Archives

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Pick your poison is what Omar Khadr faced.

Given a choice between a stacked military tribunal/kangaroo court, presided over by a Military Judge who had been hand-picked by Bush (who replaced the former Military Judge who had actually given Khadr’s legal team some procedural victories, and was suddenly “re-assigned” in the middle of the trial without explanation) which was going to almost certainly give Khadr life imprisonment (this is the system after all that was set up so that there would be no acquittals, which a former Bush official infamously said), or to do a guilty plea bargain that allowed him to get out of Guantanamo after a year and able to serve the rest of his sentence in Canada, I don’t blame Omar Khadr for picking the lesser of the two poisons, and not trying to be a martyr to make a point on the kangaroo court system he faced – that point has already been made.

Most folks would probably do the same, if in that untenable position – even our Blogging Tory colleagues and other conservative commentators, who are screaming how this shows Khadr is “guilty”. Unfortunately, he had no choice really, to do the plea, and this result is a stain on both Stephen Harper and President OBama, who should be ashamed that a child soldier has been prosecuted rather then rehabilitated, as the UN Convention on Child Soldiers that both Canada and the US have signed on as signatories to states they must do. It is indeed a travesty of justice.

The only good out of all this is that top US government officials, including Hillary Clinton, finally said enough is enough to Canada, and demanded he be allowed home to serve the rest of his sentence. Once here, the Supreme Court’s previous ruling that the government of Canada violated his rights should be enough to get his plea bargain of 8 yrs whittled down or perhaps released. Hopefully, he will also get the rehabilitation that he needs from both his father brainwashing him, and from being exposed to torture by the US Military and illegally held in a black hole for 8 years.

97 comments to Pick your poison is what Omar Khadr faced.

  • Mike

    Canadiannonsense said:

    “Pretending you are not a Liberal is not uncommon. I would be too ashamed to admit I support them.

    Simple test: OCD on self confessed war criminal OMAR is a dead give away.

    Feel free to provide your score on the http://www.politicalcompass.org/test.

    Long Gun Registry, Long form Census mandatory with fines, Supply Management, Government monopoly on delivery of Health. Ask for the menu item of Meg Ryan in Sleepless in Seattle.”

    Well, I leave this bit of incomprehensible nonsense to stand on its own. Nothing reveals CS lack of intelligence or inability to compose a coherent thought better than this.

    He does not know who I am, but is convinced that since I am comment here I obviously support all of that stuff.

    I suspect he’s either moderately retarded or a troll. One thing is certain – he is wrong, about everything he has stated here.

    I cannot take anyone seriously who wants to have a justice” system from the 11th century and seems willing to make judgments on people without knowing anything about them.

    BTW, CS, my Political Compass scores are normally in the lower left corner – I am an anti-state Market Anarchist in case you are wondering – pretty much diametrically opposite to a cowering authoritarian like yourself. I, in fact, don’t support anything you listed (I have in fact argued on this very blog for the removal of all gun control, not just the long gun registry, as Scott will attest)and am an adherent of the NAP (look it up, it won’t be in your Conservative Party talking point email). But that doesn’t matter to a fascist like you. If I’m not a Conservative, I must be a Liberal in you silly two dimensional world.

    Now that you have proven wrong yet again about your assumptions, why don’t you be a man, admit your wrong and stop making a fool of yourself.

    I have to say there is no point in even trying to have a rational discussion with you anymore. You are not capable of it. You are only capable of ad hominems and sideways smears, and not very originals ones. You have proven yourself to be the enemy of liberty and freedom and one that is incapable of reason.

    From now on I recommend we treat CS like the troll he is…either ignore him or ridicule him mercilessly.

  • CanadianSense

    Redrum Reply:
    October 28th, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    Ah, so, my/our mistake in interpreting your rabid responses to any external criticisms of the current government as evidence of your being a CPC supporter. So, what, you voted Liberal federally until 1996, and haven’t voted since? So, by your, um, logic, or at least accusations here, you’re responsible for all the Liberal policies and actions until 1996 (and thus, of the initial provincial transfer cuts), and anyone who’s continued to vote for them has to wear all the rest? Whether or not we disagreed with some decisions along the way, or sat out an election or two? Pretty curious view of the Parliamentary democratic process, there.

    Are you going to suggest I am also responsible for the War Measures Act too? What about the decision to pull out just before the breakout of the Six Day War? Dolt.

    You have raised religion and race as an excuse. You have also blamed American for the decision of Omar for throwing a grenade. You may have also blamed bad parenting.

    Why do Liberals never accept personal responsibility? Omar was two weeks short of his 16th birthday. He refused to leave the compound with the women and children. He made his choice and you have spent 30 posts demanding he must have a fair trial and Americans systems is corrupt.

    The Liberal Mind explains your CD. Your constant threats and insults are meaningless, I don’t fear herbivores with internet access and bad manners.

  • Holly Stick

    Canadian Sense, you ignorant bigot: I am not a Liberal or a member of any party. I don’t like any of them much, but the Harper Conservatives are the most vicious, destructive and contemptible group of sleazy politicians I have ever seen in Canada. Harper is a coward who hides behind the troops when he feels threatened, and a bully who attacks anyone who criticizes him, including every veteran who seeks justice and deserves respect.

    And Canadian Sense, one reason I have more contempt for the Harperites than any Canadian politicians in our history is that their base consists of hate-filled, small-minded, lying bigots like yourself. You want your party to look good? Shut up and try to learn how to behave decently.

  • TofKW

    My CS, what a rabid, raving little ball of anger you’ve become. Attacking me for simply calling you what you are, a hyper-partisan? I’ve taken the Political Compass test, and no surprise to me I’m slightly to the right, and more than slightly in the libertarian side. That makes me a “radical kool-aid drinker” as you put it?

    I’m not a Lib supporter as much as I would be happy if our sitting government would do better, and they can start by ditching Harper (as I call it, pulling a Thatcher) and if not Bernard Lord, then at least install Jim Prentice as leader & PM. Harper will never win a majority, ever.

    I support open and smaller government regardless of what party is in power.

    As do I, which is why Harper must go. His cabinet is the biggest on record, his spending is the greatest in Canadian political history, and his government the most secretive than anything ever seen by the Liberals. Glad you agree with me CS.

    Agreed the Libs are not the same as 20 years ago …they’ve improved under Paul Martin’s influence, and they need to find that again if they want to govern in the future. Likewise the CPC is NOT the PC party. They are Reform/Social Credit. I want them to become the PC’s again, before the Liberals beat them to it.

    • CanadianSense

      @TofKW, Again denying you are a Liberal is not uncommon, as it would be difficult for a rational person to defend the last four years.

      Again projecting that I am angry or calling non-Liberals names is part of the pattern. I did enjoy Steve V. echo chamber-censorship on his blog and Liberals like you cheering for it. We call it proof of the Liberal mind.

      If the CPC were in the majority and did pass the budget than we both would have a fair point about the size of spending. They did not and six weeks after a general election, a coup of three stooges demanded thirty billion to be spent immediately and the keys to the executive washroom. Liberals dumped Dion after GG granted Christmas break 5 sitting days earlier. In 2010 the Liberals dumped the Democrats and Separatists because your strategists predicted by May 2009 the polls would allow you to pull the plug and win power. Oh well you blew it, his leadership went south after that and good news started in July 2009. The AG has given thumbs up the Civil Servant-Government for their spending. (I still think it was too much and too fast)

      Losers don’t get to pick the PM, voters do. In the next general election you will see the tax and spend Liberals with their coalition partners get their rebuke. In 2009 they went 0-4. Liberals need to pick up at least two seats. Winnipeg and Vaughan or the John Turner letter may next.

      • TofKW

        @CanadianSense, Call me a Liberal all you want, but you clearly are no conservative. Harper’s spending is not the fault of the opposition. You are nothing but an ignorant, hyper-partisan hypocrite …a textbook example of a Reformatard. No wonder your own Conservative MP avoids you like the plague.

        • CanadianSense

          @TofKW,Denying you are a Liberal is a pattern. Citing other Liberals apologists as proof of something is another pattern. Being called named after losing an argument demonstrates the inability to accept failure and personal responsibility.

          As I have supported Liberals including Bob Rae as NDP it is amusing being defined as hyper-partisan. Thanks Clyde.

          Try the echo chamber where only Liberals are allowed to comment, where your talking points don’t withstand scrutiny.

        • TofKW

          Patsy, you are the one filled with rage and are name-calling right now. And I have lost no argument. I am not a member of the LPC and never will be, though I will no doubt vote that way in the next election to eliminate Harper from the political scene. You see unlike you I am a non-partisan Progressive Conservative who can vote for any party I wish. I have in fact voted for 4 different parties in past federal and provincial elections, the NDP not being one of them.

          In the last Ontario election I supported John Tory and voted to ensure Elizabeth Witmer continues her roll as Waterloo’s MPP in Queens Park. You were too busy stabbing Tory in the back and allowing McGuinty a second term. Now we’re stuck with Hudak as leader, and McGuinty will win a third.

          And you are banned from F&W and BCL’s blogs because you are a moron. You may not notice other proper Conservatives like Tomm, Paul S, or Mr Harvie (all people I may disagree with often enough, but have my full respect) are free to post on these blogs. Why do you think you’ve lost this privilege? We’re nearing 100 posts on this threat alone because of your hyper-partisan nonsense.

          I am certain that at some point Scott will tire of your nonsense and institute the ‘CanadianSense = spam’ remedy as well.

    • Jon Pertwee

      @Patsy Nunziata, “Try the echo chamber where only Liberals are allowed to comment” Please Canadiansense, this isnt free speech. This is you getting obsessed and hurling insults and accusations at others. You’ve never intended on having an intellectual discussions. Just claim that you are all nice and pure with your discussion and everyone that disagrees with you is just evil and should burn in some Liberal hell.

      Your own MP avoids you because you act like this. They arent Liberal but they realize that your behaviour is not Canadian. You are paranoid, intolerant and a bit of an obsessive stalker.

      If there’s a vote for shutting you up then Im all for it. Free speech ends with the blog owner. You dont have a right to babble and harass on private property so why are you doing it on people’s blogs?

      My vote is for Canadiansense=spam. Pass it on.

  • Holly Stick

    Do the Conservatives feel any sympathy for the families of Canadian soldiers whose PTSD led to suicide? Like this family?

    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Stop+calls+tells+mother+dead+soldier+Family+gets+runaround+while/3737290/story.html

    • CanadianSense

      @Holly Stick, Liberal apologists have cognitive dissonance with they suggest this government does not support the military.

