Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sauce.

Perhaps naively, I hope this is the bitter pill required to demonstrate that the law applies to all citizens, even the 'really bad guys'.

My government's involvement with torture by proxy is not acceptable to me under any reasonable circumstances.

Again, perhaps naively, I hope Omar has grown to understand that he was raised in a sick and disturbed fashion, and he can live the rest of his life a productive Canadian.

If they'd just put him against a wall like the SAS did the terrorists at the Iranian embassy in London this would not be an issue.

He be on watch lists for the rest of his life.

Can I say random security checks at every single airport inside any western nation forever.

Did he kill a western soldier?
If so if he ever goes to that nation, well if stupid enough.
If you end up jail, you end up in jail.

And yes... The SAS method while not exactly western freindly is very final.

Huh, it's almost as if torture and secret military courts and the like are bad things that often produce bad results, particularly when involving underage children.

The story behind the incident when this guy was brought in is rather interesting, with lots of contradictory statements to boot.

How and why this guy ended up going through what he did for the engagement he was involved in is rather bizarre.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr

Is treason still an executional offence in Canada? I know many countries that have normally banned executions (like Japan) still have it on the books for treason.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Is treason still an executional offence in Canada? I know many countries that have normally banned executions (like Japan) still have it on the books for treason.

I don't know. Even if it was, I would doubt it would be applied to a minor.

 Frazzled wrote:
If they'd just put him against a wall like the SAS did the terrorists at the Iranian embassy in London this would not be an issue.

Ye, why bother with all that due process. Let's just make the armed forces judge, jury and executioner.

No, this case is the inevitable conclusion of the actions of many western governments assuming that anyone accused of terrorists charges must be guilty, and guilt removes all rights.

This is the kind of case that drives terrorists. Torture and extrajudicial killings do nothing to fight terror, only drive it, and are a breach of our most fundamental laws.

Japan hasn't banned executions.

 Steve steveson wrote:
This is the kind of case that drives terrorists.

You what's better than a regular terrorist? A terrorist whose ass you have to kiss with ten million dollars.

Now this gak bag can go back to fund his Jihadist buddies in the great Middle Eastern sandbox.

If his rights don't matter, then your rights don't matter either.

Everybody is all "freedom and rights, civilized country, herp derp, better than savages we are" until someone does something they don't like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Now this gak bag can go back to fund his Jihadist buddies in the great Middle Eastern sandbox.

If you don't want a country to be forced to fund terrorists, child pornography, drugs, or anything else for that matter, then you should make sure that the country respects the rights of terrorists, child pornographers, drug addicts, or anyone else for that matter.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
This is the kind of case that drives terrorists.

You what's better than a regular terrorist? A terrorist whose ass you have to kiss with ten million dollars.

Now this gak bag can go back to fund his Jihadist buddies in the great Middle Eastern sandbox.

You could at least make the attempt to read the backstory, reports, and the dudes own statements on this whole affair, and it's not like his movements or finances are free to just do whatever.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Is treason still an executional offence in Canada? I know many countries that have normally banned executions (like Japan) still have it on the books for treason.

So how would a Canadian teenager in Afghanistan be committing treason when involved in a firefight with US forces?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
This is the kind of case that drives terrorists.

You what's better than a regular terrorist? A terrorist whose ass you have to kiss with ten million dollars.

Now this gak bag can go back to fund his Jihadist buddies in the great Middle Eastern sandbox.

You could at least make the attempt to read the backstory, reports, and the dudes own statements on this whole affair, and it's not like his movements or finances are free to just do whatever.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Is treason still an executional offence in Canada? I know many countries that have normally banned executions (like Japan) still have it on the books for treason.

So how would a Canadian teenager in Afghanistan be committing treason when involved in a firefight with US forces?

Yeah, this guy is going yo be flagged on every single data base, monitoring systems, and be on a leash as such with regular checks on him, spending, activities.

He ain't free by a long shot.
More free to watched, tracked, for a good few decades min.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
This is the kind of case that drives terrorists.

You what's better than a regular terrorist? A terrorist whose ass you have to kiss with ten million dollars.

Now this gak bag can go back to fund his Jihadist buddies in the great Middle Eastern sandbox.

So, to answer my post you cut the bit out about presumption of guilt and post your own presumption of guilt? Did you even read the background?

 d-usa wrote:
If his rights don't matter, then your rights don't matter either.

