basslicker Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 2 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said: If you take facts into consideration, people's views are moot. Seriously, give the above article section a quick read and come back to the table and pick it apart. That would be awesome. In the end he was an enemy combatant who was present in a fire fight exchange. He was the only survivor and therefore arrested. That doesn't justify 10.5 million dollars, while our own wounded veterans get shafted. (government is actually fighting some in court while rolling over without a fight to Khadr)http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-disgrace-veterans-court-equitas-1.3588047https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-government-breaking-pension-pledge-to-injured-veterans-lawyer/article30438822/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-owes-veterans-no-duty-of-care-federal-lawyers-argue-in-case/article30465871/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted July 12, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 2 hours ago, sweep the leg said: Lol. This is the worst attempt at being the bigger person that I've ever seen. LOL - that's not what I was doing. Anyway, as I said no one is budging on their views, and it seems that the only "facts" that people want to believe also correspond with their own personal political beliefs. I would encourage people to definitely open their minds, and that includes not just swallowing catch phrases like "child soldier" and "charter rights". This is a terrorist who was fighting against Canadian soldiers, not some guy who was a victim of accidental rendition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted July 12, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 3 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said: There is ample information provided here to show what took place and why the settlement was paid, but it gets wilfully and easily ignored. Confirmation bias is a really unfortunate affliction. Lol. This is the worst attempt at being the bigger person that I've ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark H. Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said: LOL - that's not what I was doing. Anyway, as I said no one is budging on their views, and it seems that the only "facts" that people want to believe also correspond with their own personal political beliefs. I would encourage people to definitely open their minds, and that includes not just swallowing catch phrases like "child soldier" and "charter rights". This is a terrorist who was fighting against Canadian soldiers, not some guy who was a victim of accidental rendition. The Supreme Court has already ruled in his favour twice, based on what you refer to as 'catch phrases.' Sorry, but I don't see how that can be considered to be open-minded. It's a mess, the optics aren't good, but you have to at least respect legal rulings. Wideleft 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanna-B-Fanboy Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said: Anyway, as I said no one is budging on their views, and it seems that the only "facts" that people want to believe also correspond with their own personal political beliefs. Just because you don't believe in the facts, doesn't mean that they are not true- no matter how hard you plug your ears and scream into the sand. Facts are facts: Quote fact fakt/ noun plural noun: facts a thing that is indisputably the case. "the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas" synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty; More used in discussing the significance of something that is the case. noun: the fact that "the real problem facing them is the fact that their funds are being cut" a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article. synonyms: detail, piece of information, particular, item, specific, element, point, factor, feature, characteristic, ingredient, circumstance, aspect, facet; information "every fact was double-checked" Not theory. Not fabrications. Not lies. your own personal political/moral beliefs make these facts brought into light or wholly ignored and obfuscate the truth, But facts will remain facts. Quote I would encourage people to definitely open their minds, and that includes not just swallowing catch phrases like "child soldier" and "charter rights". This is a terrorist who was fighting against Canadian soldiers, not some guy who was a victim of accidental rendition. Just because you don't believe in them- doesn't mean they don't exist. Quote CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 (80) PART I CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms Marginal note:Rights and freedoms in Canada 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Fundamental Freedoms Marginal note:Fundamental freedoms 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. Democratic Rights Marginal note:Democratic rights of citizens 3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein. Marginal note:Maximum duration of legislative bodies 4. (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs at a general election of its members. (81) Marginal note:Continuation in special circumstances (2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be. (82) Marginal note:Annual sitting of legislative bodies 5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months. (83) Mobility Rights Marginal note:Mobility of citizens 6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. Marginal note:Rights to move and gain livelihood (2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right (a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and (b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province. Marginal note:Limitation (3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to (a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and (b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services. Marginal note:Affirmative action programs (4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada. Legal Rights Marginal note:Life, liberty and security of person 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Marginal note:Search or seizure 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. Marginal note:Detention or imprisonment 9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. Marginal note:Arrest or detention 10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor; (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful. Marginal note:Proceedings in criminal and penal matters 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right (a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence; (b) to be tried within a reasonable time; (c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence; (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; (e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause; (f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment; (g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations; (h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and (i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment. Marginal note:Treatment or punishment 12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Marginal note:Self-crimination 13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence. Marginal note:Interpreter 14. A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter. Equality Rights Marginal note:Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Marginal note:Affirmative action programs (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (84) Official Languages of Canada Marginal note:Official languages of Canada 16. (1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada. Marginal note:Official languages of New Brunswick (2) English and French are the official languages of New Brunswick and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the legislature and government of New Brunswick. Marginal note:Advancement of status and use (3) Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French. Marginal note:English and French linguistic communities in New Brunswick 16.1 (1) The English linguistic community and the French linguistic community in New Brunswick have equality of status and equal rights and privileges, including the right to distinct educational institutions and such distinct cultural institutions as are necessary for the preservation and promotion of those communities. Marginal note:Role of the legislature and government of New Brunswick (2) The role of the legislature and government of New Brunswick to preserve and promote the status, rights and privileges referred to in subsection (1) is affirmed. (85) Marginal note:Proceedings of Parliament 17. (1) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament. (86) Marginal note:Proceedings of New Brunswick legislature (2) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of the legislature of New Brunswick. (87) Marginal note:Parliamentary statutes and records 18. (1) The statutes, records and journals of Parliament shall be printed and published in English and French and both language versions are equally authoritative. (88) Marginal note:New Brunswick statutes and records (2) The statutes, records and journals of the legislature of New Brunswick shall be printed and published in English and French and both language versions are equally authoritative. (89) Marginal note:Proceedings in courts established by Parliament 19. (1) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court established by Parliament. (90) Marginal note:Proceedings in New Brunswick courts (2) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court of New Brunswick. (91) Marginal note:Communications by public with federal institutions 20. (1) Any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in English or French, and has the same right with respect to any other office of any such institution where (a) there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such language; or (b) due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that communications with and services from that office be available in both English and French. Marginal note:Communications by public with New Brunswick institutions (2) Any member of the public in New Brunswick has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any office of an institution of the legislature or government of New Brunswick in English or French. Marginal note:Continuation of existing constitutional provisions 21. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any right, privilege or obligation with respect to the English and French languages, or either of them, that exists or is continued by virtue of any other provision of the Constitution of Canada. (92) Marginal note:Rights and privileges preserved 22. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any legal or customary right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either before or after the coming into force of this Charter with respect to any language that is not English or French. Minority Language Educational Rights Marginal note:Language of instruction 23. (1) Citizens of Canada (a) whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or (b) who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province, have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province. (93) Marginal note:Continuity of language instruction (2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the same language. Marginal note:Application where numbers warrant (3) The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province (a) applies wherever in the province the number of children of citizens who have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision to them out of public funds of minority language instruction; and (b) includes, where the number of those children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities provided out of public funds. Enforcement Marginal note:Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms 24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. Marginal note:Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute (2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. General Marginal note:Aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by Charter 25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including (a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and (b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired. (94) Marginal note:Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter 26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada. Marginal note:Multicultural heritage 27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians. Marginal note:Rights guaranteed equally to both sexes 28. Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons. Marginal note:Rights respecting certain schools preserved 29. Nothing in this Charter abrogates or derogates from any rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the Constitution of Canada in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools. (95) Marginal note:Application to territories and territorial authorities 30. A reference in this Charter to a province or to the legislative assembly or legislature of a province shall be deemed to include a reference to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, or to the appropriate legislative authority thereof, as the case may be. Marginal note:Legislative powers not extended 31. Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority. Application of Charter Marginal note:Application of Charter 32. (1) This Charter applies (a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and (b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province. Marginal note:Exception (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force. Marginal note:Exception where express declaration 33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter. Marginal note:Operation of exception (2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration. Marginal note:Five year limitation (3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration. Marginal note:Re-enactment (4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1). Marginal note:Five year limitation (5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4). Citation Marginal note:Citation 34. This Part may be cited as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Quote What are child soldiers? Who are child soldiers? Child soldiers are children (under 18) who are used for military purposes. Some child soldiers are used for fighting – they’re forced to take part in wars and conflicts, forced to kill, and commit other acts of violence. Some are forced to act as suicide bombers. Some join ‘voluntarily’, driven by poverty, sense of duty, or circumstance. Other children are used as cooks, porters, messengers, informants, spies or anything their commanders want them to do. Child soldiers are sometimes sexually abused. Child soldiers can be both boys and girls. Whilst some may be in their late teens, others are as young as four years old. Take action now to stop the use of child soldiers. Which countries use child soldiers? The use of boys and girls for military purposes violates their human rights. Those who exploit children often try to hide their activities. So it can be difficult to know exactly where child soldiers are used, and how many there are in the world. Our current work focuses on ending the use of child soldiers in Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, India, Myanmar, the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Thailand, the UK and Yemen. The UN Secretary-General’s report on children and armed conflict includes a “list of shame”, which identifies armed forces and groups that recruit and use children. When parties are added to the list, they are put under increased scrutiny and may be subject to punitive measures. The 2016 list includes parties which recruit and use children in these conflicts, shown in red in the map below: Afghanistan Central African Republic Democratic Republic of Congo Iraq Mali Myanmar Somalia South Sudan Sudan Syria Yemen Colombia Nigeria Philippines In addition to parties formally listed in this report, we are concerned about children being recruited and used in India, Pakistan, Israel/State of Palestine, Libya, Philippines and Thailand. These countries are shown above in orange. Why are children used in wars and conflict? Children are more compliant and easy to manipulate than adults. It’s easier to abduct children or force them into becoming a soldier. Children often get separated from their parents during the chaos of conflict and thus fall prey to all kinds of abuses, including recruitment by armed groups and forces. Refugee children can be particularly vulnerable. Not all children are abducted. Some children who feel they don’t have any other choices in life may ‘volunteer’ to join a country’s armed forces or an armed group. Often these children live in poverty; have little or no access to education; feel compelled to financially support their family; or lack the support of a parent or guardian. Read about girl soldiers in Democratic Republic of Congo. Who recruits and uses child soldiers? Child soldiers are recruited and used by both official government armed forces and by national and local armed around the world. Today, most state armed forces worldwide only recruit adults (from age 18). But some countries still