like I always say, consider the source. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC

And like I always say, a leopard does not change its spots. That's enough to put a first spot back on a freed terrorist.


----------



## CubaMark

fjnmusic said:


> It's Ezra Levant. Like I always say, consider the source.


Oh, no! We mustn't do that! That would be an_ ad hominem_ attack!

Or, as SINC likes to say:

_And like I always say, a leopard does not change its spots._​


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> Oh, no! We mustn't do that! That would be an_ ad hominem_ attack!
> 
> 
> 
> Or, as SINC likes to say:
> 
> 
> 
> _And like I always say, a leopard does not change its spots._​



Funny! Except that a leopard is born with spots. Babies are not born terrorists, are they? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CubaMark

fjnmusic said:


> Funny! Except that a leopard is born with spots. Babies are not born terrorists, are they?


Well, you know, [sarcasm]if they're muslim babies[/sarcasm]....


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Funny! Except that a leopard is born with spots. Babies are not born terrorists, are they?


One way to tell is if they toss grenades. It's a dead giveaway, if you will pardon the pun,


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> It's Ezra Levant. Like I always say, consider the source.


An investigative journalist with exponentially more credibility than all of the reporters at the CBC and the Star combined? Yes, we should consider that when we read his stuff.


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> One way to tell is if they toss grenades. It's a dead giveaway, if you will pardon the pun,


Of course dropping cluster bombs and wiping out wedding parties is A-OK as long as it's our guys doing the damage???


----------



## CubaMark

heavyall said:


> An investigative journalist with exponentially more credibility than all of the reporters at the CBC and the Star combined? Yes, we should consider that when we read his stuff.



With a long history of libel, too. Just two of the more recent cases:

*Lawyer Richard Warman* filed suit against Levant in 2008 as well as Kathy Shaidle, Kate McMillan of Small Dead Animals and several other conservative bloggers for libel over statements made about Warman on Free Dominion. Levant says this "lawsuit isn't logical, or serious. It's a nuisance suit."

On June 10, 2015, Levant, Shaidle and McMillan settled with Warman and published retractions and apologies. *Levant's apology* was posted on his website and read:

_In the past, I have made certain derogatory statements and comments about Mr. Richard Warman on January 20, 23 and 28, 2008 and November 10, 2008. Those statements and comments were made on my website at Ezra Levant.

Those statements and comments attacked the personal and professional reputation of Mr. Richard Warman. I retract and apologize to Mr. Warman for those statements and comments without reservation. In particular, in one of my website posts, I alleged that Mr. Richard Warman had posted a bigoted attack on the Internet against Senator Anne Cools. I have no evidence that this is true and I retract it and apologize to Mr. Warman for it without reservation.
– Signed Ezra Levant_​

Levant is also being sued by Canadian political strategist *Warren Kinsella* for libel with $5,000,000 being sought in damages. Levant has called Kinsella's suit "laughable".
(Wikipedia)​


----------



## heavyall

Yes, people with deep pockets like to sue people who say things that don't present them in a flattering light. A retraction is often the most prudent course of action against such people when faced with the alternative of the time and money to defend them.


----------



## fjnmusic

heavyall said:


> Yes, people with deep pockets like to sue people who say things that don't present them in a flattering light. A retraction is often the most prudent course of action against such people when faced with the alternative of the time and money to defend them.



It does call Levant's credibility into question, however. His testimony is about as trustworthy as the witnesses at the Ghomeshi trial. What he says might be true or it might not; take your pick. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## heavyall

fjnmusic said:


> It does call Levant's credibility into question,


It calls the credibility of those who sued him into question. Using the threat of financial ruin to shut people up is pretty strong indicator that they are right about you.


----------



## CubaMark

heavyall said:


> It calls the credibility of those who sued him into question. Using the threat of financial ruin to shut people up is pretty strong indicator that they are right about you.


Man, the Flavor-Aid is strong with this one.... 

This highly credible :lmao: journalist :lmao: has been threatened with being sued or has actually been sued on at least 8 occasions, either issuing a retraction / apology pre-emptively or losing in court.

Not much of a track record for someone "...with exponentially more credibility..."

How anyone can objectively view Levant as anything close to the definition of a credible journalist is mind-blowing.


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> Man, the Flavor-Aid is strong with this one....
> 
> 
> 
> This highly credible :lmao: journalist :lmao: has been threatened with being sued or has actually been sued on at least 8 occasions, either issuing a retraction / apology pre-emptively or losing in court.
> 
> 
> 
> Not much of a track record for someone "...with exponentially more credibility..."
> 
> 
> 
> How anyone can objectively view Levant as anything close to the definition of a credible journalist is mind-blowing.



How does one measure credibility in an exponential way, I wonder? This terminology is automatically suspect. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## heavyall

CubaMark said:


> How anyone can objectively view Levant as anything close to the definition of a credible journalist is mind-blowing.


More credible than anyone you ever cite here. In the future, If you find yourself disagreeing with Levant, that just means you need to do more research to find out why you are wrong.


----------



## SINC

This is just so wrong on so many levels. The Canadian people had nothing to do with him landing in Gitmo and we owe him SFA.

The compensation and an apology comes after Khadr's lawyers filed a $20 million wrongful imprisonment lawsuit against the Canadian government



> TORONTO — The Canadian government is going to apologize and give millions to a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner who pleaded guilty to killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan when he was 15, with Canada’s Supreme Court later ruling that officials had interrogated him under “oppressive circumstances.”
> 
> An official familiar with the deal said Tuesday that Omar Khadr will receive $10.5 million. The official was not authorized to discuss the deal publicly before the announcement and spoke on condition of anonymity. The government and Khadr’s lawyers negotiated the deal last month.
> 
> The Canadian-born Khadr was 15 when he was captured by U.S. troops following a firefight at a suspected al-Qaida compound in Afghanistan that resulted in the death of an American special forces medic, U.S. Army Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer. Khadr, who was suspected of throwing the grenade that killed Speer, was taken to Guantanamo and ultimately charged with war crimes by a military commission.
> 
> 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. He returned to Canada two years later to serve the remainder of his sentence and was released in May 2015 pending an appeal of his guilty plea, which he said was made under duress.
> 
> Omar Khadr spent 10 years in Guantanamo Bay. His case received international attention after some dubbed him a child soldier.
> 
> The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2010 that Canadian intelligence officials obtained evidence from Khadr under “oppressive circumstances,” such as sleep deprivation, during interrogations at Guantanamo Bay in 2003, and then shared that evidence with U.S officials.
> 
> Khadr was the youngest and last Western detainee held at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
> 
> His lawyers filed a $20 million wrongful imprisonment lawsuit against the Canadian government, arguing the government violated international law by not protecting its own citizen and conspired with the U.S. in its abuse of Khadr. A spokesman for the justice minister and the prime minister’s office didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
> 
> The widow of Speer and another American soldier blinded by the grenade in Afghanistan filed a wrongful death and injury lawsuit against Khadr in 2014 fearing Khadr might get his hands on money from his $20 million wrongful imprisonment lawsuit. A U.S. judge granted $134.2 million in damages in 2015, but the plaintiffs acknowledged then that there was little chance they would collect any of the money from Khadr because he lives in Canada.
> 
> Khadr’s lawyers have long said he was pushed into war by his father, Ahmed Said Khadr, whose family stayed with Osama bin Laden briefly when Omar Khadr was a boy. Khadr’s Egyptian-born father was killed in 2003 when a Pakistani military helicopter shelled the house where he was staying with senior al-Qaida operatives.
> 
> After his 2015 release from prison in Alberta, Omar Khadr apologized to the families of the victims. He said he rejects violent jihad and wants a fresh start to finish his education and work in health care. He currently resides in an apartment in Edmonton, Alberta.


Trudeau Liberals to pay Omar Khadr $10.5M for suffering at Guantanamo | National Post


----------



## SINC

This is unacceptable. Canadian taxpayers should not pay $10 million to a person who fought alongside al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Will you sign our petition calling for the federal government to retract their offer of $10 million?

There are a lot of strong opinions about the Khadr case on all sides and debate, even heated debate, is healthy. But giving Khadr $10 million of taxpayer money is a slap in the face to the families of Canadian soldiers who were killed in Afghanistan by people who were fighting alongside Khadr. 

Not that the federal government has an extra $10 million kicking around, but if they did, they should give it to Canadian veterans wounded in Afghanistan or perhaps the family of US Army Sgt. Christopher Speer who was killed by the grenade that Khadr admitted he threw.

Let’s send a message to the Trudeau government that giving $10 million to Khadr is wrong. Sign the petition: https://www.taxpayer.com/resource-centre/petitions/petition?tpContentId=162


----------



## Macfury

This is simply a manifestation of a mental condition known as "progressivism." A true liberal would choke at the idea.



SINC said:


> This is unacceptable. Canadian taxpayers should not pay $10 million to a person who fought alongside al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.


----------



## macintosh doctor

I am so disgusted by Jihadi Justin showing his true colours. This family is nothing but terrorists but liberals love them. The Khadrs, Canada's First Family of Terrorism, in the News :: Daniel Pipes


----------



## CubaMark

Canada did violate Khadr's rights as a Canadian citizen. The Supreme Court made that decision, not Justin Trudeau.

Khad has stated that he does not remember throwing a grenade, and the conditions in which Khadr was found suggests that he did not. There is ample evidence to cast doubt on the allegation that he did so, which we've gone over (again and again and again) in this thread. 

Canadian security agents colluding with the American military in their illegal detention base in Guantánamo Bay on occupied Cuban land by a hastily-created military authority with no actual legitimacy sure as hell violated Khadr's rights.

You may be aghast at the amount of the payoff, but undoubtedly there are bean counters somewhere in the government who ran the numbers and have determined that given the facts of the case, were Khadr to sue the Canadian government, he would win, and the settlement would be this or higher.

This is what Canada gets for its ongoing role as a laptop to the Americans in their wars of empire.


----------



## Macfury

Undoubtedly there are bean counters. However, I don't have the same faith in government that you do. The beans have been overcounted.


----------



## eMacMan

This one has me going in two directions. Had the various Canadian Governments made strenuous efforts to prevent/stop the abuse Khadr was subjected to in GITMO, I would say give him nothing.

They did not make any effort to intervene and the Harpoon did everything he could to extend Khadrs stay. As a result Khadr is not physically healthy and deserves some compensation. Knowing his lawyers will get the lions share I would have awarded about $5,000,000, which should after the legal preadators are finished, leave him enough to establish an independent life.

EDIT: Even had Khadr been awarded less than $10,000,000, it is likely that the government lawyers would have run the bill considerably higher attempting to defend the government position. Truth is I like government lawyers even less than I do Khadr and would prefer that Khadr was the one that got the money.


----------



## SINC

Yep, people are pissed on Global News comments:

From average Canadians, the sentiment is almost totally against this decision:

Perry Paul · Sales at Coldwell Banker First Ottawa Realty, Brokerage
As a veteran and father of a serving member I believe this settlement is disgusting. We agreed to put our lives on the line for this country and could never hope to earn a fraction of this payment in a lifetime of service! Where is the multi million dollar settlements for the many veterans that have lost their limbs, eyesight, mental well-being, health and in many cases their lives. 15 year olds are quite capable of making a choice. My son joined the reserves at not much older than this, by his own choice. Kadar should pay reparations to the families of those he and his discussing terrorist fa...See More
Like · Reply · 1 · 51 mins

Noel Gopsill · Journeyman Millwright at Retired
We have thousands of Canadians living in poverty and can't afford housing and decent food and we are giving money to terrorists, something wrong with the thinking of many of our politicians. Lawyers making money taking this kind of thing to court. 
It's time we stop wasting money and help Canadians who aren't criminals or terrorists.
Like · Reply · 2 · 52 mins

Damir Khamzin · Vancouver, British Columbia
And what about reperations to the widow of Sgt. Christopher Speer? She should get half this money if not the lion's share.
Like · Reply · 2 · 1 hr

Pam Duncan · Edmonton, Alberta
The "Trudeau" government isn't just giving away money. This is a lawsuit. The courts decide how much money and who pays. It would be the same if it was PC or NDP. 🙄 Agree or not Trudeau has nothing to do with it.
Like · Reply · 1 hr

Tim Dobranski
And each and every Canadian Government should appeal the decision until the terrorist is long past his expiry date. The liars (lawyers) settled, if the Lie Minister had "a set" (and I am not meaning silly socks) he would have told government liars (lawyers) not to settle and appeal the verdict until it is changed or the terrorist expires.

Canadian military member death or injured for life max payout $360,000.00 ;

Convicted Terrorist who killed a military Medic payout $10,000,000.00.

We know who the lieberals politicians and judges value more.
Like · Reply · 49 mins · Edited

Tracy Moore Tappin · Bridgewater, Nova Scotia
lol, Pam Duncan. How naive.
Like · Reply · 37 mins

Sharon Santos · Head Cashier at The Home Depot
If our stupid gov't insists on awarding him this money...then they should be forwarding it to the widow who won the 134 million law suit against Khadr but can't collect. When did we start paying terrorists???


----------



## SINC

U.S. soldier, widow to seek injunction to halt Ottawa’s payout to Omar Khadr

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...onservatives-say/article35540496/?service=amp

Good for them. Too bad it will take Americans to halt an obscene abuse of our tax dollars. 

:clap:


----------



## CubaMark

*Why will Omar Khadr receive $10.5M? Because his rights were violated: Aaron Wherry*

_... the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling on Jan. 29, 2010, that found Khadr's human rights were being violated at Guantanamo Bay.

In that case, the court dealt with the visit of CSIS and Foreign Affairs officials to the prison in 2003 and 2004, under the previous Liberal government.

"The deprivation of [Khadr's] right to liberty and security of the person is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice," the court ruled. 

"The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects."

Whatever Khadr did or did not do as a teenager on a battlefield in Afghanistan in July 2002, whether he deserves to be described as a "terrorist" or a "child soldier," he was and is a Canadian citizen with rights. And, as determined by no less than the Supreme Court of Canada, the Canadian government was complicit in the violation of those rights.

** * **​
Conservatives should also be aware of their own precedent for such compensation: it was Stephen Harper's government that agreed to pay $10 million to Maher Arar in 2007, acknowledging the Canadian government's actions may have led to his torture by Syrian officials in 2002.

Three months ago, the Liberal government agreed to compensate Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou-Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin after an inquiry found the actions of Canadian law enforcement officials had indirectly led to their torture in Syria and Egypt between 2001 and 2004.

Of course, there is no argument now that any of those men are guilty of anything. 

Khadr, on the other hand, pleaded guilty in 2010 to murder in the death of American Sgt. Christopher Speer, as well as attempted murder, conspiracy, providing material support to terrorists and spying. 

The military prison at Guantanamo Bay and its associated proceedings have always been an extralegal concern and stand now as a symbol of George W. Bush's war on terror (ISIS has taken to dressing its captives in orange jumpsuits reminiscent of those worn by Guantanamo detainees). 

Khadr has argued that his guilty plea was the compelled result of a "hopeless choice." He saw it as his only chance to one day return to Canada.

But regardless of how one judges the evidence against him — indeed, even if one is convinced Khadr is guilty — there seems no dispute that he was mistreated._(CBC)​


----------



## Macfury

Hope the lawyers feed deeply off the punk's lottery.


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> Good for them. Too bad it will take Americans to halt an obscene abuse of our tax dollars.


Unlikely - from the story you linked:



> “They are trying to get an emergency injunction in a Canadian court to have their award in the United States enforced in Canada,” one source said. “Their desire is to have U.S. courts enforced in Canada, which would mean that any money that goes to Mr. Khadr would go to them.”
> 
> A federal official said *the prospect of the courts ruling in their favour is remote.*
> 
> ** * **​
> Pascal Paradis, executive director of Lawyers without Borders, said the Conservatives are off base with their opposition to federal compensation for Mr. Khadr.
> 
> “It is not a political matter. It is a legal matter,” he said. “In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada has said not only once but twice that Canada was wrong in dealing with the Khadr case, that Canada had participated in violating his basic human rights, including participation of Canadian agents in interrogating Mr. Khadr knowing he had been subjected to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.”


----------



## Macfury

Saw this on Reddit:


----------



## SINC

Christie nails it as usual:

Christie Blatchford: Khadr is doing all right without our money | National Post



> As a wise historian friend says, ours is a society increasingly reliant upon “social-progressive notions that seek to erase all images of injustice to individuals, no matter how long ago or in what context or circumstance… Our society accepts that we allow all our ‘victims’ to become our ‘heroes’ because a certain strata of Canadians feel good, because Canada is proving that we are more just than everyone else on the planet.”
> 
> *If nothing else, at the very least, it’s a brilliant victory for the Taliban, al-Qaida, ISIL and all the other extremists: A young jihadist is now a hero in Canada for killing an infidel – and look, he got a big payday and an apology to boot.*
> 
> What’s next: Do we apologize to the Germans for winning what another friend calls “those two memorable misunderstandings?”
> 
> “We did win both. Tore down the fabric of their society, twice. Killed a lot of their young men. Became an occupying force. Really, really sorry about that.”
> 
> We can sign it as we always do, “Love, Canada.”


----------



## SINC

Omar Khadr's undeserved jackpot


----------



## SINC

*Why Would Trudeau Pay Khadr $10-Million Before Having A Court Weigh In?*

Exactly!



> Omar Khadr stands convicted by the American government of the murder of American Sgt. Christopher Speer, and of other charges related to terrorist activity. He is appealing his conviction in the United States, arguing that his confession and subsequent guilty plea were obtained via torture, during his detention by the Americans at Guantanamo Bay. In 2014, he also re-launched a civil suit against the Canadian government, alleging that it had violated a number of his Charter rights.
> 
> *Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are settling the Canadian suit by offering Khadr a $10.5-million payout. Here’s the rub with this settlement: neither the American nor Canadian legal processes are complete. There would have been compelling reasons for allowing them to play out before giving Khadr any money.*
> 
> For one thing, there’s the issue of the gravity of the issues at stake, and the varying accounts of the parties’ wrongs. As the CBC noted in a 2004 article, Omar’s brother, Abdurahman Khadr, has said that his father, Ahmed Said Khadr, was “old friends with al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and that (the) brothers attended terrorist training camps.”


Michelle Rempel: Why would Trudeau pay Khadr $10-million before having a court weigh in? | National Post


----------



## SINC

Yep . . .


----------



## SINC

Good!

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...itical-albatross-for-trudeau/article35554383/


----------



## SINC

More.

https://www.baytoday.ca/local-news/...o-omar-khadr-slammed-by-taxpayer-group-661083


----------



## Rps

Our government's approach to risk management is truly amazing! I'm not sure if all of this should be dumped on Mr. Trudeau but he could have at least mitigated this. Not meaning to derail the thread but there are two kinds of ignorance....plain ( meaning you just don't know ) and willful ( meaning you just don't care ) Trudeau is more and more becoming willful.


----------



## SINC

Yep.


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> Christie nails it as usual:
> 
> Christie Blatchford: Khadr is doing all right without our money | National Post


Yep - that's about up to the standard of "journalism" I expect from Blatchford. She has along history of being on the wrong side of every issue.

As to the cartoon depicting Trudeau, Khadr and a homeless veteran - that one pisses me of to no end. It's similar to the (never ending) memes that circulate on social media about those damn refugees being given a gazillion dollars, penthouse apartment, and porsche SUV the moment they step off the plane, but woe our homeless vets, our seniors dining on cat food, and our desperately overtaxed small businessfolk (or some variation thereof).

The issues have nothing to do with one another, but weak-minded right-wingers always equate them. Homeless vets (I suspect there are many fewer of those in Canada than on-the-brink-of-poverty military families, but that's hard to fit into the Sunday funnies) should certainly have support, as should the 200,000—300,000 homeless nationwide. But the same conservatives who wail about the treatment of homeless veterans are the same ones who oppose extending social benefits, implementing a national guaranteed income, providing funding for shelters and soup kitchens, etc. Hypocritical bastards.