Everybody is all "freedom and rights, civilized country, herp derp, better than savages we are" until someone does something they don't like

Are you really conflating me, a law-abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and defending terrorists at the same time?

 Frazzled wrote:
If they'd just put him against a wall like the SAS did the terrorists at the Iranian embassy in London this would not be an issue.

Except that didn't actually happen. One SAS soldier tried to drag the surviving gunman inside to shoot him but not go through with it. Then there was the case of two other terrorists who had apparently surrendered. The SAS soldiers testified that they believed the terrorists were reaching for weapons when they breached the room and the 2 deaths were ruled justifiable homicide.

So, considering that the SAS used the exact same justification for killing the two terrorists as most police officers in the US who shoot unarmed people, it would indicate that if what the SAS did constitutes as "putting them against a wall" then so does the actions of every police officer in the US who has shot an unarmed person.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If his rights don't matter, then your rights don't matter either.

Everybody is all "freedom and rights, civilized country, herp derp, better than savages we are" until someone does something they don't like

Are you really conflating me, a law-abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and defending terrorists at the same time?

Show me where the right to a lawyer or the right to not be tortured is limited only to law abiding citizens. Also, nothing in what D wrote is defending terrorists. Defending universal rights of all citizens is just that. You may not like that universal rights are universal but once you start stripping them away, especially in the fashion that Guantanamo Bay did through not only violating their rights but also removing their capacity to object to such violations of rights, you are starting down a very dangerous path.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If his rights don't matter, then your rights don't matter either.

Everybody is all "freedom and rights, civilized country, herp derp, better than savages we are" until someone does something they don't like

Are you really conflating me, a law-abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and defending terrorists at the same time?

No, I am conflating you, a law abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and acknowledging that in the eyes of the constitution of the USA (and most other civilized nations) there is no difference between you and a jihadist pedophile who loves to blow up airports.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If his rights don't matter, then your rights don't matter either.

Everybody is all "freedom and rights, civilized country, herp derp, better than savages we are" until someone does something they don't like

Are you really conflating me, a law-abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and defending terrorists at the same time?

Show me where the right to a lawyer or the right to not be tortured is limited only to law abiding citizens.

My point is that Terrorists should not have rights.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If his rights don't matter, then your rights don't matter either.

Everybody is all "freedom and rights, civilized country, herp derp, better than savages we are" until someone does something they don't like

Are you really conflating me, a law-abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and defending terrorists at the same time?

Show me where the right to a lawyer or the right to not be tortured is limited only to law abiding citizens.

My point is that Terrorists should not have rights.

And if they don't, then you don't.

That's how rights work.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If his rights don't matter, then your rights don't matter either.

Everybody is all "freedom and rights, civilized country, herp derp, better than savages we are" until someone does something they don't like

Are you really conflating me, a law-abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and defending terrorists at the same time?

Show me where the right to a lawyer or the right to not be tortured is limited only to law abiding citizens.

My point is that Terrorists should not have rights.

And when you accomplish that, what is there to prevent the government from labelling anybody they don't like and want to get rid of a terrorist? That is just a really fething stupid idea, to be honest, and you should really know better.

 d-usa wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If his rights don't matter, then your rights don't matter either.

Everybody is all "freedom and rights, civilized country, herp derp, better than savages we are" until someone does something they don't like

Are you really conflating me, a law-abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and defending terrorists at the same time?

No, I am conflating you, a law abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and acknowledging that in the eyes of the constitution of the USA (and most other civilized nations) there is no difference between you and a jihadist pedophile who loves to blow up airports.

Therein lies the fault of our constitution.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If his rights don't matter, then your rights don't matter either.

Everybody is all "freedom and rights, civilized country, herp derp, better than savages we are" until someone does something they don't like

Are you really conflating me, a law-abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and defending terrorists at the same time?

No, I am conflating you, a law abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and acknowledging that in the eyes of the constitution of the USA (and most other civilized nations) there is no difference between you and a jihadist pedophile who loves to blow up airports.

Therein lies the fault of our constitution.

Well, and with that there is no reason to keep the discussion going.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If his rights don't matter, then your rights don't matter either.

Everybody is all "freedom and rights, civilized country, herp derp, better than savages we are" until someone does something they don't like

Are you really conflating me, a law-abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and defending terrorists at the same time?

