Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
You don't need extra statutes the aiding and abetting laws in Canada are well developed. From the criminal code:
Every one is a party to an offence who
(a) actually commits it;
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing it.
Combine that with the multitude of terrorism offences:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...6/page-16.html
It wouldn't take much. Khadr's translation services would qualify. His bomb making would more than qualify. If he was sweeping the floors or preparing meals for them he might be guilty.
I think this is all a bit of a moot point now though, and I don't see why people continuously defend Khadr's actions. Yes his father may have brainwashed him, but the actions themselves were quite awful. There's no maybes about it. He was building bombs for terrorists. Many of those bombs were used on civilians. Whether the terrorist who killed a bunch of kids happened to pick up a bomb Khadr built or some other person built that day is meaningless.
It's okay to push the point that Khadr was a child and that his rights were violated. However, I don't see why people feel the need to defend what he was actually doing. He's on video doing it. |
Where are you getting this from? The bold part? I'm not at all an expert in law but I have to think you're a bit crazy here. To be a party to an offense, I would assume you have to have someone who is the principal actor in the offense. You can't just say Al Qaeda blows people up. They're guilty without trial. So Khadr is too. If you had arrested Khadr Sr. and proved he blew up a bunch of kids with Jr's bomb, you'd be on to something.
The U of O study I referenced was very clear to point out all of the charges possible against Khadr are wholly dependent on proof of him throwing the grenade and proof of his bombs being used in civilian areas. Neither of those proofs exist.