Back to the issue of Khadr: * A serious question*. Do you think the Canadian government should be able to selectively decide which of the rights and freedoms Canadians might enjoy? Should it not be called to task for violations of those rights?


----------



## Rps

Forgive me CubaMark, which part about he was a 15 year old soldier fighting against us and our allies do you not understand? At issue is, he was on the opposite side, which means, to me, he has de facto given up his Canadian citizenship.


----------



## Macfury

Rps said:


> Forgive me CubaMark, which part about he was a 15 year old soldier fighting against us and our allies do you not understand? At issue is, he was on the opposite side, which means, to me, he has de facto given up his Canadian citizenship.


Absolutely. Any attempt to wring hands and moan about issues subsequent to this fact are irrelevant.


----------



## CubaMark

Rps said:


> Forgive me CubaMark, which part about he was a 15 year old soldier fighting against us and our allies do you not understand? At issue is, he was on the opposite side, which means, to me, he has de facto given up his Canadian citizenship.


Not to split hairs, but....

(a) 15 years old - depending on which authority you wish to cite, either is or isn't a child soldier. Certainly he was taken by his father into the fight when he was underage, and I don't know how one would expect a child in that context to suddenly "see the light" and find a way to leave his family and the war behind. Your definition of "soldier" is one that should be explored. He wasn't running around with an AK-47 firing on western troops. It may be semantics, but what we know of his time spent in the compound, he was seen (on the recovered videotape) to be preparing IEDs. "soldier", "enemy combatant", "fighter"... the lawyers have a field day with that stuff.

(b) "our allies". Man, I really don't have the time to get into the ongoing disaster that is Afghanistan, the misguided (official) reasons for sending forced in there, and the (unofficial) reasons for war, among which is the need to secure oil pipeline routes. There's no honour in what Canada or the USA is doing over there - it's all business, and the living beings standing in the way of that business are little more than ants to be crushed or trained to stay out of the way. I dislike Canada's participation in the USA's wars of empire.

(c) I don't think you can simply "de facto" give up citizenship. He was born in Canada and spent the first ten years or so of his life in Toronto. Legally, he's as much a Canadian as you or me. And again I ask: should the government be able to arbitrarily decide when it wants to protect the rights of a Canadian citizen? Slippery slope....


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Absolutely. Any attempt to wring hands and moan about issues subsequent to this fact are irrelevant.


I disagree. The entire discussion of what Khadr did or didn't do in Afghanistan up to the point when the compound in which he lived was attacked by the US military is moot.

The only issue on the table here is whether Khadr's rights were violated by the Canadian government and its agents during his illegal imprisonment and invented charges while in Guantanamo Bay. In case you need a reminder (emphasis mine):

_On May 23, 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled *unanimously* that the government had acted illegally, contravening s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and ordered the videotapes of the interrogation released.[162]

In April 2009, the Federal Court of Canada *ruled again* that Khadr's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated. It concluded that Canada had a "duty to protect" Khadr and ordered the Canadian government to request that the U.S. return him to Canada as soon as possible.[163]

In August 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal *upheld the decision *in a 2–1 ruling.[164] 

Finally, in January 2010, in a *unanimous* 9–0 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the participation of Canadian officials in Khadr's interrogations at Guantanamo clearly violated his rights under the Charter. In its sharply worded decision, the Supreme Court referred to the denial of Khadr's legal rights as well as to the use of sleep deprivation techniques to soften him up for interrogation:_

The deprivation of [Khadr's] right to liberty and security of the person is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects​.(Wikipedia)​


----------



## Macfury

The government did not make an "arbitrary decision." It was based on combatant status.


----------



## Rps

CubaMark, we will agree to disagree. Granted I have a vested bias, but to me there are two issues here. One, he was a soldier who was captured. Historically captured soldiers were used a capital between sides and usually returned after the war was over. Yes the "war" here is a grey area but he was a soldier nonetheless. Second, and this I think is the root of much of this issue, he was captured along with others in a pseudo pre-trial setting and placed in Gitmo for an extended period of time, along with others, and no trial was given. Since Gitmo is a U.S. base, it is U.S. soil...thus the military ignored constitutional rights of their detainees. That said, at 15 you should know right from wrong, you know what side you are on as it was a part of his upbringing and you could say culture. But, my view is if you are a citizen and openly fight against your country you are foresaking your citizenship, his rights would only have been violated if he was held in Canada....any rights he held were American.


----------



## CubaMark

Rps said:


> ...... this I think is the root of much of this issue, he was captured along with others in a pseudo pre-trial setting and placed in Gitmo for an extended period of time, along with others, and no trial was given. Since Gitmo is a U.S. base, it is U.S. soil...thus the military ignored constitutional rights of their detainees. ..... his rights would only have been violated if he was held in Canada....any rights he held were American.


Again,with all due respect, no. I've been following this story for the past decade - and if you go back into this thread, you'll find all of the arguments about the judicial process, its validity and the machinations of the USA to put those imprisoned in Guantánamo - Khadr included - in a place where they could be treated as anything but a human being with inherent rights.

_The Bush administration originally chose Guantanamo Bay, a naval station on leased Cuban territory, because it hoped both the prison camp and the tribunals would be beyond the reach of U.S. courts. But the Supreme Court has now ruled twice that Guantanamo inmates have recourse to the U.S. justice system._
(Globe & Mail, 6 Aug. 2008)​


----------



## Macfury

You may have been following the story for a decade--that does not make your opinion more valid. People disagree with your interpretation of those events.



CubaMark said:


> Again,with all due respect, no. I've been following this story for the past decade - and if you go back into this thread, you'll find all of the arguments about the judicial process, its validity and the machinations of the USA to put those imprisoned in Guantánamo - Khadr included - in a place where they could be treated as anything but a human being with inherent rights.
> 
> _The Bush administration originally chose Guantanamo Bay, a naval station on leased Cuban territory, because it hoped both the prison camp and the tribunals would be beyond the reach of U.S. courts. But the Supreme Court has now ruled twice that Guantanamo inmates have recourse to the U.S. justice system._
> (Globe & Mail, 6 Aug. 2008)​


----------



## Rps

CubaMark, the fact is his rights attached to the U.S. as are anyone's who is in the U.S.


----------



## SINC

Rps is right on.

The minute Khadr set foot on Afghani soil and began to make bombs, never mind throw grenades, he lost any rights he might have had as a Canadian. He is entitled to nothing for fighting against us. The Supreme court is dead wrong and they too need to stop with decisions that offend the vast majority of Canadians. I hope he gets what he deserves financially and that is nothing, along with the leech lawyers he hired to rape Canadian taxpayers. He is a terrorist plain and simple. To hell with him.


----------



## eMacMan

Rps said:


> CubaMark, we will agree to disagree. Granted I have a vested bias, but to me there are two issues here. One, he was a soldier who was captured. Historically captured soldiers were used a capital between sides and usually returned after the war was over. Yes the "war" here is a grey area but he was a soldier nonetheless. Second, and this I think is the root of much of this issue, he was captured along with others in a pseudo pre-trial setting and placed in Gitmo for an extended period of time, along with others, and no trial was given. Since Gitmo is a U.S. base, it is U.S. soil...thus the military ignored constitutional rights of their detainees. That said, at 15 you should know right from wrong, you know what side you are on as it was a part of his upbringing and you could say culture. But, my view is if you are a citizen and openly fight against your country you are foresaking your citizenship, his rights would only have been violated if he was held in Canada....any rights he held were American.


I wonder, since his indoctrination began several years prior and he was in a foreign nation influenced by foreign values with absolutely no say in the matter.

I can recall at 19, not knowing if my number came up in the US draft lottery, would I allow my self to be sent to Vietnam or would I make a trip to the courthouse and become a Canadian citizen? I never had to make that choice, but at the time I really did not know or understand that everything I thought I knew was essentially propaganda. Some of it pimping for the US MIC, other news outlets equally tied to Russian or Chinese influence.

Most of us understand that much of what the lamestream tells us about Hiliary, Donald, Harper or Trudeau is pure BS. We see all sorts of things labeled as caused by AGW, when just a moment of thought would tell us it ain't even possible. Yet many of us are willing to take the lamestream at its word regarding Omar. His coerced confession would not hold water in a Soviet era kangaroo court, let alone in a so-called western democracy. Moreover that confession was the only evidence presented against him.

FWIW my wife lost a cousin in Afghanistan. Perhaps that colors my thinking perhaps not.


----------



## Rps

I think this is one of those topics where it is clearly bifurcated in opinion. So here is my last comment on the subject....outside of making him a martyr, which I think we've done is this.......Under s46 of the Criminal Code, a person commits "high treason" who a) kills, attempts to kill, wounds, imprisons, or restrains the sovereign, b) wages war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto, or c) assists an enemy at war with Canada or any armed force against whom Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities, even if no state of war exists. The punishment for high treason is life imprisonment, without parole eligibility for 25 years.


----------



## CubaMark

Rps said:


> I think this is one of those topics where it is clearly bifurcated in opinion. So here is my last comment on the subject....outside of making him a martyr, which I think we've done is this.......Under s46 of the Criminal Code, a person commits "high treason" who a) kills, attempts to kill, wounds, imprisons, or restrains the sovereign, b) wages war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto, or c) assists an enemy at war with Canada or any armed force against whom Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities, even if no state of war exists. The punishment for high treason is life imprisonment, without parole eligibility for 25 years.


....and as a legal minor, how would that apply to Khadr?

Also, as noted above (for SINC): The Canadian Supreme Court thrice ruled unanimously that Khadr's rights as a Canadian citizen were violated.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that those imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay's illegitimate prison were entitled to due process (noted above).

It's obvious that there will be no meeting of the minds here. After a decade of arguing, peoples' positions appear pretty much solidified. I personally find it troubling that folks are so dismissive of the conditions surrounding Khadr's plea deal and confession, and willingness to recognize the U.S. military's kangaroo court. 

Looking back on those years when Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of those bastards were wiggling around on definitions of what constitutes torture, it saddens me how much that regime was able to get away with.

I highly doubt Khadr will see much of that cash... nor will Speers' widow. Ultimately, it all ends up in the hands of the lawyers....


----------



## Rps

CubaMark, I think we are agreed on the rights issue, but as for treason and young offenders that is an interesting question....especially since our courts can process as an adult. Not sure what the answer is here on your question.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> You may have been following the story for a decade--that does not make your opinion more valid. People disagree with your interpretation of those events.


Indeed. But look at what's happening here. We're conspicuously missing a certain someone, and the discussion here is respectful and thoughtful. If only ehMac could be like this all the time....


----------



## SINC

Anyone at 15 years of age knows right from wrong. The Supreme court are bozos.


----------



## SINC

It's already done. 

“The money has been paid”: Omar Khadr receives $10.5-million settlement

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/...-omar-khadr-receives-10-5-million-settlement/


----------



## FUXL

*A brave man, child soldier, taken to a war zone when he was 11.*

The courts have applied the law.

WATCH: Omar Khadr's full interview with CBC's Rosemary Barton - CBC Player


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Read this.









http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/07/07/opinion/what-if-omar-khadr-isnt-guilty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

This issue has been heavily explored already.


----------



## SINC

The bottom line is that Canadians, and I suspect the majority thereof, are pissed at Trudeau and Liberals. None of this can be pinned on any government but Liberals who were in power when the so-called breech of rights occurred. Thank Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin for this mess including wasting your tax dollars on a terrorist and a man who committed treason against Canada.


----------



## SINC

A message for Trudeau. He will be rejected in 19 by Canadians.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## SINC

Rex gets it in spades. 

Rex Murphy: Trudeau skips the theme socks for his scheming Khadr apology | National Post


----------



## FeXL

Your well-documented (and admitted) issues with self-control on these threads are not my problem...



CubaMark said:


> We're conspicuously missing a certain someone, and the discussion here is respectful and thoughtful.


----------



## FeXL

Minor or not, you play a man's game, you play a man's rules.



CubaMark said:


> ....and as a legal minor, how would that apply to Khadr?


----------



## FeXL

Whoosh...



CubaMark said:


> I highly doubt Khadr will see much of that cash... nor will Speers' widow.


----------



## FeXL

Further (mostly for the comments).

Oh, Shiny Prime Minister

And, related:

Harper Releases Statement After Trudeau Government Lies About Khadr Payout


----------



## FeXL

Related.

In 1996, Jean Chretien...



> *RELATED*: Major irony alert
> 
> Khadr was 15 at the time of the *criminal acts of which he was convicted*. According to accepted Islamic practice, he was by no means a child.


Links' bold.


----------



## FeXL

More:

Trudeau treating Khadr with kid gloves 



> Trudeau went above and beyond a Supreme Court ruling that was flawed to begin with.
> 
> Bleeding-heart liberals on the top bench frequently make decisions that treat the perpetrator of a crime as the victim. This is a prime example.


----------



## FeXL

Hope this goes viral.

Help raise $1,000,000 for Sgt. Chris Speer's kids!



> By now you’ve heard about the $10.5 million payment that Justin Trudeau gave to confessed terrorist Omar Khadr.
> 
> $10.5 million and an apology -- to a convicted, confessed terrorist and war criminal.
> 
> Meanwhile, the real victims get nothing. Khadr killed U.S. army medic Sgt. Christopher Speer, leaving his wife Tabitha a widow, and his two young kids fatherless.


More:



> We can help the Speer family, by raising one million dollars for the Speer children, to pay for their education, and anything else they need in life.
> 
> All the money we raise will go to them. Indiegogo, the transparent crowdfunding site that we are using, takes a small processing fee to cover their expenses and credit card fees, but anything we get will go to the Speer kids.
> 
> We’ve done this before. Back in the Sun News days we raised just shy of $100,000 for the Speer kids. They got all the money then and they will get all the money now.


Further:



> Let's show the world that what happened in Canada was not in our name. Let's do something constructive and positive, and help the real victims, the Speer kids who grew up without their father.
> 
> --*Brian Lilley*


Yes, _that_ Brian Lilley.

From The Rebel Media. What a bunch of heartless bastards _they_ all are, huh?

Screw you, Juthdin. And screw you, Khadr.


----------



## CubaMark

*A thought-provoking column by former Alberta Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber on the Khadr affair:*

*Why I have doubts about the Khadr case — and why you should too*


----------



## FeXL

What's so thought provoking about it?



CubaMark said:


> A thought-provoking column by former Alberta Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber on the Khadr affair:


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> What's so thought provoking about it?


Sorry, FeXL, I have enough to do today, no time to do your thinking for you.

:lmao:


----------



## Macfury

We should have doubts because he does? 



CubaMark said:


> *A thought-provoking column by former Alberta Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber on the Khadr affair:*
> 
> *Why I have doubts about the Khadr case — and why you should too*


----------



## FeXL

I think on my own quite fine, thankyouverymuch.

That said, I think there is absolutely zero in that article that is either thoughtful or thought-provoking.

I also think that any event where over 60% of the Canadian left agrees with over 90% of the Canadian right (uniting 71% of the population) is worth looking at in greater detail than some left-of-left Prog would have me believe.

In addition, 76% of the Canadian population does not believe he was treated unfairly over the past 15 years.

You & the Hairdo are both on the wrong side of this argument.

Please, when you aren't so busy reading MotherJones or some other Prog crap, do tell us what you found so thoughtful in the article.



CubaMark said:


> Sorry, FeXL, I have enough to do today, no time to do your thinking for you.


----------



## Macfury

Boing, Boing.... Crooks & Liars...



FeXL said:


> Please, when you aren't so busy reading MotherJones or some other Prog crap, do tell us what you found so thoughtful in the article.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Boing, Boing.... Crooks & Liars...


Yep. And then verifying it all on the absolutely, 100% guaranteed objective, authority on all things Prog, Snopes...


----------



## FeXL

BTW, when I first posted this on Jul 9, the donations had just crossed $37k. Just now I checked again & they're at nearly $127k, averaging >$60/backer.

Thank you to all who are making this happen.



FeXL said:


> Hope this goes viral.
> 
> Help raise $1,000,000 for Sgt. Chris Speer's kids!


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Do you feel the families of all soldiers who die in war should be able to sue whoever killed them? I thought war "rules" were different. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

Only when an ally country crazily decides to grease the palm of an enemy combatant who killed the family member.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Do you feel the families of all soldiers who die in war should be able to sue whoever killed them? I thought war "rules" were different.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## macintosh doctor

https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-1194

JUST LAUNCHED: Sign the petition condemning Trudeau's $10.5 million pay out to Omar Khadr:


----------



## Freddie_Biff

macintosh doctor said:


> https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-1194
> 
> 
> 
> JUST LAUNCHED: Sign the petition condemning Trudeau's $10.5 million pay out to Omar Khadr:



To what end, exactly? What will signing the petition accomplish?


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> To what end, exactly? What will signing the petition accomplish?


To tell the government they should have contested the case in court, not caved in like fools?

He was compensated by getting out of Gitmo and coming home to the country he committed treason against and that is quite enough.


----------



## Macfury

It may also show Khadr fans that they are not in the majority.



SINC said:


> To tell the government they should have contested the case in court, not caved in like fools?
> 
> He was compensated by getting out of Gitmo and coming home to the country he committed treason against and that is quite enough.


----------



## FeXL

Threefold.

1) What SINC said.
2) What MF said.
3) To exercise the right of free speech, which, despite the best efforts of Progs nation-wide, still exists.



Freddie_Biff said:


> To what end, exactly? What will signing the petition accomplish?


----------



## macintosh doctor

SINC said:


> To tell the government they should have contested the case in court, not caved in like fools?
> 
> He was compensated by getting out of Gitmo and coming home to the country he committed treason against and that is quite enough.


you forget canada even gave him heart surgery


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Please read. Please wait until you have read it before you comment—it's long. It comes from a veteran of the Canadian military who is well acquainted with the facts of the Omar Khadr case. 



