[EyeBrock]

Loads of sympathy. Why should we help Khadr?

I'm not an 'armchair patriot'. I got off my arse and joined the military and served for 10 years, seeing combat or ops in several theatres worldwide.

Khadr and his clan are a disgrace but you guys are sticking up for them. I'm not having the 'charter' bollocks on this.

The Khadrs were helped by Chretien and it looks like a few of you on here posting would extend a helping hand to these traitors again.

Your choice, just don't expect the rest of us to pat you on the back for it.

It's another example of what is wrong with Canada.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Of course they are valid. He was a non-uniformed combatant, and he does not receive the same treatment or considerations as an actual, uniformed soldier. Ethical? Just? Maybe, maybe not, but that's the reality of the situation.

So, just to be clear, you are saying that because it is real is valid? As a logical position, I gotta tell you, that one sucks.

You can see why I don't really care about the jihadist terrorism thing as much as the right-wingers do--when they hold the position that it's "valid" to torture children regardless of justice, then I don't really see what all the right's moral outrage is about.

"Oh they kill innocent civilians on purpose." Well we torture kids on purpose. Hard to get excited about either side really.

$1:

So basically you went off topic? Good to hear. Since the Americans aren't "crying" over this specific situation, your observations are moot as of right now. I'm sure you can find a topic or a news article where they are "crying", but this one lacks the criteria.

No I presented ancillary evidence to support my position. I wouldn't think I'd have to explain this to someone as intelligent as you, but appears that I do: when I said "crying" I was not using it in the sense of "shedding tears." If you check the dictionary, you will find several other definitions. Here's one: "to demand resolution or strongly indicate a particular disposition."

OK, if you've got nothing in the bag except smarm and playing silly bugger, you may as well quit now.

$1:

You see him as a kid, I see him as somebody who made a choice to join an organization with the goals of fighting against both Canada, and her allies, which includes the United States. You don't see it as valid, the United States military does.

No, I don't "see" him as a kid. He isn't a kid. He's an adult. However, at the time the was captured and tortured at Gitmo, he was a kid. It's not a matter of perception. It's a matter of indisputable fact.

And I don't support the torture of children, for a number of reasons. As a matter of fact it is a matter of profound regret in my life that I come on to a board populated by Canadians and find myself defending the position against so many other Canadians that you shouldn't torture children. That, more than anything, tells me that my kids are going to grow up in an uglier world than I did.

Nor do I accept that because a child somewhere is tortured, it becomes "valid." I simply don't understand that position at all. Imagine if that was the law--you could just go to court and say "Well you're honour, it's true I tortured all those kids, but since it's true, it's therefore valid. Can I go now please?"

[Zipperfish]

Curtman Curtman:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Pathetic. This is what it comes down to. Kill them and you get court martialed. Capture them and you get crucified.

Torturing them in jail with no charges brought against them is wrong. That is what happened, and we did nothing about it.

Hear Hear.

[andyt]

Khadr should be repatriated. Are we really so much more barbaric than Australia or Britain, who mad sure their citizens were? Why did they receive sentences so quickly, which they were then allowed to serve in their home country, while Khadr languishes? OTOH, I don't know if we can just let him run around loose. I wish there was a legit way to send him back to wherever he came from, and send his mother and sisters with him. It makes me sick that people can move to this country only to spit on it, and we do nothing,

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

So, just to be clear, you are saying that because it is real is valid? As a logical position, I gotta tell you, that one sucks.

You can see why I don't really care about the jihadist terrorism thing as much as the right-wingers do--when they hold the position that it's "valid" to torture children regardless of justice, then I don't really see what all the right's moral outrage is about.

Wait, you attempt to argue from a moral and an amoral standpoint? Nice try. You get outraged at the United States' "torture" and yet you don't care about jihadi terrorism.

How's this? Terrorism exists. Torture exists. Both are unethical actions, and yet they're still valid options to many. You select your outrage over American actions in the War on Terror/Iraq War, and you discount the actions of jihadi terrorists. Others do the opposite. Just as much as you don't see all of the right's moral outrage, I don't understand yours.

$1:

"Oh they kill innocent civilians on purpose." Well we torture kids on purpose. Hard to get excited about either side really.

Since I'm not going to bother explaining the difference between collateral damage and terrorism to you again, I'll just say this. Calling Khadr a child discounts his age and his actions. He's not a little kid. He was 15 when captured, and why was he captured? Because he engaged the Americans in combat, killed a US soldier, and now, for some very strange reason, some Canadians express outrage when they find out he was tortured.

$1:

No I presented ancillary evidence to support my position.

And I see it as nothing more than a distraction to the issue of Khadr's repatriation hearing, and to Khadr's actions. You want to observe America's or neo-conservative hypocrisy over Iraq and Afghanistan, go ahead, but this isn't the topic, as much as you want it to be.

$1:

I wouldn't think I'd have to explain this to someone as intelligent as you, but appears that I do: when I said "crying" I was not using it in the sense of "shedding tears." If you check the dictionary, you will find several other definitions. Here's one: "to demand resolution or strongly indicate a particular disposition."