      In 1993 the military took a 23% cut. The AG gave out a scathing report in 2003 the military needed $ 5 billion. Liberals gave $ 1.5. We had to beg and borrow parts to keep our CF 18 in the air over Kosvo. Diversion of limited resources for the purchase of two planes that were not available for strategic lift to carry around people (one was for V.I.P’s).

      Liberals did not arm our Blue Helmets and we stood by while the largest Genocide took place after WWII.

      The fact you even post on the subject of the military and the decade of darkness by Liberals confirm you suffer from C.D.

      Your party accused our military of war crimes for months without ANY proof. You party dismissed Generals, civil servants including Nato officials who backed up our Government and military.

      For the record, the Federal government should do more in support of our military in EVERY area including, best EQUIPMENT, Free Tuition for their children unlike your left leaning professors from MB.

      Not a shock Liberals have no shame, they are shameless after all.

      • TofKW

        @CanadianSense,
        In 1993 the military took a 23% cut.

        – The Progressive Conservatives were in power in 1993 and made the cuts in the spring budget (before the election). By the way we were broke and the other choices were for cutting stuff like transfer payments & health care. The PC’s made the right choice.

        The AG gave out a scathing report in 2003 the military needed $ 5 billion. Liberals gave $ 1.5.

        – Again, Canadians wanted more money to fix health care, remember that wait time issues and the Romanow Report? The Grits made the right call.

        Liberals did not arm our Blue Helmets and we stood by while the largest Genocide took place after WWII.

        – Blame the UN, they kept the Peace Keeper numbers too low to stop anything, and gave orders to ‘observe’ only, not engage.

        The fact you even post on the subject of the military and the decade of darkness by Liberals confirm you suffer from C.D.

        – I though only the intolerant left made ad hominem attacks. Why CS, you just proved yourself to be a big fat hypocrite …again.

        Your party accused our military of war crimes for months without ANY proof.

        – No, they accused the government of turning a blind eye to what our military was telling them is happening in Afghan jails. Our government is betraying our military on this. I don’t expect a hyper-partisan using the Dick Cheney maneuver to understand the difference, but it’s a big enough difference that you can land a 747 in between.

        For the record, the Federal government should do more in support of our military in EVERY area including, best EQUIPMENT

        – Even when they lie about it being off-the-shelf technology and the overall cost… ask the Auditor General about that one.

        Not a shock Liberals have no shame, they are shameless after all.

        – Well you are a hyper-partisan that posts nothing but half-truths and off-topic attacks …so no shock to me really that you blame the LPC for anything and everything.

        • CanadianSense

          @TofKW, FYI never voted PC ever. Was a Liberal until you booted out Nunziata for his GST stance. I do not limit my criticism to only Liberals for not supporting the military. (No personal conflict, not in or serving, benefit from contracts either)

          You radical kool-aid drinkers don’t get it, moderates have left Liberal Party in larger numbers and have gone to NDP, Green, Bloc and Conservative for the failures by Liberals to fix their party. This is NOT the party of my parents. It has become a joke filled with nerdy kids like yourself who think insulting others is going to fix your party. The cranky bitter people, are Liberals who are sore losers. They feel they are entitled to power and they built this country.

          We former Liberals are aware of what we tried and did not work and have moved on, you are stuck with a party living in the glory years of the 1970’s in PET shadow.

          Try again hypocrite. Videos of Liberal MPs dismissing the testimony of military leadership as “morally weak” will be replayed. Suggesting “we just don’t know” if we have a similar situation in Iraq (Abu Ghraib)by your spokesman on CTV. A former Liberal Minister of Defence ripped your defense critic after your party for suggesting Canada is responsible for how Afghanistan’s treat their own prisoners and we should be held up for war crimes. Audits from Civil Servants also cleared the military and your BS about parliamentary supremacy, demands on calling witness was exposed for the political stunt is was.

          In EVERY single case your party folded like a cheap suit, when our Federal Government did not BACK DOWN from your empty threats.

          Keep making excuses why Liberals downloaded $25 Billion in Health, Education and Social Services to provinces. Keep telling yourself the military that suffered the decade of darkness why we rented planes from the Soviet Union regarding the Tsunami for our Dart team.

          Ignore the Auditor General scathing reports for years on the lack of oversight in so many areas. They did not allow her to look at Crown Corporations. They refused to join the Bloc in opening up the details of the Board of Internal Economy.

          I support open and smaller government regardless of what party is in power. You just repeat Liberal talking points without looking at the train wreck called OLO. I don’t need a kangaroo court (HRC), a nanny state, LGR, mandatory long form, membership in the Security Council to be a proud Canadian.

          The MSM has lost the battle to control the message and the Liberals are on a downward spiral, the CBC can’t save you.

          I don’t need to apologize for mistakes by my Federal Government. They have made them and will make more.

      • Mike

        @CanadianSense,

        Ahem.

        http://www.tranquileye.com/stockwell/harper.php

        “I do not intend to dispute in any way the need for defence cuts and the need for government spending cuts in general. …I do not share a not in my backyard approach to government spending reductions.”

        – Stephen Harper, Hansard, May 23rd 1995. Harper has since roundly criticized spending cuts in the mid-1990s.

        “Liberals did not arm our Blue Helmets and we stood by while the largest Genocide took place after WWII.”

        In Rwanda as part of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda consisted of mostly Belgians (400) along with troops from Ghana, Tunisia, Bangladesh (who were worse than useless according to Gen. Dallaire). We had about 112 troops, mostly logistics. Major-General Maurice Baril wanted to back him up but the UN said no, and we had no other troops or ways to get troops to the theatre.

        Not to mention this was a Chapter 6 Peacekeeping operation not a Chapter 7 peace making one.

        Would you care to suggest what any Canadian government could have done in that situation? The Belgians pulled their troops out, creating the perfect conditions for the genocide to go on.

        I suggest you read and learn real history, not bs talking points.

        And at this point I’ll merely second what TofKW said in response to the rest of your silly lies.

        And please, try posting some more of your nonsense. This is kinda fun…

        You keep on thinkin CS, that’s what your good at….

        • @Hollystick,

          Your rebuttal to abandonment of our military, massive spending cuts by all PC and Liberal governments in power is citing an MP from 1995 because as a partisan Liberals this is just a silly game.

          Regarding your Liberal Senator: Here is a Globe & Mail

          Roméo, Roméo, wherefore art thou partisan?
          It’s hard to watch someone whose name is linked to our failure in Rwanda argue that Canada’s response in Darfur is just fine, says retired major-general

          By LEWIS MACKENZIE
          May 19, 2005

          It’s no secret that Roméo Dallaire and I have some profound differences of opinion regarding the role and capabilities — or lack thereof — of the United Nations when it comes to fulfilling its primary responsibility: to enhance international peace and security. After his experience in Rwanda, I wasn’t prepared to debate our differences in public, lest it exacerbate his fragile state of mind. Now that he has eagerly accepted a partisan appointment as a Liberal senator, however, one can reasonably assume that he will be able to cope with deserved criticism.
          (rest is there)
          http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050519/COLEW19/TPComment/TopStories
          http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=39562 (archived)

          Thanks for coming out as a partisan and excusing the lack of concrete action in saving lives. How is that 9/11 conspiracy – OMAR fan page coming along?

      • Redrum

        @Embarrassment2Canadians, “supporting the military” isn’t confined to buying them equipment — it’s supporting the vets after the fact, which BOTH parties have fallen down on. And the “no evidence” for the charges on the treatment of the Afghan war criminals was because your party did its best to obstruct justice by concealing it, even to the extent of suspending Parliament. And you cast the Opposition party as shameless? You’re so blinded by hate and so contorted by cognitive dissonance that I really fear you’re going to “Go Postal” and gun down some peaceful protesters or a rival candidate’s campaign offices, one of these days. Get some help.

        • CanadianSense

          @Redrum, Who said it was limited to buying equipment, oh yeah you did. I have said since 1993 that included the PC party. I have also stated that I want our government to do more with specific examples including FREE tuition for their FAMILIES.

          You keep using religion, race and suggest Conservatives are intolerant and angry. Sadly another example of CD. Rob Ford brought out the worst in the left. The liberal mind can’t accept their ideology has failed and the socialist utopia promised by PET, Kennedy, Castro, Chavez is not working out as intended.

          Last time I checked my current team is taking your party to the cleaners. In donations, in support at the ballot in provincial and municipal elections. See the latest poll, your guy is hitting Dion level support again 11% behind with 9 points behind in Ontario.

          This summer the Toronto Police Force rounded up your buddies and gave them a taste of Liberal justice during the G20. It did not take place during the Olympics in Vancouver or Calgary. Must be something your peaceful protesters said.

          Thanks for coming out and defending the left on their hypocrisy and cheer-leading for OMAR. Keep it up and use during the by election on November29, 2010.

        • Redrum

          Ah, so, my/our mistake in interpreting your rabid responses to any external criticisms of the current government as evidence of your being a CPC supporter. So, what, you voted Liberal federally until 1996, and haven’t voted since? So, by your, um, logic, or at least accusations here, you’re responsible for all the Liberal policies and actions until 1996 (and thus, of the initial provincial transfer cuts), and anyone who’s continued to vote for them has to wear all the rest? Whether or not we disagreed with some decisions along the way, or sat out an election or two? Pretty curious view of the Parliamentary democratic process, there.

  • Mike

    “Again the left feel it is necessary to use personal attacks when losing an argument.

    Clearly the betrayal of our democracy for the support of a self confessed war criminal that is looking forward to killing our allies is NOT a concern for radical like yourself.

    It is understood terrorist are using our legal system to their advantage if possible. The left have abused our natural justice and a reckoning at the ballot will take place. I have GREAT confidence in the Canadian voters.

    It is the left that resorted to a back room deal to steal power six weeks after the General Election. It is the LEFT that demand we surrender our right to privacy, the left will invoke fines, threaten to withhold passports, employment insurance on the Census and allow our personal information to be sent to the U.S.

    It was the LEFT that invoked the War Measures Act. It was the Toronto Police Force that rounded up the protesters.

    Don’t worry Conservatives are going remove the fascists in power that restrict free thought through a democratic election of Canadians, not MP’s.

    The reason why Ignatieff-Dion are at 26% the worst level since Confederation, is they are out of touch with average Canadians.”

    WTF? You think I’m a Liberal? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Scott, this has got to be joke. Poe’s law right?

    CS, come back when you actually know anything about our system of government and Constitution. I mean real information, not the BS you read in emails from the PMO or Stephen Taylor’s talking points email.

    You keep thinkin CS, that’s what your good at.

    • CanadianSense

      @Mike, Actually the left have invoked religion and the race card in order to defend their indefensible position.

      Muslims are killed in greater numbers by Westerners or fellow nationals? Clearly you intolerance of religion/facts/history is being used to create a wedge issue.

