Uofc graduate. You have some good points. some things to remember. Putting rules on war is a contradiction in itslef. Actually in reality, the ends does justify the means and we "skirt the law" to win. That is what the US is doing. It becomes even tougher when your enemy recognizes no laws or rules and will do anything to win. Like using your own rules to get you free to kill again. All of your points are arguements, that have two mirky sides to them. there is no black and white. rather than look at the letter of the law, you must alos look at the heart or purpose of the laws too.
These laws are designed to keep everyone safe. By going by the letter of the law you may release a trained and willing killer back into society to break those laws once again. By skirting the laws and interpreting them in their favour they keep him out of harms way for everyone, including himself. Never heard his lawyer pleading this kid has been trained as a killer, how about sending him somewhere to get trained as something else and when he is deamed safe to be released, he is. Not relaes him because you can't prove it and you shouldn't have to because he was an innocent minor. Would you like to tell his next vicims family face to face that there child died to protect their murderers rights and it could have been prevented.
wayne, 2008-07-21 11:53:32
UofC Grad:
What, are you a political science grad or something?
The question is right there at the top, was Omar Khadr treated fairly in prison?
I say no, he was treated much better than he deserves.
That is not fair.
uplink, 2008-07-21 11:50:05
Marnie,democracy has its faults I guess but it is still the best system we have,bar none!!!!!!
Brigand, 2008-07-21 09:52:04
Just read today that all those lawyers fighting to get him back here for a "FAIR" trial admit there is little if anything they could charge him with and he would probably be freed immediately.
Then you have a mad, thoroughly trained terrorist adult set free in Canada. If he doesn't kill here, he will probably be given his passport allowing him to go back and kill there again until he is ultimately killed. So they are signing other peoples death warrants and his own. Great logic? Great system we have.
wayne, 2008-07-21 08:39:19
At times it can be painful to read blogs like this. It seems no matter the topic people cannot stay on point and discussions quickly disintegrate into the Fiberals did this, praise Mr. Harper for standing up for Canada. Great discussion for a political debate – but the question is about the treatment of Khadr and by extension the role, if any, Canada should have in bringing him out of Guantanamo Bay. I do not think there is much question about his guilt in the overall incident – whether he threw the grenade as alleged is beside the fact – he was found fighting against coalition troops in Afghanistan. The big question is what is the “crime” everyone is arguing. Is fighting in a war a crime? Some would argue yes.
I think the people who flew planes into buildings and killed more than 3000 innocent people were clearly guilty of murder. That was a situation of people taking innocent civilian lives. Similarly the terrorists who blow themselves up in crowded markets are murderers. In this situation we are talking about a militant who is accused of killing an enemy (who happens to be American) who was storming a position held by the militants. If killing an enemy on a clearly defined battlefield is a criminal offence then the prison cells beside Khadr should be holding the American troops responsible for killing the other militants with Khadr (conflicting reports list 5-7 militants were killed in the firefight that led to the capture of Khadr). If the coalition troops are justified in killing on a battlefield then logically their enemy should be equally justified. This raises the real crux of the discussion – are the militants a recognized enemy or are they as the US have defined the situation illegal enemy combatants.
This is the real question. If they are a recognized enemy they must be treated as prisoners of war (POW) and must be afforded the protection of the Geneva Conventions. This protects them from a great deal of treatment that they received at Guantanamo Bay and allows for their eventual release once the “war” is over. If they are illegal enemy combatants they are not protected buy the conventions and are subject to mistreatment (I avoid the use of the word torture). If anyone believes that Khadr who was 15 at the time of capture, and now after 6 years in prison has any useful information that can be “extracted” you are fooling yourselves. I do not understand how any coalition troops must be treated as recognized POWs whereas their enemy is not. It is a clear dual standard.
There is a reason these prisoners are being held in Cuba. They are not subject to US laws, or lawmakers for that matter. In the most basic argument, a facility such as Guantanamo Bay simply is not legally allowed to exist on US soil. It is a place of legal limo where rules and laws are made at the discretion of the military and the Executive branch of the US government. Each and every independent, international organization that has observed operations at Guantanamo have agreed it violates basic human rights.
The question is not whether Khadr is Canadian, or whether he is guilty. It is whether he should be treated as a human (something we recognize the other side does not do but is part of the reason coalition troops are over there – make the place better) and whether Canada should stand silent when we know human rights are being violated anywhere in the world – even if it is in US jurisdiction.
