Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:

Archives

Right and left media concur on Khadr. Charge him, or free him.

Just a little update to my post from yesterday talking about Canada needing to insist to the US that Omar Khadr be released from the international disgrace known as Guantanamo and sent home to either face charges here or be set free.

You would probably not be surprised that the Star wrote an editorial today saying Khadr needs to be sent home from Guantanamo and either charged in Canada or freed:

How much longer must Omar Khadr, a young Canadian citizen, be caught up in the judicial farce that U.S. President George Bush created to deal with “enemy combatants” after the 9/11 attacks? …This is legal anarchy. Washington appears determined to rewrite the rules until it manages to secure a conviction. Canadians have little sympathy for Khadr and his Al Qaeda-linked family, but we do respect due process. Even if Khadr is redesignated an “unlawful” combatant by some contorted retroactive legal wizardry, laying charges a third time will look like persecution, not justice. That’s why Harper should demand that Khadr be freed, returned to Canada and charged here in a regular court if the facts warrant it, where he would have a fair chance to defend himself.

…. but you might be surprised to read that the Toronto Sun is also calling for almost the same thing:

Its time for the U.S. to put up or shut up in the case of Omar Khadr…The Bush administration has said all along it may hold him as a prisoner until its war on terror is over. In other words, indefinitely. Thats unacceptable. If the U.S. isnt capable of giving Khadr a timely trial, and apparently it isnt, it should free him. The war on terror doesnt override the reality that justice delayed is justice denied.

Even the right-wing Sun sees the US military commissions for what they are; a judicial farce/travesty of justice, and that regardless of who the person is or how we feel about them, everyone deserves the right to due process.

Share

33 comments to Right and left media concur on Khadr. Charge him, or free him.

  • KC

    If anyone is "moving goal posts" and "invoking morality" it is you two.  Clearly debating with YOU two is pointless.   Heaven forbid we can the PC crap for a minute and have a real discussion about whether maintaining a connection to Canada is a condition of citizenship.I see no more reason for Canada to make representations for Omar Khadr then anyone else at Guantanamo Bay.  His citizenship of convenience hardly entitles him to any more.

  • "I'd rather Canada spend its time advocating for ALL whose human rights are being abused in Guantanamo Bay and around the world rather than focusing on a single case because the person holds a Canadian citizenship of convenience.  "

    Dog forbid anyone should be able to do both at the same time.

  • You know what, Scott? Debating this with KC is pointless. If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s people who pretend they’re using logic while invoking “morality”, constantly changing the goal posts and misrepresenting someone else’s argument. This really is futile.

    Maybe he’ll actually grasp the concept of “walking a mile in someone else’s shoes” one of these days and get down off his “moral” pedestal.

  • KC

    No Scott you aren't on the "fringe" anymore than I am.  I was responding to your suggestion that I might be unsuitable for the Liberal Party by observing that generally you are as far if not more outside the mainstream of the Liberal Party as I am.  I too believe that every Canadian citizen, or any human being for that matter "should get due process and shouldn't be held forever in someone else's prison indefinitely when they've had cases against [t]hem dismissed twice".  I just dont share your postivist conception of what a "Canadian citizen" is.  I'd rather Canada spend its time advocating for ALL whose human rights are being abused in Guantanamo Bay and around the world rather than focusing on a single case because the person holds a Canadian citizenship of convenience.   

  • So? now I am on the fringe, am I, for advocating that Canadian citizens should get due process and shouldn’t be held forever in someone else’s prison indefinitely when they’ve had cases against them dismissed twice now? For advocating he either be released to Canada and then freed or charged in Canada and given the benefit of a fair trial, as is due to all Canadian citizens, of which he is one? I’d challenge that assertion, Kyle, that I’m on the fringe of the party with that view.

    I’m in the Liberal Party after all, not the Republican Party.

  • KC

    Give me a break Scott.  Obviously you aren't paying any attention to context.  You kept calling me and my views "right wing" even calling them "ultra right wing" at one point with the suggestion that that makes them bad.   I was merely pointing out that Catnip was putting ideology before reality.   There are also plenty of people living in "conservative lah-lah land" (those who uncritically accept that "free markets cure poverty" clearly fall into that category), but seeing as the ideology was clearly "liberal" (I consider myself somewhat "liberal", believe in the presumption of innocence, yet refuse to take it to the absurd extent that Catnip clearly is where we each all must as individuals reserve judment until a "court" decides for us).As for being a member of the Liberal Party I think it would be an error for you to assume that your views represent the overwhelmingly dominant perspective of Liberals.  Many Liberals would find much of what you have said to be absurd as clearly you find what I have said to be absurd.  If one of us is generally on the fringe of the party it is you on the left, not me on the right.

