Canada's treatment of Khadr should be

[Machjo]

Should send him to Afgan to serve out the balance of his 40 year sentence. That's where he committed the crime, that's where he should do the time!!

That's another way of looking at it. If we think the Afghan justice system will abide by international law, sure. Otherwise the Hague.

 

[captain morgan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Kahdr legally a minor at the time?

A minor in whose eyes?

15-year-old boy among four Afghans executed for spying

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=175957&version=1&template_id=41&parent_id=23

However, Canada should not be held accountable for anything that some other country does to a Canadian citizen abroad. We are only responsible for him when he's on Canadian soil. Now that he's here, we need to consider his age at the time this was done.

BINGO

Wouldnt a fair trial determine that? Hand him to the Hague for War Crimes and see what they say.

Khadr had a fair trial

The Canadian government failed in its obligation respect the Charter rights of a Canadian detained abroad. In this case... a 15 year old child.

Charter Rights for Canadians are enforceable in Canada... Khadr should have expected to enjoy the rights and freedoms extended by the Afghan gvt - you know, the place where he murdered the medic?

Instead the Canadian government cooperated with Khadr's torturers.

Khadr's torturers? Funny - wasn't Speer rushing to attend to poor wee Omar's injuries at the time when Khadr murdered him?

Should send him to Afgan to serve out the balance of his 40 year sentence. That's where he committed the crime, that's where he should do the time!!

The Khadr apologists will recoil in horror at that highly practical (and fair) suggestion.

 

[Machjo]

I would say though that if the Afghan government can guarantee a fair trial, I'd have no issue with handing him over to Afghan authorities as per Afghan laws at the time the crime was committed, bearing in mind it might even be confusing what the laws were seeing government was down and out. So in that case, probably the Hague in most cases.

 

[captain morgan]

I would say though that if the Afghan government can guarantee a fair trial, I'd have no issue with handing him over to Afghan authorities as per Afghan laws at the time the crime was committed, bearing in mind it might even be confusing what the laws were seeing government was down and out. So in that case, probably the Hague in most cases.

The reality is that Khadr engaged his actions in Afghanistan and should have been subject to their laws/customs, etc..

If it is a fair trial that he is/was all concerned about; he should have thought about that prior to traveling to a foreign nation and killing people

 

[JLM]

The reality is that Khadr engaged his actions in Afghanistan and should have been subject to their laws/customs, etc..

If it is a fair trial that he is/was all concerned about; he should have thought about that prior to traveling to a foreign nation and killing people

I'm not sure if when you are serving in the military in a foreign country if you are totally within the jurisdiction of that country!

 

[Durry]

I'm not sure if when you are serving in the military in a foreign country if you are totally within the jurisdiction of that country!

He was not serving in the military, dumbo!!

 

[JLM]

He was not serving in the military, dumbo!!

Thanks for correcting me in such a diplomatic fashion.........................A$$HOLE! I'll remember to extend you the same courtesy.

 

[captain morgan]

I'm not sure if when you are serving in the military in a foreign country if you are totally within the jurisdiction of that country!

To my knowledge, military personnel are fully subject to the laws of land as well as military justice as meted-out bu their individual nation as well as international law.

On that note, Khadr was not a member of a recognized military. In essence, he was a foreigner that was engaged in (illegal) terrorist activities in the region.

 

[JLM]

To my knowledge, military personnel are fully subject to the laws of land as well as military justice as meted-out bu their individual nation as well as international law.

On that note, Khadr was not a member of a recognized military. In essence, he was a foreigner that was engaged in (illegal) terrorist activities in the region.

I think it's time to get back on the rails and back to basics on this subject. #1. Is it known beyond all reasonable doubt that the soldier killed was shot by Omar? #2. Is it known beyond all reasonable doubt that his testimony wasn't influenced by coercion etc.? #3. Whatever Omar did or didn't do happened when he was 15, 3-4 years shy of being an adult in most jurisdictions. #4. Even if he was convicted of first degree murder as a juvenile, the maximum custodial sentence in Canada would be limited to 7 years. We should be debating this topic on the stated facts, not emotions gleaned by people who weren't even there.

 

[EagleSmack]

Our treatment of Khadr should be better then the Americans.
Cause Canadians have more class.

What's your excuse then?

Obviously the answer eludes you two. Can anyone answer the question "If this was a murder scene, then how come Americans weren't charged with murder?"

