[andyt]

RUEZ RUEZ:

andyt andyt:

Now if Brock would be just as reasonable in affording the G20 protesters their rights.

They have the right to remain silent.

Eggs Ackley what I'm afraid of.

[SprCForr]

So what happens if the government does nothing? What are the SC's options?

[andyt]

SprCForr SprCForr:

So what happens if the government does nothing? What are the SC's options?

My (ignorant) guess is that the govt would be in contempt of court, and it's representatives could be put in jail.

[Thanos]

And the rest of us get the wonderful certainty, thanks to our courts, that the bad guys get to win yet again. And after he comes home his wonderful family gets to file a $30 million lawsuit against the government for not protecting his rights to act like a murderous asshole in a foreign land. And after they win, which they assuredly will because these types of motherfuckers ALWAYS get to win, a good chunk of that money (which they clearly won't have to ever account for because, remember, the Khadrs are the real 'victims' in all of this) gets sent to Afghanistan or Iraq to help blow up some Canadian or other Western troops. Think of it: Canadian taxpayer money will be used to buy some Khadr-brand battery acid that gets thrown in the face of Afghan school girls! Yay! How's that for a warm wonderful feeling for Canadians everywhere?

I was actually feeling fairly positive about Canada in general the past few months, thanks to the Olympic performance, Canada Day, and the fact that we're not tearing our own country apart the way the Americans are to theirs. Now, thanks to one really bad court decision, that positive vibe had pretty much disappeared altogether for me. Why do we even bother with any of this legal/justice system nonsense anymore anyway? The whole point of the radical liberalization of it was to create a state, both in thought and in physical reality, where the worst among us are guaranteed to get away with anything that theywant to do. This has more or less been successfully accomplished and quite probably won't ever be turned back. If there's no prohibition, and in fact endless sympathy and eventual financial reward, to becoming a willing member of the most murderous religious terrorist organization in (probably) all of human history, then what's the fucking point of anything anymore?

[Bodah]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I agree with Zip on this.

Treating Khadr any worse than any other Canadian (despite my personal feelings of abhorrence towards the whole clan) just brings the administration of justice into disrepute.

It gives the left-wing activists ammunition, creates a martyr out of an undesirable, feeds the far-right activists and is generally a bad thing.

The level of support to any Canadian, (and this piece of shit is a Canadian) should not be reliant on how much we like him/her or their cause.
The fact that he is a plastic-Canadian, who sees his citizenship as merely a passport of convenience is immaterial.

The immigration of undesirables to Canada is a separate debate. Khadr is a citizen and he should be afforded the rights and protection that entails, despite who he is and what he stands for.

Alright then lets get on with it then, bring him back put him some sort of a joke of a trial where he's no doubt going to walk free because they didn't cordon off the "crime" scene and call in the RCMP or some other bs reason. Then he's going to sue us for millions and government is going to pay, I'm going to fill his pockets, you're going to fill his pockets. He's going to have more money than any of us has ever seen in our life time.

To me that's no different than Saddam Hussein's policy of paying out 10k to family members of successful suicide bombers.

At least the Americans throw their traitors in jail in this country we're going to give him millions, fanfuckingtastic idea. When that happens this country is officially a pathetic joke to me.

[kenmore]

I don't consider him or his fucking family Canadian.. they all should be deported or beheaded.. which ever comes first!

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Funny, Khadr has been incarcerated since 2002. Hell, he wasn't even formally charged until 2005!! Where were your precious, liberty loving Liberals then?? Didn't exactly see a whole lot of effort on their part to bring him back to Canada either. What's even funnier is, as soon as Harper got in power, the Liberals suddenly decided getting Khadr back to Canada was important. So the Liberals set the precedent but somehow, it's all the Conservatives' fault. Interesting

Sheer partisan fucking hackery. "Oh the Liberals did it too." Don't you ever get tired of that line? I'm not a Liberal so your feint and dodge tactics are wasted. I just have a general rule that giving a government the power to arbitrarily and indefinitely detain and torture is inimical to the general interests of liberty.