No, I am conflating you, a law abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and acknowledging that in the eyes of the constitution of the USA (and most other civilized nations) there is no difference between you and a jihadist pedophile who loves to blow up airports.

Therein lies the fault of our constitution.

The practical result of what you seem to be endorsing is giving governments the power to label anyone they like a "terrorist" and then stripping away all their rights. That's banana republic gak right there.

Plus, how does fighting US troops make one a terrorist anyway?

 feeder wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If his rights don't matter, then your rights don't matter either.

Everybody is all "freedom and rights, civilized country, herp derp, better than savages we are" until someone does something they don't like

Are you really conflating me, a law-abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and defending terrorists at the same time?

No, I am conflating you, a law abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and acknowledging that in the eyes of the constitution of the USA (and most other civilized nations) there is no difference between you and a jihadist pedophile who loves to blow up airports.

Therein lies the fault of our constitution.

The practical result of what you seem to be endorsing is giving governments the power to label anyone they like a "terrorist" and then stripping away all their rights. That's banana republic gak right there.

Can't convict people of anything without evidence. Have someone impartial (read: not tied to the government) lead the investigation. I'm not big on the idea of Kangaroo courts myself.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Plus, how does fighting US troops make one a terrorist anyway?

Well, he was an "insurgent" or an "unlawful combatant" or whatever they were calling it back then.

Tactical_Spam wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If his rights don't matter, then your rights don't matter either.

Everybody is all "freedom and rights, civilized country, herp derp, better than savages we are" until someone does something they don't like

Are you really conflating me, a law-abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and defending terrorists at the same time?

No, I am conflating you, a law abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and acknowledging that in the eyes of the constitution of the USA (and most other civilized nations) there is no difference between you and a jihadist pedophile who loves to blow up airports.

Therein lies the fault of our constitution.

The practical result of what you seem to be endorsing is giving governments the power to label anyone they like a "terrorist" and then stripping away all their rights. That's banana republic gak right there.

Can't convict people of anything without evidence. Have someone impartial (read: not tied to the government) lead the investigation. I'm not big on the idea of Kangaroo courts myself.

This whole thing could have been avoided if Harper had just asked to have him back from Gitmo like the rest of the world did, and we could have tried him in our courts and sentenced him like any other common criminal. Instead He tried to be tough and ended up pissing away a lot more than the 10 million Omar was awarded trying to fight it.

This whole affair is a unfortunate snapshot of what happens when we forgo our principles and act as barbaric as the enemy.

The wife of the man he killed and the soldier he injured were awarded a $130 million settlement vs Omar for wrongful death (this was a US court judgement). Those people have filed to get the money Canada is awarding Omar.

In other words, he probably won't see any of the money, and he's still $120 million in debt to the people in the USA.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


Can't convict people of anything without evidence. Have someone impartial (read: not tied to the government) lead the investigation. I'm not big on the idea of Kangaroo courts myself.

You know what is funny about this? Having a trial is precisely one of the rights the people in Guantanamo wanted and now, under the pretext of taking their rights away, you are advocating actually giving them that right.

The people in Guantanamo were not convicted and yet you're in here claiming they shouldn't have rights. Get your goddamn story straight before dropping it into the thread at least.

 John Prins wrote:
The wife of the man he killed and the soldier he injured were awarded a $130 settlement vs Omar for wrongful death (this was a US court judgement). Those people have filed to get the money Canada is awarding Omar.

In other words, he probably won't see any of the money, and he's still $120 millon in debt to the people in the USA.

Good. He doesn't need the money.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
The wife of the man he killed and the soldier he injured were awarded a $130 settlement vs Omar for wrongful death (this was a US court judgement). Those people have filed to get the money Canada is awarding Omar.

In other words, he probably won't see any of the money, and he's still $120 millon in debt to the people in the USA.

Good. He doesn't need the money.

Good maybe that soldiers window least has a solid college fund if they had kids or are now able to least not have so many financial worries when he pays up.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
The wife of the man he killed and the soldier he injured were awarded a $130 settlement vs Omar for wrongful death (this was a US court judgement). Those people have filed to get the money Canada is awarding Omar.

In other words, he probably won't see any of the money, and he's still $120 millon in debt to the people in the USA.

Good. He doesn't need the money.

Agreed.