  • I note again with irony how Kyle scorns the word "liberal" as in "liberal la-la land" but yet is a member of the Liberal Party… and this after telling me I shouldn't be labeling him as having a neo-conservative view, and that labels were bad.

     Real consistent, Kyle.

  • KC

    Catnip – I’ve read the Charter many many times and I’ve never seen anything that would lead to believe that it grants Mr. Khadr a positive entitlement to have Canada’s Prime Minister or anyone else lobby on his behalf. Now if our government were to lobby on behalf of one citizen and not another because the latter was black, brown, green, Jewish, communist, or some other irrelevant consideration then that person might have an argument under s. 15. But that is not the case here. The government should not make representations on Mr. Khadr’s behalf because of his long absence and lack of connections to Canada. Those are not enumerated or analogous grounds under s. 15 to the best of my knowledge.

    If Canada was actively preventing a citizen from entering Canada they might have an argument under the mobility rights section–but that does not mean that the government is obliged to facilitate your reentry into Canada. The constitution does not oblige the state to go and get you. So its fine and good for you to invoke the Charter but until you point to a particular section that is being violated by the Canadian government then you dont have a case.

    As for deciding who is a citizen, I have never suggested that Mr. Khadr or anyone else should be stripped of their legal citizenship arbitrarily or extrajudiciously. I have merely argued that a process should be in place to do so, and that while Mr. Khadr is entitled to all the legal entitlements that legal citizenship entails we are not somehow morally obliged to go above and beyond what is required on his behalf. Obviously you have simply ignored the fact that I have said that Canada should be critical of the US generally for what it has done in Guantanamo Bay so I will just ignore your comments on that issue.

    As for beyond a reasonable doubt–you can live in liberal lah-lah land all you like. State’s must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to deprive an individual of their liberty; individuals do not have to be convinced as such to render personal judgement. If you choose to suffer the cognitive dissonance of being personally of the belief based on the facts as you know them that someone is “probably guilty”, yet telling yourself otherwise because “the courts say so” then go right ahead. I’m not so willing to suspend disbelief. To be clear I dont think mine, or anyone elses (including our governments) views on Mr. Khadrs guilt or lack thereof should have any bearing on whether or not we make representations to the US on Khadrs behalf. If that was part of our considerations then I would agree that that would be a violation of the presumption of innocence. My argument is that he should not have representations on his behalf because the law does not require it (either constitutional or statutory) and hes never done anything to cause us to go above and beyond, NOT because I think he is “probably” guilty. If Mr. Khadr was convicted in Canada when a “reasonable doubt” was raised, or our government said “we’re not helping him because hes probably guilty anyways” then I would be right there with you protesting vigorously. But insofar as personal opinion goes–the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt does not apply.

    As for your “decree” that I am no longer a Canadian citizen you are perfectly entitled to that view. I challenge you to convince all the people who think that there are limits to how long citizenship extends when you leave the country that someone who lives and works in Canada should lose their citizenship, but OK. I personally support reform of the definition and that is a fair and legitimate opinion held by many Canadians. In said redefinition its clear that the constitution would not allow a definition of citizenship that puts a racial, religious, country of orgin, or immigrated vs. natural born requirement on citizenship. That would be morally wrong and unconstitutional. But there is nothing morally wrong or unconstitutional with establishing a process for the extinguishment of citizenship when one has taken a lengthy leave of absence from Canada and/or severed significant ties with this country.

  • I'd also suggest to KC that he reread the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because, as long as Khadr is a citizen, those rights apply to him as well.

    "The fact that the law requires that courts find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before restricting liberty does not mean that I can't believe someone to be guilty on some lower standard of evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt for example)."

    Fine. Just don't expect anyone else to agree with you. and never forget that someone, from your POV, can apply exactly the same standard to you should you ever be suspected of a crime – no matter how much you protest otherwise. That's the bottom line with these types of opinions. They're quite convenient when they apply to everybody else but if someone were to apply the same standard to those who espouse such beliefs, they'd be first in line to scream that their rights are being violated.

  • Thanks for fixing that for me, Scott. Old html habits die hard. 😉

  • Just a reminder to Use the editor, not the tags if you want to italicize or bold or quote people 😉 Its not hard to miss; all that B I U and so forth above the comment box and below the smilies is there for a reason 😉

    Catnip.. I used my editor on my side to highlight the points which you wanted bold and italicized and so forth.

