Well, he's demonstrated for two years he can behave, so do you really want to send him back now?
Khadr to get 10.5 million payment for treason.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Well, he's demonstrated for two years he can behave, so do you really want to send him back now?
Most dogs will heel if there's a treat involved. 10.5 mil is a pretty big treat.
Maybe we should just pay off all terrorists, seems to be pretty effective at controlling the problem, and we could feel good knowing we are giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe we should just pay off all terrorists, seems to be pretty effective at controlling the problem, and we could feel good knowing we are giving them the benefit of the doubt.
House arrest and possbily an ankle bracelet to track his movements.
Not exactly the acid test for being fully rehabilitated
Gotta wonder how much of that cash makes it's way back into weapons
Well...that explains the skids of money which disappeared in Iraq.
How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish
Special flights brought in tonnes of banknotes which disappeared into the war zone
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1
Do you really think there are facts in the Beaverton?
But he has rights. The general public doesn't have any rights until after they have become victims.
Does our charter actually stipulate that we are obliged to protect a citizen that is convicted as an enemy of a nato partner thus our enemy.
does it not?
READ:
Section 2 of the Bill of Rights reads as follows:
2. Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to
(a) authorize or effect the arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of any person;
(b)impose or authorize the imposition of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment;
(c) deprive a person who has been arrested or detained
(i) of the right to be informed promptly of the reason for his arrest or detention,
(ii) of the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, or
(iii) of the remedy by way of habeas corpus for the determination of the validity of his detention and for his release if the detention is not lawful;
(d) authorize a court, tribunal, commission, board or other authority to compel a person to give evidence if he is denied counsel, protection against self crimination or other constitutional safeguards;
(e) deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations;
(f) deprive a person charged with a criminal offence of the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, or of the right to reasonable bail without just cause; or
(g) deprive a person of the right to the assistance of an interpreter in any proceedings in which he is involved or in which he is a party or a witness, before a court, commission, board or other tribunal, if he does not understand or speak the language in which such proceedings are conducted.
The notwithstanding wording of section 2 is a precursor to the notwithstanding clause of the Charter.
While the Bill of Rights is considered only quasi-constitutional because it was enacted as an ordinary Act of the Parliament of Canada, it contains a unique provision that is often forgotten by many[according to whom?] who dismiss the importance of the document.[citation needed] This section reads as follows:
3. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Minister of Justice shall, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council, examine every regulation transmitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council for registration pursuant to the Statutory Instruments Act and every Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this Part and he shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity.
(2) A regulation need not be examined in accordance with subsection (1) if prior to being made it was examined as a proposed regulation in accordance with section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act to ensure that it was not inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this Part.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Bill_of_Rights
Maybe we should waterboard all Canadians till they have the above, our own laws, memorized.
READ:
Section 2 of the Bill of Rights reads as follows:
2. Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to
(a) authorize or effect the arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of any person;
(b)impose or authorize the imposition of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment;
(c) deprive a person who has been arrested or detained
(i) of the right to be informed promptly of the reason for his arrest or detention,
(ii) of the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, or
(iii) of the remedy by way of habeas corpus for the determination of the validity of his detention and for his release if the detention is not lawful;
(d) authorize a court, tribunal, commission, board or other authority to compel a person to give evidence if he is denied counsel, protection against self crimination or other constitutional safeguards;
(e) deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations;
(f) deprive a person charged with a criminal offence of the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, or of the right to reasonable bail without just cause; or
(g) deprive a person of the right to the assistance of an interpreter in any proceedings in which he is involved or in which he is a party or a witness, before a court, commission, board or other tribunal, if he does not understand or speak the language in which such proceedings are conducted.
The notwithstanding wording of section 2 is a precursor to the notwithstanding clause of the Charter.
While the Bill of Rights is considered only quasi-constitutional because it was enacted as an ordinary Act of the Parliament of Canada, it contains a unique provision that is often forgotten by many[according to whom?] who dismiss the importance of the document.[citation needed] This section reads as follows:
3. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Minister of Justice shall, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council, examine every regulation transmitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council for registration pursuant to the Statutory Instruments Act and every Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this Part and he shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity.
(2) A regulation need not be examined in accordance with subsection (1) if prior to being made it was examined as a proposed regulation in accordance with section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act to ensure that it was not inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this Part.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Bill_of_Rights
Maybe we should waterboard all Canadians till they have the above, our own laws, memorized.
Last edited:
There obviously exists at the federal level some flexibilty in this statute, it's ok to sacrifice canadian life if ransom is demanded. Funding terrorism is a stop sign according to our criminal code yet rewarding a terrorist clan with millions of $$ is hunky-dory under our charter.
Depends. The Taliban or sane Afghans?
You're assuming of course that he is a terrorist.
He was just a cook for al qaeda and never left the kitchen?
LOL
Do we believe in law enforcement or not, for me law as imperfect as it is remains head and shoulders above the alternative. Eezy to cherry pick cases we disagree with and this is a case in point for some but not for me. Gitmo is an american affront to humanity not ours and we did not place him there...terrorist activity did.
Do we believe in law enforcement or not, for me law as imperfect as it is remains head and shoulders above the alternative. Eezy to cherry pick cases we disagree with and this is a case in point for some but not for me. Gitmo is an american affront to humanity not ours and we did not place him there...terrorist activity did.
You're assuming of course that he is a terrorist.
Ya pays yer monies and ya takes yer chances
Bundt cakes just don't bake themselves
But he didn't mean to be a terrorist, it was all about getting girls to like him for more than just bundt cakes.
What do you think he's building in that pic above?? It ain't no erector set. I seem to recall a video floating around showing him placing those widow makers along a road as well. I wonder how many other people he killed before he was stopped that we don't know about?You might be right but on the other hand you might be wrong.