> One Military Veteran's Honest Opinion of Omar Khadr
> 
> As a ten-plus year veteran of the Canadian Forces, and more specifically, the Royal Canadian Air Force, I have some rather strong opinions when it comes to Mr. Omar Khadr.
> 
> I would like to begin by stating that I could not disagree more with the opinion of Omar Khadr seemingly shared by the majority of Canadians. Actually, that statement does not reflect the great disappointment and disgust I feel over the blind, senseless hatred, and complete lack of compassion displayed by many of my countrymen in reaction to this man's horrific story.
> 
> As is all-too-often the case, these hate-fuelled sentiments exploit Canadian patriotism, by essentially disguising their biased rhetoric by wrapping it up in the o
> Canadian flag. Well-meaning Canadians see a picture of a smiling Muslim male, framed with the words "Terrorist Murderer Awarded 10.5 Million by Trudeau's Liberal Government", and end-up assuming anything that terrible must be true, and must be shared.
> 
> Objectivity be damned!
> Fact-checking is for those who have nothing better to do!
> 
> As if that weren't enough, the manipulation continues through the blatant exploitation of the proud history of the Canadian Forces, and finally Canada's military veterans, as well as all members who are currently serving in our armed forces.
> 
> In no way do my opinions on this matter speak for the entirety of the CF or, I'm certain, for the majority of it's members. A military has but one need which towers in importance above all others. No, I'm not talking about the need for new technologies, equipment, or more personnel. The need I'm referring to roots right back to the very reason the Canadian Forces exist.
> 
> Enemies.
> 
> Without them, eighty-eight thousand of Canadian, and two million American citizens would either be unemployed, or forced to make a go of it in the civilian world. In today's world, with it's modern comforts and conveniences, it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep the members of western militaries on point, and of a mindset which is even tolerant to the suggestion of armed conflict, let alone being hungry for a situation as uncomfortable, undesirable and inconvenient as full-scale war tends to be.
> 
> Therefore, Canada's military cautiously walks the fine line found between the perpetration of outdated racist stereotype, and open-arm acceptance of members sourced from every sector of our nation's multicultural mosaic. This fragile framework maintains itself, due to the manner in which the majority of Canadians, actually view themselves as Canadians, complete with a strong sense of patriotism for their adopted home.
> 
> Not as a Jamaican, Indian, or Russian living in Canada, but as a Canadian.
> 
> This makes stirring the pot of aggression, and planting the seeds of conflict much easier, than it would be with multiple ideologies, opinions, and systems of beliefs and values. While I won't go as far as to claim that racism within the Canadian Forces is rampant, I will say that racism certainly exists, and is a tool sometimes used to not-so-gently remind members of the Canadian Forces exactly who the "bad guys" are.
> 
> The inhuman treatment which Omar Khadr was forced to endure over the nine years he spent in Guantanamo Bay, was wrong when viewed from a strictly legal standpoint.
> 
> However, the fact that Khadr was a child soldier, only fifteen years-old at the time of that horrific firefight in Afghanistan... A firefight in which he sustained injuries so catastrophic, an American Officer nearly instructed a private under his command to answer Khadr's request to be killed, only to be stopped by American Delta Force soldiers who ordered he be kept alive.
> 
> Khadr had been shot twice in the back, leaving two large exit wounds. One was in his chest, and another in his shoulder. He had also been blinded in his left eye by shrapnel from a grenade he, himself may have thrown.
> 
> Many call Omar Khadr a "terrorist". While I readily admit he had direct ties to Al-Qaeda, and had even met with Osama Bin Laden, he was still only a child. He had been brought into that realm by his father, who had brainwashed him in anti-Americanism from a very young age. Omar Khadr was not an evil, blood-thirsty terrorist. Omar Khadr was a fifteen year-old boy who's biggest crime was worshipping the very ground on which his beloved father walked. Guilty of nothing more than wanting to impress the man who, when hospitalized for a full year, a then nine-year-old Omar spent every night sleeping on the floor beside his father's hospital bed until his release.
> 
> It might sound extreme to us, but at it's very core, this was a twisted form of father-son bonding. In no way should Omar Khadr be held responsible for any wrongdoing. He only behaved the way most children would.
> 
> Since when are acts of war, which are clearly in-theatre, defined as acts of terrorism? Perhaps it was viewed that way, due to the fact they enemy were not members of a traditional armed forces, but in my opinion, this firefight was unquestionably an act of war, and should not be viewed as an act of terrorism.
> 
> Both the UN, and international law absolutely prohibit the prosecution of child soldiers. They are victims, exploited by adults they respect and trust. Manipulated into fighting battles which they are far too young to understand. They are no different than juveniles who commit a crime here in Canada, and should never be forced to spend their crucial formative years incarcerated in prisons intended for adults.
> It's inappropriate.
> It's inhumane.
> It's completely unacceptable.
> 
> Despite UN policies, and international law strictly prohibiting the criminal prosecution, and incarceration of child soldiers, the government of the United States illegally incarcerated this teenager in their most notorious prison, and proceeded to illegally torture him for information... For nearly ten years.
> 
> As Khadr was a Canadian citizen, the Government of Canada had the power to pressure the American government into handing Khadr over to Canadian authorities. Unfortunately for Khadr, the Government of Canada had no interest in his plight, or in his repatriation. Worse yet, the CSIS Agent who sporadically visited Khadr, "to check on his condition, and well-being" was, in reality, acting only in the capacity of a spy,in order to gather information on Khadr. Information which was subsequently handed directly to the US prosecuting officer to further increase the likelihood of the illegal prosecution, and subsequent illegal incarceration of Omar Khadr.
> 
> In 2007, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal ordered the Canadian government to turn over its records related to Khadr's time in captivity, as judge Richard Mosley stated it was apparent that Canada had violated international law.
> 
> On May 23, 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that the government had acted illegally, contravening Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ordering the videotapes of the interrogation released.
> 
> In April 2009, the Federal Court of Canada ruled again that Khadr's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated. It concluded that Canada had a "duty to protect" Khadr and ordered the Canadian government to request that the U.S. return him to Canada as soon as possible.
> 
> In August 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision in a 2–1 ruling.
> 
> Finally, in January 2010, in a unanimous 9–0 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the participation of Canadian officials in Khadr's interrogations at Guantanamo clearly violated his rights under the Charter. In its sharply worded decision, the Supreme Court referred to the denial of Khadr's legal rights as well as to the use of sleep deprivation techniques to soften him up for interrogation:
> 
> "The deprivation of [Khadr's] right to liberty and security of the person is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects."
> 
> The following is the United Nation's reaction to the attempted illegal prosecution, and failed trials of Omar Khadr:
> 
> "The recruitment and use of children in hostilities is a war crime, and those who are responsible – the adult recruiters – should be prosecuted. The children involved are victims, acting under coercion."
> 
> Anthony Lake, the Executive Director of the United Nations Children's Education Fund, or UNICEF, and former U.S. National Security Adviser, expressed opposition in 2010 to the plan to prosecute Khadr by a tribunal. He said,
> 
> "Anyone prosecuted for offences they allegedly committed as a child should be treated in accordance with international juvenile justice standards providing special protections. Omar Khadr should not be prosecuted by a tribunal that is neither equipped nor required to provide these protections and meet these standards."
> 
> Radhika Coomaraswamy, the UN Secretary-General's special representative for children and armed conflict, wrote in a 2010 statement that the proposed trial violated international legal norms and "may endanger the status of child soldiers all over the world."
> 
> "Since World War II, no child has been prosecuted for a war crime," Coomaraswamy said in a statement distributed by the U.N. on the eve of Khadr's trial at Guantánamo. She also said that Khadr represented the "classic child soldier narrative: recruited by unscrupulous groups to undertake actions at the bidding of adults to fight battles they barely understand," and called for him to be released into a rehabilitation program.
> 
> Failed attempt, after failed attempt, the American government was unable to successfully prosecute Khadr, and with some assistance from then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, Omar Khadr was moved to a Canadian maximum security prison.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Part Two



> During Khadr's nine years in Guantanamo Bay, he endured such acts of torture as:
> 
> 1. The "Fear Up" technique. This technique is described by the judge as "a technique used as an attempt to raise the fear level of a detainee." In Khadr's case it included telling him that a detainee who "lied to interrogators" was raped in the showers by "big, black guys".
> 2. The "love of freedom" and "Pride/Ego Down" techniques which, according to Judge Parrish are "attempts to gather information through appealing to a person's desire to go home or implying that he was not really an important person.."
> 3. The "Fear of Incarceration" technique, which the judge said was "an attempt to gain cooperation in order to return to a normal life rather than be detained."
> 
> Khadr states that he was refused pain medication for his wounds, that he had his hands tied above a door frame for hours, had cold water thrown on him, had a bag placed over his head and was threatened with military dogs, was flatuated upon, and forced to carry 5-gallon pails of water to aggravate his shoulder wound. Not allowed to use a washroom, he was forced to urinate on himself.
> 
> Khadr was often singled out for extensive labour by American soldiers who "made him work like a horse", referring to him as "Buckshot" and calling him a murderer. They even falsely claimed that he had thrown a grenade at a passing convoy delivering medical supplies.
> 
> Khadr recalls being kicked for trying to stretch his arms while shackled and fitted with surgical masks, painted-over goggles and unnecessary hearing protection, which was used for sensory deprivation.
> 
> For most of 2003, Khadr had a cell next to the British detainee Ruhal Ahmed; the two often discussed their favourite Hollywood films, including Braveheart, Die Hard and Harry Potter. Ahmed later recalled that while after some interrogations Khadr returned to his cell smiling and discussing what movies he had been shown, other times he returned crying and would huddle in the corner with his blanket over his head.
> 
> In the early spring of 2003, Khadr was told "Your life is in my hands" by a military interrogator, who spat on him, tore out some of his hair and threatened to send him to a country that would torture him more thoroughly, making specific reference to an Egyptian Askri raqm tisa ("Soldier Number Nine") who enjoyed raping prisoners. The interrogation ended with Khadr being told he would spend the rest of his life in Guantanamo. A few weeks later, an interrogator giving his name as Izmarai spoke to Khadr in Pashto, threatening to send him to a "new prison" at Bagram Airbase where "they like small boys".
> 
> In all, Khadr has been reported to have been kept in solitary confinement for long periods of time; to have been denied adequate medical treatment; to have been subjected to short shackling, and left bound, in uncomfortable stress positions until he soiled himself. Khadr's lawyers allege that his interrogators "dragged [him] back and forth in a mixture of his urine and pine oil" and did not provide a change of clothes for two days in March 2003. At the end of March 2003, Omar was upgraded to "Level Four" security, and transferred to solitary confinement in a windowless and empty cell for the month of April.
> 
> Do you still think the Canadian Government handled the Omar Khadr situation in a prudent and responsible manner when they allowed him to languish for ten years under American torture in Guantanamo Bay?
> 
> In order to do so indicates that you clearly have contempt for this nation, and especially it's laws, and values. (or at least what used to represent Canadian values)
> 
> While I agree that it is extremely unfortunate Sergeant Christopher Speer, an American soldier, and two American sympathizing Afghan militants lost their lives during the intense firefight involving Khadr, it should be noted that the deceased likely had no illusions concerning the potential consequences surrounding their ochosen occupations, and the deadly potential of the events which were unfolding during the early stages of the firefight. They were well-trained, and well-aware of precisely what they were laying on the line, and everything they stood to lose. The soldiers fully accepted the potential outcome, whatever it would prove to be. They died in valour, and their sacrifice has been fully recognized. All personnel injured or killed during the firefight were awarded a Purple Heart for their brave efforts in the heat of battle. .
> 
> I feel the filing of wrongful death civil suits by the family of the deceased against an individual who was a coerced, brainwashed child at the time of the event, only serve to taint, and cheapen the tremendous efforts, sacrifices, and memories of these exceptionally heroic individuals. Personally, I would never have wanted anything of that sort to occur, had my life ended in the tragic manner which befell Sergeant Chris Speer that day.
> 
> I am also of the opinion that these uninformed, misguided postings concerning Omar Khadr do nothing more than amplify the spread of misinformation, blind, baseless hatred, and ensure the cultural divide which is greatly responsible for the very existence of terrorism itself, and our futile war against the groups who commit these horrific acts of violence, continues to widen more every single day,
> 
> It's time that all of us wake up, and take notice of the seemingly endless list of war crimes, and other injustices regularly committed by the militaries of western nations, and our many allies across the world.
> 
> I'm not a terrorist sympathizer. One of the major driving factors in my decision to join the RCAF, were the terror attacks of 9/11, and the feeling that I needed to do something to help try and prevent a repeat occurrence of the unspeakable horror which was experienced by people the world over, on that fateful day. I have intense contempt for anyone who slays and injures innocent people, to simply prove a point, or promote an ideology. However, I am not about to blindly wave the flag, and proclaim that Canada is a perfect nation either... I refuse to participate in any act so firmly entrenched in lies and hypocrisy.
> 
> I hope that no one who will read this, is naive to the fact that our nation is corrupt, due to the endless corruption of the individuals we elect as it's leaders. Throughout history, Canadian Governments have committed a number of truly evil deeds... Many of those deeds were even committed against our own people. However, we are a guppy in the pool of evil deeds, when compared to the Great White Shark of evil deeds, the United States of America.
> 
> I must resist the urge to delve into our ally's truly evil history because if I didn't, I would likely never finish writing this. Especially with their current new-scandal-every-hour administration. I am bewildered any time I read about Canadians who are so absolutely deluded by their hatred, that they view the Trump administration as a positive for the US. Some even speak at length about the many great things he has done, and goals he has achieved...
> 
> I'm sorry, but I can't even force myself to be so stupid.
> 
> We must begin to do everything possible to prevent our government from mobilizing our military every time the Americans tell them to. Chasing those warmongers down every last rabbit-hole, has gotten many of our honourable soldiers slain, while hurting our reputation in the international community. Nowhere is this more true than in the Middle East.
> 
> We must stop the cycle of endless war.
> 
> Are you a Canadian who has stood proud for what it truly means to be a Canadian?
> 
> Or, like so many others, have you crossed-over, taking the much easier route of racist finger-pointing, and in the blaming of an entire race, because of an extremely vocal, and extremely violent small subsection of that race?
> 
> If you identify with the cowards I described in the latter group, I pity you.
> 
> I pity you, because you have lost the joy which comes from simply being Canadian. For without possessing an uncommon level of tolerance, acceptance, and understanding, you are, in essence, nothing more than a hate-filled, war-loving, racist, hell-bent on revenge.
> 
> Or, in other words... An American.
> 
> Canada used to be a wondrous nation, where people of any race were welcome. A nation where if they worked hard, they could make a better life and more secure future for themselves, and for their family.
> 
> To those of us who stand in resistance to the rampant spread of hate which has twisted the attitudes and opinions of so many Canadians, that it now threatens our very way of life... Canada still is a wondrous nation. A nation which knows that it's rich history of multiculturalism is not a weakness, but actually our greatest strength.
> 
> Remember folks... Unless you identify as a member of our Aboriginal First Nations, then just like myself and the vast majority of Canadians, you have immigrant blood coursing through your veins.
> 
> So I ask you this...
> 
> Who the hell are you to deny anyone their dream of a better life in this country?
> 
> The Information Age has provided everyone the ability to dig much deeper into any story in which we desire to have a greater understanding, and knowledge. I'm not sure how many Canadians used proper due diligence before they posted uninformed bull****, like what I've seen posted all over facebook, and other social media outlets.
> 
> The deluded, self-righteous culture responsible for the creation, and dissemination of this type of hate-fuelled, racist, and misguided propaganda, are nothing short of hate-peddlers. ...The misinformation they spread is contributing to a much larger problem, both here in Canada, and around the world.
> 
> Omar Khadr no longer prescribes to the ideologies of Al-Qaeda. Unfortunately, what remains of his family still cling to their anti-American, anti-western views. He is committed to trying to change their way of thinking, and is hopeful that his fellow Canadians take the time to learn his true story, in hopes that the truth may cause a shift in the Canadian court of public opinion, as it applies to him.
> 
> If this was Canada in 1995, I would have no doubt that Canadians would have shifted their negative opinion of Omar Khadr, and began to acknowledge him as being the child soldier, and victim of terrorism he truly is. However, this is the much less understanding, much more racially-intolerant Canada of 2017. Instead of researching the truth, many eagerly accept any theory, as long as it fits their rigidly framed system of right and wrong, and conveniently panders to their deluded and twisted idea which states that all things Canadian are inherently, and by their very design, free from evil.
> 
> This extremely dangerous way of thinking must cease, if Canadians hope to stand any chance of avoiding being pulled under by the nuclear-powered vortex of hate, delusion, and lies which has all but consumed what we used to know as the United States.
> 
> The saddest part of the western world's shift away from tolerance, acceptance, and understanding, is what it indicates...
> 
> The terrorists are winning.
> 
> Remember when Canadians used to resist the natural instinct to fear or hate people simply because they were of a different race? Sure, there were always the uninformed, ignorant racists, but the general culture was one of acceptance, and overall harmony.
> 
> I'm sure you've heard the statement,
> "...when people change their everyday habits, opinions, or way of thinking, this is when the terrorists win."
> 
> The solution to this monumental problem begins with Western society addressing the endless ways our culture has changed over the past sixteen years.
> 
> The terrorists haven't changed. We have.
> 
> So many Canadians have permitted the unacceptable acts of a small minority to dictate their view of an entire race of people.
> 
> Unfortunately, this is our problem to fix. Our favourite band-aid solution has proven to have the same effect as throwing gasoline on a bonfire.
> 
> The time for war is over. It turns out revenge is every bit as evil as the act which is being avenged.
> 
> Tolerance, acceptance, understanding and truth now represent the only path back to the world we knew before 9/11... It seems however, that time, and humanity's sense of innocence were lost forever on that fateful morning.
> 
> The best we can really hope for is a future which is brighter the world we know today.
> 
> If you agree with the views I have presented in this post, please share with as many people as possible. I intentionally ignored the 10.5 million dollar payout Omar Khadr received from the Government of Canada, as a result of a civil suit.
> 
> Khadr's detractors are politicizing the payout, and using it as a distraction to allow them to spread their biased propaganda, by using the large amount of taxpayer funds paid to Khadr as another weapon to further turn the tide of public opinion against him.
> 
> The substantial role which the Government of Canada played in facilitating, and greatly extending his illegal incarceration in Guantanamo Bay, and the sub-human treatment he received over the nearly nine years he was kept at the facility.
> 
> Omar Khadr is not a terrorist. He was a loyal son who's father leveraged the intense love and admiration his son had for him to manipulate that same son into fighting in a war he was too young to fully understand. He now displays great deal of remorse to those who have been forever effected by his actions.
> 
> Omar Khadr already had to endure nearly ten years of illegal torture and abuse at the hands of American soldiers. All he wants is to lead a normal life, from his home in Edmonton, Alberta.
> 
> I will undoubtedly lose numerous friends for voicing my opinion on this sensitive topic, especially those I gained during my time in the military, but I believe so strongly in this cause, I feel the good that could potentially come from this, outweighs the negative aspects I could potentially experience.
> 
> If you feel Omar Khadr has already suffered enough, and deserves to finally have some true peace of mind here in the nation he calls home, please show your support by helping spread the truth about the unacceptable injustices Omar Khadr has faced throughout basically his entire life.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Troy Hoyt
> Victoria, BCr



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

He's entitled to his opinion. He's way off base.


----------



## 18m2

I still can't come to terms with the court decision, the way Trudeau just made the payout. It's not right and no amount of justification by Mr. Hoyt can make it so.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

18m2 said:


> I still can't come to terms with the court decision, the way Trudeau just made the payout. It's not right and no amount of justification by Mr. Hoyt can make it so.




Which part of his argument do you think us misinformed?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> He's entitled to his opinion. He's way off base.




Can you explain how you think he is way off base? I get a sense from the brevity of your reply that you didn't read it.


----------



## FeXL

No. For two simple reasons.

One, if you can't be bothered to provide a link & brief precis, I can't be bothered to read a complete article spread across two posts. What would these boards look like if everybody did this?

Two, if he's supporting the decision, he's going against a bipartisan 71% of the Canadian population who disagrees with him. The facts are already long on the table. Another opinion ain't gonna change squat.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Please read.


----------



## SINC

Anyone who supports a person who committed acts of war (making bombs and tossing grenades) against his own country is definitely way off base. Like the guy who wrote that long drivel you posted for example.


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> Can you explain how you think he is way off base? I get a sense from the brevity of your reply that you didn't read it.


Let me know exactly what points in that blog you found compelling and I will address those specifically.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Let me know exactly what points in that blog you found compelling and I will address those specifically.


<snort...>


----------



## 18m2

Freddie_Biff said:


> Which part of his argument do you think us misinformed?


I read his opinion and he makes a good case but I don't agree.


----------



## FeXL

Hat's off to Peter Kent.

U.S. media start noticing Khadr payout as opposition MP helps spread word



> The federal payout to Omar Khadr was a big story in some conservative U.S. media outlets Monday, after nearly two weeks in which it had garnered barely a whisper south of the border.
> 
> It was the subject of a condemnatory national newspaper column, the top story on the Fox News website, fodder for cable-news chatter on Fox and a huge surge in interest by Americans online.
> 
> *“This story is repulsive,” said a Fox News host. To which former pizza entrepreneur and presidential candidate Herman Cain replied: “It is a pathetic interpretation of the law. Canada basically rewarded a murderer.”*
> 
> The burst of attention started with a Wall Street Journal piece by a Canadian opposition MP.


M'bold.