  • I (and many other Canadians) legitimately believe that at some point a person ceases to be a citizen of a country regardless of what some statute says, and we wont be cowed into changing that view by the sanctimonious demonizing of the far left.

    Does that mean I can decide when you “cease to be a citizen”? “Some statute” = “the law”and you don’t have the right to strip anyone of their citizenship without a legal procedure.

    Secondly, step away from the “moral” argument. This isn’t about “morality”. It’s about a boy who was a child soldier who was captured on the battlefield and taken to an extrajudicial facility to rot for 5 years without due process and who has alleged he has been tortured. Even the US Supreme Court has decided that the so-called military tribunals set up by Bushco “violated the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions”. (see Hamdan v Rumsfeld)

    Congress then attempted to revamp the process and passed the Military Commissions Act which, as you know, has now resulted in the charges against Khadr and Hamdan being dismissed.

    Just how many kicks at the can does the US administration get to deal with these detainees? This goes way beyond any question of “morality”. This is about internationally accepted standards of justice – and Bushco is violating them at every turn while protecting their own soldiers from prosecution for war crimes by conveniently opting out of the ICC.

    Beyond that is the fact that the US has willingly repatriated numerous Gitmo detainees over the years. Bush even said last year that they want to send more home but that, apparently, some countries of origin weren’t cooperating. We haven’t exactly been cooperative in Khadr’s case, have we?

    Extradition happens all the time. Why shouldn’t Khadr be extradited to Canada? As much as you may not want to admit it, he is undoubtedly a Canadian citizen. Again, you don’t get to decide that he isn’t and you also don’t get to decide whether he is guilty of anything he has been charged with (and now he sits in limbo once again, having had the charges against him dismissed). Do you have all of the facts of his case or just what you’ve read in the media? Do you support his internment at Gitmo until the “end” of the GWOT? When’s that projected to happen? This decade? This century?

    Individual citizens in this country do not get to decide who deserves justice and who doesn’t. If we did, there’d be anarchy.

    I’d rather see Canada use its limited consular resources and international political capital protect the rights of real Canadians.

    Define a “real” Canadian because this: “Canadians who have maintained a substantial connection with this country” applies to Khadr as well. He’s just, quite inconveniently, been jailed in Cuba for years now.

    The fact that the Citizenship Act says Omar Khadr is a citizen does not mean that we must all adjust our conception of what being “Canadian” really means to fit a legal definition.

    All right. I now decree that you are not a “real” Canadian. Deal with it.

    We wouldn’t want pesky rules of logic stand in the way of ideology.

    What logic? You are basing your arguments about legal issues on your right to your personal feelings and opinions.

  • KC

    I'd rather see Canada use its limited consular resources and international political capital protect the rights of real Canadians.   Canadians who have maintained a substantial connection with this country.  Scott I TOO believe in human rights (I think Canada should be condemning the US's abuses in Guantanamo) the rule of law and due process (I've already said that the US should be condemned for the way it has disregarded rule of law and due process in Guantanamo, and have stated my belief that Omar Khadr should have a fair trial in accordance with law and due process in Canada).  I believe he is the right not to be prejudged by our courts.   I have been clear that Omar Khadr is entitled to everything legal Canadian citizenship legally entitles him to.   But the fact that I hold these beliefs does not change the rule of logic that positivist premises can't support normative arguments.  The fact that the Citizenship Act says Omar Khadr is a citizen does not mean that we must all adjust our conception of what being "Canadian" really means to fit a legal definition.   The fact that the law requires that courts find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before restricting liberty does not mean that I can't believe someone to be guilty on some lower standard of evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt for example).   And the fact that being legally a citizen of Canada entitles you to certain benefits under law, does not mean we owe it to 'citizens of convenience' to feel a moral obligation towards them. If recognizing the logical fallacies  in your arguments makes me an 'evil right winger' then so be it.  Im proud to be a moderate liberal and Liberal.  But hey! We wouldn't want pesky rules of logic stand in the way of ideology. 

  • You're decrying ad hominem attacks and labels and such.. yet you're attacking me and my position as being "an emotional leftist argument"? A tad ironic, don't you think? Pot calling the kettle black, and all that?

