Feds have 7 days to remedy breach of Khadr's rights

[james t kirk]

Here's the 60 minutes segment on the left's favourite little darling.....

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3518748n&tag=related;photovideo

The fun starts about minute 9:00 or so.

The best part is minute 10:00

Love the bit about the 72 virgins and all.

 

[seth gecko]

I gather Seth hates it when his narrow minded world view is challenged, but it remains a fact:

Lasting peace is always achieved by people in suits, and always delayed if atrocities are committed by soldiers.

Fuji, if I didn't enjoy a challenge, I wouldn't be doing what I do for a living (whatever the hell it is I do anyways). I can't thank you enough for replying in this diversionary manner rather than launching into some explanations behind the things you wrote in post #100.
Rather than cluttering up this thread, you can create new threads detailing your rationale behind these gems (for starters):

-

the most effective counter-insurgency in recent history was Northern Ireland: It succeeded in putting an end to the violence.

Written the day after the "Glorious 12th", no less!!!

-

WW2 was ultimately won by civilians

After Germany & Japan where absolutely defeated militarily, some diplomatic team got in there and negotiated them down to unconditional surrender??? Couldn't they have done that 7 years earlier and saved alot of lives???

I'm NOT encouraging you to make a fool of yourself trying to explain these, but if you choose to do so, I certainly won't stop you.

Like I said, start a new thread on these if you wish, lets not make this thread our personal playground.
Thanks for the laughs!!!

 

[oldjones]

Canadians are subject to the laws of the land where it is alleged that they committed an offence.
In Khadr's case, he is probably much better off not having to face Afghan justice.

If the American Speer was not killed, Khadr may have been prosecuted for the murder of the 2 Afghan interpreters.
Perhaps he will be made to face the music over there when the US is finished with him.

As far as the Canadian government coming to the aid of persecuted Canadians in other countries goes, I am all for this in some cases but why the fuck is there so much focus on Omar Khadr?
Why do so many people go after the US any chance they get but they say fuck all about countries that are far worse?

Chretien did nothing for Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi who was arrested for taking pictures, tortured, raped, and murdered in Iran and people would rather be outraged at Harper for not rescuing terrorist Omar Khadr.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kazemi/

Khadr was arrested when Chretien was the PM.
He was held for a few years while Martin was the PM.
Yet somehow it is Harper who deserves all the crap over this POS Khadr?

I think this is just another example of the biased anti-Republican and anti-Conservative movement.
Why the fuck is there no outrage directed at Obama for fuck's sake?
Didn't he promise to close Gitmo?

Going paragraph by paragraph:

Quite right, and it is the right of every citizen being held by another country's laws to have the assistance of our government in dealing with that country's laws, especially to protect their Charter rights as far as possible. Assistance which the Supreme Court said Khadr never got, and the Federal Court finally set a seven day time limit for the government to get on with.

Perhaps.

Why you want some citizens have rights but not others? Who's on your lucky list? Who decides? How? When? That's how privileges work, not rights. Get into politics and have your view enacted into law. The Supreme Court has decided Khadr does have rights just as every citizen does. On your other question: People 'go after' the US because they boast so about stuff like 'rights' and 'rule of law', and because they can. Let's hope that they continue to have the right to free speech, and they use it to ensure the rule of law continues, and spreads to the places where both are unknown. Muzzling the critics and permitting legal abuses help the other side.

If Chrétien wwas still in power, do you think the Court's decision would be different? In fact they condemned the previous government, but it's the government of the day—Harper's—they ordered to obey the laws. And which has refused, so far. If that's OK, then why are you down on Martin and Ti-Jean? Prejudice?

See above. Arguments that two wrongs somehow transform the current wrong into right are childish and specious. The best one can say is among such a bad crowd, our guy's no worse. Bad he is, like his predecessors, but worse in that they didn't defy a direct judgement of the Supreme Court to stop. If the PM won't obey the law, why would anyone?

The only "biased anti-Republican and anti-Conservative movement" is the one created by the anti-Liberal anti-Democratic one, and this is Canada, remember? We don't have Republicans and Democrats, and we look at facts of the case, rather than following our prejudices, 'cause that's the thoughtful Canadian way. Fact is the government of Canada—currently exercised and under the care of PM Harper who is just the temporary incumbent chosen and dismissable by our Crown—has been judged to have infringed a citizen's rights, ordered to correct it's behaviour and has not. End of story, but only if you believe PM's are above the law.