Nails it.

h/t SDA, from whence comes this prescient comment:



> I like facts, so I checked on some things, such as the actual SCC decision regarding Khadr:
> 
> Did the SCC say Khadr was "tortured?" No they didn't. Khadr and his lawyer allege that in their lawsuit. Sleep deprivation and other aggressive interrogation techniques are not torture by the standards of international law. IOW the matter is debatable.
> 
> The SCC referred to oppressive circumstances. Fine. Where does that allow for this government lay down? Because for some reason they portray this kid as some kind of victimized hero. He was and probably still is a "jihadist" warrior, waging a blasphemous personal struggle, craving violence, who joined the Taliban to fight against his country and humanity, against a UN sanctioned mission.
> 
> He wasn't some child soldier lured from his village with food and money.
> 
> He placed himself outside the protection of the Charter of Rights by waging war in a foreign country, the circumstances of which he was keenly aware, and was later captured on the battlefield by another nation. He was indeed mistreated by our sensibilities, in fact by the standards of the Canadian Forces if he was indeed water boarded, which, again, is alleged.
> 
> But Canadian officials were stuck in the gray zone, supposedly guided by the Geneva Convention, even though Khadr was not entitled to that protection, with the American view he was an illegal combatant, regardless of his citizenship. He confessed to murder; his later recanting to be repatriated is self serving on its face and injurious to his credibility. The SCC ruled Americans mistreated him and the Chretien government didn't do enough, and once Canadian officials participated in interrogations (not torture), they wrapped Khadr in the Charter and its obligations.
> 
> Never a word though about Khadr's obligations, being just a child. But they never said pay him off, in fact the justices stated remedies were the purview of the government, not the Court in this case. Their decision dealing with the pertinent remedy approved by the lower courts, Khadr's repatriation, was in fact reversed. How does that up to $10+million and an apology?
> 
> Why didn't Khadr sue the American government and make them apologize? Less anti-Americanism, I mean sympathy? They're the ones who "tortured" him. Maybe the widow of the man he admitted to murdering might grab it eh, assuming he ever collected a dime? This is not passing the smell test, that this case was a slam dunk because of the SCC decision.
> 
> They wanted to pay him off, plain an simple. Most Canadians wanted them to take this on, unwilling to suspend their common sense; but they weren't asked, it leaked after the fact with Parliament in recess and the PM out of the country, over the long weekend.
> 
> Some Canada 150 present. Some will agree we needed to pay him off, many don't. Everybody has a right to their opinion - one person one vote. Will it cost the Liberals in the next general election; maybe - 27 months is an eternity in politics.


Related:

Canada's Multi-Million-Dollar Pay-Out to a 'Foreign Terrorist Fighter'



> *"Has any soldier who fought FOR Canada ever received as generous a reward as this soldier who fought against us?" — Canadian Senator Linda Frum.
> 
> *In 2003, Khadr confessed to throwing the grenade that killed U.S. Special Forces Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer and caused Sgt. 1st Class Layne Morris to lose an eye. Years later, he retracted his confession, claiming it had been extracted under duress. In fact, it was part of a plea deal that enabled him to be extradited to Canada to serve the rest of his sentence there.
> 
> *"There was a Canadian flag flying along with the American flag at our base there, so it's quite a thing that now Canada is giving millions to a guy who would attack a compound where Canadians were serving. I don't see this as anything but treason. As far as I am concerned, Prime Minister Trudeau should be charged." — Sgt. 1st Class Layne Morris, who lost an eye from the grenade thrown by Omar Khadr.


I've read a few articles that note Khadr will be spending large amounts of cash in the courts. Perfect. Can't think of anybody more suitable to drain a $10.5 million bank account than a bloodsucking lawyer.

The good news from all of this is that the fund-raiser for Chris Speer's children is nearly at $200,000.


----------



## Macfury

I just get a bad sense that Trudeau got a thrill up his leg as he delivered that cheque.


----------



## wonderings

I am travelling south of the border and have noticed a lot of media coverage lately on this case. Fox news has some obvious strong opinions and I agree. I feel ashamed that our countries leader would do this.


----------



## CubaMark

wonderings said:


> I feel ashamed that our countries leader would do this.


...so would it have been better that the Canadian government continued wasting taxpayer dollars defending itself against the civil rights lawsuit Khadr brought against it, and risk a court-ordered settlement that matched (or possibly exceeded) the $20-million dollars he was seeking? There have been payouts in the high-single-digit millions for other rights lawsuits agains the government in the past 20 years, so it's not unreasonable to expect a judgement against Canada.

Perhaps Trudeau should have gone that route, and let the heat fall on the courts that "forced" Canada to pay up. At least he'd have a political "out" in that case, and not face the full heat of this settlement decision.


----------



## smashedbanana

FeXL said:


> Hat's off to Peter Kent.
> 
> U.S. media start noticing Khadr payout as opposition MP helps spread word


My hat is not off to Peter Kent. I don't disagree with anything he is saying, but I have a problem with where he is saying it. He is a Canadian politician and a member of the opposition. Do your job where you were elected to do it. Hold the government to task here. 

Get off U.S. media. We do not need someone provoking the U.S. public and their orange megalomaniac. Your job is not to protect their interests.


----------



## Beej

CubaMark said:


> There have been payouts in the high-single-digit millions for other rights lawsuits agains the government


Here is an example:
Milgaard will get $10 million compensation - Canada - CBC News

22 years wrongfully imprisoned. 

I disagree with the idea that no wrong occurred (violent citizens still have rights), but the settlement is clearly about optics and not about being careful with the public's money. The concept of compensation is defensible, but defending the quantity is carrying the PR department's water.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

smashedbanana said:


> My hat is not off to Peter Kent. I don't disagree with anything he is saying, but I have a problem with where he is saying it. He is a Canadian politician and a member of the opposition. Do your job where you were elected to do it. Hold the government to task here.
> 
> 
> 
> Get off U.S. media. We do not need someone provoking the U.S. public and their orange megalomaniac. Your job is not to protect their interests.




^^^^ this


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> ...*so would it have been better that the Canadian government continued wasting taxpayer dollars defending itself against the civil rights lawsuit* Khadr brought against it, and risk a court-ordered settlement that matched (or possibly exceeded) the $20-million dollars he was seeking? There have been payouts in the high-single-digit millions for other rights lawsuits agains the government in the past 20 years, so it's not unreasonable to expect a judgement against Canada.
> 
> Perhaps Trudeau should have gone that route, and let the heat fall on the courts that "forced" Canada to pay up. At least he'd have a political "out" in that case, and not face the full heat of this settlement decision.


*First let's get one thing clear. The Canadian government has a battery of salaried lawyers available to them to fight the case, so no costs would be involved to contest the amount of the settlement. That is claptrap, pure and simple.* 

While there is no doubt the settlement request at $20 million was far too large, Canadian courts never grant settlements that large and it is far more likely the courts might have awarded him far less than the $10 million the Trudeau government collapsed and paid.

So if the courts say gave him a single million, Canadian taxpayers would have saved $19 in the long run.

But because of the stupidity of Trudeau and his government, we taxpayers had to pay up.

The question is how much? What was paid was far too much and had an excellent chance of being reduced if contested.


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> *First let's get one thing clear. The Canadian government has a battery of salaried lawyers available to them to fight the case, so no costs would be involved to contest the amount of the settlement. That is claptrap, pure and simple.*


I've seen this expressed earlier, and wonder why this conflicts with what Ralph Goodale is noted as saying:

*15 years and nearly $5 million in legal costs later, Ottawa apologizes to Omar Khadr*

_Goodale did note that *nearly $5 million was spent in legal fees over the years fighting three losing battles against Khadr’s lawyers all the way to the Supreme Court.* Given those rulings, Goodale said the government had “virtually no chance of success” in defending Khadr’s civil suit and prolonging the legal battle would only cost taxpayers more._​(Toronto Star, 7 July 2017)​
This seems to contradict the "claptrap", as you call it, SINC. Unless you have information showing otherwise?


----------



## Macfury

Ralph Goodale's toothless mewlings don't exactly inspire confidence in his opinions.


----------



## FeXL

smashedbanana said:


> ...but I have a problem with where he is saying it.


FWIW, I disagree. Good on him. He's using every tool he has. It's not like most Canadian media has been overly critical of Butts' hand-puppet. If it takes pressure from south of the border to bring attention to this, so be it.

That said, en masse, the American people will be far more vocal about this than Trump.


----------



## FeXL

Yes.

You add up shoulda, woulda & coulda & you still have f-all.

Nobody should roll over & play dead because of a nuisance lawsuit, especially a federal gov't. What kind of a standard does this set?

The irony. You, of all people on these boards, complaining about gov't spending...

(edit)

In addition, I would have felt less screwed over if a court would have awarded Khadr $20 million. At least it would have been due process, not some feel good unicorn fart virtue signalling from a part-time drama teacher and his handler merely giving away taxpayers money...



CubaMark said:


> ...so would it have been better that the Canadian government continued wasting taxpayer dollars defending itself against the civil rights lawsuit Khadr brought against it, and risk a court-ordered settlement that matched (or possibly exceeded) the $20-million dollars he was seeking?


----------



## FeXL

Further.

Tory MP Cheryl Gallant slams media for 'fake news' around Omar Khadr



> *Gallant said that apart from letters to editor and “a few rebels” it was hard to find media who oppose the payout.*
> 
> “They have so thoroughly cocooned themselves into their tiny media bubble that no amount of basic common sense can be penetrating,” Gallant said.
> 
> Gallant refers to the recent poll released by the Angus Reid Institute that said 71 per cent of Canadians believe that the government made the wrong decision by settling with the Khadr.
> 
> “Canadians do not want a government that gives $10 million to somebody who built a roadside bombs when the same government is refusing to give a benefit to a qualifying veteran injured by a roadside bomb,” Gallant said.


M'bold.

Two years is a lifetime in politics. That said, I sincerely believe this will rear it's head during the next election.


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> I've seen this expressed earlier, and wonder why this conflicts with what Ralph Goodale is noted as saying:
> 
> *15 years and nearly $5 million in legal costs later, Ottawa apologizes to Omar Khadr*
> 
> _Goodale did note that *nearly $5 million was spent in legal fees over the years fighting three losing battles against Khadr’s lawyers all the way to the Supreme Court.* Given those rulings, Goodale said the government had “virtually no chance of success” in defending Khadr’s civil suit and prolonging the legal battle would only cost taxpayers more._​(Toronto Star, 7 July 2017)​
> This seems to contradict the "claptrap", as you call it, SINC. Unless you have information showing otherwise?


Consider this column by my former MP, former Conservative and practicing lawyer Brent Rathgeber, and believe me he is a man of integrity if I ever met one:

Why I have doubts about the Khadr case -- and why you should too



> I admit to being conflicted when it comes to the case of Omar Khadr. Among my friends and associates, my doubts appear to make me a minority of one.
> 
> They all seem to see the Khadr controversy in shades of black and white. The water cooler talk on Khadr was dominated this week by unequivocal opinion — most of it disapproving of the $10.5M settlement, none of it nuanced.
> 
> Some blame the settlement entirely on Justin Trudeau, others on Prime Minister Stephen Harper — who delayed Khadr’s repatriation, which may have contributed to the ultimate cash settlement. The reality is that the Khadr affair has gone on for so long that the file bears the fingerprints of four different prime ministers. If you’re looking for someone to blame, spread it around.
> 
> It has been 15 years since that infamous Afghan firefight. Every prime minister since Jean Chrétien has had some involvement in Khadr’s detention and interrogation, his eventual repatriation and compensation. But the interventions of 2003 and 2004 did not occur on Stephen Harper’s watch — nor were they Justin Trudeau’s fault.
> 
> Most of the claims in Khadr’s $20 million lawsuit are based on allegations that Canadian officials violated his rights when he was interrogated by them in Guantanamo over 2003 and 2004. Khadr alleges Canada interrogated him, knowing that he was a minor, and knowing he was without legal representation.
> 
> There’s been much debate over whether Khadr could be called a child soldier or a terrorist. It’s not an easy question to answer; certainly both sides can find arguments to support their positions.
> 
> The UN Convention on the Rights of a Child requires signatories to adopt measures so that those “who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in hostilities.” It is well known that Khadr was 15 years old fifteen years ago. However, a UN Optional Protocol expands on the convention by requiring that states ensure that youths below the age of 18 “do not take direct part in hostilities and that they are not compulsorily recruited into their armed forces.”
> 
> The problem with those conventions is they apply to ‘State Parties’, not terrorist organizations. The sanctions are against the recruiters. It is unclear if the convention offers protection to a child soldier accused of a war crime. They contemplate sanctions against states that compulsorily recruit, as opposed to those that accept voluntary recruits over the age of 15. It is also arguable that a terrorist organization is not an “armed force”, given its lack of command structure and uniforms.
> 
> However, following Khadr’s guilty plea in 2010 to murder in violation of the laws of war, the UN Secretary General’s Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict stated that the case was a “classic child soldier narrative — recruited by unscrupulous groups to undertake actions at the bidding of adults to fight battles they barely understand.” He urged the authorities to release Khadr from Guantanamo Bay into a youth rehabilitation program.
> 
> open quote 761b1bThe Conservatives’ simplification ignores the fairly obvious distinction between what happened in Afghanistan and what happened in Gitmo. Like it or not, prisoners have rights. Those rights cannot be abused. When they are, there are consequences. And they are costly.
> The entire conduct of Khadr’s prosecution and eventual plea arrangement was curious. Sgt. Christopher Speer, the U.S. soldier who died in that firefight, was a decorated soldier and a medic. Medics have always been considered protected persons in war zones since the first Geneva conventions. Killing a medic is considered a war crime.
> 
> But that is not how the Pentagon chose to deal with Khadr. He was charged under the ‘Military Commissions Act’, passed by Congress following 9/11; it includes the offence of “murder in the violation of the laws of war.” By prosecuting Khadr under American — rather than international — law, U.S. authorities maintained custody and control over Khadr.
> 
> Procedural safeguards implicit in the International Tribunals can be circumvented by the U.S. Military Commission. Any confession extracted from a Guantanamo detainee ought to be regarded with suspicion.
> 
> Thousands of U.S. service members have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan — but Omar Khadr is the only captive to have been charged with killing a soldier under the Military Commissions Act.
> 
> Once you know the facts, it’s easy to be conflicted about Omar Khadr — to be unable either to defend his actions or to justify his treatment at the hands of his American captors … and the Canadian government officials tasked with dealing with him.
> 
> *Which brings us to that $10.5 million out-of-court settlement. I agree with Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale on one point: A unanimous 2010 Supreme Court ruling that said Khadr’s rights had been violated meant his lawsuit was likely to succeed. But you still have to prove your damages. We seldom see courts in this country award sums like the $134 million won by Speer’s family in a Utah court in a lawsuit filed against Khadr. Canadian courts are reluctant to award much in the way of aggravated or punitive damages.*
> 
> *I also question Goodale’s claim that the government has spent $5 million in legal fees fighting three losing battles against Khadr to the Supreme Court level. The Department of Justice employs a team of salaried civil and constitutional lawyers. The feds may have retained outside counsel as well, but $5 million buys a lot of billable hours.*
> 
> What really offends me about the entire Khadr saga is how it is being used as a political football. The Conservatives are going to use the settlement to hammer the Liberals in fundraising drives, using such disingenuous comms lines as “those who commit crimes should not be able to profit from those crimes.” That simplification ignores the fairly obvious distinction between what happened in Afghanistan and what happened in Gitmo. Like it or not, prisoners have rights. Those rights cannot be abused. When they are, there are consequences. And they are costly.
> 
> It is true, however, that Stephen Harper would have preferred to spend an infinite amount of public money on lawyers to giving Omar Khadr a nickel (ironic, since Harper doesn’t like lawyers either). It might have been the politically prudent thing to do at the time, however.
> 
> And that’s why I suspect this settlement was reached when it was. Resigned to the fact that they were going to have to pay Khadr something eventually, and approaching the midway point in their mandate, I’m sure the Liberals thought it best to take a political hit in the dog days of summer, when few people are paying attention and the House of Commons is on summer recess.
> 
> This football needed to be punted. The Conservatives are not going to let it go, however. The war against the niqab and the ‘barbaric practices’ snitch line turned out to be dead ends, politically. But neither came with a $10.5 million price tag.


----------



## eMacMan

I am honestly having a bigger issue with NEP Jr diverting $20,000,000$ to that cesspool of corruption aka The Clinton Foundation. Since these contributions are quid pro quo, I have to wonder what he is expecting in return. 

The entire Hiliary eMail scandal revolved around her efforts to hide the relationship between contributors and the benefits they received when she was SOS.


----------



## FeXL

eMacMan said:


> I am honestly having a bigger issue with NEP Jr diverting $20,000,000$ to that cesspool of corruption aka The Clinton Foundation.


For me, they both reek of dung. Running neck & neck for the worst things The Hairdo has done so far.

However, I have faith! I'm sure over the course of the next two years he can outdo himself...


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> Consider this column by my former MP, former Conservative and practicing lawyer Brent Rathgeber, and believe me he is a man of integrity if I ever met one:
> 
> Why I have doubts about the Khadr case -- and why you should too


I had seen that article - and I initially found it very balanced, until I looked further down into the comments and found some quite legitimate critiques.

As for Goodale's accuracy on the legal fees, I can't definitively, though this article from 2009 puts the figure in a report at $1.5-million (and counting). Is it unreasonable to expect that the fees have risen considerably via the appeals in the intervening 9 years?


----------



## FeXL

It. Doesn't. Matter. What. The. Legal. Fees. Would. Have. Been...



CubaMark said:


> As for Goodale's accuracy on the legal fees...


----------



## Freddie_Biff

CubaMark said:


> I had seen that article - and I initially found it very balanced, until I looked further down into the comments and found some quite legitimate critiques.
> 
> 
> 
> As for Goodale's accuracy on the legal fees, I can't definitively, though this article from 2009 puts the figure in a report at $1.5-million (and counting). Is it unreasonable to expect that the fees have risen considerably via the appeals in the intervening 9 years?




Yup. Thank Harper for that one.


----------



## FeXL

For what? That the Liberals before him did nothing?

Surely you aren't buying into this whole Liberal "It's all Harper's Fault" BS?



Freddie_Biff said:


> Thank Harper for that one.


----------



## Macfury

If Freddie had been in charge he would have hand-delivered the cheques to make sure they did not get lost or delayed.



FeXL said:


> For what? That the Liberals before him did nothing?
> 
> Surely you aren't buying into this whole Liberal "It's all Harper's Fault" BS?


----------



## FeXL

Just an update on the fund for Speer's kids. With 13 days left it's over $226,000.

Help raise $1,000,000 for Sgt. Chris Speer's kids!

If you haven't donated yet, please consider it.


----------



## Macfury

If Khadr had an ounce of class, he would cut a cheque to her.



FeXL said:


> Just an update on the fund for Speer's kids. With 13 days left it's over $226,000.
> 
> Help raise $1,000,000 for Sgt. Chris Speer's kids!
> 
> If you haven't donated yet, please consider it.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> If Khadr had an ounce of class, he would cut a cheque to her.


Yep, like for example, the whole million bucks.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> If you haven't donated yet, please consider it.


IF the United States would stop sending its soldiers to places where it doesn't belong, there would be no need for this sort of thing.

Or, you know, the USA could take care of its own soldiers and their families.

:-(


----------



## FeXL

Yep. ISIS is all the 'Muricans fault, idn't it...



CubaMark said:


> IF the United States would stop sending its soldiers to places where it doesn't belong, there would be no need for this sort of thing.


----------



## FUXL

FeXL said:


> Yep. ISIS is all the 'Muricans fault, idn't it...


Souiee, Souiee!!, Souiee!!!

Sho'nuff Athhole.


----------



## FeXL

Further to this crap:

1) Where was your criticism of Barry's domestic policy to do nothing to fix the corrupt VA?
2) Where has your praise been for Trump's actions to drain the VA swamp?
3) Where is your criticism of The Hairdo for giving $10.5 million to a known killer & nothing to Canada's veterans?



CubaMark said:


> Or, you know, the USA could take care of its own soldiers and their families.


----------



## FeXL

Speaking of crap...

C'mon, piggy. Why don't you wow us with yer wunnerful Prog theories?



FUXL said:


> Souiee, Souiee!!, Souiee!!!
> 
> Sho'nuff Athhole.


----------



## CubaMark

Khadr Questions.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

CubaMark said:


> Khadr Questions.




Never let the facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory!


----------



## SINC

You commit treason, you suffer the consequences. No compensation ever for that crime.