Right and both parties have been responsible for that breech. It's not ONLY the ultra-conservative weenies that you blamed in your original post. Talk about partisan hackery. I'm not a Conservative NOR a Liberal btw. I just get sick and tired of all the opposition's bullshit rhetoric on this subject when THEY had 3 years before Khadr was even formally charged to do something..anything! With not one but two, count 'em TWO PM's that had the opportunity to do something. The fact you refer to what I said as a feint and dodge shows you either can't see glaring hypocricy or you're a closet Liberal.
Seriously Zip, please explain to me the opposition's sudden interest in Khadr's liberty and repatriation now that they're no longer in charge of the very same situation.
One other thing, you didn't get get close to the mark with your "Oh the Liberals did it too" shot. Why the vilification of the right when the left is JUST as complicit?
CAll me a hack all you want, but at least I'm an equal opportunity hack

[Freakinoldguy]

SprCForr SprCForr:

So what happens if the government does nothing? What are the SC's options?

If I got the flow chart right I believe it goes from the Federal Court of Canada to the Federal Court of Appeals and then if the case is still in dispute it goes to the Supreme Court of Canada.

So, knowing how slow the government works when it doesn't want to do something, I can't help but get the feeling that sweet little Omar may be eligable for CPP and OAP before he gets back to Canada.

[ASLplease]

Kahdr? Kahdr? Who the hell is Kahdr?

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Right and both parties have been responsible for that breech. It's not ONLY the ultra-conservative weenies that you blamed in your original post. Talk about partisan hackery. I'm not a Conservative NOR a Liberal btw. I just get sick and tired of all the opposition's bullshit rhetoric on this subject when THEY had 3 years before Khadr was even formally charged to do something..anything! With not one but two, count 'em TWO PM's that had the opportunity to do something. The fact you refer to what I said as a feint and dodge shows you either can't see glaring hypocricy or you're a closet Liberal.
Seriously Zip, please explain to me the opposition's sudden interest in Khadr's liberty and repatriation now that they're no longer in charge of the very same situation.
One other thing, you didn't get get close to the mark with your "Oh the Liberals did it too" shot. Why the vilification of the right when the left is JUST as complicit?
CAll me a hack all you want, but at least I'm an equal opportunity hack

I don't give a fuck about the opposition's position one way or the other. The day I watched the whole tawdry Abu Ghraib thing unfold, I thought I didn't want nothing to do with that fucking country anymore--the US, I mean. And I still don't. Abu Gharib had nothing to do with extracting information. It was a little sadist perv-fest for F.A.S. Deliverance losers. If that''s how they intend to run things, then I don't want the US having control over any Canadian citizen. That's what this is about for me.

And I retract my statement and apologize--you've never been a partisan hack.

[ASLplease]

hmmmm

[commanderkai]

Khadr was captured in Afghanistan, after attacking and killing a US medic with a grenade attack during a war. Considering Canada was allied with the United States in this conflict, this would make Khadr, in my limited legal opinion, one of three basic things (or a combination thereof):

1) Khadr has committed high treason against the Canadian government, and should be prosecuted for said treason.

2) Khadr is a Prisoner of War.

3) Khadr is in legal limbo in which no current written law has any true recourse for the situation.

So, point 1. Khadr, in my personal opinion, and from my limited understanding of the law, states that Khadr is a traitor to the Canadian government, and we as a people should punish traitors who overtly assist the enemies of Canada and her allies in an active conflict. I'd more than welcome a criminal case against Khadr...except...

Khadr committed his treason in Afghanistan during an open conflict, Now, I'm not a soldier either, but I don't think preserving engagement sites, collecting evidence, interviewing captured Taliban members is exactly high on a soldier's priority list in a war. Ever. This is a war. Soldiers are not trained to preserve battleground scenes or attempt to collect and categorize evidence. And the specialized teams within the military who CAN do that probably would not arrive at said battleground until long after most of the evidence is destroyed or misplaced during the wears and tears of a war.

As such, Khadr would be released in any criminal court for lack of evidence against him. And this isn't exactly going to convince the Americans to turn Khadr over. A military court can certainly attempt to prosecute Khadr...except it was an American soldier who was killed in Afghanistan.

Point 2. Unless the Taliban were different in 2002, they had no uniforms. However, since they were the combat forces of Afghanistan, some might argue that the Taliban, and those working for the Taliban might still qualify for P.O.W. status. I disagree with this because, even without combat uniforms, the Taliban continuously use non-symmetrical tactics in their engagements. If Khadr is a P.O.W., the Americans would be unlikely to release even more captured/detained individuals, considering the track record of released prisoners from Gitmo handed back towards governments that had "integration" programs (commonly went back into Afghanistan, where they were killed by Coalition forces engaging Taliban forces). Considering the rabidly anti-Canadian statements and attitudes of the rest of the Khadr family, and the questionable to non-existent plans of the government to assist to re-Canadianize Khadr, why would the Americans in their right minds hand over Khadr?