Who determined it was a murder scene?

The Canadian government failed in its obligation respect the Charter rights of a Canadian detained abroad. In this case... a 15 year old child.

Canadians should be able to expect that the Canadian government will insist foreign governments treat Canadians humanely in accordance with international law. Canadians should be able to expect that foreign government that torture Canadians will face strong diplomatic action.

Instead the Canadian government cooperated with Khadr's torturers. What's next? Should the Canadian government be able outsource torture of Canadian citizens to foreign governments?

Nobody really knows what happened at GITMO with Khadr. Nobody knoooows.

The Canadian government failed in its obligation respect the Charter rights of a Canadian detained abroad. In this case... a 15 year old child.

He wasn't a child as pointed out. He had attained the age of 15... and he was over the age of 15.

15 years +1 day = over the age of 15 years.

International Law can be so inconvenient at times eh EAO?

 

[captain morgan]

I think it's time to get back on the rails and back to basics on this subject. #1. Is it known beyond all reasonable doubt that the soldier killed was shot by Omar? #2. Is it known beyond all reasonable doubt that his testimony wasn't influenced by coercion etc.? #3. Whatever Omar did or didn't do happened when he was 15, 3-4 years shy of being an adult in most jurisdictions. #4. Even if he was convicted of first degree murder as a juvenile, the maximum custodial sentence in Canada would be limited to 7 years. We should be debating this topic on the stated facts, not emotions gleaned by people who weren't even there.

1. It is known beyond reasonable doubt that Khadr threw the grenade that killed Speer
2. Don't care if someone thinks that his testimony may have been coerced. I for one would not take 'the word' of a terrorist/murderer as having any value whatsoever
3. I posted a link to what happens to 15 y/o spies in Afghanistan, I'd imagine that murderers can expect the same.
4. Canadian law and customs mean squat in Afghanistan. Perhaps Khadr should have planned on killing a Canadian medic in Canada

 

[Machjo]

The reality is that Khadr engaged his actions in Afghanistan and should have been subject to their laws/customs, etc..

If it is a fair trial that he is/was all concerned about; he should have thought about that prior to traveling to a foreign nation and killing people

What I meant was, what if Afghan law declares him a hero fighting for the country? Would you still want to send him there then? In that case, teh Hague might be better, right?

Also, Afghan law could declare the country having been lawless during tht time, so no crime.

 

[captain morgan]

What I meant was, what if Afghan law declares him a hero fighting for the country? Would you still want to send him there then? In that case, teh Hague might be better, right?

Also, Afghan law could declare the country having been lawless during tht time, so no crime.

That's a pretty high-risk 'what if' statement. That said, I (and probably most others) would have no problem if Khadr was to stand trial in Afghanistan and abide by the results.

However, assuming that Khadr was exonerated of any crime in an Afghan court, that would not absolve him from answering to the charges in the US justice system based on the notion that he killed a US citizen... Basically, if Khadr were cleared of all charges in Afghanistan, he would be taking a huge risk in traveling outside that nation to any country that had an extradition agreement with the USA (incl Canada).

 

[pgs]

The Canadian government failed in its obligation respect the Charter rights of a Canadian detained abroad. In this case... a 15 year old child.

Canadians should be able to expect that the Canadian government will insist foreign governments treat Canadians humanely in accordance with international law. Canadians should be able to expect that foreign government that torture Canadians will face strong diplomatic action.

Instead the Canadian government cooperated with Khadr's torturers. What's next? Should the Canadian government be able outsource torture of Canadian citizens to foreign governments?

Children should be seen not heard.They should not be making ied's or throwing grenades.

 

[Machjo]

That's a pretty high-risk 'what if' statement. That said, I (and probably most others) would have no problem if Khadr was to stand trial in Afghanistan and abide by the results.

However, assuming that Khadr was exonerated of any crime in an Afghan court, that would not absolve him from answering to the charges in the US justice system based on the notion that he killed a US citizen... Basically, if Khadr were cleared of all charges in Afghanistan, he would be taking a huge risk in traveling outside that nation to any country that had an extradition agreement with the USA (incl Canada).

Depends. He killed a US citizen in Afghanistan, not the US, just like a Canadian killing a US citizen in Canada.

Honestly, I can't imagine the Afghan courts finding him a hero, but they might conclude that since there was lawlessness at a time, they'd choose not to lay any charges. That said, they could also conclude based on that to either try him based on international laws or hand him over to the Hague, figuing that he shouldn't get away with it just because there was no law in Afghanistan at the time.