UofC Grad, 2008-07-20 18:14:56
I blame the Liberals for people like Khadr. Canadian citizenship is like a prize in a crackerjack box. Cheap. The Liberals under Trudeau opened the doors and made sure few were refused entry simply to garner votes and maintain their corrupt regime. You can lie, sneak, or cheat your way in and like a known terrorist living in Brampton remain for decades. The Liberals grew the federal ranks into a bloated monstrosity but made sure that depts like Immigration did not have the manpower or the tools to vet immigrants or refugees. They lowered the number of years of residency required to gain citizenship simply so these people could vote SOONER for the liberals.
We are one of the few countries that allow dual-citizenship making us an R&R retreat for terrorists.
Khadr and his family are avowed al-Qaida supporters and last time I checked al-Qaida is recognized as a terrorist organization by the Canadian government.
Only ignorant dunderheads would want Khadr to "return" to Canada.
Not_the_Daddy, 2008-07-19 11:17:17
Glad to hear that most of us are in agreement to letting the sucker be treated as a P.O.W. seeing he is one.
I would bet, most of you wanting to have him come back to Canada and whine how poorly he has been treated have never studied, history and the wars involved or been around when Canada has been at war before, since it was officially in 1945 the last ended, not counting the 7 day walk we had in Iraq in 1991.
Lets hope the government sticks to its guns. If the little creep does come back to Canada have him arrested for treason, there is not doubt he is a traitor.
This may send a message to all those terrorists groups who hide behind our respected Passport.
Redneck Larry
Larry H, 2008-07-18 17:03:32
Marnie Tunay says" How can we expect our enemy's to have any regard for our higher order" Well that's the point Marnie the dead ender fascist in that region have nothing in common with democracy and freedom,they have a common bond with oppression and control.They kill homosexuals- They kill woman that step out of line--they kill people who exercise free speech and opposing views-they kill people with different religious views. Marnie then opines "Why should our version of Democracy prevail over the world". These countries don't vote for their Fascist Governments ,they come to power through bloody coups ,so to compare Fascism to free democratic countries is just plain illogical. Just as your past Generations fought for the freedoms you have now--it's up to the middle east to fight for theirs.It was bloody for us but it was well worth it right marnie.70% of Iraqi's voted in their last election under death threats--I think their ready as well.
Micheal, 2008-07-18 16:09:04
Good point Candy robin.
Micheal, 2008-07-18 15:20:01
For people who have not looked up the "law" on Treason, as Wayne so astutely brought forward again, this is what is says on the Government of Canada, Justice - Laws/Statutes, website:
PART II
OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
Treason and other Offences against the Queen’s Authority and Person
High treason
46. (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.
Canadian citizen
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,
(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or
(b) commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).
Overt act
(4) Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 46; 1974-75-76, c. 105, s. 2.
I have had certain individuals utter condascending remarks to me that "they qualify" more as a "Canadian Citizen" due to their having "Sworn Allegience to the Queen." I was "only born" in Canada and do not have the same "Commonwealth Status" as, conveniently "used" by too many "Canadian Citizens" of convenience. Wrong. Not only have I Sworn an Oath to Her Most Excellent Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, but also under another Act to which I am able to respond to Her Majesty and/or the Privy Council of Canada. Before people spout off at the mouth - get your facts straight!
Susan G. Pierce-Jensen, 2008-07-18 15:19:24
Can Omar Khadr be reintegrated?
These laws are designed to keep everyone safe. By going by the letter of the law you may release a trained and willing killer back into society to break those laws once again. By skirting the laws and interpreting them in their favour they keep him out of harms way for everyone, including himself. Never heard his lawyer pleading this kid has been trained as a killer, how about sending him somewhere to get trained as something else and when he is deamed safe to be released, he is. Not relaes him because you can't prove it and you shouldn't have to because he was an innocent minor. Would you like to tell his next vicims family face to face that there child died to protect their murderers rights and it could have been prevented.
wayne, 2008-07-21 11:53:32
What, are you a political science grad or something?
The question is right there at the top, was Omar Khadr treated fairly in prison?
I say no, he was treated much better than he deserves.