Plus, what does the Canadian Forces do with our captured Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan? We hand them over to the Afghan government, instead of establishing our own "P.O.W" camps.

Point 3, and what I believe, is that Khadr, and basically all other captured AQ and Taliban members are in legal limbo, due to the various laws on the treatment of P.O.W.s being written where non-uniformed combatants would not be the norm in Western military engagements. The Geneva Convention only addresses the treatment of captured, uniformed soldiers of a state, and treating the civilian populations of captured territories and occupied states. The Geneva Conventions does not grant any protections to non-uniformed combatants that are not aligned with an existing state.

The Americans have attempted to adapt by stating captured AQ/Taliban members are enemy combatants, and its own court system is wrangling with what to do with said captured members of said organizations. And, outside of our courts telling our Prime Minister to do more to "remedy" the breaches of Khadr's rights, I really haven't seen our courts having any great answers either.

Closing Gitmo, or bitching about ending whatever torture is still happening, or anything resembling this doesn't actually SOLVE anything. Why else is Gitmo still open? Rhetoric isn't going to solve a damn thing over this issues. And certainly transferring detainees to another prison facility anywhere won't really solve them either. Khadr, and a large number of those other combatants are staying in that state of limbo until we as a society figure out a solution on how to deal with Khadr, or, barring that, the Americans, as a society, figuring out a solution.

Nobody right now, be it on the left or the right, or if they're politicians, judges, lawyers, soldiers, or the common citizen has the right answer for how we should deal with captured enemy combatants. Anybody who says otherwise is a liar.

[ShepherdsDog]

The rotten little shit was captured in an area controlled by the US, under UN sanction. He committed a crime against a US citizen and is being held in an American detention center. Their laws take precedence, not ours. Our constitutional rights under the Charter only apply within Canada. Unless they decide to release him into Canadian custody there is SFA anyone can do, and anyone who thinks differently has their cranium firmly lodged next to their colon.

If someone in Canada has issues, they should take it up with American lawyers, not the Canadian government.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Khadr was captured in Afghanistan, after allegedly attacking and killing a US medic with a grenade attack during a war. Considering Canada was allied with the United States in this conflict, this would make Khadr, in my limited legal opinion, one of three basic things (or a combination thereof):

Fixed that for you.

$1:

1) Khadr has allegedly committed high treason against the Canadian government, and should be prosecuted for said treason.

2) Khadr is a Prisoner of War.

3) Khadr is in legal limbo in which no current written law has any true recourse for the situation.

Fixed that too.

$1:

So, point 1. Khadr, in my personal opinion, and from my limited understanding of the law, states that Khadr is a traitor to the Canadian government, and we as a people should punish traitors who overtly assist the enemies of Canada and her allies in an active conflict. I'd more than welcome a criminal case against Khadr...except...

Khadr committed his treason in Afghanistan during an open conflict, Now, I'm not a soldier either, but I don't think preserving engagement sites, collecting evidence, interviewing captured Taliban members is exactly high on a soldier's priority list in a war. Ever. This is a war. Soldiers are not trained to preserve battleground scenes or attempt to collect and categorize evidence. And the specialized teams within the military who CAN do that probably would not arrive at said battleground until long after most of the evidence is destroyed or misplaced during the wears and tears of a war.

As such, Khadr would be released in any criminal court for lack of evidence against him. And this isn't exactly going to convince the Americans to turn Khadr over. A military court can certainly attempt to prosecute Khadr...except it was an American soldier who was killed in Afghanistan.

...


Point 3, and what I believe, is that Khadr, and basically all other captured AQ and Taliban members are in legal limbo, due to the various laws on the treatment of P.O.W.s being written where non-uniformed combatants would not be the norm in Western military engagements. The Geneva Convention only addresses the treatment of captured, uniformed soldiers of a state, and treating the civilian populations of captured territories and occupied states. The Geneva Conventions does not grant any protections to non-uniformed combatants that are not aligned with an existing state.