----------



## Macfury

Freddie_Biff said:


> Never let the facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory!


How does a "conspiracy theory" apply? Why do you assume the article presents "facts"?


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> You commit treason, you suffer the consequences. No compensation ever for that crime.


Still waiting for someone to explain to me how a child can commit treason.

......  ......


----------



## Freddie_Biff

CubaMark said:


> Still waiting for someone to explain to me how a child can commit treason.
> 
> 
> 
> ......  ......




And how a Canadian can commit treason against a country other than his own.


----------



## FeXL

Easily. By throwing a hand grenade during a war.

Now, I am more than willing to follow a link to a court decision or a specific law (not some Prog armchair lawyer opinion piece from MJ, Snopes, et al.) that one under the age of consent cannot be charged with treason, as it pertains to these precise circumstances.

(edit)

Further to this crap, if minors can be tried, charged and convicted in adult court for a number of serious crimes (eg. murder & rape), why not treason, too?

And, please, a 15 year old _child_? At worst, young adult...



CubaMark said:


> Still waiting for someone to explain to me how a child can commit treason.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> And, please, a 15 year old _child_? At worst, young adult...


And, please, kindly link to an accepted legal definition of "child" vs "young adult", and see if you can explain the difference.

Sigh.


----------



## FeXL

Your law/court decision stating a minor cannot be charged with treason link first...



CubaMark said:


> And, please, kindly link to an accepted legal definition of "child" vs "young adult", and see if you can explain the difference.


----------



## Macfury

It's a child when the crime serves left-of-centre propaganda purposes and a young adult when it doesn't?



CubaMark said:


> And, please, kindly link to an accepted legal definition of "child" vs "young adult", and see if you can explain the difference.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> It's a child when the crime serves left-of-centre propaganda purposes and a young adult when it doesn't?


OH, please.

Ask anyone - literally anyone - if a 15-year-old is considered, legally or otherwise, a "young adult" and I'm quite confident in the responses you'll receive.

...until, of course, you mention the particular 15-year-old's skin colour, or religion....



XX)


----------



## wonderings

CubaMark said:


> OH, please.
> 
> Ask anyone - literally anyone - if a 15-year-old is considered, legally or otherwise, a "young adult" and I'm quite confident in the responses you'll receive.
> 
> ...until, of course, you mention the particular 15-year-old's skin colour, or religion....
> 
> 
> 
> XX)



I would not say a 15 year old is a young adult, but they are not a child. They are quite capable of obtaining alcohol, cigarettes, drugs with no problem. In some provinces they can even drive already. They can reason for themselves and make their own decisions on what is right and wrong. There have been numerous cases of "children" being tried as adults for murder and other serious crimes.


----------



## SINC

wonderings said:


> I would not say a 15 year old is a young adult, but they are not a child. They are quite capable of obtaining alcohol, cigarettes, drugs with no problem. In some provinces they can even drive already. They can reason for themselves and make their own decisions on what is right and wrong. There have been numerous cases of "children" being tried as adults for murder and other serious crimes.


This.

Any 15 year old Canadian educated, clearly understands the difference between right and wrong and what Khadr did was wrong.


----------



## FeXL

Awright, I'll consider myself asked.

As parents of multiple offspring who have passed said marker, yes, we considered them young adults. Minors? Absolutely! Responsible for their actions? Damn straight. It's how we raised them from day 1.

Just 'cause some of you Progs _still_ haven't reached maturity...



CubaMark said:


> Ask anyone - literally anyone - if a 15-year-old is considered, legally or otherwise, a "young adult" and I'm quite confident in the responses you'll receive.


----------



## Macfury

This sort of prog thinking is so confused. Race and religion are NOT part of this equation. 



CubaMark said:


> OH, please.
> 
> Ask anyone - literally anyone - if a 15-year-old is considered, legally or otherwise, a "young adult" and I'm quite confident in the responses you'll receive.
> 
> ...until, of course, you mention the particular 15-year-old's skin colour, or religion....
> 
> 
> 
> XX)


----------



## wonderings

Macfury said:


> This sort of prog thinking is so confused. Race and religion are NOT part of this equation.


Well there is no way you could possibly detest the person for their actions! Has to be more to it!


----------



## FeXL

wonderings said:


> Well there is no way you could possibly detest the person for their actions! Has to be more to it!


Ohhhh, that's delicious... :clap:


----------



## 18m2

I offer this without comment, read it and form your own opinion. The opposing opinion likely has the Liberals between a rock and a hard place regarding what they had to do to meet the terms of the court decision.

Reading is electronic missive from Andrew Scheer suggests Trudeau screwed up.



> Justin Trudeau seems to have found a new defence for his choice to make a convicted terrorist a wealthy man.
> 
> After first blaming the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then the Supreme Court, then the previous government, Trudeau is now saying the Government of Canada could pay now, or it could pay later. Omar Khadr, according to the Liberals, was going to get his millions either way.
> 
> The Liberals are deliberately saying things that are not true to hide the fact that this payout was 100% their choice. But the majority of Canadians simply aren’t buying it.
> 
> The Supreme Court of Canada never ordered a multimillion dollar payout to Omar Khadr, and in fact never dictated any monetary compensation at all.
> 
> The Supreme Court ruled that in very narrow circumstances, Omar Khadr’s rights were violated. Conservatives accept that finding. We accept the extremely important principle that the Charter applies to all Canadians, no matter how heinous the crime.
> 
> The inconvenient truth for the Liberals, is that the court left it to the government of the day to determine the appropriate compensation for these violations. A lower-court ruling had indicated that the appropriate remedy for Omar Khadr would be repatriation. In other words, the wrong could be righted by allowing Khadr to serve out the rest of his sentence in Canada.
> 
> The previous Conservative government accepted the court finding. Omar Khadr was brought back to Canada and able to enjoy the benefits of the Canadian justice system — the same justice system that has been generous enough to give him his freedom today, while his victims remain dead, wounded, or grieving. That is all the compensation he deserves. Anything above that is a secondary compensation that goes over and above what any court has ordered.
> 
> Yet Justin Trudeau felt it appropriate to turn Khadr into a millionaire, even rushing payment to him as quickly and quietly as possible.
> 
> By handing payment to Omar Khadr in secret, Justin Trudeau would surely have understood that Tabitha Speer and her children — the family of Omar Khadr’s victim, Sgt. Christopher Speer — could be denied any access to the compensation.
> 
> Justin Trudeau could have taken a stand and fought the Khadr case until the very end. Last week, in his latest desperate attempt at deflecting blame, Trudeau has asked us to believe that he was so worried about spending taxpayers’ money, that he surrendered the legal fight.
> 
> For the man who is plunging Canada into massive deficits and borrowing more and more money from future generations of Canadians, this last excuse is almost laughable. Besides, principles are worth fighting for.
> 
> Conservatives believe in supporting the women and men in uniform who put their lives on the line to keep us safe, not those who target them.
> 
> So I understand the vast majority of Canadians who are upset by the prime minister’s decision. I am too. A government I lead would be guided by a set of principles that would have ensured we fought this case to the end.
> 
> For Justin Trudeau to suggest this was OK — indeed, to go even further by attempting to dodge any responsibility once he got caught — is not what we need in a prime minister.
> 
> Justin Trudeau had a choice. He could have fought this in court. No court decision is ever a given, no matter how many Liberals pretend otherwise.
> 
> And when the House of Commons returns in the fall, our Conservative caucus’s first task will be to hold Justin Trudeau accountable for his choice.
> 
> He cannot hide from it. That isn’t to say he hasn’t tried.
> 
> Trudeau was absent for the Liberal government’s apology to Omar Khadr. He was absent for the announcement of the payout. He has let others in his government do the dirty work, and made himself invisible in the meantime.
> 
> Most shockingly, after being forced to explain his decision, Trudeau claimed he speaks for all Canadians when it comes to his secret Khadr payout.
> 
> It is typical Liberal arrogance for Trudeau to claim he represents what Canadians think and feel about this issue. He represents the government of Canada, not the core beliefs of its people.
> 
> So my question to you is simple.
> 
> Do you agree with Trudeau’s secret payout to Omar Khadr? Does Trudeau speak for you?
> 
> Andrew Scheer
> Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada


----------



## Macfury

Scheer is dead on!


----------



## Freddie_Biff

18m2 said:


> I offer this without comment, read it and form your own opinion. The opposing opinion likely has the Liberals between a rock and a hard place regarding what they had to do to meet the terms of the court decision.
> 
> 
> 
> Reading is electronic missive from Andrew Scheer suggests Trudeau screwed up.




It's also possible that the federal Cons screwed up when they elected Andrew Scheer to be their leader.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> It's how we raised them from day 1.


Khadr was removed from Canada _as a child_ and placed into an environment where he had not the benefit of Canadian society influencing his upbringing, though how much of that would have penetrated his father's teachings is an open question. He remained in that environment, a pawn with no other option to choose a different path - and likely no real option to follow a different path in any case. He was a child. With no other external influences that would have convinced him to leave that life, nor a _way_ to leave that life, what chance did he have?



> Just 'cause some of you Progs _still_ haven't reached maturity...


And there we go again, with the personal attacks. Lovely.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

CubaMark said:


> Khadr was removed from Canada _as a child_ and placed into an environment where he had not the benefit of Canadian society influencing his upbringing, though how much of that would have penetrated his father's teachings is an open question. He remained in that environment, a pawn with no other option to choose a different path - and likely no real option to follow a different path in any case. He was a child. With no other external influences that would have convinced him to leave that life, nor a _way_ to leave that life, what chance did he have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there we go again, with the personal attacks. Lovely.




That's the thing, Mark. Some of our learned friends don't understand that one of the best ways to set a good example is to show some mercy and understanding. When we as Canadians attempt to empathize with Omar we learn a hell of a lot more about the culture he grew up with. Not only that, but Muslims around the world see our example. Do we really want to invite more violence, or demonstrate the kind of compassion that we would like shown to our own Canadian soldiers when they get taken hostage?


----------



## FeXL

Fifteen years old. More than enough to know right from wrong & killing from not killing. Play a man's game, play a man's rules.

Everything else is noise...



CubaMark said:


> Khadr was removed from Canada _as a child_ and placed into an environment where he had not the benefit of Canadian society influencing his upbringing, though how much of that would have penetrated his father's teachings is an open question. He remained in that environment, a pawn with no other option to choose a different path - and likely no real option to follow a different path in any case. He was a child. With no other external influences that would have convinced him to leave that life, nor a _way_ to leave that life, what chance did he have?


Ain't a personal attack if it's a fact...





CubaMark said:


> And there we go again, with the personal attacks. Lovely.


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> That's the thing, Mark. Some of our learned friends don't understand that one of the best ways to set a good example is to show some mercy and understanding. *When we as Canadians attempt to empathize with Omar we learn a hell of a lot more about the culture he grew up with.* Not only that, but Muslims around the world see our example. Do we really want to invite more violence, or demonstrate the kind of compassion that we would like shown to our own Canadian soldiers when they get taken hostage?


Yep, all 29% of you 'Canadians'. The other 71% are livid at the government for giving Omar over $10 million.


----------



## wonderings

CubaMark said:


> Khadr was removed from Canada _as a child_ and placed into an environment where he had not the benefit of Canadian society influencing his upbringing, though how much of that would have penetrated his father's teachings is an open question. He remained in that environment, a pawn with no other option to choose a different path - and likely no real option to follow a different path in any case. He was a child. With no other external influences that would have convinced him to leave that life, nor a _way_ to leave that life, what chance did he have?
> 
> 
> 
> And there we go again, with the personal attacks. Lovely.


So where do we draw the line? You could probably say that about every ISIS fighter out there, growing up in a place that hates the West, or feels they were wronged by the West and thus is told from childhood how horrible and awful we all are. Should we lay down our arms and just send them buckets of money because we feel bad for them?


----------



## Macfury

They will love us for our great empathy... and use the money to defray the cost of weapons.



wonderings said:


> So where do we draw the line? You could probably say that about every ISIS fighter out there, growing up in a place that hates the West, or feels they were wronged by the West and thus is told from childhood how horrible and awful we all are. Should we lay down our arms and just send them buckets of money because we feel bad for them?


----------



## CubaMark

_Can any of you answer the question posed here?_

*Here's the one question your angry MP can't answer about Omar Khadr*










_“Omar Khadr pulled the pin from a grenade and tossed it at Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer, 
a U.S. Army Delta Force medic, on July 27, 2002.”_​
So wrote Peter Kent, Conservative MP and foreign affairs critic, in The Wall Street Journal on July 16 this year.

Kent's op-ed was part of a full-on media blitz, where elected Conservative MPs took their grievances to American media after the Liberal government reached a settlement with Khadr reportedly worth $10.5 million. Michelle Rempel even appeared on Fox network's Tucker Carlson show.

Yet they have been conspicuously silent on one point. Just how exactly did Khadr "pull the pin from a grenade and toss it" at Sgt. Speer?

Let me be more precise: How did an 80 pound kid lying face down under a collapsed roof throw a grenade over an eight foot barrier and then 80 feet away to kill Sgt. Speer?

There's a challenge going around Twitter for Conservatives to explain it. The challenge is to read this review of the evidence, written from my perspective as a former prosecutor, and explain to Canadians how Khadr did it.

The Tories all know about it, because it's been called to their attention many times. Over 100,000 Canadian political junkies have viewed the Twitter challenge, and so far not one person can find the answer. Even Khadr's (probably false) confession doesn't explain it.

No one can explain it, because the evidence demonstrates that Khadr didn't kill Speer. It shows, in fact, that the U.S. military and the Canadian government knowingly misled the public about what happened in that firefight, and Conservatives are perpetuating that false narrative.

(National Observer)​


----------



## Freddie_Biff

wonderings said:


> So where do we draw the line? You could probably say that about every ISIS fighter out there, growing up in a place that hates the West, or feels they were wronged by the West and thus is told from childhood how horrible and awful we all are. Should we lay down our arms and just send them buckets of money because we feel bad for them?




No, but the more we look at these people as people any not just enemies or targets, the more we might consider our own tactics and what we bring to the table.


----------



## Macfury

How many times are you going to post giant photos of Khadr, CM? 

We don't know exactly how Khadr hit Speer. We only have Khadr's word that he believes he did so, but hopes he didn't.

It doesn't change the fact that the $10.5 million payout was unwarranted.


----------



## SINC

Speaking of pics of Khadr . . .


----------



## smashedbanana

wonderings said:


> So where do we draw the line? You could probably say that about every ISIS fighter out there, growing up in a place that hates the West, or feels they were wronged by the West and thus is told from childhood how horrible and awful we all are. Should we lay down our arms and just send them buckets of money because we feel bad for them?


The line is clear. Canadians. 

If a Canadian is going to be prosecuted then are entitled to all the same rights and freedoms as every other Canadian. That includes legal representation and a fair trial.

For me it's not about where you grow up but how. We see it here all the time with the children of terrible parenting. 

When I was 10 I had a best friend who lived 2 doors down. We were inseparable. Playing all the time, sleepovers, etc. One day we were playing and I tossed him something outside and it hit him in the head. I apologized right away and felt terrible. He went home crying. At this time his dad was home. His dad was never home. My friend and his dad came out of the house and his dad was giving him some forceful instructions. My friend started to beat me. He got on top of me and continued. His dad was standing behind him with a look of approval. My friend seemed confused and reluctant. 

I went home and my mom was furious. My father who was at Sea (Navy) did not hear about this till later thankfully. Or else I don't what would have happened. I didn't get to hang out with my friend ever again. Which as a kid was devastating. Even with the beating. Neither I not my friend really understood what had happened.

So I look at Khadr through those eyes. I know what can happen when the most important people in a child's life are terrible human beings.


----------



## Macfury

If you're being accused of a crime in anther country, then the rules of that country's courts apply.

I know many people who have had terrible parents. Some became terrible themselves, others didn't. Having terrible parents doesn't mean you deserve $10.5 million, no matter what sort of trouble they introduced you to.



smashedbanana said:


> The line is clear. Canadians.
> 
> If a Canadian is going to be prosecuted then are entitled to all the same rights and freedoms as every other Canadian. That includes legal representation and a fair trial.
> 
> For me it's not about where you grow up but how. We see it here all the time with the children of terrible parenting.
> 
> When I was 10 I had a best friend who lived 2 doors down. We were inseparable. Playing all the time, sleepovers, etc. One day we were playing and I tossed him something outside and it hit him in the head. I apologized right away and felt terrible. He went home crying. At this time his dad was home. His dad was never home. My friend and his dad came out of the house and his dad was giving him some forceful instructions. My friend started to beat me. He got on top of me and continued. His dad was standing behind him with a look of approval. My friend seemed confused and reluctant.
> 
> I went home and my mom was furious. My father who was at Sea (Navy) did not hear about this till later thankfully. Or else I don't what would have happened. I didn't get to hang out with my friend ever again. Which as a kid was devastating. Even with the beating. Neither I not my friend really understood what had happened.
> 
> So I look at Khadr through those eyes. I know what can happen when the most important people in a child's life are terrible human beings.


----------



## smashedbanana

Macfury said:


> If you're being accused of a crime in anther country, then the rules of that country's courts apply.
> 
> I know many people who have had terrible parents. Some became terrible themselves, others didn't. Having terrible parents doesn't mean you deserve $10.5 million, no matter what sort of trouble they introduced you to.


He didn't get $10.5 Million because he had terrible parents. Nor is that my point.

I'm not even making an argument here for or against the settlement. 

My point was in relation to the other discussions here about is upbringing and how it relates to his overall culpability. 

I don't think your point about the rules of the country might apply so much to this example. Does Afghanistan have a functional government at that time in that region? Pretty sure whatever existed probably isn't even prosecuting killing. 

Khadr was tried in Guantanamo by Americans.


----------



## Macfury

If your point is that parents influence kids to do bad things, I agree. Sometimes those things are so bad that they are necessarily tried in court for doing them.

It does not matter if Afghanistan had a functional government. He was not in Canada and the crime he was accused of did not occur here.



smashedbanana said:


> He didn't get $10.5 Million because he had terrible parents. Nor is that my point.
> 
> I'm not even making an argument here for or against the settlement.
> 
> My point was in relation to the other discussions here about is upbringing and how it relates to his overall culpability.
> 
> I don't think your point about the rules of the country might apply so much to this example. Does Afghanistan have a functional government at that time in that region? Pretty sure whatever existed probably isn't even prosecuting killing.
> 
> Khadr was tried in Guantanamo by Americans.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> If you're being accused of a crime in anther country, then the rules of that country's courts apply.


*Afghanistan*? I don't remember Khadr being put through that judicial process.....


:yikes:


----------



## Macfury

That area of Afghanistan was under US military control and its laws applied. Are you arguing that he should have been tried in Afghanisatan?



CubaMark said:


> *Afghanistan*? I don't remember Khadr being put through that judicial process.....
> 
> 
> :yikes:


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> That area of Afghanistan was under US military control and its laws applied. Are you arguing that he should have been tried in Afghanisatan?


That's an interesting position to take. The US invasion of Afghanistan, as many critics of the operation have noted, was not justified under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter (self defence). Of course, as the leading global superpower, permanent member of the UN Security Council with veto power, and all-around bully on the block, the US invaded anyway.

The US legal jurisdiction was certainly unspecific, as was the transport and imprisonment in Guantánamo of those it captured, as was evidenced by the many court rulings against US action and the fabrication of a new designation for prisoners as "unlawful combatant". It all boils down to "might makes right", but only in the eyes of the perpetrators.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

smashedbanana said:


> He didn't get $10.5 Million because he had terrible parents. Nor is that my point.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not even making an argument here for or against the settlement.
> 
> 
> 
> My point was in relation to the other discussions here about is upbringing and how it relates to his overall culpability.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think your point about the rules of the country might apply so much to this example. Does Afghanistan have a functional government at that time in that region? Pretty sure whatever existed probably isn't even prosecuting killing.
> 
> 
> 
> Khadr was tried in Guantanamo by Americans.