As for "why is there no outrage directed at Obama?" Where have you been?

 

[danmand]

Why do some citizens have rights but not others? Who decides? How? When? Get into politics ahnd have your view enacted into law. The Supreme Court has decided Khadr does have rights just as every other citizen does.

This is the key point in this isssue. Apart from aboriginal people, every canadian citizen has the exact same rights and responsibilities.

 

[Malibook]

OJ, if you think the Canadian Government intervenes to enforce the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for Canadians around the world, you are even more naive and delusional than I thought.

Under the Charter, people physically present in Canada have numerous civil and political rights. Most of the rights can be exercised by any legal person, (the Charter does not define the corporation as a "legal person"),[3] but a few of the rights belong exclusively to natural persons, or (as in sections 3 and 6) only to citizens of Canada. The rights are enforceable by the courts through section 24 of the Charter, which allows courts discretion to award remedies to those whose rights have been denied. This section also allows courts to exclude evidence in trials if the evidence was acquired in a way that conflicts with the Charter and might damage the reputation of the justice system. Section 32 confirms that the Charter is binding on the federal government, the territories under its authority, and the provincial governments.

I did not claim that some deserve rights and other don't.
I was simply pointing out the illogical inconsistency of some selective moralists.
The fact that this poor kid was taken into custody by the Bush administration and he is in the news does not make him a particularly severe case and high priority as far as I am concerned.
There are numerous Canadians in the custody of much more repressive regimes than the United States of America.

I am not down on Martin and Chretien.
In fact, I think Chretien, Martin, and Harper have all been correct in not interfering with the American justice system, especially now (for Harper) that Obama is the President.

The Khadr protests in Canada that I have seen coverage of all seem to be directed at Harper, not Obama.
He seems to be getting a free pass as far as I can see, which I don't mind.
Again I was simply pointing out the inconsistently applied and targeted outrage.

Of course we don't have Republicans.
Did you really think my point was that we have Republicans in Canada?
One would have to be a complete and utter idiot not to see how the Conservatives are often compared to the Bush Republicans by those who despise both.

 

[Aardvark154]

The Khadr protests in Canada that I have seen coverage of all seem to be directed at Harper, not Obama. He seems to be getting a free pass as far as I can see, which I don't mind.

Some slight political prejudice eh?

Also The President does have the common sense (even if he can't pronounce Corpsman) to know that playing the "Officer Krumpke" game is not going to fly with the U.S. People when the charming young man was an illegal combatant and murdered a U.S. Army Medic.

 

[danmand]

Some slight political prejudice eh?

Also The President does have the common sense (even if he can't pronounce Corpsman) to know that playing the "Officer Krumpke" game is not going to fly with the U.S. People when the charming young man was an illegal combatant and murdered a U.S. Army Medic.

Approach the bench, councel. neither of these accusations have been proven.

 

[Malibook]

Some slight political prejudice eh?

Also The President does have the common sense (even if he can't pronounce Corpsman) to know that playing the "Officer Krumpke" game is not going to fly with the U.S. People when the charming young man was an illegal combatant and murdered a U.S. Army Medic.

My point was that I don't think Obama or Harper deserve to be attacked for allowing Khadr to be tried.

There are some legitimate concerns regarding this case like the length of time and the treatment of Khadr but I still say he is much better off facing American justice rather than Afghan justice.

 

[fuji]

Written the day after the "Glorious 12th", no less!!!

Let's use the most widely used measure of the success of counter-insurgency operations:

How many deaths per year have there been in Northern Ireland as a result of sectarian violence, year over year?

After Germany & Japan where absolutely defeated militarily, some diplomatic team got in there and negotiated them down to unconditional surrender??? Couldn't they have done that 7 years earlier and saved alot of lives???

You put too much stock in "unconditional surrender". Unless you commit an outright genocide eventually people resurge. Your thinking is far too short term. You are thinking in terms of years whereas I am thinking in terms of decades and centuries.