      If you actually cared about Muslims your would want to see OMAR tried in Afghanistan for the IED’s he planted and his participation as a foreigner killing people in Afghanistan.

      I don’t need an organization (UN) that is filled with despots, dictators to justify my point of view.

      There is the rub, you actually don’t care about any of the victims. This is about an obsession of the left who have made OMAR their folk hero for standing up to the evil American empire.

      That is the pattern in the left, they don’t care enough to criticize real human suffering at home or overseas unless they can blame others for their failures.

      As a collectivist you fail to apply your Vulcan logic of the need of the many outweigh the need of the few.

      Too much time and energy has been spent by the media and radical left in championing the self-confessed war criminal. This will have a consequence at the ballot as regular Canadians will not drink the radical kool-aid that you have consumed.

      Keep on hating making personal slurs others for not sharing your support of embracing OMAR, I hope the LEFT keep defending him as the poster child and hero.

      Regular folk will be at the polls again in larger numbers to eliminate the radicalization of political parties in Canada. Don’t worry be happy!

      • Mike

        @CanadianSense,

        “As a collectivist you fail…”

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

        Scott, am I even remotely a collectivist.

        Wow, here I am defending individual rights against the violence and power of the state which CS is defending, but I’m the collectivist.

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

        You are a scream. I cannot take you seriously any more. Wanting a fair trial is “radical”?…bwhahahahahah! Maybe in 1215 CE it was….

        You keep on thinkin CS, that’s what your good at….

        • CanadianSense

          @Mike, Pretending you are not a Liberal is not uncommon. I would be too ashamed to admit I support them.

          Simple test: OCD on self confessed war criminal OMAR is a dead give away.

          Feel free to provide your score on the http://www.politicalcompass.org/test.

          Long Gun Registry, Long form Census mandatory with fines, Supply Management, Government monopoly on delivery of Health. Ask for the menu item of Meg Ryan in Sleepless in Seattle.

      • Redrum

        @CanadianSense, you’re an idiot, Senseless. (And I resent you appropriating the word ‘Canadian’ yourself, like the beer, thereby cheapening it for the rest of us).

        Khadr may be a ‘GI Jihad’ folk hero to the Taliban, but to us here, he’s just a victim of both bad parents and an unjust, hypocritical US military ‘justice’ system.

        But I _DID_ say in the other thread you were shrieking on about this that we, or at least I’d, have no problem with this if it were the Afghans trying BOTH unauthorized parties for carrying a firefight on their soil.

        http + ://jamesbowie.blogspot.com/2010/10/ok-so-terrorist-effing-did-it.html

        Because in your blind allegiance to the Americans (who’ve probably killed nearly as many of our service people these last ten years in ‘friendly fire’ incidents [as the Speer killing itself may be, BTW] as the insurgents have), you’re conveniently overlooking the fact that:

        when this incident took place, the US forces (some of whom were CIA operatives out of uniform, BTW) were themselves armed invaders, in an internationally illegal posse.

        (It wasn’t the country of Afghanistan that did the 9/11 crashes. It was some terrorists, some of them from Saudi Arabia, from a group that used to be funded by the CIA, to fight the Russians. Yes, apparently when they’re fighting the US’s enemies they’re a-ok ‘freedom fighters,’ but not when fighting the US itself.)

        And as that radio interview Mike linked to explains, even tho’ Bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan, in order to prevent a US invasion, the Taliban actually offered to turn him over to the Americans if they guaranteed there’d be a fair trial, but Bush refused.

        So the whole war, and the loss of ALL the coalition forces lives’ there — and the suffering of their widows that you rubbed in our faces — is actually all BUSH’s fault. But I suspect you’d sooner self-immolate than admit that.

        Try educating yourself before pissing all over everyone you so disagreeably disagree with.

        • CanadianSense

          @Redrum, “he’s just a victim of both bad parents and an unjust, hypocritical US military ‘justice’ system.”

          confirms you are a radical left wing nut that hates America. The fact you consider him a victim in this matter say a great deal about your value system.

          There’s no retroactive mercy for felons who’ve grown up with lousy parents, in deranged households, taught wickedly in the ways of the world. That defence doesn’t work for child molesters, rapists and serial killers, many of whom were subjected to horrific mental and physical abuse, scars that never fade.- Rose DiManno Toronto Star article.

          I don’t accept your thesis humanity is responsible for creating monsters. That is in your DNA to blame everyone else for OMAR actions. Do you have a face book page for Kara and Paul too?
          The Liberal Mind clearly explains why you guys are scary.
          http://www.libertymind.com/index.php?page_id=262

      • CanadianSense

        @CanadianSense, I don’t give a fig you don’t approve of my alias. That is another example of your need to limit-control thought/freedom.

        Did I excuse American Exceptional-ism? Did I make a speech in 2005 praising George Bush and Britain? Did I call our reputation as peacekeepers bogus? Check with your leader, he may not have won any democratic contest for becoming the leader of the party but as with most liberals democracy is just obstacle to over come.

        Did I praise Regan – Bush Sr for defeating Communism at the University of Toronto in a speech? Check with Ignatieff.

        Why do you think he is the most absent MP when it comes to votes in this session?

        The FACT you support a party that has since 2006 been the most supportive of the Conservative agenda leads to only ONE conclusion. You suffer from cognitive dissonance.

        This is not about a single policy disagreement but literally hundreds of votes. So thank you for supporting a party that is faithfully propping up the Conservative party while publicly being critical of everything it does.

        • Redrum

          @2Cents, _That’s_ your response to hearing that all the Canadian losses in Afghanistan that you’re so concerned about are attributable to Bush’s refusal to grant Bin Laden a fair trial: complaints about Ignatieff? Huh? Those observations were made by an American historian/reporter. One who, for all you know, doesn’t vote at all, because he’s disgusted by both parties. So what now, if you can’t try to tar the critic with guilt by association, or try to silence them by saying they’re guilty of some hypocrisy for not objecting to _all_ similar cases simultaneously, blah blah. Address and defend the individual claim or charge if you disagree that it has merit, instead of trying to change the topic or take out the messenger each time.

  • Mike

    Hmmm, interesting. A leaked US Army report seems to show Khadr may not have killed Speer:

    http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/02/05/khadr-account.html?ref=rsstitle=New%20witness%20account%20shows%20Khadr%20charges%20should%20be%20dropped:%20lawyerspublisher=CBC%20Newsdate=%20February%205,%202008accessdate=2008-02-05

    You see, this is the kind of “evidence” that would come out at a fair and open trial, not a Stalinist kangaroo court

    • CanadianSense

      @Mike, However, a classified document, inadvertently released to reporters at the military prison by a Pentagon official Monday, provides a different eyewitness account of the events.

      A U.S. soldier at the battle said in sworn testimony that two al-Qaeda fighters were alive after the fatal grenade attack.

      The unidentified soldier says he killed the first al-Qaeda fighter before spotting Khadr, whom he said was wounded, on his knees and facing away from him. For reasons he does not go into, he says he shot him in the back twice.

      (Same article)

      You don’t accept the official Report but demand everyone accept “reasonable doubt” theory because two were alive according to one individual U.S. soldier?

      Liberal logic only accept testimony that supports their goal.

      • Mike

        @CanadianSense, I guess you missed that last sentence, wherein I stated that this kind of evidence that WOULD HAVE COME UP in a real trial. It would have been cross examined and the soldier called to testify.

        But that didn’t happen because the defence was not allowed to do this.

        Are you saying this soldier was lying? Why can’t the “Official Report” then be a lie?

        Dear gawd you are stupid if you STILL DON’T get it. Yes this is reasonable doubt, the kind of which is normally brought to bear in a trial. Examining the report, questioning the soldier, cross examining the others and take it with the other evidence in order to find out what actually happened.

        THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.

        Can you set aside your anti-Muslim hate and bedwetting fear for a minute to realize the kind of precedent this sets and how this erodes YOUR rights to a fair trial and to not be arbitrarily detained and ram-rodded through a show-trial.

        Or don’t you care.

        No I suspect you don’t. You cannot even accept the possibility that Khadr MAY (and that’s a “may” not an “is” because I don’t really know and neither do you) not be guilty of the crime for which he is charged. I guess that would cause you to think too much and we knhow how dangerous that can be.

        And how ironic that you accuse me of only accepting testimony that supports “my goal” when that is exactly what you are doing. I want a fair and open proceeding. If Khadr is guilty, lock him up. If he isn’t don’t. But you have to prove he did what he is accused of and this “court” has not done that and appears to have suppressed evidence that could exonerate him and forced him into a position where he had no real choice but to plead guilty.

        Or do you contend that guys like David Milgard or Guy Paul Morin are actually guilty?

        Ah, what do you care, so long as some dirty Muslim gets his, eh?

  • ridenrain

    Muslim family values be damned.. These are not the values that Paul Martin’s party demanded. Why would you cave into foreign values when you have been so clear that child soldiers are wrong?
    If child soldiers are wrong, so must the people who made them child soldiers!
    The only people in this case must be the Khadr family.
    Where is that Lefty “righteous indignation” that we keep hearing about?

    dance puppet dance.

    • Redrum

      @braincontusion, who’s caving, moron? I just said it’s too late now to call child & family services, since none of them are children anymore, but I didn’t deny they did wrong as parents. Why weren’t they prosecuted? beats me, but it’s got nothing to do with me. why didn’t YOU do something about this 6 years ago, ripocrite? probably because, like me, you weren’t paying much attention to this until it came to a boil this summer when the US finally proceeded with the prosecution. or because, as mere kibbitzers, neither of us were in a position to do anything about it.

  • ridenrain

    Not so easy… blaming it on the dead guy.
    The rest of the family clearly show the same twisted mentality and if he’s simply a victim of his childhood, wouldn’t it follow that their 5 children be taken from that toxic environment? In any case, they should have been charged with child endangerment as soon as the government learned the family was sending their children to militia training camps.

    Let’s say that he is a child soldier; are there no repercussions against the people who enslaved him? This is classic, rank hypocrisy here and all the lefties who called him a child soldier are too gutless to follow it up. They’d have to judge that a foreign religious ideology that raises it’s children to fight is wrong.. and they refuse to accept that reality. Without a “decadent running dog lackey of the imperialist dogma” to blame, there simply can be no crime.

    • Redrum

      @rode in rain, helmetless, and crashed, now has Gary Busey syndrome, what, you’re expecting that if you can try to pin a “hypocrite” badge on someone that something can be salvaged from this?

      I don’t see anyone ’round here defending the parents or contradicting the notion that they were criminally negligent as parents.

      But FYI, the police did arrest the mother when she came back to Canada, the RCMP did investigate; no charges were laid. And all the surviving kids are adults, now, so no seizures.