Khadr was also buried under rubble from a collapsed roof. One of the Americans accidentally stood on him and didn't realize there was a live body under there. It is also most likely that was when he was shot twice in the back. A simple question regarding Khadr and the grenade that killed Sgt. Speers: how did Khadr do it?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

CubaMark said:


> *Afghanistan*? I don't remember Khadr being put through that judicial process.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :yikes:




Exactly. Macfury gets mixed up on his geography. Acccording to his logic, every American soldier that killed an Afghani should be tried for murder in Afghanistan, where the crime took place.

And if he argues that this section of Afghanistan was under US military control and US laws should apply, then Khadr should have had the right to bear arms as part of a militia to protect itself from government takeover under the second amendment.


----------



## Macfury

The Constitution only applies to American citizens--and does not extend to them when they are in other countries with other laws. So not even close.



Freddie_Biff said:


> And if he argues that this section of Afghanistan was under US military control and US laws should apply, then Khadr should have had the right to bear arms as part of a militia to protect itself from government takeover under the second amendment.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> The Constitution only applies to American citizens--and does not extend to them when they are in other countries with other laws. So not even close.


Is that the murder equivalent of "What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" ?


----------



## Macfury

I can't make heads nor tails of your post.



CubaMark said:


> Is that the murder equivalent of "What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" ?


----------



## FeXL

Like, say, f'rinstance, a certain recently endowed multi-millionaire, a veritable _child_ in the eyes of some???

Muslim extremist who appeared on SBS wearing an ISIS flag and plotted to blow up police headquarters boasted in jail that *'only 15-year-olds have the balls to kill officers'*

Yeah, my bold.


----------



## SINC

Lawyers for American widow seeking enforcement of U.S. judgment against Khadr in Alberta - Edmonton - CBC News


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> Lawyers for American widow seeking enforcement of U.S. judgment against Khadr in Alberta - Edmonton - CBC News


The American court system is incredibly corrupt. Despite the jury acquittals, anyone following the recent trial in Las Vegas would probably believe they had stepped into a Stalinist Russian courtroom. Impossible to imagine a Judge overturning every defense objection and sustaining every prosecution objection. Then telling potential defense witnesses; if they dare to testify they will be charged as co-conspirators. Yet that is exactly what happened in the recent Bunkerville retrial. It was even more obscene than that but I am trying to keep this brief!

Knowing that level of Judicial corruption exists soused of the border, this case should be preemptively tossed. It is not the job of Canadian courts to enforce US civil court awards. Also remembering the Harpoon treason in letting the IRS write the FATCA-IGA, this could establish a very dangerous precedent. Perhaps establishing a precedent which would allow the IRS to collect US court awarded extortionate F(u)BAR, 8938, and/or 3520 penalties from Canadian citizens, many of whom never ever lived stateside.


----------



## SINC

Yeah sure, here we go again. Gotta re-establish the links to terrorism again. Now that he has the dough to begin anew. 

'I wish to become independent': Omar Khadr seeks bail changes, including unfettered access to sister


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> .... Gotta re-establish the links to terrorism again. .....


_Riiiight_.

Because when he was taken from Canada at the age of nine, [sarcasm]Khadr was already the mastermind of international terror collaboration.[/sarcasm]

The problem, as I see it, is that those of you who are unable to shed your irrational hatred of Khadr are basing your perspective on a *man*. Khadr as an adult has never been involved in terrorist activities, nor expressed any allegiance to terrorist groups. Indeed, quite the opposite.


----------



## Macfury

Why are you creating an irrational division of belief about a person's personality by age? Sometimes, such a belief is appropriate, sometimes it isn't.



CubaMark said:


> _Riiiight_.
> 
> Because when he was taken from Canada at the age of nine, [sarcasm]Khadr was already the mastermind of international terror collaboration.[/sarcasm]
> 
> The problem, as I see it, is that those of you who are unable to shed your irrational hatred of Khadr are basing your perspective on a *man*. Khadr as an adult has never been involved in terrorist activities, nor expressed any allegiance to terrorist groups. Indeed, quite the opposite.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Why are you creating an irrational division of belief about a person's personality by age? Sometimes, such a belief is appropriate, sometimes it isn't.


If "sometimes" it is appropriate, then your description of this as "irrational" is itself irrational.

As for "sometimes": You seriously think that Khadr's personality, beliefs, concerns, etc. at age 30 are the same as they were when he was 9 years old?

When I was 9, the cute girl in class was just a playmate. At 30, that took on different connotations. :lmao:


----------



## wonderings

CubaMark said:


> If "sometimes" it is appropriate, then your description of this as "irrational" is itself irrational.
> 
> As for "sometimes": You seriously think that Khadr's personality, beliefs, concerns, etc. at age 30 are the same as they were when he was 9 years old?
> 
> When I was 9, the cute girl in class was just a playmate. At 30, that took on different connotations. :lmao:


He was 15 when it all happened and that is a far cry from 9 years old. And of course you will think different as you get older, that is part of growing up.


----------



## Macfury

As Wonderings says, Khadr was 15. I've known teens who never changed and others who did. Frankly, I have no idea what Khadr believes--only how he once acted.




CubaMark said:


> If "sometimes" it is appropriate, then your description of this as "irrational" is itself irrational.
> 
> As for "sometimes": You seriously think that Khadr's personality, beliefs, concerns, etc. at age 30 are the same as they were when he was 9 years old?
> 
> When I was 9, the cute girl in class was just a playmate. At 30, that took on different connotations. :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

You _do_ go on, don't you?

Those of us who are sceptical of Khadr's virtuosity and disagree with the $10.5 million payout are automatically "irrational haters"? Why don't you try your argument sans the bluster, emotion & hyperbole? It will not only give you more (some, any?) credence but it may actually attract one of us enough to engage you.

As it's presented, most of us could care less. Merely another whacked out, baseless, left of left rant... XX)



CubaMark said:


> ...those of you who are unable to shed your irrational hatred of Khadr...


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> As Wonderings says, Khadr was 15. I've known teens who never changed and others who did. Frankly, I have no idea what Khadr believes--only how he once acted.




You have no idea how he once acted—you have only what you have reconstructed in your mind, based on second or third hand reports. How many actual interviews with the man have you seen? You talk about confirmation bias, well there's your perfect example. You avoid the real Omar Khadr at all costs because you fear you might feel empathy for him. And then you'd have to question everything you believe about him.


----------



## Macfury

There are no costs to avoiding "the real Omar Khadr." Hes a smiling bore. I have no idea what he thinks and I don't care. 

The only thing on the record is how he once acted.




Freddie_Biff said:


> You have no idea how he once acted—you have only what you have reconstructed in your mind, based on second or third hand reports. How many actual interviews with the man have you seen? You talk about confirmation bias, well there's your perfect example. You avoid the real Omar Khadr at all costs because you fear you might feel empathy for him. And then you'd have to question everything you believe about him.


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> You have no idea how he once acted—you have only what you have reconstructed in your mind, based on second or third hand reports.


Nor do you or those who support Khadr. That runs both ways. 'Cept of course your way cost us over $10 million.


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> Nor do you or those who support Khadr. That runs both ways. 'Cept of course your way cost us over $10 million.


More accurately that was the path chosen by the Harpoon and his Liberal predecessor. The empty headed one simply played the cards he had been dealt.


----------



## SINC

And so it begins. If the court allows visits they are out of their minds. 

Khadr?s sister?s less than liberal online post a telling sign | Opinion | Edmonton Sun


----------



## FeXL

eMacMan said:


> The empty headed one simply played the cards he had been dealt.


There were options. Nobody forced The Hairdo's hand.


----------



## CubaMark

*Omar Khadr’s application for unsupervised visits with sister rejected*

An Edmonton judge rejected Omar Khadr’s request to have his bail conditions eased so that he can have unsupervised visits with his controversial sister.

During a Friday morning hearing Court of Queen’s Bench Justice June Ross denied Khadr’s application that he be allowed to communicate freely with his sister Zaynab Khadr. During the hearing, several other bail conditions were eased or altered.

* * *​
Court heard that Zaynab is planning a visit to Canada with her children, and Khadr would like to be able to interact with his nieces and nephews at family gatherings in Ontario.

Federal government lawyer Bruce Hughson opposed removing the current restriction on communications with Zaynab – that conversations can only be in English and that they must be supervised by Khadr’s lawyers or his bail supervisor. Ross agreed, but did allow for additional, approved supervisors to be appointed to attend if the brother and sister do meet.

Khadr was successful in getting changes to some of his other conditions: he’s now allowed to use any electronic devices that connect to the internet, but a new condition was added that prohibits him from accessing terrorist material online. His requests that he only have to meet his bail supervisor every three months instead of two, and that he be able to travel in Canada without getting pre-authorization, were also rejected.
(Edmonton Journal)​


----------



## Macfury

That's the first reasonable thing I've heard on this case in awhile!


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> That's the first reasonable thing I've heard on this case in awhile!


That'll end up costing us another $10.5 million...


----------



## Freddie_Biff

CubaMark said:


> *Omar Khadr’s application for unsupervised visits with sister rejected*
> 
> 
> 
> An Edmonton judge rejected Omar Khadr’s request to have his bail conditions eased so that he can have unsupervised visits with his controversial sister.
> 
> 
> 
> During a Friday morning hearing Court of Queen’s Bench Justice June Ross denied Khadr’s application that he be allowed to communicate freely with his sister Zaynab Khadr. During the hearing, several other bail conditions were eased or altered.
> 
> 
> 
> * * *​
> 
> 
> Court heard that Zaynab is planning a visit to Canada with her children, and Khadr would like to be able to interact with his nieces and nephews at family gatherings in Ontario.
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government lawyer Bruce Hughson opposed removing the current restriction on communications with Zaynab – that conversations can only be in English and that they must be supervised by Khadr’s lawyers or his bail supervisor. Ross agreed, but did allow for additional, approved supervisors to be appointed to attend if the brother and sister do meet.
> 
> 
> 
> Khadr was successful in getting changes to some of his other conditions: he’s now allowed to use any electronic devices that connect to the internet, but a new condition was added that prohibits him from accessing terrorist material online. His requests that he only have to meet his bail supervisor every three months instead of two, and that he be able to travel in Canada without getting pre-authorization, were also rejected.
> 
> (Edmonton Journal)​




That's how you know the checks and balances in the system are working. The limitation has more to do with her political views than his. So far he has not represented any sort of danger for a decade and a half.


----------



## Macfury

He's not exactly had much opportunity now, has he?



Freddie_Biff said:


> So far he has not represented any sort of danger for a decade and a half.


----------



## FeXL

Oh, that'd be saweet...

Omar Khadr can't dodge US$134M civil judgement by recanting guilty plea: U.S. court filing



> Former Guantanamo Bay prisoner Omar Khadr cannot avoid a huge civil judgment against him by recanting the confession and guilty plea he made before an American military commission, lawyers acting for the widow of a U.S. special forces soldier argue in new court filings.
> 
> Canadian courts must accept the agreed statement of facts that underpinned Khadr’s war-crimes conviction in 2010, they argue, regardless of whether he lied under oath when he admitted to tossing a hand grenade that killed the soldier eight years earlier.


I'd have no issue with my $10.5 million going to Tabitha Speer.

More:



> Given the Supreme Court findings and Ottawa’s apology to Khadr, Whitling maintains that recognizing the Utah award would “offend Canada’s public policy principles.”


<snort> Not really...


----------



## SINC

And so completes the circle of the Trudeau Liberals corruption in the Khadr case:

*Trudeau government appoints former Omar Khadr lawyer as federal judge*

https://globalnews.ca/news/4049900/trudeau-omar-khadr-lawyer-john-norris-justice/


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> And so completes the circle of the Trudeau Liberals corruption in the Khadr case:


_In your opinion._

Norris did his job, and successfully defended a Canadian citizen whose rights were shown to have been violated - a _fact_ confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

That you have a personal issue with Khadr should not reflect upon his appointment. Why aren't you upset that he defended perpetrators of sexual assault? Other crimes? Did Norris personally write the cheque that you so despise?

And to what "corruption" are you referring? Why is your anger not also directed at the Harper regime's attempts to intentionally violate Khadr's rights? The Liberals certainly didn't do the right thing from day one, but the Conservatives really went all-out, which aggravated the injury and the resulting payout.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

CubaMark said:


> _In your opinion._
> 
> 
> 
> Norris did his job, and successfully defended a Canadian citizen whose rights were shown to have been violated - a _fact_ confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> That you have a personal issue with Khadr should not reflect upon his appointment. Why aren't you upset that he defended perpetrators of sexual assault? Other crimes? Did Norris personally write the cheque that you so despise?
> 
> 
> 
> And to what "corruption" are you referring? Why is your anger not also directed at the Harper regime's attempts to intentionally violate Khadr's rights? The Liberals certainly didn't do the right thing from day one, but the Conservatives really went all-out, which aggravated the injury and the resulting payout.




Please don't confuse a perfectly good conspiracy theory with facts.


----------



## Macfury

The Conservatives understood the issues involved, while the Liberals turned them on their head--then ridiculously issued that fat cheque without due diligence.



CubaMark said:


> _In your opinion._
> 
> Norris did his job, and successfully defended a Canadian citizen whose rights were shown to have been violated - a _fact_ confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.
> 
> That you have a personal issue with Khadr should not reflect upon his appointment. Why aren't you upset that he defended perpetrators of sexual assault? Other crimes? Did Norris personally write the cheque that you so despise?
> 
> And to what "corruption" are you referring? Why is your anger not also directed at the Harper regime's attempts to intentionally violate Khadr's rights? The Liberals certainly didn't do the right thing from day one, but the Conservatives really went all-out, which aggravated the injury and the resulting payout.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> The Conservatives understood the issues involved, while the Liberals turned them on their head--then ridiculously issued that fat cheque without due diligence.


All of the informed legal opinions I've seen referenced on the case indicated that the government of Canada did the right thing by reaching an out-of-court settlement. Khadr had already had multiple courts confirm his rights were violated. Ending the lawsuit before a verdict very likely saved millions of dollars more in a potential settlement, not to mention lawyer's fees. Trudeau is a waste of space, but on this issue, his government got it right - belatedly.

If by "due diligence" you mean 'arguing the case to the bitter end because you don't like Khadr', then it's a good thing you're not running the show.... :yikes:


----------



## FeXL

What? More armchair Prog experts? Nice...

These idiots can speculate as much as they wish. Hair on 'em.

Until the case actually goes through a court of law, it means SFA. 



CubaMark said:


> All of the informed legal opinions I've seen referenced on the case...:


----------



## Macfury

"Informed" means those opinions agreeable to CM, nothing more.



FeXL said:


> What? More armchair Prog experts? Nice...
> 
> These idiots can speculate as much as they wish. Hair on 'em.
> 
> Until the case actually goes through a court of law, it means SFA.


----------



## SINC

Yeah, time to just let Khadr begin anew with his sister and visit his old haunts, to discuss and plot more terrorism and to to perform the Hajj, a pilgrimage to Mecca and Saudi Arabia. 

I mean what? Make him a millionaire, a martyr and get his work going again has been the plan all along, has it not?

What's next, the Order Of Canada?

*Omar Khadr seeks Canadian passport to travel, permission to speak to sister*



> Former Guantanamo Bay detainee Omar Khadr wants to be granted a Canadian passport to travel to Saudi Arabia and permission to speak to his controversial sister.
> 
> Khadr, who is now 32, will be back in the Court of Queen's Bench in Edmonton Thursday to apply for changes to his bail conditions which were imposed while he appeals war crime convictions by a U.S. military commission.
> 
> An affidavit by Khadr filed with the court says the impact of his bail conditions are mainly psychological — a daily reminder of what he went through.
> 
> "I feel like the indefinite and potentially endless detention that I suffered in Guantanamo Bay is continuing," he wrote. "I hope that there will be some end to this process, but there is none in sight."
> 
> Khadr spent years in U.S. detention at Guantanamo Bay after he was caught when he was 15 and accused of tossing a grenade that killed special forces soldier Christopher Speer at a militant compound in Afghanistan in 2002.
> 
> He says in his affidavit that he would like to be able to speak on the phone or over Skype to his sister, Zaynab Khadr. He is also asking to perform the Hajj, a pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia, which is a mandatory religious duty for Muslims once in their lifetime.
> 
> "For this reason, I would like to apply for a Canadian passport," he says in the document.
> 
> Zaynab Khadr has spoken in favour of al-Qaeda and was investigated in Canada more than a decade ago for helping the
> terrorist network, but she was never charged.
> 
> My sister Zaynab is not presently in Canada," Khadr said in the document. "She is living with her husband and family. As far as I am aware, she is not in any sort of trouble."
> 
> The rules of Khadr's bail allow him to meet with her but only in the presence of his bail supervisor or one of his lawyers.
> 
> Permission to leave Alberta
> 
> Khadr also needs permission to travel outside Alberta, and has made several trips to Toronto both to visit his family and deal with a civil lawsuit there to enforce a judgment granted against him in Utah.
> 
> In his affidavit, Khadr said he has been volunteering with an organization that helps refugees integrate into the community and has earned his high school diploma.
> 
> Khadr said he is happily married and was accepted into a nursing program, but has been unable to devote himself to study due to his legal issues.
> 
> "My reintegration into the community has been filled with happiness and not bitterness," he wrote. "I have no anger towards anyone and I have been getting on with my life. I have made many friends, and I am proud and happy to be a Canadian citizen living in Canada.
> 
> "I have not gotten into any trouble of any kind with the authorities."
> 
> His case has ignited sharp and divisive debate among Canadians over terrorism, human rights and the rule of law since the summer of 2017 when it was revealed the federal government had settled a lawsuit filed by him for a reported $10.5 million.
> 
> The payout followed a ruling by Canada's Supreme Court in 2010 that Khadr's charter rights were violated at Guantanamo and that Canadian officials contributed to that violation.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmo...ia-sister-1.4940009?cmp=news-digests-edmonton


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> What's next, the Order Of Canada?


Nope.

Prime Minister!


----------



## SINC

This SOB deserves nothing more from us. Let him live in luxury with OUR money under the bail restrictions here, or have him refund the cash and move to Saudia Arabia with his sister. I am tired of this entire mess.


----------



## SINC

This sorry excuse for a PM needs to be booted too.


----------



## SINC

Good! 

Finally a judge who is not corrupted by Turdeau.

*Omar Khadr will not have eased bail conditions, judge decides*

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/12/21/omar-khadr-bail-conditions/


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> Good!
> 
> Finally a judge who is not corrupted by Turdeau.
> 
> *Omar Khadr will not have eased bail conditions, judge decides*
> 
> https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/12/21/omar-khadr-bail-conditions/


I agree with this for what is perhaps a strange reason. Anyone who takes the time to do the math realizes that the stereotypical image of Muslim all being fundamentalist terrorists is total horse 5#!t.

OTOH there is one Muslim sect that does more or less fit that image. They are the Wahabi Muslims and in Saudi Arabia they are as common as Mormons in Utah.. And where is it that Omar wants to travel to? You guessed it, to the land of the Harpoon's and the Hairdo's best buds, Saudi Arabia.


----------



## CubaMark

eMacMan said:


> I agree with this for what is perhaps a strange reason. Anyone who takes the time to do the math realizes that the stereotypical image of Muslim all being fundamentalist terrorists is total horse 5#!t.


Indeed.



> OTOH there is one Muslim sect that does more or less fit that image. They are the Wahabi Muslims and in Saudi Arabia they are as common as Mormons in Utah.. And where is it that Omar wants to travel to? You guessed it, to the land of the Harpoon's and the Hairdo's best buds, Saudi Arabia.


Right... but... for observant muslims, they kinda hafta go to Saudi Arabia, since that's where Mecca is located....


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> Right... but... for observant muslims, they kinda hafta go to Saudi Arabia, since that's where Mecca is located....


Well, EXCUSE ME, but there isn't a chance in hell that whether some go to Mecca, or some don't, that they will wind up in heaven or hell. 

