He has not been charged with anything in Canada , If he is repatriated he walks off the plane free, what I would like is a list of the people demanding he be repatriated and their addresses , he will need somewhere to live once hes back.nottyboi said:
What will Harper do now....
- Thread starter dcbogey
- Start date
Freedome of speach is not an absolute right, it does have limits. Unfortunatley the limits seem to be dictated by the loudest voices. Both MArk Stien and the Western Standard had to defend themselves in front of the " human rights tribunals" for articles they published. It put the western standard under. The accusors had their costs coered by the tribunal( taxpayers) the defndants had to foot their own bills.nottyboi said:
Yup, hate speech laws, like obscenity laws are a shameful blot on our democratic record. Alan Borovoy, retiring as General Counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association campaigned vigourously against both. We need more like him, defending our rights against the bigotry, prejudice and smug babbitry they represent. They're found everywhere, like here, condemning Khadr and supporting his unjust imprisonment and or in Human Rights tribunals. If you insist on supporting the prejudice you favour, you encourage the ones you dislike.
Last edited:
Do we demand the repatriation of other people charged with murder in other countries? Or only when their name is Khadr?
Demanding that he get a fair trail in the country that has charged him with murder--now that seems reasonable to me.
Insisting on his unconditional release though? My understanding is we don't ask for that in the case of other alleged murderers, so why ask for it in this case?
Demanding that he get a fair trail in the country that has charged him with murder--now that seems reasonable to me.
Insisting on his unconditional release though? My understanding is we don't ask for that in the case of other alleged murderers, so why ask for it in this case?
If the US was capable of giving him a fair trial, why after six years have they not?fuji said:
More to the pint, why has Canada not insisted they get on with it, or let him go. You know, the sort of basic rule-of-law, habeas corpus stuff all us free and democratic peoples are supposedly defending.
That would be reasonable.
His own lawyers have contributed as much to the delay as have the prosecution lawyers.oldjones said:
Remember, he was an illegal combatant: he was not a Canadian soldier (and definitely not a Canadian Child Soldier as some would have you believe). He was not a soldier for the Taliban, even if the Taliban were the recognized government of Afghanistan at the time. He was not a soldier for the recognized government of Afghanistan (which was a bit harder to define, and depended a lot on who was doing the recognition). Yet he was on the battlefield, as a combatant.
The legal minefield this creates has slowed the process considerably, in the interest of providing Khadr a fair trial.
Why would you suggest that it can only be fair if there's a rush to judgement?
Because it's so basic a principle of justice that it's not only enacted in stautes, and charters but part of everone's folk wisdom that "justice delayed is justice denied."Anynym said:
The United States of America has long had a justice system, civil and military, the envy of much of the world. Over centuries has quite admirably dealt with crime, treason, sedition, spies and every imaginable villainy. It could have tried a hundred Khadrs by now. But GeorgeII wanted a Star Chamber—torture and all.
That kid has had to endure harsh confinement for over six years in a prison created by vengeance obsessed administration hacks to put it beyond the US Justice system. Only when forced, did they grudgingly begin inventing laws and procedures and pettyfogging categorizations like "enemy combattant" not to do justice, but to avoid it. Like many here, they already knew he was guilty and their fixed intent was to punish from the getgo.
Khadr's attorneys—when he was finally allowed to have attorneys—have only ever demanded a speedy, fair trial. But I suppose one might consider demanding proceedings stop until the prosecution produced actual evidence and witnesses, again and again, or that the judge's superior officers not prejudice the process might be considered defence delay. By prejudiced minds.
Doing nothing at all to cut short this cruel farce, makes Harper a co-conspirator.
I suppose you wouldn't mind if this poor kid moved in next door to you.oldjones said:
The main thing that the US did wrong was not dropping enough bombs to kill all of the combatants.
If Khadr is to be released, he should be set free where he was captured.
Maybe next time some Canadian soldiers can finish the job.
Way too late. Where does it say you have to wait for a fair trial until the election of a President interested in giving you one. Like hoping the new king might tour the oubliettes of the Bastille and, hearing your faint cry, ask, "How long has that wretch been held?"fuji said:
I thought the US was supposed to have "a government of laws, not of men".
That being the best America could manage, the Court said Harper must stop prevaricating, and do right by this Canadian.
Quite the contrary, the new administration has put a halt to all proceedings, delaying trials which were underway and putting all proceedings at risk.fuji said:
Despite the assertions to the contrary, the Defense has created many delays in the prosecution of Khadr, and it has been demonstrated that he was in fact a combatant (again, the "disproof" claimed was one story presented to the tribunal and has not been ruled as a matter of law). The evidence as presented so far remains strong that Khadr threw the grenade which killed a U.S. soldier.