    For the record, I'm proud to be on the left-wing of the Liberal party; I consider myself a social liberal in the ideological sense , and I believe in human rights and the rule of law and due process and giving someone the right to a fair trial without prejudging what they may or may not have done.  If that makes me a "leftist" (which despite your protestations of labels you apparently feel is a dirty word) then so be it. I wear that badge proudly.

    Khadr is a Canadian, whether you like it or not,  and he deserves the rights that our country's citizenship entails, which includes the right to a fair trial and the right to a presumption of innocence. I maintain my original position (which has gotten sidetracked here) that the government should be actively pressing to bring him home – and if they have evidence to charge them, then do so.  How exactly that is leftist is beyond me. As far as I'm concerned, that's what most reasonable Canadians would want. (You can add the Globe and Mail to the growing list of media calling for Harper to do this, by the way, as well as the not-always Liberal friendly Jonathan Kay of the National Post).

  • KC

    No one ever said that once you leave Canada you should lose your citizenship, only that there is a point–which the Khadr's most certainly crossed at some point in their almost a decade absence from Canada–that they should.   The "the citizenship act says so so it must be true" argument is so lame.  The Citizenship Act says what it means to be Canadian in law.  Nothing more nothing less.  I have heard plenty of people toss around the suggestion that someone is a "criminal" when they have commited no crime under the criminal code.  We use the word "polluter" without merely meaning those who violate environmental protection legislation.  For many many Canadians, myself included, being Canadian means much more than falling under some overexpansive legal definition.As for being a "right wing conservative"–I like how Andrew Coyne put it: "ideologies are like gangs".   Its sad that you can't take the legitimate view in this country that residency has some bearing on retention of citizenship without being called a "right wing conservative".  I'd rather be called a right wing conservative than advance an emotional leftist argument that is so overly sensitive to peoples feelings regarding their "Canadianess" that it can't fathom that someone, somewhere might expect more from "Canadians" that choose to leave the country.  Your last paragraph is so far off base that I don't know where to begin.  How attacking Dions (a man who has lived almost his entire life in this country) patriotism towards Canada is anything like attacking the practice of maintaining citizenship in this country simply for the privileges that it entails is beyond me.  Its so absurd that it barely deserves a rebuttal.   If anyone should be disappointed it should be me since clearly you cant have a reasoned argument about what it means to be Canadians without throwing around lame ad hominem attacks like "ultra-rightwingers" and "right wing conservative". 

  • There are 2 million Canadians who live outside of Canada due to work or whatever, and who don't get back to Canada that often… are you going to tell them they're all citizens of convenience and aren't really Canadians or less Canadian then the rest of us who happen to live here?

    I am not implying "foul motive" on anyone, Kyle. I'm just making the point you sound more like a right-wing conservative then a Liberal on this issue.  Its rather darn telling to me that even the Toronto Sun is "left" of your position.

    I can also refute you very easily –  if Khadr, or Arar, or anyone else who isnt even related to these 2 cases qualifies as a citizen under the Citizenship Act.. then they're Canadians. End of story. 

    This harping about 'citizens of convenience" is directly in my mind related to the initial sniping we heard from ultra-rightwingers on Dion's dual citizenship – this is EXACTLY the same tact that they're taking with the "citizen of convenience" stuff – implying that somehow you're less of a Canadian if you dont live here year round. I'm disappointed, Kyle. that you apparently subscribe to their views. I'm sure Gerard Kennedy doesn't.

  • KC

    No Scott.  The 'citizens of convenience' complaint comes from the legitimate view that current residency has at least some bearing on citizenship, and your attempt to imply foul motive on the part of people who object to abusesof the Citizenship Act  is a "thinly veiled" ad homiem attack against "certain citizens of Canada" whose "viewpoints" you don't like but cannot refute. As for Mr. Khadr he can put forward any arguments that he wants if he gets charged (which he likely wont), but there is a presumption of sanity in Canada so the burden would be on him to prove he wasn't sane.  He also bears that burden in convincing me. 

  • "There are many Liberals beside myself who believe the "citizen of convenience" complaint is a thinly veiled way of trying not to defend certain citizens of Canada because we don't like them or some of their viewpoints."

    Just not Garth Turner. 😆

  • By the way Kyle:

    No ideology has a monopoly on being right. I (and many other Canadians) legitimately believe that at some point a person ceases to be a citizen of a country regardless of what some statute says, and we won’t be cowed into changing that view by the sanctimonious demonizing of the far left.