      The point it’s a stain on the whole country. And as some commentators have pointed out, the Muslim world is watching it very carefully, and it may end up fomenting more hate & costing more Western lives when they see what contempt we have even for our own lives and our own or (in the US’s case) their own allies’ rights.

      www + .washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/08/AR2005060802358_pf.html

      http + ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khadr_family

  • Redrum

    BTW, for you thick heads who think you can parse the UN’s definitions better than Dallaire, here it is straight from the horse’s mouth (tho’, I know, you’re much more familiar with that beast’s other end, when you look in a mirror):

    “The United Nations representative on child soldiers says Omar Khadr should not be imprisoned in the United States but rather returned to Canada to be rehabilitated.

    Radhika Coomaraswamy, the UN secretary-general’s special representative for children and armed conflict, said Khadr represents the “classic child soldier narrative: recruited by unscrupulous groups to undertake actions at the bidding of adults to fight battles they barely understand.”

    Read more: www + .cbc.ca/world/story/2010/10/27/omar-khadr-united-nations-child-soldier.html

    www + .cbc.ca/news/pdf/omar-khadr-letter.pdf

  • ridenrain

    Your skirting the issue. If he’s a child soldier, as you all say, someone must have made him one and I’d assume that is a crime too. Where are the calls for charging his parents with child endangerment?
    Come on you mighty progressive thinkers, do try to follow along.

    • Redrum

      @liddlebrain, as I said, his father, who brought him to the training camps & to fight, is dead: killed by coalition bombs in 2003. Do try to keep up.

  • CanadianSense

    Beijing York: you omitted some key facts from the actual event including his signed testimony.

    Two Afghan nationals (police/army) were killed. Negotiations were attempted prior and after. Women and children were allowed to leave and given protection. He refused to leave.

    He should be tried for his part in the murder of those two Afghan police/soldiers.

    • Beijing York

      @CanadianSense, I read the incident report issued by Captain Cirino as well as a VOA interview with him, and he never mentioned any attempts of negotiations. His original report doesn’t corroborate how events are currently being presented in this kangaroo trial.

      And signed testimony gotten from deprivation and torture is meaningless.

  • ridenrain

    So is little Omar moving in with Rae or not?
    We all agree that the Khadr Klan are a despicable bunch and an embarrassment to Canadians.. except maybe Mike here. It should follow that he should not return into the clutches of his parents and their corruptive influences. After all, we wouldn’t return an ex-child soldier back to the people who enslaved him, would we? He has to stay somewhere and from all the talk, Rae is his biggest supporter.
    Rae should adopt and take him in.
    I think that deserves a petition or at least a face book page.

    • Redrum

      @BillOfGoods, well, since he’s 24 now, and will either be pushing- or over- 30 when released, he doesn’t exactly _have_ to go live with anyone, now, will he? Chances are, he’ll emigrate to a Muslim country, if he can. But I think CanadianShrill should have to go live with him in a ‘Big Brother’ reality TV halfway house to see who’s really the more hateful & murderous of the two.

  • TofKW

    So to CS anyone who questions arbitrary detention, unfair trails, and the jailing of child soldiers; is automatically supporting terrorists.

    The stupid …it hurts!!!

    • CanadianSense

      @TofKW, The fan club for Omar on the left leaning blogs has nothing to do with your post. The radical fringe element love OMAR. He is considered a “rock star” by terrorist at GITMO.

      Your four points are rhetorical and further proof of small angry minds that their rock star is not free to kill.

      Moderate people are not shocked the radical fringe are praising the the acts of a self-confessed war criminal. The pattern is clear. The same radicals are upset Canada did not win the support of despots and dictator at the U.N. recently.

      • TofKW

        @CanadianSense,
        “Your four points are rhetorical and further proof of small angry minds that their rock star is not free to kill.”

        My point is quite valid and not rhetorical, you are using fear to mask the fact that the Canadian Government no longer protects it’s citizens overseas (we are supposed to, yes even when they murder). Also there is this issue:

        Omar Khadr trial imperils all child soldiers

        So I can only assume CS that you consider Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire to be a “small angry mind” who’s “rock star is not free to kill”?

        “Canada did not win the support of despots and dictator at the U.N. recently”

        How would you know? It was a secret ballot. There are reports our EU allies and even the US may have voted against us.

        • CanadianSense

          @TofKW, How many other Canadians have you spent hours on posting?

          Any Canadians being held in China without access to our consular services?

          Liberals are hypocrites. That single mother who launched a lawsuit for millions?

          She is married and has a younger sister. The media attacked the Civil Service and government. The opposition including yourself tarred us by suggesting brown people are less safe because of this government.

          The facts speak for themselves. The number of articles and time spent by you (radicals) in supporting a self confessed war criminal who is happy and looks forward to killing our allies is disturbing.

          The left regularly insult those with wishes of cancer, going to hell, aids when confronted with facts or a different opinion.

          It is no consequence you are an angry frustrated radical resorting to name calling. The next federal election you and your coalition have been behind the terrorists 100% instead of our military.

          That betrayal will have a consequence at the ballot.

        • CanadianSense

          @TofKW,

          The left look the United Nations and Rome Dallaire for support of human rights? No kidding

          Apparently the worst genocide since WWII while those in power DID NOTHING at the UN and Canada means absolutely nothing to the left.

          The left are consistent they really don’t care about human suffering and preventing real crimes by holding those accountable. They just like to call those who don’t support despots and do-nothing Liberals names because it makes them feel better about themselves.

          It does not matter you are an angry Liberal and your political party is bankrupt. The regular voter sent a message in Toronto and Winnipeg. Pay attention as more radical centres of latte sipping liberals become normalized again.

      • Mike

        @CanadianSense, You are a damn liar. Please point to a single post where someone is praising the actions of Khadr. What Most people critical of this situation are demanding is a fair trial. If he is guilty, he will be convicted. If he is not, he won’t.

        Radical fringe? Fascists like you who wish to send us back to the “justice” system of the dark ages, or to the system as currently practiced in Iran, Saudi, and, ironically, Sadamm’s Iraq and Taliban Afghnaistan. All because you hate or are deathly afraid of “Muslims”.

        You are actually demanding we abandon the rights, freedom and liberties that set us apart from jihadi thugs and third-world dictators, so you can feel like a big tough guy and less like a coward

        TofKW is right, you really are stupid. And dangerous. Far more dangerous to freedom than any terrorist.

        • CanadianSense

          @Mike, Again the left feel it is necessary to use personal attacks when losing an argument.

          Clearly the betrayal of our democracy for the support of a self confessed war criminal that is looking forward to killing our allies is NOT a concern for radical like yourself.

          It is understood terrorist are using our legal system to their advantage if possible. The left have abused our natural justice and a reckoning at the ballot will take place. I have GREAT confidence in the Canadian voters.

          It is the left that resorted to a back room deal to steal power six weeks after the General Election. It is the LEFT that demand we surrender our right to privacy, the left will invoke fines, threaten to withhold passports, employment insurance on the Census and allow our personal information to be sent to the U.S.

          It was the LEFT that invoked the War Measures Act. It was the Toronto Police Force that rounded up the protesters.

          Don’t worry Conservatives are going remove the fascists in power that restrict free thought through a democratic election of Canadians, not MP’s.

          The reason why Ignatieff-Dion are at 26% the worst level since Confederation, is they are out of touch with average Canadians.

        • Redrum

          @BadScents, rant on, if you must, but reality check: none of us expressing our impatience with your obstuseness and crypto-fascist tendencies here are part ‘The Left’ — i.e., I seriously doubt any are past or present sitting MPs, or even actually work for any particular Party beyone maybe volunteering on campaigns, so it’s pretty silly to try to revisit the perceived failings of the parties on us or conversely to ascribe OUR carryings on to the present parties (who’ve actually been relatively silent on this). We’re just expressing our dissatisfaction and disgust with current events, and you, the crypto-fascist, are trying to silence or browbeat us out of that opinion. What’s next, are you going to try to waterboard us and demand a signed retraction? Or plant burning, “They love terrorists” crosses on our lawn? Why don’t YOU try to really abide by your side’s ‘freedom lovin’ principles, for a change?

  • Mike

    CanadianSense spake thusly:

    “In your mind this is NOT about the war by terrorists vs our allies including the coalition. Your demands of a fair trial are falling on deaf ears as I don’t sympathize with radical extremists bent on killing women, children. I don’t have room for sociopaths. That is a Liberal obsession.”

    How do we determine who is guilty of war crimes, crimes in general or who is a sociopath? Why a trial of course. But CanadianSense seems to think he can judge who is and who is not guilty. Or worse, he trusts the government to do it. We don’t need no stinking trials, he’s guilty because I don’t like him! he shouts.

    At least he is admitting he’s a fascist.

    “In YOUR mind your Libertarian principles is the right thing. Ask the families of those lost by IED’s planted by OMAR and his “ilk” if OMAR is worthy of the obsession by the MSM or idiots like yourself.”

    You have evidence Khadr killed anyone? That should be in a fair and open trial and proven. Oh poo, there’s that nasty bit about a trial again and showing evidence. Nasty that whole burden of proof thing. The government ought just to be able to kill who it likes. Like they do in Iran. or China.

    “Women in children in Afghanistan are better off without the Taliban and convicted war criminals like Omar. It is pathetic how much time is being spent on him by the like of you claiming you are defending the Rule of Law.”

    I’m sure they are, but not by much. But still irrelevant. Stop trying to change the subject, it shows you have no real arguement.

    Convicted in a kangaroo court means nothing, BTW. Or do you also think William Sampson is a terrorist. He was convicted in a Saudi court not unlike Gitmo. He confessed and plead guilty.

    Or what about Sen. John McCain. He took confessed to war crimes. Hell it was on TV. He must be guilty right? He plead guilty…he confessed.

    Hmm, maybe there is another reason these folks confessed to crimes???

    “Take a trip to Caledonia if you feel so inclined. I don’t need you to defend OMAR when hundreds of Canadians have had their rights infringed.

    You don’t like Americans. We get it.”

    What does one have to do with the other? Nothing. If they people of Caledonia are having their rights trampled and not having the benefit of due process, then I support them. As I support the Liberty Summer Seminar in their fight. The question is, how can you scream about the rights of the people of Caledonia, while taking joy in the utter destruction of 900 years of hard won protections against the arbitrary power of the state.

    Oh, right, Khadr is a Muslim…I forgot.

    If Khadr is guilty, try him and convict him in open court. Otherwise, STFU.

    I love Americans…1/2 of my family lives there. What I don’t like are fascist, authoritarian and bed-wetting hatemongers and cowards who will surrender their freedom at the first hint of trouble if it means they can hurt someone they see as their enemy. In short, CanadianSense, I don’t like YOU. And I sure hope you get it.