In missing the big picture you miss the true cost of atrocity. Israel's current situation is a great example of the long run costs: The two sides can't sit down and talk party over atrocities committed by each 60 years ago. Many of the people involved have died of old age, but the events of 1948 have made it inordinately difficult for the men in suits to achieve victory.

By the way I define victory as the achievement of real political goals, not the achievement of a temporary military advantage such as was gained by "unconditional surrender" at the end of WW2. I note that they have since re-armed, both in Japan and Germany, and that the peace today was created by men in suits and is no longer enforced at gun point.

Again your error is you use too small a time scale and too limited a scope to understand victory or defeat. Nations span lifetimes and generations, much time and space, and have interests that go far beyond the immediate realities of a battlefield.

The Chinese still hold a grudge over a crime committed by the British in 1839 and the acts of that year still complicate political negotiations to this day.

How long are the Iraqis going to remember Abu Ghraib? How many generations?

Put it this way, von Clauswitz only grokked half the big picture: Sometimes politics is the continuation of war by other means.

 

[fuji]

How many deaths per year have there been in Northern Ireland as a result of sectarian violence, year over year?

Seth I know you're a busy guy so I'll save you the trouble of looking it up.

The men in suits started in earnest to resolve the issues in Northern Ireland in 1994 and they reached agreement in 1998 note the inflection point in that year and how incredibly successful the suits have been:


1969 16
1970 26
1971 171
1972 479
1973 253
1974 294
1975 260
1976 295
1977 111
1978 82
1979 121
1980 80
1981 113
1982 110
1983 85
1984 69
1985 57
1986 61
1987 98
1988 104
1989 76
1990 81
1991 96
1992 89
1993 88
1994 64
1995 9
1996 18
1997 22
1998 55
1999 8
2000 19
2001 16
2002 11
2003 10
2004 4
2005 8
2006 3
2007 2
2008 0
2009 3
2010 1

Now that is a successful counter-insurgency.

 

[seth gecko]

Did the men is suits who started in earnest to resolve the issues in Northern Ireland in 1994 resolve the greater threat of traffic accidents in the time prior to 1994? Can you find some statistics that proves that they did that....after all, they do kill more people than they deliberate violence of the Troubles. So unless these men resolved the so-called greater threat of traffic accidents, they didn't accomplish much for the people of N, Ireland, did they? The bombings, riots, kidnappings & executions carried out by both sides here did not do significant damage to the social structures, the government, institutions, or population of N. Ireland the way traffic accidents must have, did they?. Unless, of course, the civil authorities correctly conclude that deliberate malicious actions are a greater threat to a culture than random unfortunate occurences....which pretty much is what they did if the set out to resolve the issues of the sectarian violence before addressing the traffic situation. And I suppose since no one was killed in the most recent Marching season riots, only serious injuries and property damage, we can assume that the issue was resolved? Rioting and property damage are minor inconveniences that all big-cities have to put up with from time to time, but as long as no-one is killed it's all just water under the bridge.....that's some good news for the G20 team, isn't it?

So either your incredibly naive belief that traffic accidents are the greater threat to society over violent attacks is totally bogus, or your Northern Irish men-in-suits example is pretty crap. Of course, since the men in suits didn't commit outright genocide, the lull in the troubles is only temporary, such apparently eventually the people will "resurge".

If you wish to delude yourself that WW2 ended with a negotiated peace that was unrelated to 6+ years of warfare, you go right ahead. There is simply no excuse for ignorance of facts that you display in this matter.

Your long-term thinking seems to be interfering with your ability to think in the here and now.
Your ideas and examples are all over the place and contradict themselves.
And in the long run, we're all dead.
And Clauswitz' idea was that war is a tool of politics, just as much as diplomacy. His theories are quite widely accepted, but of course you think you know better.

Seriously....please don't bother with a reply. I've already given you your debating "victory", and your ideas are just too ridiculous to try to either defend or refute.
This no longer has anything to do with the Khadr situation - drop the issue here or start a new thread.

 

[fuji]

Did the men is suits who started in earnest to resolve the issues in Northern Ireland in 1994 resolve the greater threat of traffic accidents in the time prior to 1994?

I guess you're being silly because, really, you're conceding the point about N. Ireland's insurgency.

And I suppose since no one was killed in the most recent Marching season riots, only serious injuries and property damage, we can assume that the issue was resolved?