    Agreed that no ideology has a monopoly on being right, but I object to being told I am sanctimoniously demonizing you… or that I am far left in believing a Canadian citizen is a Canadian citizen.  There are many Liberals beside myself who believe the "citizen of convenience" complaint is a thinly veiled way of trying not to defend certain citizens of Canada because we don't like them or some of their viewpoints.

  • Hey Kyle:

    Ever think that a 15 yr old kid might be brainwashed by his fanatical father into doing such actions? I’m prefectly prepared to accept that might be the case.

    We see it all the time amongst young kids and teens who are ensnared in pseudo-Christian cults (ie David Koresh’s group, or Jim Jones back in the late 1970’s), and I think its perfectly plausible here that an extremist fanatical follower of a violent sub-branch of Islam brainwashed his kid into believing what he was doing was right.

    Like Mike said, we’ll have to wait and see. Unlike yourself, Kyle, I’m not prepared to pre-judge the young man.. and I certainly am not just because the US claims he did something wrong.

    And uh.. my apologies for my spam filter catching your messages.. but after someone posts multiple times on a single day… it throws up a red flag… I’ll have to adjust that somewhat.

  • KC

    Mike – Of course.  And the US should be condemned for much of what has happened at Guantanamo Bay.   I've said that all along.  I just don't think that Omar Khadr deserves special representations by our government not afforded to the rest of the detainees there merely because he holds a Canadian citizenship of convenience.  We owe no special moral obligation to him above and beyond that owed to anyone else in the world merely because of his legal status.  I am not assuming that he is guilty because his family holds unpopular opinions.   I am concluding based on the facts as I know them that he is likely guilty because he and his family aided the Taliban in their war against Coalition troops which included Canadians.  If I was on a jury deciding on his fate I would need to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty before entering a conviction, but I'm not so I am within my right to believe that he is probably guilty and definitely should stand trial.  Few believe that OJ Simpson was innocent merely because the jury decided so.  That verdict (rightly) entitled him to his liberty, but does not entitle him to vindication with the public. 

    Its possible that the 'kid' did nothing wrong, but given that merely helping the Taliban in their war against Canada and its allies is high treason and that has never seriously been disputed it is doubtful.As for unpopular opinions.  Unpopular opinions are fine, but few would argue that holding such opinions justifies acting on them.   We would live in chaos if that were the case.   Its not that the Khadr's held unpopular opinions that causes such anger against them.  It is the fact that they went to Afghanistan and acted on them (even if only in a minor capacity) to the detriment of our national interests that people loathe them.

  • Gayle

    Let me throw this little nugget in. Even if he were brought back to Canada and charged, he would be charged as a young person – this means that upon conviction he is liable to spend a maximum of 3 years in custody, and since he has already served more than that in custody, I am sure a clever lawyer will ensure that time counts against his sentence.In fact, I am sure a clever lawyer could argue that bringing any prosecution against him now would violate his rights under the Charter and the YCJA, as there is no possibility that his identity can be protected (as is his right under the YCJA) and no point in prosecuting anyway after what has happened to him.I doubt that will stop Harper from trying it anyway.

  • KC,

    I think the entire point is that the US locked up a 15 year old kid and has justified it based on what? No evidence has been provided, only a story that he threw a grenade at a medic. No coroborating evidence, no charge no trial.

    Did he throw the grenade because he was scared? Was it on purpose, was it an accident? Was it even him or was he merely "in the wrong place at the wrong time"?

    You are assuming he is guilty merely because his name is Khadr and he is a member of a family that holds some highly unpopular, but perfectly legal opinions.

    Its possible this kid did nothing wrong. Of course, thats why we have charges and trials in the first place – to prove he did something wrong.

  • KC

    If we are not at "war" with the Taliban in Afghanistan I don't know what you call what we've been doing over there for the past 6 years.

  • KC

    Innocent until proven guilty is a principle that guides states in their prosecution of criminal law, not individual personal opinion. Each of us are free to weigh the facts as we know them and come to our own conclusions based on any standard of proof that we wish (innocent until proven guilty or balance of probabilities) because we don’t have the power to deprive him of his liberty (which is the rationale for the principle). Demanding that each of us as private citizens mould our views about innocence and guilt around what the courts decide would require us to suspend disbelief as everyone knows of acquittals where the courts were clearly wrong.