recruit under-18s – for example the UK, Myanmar and Afghanistan. Although it’s difficult to obtain exact numbers, the UN Secretary-General’s 2016 report lists 58 parties to conflict around the world (7 government security forces, 51 non-state armed groups) that recruit and use children. They include for example ‘the Islamic State’ group in Iraq and Syria, the Mai-Mai Nyatura in Democratic Republic of Congo, the Kachin Independence Army in Myanmar, and the Taliban in Afghanistan. These are facts... choosing to ignore them doesn't make them any less real, it just reinforces one's ignorance. Edited July 13, 2017 by wanna-b-fanboy Fraser, blue_gold_84 and Wideleft 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedFlex27 Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 11 hours ago, Wideleft said: This is why we have courts. This is about the law. If we let citizens pass sentence, then we'd be back to witch trials and lynch mobs. Sometimes a government should be given credit for doing the politically harmful thing because it is the just thing to do. Harmful enough that Trudeau gets the boot. kelownabomberfan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraser Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 Is Canada the only country to pay a citizen a settlement because they were unable or uninterested in removing them from gitmo? There were/are a lot detanies in gitmo, is he the only one that was a citizen of the developed world? bearpants 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted July 13, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 4 hours ago, Mark H. said: but you have to at least respect legal rulings. in this case, nope, I don't. This was a complete and utter joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted July 13, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 3 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said: Harmful enough that Trudeau gets the boot. amen SpeedFlex27 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted July 13, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 4 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said: Just because you don't believe in the facts, pot meet kettle. Seriously. Calling Khadr a "child soldier" isn't "facts", it's just people trying to justify a bad decision by a bad government. And that's why Trudeau will lose the next election. #PMScheerherewecome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanna-B-Fanboy Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 45 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said: pot meet kettle. Seriously. Calling Khadr a "child soldier" isn't "facts", it's just people trying to justify a bad decision by a bad government. And that's why Trudeau will lose the next election. #PMScheerherewecome Please explain how he was not a child soldier. You are welcome to your own opinion, but not your own "facts". Wideleft and blue_gold_84 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted July 13, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 12 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said: Please explain how he was not a child soldier. Explain how he was a child soldier. There we go. Back and forth we go. What a sweet boy. SPuDS 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanna-B-Fanboy Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said: Explain how he was a child soldier. There we go. Back and forth we go. So, you have nothing .... Awesome. I win. blue_gold_84 and Wideleft 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue_gold_84 Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 14 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said: Lol. This is the worst attempt at being the bigger person that I've ever seen. How is pointing out your blatantly obvious confirmation bias an attempt at being a bigger person? You're so upset you can't even come up with a rational response to anything in this thread. Others have posted a mountain of information to validly contradict your views and you refuse to acknowledge any of it, clearly because it clashes with your views. The truth hurts, eh. Just out of curiosity, were you this blindly outraged when Maher Arar was given $10M+ and a public apology under the previous Harper Conservative gov't back in 2007? Wideleft and Wanna-B-Fanboy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said: Explain how he was a child soldier. There we go. Back and forth we go. "Child soldiers are children (individuals under the age of 18) who are used for any military purpose. " https://www.child-soldiers.org/who-are-child-soldiers Edited July 13, 2017 by sweep the leg blue_gold_84 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted July 13, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) 46 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said: How is pointing out your blatantly obvious confirmation bias if you think I'm the only one with a confirmation bias here, then I feel sorry for you. Now on to my real confirmation bias, focusing on the game tonight. Hopefully we can get off discussing terrorist scumbags being given giant gobs of taxpayer cash for a few hours and focus on football instead. Speaking of which, imagine what the CFL could do with $10.5 million of taxpayer cash? Wow. Other than just for infrastructure I mean (and I'm so happy to see the level of government support for the CFL in this area). Edited July 13, 2017 by kelownabomberfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted July 13, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 8 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said: So, you have nothing .... Awesome. I win. ok - awesome, you won, if that helps you sleep at night. Meanwhile, all Canadian taxpayers everywhere lost. Tabitha Speer lost a husband. All right, as I said, on to the game tonight. Go Blue! Quote Is Omar Khadr a ‘Child Soldier’? The definition of ‘Child Soldier’ has two parts: ‘Child’ and ‘Soldier’. First: is Omar Khadr a ‘Soldier’? No, he is not. At least, not according to the UN laws on the matter (or any other law I am aware of which defines who is, and who is not, a ‘soldier’). The UN laws were written in order to protect the innocent civilians who get in the way of a war first, then the protection of legitimate soldiers second. And, they are very clear on who is and who is not a ‘soldier’ (again – basic Wikipedia search provides clear answers – but much more material confirming this is easily available through any major search engine…): ‘To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a “fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance” and bear arms openly.’ Omar Khadr, unfortunately, does not satisfy these qualifications. Not only was he not a part of a recognized military ‘chain of command’, and not wearing any ‘badges’ or ‘distinctive markings’ that could, even remotely, be construed as ‘uniform’ or ‘fixed distinctive marking’: the crime he is accused of having committed is against the laws and customs of war. ( I can expand on this, at length, if asked, in the comments sections.) Therefore, Omar Khadr DOES NOT satisfy the qualifications of having the status of a ‘soldier’. Therefore, he cannot be treated as a ‘soldier’: a ‘Child Soldier’, an ‘adult soldier’, or any other kind of ‘soldier’. But, even if Omar Khadr were a ‘Soldier’: would he qualify as a ‘Child Soldier’? This is a more difficult question – but there is a legal answer! Omar Khadr was aged 15 when he was detained by UN troops and when the premeditated murder of a UN non-combatant medic, which he is accused of having committed, occurred. Different people mature at different rates: at 15, some people really are still children while others are quite adult. Both individual maturing rates and cultural influences are important in determining if a 15-year-old is ‘an adult’ or ‘a child’. What does the law say? Omar Khadr straddled two cultures: In Canada, a 15-year old is, legally, a child. Still, 15-year-olds are able to become emancipated, and legally become adults. Under some circumstances, non-emancipated 15-year-olds are charged with crimes as adults – so the ‘legal precedent’ can be applied both ways: it is a bit of a legal ‘gray area’ in Canada. In Islamist culture, a 15-year-old is considered to be an adult, without any reservations. The Khadr family certainly considers 15 years of age to be ‘adult’ – that is the age at which their daughter was given away in marriage! It is obvious that in his own eyes, as well as according to the culture of his family, Omar Khadr is ‘an adult’. And, in our multicultural society, would it not be offensive to dismiss Omar Khadr’s minority cultural view of his status at that time? OK, ok – so, the ‘multiculturalism’ thing is kind of messed up – and we all know it. Let’s look elsewhere: What does the International Human Rights Law have to say on the subject? (The following is a cut-and-paste of what Wikipedia has to say on this: I usually like to paraphrase things, but I could not hope to make it more clear than they had…) International humanitarian law According to Article 77.2 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, adopted in 1977: ‘The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, the Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.’ Well, that seems rather clear: once a person has reached the age of 15, he/she cannot be considered to be a ‘Child Soldier’ – even though it’s better to recruit people who are over the age of 18…. 15-year-olds are ‘regular soldiers’! Omar Khadr HAD ‘attained the age of fifteen years’ – so he IS, according to international law, ‘regular soldier’! In other words, legally, Omar Khadr CANNOT be considered a ‘Child Soldier’, because he is not a ‘Child’: he would have had to have been FOURTEEN years of age or younger in order to be considered a ‘Child Soldier’! OK – so we are nowhere closer to the answer of what Omar Khadr actually is: but, I have (hopefully) demonstrated that whatever he is, he is NOT a ‘Child Soldier’! I know – the facts of the situation are unlikely to affect the direction of the public debate…. I have no illusions about it. People who point out the laws and the rules are nowhere near as interesting – and nowhere near listened to – as people who play on our emotions… But, we MUST TRY, mustn’t we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanna-B-Fanboy Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) 31 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said: Is Omar Khadr a ‘Child Soldier’? The definition of ‘Child Soldier’ has two parts: ‘Child’ and ‘Soldier’. First: is Omar Khadr a ‘Soldier’? No, he is not. At least, not according to the UN laws on the matter (or any other law I am aware of which defines who is, and who is not, a ‘soldier’). The UN laws were written in order to protect the innocent civilians who get in the way of a war first, then the protection of legitimate soldiers second. And, they are very clear on who is and who is not a ‘soldier’ (again – basic Wikipedia search provides clear answers – but much more material confirming this is easily available through any major search engine…): ‘To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a “fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance” and bear arms openly.’ Omar Khadr, unfortunately, does not satisfy these qualifications. Not only was he not a part of a recognized military ‘chain of command’, and not wearing any ‘badges’ or ‘distinctive markings’ that could, even remotely, be construed as ‘uniform’ or ‘fixed distinctive marking’: the crime he is accused of having committed is against the laws and customs of war. ( I can expand on this, at length, if asked, in the comments sections.) Therefore, Omar Khadr DOES NOT satisfy the qualifications of having the status of a ‘soldier’. Therefore, he cannot be treated as a ‘soldier’: a ‘Child Soldier’, an ‘adult soldier’, or any other kind of ‘soldier’. But, even if Omar Khadr were a ‘Soldier’: would he qualify as a ‘Child Soldier’? This is a more difficult question – but there is a legal answer! Omar Khadr was aged 15 when he was detained by UN troops and when the premeditated murder of a UN non-combatant medic, which he is accused of having committed, occurred. Different people mature at different rates: at 15, some people really are still children while others are quite adult. Both individual maturing rates and cultural influences are important in determining if a 15-year-old is ‘an adult’ or ‘a child’. What does the law say? Omar Khadr straddled two cultures: In Canada, a 15-year old is, legally, a child. Still, 15-year-olds are able to become emancipated, and legally become adults. Under some circumstances, non-emancipated 15-year-olds are charged with crimes as adults – so the ‘legal precedent’ can be applied both ways: it is a bit of a legal ‘gray area’ in Canada. In Islamist culture, a 15-year-old is considered to be an adult, without any reservations. The Khadr family certainly considers 15 years of age to be ‘adult’ – that is the age at which their daughter was given away in marriage! It is obvious that in his own eyes, as well as according to the culture of his family, Omar Khadr is ‘an adult’. And, in our multicultural society, would it not be offensive to dismiss Omar Khadr’s minority cultural view of his status at that time? OK, ok – so, the ‘multiculturalism’ thing is kind of messed up – and we all know it. Let’s look elsewhere: What does the International Human Rights Law have to say on the subject? (The following is a cut-and-paste of what Wikipedia has to say on this: I usually like to paraphrase things, but I could not hope to make it more clear than they had…) International humanitarian law According to Article 77.2 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, adopted in 1977: ‘The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, the Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.’ Well, that seems rather clear: once a person has reached the age of 15, he/she cannot be considered to be a ‘Child Soldier’ – even though it’s better to recruit people who are over the age of 18…. 15-year-olds are ‘regular soldiers’! Omar Khadr HAD ‘attained the age of fifteen years’ – so he IS, according to international law, ‘regular soldier’! In other words, legally, Omar Khadr CANNOT be considered a ‘Child Soldier’, because he is not a ‘Child’: he would have had to have been FOURTEEN years of age or younger in order to be considered a ‘Child Soldier’! OK – so we are nowhere closer to the answer of what Omar Khadr actually is: but, I have (hopefully) demonstrated that whatever he is, he is NOT a ‘Child Soldier’! I know – the facts of the situation are unlikely to affect the direction of the public debate…. I have no illusions about it. People who point out the laws and the rules are nowhere near as interesting – and nowhere near listened to – as people who play on our emotions… But, we MUST TRY, mustn’t we? I will take my source of: The Paris Principles which we are signatory to: Quote The internationally agreed definition for a child associated with an armed force or armed group (child soldier) is any person below 18 years of age who is, or who has been, recruited or used by an armed force or armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to children, boys and girls, used as fighters, cooks, porters, messengers, spies or for sexual purposes. It does not only refer to a child who is taking or has taken a direct part in hostilities. (Paris Principles and Guidelines on Children Associated with Armed Forces or Armed Groups, 2007.) (Child Soldiers International, Who Are Child Soldiers?) and The United Nations: Quote Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict (OPAC): Adopted by the UN General Assembly on 25 May 2000, entered into force on 12 February 2002. OPAC sets 18 as the minimum age for direct participation in hostilities and for compulsory recruitment by state armed forces. States may accept volunteers from the age of 16 but must deposit a binding declaration at the time of ratification or accession, setting out their minimum voluntary recruitment age and outlining certain safeguards for such recruitment. OPAC also prohibits the recruitment or use in hostilities of under-18s by non-state armed groups. (Child Soldiers International, International Standards) over your source. Seriously, I will take my sources of the Paris Principles and the UN over your source of what.... a ******* blog entitled "Xanthippa's Chamberpot"? I'm not even kidding... Xanthippa's Chamberpot... https://blog.xanthippas.com/2009/08/25/omar-khadr-is-not-a-child-soldier-as-per-un-laws/ Edited July 13, 2017 by wanna-b-fanboy blue_gold_84, Fatty Liver and sweep the leg 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 Do you have an link for what you just posted? Curious to see where it came from. Check out the "Paris Principles", and "Convention on the Rights of the Child". They're a couple decades more current than what you posted regarding the Geneva Convention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 Interesting perspective here from Lorrie Goldstein: Quote ... A veteran lawyer I spoke with said the amount awarded by the court could have been much less, given that the Liberal government could have mounted a credible defence, based on several factors. First, the 2010 court decision did not require the federal government to try and repatriate Khadr, who was nonetheless repatriated just two years later, under the Stephen