And that's how I took it. The problem is...the Americans are not demanding action over Khadr. They already TOOK action over Khadr. Canadians are crying over him.

$1:

No, I don't "see" him as a kid. He isn't a kid. He's an adult. However, at the time the was captured and tortured at Gitmo, he was a kid. It's not a matter of perception. It's a matter of indisputable fact.

He was 15. If you make a choice to take another life, as Khadr did, he's not a child. Everything is a matter of perception. The world isn't black and white.

$1:

And I don't support the torture of children, for a number of reasons. As a matter of fact it is a matter of profound regret in my life that I come on to a board populated by Canadians and find myself defending the position against so many other Canadians that you shouldn't torture children. That, more than anything, tells me that my kids are going to grow up in an uglier world than I did.

Nor do I accept that because a child somewhere is tortured, it becomes "valid." I simply don't understand that position at all. Imagine if that was the law--you could just go to court and say "Well you're honour, it's true I tortured all those kids, but since it's true, it's therefore valid. Can I go now please?"

Interesting strawman you're setting up and knocking over. All I said is that people can have that position, not that it's the ethical or morally correct decision. If you want me to cut my smarm, you should start as well.

[Freakinoldguy]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

The bottom line is that regardless of whether we think this guy is deserving of Canadian citizenship or whether the issue deserves Canadian involvement, the ball has been thrown in our court.

Given this fact, we must use the Charter to guide our actions. The court stopped short of demanding repatriation but walked a fine line when it noted that the current situation violates the Charter.

The guy was 15 when he supposedly "murdered" a US soldier in combat. There are questions involving whether it can be called murder when you kill an armed attacker in war, and there is alot of evidence that khadr didnt even throw the grenade in question.

These questions aside, it is interesting that a Canadian officer is now being court-martialed -much to the chagrin of the right-wing- for executing an unarmed and severly wounded Taliban. Hypocricy and double standards abound.

The point I was trying to get across was, other than the fact we're neighbors, why should the US listen to us when dealing with Canadian Citizens who committed crimes against Americans, just because we cite our charter.

I'm pretty sure there'd be a giant hue and cry from the same people defending Khadr if the US decided that Canada should employ the Second Ammendment when detaining American citizens entering Canada with illegal firearms, just because it's ensconsed in their Constitution.


In essence that's what we're doing by demanding that Khadr be given his Rights as accorded to him by the Canadian Charter .

[Scape]

Curtman Curtman:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Pathetic. This is what it comes down to. Kill them and you get court martialed. Capture them and you get crucified.

Torturing them in jail with no charges brought against them is wrong. That is what happened, and we did nothing about it.

Bingo.

I must ask for the 'Klan Kadr' haters out there, what is the purpose of a trial? Not only is it to determine guilt and/or exonerate the innocent but it is to ensure that no one party is the judge, jury and executioner. That much concentration of power has time and time again been shown to be unfeasible because it is prone to corruption. What happened if Kadr was innocent and this entire process was a sham and they did this only to get an angle on the family? Not entirely beyond the realm of possibility is it? What failsafe do we really have to ensure that such witch hunts do not become the standard operational procedures for the state toward any party that is deemed a threat?

If my Canada thinks it is ok to torture and detain without charge children then what check on power does it really have? Should we round up the 'known' associates of terrorist or people who are at least sympathetic to their position as well just to be safe? I'm sorry, this is just McCarthyism all over again, we just replaced communist with terrorist.

[herbie]

What do the Yanks have to do, put the kid on a fucking plane and land him in Ottawa?
They don't want him - they're trying to extract themselves from this Gitmo mess.
Take the kid back. Give him the choice of life here under a magnifying glass forever or a ticket to whatever shithole will take him.
He's already served more time than if he'd been convicted of premeditated murder at 15 and got tortured in the process.
Shit and get off the pot! There's other stuff to deal with.

[putz]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Well, there are questions as to whether a 15-year old son of a terrorist who was rushed off to a terrorist compound in a foreign country really had freedom to particpate in the actions or not.

Then there are questions about whether Omar khadr acutally threw the grenade. Its a suspicious coincedence that he was the only survivor of the battle.

Furthermore, since when is fighting in combat the equivalent of murder? How is it that we can charge somebody who kills one of our troops IN COMBAT with murder, meanwhile, when one of our guys allegedly executes an unarmed wounded combatant its "outrageous?"

The reason that people use to justify this is that "we're the good guys" and "theyr'e bad guys". As we all know, "good guys" can do anything they like and dont have to obey any laws or rules because they're on the side of "good". Meanwhile "bad guys" don't deserve any fair standard of treatment. The problem is that almost everyone in history who's ever fought for anything has thought they were "good guys" and their enemies are "bad guys" therefore exempt from the rules.

The only way to end battle-field executions, torture, etc is to agree that NOBODY ANYWHERE EVER should engage in this activity.

Also, I think its a mistake for all the arm-chair patriots out there to frame this debate in terms of what "the enemy" deserves. Rather, we should ask, what behaviour is worthy of us? Are we torturers and murderers or are we not?

