Omar Khadr back in Canada

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by blankall

You're obviously right under the present law.

However, being a Canadian citizen should be more than just holding a piece of paper. If you have long absensses from Canada and join a military force that the government of Canada is at war with, that should be reason to strip you of citizenship. Obviously the issue of "treason" is open to abuse, but this case is pretty clear cut.

All that being said, Omar was a child when all of this went down, so it's not necessarily his fault. I'd be all for letting him out of prison and throwing his mother in.

Yes. These "citizens of convenience" RGMG. Our country is being used in these cases... for many reasons.... as a safe place to flee to if the country you live in goes to s***, free and advanced health care, a place you can return to to make $$$ to support your life style in your primary residence in another country, a place you can raise $$$ to support various causes (legal or illegal), etc, etc.

These people have absolutely no emotional ties or loyalty to our great country. They're users who have misrepresented themselves.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by blankall

You're obviously right under the present law.

However, being a Canadian citizen should be more than just holding a piece of paper. If you have long absensses from Canada and join a military force that the government of Canada is at war with, that should be reason to strip you of citizenship. Obviously the issue of "treason" is open to abuse, but this case is pretty clear cut.

All that being said, Omar was a child when all of this went down, so it's not necessarily his fault. I'd be all for letting him out of prison and throwing his mother in.

That's where it gets fuzzy though. According to the US, he was an "enemy combatant" which was a convenient way of denying him rights that he would normally have been given for being a actual soldier, not to mention a child soldier, and a Canadian citizen. To call him a soldier in order to try him for treason goes against the US's argument this whole time.

While I think the guy is scum, the troubling part is that he was never given a proper trial, and I just can't imagine that a military trial at Guantanamo Bay would be fair or impartial in any way. Obviously, some call that being a "bleeding heart", but I just don't like the precedent it sets when a Canadian citizen is imprisoned and not given access to legal rights that the rest of us would expect for ourselves.

I have little doubt that he and his family are pieces of excrement, but then why not prove it in an actual court of law instead of a military tribunal behind closed doors? One of the pillars of a democracy is that everyone gets their day in court, and to start picking and choosing who gets a fair trial starts to chip away at it.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

While I think the guy is scum, the troubling part is that he was never given a proper trial, and I just can't imagine that a military trial at Guantanamo Bay would be fair or impartial in any way.

I have been considering posting in this thread. Your one paragraph qouted above jumped out at me. IIRC, the individuals were given access to military lawyers. These lawyers are bound by all the similair standards of a civilian lawyer and I believe those that heard the trails were also "judges" ie: lawyers.

I get the idea of you comments, but to say those involved were not fair or impartial is unfair. I beleive they attempted to be impartial within in the framework of the system they have/had been given.

The set up of the trials might be a better target for your concerns, not the inviduals themselves.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I have been considering posting in this thread. Your one paragraph qouted above jumped out at me. IIRC, the individuals were given access to military lawyers. These lawyers are bound by all the similair standards of a civilian lawyer and I believe those that heard the trails were also "judges" ie: lawyers.

I get the idea of you comments, but to say those involved were not fair or impartial is unfair. I beleive they attempted to be impartial within in the framework of the system they have/had been given.

The set up of the trials might be a better target for your concerns, not the inviduals themselves.

I'm not sure where he targeted individuals, I read that as a direct comment on the system. And he's right, military tribunals are not at all the same as a criminal trial and the rights afforded to the accused are incredibly diminished.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm not sure where he targeted individuals, I read that as a direct comment on the system. And he's right, military tribunals are not at all the same as a criminal trial and the rights afforded to the accused are incredibly diminished.

surpise surpise surpise........

But as an aside, the Gitmo, tribunals did not work like normal militray tribunals.

[Jimmy Stang]

^ Indeed, I was commenting on the overall system. I honestly don't know who the individuals involved were, but things like Khadr not being allowed his own lawyer (or, I believe, not being allowed to change his military-appointed lawyer) are concerning.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

surpise surpise surpise........

But as an aside, the Gitmo, tribunals did not work like normal militray tribunals.

What's does "surpise" mean?

The gitmo tribunals most certainly did not come close to offering the protections afforded to the accused in a typical criminal trial, which was the entire point of the post.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

What's does "surpise" mean?

The gitmo tribunals most certainly did not come close to offering the protections afforded to the accused in a typical criminal trial, which was the entire point of the post.

Surpise that you don't bring anything useful to the party.

Surpise that you throw you toys out of the cot.

Where did I say that the tribunals gave the same protections as a trial under either the UCMJ or Civilian System?

I took his post to be a knock on the individuals involved, that they did not do their duty in providing a sufficent defence to those they were acting for, or that the members of the "jury" did not practice proper legal prudence (the last point I am not sure was attained).