    • CanadianSense

      @Mike, It is only about OMAR, you don’t give two cents about the loss of life. Your obsession for Omar is evident. Do you pray for him and hope he rejoins the terrorists?

      The fact half of your family lives in the US does not change the fact you compare the treatment by our allies to that of Saudia Arabia as equal. (That is DELUSIONAL) You exhibit signs of Stockholm syndrome (S.S) and feel the terrorism, murder of Americans by OMAR is justifiable. Some Americans would also agree with you.(We call them radicals)

      The fact you think the defeat of the Taliban is a small improvement/gain for women and children is another sign of your S.S. The work of Nato, NGO’s are doing over there is negligible to those suffering from S.S. The Auditor General and several groups have reported on the projects and improvements as a result of our U.N. sanctioned mission.

      I don’t expect you to care for the REAL victims. You sympathize with a war criminal and your devotion to him and his friends is clear in your posts.
      You are the typical ideological partisan that demands we are same, guilty if we don’t give our enemies the rule of law in every case.

      Your examples of Sampson, McCain? They recanted their forced testimony when they were returned. OMAR is free to testify at the hearings as he was to go to trial. His confession and the witness testimony was enough to convince him he would serve life. He took a plea bargain as his options ran out. Nothing more nothing less. (No more court delays)

      You remind me of Joy Behar who wants the Victory Mosque built at Ground Zero although 70% don’t. Both of you don’t represent the majority or value the opinion of others.

      This is NOT about perfection, our system is far from it. Your mythical standard and obsession for OMAR is clear.

      • Mike

        @CanadianSense, Shouldn’t you be cowering in a basement, shining your jackboots?

        “Your examples of Sampson, McCain? They recanted their forced testimony when they were returned. OMAR is free to testify at the hearings as he was to go to trial.”

        Hahahahahahahaha!!!

        So, at a trial where hearsay is allowed (and no court in the West anywhere allows this) and at a trial where testimony extracted by torture is admissible (and no court in the West anywhere allows this) after suffering torture himself, and at a trial where his lawyers were barred from submitting evidence that would cast doubt on his guilt, he was FREE?

        You are seriously and dangerously stupid. I do hope you are never arrested for a crime you didn’t commit.

        Sampson and McCain are perfect examples: Sampson was “captured” near the scene of a terrorist attack. He was tortured for months until he appeared in a “court”, confessed his part and plead guilty. Similarly McCain was captured in war, tortured for 6 years and eventually broke and plead guilty.

        I neither case was the “court” open or fair and in neither case was the conviction in any sense meaningful. The point that you so obviously missed, is that the proceedings that “convicted” Sampson and McCain was nearly identical to the one that “convicted” Khadr in Gitmo. Identical. The point, my dear Canadian”Sense” is that the trial in Gitmo is exactly like one in Saudi Arabia. The ARE equal.

        There is something seriously wrong with your case if they only way to secure a conviction is the jury rig the court in your favour.

        But clearly you don’t care about this or any ideas of fundamental justice. You only care about battling the Taliban…about the poor, poor people of Afghanistan. You don’t care about Khadr’s guilt or innocence, he just serves as a proxy for all “terrorists” or “jihadis” – all Muslims in your mind – he is going to pay for all of those terrible crimes committed “over there” by “them”. And you are so scared, you are willing to throw away YOUR right to a fair trial, to be protected against arbitrary detention and to be free from torture, in order to do it.

        You do realize if they can do this to Khadr, they can do it to you too, right? For whatever reason they decide.

        But since you are so keen, do me a favour – my brother is in the CF (a Warrant Officer) and he says they need guys. Why don’t you wander down to the recruiting station, man up and sign up? Then you can help the REAL victims. Right? Or is that marketing career (read: works at a phone bank) in Oakville taking up too much time? I guess it is easier to let others do the fighting and dying for you eh?

        BTW, you are aware there is an actual mosque 2 blocks closer to the WTC site that has existed there since BEFORE the WTC ever existed, right? Why isn’t that the “Victory Mosque”?

        Your brown shirt is showing again…

        • Jon Pertwee

          @Mike, nice job but the ever insane Oakville Crackpot will never give up. I think she was raised in a Skinner box.

  • Mike

    Oh look, more blathering from a bhard-core lefty Jihadi lover:

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/26/george-jonas-khadrs-worthless-confession/

    Oh, wait….

  • Mike

    For all those who think this whole face is right:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gskxFTd1xvA

    You people are vile and dangerous.

  • ridenrain

    The reality is, most Liberals don’t care in the least over “little Omar”. They’re just angry that their favorite beating stick got taken away.

    Is Omar still going to move in with Bob Rae?

    • Redrum

      @ridenrain, a kernel of truth coated in a lot of nonsense, as usual. True, there’s little love lost b/w most Cndns & the Khadr family, Omar included. But that’s not the point: the point is that we should stand up for the rights of our citizens, even the ones we’d just as soon _weren’t_. Otherwise, what are we still fighting for, in places like Afghanistan, if we’re content to railroad people ourselves or let our allies do it to us? That’s the same principle that Capt. Sean Bruyea raised re: Veterans Affairs yesterday: soldiers go put their lives on the line for the country, and the gov’t turns around and violates his privacy by snooping into his medical file in the attempt to smear & even try to commit him, when he speaks out to try to get better benefits for the vet’s who are getting screwed. We shouldn’t turn a blind eye when the gov’t selectively picks & chooses which laws to enforce or violate, and for whom, for its political convenience. Stop being sheeple.

      • Redrum

        @Redrum, Oh, and far from not having the Khadr case around to use as a club, anymore, au contraire: first, it wasn’t really used that much, until it came to a boil once it finally went to trial; and second, it’s going to keep dragging on for at least the next year, until he gets repatriated, and then for the next 4 years, as people debate his impending parole, and any time the topic of our failed UN bid comes up. This is a giant boil on the govt’s ass that isn’t going to go away any time soon.

        But, yes, the Lib. gov’t has some culpability in this, too, for not getting him repatriated years ago.

    • Mike

      @ridenrain,

      Most Liberals…blah blah blah whatever. Partisan bullshit.

      You know who is more dangerous to my liberty and freedom right now? Not Omar Khadr and not some jihadi twit in a cave in Pakistan. Its conservative authoritarian cowards like yourself who are so easily scared of the latest boogey man (“SCREECH!!! MOOOSLIMS!!!”) that you will throw due process out the window, cheer for arbitrary detention without trial or charge and advocate for torture of other humans, just so you don’t have to feel quite so scared or so you can vent your hate on others. So far everyone of you pricks has wiped your ass with over 900 years of jurisprudence.

      You are a coward, so afraid that the system might not work, you are willing to give unfettered power to the state to do what it will.

      You advocate for fascism and authoritarianism. You are the real enemy.

      (and for the record, I am not nor ever have been a “liberal” or a “Liberal”…I am a libertarian and value freedom and liberty more than anything)

  • True grit Liberal

    I am a Liberal.

    I say let Kahder rot in jail. I don’t care if it’s an American or Canadian jail.

    He deserves life. He is an unrepentant jihadist murderer.

    Liberals should have nothing to do with him.

    • @True grit Liberal, Thank you for the sanity. It appears the Marxist-latte drinking crowd are the dominant voices.

      In powerful, sweeping testimony, a forensic psychiatrist painted a grim portrait of Omar Khadr as a unrepentant, dangerous, Islamic extremist who has been “marinated in the radical jihadism” at Guantanamo.

      Why are senior Liberals still defending him, have they shame?

      • Redrum

        @CanardianSense, speaking of no shame — and hypocrisy — why do the supposedly Law & Order types think it’s ok to flout international law & defy the ruling of the Supreme Court of the land you profess to love?

        Even guilty people have rights, and his have been violated every which way from Sunday, and Canada contributed to that when it sent in CSIS agents to try to trick a confession out of him, too.

        “Canada actively participated in a process contrary to its international human rights obligations and contributed to K’s ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person, guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter, not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Though the process to which K is subject has changed, his claim is based upon the same underlying series of events considered in Khadr 2008. As held in that case, the Charter applies to the participation of Canadian officials in a regime later found to be in violation of fundamental rights protected by international law. There is a sufficient connection between the government’s participation in the illegal process and the deprivation of K’s liberty and security of the person. While the U.S. is the primary source of the deprivation, it is reasonable to infer from the uncontradicted evidence before the Court that the statements taken by Canadian officials are contributing to K’s continued detention. The deprivation of K’s right to liberty and security of the person is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects.

        K is entitled to a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter. The remedy sought by K — an order that Canada request his repatriation — is sufficiently connected to the Charter breach that occurred in 2003 and 2004 because of the continuing effect of this breach into the present and its possible effect on K’s ultimate trial…. K’s Charter rights were violated.

        …This Court declares that through the conduct of Canadian officials in the course of interrogations in 2003-2004, as established on the evidence before us, Canada actively participated in a process contrary to Canada’s international human rights obligations and contributed to Mr. Khadr’s ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.”

        Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, 2010 SCC 3, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 44, 2010-01-29

        http + ://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2010/2010scc3/2010scc3.html

        • @Redrum, Read his signed confession he chose to become a terrorist. He did not want to leave the compound with the women and children. Read the forensic reports from the prosecution psychiatrist. This is a walking timebomb that has shown no remorse.

          The violations that you cite took place under the Liberals. (Thanks for pointing it out sherlock)You also forgot to include this tidbit, again no shock for the cherry picking Liberal apologist.

          The Supreme Court of Canada has overturned lower-court orders that the federal government must try to repatriate Toronto-born Omar Khadr from the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay.

          Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/01/29/omar-khadr-supreme-court.html#ixzz13XPug0lc

          So to wrap this up, Liberals got his daddy out out of jail. His son follows in his footsteps, refuses to surrender and tries to follow in his daddy footsteps by killing American and coalition members (that’s us). Liberals ignore him, violate his rights and only after losing power find it a problem.

          Thank you for confirming the hypocrisy of the Liberal position on OMAR. Sadly this is the position on many files for “Liberals because they have no shame, they are shameless” – Bob Rae

          As the most ardent liberal defender it is nice to see a hypocrite like yourself shed no tear for the real victims including the suffering of women and children at the hands of these radical religious terrorist groups.

      • diane

        Blaming Khadr for being “marinated in radical jihadism” at Guananamo (the psychiatrist hired by the Prosecution) is surely one of the most ludicrous statements ever made at or about this trial, and that’s saying a lot. He didn’t “marinate” himself, that’s for sure. Locking him up with adult prisoners when he was 15 was contrary to international law, not to mention common sense.