Mostly in hell is more likely, for following the 'religion of peace' if you ask me.

Religion is a curse that ought to be abandoned or at least prohibited, and especially the radical sect of this particularly horrible example of anything humane.


----------



## Beej

SINC said:


> Religion is a curse that ought to be abandoned or at least prohibited,


Maybe surprising, but I strongly disagree with this. I've never believed in a religion, but most people do. Good or bad, it's their thing. Prohibition of religion should be no more acceptable than prohibition of ridiculing religion.


----------



## SINC

Here we go with this SOB trying to screw us again, this time in youth court.

*Omar Khadr trying new way to get out from under 'indefinite' sentence and bail*



> Former Guantanamo Bay prisoner Omar Khadr is asking Alberta youth court to order his release and declare his eight-year sentence — imposed by a widely maligned military commission in the United States — to have expired.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmo....5006767?cmp=newsletter-news-digests-edmonton


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> Here we go with this SOB trying to screw us again, this time in youth court.


Well... he can only ask Youth Court to declare his time officially served, as that's the relevant judicial body.

And how exactly does Khadr seeking to put this mess behind him in any way "screw" you "again"?

I understand that we'll never see eye-to-eye on Canada / USA's treatment of Khadr, but your dripping, visceral, hatred of the man just seems a bit much...


----------



## Rps

CubaMark, maybe it has to do with treason!


----------



## Macfury

Why are you so crazy in love with Khadr, CM?


----------



## SINC

When our government gives over $10M, without any attempt to lessen or eliminate that via the courts, to a convicted terrorist is no person I have any use for at all. He deserves far less and his constant attempts to free himself so he can team up with his radical Islam sister leave Canadians feeling unsafe with him among us.

SOB is hardly a term of "dripping, visceral, hatred" but rather a hyped-up term insinuated by you, and you alone to discredit anyone who opposes the Liberals treatment of Canadians regarding this man. And you dare to accuse the media of sensationalization?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

CubaMark said:


> Well... he can only ask Youth Court to declare his time officially served, as that's the relevant judicial body.
> 
> 
> 
> And how exactly does Khadr seeking to put this mess behind him in any way "screw" you "again"?
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that we'll never see eye-to-eye on Canada / USA's treatment of Khadr, but your dripping, visceral, hatred of the man just seems a bit much...




Easy, Mark. If you make too much sense, some of the people around here will bust a blood vessel.


----------



## FeXL

Pot, kettle...



CubaMark said:


> ...but your dripping, visceral, hatred...just seems a bit much...


----------



## Macfury

Thee's something you've never tried before Freddie!



Freddie_Biff said:


> Easy, Mark. If you make too much sense, some of the people around here will bust a blood vessel.


----------



## FeXL

Rebel uncovers where terrorist Omar Khadr hid $3M of his ill-gotten payout



> Approximately one month ago, we received a tip about a real estate deal where Khadr’s name popped up in the form of a blurry screenshot -- enough to get the ball rolling. We had lawyers pull land titles and corporate registries and are now able to confirm that Khadr, or rather a numbered Alberta company where he is one of only two directors, owns an aging strip mall with a partner in North Central Edmonton.


----------



## SINC

Even Post Media has now picked up on this, but why did they claim they knew two days before Rebel? Curious that when they have far more resources than Rebel. 

https://vancouversun.com/news/polit...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1552351096

So now could any Omar lover please explain why he would blow $3 million on a property worth only half that?

Could it be to slip $1.5 million taxpayers dollars to his sister and her terrorist friends?

This is a clear danger to Canadians with their own money possibly being used against them due to Turdeau's stupidity.


----------



## CubaMark

That allegation could be interpreted as libel, SINC. Unless you (or the amazing investigative team at The Rebel) has proof of any malfeasance?

Khadr, *if* he had any intention of supporting terrorist groups or individuals, is surely intelligent enough at this point to know that his every move is watched by intelligence services both domestic and international, almost as closely as the far-right-wingnuts who are obsessed with him.


----------



## FeXL

Hello, Bigot.

You, of all people on these boards, asking for _actual proof_ of malfeasance?

The iron...



CubaMark said:


> Unless you (or the amazing investigative team at The Rebel) has proof of any malfeasance?


----------



## wonderings

SINC said:


> Even Post Media has now picked up on this, but why did they claim they knew two days before Rebel? Curious that when they have far more resources than Rebel.
> 
> https://vancouversun.com/news/polit...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1552351096
> 
> So now could any Omar lover please explain why he would blow $3 million on a property worth only half that?
> 
> Could it be to slip $1.5 million taxpayers dollars to his sister and her terrorist friends?
> 
> This is a clear danger to Canadians with their own money possibly being used against them due to Turdeau's stupidity.


Could just be a dumb investment. I am no fan of Khadr or the payout that was given to him, but would need more info to start worrying about him funding terrorism. Maybe if we are lucky he will blow all his money and some good honest Canadians will benefit from it.


----------



## FeXL

wonderings said:


> Maybe if we are lucky he will blow all his money and some good honest Canadians will benefit from it.


Yeah! Then he could apply for welfare & our tax $$$ could support him s'more! 

:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## smashedbanana

CubaMark said:


> That allegation could be interpreted as libel, SINC. Unless you (or the amazing investigative team at The Rebel) has proof of any malfeasance?
> 
> Khadr, *if* he had any intention of supporting terrorist groups or individuals, is surely intelligent enough at this point to know that his every move is watched by intelligence services both domestic and international, almost as closely as the far-right-wingnuts who are obsessed with him.


No it's clear he bought rocket launchers and gasoline for flag burning.

Terrorists always buy commercial buildings with numbered companies. It's out of the ordinary.

They always clearly put their names as directors on all the paperwork.

They are the only ones that buy real estate that has increased in price. We all know prices never go up in a decade.

So weird that when Detective Lilley contacted the Speer lawyer they already knew about the property. How the hell did they match the investigative resources of Brian F'n Lilley?


----------



## FeXL

smashedbanana said:


> How the hell did they match the investigative resources of Brian F'n Lilley?


Russkies...


----------



## SINC

*Utah plaintiffs ask Canadian court to force Omar Khadr to answer questions about his confession*



> Relatives looking to collect on an American lawsuit against Omar Khadr are asking a Canadian court to force the former Guantanamo Bay prisoner to answer questions about his confession to purported war crimes.
> 
> As part of the pre-trial process, Khadr has refused to discuss the agreed statement of facts he signed on which his 2010 conviction before a U.S. military commission was based. He argues the information was derived from torture.
> 
> Khadr has also refused to answer other questions on the basis of solicitor-client privilege, or because the military commission rules prohibit his divulging certain information.
> 
> The American plaintiffs have now filed a motion in Ontario Superior Court — a hearing date has yet to be set — to compel Khadr to answer.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...canadian-court-to-force-omar-khadr-to-answer/


----------



## wonderings

SINC said:


> *Utah plaintiffs ask Canadian court to force Omar Khadr to answer questions about his confession*
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...canadian-court-to-force-omar-khadr-to-answer/



I can't see him wanting to answer any questions. He has his money he is going to keep silent for fear of having to give any of it up.


----------



## SINC

wonderings said:


> I can't see him wanting to answer any questions. He has his money he is going to keep silent for fear of having to give any of it up.


If the courts rule against him, he will have no choice, but given the courts favourable treatment of him time after time, I doubt that will happen. If the courts go against him, I will be very surprised.


----------



## FeXL

Anybody know how "left" the Ontario Superior Court is?

And, if they actually do rule against him, can this case then be appealed to the SCOC?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Anybody know how "left" the Ontario Superior Court is?
> 
> And, if they actually do rule against him, can this case then be appealed to the SCOC?


This is a faint hope given the Ontario courts.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> This is a faint hope given the Ontario courts.


Thx.


----------



## SINC

All they have to do to complete the circle now, is give him his passport and a grenade. 

*Judge rules in favour of Omar Khadr's request to end remaining sentence*

https://calgaryherald.com/news/loca...af4-404f-af91-a80b05ffde17#Echobox=1553528204


----------



## wonderings

SINC said:


> All they have to do to complete the circle now, is give him his passport and a grenade.
> 
> *Judge rules in favour of Omar Khadr's request to end remaining sentence*
> 
> https://calgaryherald.com/news/loca...af4-404f-af91-a80b05ffde17#Echobox=1553528204


another 2 strip mall purchases and he will be broke. 

Let us all band together and send him listings for available properties in Calgary.


----------



## FeXL

wonderings said:


> another 2 strip mall purchases and he will be broke.
> 
> Let us all band together and send him listings for available properties in Calgary.


I don't want him in Alberta.

Send him to Ottawa...


----------



## wonderings

FeXL said:


> I don't want him in Alberta.
> 
> Send him to Ottawa...


a good neighbour for Trudeau?


----------



## FeXL

wonderings said:


> a good neighbour for Trudeau?


House guest. Maybe Trudles could hire him as a gardener or pool boy or something. Take Khadr out to the summer house & paddle those shiny red canoes that taxpayers just funded.


----------



## SINC

Of course he didn't, He doesn't know chite from putty.

*Trudeau didn't know $10.5M Khadr settlement had been signed when story was leaked to media: internal report*

https://calgaryherald.com/news/poli...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1554754707


----------



## SINC

No other word for it. Disgusting!

“Tout le monde en parle” (Everyone’s talking about it), a francophone Radio-Canada talk show is hosting Omar Khadr as a Sunday evening guest.

https://tnc.news/2019/04/21/cbc-tv-program-features-omar-khadr-as-easter-sunday-talk-show-guest/


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> No other word for it. Disgusting!
> 
> 
> 
> “Tout le monde en parle” (Everyone’s talking about it), a francophone Radio-Canada talk show is hosting Omar Khadr as a Sunday evening guest.
> 
> 
> 
> https://tnc.news/2019/04/21/cbc-tv-program-features-omar-khadr-as-easter-sunday-talk-show-guest/




Why is that disgusting? Are you xenophobic?


----------



## Macfury

He doesn't want to see a war criminal celebrated.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Why is that disgusting? Are you xenophobic?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Macfury said:


> He doesn't want to see a war criminal celebrated.




I believe it’s an interview. Who said anything about a celebration? And “war criminal” is a pretty pejorative term in this case.


----------



## SINC

An interview using our money funding the CBC is the disgusting part. Omar is far lower than that. And just slightly above Turdeau.


----------



## FeXL

The Sickness of the Canadian Left on Display



> Omar Khadr enters the studio of @OFF_TLMEP to applause during his appearance on the Easter Sunday CBC program. pic.twitter.com/TiWRpo2eRA
> 
> — Cosmin Dzsurdzsa (@cosminDZS) April 22, 2019​


From the comments:



> A reminder of the bravery of his victim:
> 
> “Who was Sgt. Christopher Speer, the soldier who died in a firefight with Omar Khadr?
> During an attack on an al-Qaida hideout, Sgt. Christopher Speer walked out into a minefield where two Afghan children were lying wounded.”


----------



## CubaMark

There was no "firefight" with Omar Khadr.
There is considerable doubt as to whether Khadr threw the grenade, even from the testimony of US forces involved.
Khadr at the time was a 15-year-old boy who suddenly came under attack, and had been taken to Afghanistan by his father years earlier, with no ability or authority to control his own fate.
Speer's bravery has no bearing on the life & actions of Khadr.
Khadr's constitutional rights as a Canadian-born citizen were violated by the Canadian government(s) while illegally held in the U.S. torture prison in Guantánamo Bay (aka an illegally-occupied US base on Cuban soil).
The violation of his rights have been concluded by multiple courts of law.
The continued rabid hatred expressed by some people in this forum toward Khadr is neither logical nor justifiable, but speaks to deeper prejudices.


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> There was no "firefight" with Omar Khadr.
> There is considerable doubt as to whether Khadr threw the grenade, even from the testimony of US forces involved.
> Khadr at the time was a 15-year-old boy who suddenly came under attack, and had been taken to Afghanistan by his father years earlier, with no ability or authority to control his own fate.
> Speer's bravery has no bearing on the life & actions of Khadr.
> Khadr's constitutional rights as a Canadian-born citizen were violated by the Canadian government(s) while illegally held in the U.S. torture prison in Guantánamo Bay (aka an illegally-occupied US base on Cuban soil).
> The violation of his rights have been concluded by multiple courts of law.
> The continued rabid hatred expressed by some people in this forum toward Khadr is neither logical nor justifiable, but speaks to deeper prejudices.


You forgot this one:


[●]Khadr, since released of court conditions that guaranteed the safety of Canadians, is now able to communicate with his sister, a known terrorist, and is a clear and present danger to the safety of all mankind.


----------



## SINC

*Highlights of Omar Khadr's appearance on Quebec's most popular talk show*

From the story:



> “There’s what I remember, or what I thought I remembered, and then there’s what the evidence was,” he said. “So I, from the time I regained consciousness I was told that I had killed an American soldier, and for the eight years, I believed that I must have done it. Because I was told I was the only survivor and that I had done it, so I believed in that all the way up to the trial. And then I started hearing alternate scenarios and different testimonies. So I can’t tell you exactly what’s the true story.”


He has no idea if he did it or not. Most people have an idea he did it. One opinion as valid as the other. Since when is "I don't know if I did it or not" a believable defense?

https://vancouversun.com/news/polit...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1555974680


----------



## SINC

And now this:

*Wounded U.S. soldier: Justin Trudeau guilty of treason for rewarding terrorist*



> Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s rewarding of $8 million in cash and a formal apology to a terrorist who attacked a compound in Afghanistan where Americans and Canadians were serving is “something a traitor would do,” a U.S. soldier who was wounded by the terrorist said.
> 
> Layne Morris, who was blinded in the 2002 grenade attack by Al Qaida terrorist Omar Khadr that killed Sgt. Chris Speer, says Trudeau should be charged with treason.
> 
> Morris told the Toronto Sun on July 8 that Trudeau’s decision to reward Khadr, who spent 10 years in prison at Guantanamo Bay, feels “like a punch in the face.”
> 
> “I don’t see this as anything but treason,” said


https://www.worldtribune.com/wounde...au-guilty-of-treason-for-rewarding-terrorist/


----------



## FeXL

Hello, Bigot.

1. Khadr has admitted to throwing the grenade.
2. Khadr has admitted to spying & providing support to terrorism.
3. You call Khadr a boy at 15, yet think 16 year olds should vote.
4. You can p!$$ & moan about Gitmo's "legality" as much as you want, it has no bearing on Khadr's guilt.
5. You, of all people, lecturing _anybody_ about hatred & prejudice. The iron...



CubaMark said:


> Blah, blah-blah, blah, blah-blah-blah


----------



## SINC

And the government wanted to hide it!

Federal government hunted for person who leaked Omar Khadr's $10.5M settlement payment: internal report



> OTTAWA — An internal report obtained by the National Post reveals details of how the federal government launched an investigation spanning six departments and agencies to hunt for who leaked information about a reported $10.5-million settlement with Omar Khadr in July 2017.
> 
> But the Privy Council Office is refusing to say whether it ever referred the probe to the RCMP, as it did with the leak investigation into Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.
> 
> The internal report, obtained through an access-to-information request, also shows that payment of the out-of-court settlement to Khadr was delayed by a day after public servants made a coding error that caused the transfer to be rejected by the Bank of Canada, through which the payment flowed to a bank account held by an unnamed third party. Public servants scrambled to fix the error and spent the next day monitoring the payment step-by-step until it properly transferred through the banks.
> 
> News of the settlement was reported on the evening of July 3, 2017, by The Globe and Mail, which identified its source only as a “federal insider.” As of September 2017 — two months after the news story — the Privy Council Office was still searching for who leaked to the media, the report says.


More at the link.

https://nationalpost.com/news/polit...5m-settlement-payment-internal-report-reveals


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Hello, Bigot.
> 
> 1. Khadr has admitted to throwing the grenade.
> 2. Khadr has admitted to spying & providing support to terrorism.
> 3. You call Khadr a boy at 15, yet think 16 year olds should vote.
> 4. You can p!$$ & moan about Gitmo's "legality" as much as you want, it has no bearing on Khadr's guilt.
> 5. You, of all people, lecturing _anybody_ about hatred & prejudice. The iron...


You are a grown man and you were thousands of miles away from the scene. Still it's an even money bet that under the same interrogation techniques you would have confessed as well. Personally I place zero credibility in his so-called confession.

However he certainly was subjected to mal-treatment that is more than capable of turning even the most rabid of pacifists into anti-government terrorists. For that reason alone it is crucial he be kept under tight surveillance.


----------



## SINC

eMacMan said:


> However he certainly was subjected to mal-treatment that is more than capable of turning even the most rabid of pacifists into anti-government terrorists. For that reason alone it is crucial he be kept under tight surveillance.


Yep, this too.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> *Highlights of Omar Khadr's appearance on Quebec's most popular talk show*
> 
> 
> 
> From the story:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has no idea if he did it or not. Most people have an idea he did it. One opinion as valid as the other. Since when is "I don't know if I did it or not" a believable defense?
> 
> 
> 
> https://vancouversun.com/news/polit...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1555974680




Because normally to plead guilty you need to have some recollection that you did something. He does not. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? The “confession” was forced out of him.


----------



## SINC

Freddie_Biff said:


> Because normally to plead guilty you need to have some recollection that you did something. He does not. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? The “confession” was forced out of him.


So then, if you cannot recall whether or not you had breakfast last Tuesday, you didn't have breakfast for certain? 

Is that a rational conclusion?


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> So then, if you cannot recall whether or not you had breakfast last Tuesday, you didn't have breakfast for certain?
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a rational conclusion?




Actually, yes, that is a rational conclusion. If you cannot recall having breakfast last Tuesday, why would you say that you did? Maybe you did. Probably you did. But for certain?


----------



## SINC

So an uncertain action is somehow worth $10.5 million? No way in hell. It never should have happened.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> So an uncertain action is somehow worth $10.5 million? No way in hell. It never should have happened.



Which “it” are you talking about? Omar Khadr should never have being taken to Guantanamo Bay? I agree.


----------



## wonderings

The action itself does not come down to Omars recollection only. If that was the case everyone would be pleading the "I don't remember" line and getting away with anything and everything. 

He should never have been given that money without due process, the courts should be deciding these things not the PM.


----------



## eMacMan

wonderings said:


> The action itself does not come down to Omars recollection only. If that was the case everyone would be pleading the "I don't remember" line and getting away with anything and everything.
> 
> He should never have been given that money without due process, the courts should be deciding these things not the PM.


I agree but how do you accomplish that when the Pentagon stonewalls interviewing the most critical witnesses?


----------



## SINC

SINC said:


> So an uncertain action is somehow worth $10.5 million? No way in hell. It never should have happened.





Freddie_Biff said:


> Which “it” are you talking about? Omar Khadr should never have being taken to Guantanamo Bay? I agree.





wonderings said:


> The action itself does not come down to Omars recollection only. If that was the case everyone would be pleading the "I don't remember" line and getting away with anything and everything.
> 
> He should never have been given that money without due process, the courts should be deciding these things not the PM.


This is the 'it' I was referring too and I hold the same opinion as wonderings.


----------



## FeXL

wonderings said:


> The action itself does not come down to Omars recollection only. If that was the case everyone would be pleading the "I don't remember" line and getting away with anything and everything.
> 
> He should never have been given that money without due process, the courts should be deciding these things not the PM.


:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## wonderings

eMacMan said:


> I agree but how do you accomplish that when the Pentagon stonewalls interviewing the most critical witnesses?


That is an entirely different matter and should not change how our courts worked in giving this man 10 million dollars without due process.

There is no way he was over there just lounging around while his father was fighting a war. Now that is not proof of guilt, just my thoughts, but it should have been investigated and gone through the process.


----------



## SINC

Yeah, like over there making bombs with video proof.

This guy outlines it pretty well.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## CubaMark

*What if Omar Khadr isn’t guilty?*

What if Khadr was innocent of the murder of Sgt. Christopher Speer this whole time, and we didn't lift a finger while he sat in a hell-hole for a decade?