If you were on a jury of someone accused of torturing and murdering another person, does it really matter whether the victim was a good person or a bad person? Torture and murder is torture a murder, period.

I stand by the fact, if one of our guys executed that taliban then he needs to be punished. I've mentioned that many times on this site before. Coincidence that he survived? Not really do some research, read the reports, he was barley alive when they found him.

[ShepherdsDog]

I can't believe that everyone is still blathering about how his charter rights are being violated. I pointed it out last time this issue was raised and I'll point it out again. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is only valid within Canada. You are subject to the laws of the country you're being detained in, not Canadian ones.

The little shit killed an American medic in an area that was under American control, sanctioned by the United Nations. It's up to American defence lawyers to see his rights under THEIR constitution are upheld.

Seeing the pathetic way Canadian courts dealt with the Toronto 18, I don't think they'll be handing him over anytime soon. The bitch that birthed him, and the bitch that is his sister would have him back into radical Islam/terrorism as soon as they got their talons into him.

[Scape]

In February 2008, the Pentagon accidentally released documents that revealed that although Khadr was present in the house, there was no other evidence that he had thrown the grenade. In fact, military officials had originally reported that another of the surviving militants had thrown the grenade just before being killed, and later rewrote their report to implicate Khadr instead.

http://www.thestar.com/article/345838

The Canadian government had spent over $1.3 million to make sure Khadr remained in Guantanamo.

http://www.thestar.com/specialsections/article/718051

So, they have detained without trial and tortured him and we have paid to keep him there. His rights to see who his accusers are is moot but the supreme court has not demanded his return as they have no authority to do so. The only one that can do that has paid to keep him there making a mockery of both our and US justice.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Wait, you attempt to argue from a moral and an amoral standpoint? Nice try. You get outraged at the United States' "torture" and yet you don't care about jihadi terrorism.

I'm saying the moral standpoint of the right-wing is hard to accept given that they support the right of the state to arbitrarily torture children. They have an internally inconsistent moral outlook.

$1:

How's this? Terrorism exists. Torture exists. Both are unethical actions, and yet they're still valid options to many. You select your outrage over American actions in the War on Terror/Iraq War, and you discount the actions of jihadi terrorists. Others do the opposite. Just as much as you don't see all of the right's moral outrage, I don't understand yours.

No I don't discount the actions of the Islamists. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan (though not its occupation). That seemed a logical course of action following 9/11. The Iraq adventure and the torturing kids thing did not seem to me to be a justifiable or desirable courses of action.

$1:

"

Since I'm not going to bother explaining the difference between collateral damage and terrorism to you again,

You don't have to explain the difference to me. I already know.

You should consider that perhaps the disagreement lies elsewhere besides the definition of collateral damage.

$1:

I'll just say this. Calling Khadr a child discounts his age and his actions. He's not a little kid. He was 15 when captured, and why was he captured? Because he engaged the Americans in combat, killed a US soldier, and now, for some very strange reason, some Canadians express outrage when they find out he was tortured.

Strange reason? I don't think it's strange to be against torturing kids. On the contrary, I think it's strange that anyone would argue that it's OK to torture kids. Actually, I don't think it's strange, I think it's sad.

$1:

He was 15. If you make a choice to take another life, as Khadr did, he's not a child. Everything is a matter of perception. The world isn't black and white.

He was a child at the time of his capture. The world may not be black and white but yhat , most assuredly, is black and white.

$1:

Interesting strawman you're setting up and knocking over. All I said is that people can have that position, not that it's the ethical or morally correct decision. If you want me to cut my smarm, you should start as well.

No that's not what you said at all. You said the position was valid, because the act had already taken place. Go back and read it again.

Ethics and morals are a moveable feast, of course. But there is more than ethics and morals to it. Freedom for instance: I don't think a free state should have the prerogative to ignore its own laws, nor do I think they should be granted the power to detain and torture children. I also see allowing torture of children as ultimately being illogical--children probably aren't going to know that much, and you're giving your enemy extra incentive when you start torturing their children.

Sure you'll have all the angry people on your side--like some of the folks here who just want to torture because they're pissed off. But torturing people just because you're pissed off, in my opinion, will ultimately have a serious destabilizing effect on a civil, free society.

[Zipperfish]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

I can't believe that everyone is still blathering about how his charter rights are being violated. I pointed it out last time this issue was raised and I'll point it out again. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is only valid within Canada. You are subject to the laws of the country you're being detained in, ...

What Afghanistan? Cuba?

$1:

The little shit killed an American medic in an area that was under American control, sanctioned by the United Nations. It's up to American defence lawyers to see his rights under THEIR constitution are upheld.

Allegedly killed. And yes, that would be nice, if the Americans did that. Not holding my breath, though.

[gonavy47]

If he never returns to Canada, I'll be happy. Wasted enough time and taxpayers' money on the traitor. Let him rot, like the medic he killed.

[Scape]

Free Hoder

Some interesting parallels there.