But hey feel free to jump up and down again.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

^ Indeed, I was commenting on the overall system. I honestly don't know who the individuals involved were, but things like Khadr not being allowed his own lawyer (or, I believe, not being allowed to change his military-appointed lawyer) are concerning.

Sorry about that. I agree, the system was/is flawed. I thought you were taking a shot at individual intergrity.

[Jimmy Stang]

^ Easy there guys. I was simply trying to state that a Canadian should expect certain access to the basics, and I don't think that it was given in this case. This isn't a criticism of the individuals, but when you have a military court, a military judge, a military-appointed lawyer, etc., things are most likely going to turn out in favour of... the military. Not to mention the lengthy detainment before being given a "trial", fired judges (apparently), conflicting evidence and testimony, etc.

I simply expected better from both Canada and the US, although that's obviously naive and idealistic. It does read a bit like a kangaroo court while the governments of both countries turned a blind eye. That's all.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Surpise that you don't bring anything useful to the party.

Surpise that you throw you toys out of the cot.

Where did I say that the tribunals gave the same protections as a trial under either the UCMJ or Civilian System?

I took his post to be a knock on the individuals involved, that they did not do their duty in providing a sufficent defence to those they were acting for, or that the members of the "jury" did not practice proper legal prudence (the last point I am not sure was attained).

But hey feel free to jump up and down again.

Jump up and down?

You really have some serious emotional issues if someone responding to a post in a forum causes you to react like this. Seriously, perhaps it's time to take a step back.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

Jump up and down?

You really have some serious emotional issues if someone responding to a post in a forum causes you to react like this. Seriously, perhaps it's time to take a step back.

Emotional issues, you mean like calling someone an a-hole.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Emotional issues, you mean like calling someone an a-hole.

If you want to discuss something from last week PM me. I was discussing the topic of this thread.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

If you want to discuss something from last week PM me. I was discussing the topic of this thread.

You brought up emoitional issues. I put out an example, like calling someone an a-hole.

[valo403]

Anyways....

I agree with Jimmy Stang in that these tribunals really do appear to be a bit of a kangaroo court, and while I'd like to see more protections for the accused it's a bit of a grey area both legally and morally for me. Legally courts can't seem to decide where these guys fall, and they don't seem eager to really tackle a lot of the issues either, and morally it can be difficult to stand up for the rights of these guys, but then again some could very well be innocent.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

That's where it gets fuzzy though. According to the US, he was an "enemy combatant" which was a convenient way of denying him rights that he would normally have been given for being a actual soldier, not to mention a child soldier, and a Canadian citizen. To call him a soldier in order to try him for treason goes against the US's argument this whole time.

While I think the guy is scum, the troubling part is that he was never given a proper trial, and I just can't imagine that a military trial at Guantanamo Bay would be fair or impartial in any way. Obviously, some call that being a "bleeding heart", but I just don't like the precedent it sets when a Canadian citizen is imprisoned and not given access to legal rights that the rest of us would expect for ourselves.

I have little doubt that he and his family are pieces of excrement, but then why not prove it in an actual court of law instead of a military tribunal behind closed doors? One of the pillars of a democracy is that everyone gets their day in court, and to start picking and choosing who gets a fair trial starts to chip away at it.

The facts on this case are a little blurred. Even if he was innocent of throwing the grenade, the simple fact he was translating was enough to show aiding and abetting.

Not to mention he is on tape building IEDs and mines:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3518748n

These IEDs were later recovered in an area where both Canadian and USA soldiers were present.

Maybe the best thing is to give him a new trial in Canada. However, he was only given an 8 year sentence. I don't see how he'd get away with anything less after a new trial. He was clearly a combatant. Maybe he wasn't holding a gun (maybe he was), but he was providing support for militants including building bombs and translation, which is enough to justify holding him.

[HELPNEEDED]

Originally Posted by blankall

The facts on this case are a little blurred. Even if he was innocent of throwing the grenade, the simple fact he was translating was enough to show aiding and abetting.

Not to mention he is on tape building IEDs and mines:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3518748n

These IEDs were later recovered in an area where both Canadian and USA soldiers were present.

Maybe the best thing is to give him a new trial in Canada. However, he was only given an 8 year sentence. I don't see how he'd get away with anything less after a new trial. He was clearly a combatant. Maybe he wasn't holding a gun (maybe he was), but he was providing support for militants including building bombs and translation, which is enough to justify holding him.

Did we forget the part where he was 15?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by HELPNEEDED

Did we forget the part where he was 15?

No. 15 year olds can still be held if they are involved in militant activity. They can also be tried as adults.

I agree though that the fact he was 15 should be taken into consideration. If it was someone over the age of 18 translating or building IEDs for the Taliban they'd deserve multple life sentences, not just 8 years.

[undercoverbrother]

[Azure]

I want him gone and out of Canada as much as the next guy, but he is a Canadian citizen. He deserves a fair trial.