For almost 15 years, Canadian treatment of the Khadr case has been dominated by the presumption of guilt. Yet the evidence tells a different story.

For all the fury boiling up over news of his settlement, there's precious little insight or knowledge about the facts. As a former prosecutor, something has always troubled me about this case, and my deep unease hasn't abated with time.

Any experienced trial lawyer would be troubled to open this file. With the exception of Khadr's "confession," wrung from a traumatized and severely wounded teenager under an abusive interrogation, the evidence against him was remarkably thin.

Examined closely, it appears more consistent with his innocence than guilt.

What evidence exists appears confused, inconsistent or contradicted elsewhere. Photographs of the attack scene released in 2009 appear to directly conflict with the prosecution's summary of its own case.

Had the events happened under Canadian jurisdiction, they would not have been enough to lay a charge, let alone secure a conviction.

This case represents a Canadian tragedy and failure of moral courage on the part of our government. When Canada should have championed transparency, due process and the rule of law in the Khadr proceedings, we stood mute or actively participated in his abusive interrogation in custody.

Had the Canadian government done so, any criminal trial in open court would most likely have ended in a humiliating defeat for the U.S. government, and public perception would be very different from what it is today.

To any trial lawyer, it's plain that Khadr pled guilty for a very simple reason: his plea deal offered a return to Canada and eventual freedom — clearly a better alternative than a lifetime of suffering in Guantanamo.

That bargain was a successful legal maneuver, but a personal tragedy. It was successful because it returned him to Canada, where his prospects for justice were a vast improvement on Guantanamo Bay and U.S. military tribunals. It was tragic because he will forever wear the stain of pleading guilty to murder.

Today Canadians are paying a hefty price because successive Liberal and Conservative governments sacrificed principle to political expedience, traded away due process, and turned on their own child citizen, a trapped and helpless teenager.

* * *​
in a circumstantial case, (which this was, because nobody saw Khadr throw the grenade that killed Speer), the evidentiary bar is even higher. In such a case the test is not merely proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but that the evidence pointing to guilt is _inconsistent with any other rational conclusion._

* * *​
Clearly, the multiple positions and reports advanced by the prosecution can't all be true. In all, either the shooter, or Khadr, or possibly American forces threw the grenade that killed Speer. Some of the reports make no sense at all, and some are clearly false.

Consistency, credibility and reliability are essential to a strong prosecution, and this case was on thin ice.

Photo evidence disastrous for the prosecution

Then came the photographs of the combat scene obtained by the Toronto Star in 2009, which can only be seen as disastrous for the prosecution.

* * *​
According to the Star, military documents indicate that "a soldier stood on top of Khadr's body before realizing someone was buried."

The second photo on the right—enhanced by the Star for clarity—shows the brush and rubble pulled back to expose Khadr, with bullet entry wounds clearly visible on his back.

* * *​
Khadr could not have thrown the grenade and then completely buried himself under rocks and debris in just a few seconds before the special forces team arrived.

* * *​
The only evidence that ties Khadr to the grenade is the statement of OC-1 in version (4), given to investigators almost two years after the event. But OC-1's statement that he found Khadr sitting up and leaning against brush is sharply at variance with photograph 1, in which Khadr lies completely buried under rocks and brush.

That's not a small problem for the prosecution. It's a big one.

If the photograph is an accurate depiction of the scene as the special forces team found it, OC-1's statement can't be true. It's more likely that OC-1 discovered Khadr under the rubble after he shot the other combatant, then shot him in the back as he lay there.

It gets worse. The prosecution's bigger problem is that its official version (1) makes no sense at all when read with the photographs.









The photo on the left, taken in Ayub Kheyl in Afghanistan on July 27, 2002, shows the scene found by the assault team approaching the area where the shooter was killed. Khadr lies beneath the rubble, apparently beneath a collapsed roof. The photo on the right shows Khadr (figure highlighted) after debris has been pulled back. Classified photos obtained by the Toronto Star from an 18-page submission presented in 2009 by Khadr's former military defence team to an Obama administration task force investigating Guantanamo.

* * *​
Without Khadr's confession, the evidence fails its first and most basic test: that of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt through credible, reliable and consistent evidence that Khadr threw the grenade that struck and killed Sgt. Speer.

So what about that confession?

As is well known today, false confessions are common, especially with malleable young people under duress. The intensity and abusiveness of Khadr's interrogation is unprecedented in law-abiding countries. It's probably fair to say that in 2002 the U.S. military was far more concerned with learning whatever it could about Al Qaeda from Khadr than with getting an admissible voluntary statement for a criminal trial.

The priority was to find and kill Osama bin Laden, and to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

That interrogators went too far is now common knowledge. But the problem with torturous or abusive questioning isn't just that it violates the prisoner's rights, but that subjects will give false information to escape the agony.

Today, Khadr says that he confessed to false things just to please his interrogators and stop the pain, and there's evidence to back that up. For instance, we know that under pressure Khadr falsely identified Maher Arar as having stayed at terrorist safe houses in Afghanistan, when Arar had never been to the country.

It's far more believable that Khadr confessed to stop the pain than that his confession is true. The photographs and the known chronology make it extremely unlikely that he could have thrown the grenade.

Yet without that confession, the prosecution had no case.

(National Observer, 2017)​
*Lawyer: Khadr report altered*

A U.S. military commander altered a report on a firefight in Afghanistan to cast blame for the death of a Delta Force commando on a Canadian youth who was captured after the shooting stopped, a defence lawyer said today.

The attorney, Navy Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, made the allegation at a pretrial hearing as he argued for access to the officer, identified only as Col. W., as well as details about interrogations that he said might help clear his client of war-crimes charges.

The U.S. military has charged Omar Khadr of Toronto with murder for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed Sgt. Christopher Speer during a U.S. military raid on July 27, 2002, on an Al Qaeda compound in eastern Afghanistan.

Khadr’s case is on track to be the first to go to trial under a military tribunal system at this U.S. Navy base in southeast Cuba.

The military commander’s official report the day after the raid originally said the assailant who threw the grenade was killed, which would rule out Khadr as the suspect.

The report was revised months later, under the same date, to say a U.S. fighter had only “engaged” the assailant, according to Kuebler, who said the later version was presented to him by prosecutors as an “updated” document.

Kuebler told reporters after the hearing that it appears “the government manufactured evidence to make it look like Omar was guilty.”

(Toronto Star, 2008)​


----------



## SINC

You can post all you want, but after watching him construct bombs in that video, I believe he was a terrorist and remains one to this day and is undeserving of any cash or sympathy from any Canadian or their government.


----------



## FeXL

Hello, Bigot.

What if he is guilty?

Then, without due process, we have just given a killer & a terrorist a cheque for $10.5 million.



CubaMark said:


> What if Omar Khadr isn’t guilty?


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Hello, Bigot.


The universe continues to laugh at the irony of that statement. But do go on.... :lmao:



FeXL said:


> What if he is guilty?
> 
> Then, without due process, we have just given a killer & a terrorist a cheque for $10.5 million.


From the article above:
_Had the events happened under Canadian jurisdiction, they would not have been enough to lay a charge, let alone secure a conviction.​_
Feel free to advocate for the collection of actual evidence demonstrating Khadr's guilt, and then call for him to be charged. Pardon me while I don't sit around waiting for that to happen....


----------



## wonderings

CubaMark said:


> The universe continues to laugh at the irony of that statement. But do go on.... :lmao:
> 
> 
> 
> From the article above:
> _Had the events happened under Canadian jurisdiction, they would not have been enough to lay a charge, let alone secure a conviction.​_
> Feel free to advocate for the collection of actual evidence demonstrating Khadr's guilt, and then call for him to be charged. Pardon me while I don't sit around waiting for that to happen....


The article is an opinion and it very well could have been right but we will never know. I would like to know for certain that a payout of this kind would not end up being used for nefarious things. 

That being said I would be very curious to know what he was doing over there. I would have trouble believing he was l living a relatively normal (for the region) life while Al-Qaeda fought on around him.


----------



## FeXL

I'm talking about Justa Turnip writing out a cheque without going to court.

And no, I'm not buying into his BS narrative about how he thought the case would be lost.



CubaMark said:


> Blah, blah, blah...


----------



## FeXL

wonderings said:


> The article is an opinion and it very well could have been right but we will never know.


Precisely.


----------



## CubaMark

wonderings said:


> That being said I would be very curious to know what he was doing over there. I would have trouble believing he was l living a relatively normal (for the region) life while Al-Qaeda fought on around him.


Here's a timeline, from his birth in Toronto in 1986-onward. (Globe & Mail)

Note that his family lived for a time in Osama bin Laden's compound when he was about 10 years old, until when he was about 13, before the family moved to Kabul.

The military commission claims he received bomb-making training in June 2002, about a month before the conflict that brought him into US custody. 

We're talking about a child, taken into Pakistan and Afghanistan by his parents, neither of whom were apparently very taken with Western society. He was most certainly surrounded by lots of people who were involved in the fight against Western forces in the region. Whether that counts as 'terrorism' is open to interpretation. In any case, he was a minor and not in control of his own life. 

Regardless of what came before his capture and incarceration, and whether he meets anyone's definition of "child soldier", the fact remains that his incarceration in Guantánamo Bay, his torture, the made-up charges laid by the US military commission and the complicity of the Canadian government amounted to a violation of a Canadian citizen's constitutional rights. It's Law 101. 

But hey, some folks don't like the cut of his jib, and that beard sure makes him look Jihady, and Good Christian Lord only knows what nefarious ends he's going to put his Billion$ of Justin dollars, so he really should just be dragged out of his Edmonton apartment and put up on a good, Godly cross, splashed with some holy water and maybe a little bit of garlic to be safe. /sarcasm


----------



## SINC

Bugger all that! All assumptions on your part CM. Look again at the video of him smiling in glee as he constructs explosives, he laughs at what he had to know were killer bombs intended to kill people. Actual live people. KILL THEM! And he laughs as he does it. He is inhuman and more, and he had to know EXACTLY what he was doing. I tire of people who side with this piece of crap. He is the worst scum on earth and nothing more.


----------



## SINC

Well, one can only hope this happens.

*Widow of medic could go after Omar Khadr's $10.5M settlement: legal advisor*



> OTTAWA — A reported multi-million-dollar payout from the Canadian government to former Guantanamo Bay prisoner Omar Khadr could create an opportunity for the widow of a man Khadr was convicted of killing in a firefight to seek compensation.


https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...SdP8WaUh6FP2md3f6RYGCqqFfbLQ76FAZn8NC9XnbEWos


----------



## Freddie_Biff

SINC said:


> Well, one can only hope this happens.
> 
> 
> 
> *Widow of medic could go after Omar Khadr's $10.5M settlement: legal advisor*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...SdP8WaUh6FP2md3f6RYGCqqFfbLQ76FAZn8NC9XnbEWos




This is such BS. Medics, soldiers go to war expecting there’s a possibility they may be injured or die. They don’t sue the people they’re fighting against for damages. Did the four Canadian soldiers who were killed by “friendly fire” in Afghanistan have their families sue the American pilot who dropped the bomb on them? 

Christopher Speer died in the line of duty. Suing Omar Khadr for damages is absolutely ridiculous. Soldiers die in wars.


----------



## SINC

And then of course, there is this:


----------



## SINC

It is unacceptable for us to be forced to pay taxes to an organization that glorifies Omar Khadr.

https://www.spencerfernando.com/201...ceful-omar-khadr-invite-cbc-must-be-defunded/


----------



## 18m2

$34 million in 2017-18 went to the CBC from the federal government.

I believe it should stand or fail on its own.


----------



## SINC

Canadian court tells Omar to answer questions. Go get him, boys.

*Omar Khadr told to answer Utah plaintiffs' questions about his confession*



> Relatives of a slain American soldier have won a skirmish in their attempt to collect on a wrongful-death award worth $134-million US against former Guantanamo Bay detainee Omar Khadr.
> 
> In a pre-trial decision this week, an Ontario Superior Court ordered Khadr to answer several questions from the plaintiffs about a 50-point agreed statement of facts he signed as part of his guilty plea to five war crimes before a widely disparaged military commission in 2010.
> 
> Khadr, 33, has since disavowed the confession he says was the product of abuse. The plea deal, he argues, was his only way to be returned to Canada from the infamous American prison in Cuba.
> 
> "The plaintiffs are entitled to know which specific factual statements Mr. Khadr alleges are untrue," Linda Abrams, a court case management master, said in her decision. "To go through the statement of fact, fact by fact, according Mr. Khadr an opportunity to agree or disagree with specific factual statements, is not tantamount to using discovery as 'an instrument of torture."'


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmo...zK5lsM9FwwFeC3JPV2RaqgzLsxwdQm50p_KVfhM8-wqUU


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> Canadian court tells Omar to answer questions. Go get him, boys.
> 
> *Omar Khadr told to answer Utah plaintiffs' questions about his confession*


From the article:

_Khadr has also spent more than six years trying to appeal his conviction, but a military commission appellate court has so far refused to hear the case._​
I'm surprised Khadr's lawyers haven't attacked then entire invented US military legal framework around which he was taken into custody, imprisoned at *the U.S. torture facility* in Guantánamo, tried, convicted, etc. There was ample controversy about the USA's fabrications at the time to create a legal framework that no-one but itself took seriously.

Speers died in a U.S. military operation when the people they attacked fought back. That his estate was able to win a judgement against Khadr in that scenario is ridiculous, and points to the creativity of lawyers who smell gobs of billable hours in a celebrity case.


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> That his estate was able to win a judgement against Khadr in that scenario is ridiculous, and points to the creativity of lawyers who smell gobs of billable hours in a celebrity case.


That Omar was awarded $10.5 million of OUR money by Trudeau without a court challenge for crimes he committed is unconscionable. I hope the family gets every damn dime he took from Canadian taxpayers and more if he has it. Enough of this crap.


----------



## FeXL

Hello, Bigot.

_And points to the creativity of greasy lefty politicians who smell the opportunity to buy Prog votes on the back of Canadian taxpayers in a celebrity case._

FTFY...

I'm with SINC: I hope the family gets every dime of my money and leaves the sack of $h!t on the hook for another $10 million in legal fees.



CubaMark said:


> ...and points to the creativity of lawyers who smell gobs of billable hours in a celebrity case.


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> That Omar was awarded $10.5 million of OUR money by Trudeau without a court challenge for crimes he committed is unconscionable. I hope the family gets every damn dime he took from Canadian taxpayers and more if he has it. Enough of this crap.


This won't make any difference or those who have decided to make this their _cause célèbre_ with regard to the entire Khadr matter, but for those without the interest (or stamina) to go back into this thread to revisit the issue, let me summarize....

*Is it true Omar Khadr deal saved Canada millions?* (Toronto Star)
_ “I think an all-in number in the $30-40 million range, including damages, costs to the court, etc. was very possible, even likely, and maybe even low-balling.”_​
*Dislike of Khadr settlement does not entitle critics to disregard law or facts
* (Canadian Lawyer)
_Khadr critics fall back to the moral high ground: “Khadr is a terrorist, this is why he was detained and questioned in Guantanamo. His actions contributed to the situation, so there should not be any compensation.”

Let’s leave aside the fact that the precise level of Khadr’s moral culpability is very much in doubt. The evidence that Khadr threw the grenade that killed the U.S. soldier is conflicting. Khadr’s admission of guilt was extracted in oppressive and torturous conditions. This confession would never be admissible in a Canadian court.

But none of that actually matters. 

Khadr is being compensated for Charter breaches that occurred after the events on the battlefield. Khadr’s acts may have contributed to his detention, but he did nothing to bring about his own torture.
(...)
Charter protections do not evaporate after a finding of guilt. We do not and should not detain the guilty in illegal and inhumane conditions. We do not abuse or torture the guilty and then claim they were the cause of their own misfortune.

The Charter protects the innocent and guilty equally. 

And then the critics have one last argument to fall back on — the government arrived at the compensation number by some kind of voodoo. The Supreme Court held that Khadr’s rights were violated, but it did not say he should receive millions of dollars.

That is true. But then again, the Supreme Court was never asked to rule on monetary compensation. This issue was not before the Supreme Court.

Experienced counsel through court-guided mediation arrived at the compensation amount.

Could the amount of compensation have been different after a trial? Of course it could have been. Damages would have likely been higher and costs would have been ordered against the government. According to legal experts, the estimated bill to fight a losing court battle would have been between $30 million and $40 million._​
*Why we had to settle with Omar Khadr* (Macleans)
_There were no good options for settling the Omar Khadr legal case, only varying degrees of bad ones—the outcome of years of mismanagement by all political stripes, and a legal case that fell squarely in Khadr’s favour.

Settling was not easy, and the Liberal government did not expect it to be popular. It was the responsible thing to do, nonetheless.
(...)
The civil suit was about the violation of Mr. Khadr’s human rights at Guantanamo Bay. It was not about what people say or think happened in a firefight where a U.S. military medic was killed and another serviceman injured. It was about acts or omissions by the federal government after Omar Khadr was captured and in prison.

And there’s no doubt how the Supreme Court feels about them—the Government of Canada offended “the most basic standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects.” This view has been echoed by civil rights experts and jurists, from Supreme Court judges, to Amnesty International, The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Dean of the Osgoode Hall Law School.

Legal costs to date—taxpayers’ money—had already reached $5 million. Continuing to contest a civil suit would have added millions more—and that’s without the damage claim of $20 million, costs to the applicant or even the possibility of punitive damages—in a case the government had virtually no chance of winning.

We were simply not prepared to gamble taxpayers’ money on a case it had little-to-no prospect of winning. And while no court verdict is ever a sure thing, the facts of this case are not in dispute: They are known, clear and compelling._​
*What 3 legal minds think about the Omar Khadr settlement* (CBC)
_Taking this bitterly contested civil suit to trial would have taken years, cost many tens of thousands of dollars (with the government paying both its and Mr. Khadr's legal fees if Mr. Khadr succeeded), and prevented both Mr. Khadr and the government of Canada from reaching any kind of closure on this painful saga. 

The case demonstrates (again) that law has real limits. It cannot bring back the life of Sgt. Christopher Speer, lost in the attack on the Afghan compound, nor can it bring back the years of Mr. Khadr's youth spent enduring unlawful confinement and unlawful treatment at Guantanamo Bay. Settlements, similarly, are imperfect. No one gets what they want or feel they deserve. Both sides make compromises in the interest of closure and this case is no different. Settlements are not for winners or losers; they are for people willing to move on._​


----------



## Macfury

I would have spent $50 million to prevent that crook for being enriched.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> I would have spent $50 million to prevent that crook for being enriched.


DINGDINGDINGDINGDING! We have a winnah!!!

It's curious how all these Progs are suddenly _so_ concerned about taxpayer money being frittered away...


----------



## eMacMan

Of course when it's all over regardless the outcome Omar will have zilch as will the family in Utah. 

The reason; They are fighting this out in US dollars. Rest assured that Omar's lawyers already put a kid or three through college on the original settlement. Now they will be purchasing a yacht to help defend against this lawsuit. Even if Omar loses there will not be enough left over to compensate that US family for the years they spend fighting this out in court. Should he win Omar will have to work for a living, or given his physical condition, suck at the provincial teat for the rest of his life.

But the lawyers will be smiling all the way to the bank.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Of course when it's all over regardless the outcome Omar will have zilch as will the family in Utah.
> 
> The reason; They are fighting this out in US dollars. Rest assured that Omar's lawyers already put a kid or three through college on the original settlement. Now they will be purchasing a yacht to help defend against this lawsuit. Even if Omar loses there will not be enough left over to compensate that US family for the years they spend fighting this out in court. Should he win Omar will have to work for a living, or given his physical condition, suck at the provincial teat for the rest of his life.
> 
> But the lawyers will be smiling all the way to the bank.


The Utah family would probably consider it a victory to see Khadr's money wasted on lawyers. I would rather see the lawyers get his money than watch him spend it.


----------