    Even if Khadr is not guilty of the specific events which gave rise to his detention at Guantanamo he was still in Afghanistan aiding the Taliban. Those facts are actually pretty uncontroversial as far as I understand it. I wish the crown well if they decide to pursue charges. As for the citizenship debate, an opinion is not necessarily wrong because the Blogging Tories hold it. Frankly I’ve seen plenty of ludicrous suggestions and assertions at Liblogs, Prog Bloggers, Blogging Dippers in addition to Blogging Tories. No ideology has a monopoly on being right. I (and many other Canadians) legitimately believe that at some point a person ceases to be a citizen of a country regardless of what some statute says, and we won’t be cowed into changing that view by the sanctimonious demonizing of the far left.

    Its logically fallacious to procede from a legal premise (ie Omar Khadr is legally a citizen as defined by the Citizenship Act) to demand that we owe some moral obligation. Law does not make morality. If I find common cause with conservatives on this issue then so be it. Im still waiting to see that law that says that the government MUST make representations on behalf of people just because they are legally Canadian ‘citizens’.

  • Canada was never "at war" with anyone…..so not sure how this high treason charge would even apply.

  • Kyle said:
    [quote comment="4755"]Scott – I'd like to see him held to account.   Frankly I would agree with you that the US isnt the place for him to be tried because he hasnt technically committed a crime against them, but wrt Canada he can't have it both ways.  Either he isn't a Canadian citizen and we owe him nothing, or he is a Canadian citizen and he has commited high treason by aiding the parties against whom Canada was at war with. [/quote]

    Well the first part of your statement is not true, because he is a Canadian citizen. Whether you want to continue to quibble about this "citizen of convenience" stuff like our Blogging Tory friends have done (and which you are distressingly and in creasingly sounding like) is up to you, but he is a Canadian citizen. Period. End of Story.

    As for the 2nd part, you've already convicted Khadr with your declaration or presumption that he has "committed high treason" (again, sounding distressingly like the Blogging Tories). That is not proven, Kyle…  innocent til proven guilty, remember?  If the Canadian government wants to charge him with that, let him be charged, and let's see what the evidence shows and what the court's verdict is.  Your view seems to be based on a bias toward the family and some of what their past history shows.  As (shockingly) Lorrie Goldstein of the Suns says, Omar Khadr can't answer for what his family has done… it's his actions that he has to be judged on.. and if he is found innocent, that should be the end of the matter.

  • KC

    Scott – I'd like to see him held to account.   Frankly I would agree with you that the US isnt the place for him to be tried because he hasnt technically commited a crime against them, but wrt Canada he can't have it both ways.  Either he isn't a Canadian citizen and we owe him nothing, or he is a Canadian citizen and he has commited high treason by aiding the parties against whom Canada was at war with. 

  • KC

    Damn.  Charges have to be brought within three years! Should have brought the little bugger back a while ago.

  • Kyle said:

    [quote comment="4750"]I'm starting to agree with you Scott. Send Omar back to Canada. Criminal Code of Canada, s. 46(1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada, … (c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are. I hope him being a minor at the time is not an obstacle![/quote]

    Well Kyle, if the government wants to try and indict him on that charge, then let them do so – but let them do so in this country where he’ll get a fair trial.

    May I add, Kyle, you sure seem determined to convict Khadr of a crime; in my opinion,  you've worded this and the rest of your statements in a way that you assume Khadr will automatically be found guilty. It doesn't quite work that way, as you should well know.

  • KC

    I’m starting to agree with you Scott. Send Omar back to Canada.

    Criminal Code of Canada,
    s. 46(1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

    (c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

    I hope him being a minor at the time is not an obstacle!

  • It was persecution the moment they looked the kid up when he was 16. The US was apparently fighting a "war on terror" when they invaded Afghanistan, but they then turn around and label all their captured prisoners as outside of the rule of law?, stick them in an illegal prison without charge and then preceded to break, ignore and re-write the laws to suit the need for their witch hunt.

    I may not agree with those who were fighting against the US in Afghanistan, but if the US has the right to try and kill them it doesn't take a genius to think that the same right applies to their attempts to kill US soliders.

  • Whooee! I reckon Khadr's done for. He'll rot in Gitmo til he figgers out a way to kill himself. From what I've read, most of his 5 years incarceration have been in solitary confinement.

    Mature, stable, sane adults go mad under such conditions. The Merkans say they'll keep these guys until they've won the war on terror.War on terror, war on drugs, war on poverty. War, war, war.

    Anybuddy notice when they declared victory in war on drugs? On poverty? Anybuddy who thinks it was a court room victory to have Khadr's charges dismissed is livin' in a fantasy world where there's gonna be victory declared in the war on terror. Khadr goes back into legal limbo at the mercy of the merciless world's policeman.JB

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