Harper government. Second, plaintiffs routinely ask for much more than they expect to be awarded if they win, so there was nothing written in stone about Khadr’s $20 million claim. Third, while it’s likely (though not automatic) the government would have been found liable for damages, given the 2010 court ruling, it could have argued those damages should be well short of $10.5 million. For example, by noting the major violator of Khadr’s rights was the U.S., not Canada, and that Canada isn’t responsible for what the U.S. did. Then there’s the issue of to what extent Khadr was the author of his own misfortune, known legally as volenti non fit injuria, Here, the lawyer said, the Trudeau government could have argued Khadr caused the situation he was in -- by participating in a firefight against U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan in 2002, that led to the death of Sgt. Christopher Speer and the blinding of Sgt. Layne Morris in one eye. In a car accident, for example, damages to a plaintiff can be eliminated or reduced if it’s found he was speeding and/or not wearing a seat belt. In the Khadr case, the court would have had to decide to what extent Khadr acted under his own free will at 15 years of age, and to what extent he was under the influence of his terrorist father, Ahmed Said Khadr, who sent him to terrorist training camps operated by the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Given these arguments, the lawyer said, the court could have awarded damages substantially less than $10.5 million, or the $11.5 million, with an apology, that Maher Arar settled for in 2007 with the Harper government. ... http://www.winnipegsun.com/2017/07/12/liberals-could-have-defended-khadr-case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPuDS Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 On 2017-07-11 at 1:58 PM, Atomic said: I tire of this argument. My beliefs are that: Omar Khadr was screwed by his family and they are the real villains in this ordeal. Omar Khadr did not deserve to be held in Guantanamo Bay. Omar Khadr should have been brought back to Canada. Omar Khadr should have been allowed to walk free if it was determined he was not a risk to the Canadian public. Omar Khadr should never have received a rich settlement nor an apology. He should have been given exactly that which is given to new refugees by the Canadian government and allowed to integrate into society as a new refugee would. Paying a large settlement, under cover of secrecy and outside the rule of law, to a former terrorist (whether as a child or not) is the height of absurdity and a black mark on this government. And that's all I will say, and no one will change my mind on any of these six points. I think many people feel the same way I do. something like 77 percent of the country at last check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue_gold_84 Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, SPuDS said: something like 77 percent of the country at last check. It was 71% of 1,521 total participants across the country. http://angusreid.org/omar-khadr-compensation/ http://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2017.07.10-KhadrReleaseTables.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPuDS Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 22 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said: was getting Khadr out of Gitmo asap really an option? He was a terrorist who killed an unarmed medic. Not sure how you just "get him out of Gitmo". He also was the lone survivor of a really bad bunch of Taliban scum. He had information. That information probably saved a lot of lives. he did tell them where a good chunk of IEDs were buried and helped remove them from what I gather.. right there, info gleamed from interrogation saved either locals or military lives.. kelownabomberfan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPuDS Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 22 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said: How was Canada supposed to prevent the US from incarcerating a murderer found in Afghanistan? How were they to know he was even "Canadian"? As for the fighting this thing would have resulted in more money, I just will never agree that that is true, and in fact just justification for Trudeau fans to let Justin slide off the hook instead of holding him accountable for a really bad decision. ya highly doubtful he was walking around with his passport lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPuDS Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 21 hours ago, Wideleft said: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-army-altered-khadr-report/article668919/ "In the report's first version, penned the day after the firefight and dated July 28, 2002, the commander identified in court as "Lt.-Clnl. W" says U.S. troops killed the person who attacked Sgt. Speer. Several months later, the report was rewritten to say U.S. troops "engaged" the person who attacked Sgt. Speer, implying the attacker was not killed." The implications for Mr. Khadr are significant. If the person who attacked Sgt. Speer was himself killed, it could not have been Mr. Khadr. He faces a murder charge in relation to the killing, and the possibility of a life sentence if convicted. Mr. Khadr's U.S. military lawyer, Lieutenant-Commander Bill Kuebler, revealed the previously secret information at the tribunal yesterday. The prosecution did not contest his account." when they found Omar, he was buried under dead bodies but still alive.. is it not plausible to assume the military, on the day of attack, thought they did kill the grenade tosser? he was wounded and I believe found after making noise as a US soldier stood on top of him and his dead comrades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now