It's worthwhile distinguishing between an insurgency and a protest. Would you call the G20 protests in Toronto or Seattle an insurgency? I would not.

So either your incredibly naive belief that traffic accidents are the greater threat to society over violent attacks is totally bogus, or your Northern Irish men-in-suits example is pretty crap.

Nope. It is true both that traffic is a larger killer AND that the insurgency in N. Ireland was resolved by men in suits.

Of course, since the men in suits didn't commit outright genocide, the lull in the troubles is only temporary, such apparently eventually the people will "resurge".

Maybe they will but I sense you aren't grasping the point here. Victory is achieved when all sides align and the underlying conflict no longer exists. IF the underlying conflict has been resolved then there will be no reason to resurge.

By contrast a military victory which annihilates the enemy's ability to fight but does not actually resolve the original conflict is simply temporary.

If you wish to delude yourself that WW2 ended with a negotiated peace that was unrelated to 6+ years of warfare, you go right ahead. There is simply no excuse for ignorance of facts that you display in this matter.

The point is that had there been no Marshall plan there would eventually have been another war. Victory was achieved in giving the German people a way to advance their interests without conflict and that was done by the Secretary of State.

Note that it was a purely political operation run by the Secretary of State and other men in suits, there was no military reason to have a Marshall Plan.

And Clauswitz' idea was that war is a tool of politics, just as much as diplomacy. His theories are quite widely accepted, but of course you think you know better.

I agree with von Clauswitz, it's you who fail to understand the point that politics can also be a tool of war.

The point is this: Nations have interests that they pursue, and pursue regardless of who is currently in power. Over time they advance, and re-advance those interests and if militarily defeated in their efforts to advance will switch to other means by which to advance those interests leading to an eventual resurgence and quite probably another war.

Until there is a way for nations to align with one another and advance in unison you will have conflict, and no military victory or defeat can alter that--only delay it, short of genocide.

 

[oldjones]

My point was that I don't think Obama or Harper deserve to be attacked for allowing Khadr to be tried.

There are some legitimate concerns regarding this case like the length of time and the treatment of Khadr but I still say he is much better off facing American justice rather than Afghan justice.

And if you'll check, all the Supreme Court said was that Harpo was required by our laws to actively ensure that Khadr's rights were protected during such a trial process, that he didn't and that he should smarten up and do so. A second court has now said the same, and Harpo's appealing again, hoping not to have to do the right thing. What's the line about 'repeating the same action expecting different results'?

Anyway, whatever various disTERBed folks opine on the matter, the Supremes have said nothing against anyone for allowing Khadr to be tried. Just that Harper did nothing to ensure that our citizen was lawfully and properly tried which he was obliged to do. You may disagree, but they have the lawbooks and they have the evidence and they have the final say. He's still disobeying that law.

We have a word for people who flout the law: Stupid or crooked is the choice, unless you wanna go for 'All-American rebel', and the chuck the law into the harbor[sic] with someone else's tea whenever you don't like it. But as soon as the Rebels won, they outlawed that sort of thing, and we never really got into it up here.

On the second point, you put the unanimous sentiment into a nutshell. But once the good guys take him prisoner, they hafta treat him like the good guys they are. More or less what our courts said to Harpo ,and American courts said to Bush and his heirs and successors.

 

[seth gecko]

I'm reminded of a story every time I read anything by Fuji:
Mr. & Mrs. Jones go to watch their son Johnny at his graduation ceremony from the Police Academy.
All the cadets are marching in front of the grandstands under the watchful eyes of their relatives.
Mr. Jones points out Billy to his wife: "There's our boy Johnny. He's now going out to serve the community as a Police Officer.......I've never been more proud !"
And Mrs. Jones comments: "I'm sooo proud too......look at our Johnny. He's the only one marching in step!"