        • @diane, Provide evidence that he was forced by his daddy and did not have the option of leaving with the women and children. If OMAR is a Canadian what country did he fight for Pakistan? What uniform or flag or army does this terrorist group fight for?

          Diane women and children ares suffering because of these terrorists. You clearly think this Canadian born war criminal should be treated with kids gloves while those he killed deserved their fate. Shame on you.

  • Derek

    well rat, first you have to admit that there is no ‘UN Convention on Child Soldiers.’ As such, a definition has to be crafted from the actual supporting documents, namely the ‘UN Convention on the Rights of the Child’ and the ‘Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict’.

    Now, the Optional Protocol does not explicitly define or state what a child soldier is, it does however explicitly state in Article 4 that:

    ‘1. Armed groups that are distinct from the armed forces of a State should not, under any circumstances, recruit or use in hostilities persons under the age of 18 years.

    2. States Parties shall take all feasible measures to prevent such recruitment and use, including the adoption of legal measures necessary to prohibit and criminalize such practices.

    3. The application of the present article shall not affect the legal status of any party to an armed conflict.’

    So the Optional Protocol does not in any way affect the legal status in respect to both, the Canadian Charter of Human Rights, and the UN Convention on the rights of the Child, of Omar Khadr, age 15, even in consideration of his participation in armed conflict.

    Let’s turn now to the provisions afforded to the Child under the UN Convention on the Rights of Children:

    UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
    “Article 2
    1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.
    2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members.”

    “Article 37

    States Parties shall ensure that:

    1. No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age;
    2. No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time;
    3. Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age. In particular, every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child’s best interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances;
    4. Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a prompt decision on any such action.’

    ‘Article 40
    Article 40

    1. States Parties recognize the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child’s respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child’s age and the desirability of promoting the child’s reintegration and the child’s assuming a constructive role in society.
    2. To this end, and having regard to the relevant provisions of international instruments, States Parties shall, in particular, ensure that:
    1. No child shall be alleged as, be accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law by reason of acts or omissions that were not prohibited by national or international law at the time they were committed;
    2. Every child alleged as or accused of having infringed the penal law has at least the following guarantees:
    1. To be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law;
    2. To be informed promptly and directly of the charges against him or her, and, if appropriate, through his or her parents or legal guardians, and to have legal or other appropriate assistance in the preparation and presentation of his or her defence;
    3. To have the matter determined without delay by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body in a fair hearing according to law, in the presence of legal or other appropriate assistance and, unless it is considered not to be in the best interest of the child, in particular, taking into account his or her age or situation, his or her parents or legal guardians;
    4. Not to be compelled to give testimony or to confess guilt; to examine or have examined adverse witnesses and to obtain the participation and examination of witnesses on his or her behalf under conditions of equality;
    5. If considered to have infringed the penal law, to have this decision and any measures imposed in consequence thereof reviewed by a higher competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body according to
    6. To have the free assistance of an interpreter if the child cannot understand or speak the language used;
    7. To have his or her privacy fully respected at all stages of the proceedings. 3. States Parties shall seek to promote the establishment of laws, procedures, authorities and institutions specifically applicable to children alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law, and, in particular:

    States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of: any form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or armed conflicts. Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child.”

    Now I understand the neocons are still holding on to Military Commissions act that defined ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means:
    “The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means —

    (i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces); or
    (ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.”

    Though the category of ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ in International Law actually differs from this definition.

    So lets fast track a little here: Under the MCA of 2006, these ‘unlawful enemy combatants’ fall completely outside of the basic lawful guarantees afforded to everyone under Common Law, even though this pseudo-legal interpretation has been thrown out by the US Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush on the question of Habeus Corpus rights under the MCA2006, the ability to challenge indefinite detention in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, that the US courts have the right to hear complaints about unlawful detention in Rasul v. Bush, but the most important of these Supreme Court decisions is obviously, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that found that the military commissions lacked the basic provisions afforded to the accused under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions e.g. that they weren’t impartial judicial avenues for prosecuting crimes. That’s why they came up with the tribunals that have the legal basis for bringing to trial those who are non-American, and accused of committing war crimes.

    Thus, this rather paltry attempt to discredit any and all legal avenues for the detainees held at Guantanamo base has absolutely no legal basis. Everyone has legal recourse whether under International, American, or Canadian law. I suspect this hamstrung attempt to latch on to this pseudo-legal interpretation masks the authors latent xenophobia/ethnocentrism which of course is nothing new from your camp.

    • Derek

      @Derek,

      Just to re-emphasize the guarantees afforded to the Child under the UN Convention on the Rights of Children. They are:

      ‘2. Every child alleged as or accused of having infringed the penal law has at least the following guarantees:
      1. To be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law;
      2. To be informed promptly and directly of the charges against him or her, and, if appropriate, through his or her parents or legal guardians, and to have legal or other appropriate assistance in the preparation and presentation of his or her defence;
      3. To have the matter determined without delay by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body in a fair hearing according to law, in the presence of legal or other appropriate assistance and, unless it is considered not to be in the best interest of the child, in particular, taking into account his or her age or situation, his or her parents or legal guardians;
      4. Not to be compelled to give testimony or to confess guilt; to examine or have examined adverse witnesses and to obtain the participation and examination of witnesses on his or her behalf under conditions of equality;
      5. If considered to have infringed the penal law, to have this decision and any measures imposed in consequence thereof reviewed by a higher competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body according to
      6. To have the free assistance of an interpreter if the child cannot understand or speak the language used;
      7. To have his or her privacy fully respected at all stages of the proceedings. 3. States Parties shall seek to promote the establishment of laws, procedures, authorities and institutions specifically applicable to children alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law, and, in particular:

      States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of: any form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or armed conflicts. Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child.”

      Now just take the time to consider why the US might be interested in resolving this issue as speedily as possible. Have you got it yet?

    • the rat

      @Derek,
      Wow, you tried. Now let me fisk your brilliant cut and paste:

      Well rat, first you have to admit that there is no ‘UN Convention on Child Soldiers.’ As such, a definition has to be crafted from the actual supporting documents, namely the ‘UN Convention on the Rights of the Child’ and the ‘Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict’.

      Now, the Optional Protocol does not explicitly define or state what a child soldier is, it does however explicitly state in Article 4 that:

      ’1. Armed groups that are distinct from the armed forces of a State should not, under any circumstances, recruit or use in hostilities persons under the age of 18 years.

      Should Not? Optional Protocol? Those aren’t exactly forceful or compelling words.

      2. States Parties shall take all feasible measures to prevent such recruitment and use, including the adoption of legal measures necessary to prohibit and criminalize such practices.

      You might be correct here if you are implying Canada should have prevented young Omar from being recruited. But that was Liberal government that failed, it was also a Liberal PM who helped Khadr the elder out of a jam so he could continue his recruitment. Still, I don’t think that makes Khadr a child soldier

      3. The application of the present article shall not affect the legal status of any party to an armed conflict.’

      So the Optional Protocol does not in any way affect the legal status in respect to both, the Canadian Charter of Human Rights, and the UN Convention on the rights of the Child, of Omar Khadr, age 15, even in consideration of his participation in armed conflict.

      Cool. He was captured in Pakistan by the US, neither of which apply the Canadian Charter of Rights. So, please, let’s turn to the UN Convention on the Rights of Children

      Let’s turn now to the provisions afforded to the Child under the UN Convention on the Rights of Children:

      UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
      “Article 2
      1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.
      2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members.”

      What do they define as child? Under 18? It isn’t here. Can you go cut and paste that, too please? Still, is Khadr under Canada’s jurisdiction right now? Is he being discriminated against? Relevance seems missing here

      “Article 37

      States Parties shall ensure that:

      1. No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age;

      8 years is not life, and being weighed is not torture. Or did you not see that film? Claims of torture need some proof, this isn’t the Arar inquiry…

      2. No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time;
      3. Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age. In particular, every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child’s best interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances;
      4. Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a prompt decision on any such action.’

      ‘Article 40
      Article 40

      1. States Parties recognize the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child’s respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child’s age and the desirability of promoting the child’s reintegration and the child’s assuming a constructive role in society.
      2. To this end, and having regard to the relevant provisions of international instruments, States Parties shall, in particular, ensure that:
      1. No child shall be alleged as, be accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law by reason of acts or omissions that were not prohibited by national or international law at the time they were committed;
      2. Every child alleged as or accused of having infringed the penal law has at least the following guarantees:
      1. To be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law;
      2. To be informed promptly and directly of the charges against him or her, and, if appropriate, through his or her parents or legal guardians, and to have legal or other appropriate assistance in the preparation and presentation of his or her defence;
      3. To have the matter determined without delay by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body in a fair hearing according to law, in the presence of legal or other appropriate assistance and, unless it is considered not to be in the best interest of the child, in particular, taking into account his or her age or situation, his or her parents or legal guardians;
      4. Not to be compelled to give testimony or to confess guilt; to examine or have examined adverse witnesses and to obtain the participation and examination of witnesses on his or her behalf under conditions of equality;
      5. If considered to have infringed the penal law, to have this decision and any measures imposed in consequence thereof reviewed by a higher competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body according to
      6. To have the free assistance of an interpreter if the child cannot understand or speak the language used;
      7. To have his or her privacy fully respected at all stages of the proceedings. 3. States Parties shall seek to promote the establishment of laws, procedures, authorities and institutions specifically applicable to children alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law, and, in particular:

      States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of: any form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or armed conflicts. Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child.”

      Ok, a lot more stuff that doesn’t apply to Khadr, who might possibly be considered a prisoner of war if we really stretch the Geneva Conventions a lot

      Now I understand the neocons are still holding on to Military Commissions act that defined ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means:
      “The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means —

      (i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces); or
      (ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.”

      Though the category of ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ in International Law actually differs from this definition.

      So lets fast track a little here: Under the MCA of 2006, these ‘unlawful enemy combatants’ fall completely outside of the basic lawful guarantees afforded to everyone under Common Law, even though this pseudo-legal interpretation has been thrown out by the US Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush on the question of Habeus Corpus rights under the MCA2006, the ability to challenge indefinite detention in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, that the US courts have the right to hear complaints about unlawful detention in Rasul v. Bush, but the most important of these Supreme Court decisions is obviously, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that found that the military commissions lacked the basic provisions afforded to the accused under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions e.g. that they weren’t impartial judicial avenues for prosecuting crimes. That’s why they came up with the tribunals that have the legal basis for bringing to trial those who are non-American, and accused of committing war crimes.

      Whoa! Hold on now, wasn’t you previous cut and paste a statement that Khadr was entitled to due process of law and there here you provide proof that he, in fact, got a hell of a lot of due process Sorry, but didn’t you just demolish your own argument???

