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. |
You're missing the mens rea element. At the very least, Khadr would have have knowledge (or be willfully blind to the fact) that whomever he was assisting was intending to commit a terrorist act and that his actions actually assisted that terrorist act. I just haven't seen any evidence of that.
I'm not defending Khadr's actions. I've repeatedly suggested that Khadr's actions were likely treasonous. Frankly, I'm not really a fan of anyone who builds bombs. I just think we should be accurate. I don't think he was a terrorist.
Anyway, I don't think I'm going to change your or blankall's (or other's) opinions on this point. And, as others have suggested, it's not really relevant to the settlement issue.