 

[JLM]

1. It is known beyond reasonable doubt that Khadr threw the grenade that killed Speer
2. Don't care if someone thinks that his testimony may have been coerced. I for one would not take 'the word' of a terrorist/murderer as having any value whatsoever
3. I posted a link to what happens to 15 y/o spies in Afghanistan, I'd imagine that murderers can expect the same.
4. Canadian law and customs mean squat in Afghanistan. Perhaps Khadr should have planned on killing a Canadian medic in Canada

You have to be a lot more logical to win this one. :lol: Throwing a grenade may or may not equate to murder, if it was his grenade that killed Speer probably manslaughter. Whether or not his testimony is coerced is crucial to a fair trial. He's not being tried in Afghanistan so who really gives a rat's ass what happens to spies there or your expectations? Khadr probably didn't plan on killing a Canadian medic in Canada. (If I was you I wouldn't embark on a career as a prosecutor) :lol::lol::lol:

 

[EagleSmack]

Our treatment of Khadr should be better then the Americans.
Cause Canadians have more class.

Yes so I've heard...


Ham, bacon thrown outside B.C. mosque | Canada | News | Toronto Sun

Is this the class you're talking about?

 

[Machjo]

Yes so I've heard...


Ham, bacon thrown outside B.C. mosque | Canada | News | Toronto Sun

Is this the class you're talking about?

Yup. It reminds me of walking into Octopus book (essentially a socialist book store in Ottawa) store recently, and they were handing out bookmarks with a list of types of books they sold printed on the bookmark. One item on the list was US Imperialism, but not a mention about Canadian imperialism. do I smell a double standard?

 

[captain morgan]

You have to be a lot more logical to win this one. :lol: Throwing a grenade may or may not equate to murder, if it was his grenade that killed Speer probably manslaughter.

Excellent point.... I can see it now - "Your honour, it wasn't my client that killed the store clerk - it was the destructive impact of the bullet that emanated from the gun that he was holding that killed him! I move for an immediate mistrial!"

Whether or not his testimony is coerced is crucial to a fair trial.

... And only honest-Omar can attest to the possibility that he was coerced... I understand that those Al Quaida terrorists are pledged to a vow of honesty so we can feel safe that Omar won't lie.

Whew!... Dodged a bullet on that one, or more appropriately, a grenade

He's not being tried in Afghanistan so who really gives a rat's ass what happens to spies there or your expectations?

Why do you think that extradition laws exist JLM. It's not just for returning people that flee the country

Khadr probably didn't plan on killing a Canadian medic in Canada.

.. But he did plan on killing as many infidels as he could help with in Afghanistan; unless ofcourse you think that the IED's he was making were for special gifts for the lcoals.

(If I was you I wouldn't embark on a career as a prosecutor) :lol::lol:

Thank God that you aren't me

 

[CDNBear]

The Protocol requires States who ratify it to “take all feasible measures” to ensure that members of their armed forces under the age of 18 do not take a direct part in hostilities. States must also raise the minimum age for voluntary recruitment into the armed forces from 15 years but does not require a minimum age of 18. The Protocol does, however, remind States that children under 18 are entitled to special protection and so any voluntary recruitment under the age of 18 must include sufficient safeguards. It further bans compulsory recruitment below the age of 18. States parties must also take legal measures to prohibit independent armed groups from recruiting and using children under the age of 18 in conflicts.

You do realize that is in regards to the use of Soldiers under 18, right?

Omar was neither a Soldier or a child.

I'm not so certain charging soldiers with murder during a battle between armed belligerents sets a wise precedent.

I actually agree with you.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians, including 15 year old Canadian children tortured by the US with the Canadian government's cooperation.

It does, so long as they're on Canadian soil, lol.

This was already proven to you, with your own cut-n-pastes.

[

The Supreme court of Canada determined that the Canadian government violated Khadr's Charter Rights.

Jan. 29, 2010
The Supreme Court of Canada has overturned lower-court orders that the Canadian government must try to return Omar Khadr to Canada from the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay — even though the court agrees his human rights have been violated and continue to be violated by Canadian officials.

Ask yourself why that is.

International Law can be so inconvenient at times eh EAO?

Ain't that the truth, lol.

But it's always funny watching him squirm around when it doesn't workout how he wants it, lol.