      Thus, this rather paltry attempt to discredit an.y and all legal avenues for the detainees held at Guantanamo base has absolutely no legal basis. Everyone has legal recourse whether under International, American, or Canadian law. I suspect this hamstrung attempt to latch on to this pseudo-legal interpretation masks the authors latent xenophobia/ethnocentrism which of course is nothing new from your camp.

      • Redrum

        @the rat, you know no one’s going to read this, right? go back to your sinking ship.

      • Mike

        @the rat, You asked for this evidence and now you are trying to ignore it. Typical proto-fascist Conservative.

      • Derek

        @the rat,

        a) ‘Should not’ is the most forceful condemnation the UN could have produced without explicitly stating that:
        “Armed groups that are distinct from the armed forces of a State CANNOT, under any circumstances, recruit or use in hostilities persons under the age of 18 years.”

        For the rather obvious reason that the Optional Protocol would never be accepted as it would cut into the military recruitment drives of most developed nations, including our own. Furthermore, taking up the “Optional Protocol” argument…*sigh* that’s the title of the document covering the UN’s definition on child soldiers. Just cause you see the word optional doesn’t mean it isn’t an officially recognize legal document.

        b)Not what I’m implying, that’s what the document states. Since the US defined Afghanistan as a ‘Failed State’ in their run-up to the invasion, any and all opposition to their invasion were deemed as unlawful enemy combatants. Despite Omar’s age – he was recruited as a child soldier by his father – due to his age being below that of 18 – he should have been afforded his rights under the CRC. Jurisdictional provisions probably hampered this since the US is not a signatory, though Canada, Pakistan, Afghanistan are. Since Canada is a signatory to the Optional Protocol as well as the CRC, it was incumbent upon our government to ensure that all feasible measures were taken to prevent such recruitment, and failing that, to ensure that the rights of the child not be violated. On several counts, the LPC and CPC governments are complicit in failing to ensure his rights were respected. Now obviously, state intervention into how a child is raised by his family members is often a difficult means of achieving the proper development of the child, if it is found that the environment he is being raised in is not conducive to his entry into the adult world. Since the father, largely responsible for the radical indoctrination of Omar has been killed, it makes redressing the situation (i.e. laying charges against him for this is not possible)considerably difficult since Omar’s own rights have been violated.

        c)uhhh Omar Khadr was not captured in Pakistan, but rather in the small village of Ayub Kheyl west of the tora boras and north of Khost. Basically right along the border.

        d)Really wish you’d have the mind to read the document as it states in Article 1:
        “For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.”

        e)He’s not under American civil jurisdiction, but rather he’s being held in a military detention, is charged with war crimes, and is undergoing judicial review in a military commission. Tell you what, I’ll let you guess who’s jurisdiction he’s in at the moment. While he’s not being discriminated against, you cannot stand here and say: “Oh you know what? I don’t think he’s being punished at all. Just getting his rightful come uppance. Yep.” Cause you know…it says punishment there too or is your fisking meant to masque your reading problems?

        f)sleep deprivation is a form of torture. The way I see it, if the SERE guidebooks are instructing their specops on how to resist these interrogation tactics, then it is torturous to apply the ‘frequent flyer program’ to a 16 year old boy with no training against it. Kind of like throwing your 14 year old freshman daughter on to the highschool football team without a helmet or any instruction on how to play.

        g)There is sufficient jurisprudence to find that many of those clauses actually do apply to the Khadr, with or without “stretching” the GC. Take for example the numerous precedents set by the US Supreme Court I had supplied that demonstrate the Bush legal memos having been thrown out that you’re STILL latching onto to justify your xenophobic tendencies. Get over it, you’re wrong wrong wrong WRONG!

        h)How is sitting in a jail cell outside of any recognizable jurisdiction, with little recourse to challenge his detention as well as having typically inadmissible evidence being brought to bear against him for 8 years “due process”

        You’re living in a fantasy land. Unfortunately, so are a lot of other people.

  • the rat

    Please define “Child Soldier” for me such that it both conforms to the UN’s definition and allows you to claim Khadr is covered by the UN Convention on Child Soldiers. Please remember that Khadr was fully 15 years old when he was captured without uniform in armed conflict in a country not his.

    • Jon Pertwee

      @the rat, Do your own schoolwork. Why should we waste time on a troll that’s just going to refuse to read it objectively?

    • Redrum

      @the rat, hmm, Lieutenant-General Roméo Antonius Dallaire: Force Commander of the United Nations peacekeeping force for Rwanda, Senior Fellow at the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies, Officer of the Legion of Merit of the United States, Officer of the Order of Canada, Senator, leader of the Child Soldier Initiative
      http + ://childsoldiersinitiative.org/a_word_from_romeo_dallaire.html

      …and foremost critic of the Cndn govt(s)’s handling of this file, versus…

      The Rat.

      wonder who has more credibility, here.

      • @Redrum, Mr. Axworthy quoted retired General Romeo Dallaire, who stated that with a professional well-equipped brigade of 5,000 soldiers, he could have been able to save thousands of lives in Rwanda from the genocide that occurred in that country. Instead the Canadian led UN force could only standby and record one of the largest acts of genocide since WWII. Mr. Axworthy then reminded the listeners of the ideals of former PM Lester Pearson who noted that ‘Peacekeeping’ required the ability to back up with force if necessary, the goals of UN operations.

        Ignatieff also lambasted the Liberals (2005) prior to joining the club or revisionists.
        http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/2010/10/liberal-fiscal-record-more-darkness.html
        http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/2010/10/bogus-peacekeeping-reputation-part-ii.html

      • Derek

        @Redrum,

        ‘Please define “Child Soldier” for me such that it both conforms to the UN’s definition and allows you to claim Khadr is covered by the UN Convention on Child Soldiers.’

        I keep reading this over and over and I’m just astounded at the profound ignorance of it all. Wouldn’t the UN’s definition be based entirely on the UN Convention’s definition?

        Why did I even bother with these hosers?

        • Redrum

          @Derek, yeah; well he may’ve meant to add, “of a ‘soldier'” in the first instance. But I went through a lot of this with Scott’s cuz ‘kwittet’ here about a week or so ago; from here on in, I refer the con-bots there & they may ‘talk to the hand’ in reply.

          http + ://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/2010/10/14/conservatives-trying-to-avoid-another-maher-arar-payout/

    • the rat

      @the rat,

      You guys don’t want to define the phrase you are using? Ok, I’ll get all pedantic and do it for you: A child soldier is one who has been enlisted in an army before attaining the age of 15. The optional protocol also specifies that a person under 18 cannot be forcibly enlisted. As to the optional protocol that means that Canada, for example will not enlist (draft) those under 18, it does NOT mean that Canada will not fight or hold prisoner soldiers of a foreign nation under 18 but at least 15. As reading comprehension isn’t strong on the “progressive” side I’ll even illustrate with photos.

      Child Soldier

      Not a Child Soldier

      (p.s.Romeo Dallaire is not much more than a failed General who allowed soldiers to die because of his incompetence. He failed miserably in preventing a genocide and STILL associates with the UN that allowed those soldiers to die. He even blames the Belgian soldiers he allowed to die. For that he gets accolades and sympathy?)

    • Mike

      @the rat,

      Also let me remind you that there is no evidence that Khadr did the action for which he was “charged” (after 8 years in prison without charge or trial). Initial reports indicate that the other person, who was killed at the scene, was the perp. Let me further remind you that Khadr, 15 and a child soldier by the UN definition, was wounded and subjected to torture at Baghram, where his woulds were re-opned and “manipulated” to extort a confession. He was threatened with rape and sleep deprived (you know, like our Hong Kong vets were when held by the Japanese).

      Then after being held without bail, charge or trial for 8 years, he was put in a kangaroo court where evidence extracted through torture and hearsay are admissible and those doing the judging are officers of the very army he is alleged to have attacked and committed crimes against. After all of that he is offered the “plead guilty or we keep you here forever” option.

      Under those circumstances rat, I’m rather positive an armchair warrior like you would confess to shooting Lincoln and plead guilty to killing Jimmy Hoffa.

      This is a travesty of justice not because people love Omar Khadr so much, but because the US and our own government flushed the Charter, the US Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta down the toilet.

      So glad to see you yearn for the good ole days pre-1225 CE when the government (or the Church) could just kill anyone they wanted. My goodness, you want the same legal system as the Taliban has.

      Now which one of us is the enemy of Canada?

      • @Mike, You have provide NO proof of your statements. You have ignored the evidence presented by our allies: Americans who were fighting with us against the terrorists in a UN sanctioned mission led by Nato.

        Anti-Americanism, ignoring the plight of the local population against the foreign terrorists is a recurring theme in the defence of a war criminal that was responsible for at least one death and a loss of an eye.

        The confession, lack or remorse is being ignored by the radical left as they double down on the rhetoric. I would also suggest the supporters of this war criminal also believe that in the US-Zionists theory are also responsible for 9/11. (Moderates don’t support your theory or the war criminal Khadr)

        • Mike

          @CanadianSense,

          I had to read that nonsense twice to even understand what it said…wow.

          It was our “American allies” that admitted during the early part of the trial to questioning the wounded Khadr, even while he was being treated and to subjecting him to interrogation techniques that got Japanese generals hung 55 years ago. It was our “American allies” who set up the Kafkaesque rules of the “court” at Gitmo and have been ignore the Geneva Convention for 10 years.

          In case you missed it, this is not about whether the war in Afghanistan is just or not, nor about 9-11 (which was committed by 19 Saudis with box cutters on the pay of OBL, FWIW).

          This is about the alleged actions of one person – Omar Khadr. Did he actually commit the ‘crime’ he is accused of (assuming that throwing a hand grenade at the soldiers of an invading army is a crime – I’ll let you have that, lets assume it is)?

          The issue is that Khadr did not get a proper trial nor fair treatment. He was not formally charged, even though he was held for over 8 years. He was not allowed access to counsel for 6 of those years. No proper evidence was presented at trial and his lawyers were not allowed to have evidence extracted through torture or by hearsay excluded. It was specifically allowed meaning Paul Bernardo, Russell Williams and Willy Pickton had more rights. Indeed, the defence wanted to submit an early report from a soldier on the scene that indicated the other person who was killed was the one who threw the grenade, but was not allowed to (I’ll let you google that one).

          Bottom line: I don’t know if Khadr did what was alleged and neither do you (since he did not have anything other than a Stalinist show trial). You are so scared of the jihadi boogey-man that you are willing to forgo finding out and tossing him in prison without a fair and proper trial with strong rules of evidence. I am not. I believe individual freedom and rights need to be protected from arbitrary governments. You do not.