You're applying a double standard here. On the one hand you make all these legal assertions about various criminal code crimes he is guilty of, and then with the other, you imply that the normal principles of fundamental justice should not apply.

As for the legal limbo argument, I would argue that human rights always apply. Regardless. I don't think "Gee, he's in a legal limbo, let's stick a cattle prod up the kid's ass" is an appropriate response.

$1:

Closing Gitmo, or bitching about ending whatever torture is still happening, or anything resembling this doesn't actually SOLVE anything. Why else is Gitmo still open?

Sure it would. It would go some ways to end one of the most brutal injustices in Amercian history. Despite any legalese finagling, you can't just pick people up arbitrarily, torture them and detain them indefinitely without charge. Well you can, but you can't then go on to claim that you are some kind of just society.

This was eminently forseeable. When you go to war, unless your policy is summary execution of everyone, you are going to end up with prisoners.

$1:

Nobody right now, be it on the left or the right, or if they're politicians, judges, lawyers, soldiers, or the common citizen has the right answer for how we should deal with captured enemy combatants. Anybody who says otherwise is a liar.

I don't claim to know the right answers, but I think when you agree, as a civil society, that you shouldn't torture kids, you're on the right track.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Khadr was captured in Afghanistan, after allegedly attacking and killing a US medic with a grenade attack during a war. Considering Canada was allied with the United States in this conflict, this would make Khadr, in my limited legal opinion, one of three basic things (or a combination thereof):

Fixed that for you.

$1:

1) Khadr has allegedly committed high treason against the Canadian government, and should be prosecuted for said treason.

2) Khadr is a Prisoner of War.

3) Khadr is in legal limbo in which no current written law has any true recourse for the situation.

Fixed that too.

Interesting. Only you can make assumptions about Khadr and not others? I was discussing hypothetical views on how people can see Khadr, ranging from a traitor, to a P.O.W., to my held belief that he's in legal limbo.

So really, you haven't fixed anything at all.

$1:

You're applying a double standard here. On the one hand you make all these legal assertions about various criminal code crimes he is guilty of, and then with the other, you imply that the normal principles of fundamental justice should not apply.

Because war isn't a criminal case. Pretty simple really. If Khadr was captured in Canada attempting to wage war against Canada, it'd be a pretty clear cut case that he's a traitor to Canada and would be prosecuted for such. But, being arrested by police forces gives the criminal justice system the benefit of police forces trained to catalog and process evidence. Military forces lack said investigative abilities and tools normally, due to the ever changing battlefield.

That's why I was asserting potential views on how people might see Khadr, not what I truly believe (because I certainly don't see Khadr as a P.O.W., like some argue Khadr should be, along with other detained individuals.)

$1:

As for the legal limbo argument, I would argue that human rights always apply. Regardless. I don't think "Gee, he's in a legal limbo, let's stick a cattle prod up the kid's ass" is an appropriate response.

You can argue whatever you like. Here's the thing, your argument is no more or less valid than any other argument in dealing with individuals like Khadr. Once again, absolutely no written law exists that currently deals with the unique position of non-uniformed combatants. Until said law exists, the reality is that the Americans can do what they please.

$1:

Sure it would. It would go some ways to end one of the most brutal injustices in Amercian history. Despite any legalese finagling, you can't just pick people up arbitrarily, torture them and detain them indefinitely without charge. Well you can, but you can't then go on to claim that you are some kind of just society.

Of course they can, because no law says they can't. What the Americans claim or not claim is something you could take up with the American government. Once again, closing Gitmo doesn't create new law about the treatment of captured non-uniformed combatants operating without the direct interests of another state.

$1:

This was eminently forseeable. When you go to war, unless your policy is summary execution of everyone, you are going to end up with prisoners.

And they had a policy. Send them to Gitmo, and use whatever tools at their disposal to get whatever intelligence they can. You just don't like said policy. Which is fine, except your likes and dislikes aren't law.

$1:

I don't claim to know the right answers, but I think when you agree, as a civil society, that you shouldn't torture kids, you're on the right track.

See, once again the "Please Think of the Children" bullshit comes up with you. So, if Khadr was 19 when he was captured, you'd be more than happy with pulling his toenails and using a blowtorch against his eyeball? Probably not, but as a just society, we're more than happy to wait until he's 18 to torture him half to death, right?