My little story has a point.........when you feel that you're the only one who understands the situation, or "sees the big picture", there's a chance that may be the case, but there's also a better chance that you are like little Johnny. When sooo many different Terbites are told by one member over sooo many different topics over sooo many different times that "they are missing his point", I think must of the Terb community can easily identify when someone is like Johnny.
Johnny, oops, I mean Fuji, if I'm missing your point, its possible that I don't understand the "big picture" that you claim to understand, but its also very likely that you just don't have a point and are out of step with the situation. I try to avoid reading or commenting on many of your posts, because IMO more often than not, you are like Johnny, but without his ability to self-correct.........you just keep getting more & more out there. Of course, that's only my opinion, and if the majority of Terb disagrees with my assessment of you, I guess in that regard I am Johnny. I reply when I'm addressed or quoted, because that common courtesy (IMO), but otherwise I don't think you and I can have an intelligent discussion. I would love to meet you in person, however, to see how much you really know about certain topics when required to speak extemporaneously, as I suspect all your "expertise" comes via Google or Wiki...facts without knowledge.
Either way, as nothing intelligent was added by the previous posting, and I already gave this individual the Internet debating victory that seems to motivate him more than common sense, I will be bowing out of this thread. As usual, the last word is yours.

 

[diehard]

^^^ setho, please don't give up.

You and Fuji are teaching me a lot. Your posts are good.

Thanks.

 

[fuji]

My little story has a point.........when you feel that you're the only one who understands the situation, or "sees the big picture", there's a chance that may be the case, but there's also a better chance that you are like little Johnny.

If there were anything wrong with my assessment of the big picture you should be able to explain what. Since you can't explain what, since it's apparent you simply don't LIKE my view, but have no credible reason to disagree with it--well thanks for conceding the debate.

Is the Northern Ireland instance objectively a successful instance of counter-insurgency? Check.

Do insurgencies/wars re-ignite over time if the underlying issues are not addressed? Check.

Do nations continue to pursue their interests through successive regime changes and over generations? Check.

Military victories are always inherently temporary. Lasting victories are achieved only by men in suits.

Yes, sometimes the temporary measures are indeed necessary--sometimes, say Hamas in Palestine, the other guy simply isn't willing to come to the negotiating table at the present time. In the case of Gaza we have an Israeli military victory but in terms of the conflict overall we have a stalemate because one side refuses to negotiate.

It is, however, important to recognize that military victories are temporary and transient and in the big picture (whoops yes there is one Seth) it's important to bear in mind that the eventual victory will in fact be achieved by men in suits (or robes, or whatever).

The insight here is that if you achieve the military victory by committing atrocities that hamper the ability of the men in suits/robes to achieve a real victory then the military action was in fact entirely counter-productive and wholly against the interests of the nation, all the while appearing to be militarily advantageous.

Did the Japanese win a victory on December 13th, 1937? The answer is no. They routed the opposing force absolutely and achieved military domination on the field of battle but they suffered a massive loss that is still echoing through time--it is going to be many, many generations before the Chinese truly forgive Nanjing, to this day the Chinese stand ready to recall their diplomatic staff over the issue--and it was a DIFFERENT Chinese regime that lost at Nanjing!! Note that it is the Chinese nation that does not forgive Nanjing, the regime is irrelevant.

It's important to understand these sorts of things and not to listen to people who apply only short-sighted military thinking when it comes to issues such as the Geneva Conventions.

Sorry if the picture is too big for you, Seth, you really should take a step back and see the forest for the trees.

 

[seth gecko]

^^^ setho, please don't give up.

You and Fuji are teaching me a lot. Your posts are good.

Thanks.

Not giving up, just not wasting my time (or hopefully anyone else's). And I think you can do better than to use this exchange to learn anything, except maybe mocking from me and evasiveness from The Fuj.
And thanks to you for the thanks!!

Regarding our friend Fuji: if your ideas had any credibility, you'd be able to defend them when challenged. But when challenged, the usual reply is "you're missing the big picture" or something to that extent.
I don't particularly dislike you're views (actually, as I've said many times before, I find them very comical), but when weaknesses are pointed out, your "defense" is usually a feign or diversion. I dislike that, but that's who you are and what you do.
I've also said at least twice in this thread - I've given you the debating victory you obsess over, so yes, I have conceded the debate and we can just drop this.
Now, if you really want to continue, start a new thread rather than cluttering up this one any further.
Start by reconciling your notion of traffic accidents being that greater threat to society:

Question posed by me: "Did the men is suits who started in earnest to resolve the issues in Northern Ireland in 1994 resolve the greater threat of traffic accidents in the time prior to 1994?"
Weak reply: "I guess you're being silly because, really, you're conceding the point about N. Ireland's insurgency."