          By definition that makes you an authoritarian and a textbook fascist.

          This point is only made more by your ham-fisted attempt to try a sideways smear against me by implying I am antisemitic and a Truther of some sort. Those who know me will testify to the fact that I am an ardent enemy of Truther idiots and don’t buy any of that nonsense. But I guess when you cannot argue logically from a position of principal about the issues at hand, all you can do is resort of clumsy ad hominems in order to justify your hatred of Muslims.

          I am defending the rule of law, due process and against arbitrary government power, not Omar Khadr. Its clear where you and your ilk stand.

        • @Mike,

          In your mind this is NOT about the war by terrorists vs our allies including the coalition. Your demands of a fair trial are falling on deaf ears as I don’t sympathize with radical extremists bent on killing women, children. I don’t have room for sociopaths. That is a Liberal obsession.

          In YOUR mind your Libertarian principles is the right thing. Ask the families of those lost by IED’s planted by OMAR and his “ilk” if OMAR is worthy of the obsession by the MSM or idiots like yourself.

          Women in children in Afghanistan are better off without the Taliban and convicted war criminals like Omar. It is pathetic how much time is being spent on him by the like of you claiming you are defending the Rule of Law.

          Take a trip to Caledonia if you feel so inclined. I don’t need you to defend OMAR when hundreds of Canadians have had their rights infringed.

          You don’t like Americans. We get it.

        • Beijing York

          @CanadianSense, At the time of the firefight/aerial bombardment (July 27, 2002), the ISAF mandate did not go beyond the boundaries of Kabul. The responsibility for security throughout the whole of Afghanistan was to be given to the newly-reconstituted Afghan armed forces. In the original mandate (December 2001), ISAF was charged with securing Kabul to allow for the establishment of the Afghan Transitional Administration headed by Hamid Karzai. The US special ops soldiers were assisting the Afghan Army in a village raid in Khost. The Afghan soldiers were directed to the compound where Khadr was eventually found, where they were killed and a firefight ensued with the US special ops. They called in an aerial bombardment and discovered Khadr alive, crouched behind rubble after a grenade had been thrown injuring two US soldiers seriously.

          You’re taking a few shortcuts in calling that incident a UN sanctioned/ISAF event. It wasn’t until October 2003 that the Security Council voted unanimously to expand the ISAF mission beyond Kabul. Shortly thereafter, Chrétien said that Canadian soldiers (nearly half of the entire force at that time) would not deploy outside Kabul. The nature of the Canadian mission changed when it was deployed to Kandahar as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

          I see know reason why Canada shouldn’t question the evidence of our “allies” given that Khadr is a Canadian and as such is afforded protections, including intervening on his behalf because he was a child soldier first and foremost. If the events had unfolded in Iraq, where we were not officially involved. would you have a problem with Canada questioning the veracity of our ally’s evidence, especially given how it was obtained?

  • foottothefire

    canadiansense…

    first, take a peek at my liberalsonline entry today on the subject of, “”victim impact statements”; what comes around should go around, don’t you think?
    Secondly, if you want war criminals, take a look at wikileaks.com. From Bush to his boss, Cheney, to Karl Rove and if that isn’t enough for you search the Contra war (the Bush family just keep on ticking, don’t they?).
    But the most important victim impact for Canada sits at the feet of Harper who chose to let injustice rain down on a fifteen year old kid and for what? To pretend he has the power to make war, foreign policy etc. outside Canada (he does love his Americanism, doesnt he?) immune from accountability to parliament and Canadians let alone the Supreme Court? And that’s what Khadr is all about.

    • @foottothefire, First check your fact, Canada was involved the Iraq war. We sent our navy and our current CDS was awarded a medal during the war.

      How many years did the Liberals ignore the plight of OMAR the convicted war criminal? The CPC won in 2006. They never promised to seek special treatment for him. Check the campaign. The CPC have not budged on their principles.

      Feel free to ask Liberals why in 2006 after they lost power did they ‘wake up’ to the plight of a convicted war criminal. It reminds how Italian reparations were a non-issue until they lost power. I see a pattern.

      • Jon Pertwee

        @CanadianSense, “The CPC have not budged on their principles.” Oh yeah those “principles”. Yeah right.

      • foottothefire

        @CanadianSense,
        Does the word, “Accountability”, not register with you? When does Stephen Harper accept responsibility for government as in the case of the thuggery foisted upon Omar Khadr? How long does he get to blame, “the Liberals”, for all thing failing under his watch? Oh no, Stephen Harper is a self made man.
        What we constantly get from Harper and the harperites is parsed to the nth degree and burdened with blame for others. Harper isn’t a leader; he’s a heavy handed bully, a coward and grossly incompetent (think economic update…then and now…the now version which had to be another Tim Horton’s style announcement). Perhaps you don’t realize how truly worthless Harper is (check the stats on PMO expenses for clues to a desperate man) and you are suffering the personal frustration of being led by the political version of Eddy the Eagle.

        • @foottothefire, Omar was 2 weeks from his 16th BD captured in 2002. He refused to leave a compound with the women and children surrounded by Afghans and our allies. The lower courts found blame on the Liberal government for forwarding information collected by CSIS before the CPC came to power.

          Can you explain why two Liberal MPs have to repay $ 140k in expenses? That is enough for 2.45 fake lakes! Ignatieff is away for 76% of the votes on the Hill. How many Bills has your leader flip flopped on in the past 24 months on second reading (EI 360)? Why did he throw Ruby Dhalla under the bus on her private members Bill for Pension improvement? Gerard Kennedy on the American deserter bill? John McKay on the ethical mining bill?

          The Conservatives are “desperate” as the NDP appear to be catching up to the Liberals in fundraising in Q3 2010. Almost original as the “running scared” meme deployed every time a poll shows a horse race. How did that work out in Toronto with Mayor Elect Rob Ford?

          At least Dion was strong enough to negotiate keeping the reduction of corporate taxes to secure the PM job in 2009. It appears Ignatieff is willing to alienate the Chamber of Commerce (thousands of businesses) and the entire Aerospace industry over replacing the CF-18 falling out of the sky.

          That Senior Liberal Senator, relied on for expert military, Afghanistan opinion has just slammed Ignatieff Liberals over the political stunt on the F35.

          As a conservative supporter I am eager for the by elections and a general election to help retire more Liberal MPs.

  • Can you point me to a single post on the plight of the victim(s) on Lib blogs of convicted war criminal Omar?

    My memory might be faulty but it looks like an echo chamber or a fan club to Omar with excuses for his crimes.

    • Redrum

      @CanadianSense, yeah, yeah: good on you, con-bot: dutifully dropping off your latest talking point from Stephen Taylor (which was actually done to mollify _you_ base sorts, about bringing the hated Kinsella onboard the Sun:
      www + .stephentaylor.ca/2010/10/krista-erickson-to-join-qmi-on-november-1st/#comment-88014357 )

      So what are you now, the Thought Police? Upset about unreported topics on Liberal blogs?

      The issue here whether anyone LIKES Omar or what he did; it’s that the US gov’t has systematically violated his RIGHTS and the Canadian gov’t (of both stripes) has been complicit in that.

      That’s something that Conservatives — particularly of the more libertarian sort — used to care about. It’s too bad they’re so selective in which or whose rights they care to defend, these days.

      • @Redrum, Nice to change the channel. I noted and asked a simple question why is their no sympathy for the acts of a convicted self-confessed war criminal that Liberals abandoned while they were in power.

        Historical revisionism? The CPC have been consistent on their position in this matter. I believe the NDP and Bloc as well. It has only been the Liberals who have changed their position.

        • Jon Pertwee

          @CanadianSense, ha ha that has to be the biggest load of horse hockey that Ive read from Oakville Crackpot so far today. Pretty rich of her to get onto others for getting off topic.

          Typical CS nonsense I see.

        • Redrum

          @CanadianSense, yeah: I respond directly to the “echo chamber” shot, which YOU raised, by pointing out where you got it from, and you say that’s changing the channel?

          And meanwhile, on the other thread on this topic where you’re simultaneously carrying on about it, you raise: the Toronto mayoral election?! talk about changing the channel.

          http + ://jamesbowie.blogspot.com/2010/10/ok-so-terrorist-effing-did-it.html

          Do Liberals feel sympathy for the families of fallen soldiers? Sure. Do we try to shamelessly parade that to deflect criticism from a government’s failings? No, not as a rule, thankfully. Should we apologize for that? Um, no.

          Or should we, e.g., linger on the suffering of the families of Col. Russell Williams’ victims and try to lay that at the Minister of Defense or the PM’s door? Clearly, no: that would be beyond the pale. So don’t go ’round faulting others for failing to dwell on the victims.

        • Jon Pertwee

          @Redrum, you know Canadiansense is completely barmy

    • Marie

      CS,I will bet your beloved Con party and yourself have heard of Lee Atwater, Boogie man “king of Dirty Tricks” Worked for the last three Republican Presidents and might have prevented Clinton from winning had he not developed a brain tumor. Well that puts you a sucker for listening to Steven Taylor. Phrases like I heard, rumor has it etc, just a few of the lies he ran.

      The peope loved him. most times the Media knew he was lying but the Media could not call them on it. You can watch CBC Oct 30 at 7 Pm eastern on the passionate eye or better yet, watch it online at CBC the passionate Eye anytime.I watched the show on Sunday night and it sure was an eye opener.I can certainly understand why G Bush Junior and Harper got along so well. I would suspect that he even tutored Harper on how to win an elections using dirty tricks. Don’t take my word for it but that program runs parallel to ding dong Stevie and yourself. That would explain why the Media is always sugar coating their reports. Lines from Alwater like blaming Ignatieffs lineage like we hear from the Con supporters call Ignatieff the count from the US etc. I tell you all, watch CBC passioatte eye and come to your own conclusions.

      • @Marie, Running out of Canadian examples already? The party has won power in 2006 and lead a minority parliament. In every SINGLE case at least one party has BACKED them to avoid an election.

        Paul Martin was not given the confidence of Parliament and the voters rejected him in 2006. The sad or disturbing FACT is Liberal apologists are complaining but YOUR party has been the BIGGEST supporter or enabler of the Conservative agenda.

        Those are FACTS and the votes in parliament can be researched. So if you don’t like the existing agenda from the minority government ask the political leaders in your party why they keep voting confidence. Ask why at least thirty of them keep failing to show up to vote against a supply bill.

        Ask why a dozen have left key Liberal bills to die on second reading. From tax funded abortion for the Congo, EI 360 to American deserters, Liberals have done it to THEMSELVES.

        Look up the voting record of the Liberals.
        http://openparliament.ca/

        Stop blaming other political parties that don’t have your leadership problems.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.