That is not fair.
uplink, 2008-07-21 11:50:05
Brigand, 2008-07-21 09:52:04
Then you have a mad, thoroughly trained terrorist adult set free in Canada. If he doesn't kill here, he will probably be given his passport allowing him to go back and kill there again until he is ultimately killed. So they are signing other peoples death warrants and his own. Great logic? Great system we have.
wayne, 2008-07-21 08:39:19
I think the people who flew planes into buildings and killed more than 3000 innocent people were clearly guilty of murder. That was a situation of people taking innocent civilian lives. Similarly the terrorists who blow themselves up in crowded markets are murderers. In this situation we are talking about a militant who is accused of killing an enemy (who happens to be American) who was storming a position held by the militants. If killing an enemy on a clearly defined battlefield is a criminal offence then the prison cells beside Khadr should be holding the American troops responsible for killing the other militants with Khadr (conflicting reports list 5-7 militants were killed in the firefight that led to the capture of Khadr). If the coalition troops are justified in killing on a battlefield then logically their enemy should be equally justified. This raises the real crux of the discussion – are the militants a recognized enemy or are they as the US have defined the situation illegal enemy combatants.
This is the real question. If they are a recognized enemy they must be treated as prisoners of war (POW) and must be afforded the protection of the Geneva Conventions. This protects them from a great deal of treatment that they received at Guantanamo Bay and allows for their eventual release once the “war” is over. If they are illegal enemy combatants they are not protected buy the conventions and are subject to mistreatment (I avoid the use of the word torture). If anyone believes that Khadr who was 15 at the time of capture, and now after 6 years in prison has any useful information that can be “extracted” you are fooling yourselves. I do not understand how any coalition troops must be treated as recognized POWs whereas their enemy is not. It is a clear dual standard.
There is a reason these prisoners are being held in Cuba. They are not subject to US laws, or lawmakers for that matter. In the most basic argument, a facility such as Guantanamo Bay simply is not legally allowed to exist on US soil. It is a place of legal limo where rules and laws are made at the discretion of the military and the Executive branch of the US government. Each and every independent, international organization that has observed operations at Guantanamo have agreed it violates basic human rights.
The question is not whether Khadr is Canadian, or whether he is guilty. It is whether he should be treated as a human (something we recognize the other side does not do but is part of the reason coalition troops are over there – make the place better) and whether Canada should stand silent when we know human rights are being violated anywhere in the world – even if it is in US jurisdiction.
UofC Grad, 2008-07-20 18:14:56
We are one of the few countries that allow dual-citizenship making us an R&R retreat for terrorists.
Khadr and his family are avowed al-Qaida supporters and last time I checked al-Qaida is recognized as a terrorist organization by the Canadian government.
Only ignorant dunderheads would want Khadr to "return" to Canada.
Not_the_Daddy, 2008-07-19 11:17:17
Glad to hear that most of us are in agreement to letting the sucker be treated as a P.O.W. seeing he is one.
I would bet, most of you wanting to have him come back to Canada and whine how poorly he has been treated have never studied, history and the wars involved or been around when Canada has been at war before, since it was officially in 1945 the last ended, not counting the 7 day walk we had in Iraq in 1991.
Lets hope the government sticks to its guns. If the little creep does come back to Canada have him arrested for treason, there is not doubt he is a traitor.
This may send a message to all those terrorists groups who hide behind our respected Passport.
Redneck Larry
Larry H, 2008-07-18 17:03:32
Micheal, 2008-07-18 16:09:04
Micheal, 2008-07-18 15:20:01
PART II
OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
Treason and other Offences against the Queen’s Authority and Person
High treason
46. (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.
Canadian citizen
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,
(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or
(b) commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).
Overt act
(4) Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 46; 1974-75-76, c. 105, s. 2.
I have had certain individuals utter condascending remarks to me that "they qualify" more as a "Canadian Citizen" due to their having "Sworn Allegience to the Queen." I was "only born" in Canada and do not have the same "Commonwealth Status" as, conveniently "used" by too many "Canadian Citizens" of convenience. Wrong. Not only have I Sworn an Oath to Her Most Excellent Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, but also under another Act to which I am able to respond to Her Majesty and/or the Privy Council of Canada. Before people spout off at the mouth - get your facts straight!
Susan G. Pierce-Jensen, 2008-07-18 15:19:24