I think you have a foolish premise and asked a simply question, one which, if you really do see the "big picture" you should be able to explain how the greater threat of traffic accidents was dealt with. Defend your ideas, rather than criticizing your critics. One day, years from now, you may be in a position where defending your ideas will mean the difference between getting that advanced degree or not. But for now, your doing pretty good for a kid barely in high school.
If traffic accidents are the greater threat, as you claim, when and how did the civil authorities in N. Ireland deal with them relative to the lesser problem of sectarian violence?? If you can't answer simple questions in defense of your ideas, how strong are your ideas?

 

[roadshuttle]

Give me 5 minutes with Khardrs mother and sisters. My bloody slaughtering ''fantasy'' of killing them in the most painful way imaginable is starting to make my insides itch.

 

[fuji]

Regarding our friend Fuji: if your ideas had any credibility, you'd be able to defend them when challenged.

Let me know if you actually challenge my view and I'll be more than happy to defend it, as I always am. Your last few posts have been content free.

Question posed by me: "Did the men is suits who started in earnest to resolve the issues in Northern Ireland in 1994 resolve the greater threat of traffic accidents in the time prior to 1994?"

Here was my reply: "Nope. It is true both that traffic is a larger killer AND that the insurgency in N. Ireland was resolved by men in suits."

It isn't clear what point you are trying to make. I gather your underlying point is that you dislike the idea that traffic accidents are a bigger problem than insurgencies in Western countries at this time. Too bad for you. Note that the insurgency in Cambodia was worse than traffic accidents were there, it isn't ALWAYS true that traffic accidents are the bigger problem: It's just true of Canada and the United States and similar nations at this point in time.

Since your point isn't clear really I'd ask you to clarify it. It seems like you are suggesting that governments can only solve one problem at a time and therefore if traffic accidents are the bigger problem no bandwidth should be given to insurgency. That's obviously nonsense, governments solve many problems simultaneously, it's merely a question of how many resources should be devoted to each.

Yes, more resources should be devoted to traffic than to insurgency in Canada and the United States. That does not mean that no resources should be devoted to other problems.

I know you don't LIKE that notion but you have never clearly articulated why not, it just appears to frustrate you, presumably because it doesn't fit into your world view. What appears to be most frustrating to you is that you can't articulate any PROBLEM with the view, other than that you do not like it.

I'll leave you to sort that out.

Since you haven't clearly articulated your view here it may be that I've misrepresented you, in that case I apologize--please take a moment to clarify what your view is and we can discuss it.

 

[seth gecko]

And if you'll check, all the Supreme Court said was that Harpo was required by our laws to actively ensure that Khadr's rights were protected during such a trial process, that he didn't and that he should smarten up and do so. A second court has now said the same, and Harpo's appealing again, hoping not to have to do the right thing. What's the line about 'repeating the same action expecting different results'?

Anyway, whatever various disTERBed folks opine on the matter, the Supremes have said nothing against anyone for allowing Khadr to be tried. Just that Harper did nothing to ensure that our citizen was lawfully and properly tried which he was obliged to do. You may disagree, but they have the lawbooks and they have the evidence and they have the final say. He's still disobeying that law.

We have a word for people who flout the law: Stupid or crooked is the choice, unless you wanna go for 'All-American rebel', and the chuck the law into the harbor[sic] with someone else's tea whenever you don't like it. But as soon as the Rebels won, they outlawed that sort of thing, and we never really got into it up here.

On the second point, you put the unanimous sentiment into a nutshell. But once the good guys take him prisoner, they hafta treat him like the good guys they are. More or less what our courts said to Harpo ,and American courts said to Bush and his heirs and successors.

Rather than going in circles on unrelated content, lets try to get this thread back on topic:
Although Harper isn't himself a lawyer, he has lots of legal advice coming his way as to what he can & can't do. He also has lots of advice coming his way via pollsters that indicate what the majority of Canadians think on topics. The action (or inaction) the gov't takes regarding the Khadr situation is their interpretation of the majority view......for whatever reasons, most Canadians don't give a crap about Khadr, and the gov't plays to that majority. Democracy works on the majority of votes, not the morality of votes. Thats what they hope will get them re-elected.