31 October, 2010

Khadr jury asks for replay of defence witness testimony - CTV News

Omar Khadr has suffered more than enough for the 'crime' he committed. First off, he was a child when he participated in a Taliban attack, killing one Marine in the process. His father, a member of the AlQuaida hierarchy brought his son into the Afghanistan theatre were he was himself was killed. As a minor, brought into the situation he faced when he threw the fatal grenade, he should have not have been subjected to being held in Guantanamo Bay as an 'enemy combatant' as both the USA and Canada are signatories of the convention of child soldiers; a convention that details how such children are to be dealt with.

Further, the conditions he had to endure for the past eight years were far more brutal and harmful to his welfare than even the most hardened criminal in Canada would ever have to face.


If the assessment of this Lieutenant is favorable towards Khadr's disposition and situation, then I pray they would sentence him to 'time served'. Then, let him come home to Canada and be left in peace, given the help and support he needs to successfully recover from his experiences and integrate back into Canadian society.


That would be the most just way to salvage any justice in what has became known in Canada as the 'Khadr Situation'.

Khadr jury asks for replay of defence witness testimony - CTV News

16 comments:

  1. I could never understand why he would be classified as an "illegal combatant" while members of security companies like Blackwater (Now Xe) would not be

    ReplyDelete
  2. "...the conditions he had to endure for the past eight years were far more brutal and harmful to his welfare than even the most hardened criminal in Canada would ever have to face."

    Well, then he should have stayed in Canada and committed his crimes here, against Canadians, shouldn't he? We'd have let him off with a wrist slap and severe scolding. Well, maybe not severe. Canadians don't do severe.

    This guy was no child when he willingly took part in a fire fight on the side of the enemy forces against American soldiers and killed one of them. It didn't happen in Canada. He was an active participant -- a soldier -- in a battle against American troops. He was captured as an enemy combatant. He pleaded guilty. What is left to discuss? This is an American problem, with an American solution. His dual citizenship (his "Canadian" citizenship apparently being one of accident and convenience) should not be allowed to protect him from prosecution for crimes he commits against other persons in other countries, against their laws!

    Why is it that people don't want to see the simplicity of the idea that you obey the laws, whatever they are, wherever you are, or suffer the consequences where you are? Ignorance is no excuse. Neither is citizenship.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lady Janus: I'm surprised at your position on this issue! Can't really say 'why?' but I'm surprised none the less.

    He was taken by his father at before he became a teenager. He was born in Toronto and is every bit the Canadian that we are. At the age he committed the crime he plead guilty to, he still wouldn't be permitted to drive more than a bicycle! I ask you to think back to the time that you were of that age. If you had been indoctrinated as he was, and were to be thrown into the middle of a military conflict only to see your father killed, leaving you there alone... do you believe that you should be held responsible for your action as if you were an adult? I sure as hell wouldn't want to be.

    AND, even if you hold him responsible for his actions, does not the fact that he was subject to 'enhanced interrogation' at the hands of the Americans, and lived literally in cages for years in 'Camp X-Ray' (exposed a few years back by '60 Minutes - leading to the construction of a more humane 'detainment center') for 8+ years not count as sufficient punishment?

    I guess the reason for my surprise is that you seemed to be more concerned about the bear that was shot on my lawn than you are about another human being. Trust me when I say that nothing you have heretofore shared here would lead me to believe this of you. You have been the voice of civility, compassion and consistent in speaking for the respect of every one's rights. Why is Khadr not entitled to the same rights as you and me?

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lady Janus: Another question: Could you have successfully resisted your parent from moving you to another country when you were 11?

    Neither could I. Neither could Khadr.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tim, as I said, he wasn't in Canada when he killed that American. He was in Afghanistan. And at the time, he was fifteen, not eleven. In that country, in that culture, he is an adult, not subject to Canadian laws or protections.

    "I guess the reason for my surprise is that you seemed to be more concerned about the bear that was shot on my lawn than you are about another human being."

    That bear is not all bears any more than Khadr is all human beings, and that bear did not go to another country and engage in a shooting war with anyone. That bear did nothing wrong. All he did was be a bear, inconvenienced a few people and scared a few more, and for that, unfortunately, he became a subject for execution. He committed no crime for which he can be held accountable in a court of law. However, that particular human being willingly participated in an act of war. How can you not tell the difference?

    "Why is Khadr not entitled to the same rights as you and me?"

    Rights? What rights? When someone is not in Canada, he has no special Canadian rights. Our rights are not transferable. If you or I had gone to Afganistan and done the same as Khadr did, we would be subjected to exactly the same as he was!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lady Janus: Yes, but he was eleven years old when his father took him out of the country to be indoctrinated in al-Quaeda schools in Pakistan.

    If your parent decided that you were going to be sent away to 'boarding school' at the same age, would you have been able to defy him?

    Again too... he is a natural born Canadian citizen. As such, there are conventions and treaties that Canada is to insist be respected for its citizens everywhere the apply. We are signatories to the UN Declaration on Child Soldiers (which was championed by Romeo Dellaire). So is the United States. Once Afghanistan extinguished their rights to prosecute Kdahr (if they ever held them!), Canada was legally obligated to insist their citizen's are afforded their rights as outlined by the Treaty.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  7. P.S. To the shame of both the Conservative and Liberal governments of the post '9/11' world, they did not demand these rights for Omar Khadr as they should have.

    Remember, I don't think Pakistan and Afghanistan have a very active 'neighborhood watch' or child welfare system to which he could have turned to find help. He was stuck in the middle of a war, fighting for his life.

    He has MORE than paid the price (Karmic, penitentiary, morally...) given what life has brought this kid to date. IF EVER there is case where their background should be a mitigating factor, surely to God this is the case.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  8. " That bear did nothing wrong. All he did was be a bear, inconvenienced a few people and scared a few more, and for that, unfortunately, he became a subject for execution. He committed no crime for which he can be held accountable in a court of law."

    Now if you could apply the same thought process to an unborn human being as you did the bear.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  9. Paul, let's deal with you first: a fetus is NOT a human being. Sticking the term, "unborn" in front of it does nothing to change that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. " Yes, but he was eleven years old when his father took him out of the country to be indoctrinated in al-Quaeda schools in Pakistan."

    So? Every child is indoctrinated, Tim. Every single one. Some become terrorists. Most do not. Who do we "blame" for the terrorists when others do not make that socio-political leap? Being Canadian did not stop him from leaving the country with his father, it did not stop him from embracing what he was being taught, and it did not stop him from being prosecuted for war crimes outside the sphere of influence of our borders. Being Canadian should never be used as an excuse for committing criminal acts in another country!

    To be sure, he was not the only young soldier in that war, but he was the only one captured. Would you be anywhere near as concerned if others had been taken prisoner, as well? Others who were not born in Canada?

    Or is your emphasis and sympathy completely tied to his citizenship? And if so, why?

    ReplyDelete
  11. A fetus IS a human being. Sticking the term, "fetus" on it doesn't alter biological reality though I understand the necessity for you to do so given the fact you wish to justify killing it. The nazi's and slave traders used the same dehumanization tactic to achieve their ends as well. Thankfully people finally got a clue.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  12. Paul, you go ahead and think what you like. You're allowed. As am I.

    But if you want to talk justification, where in the Charter does it say that a fetus is a human being, and that I, as a woman and citizen of this country, have to lose all my own rights in favor of this unwanted invasion if and when it takes up space in my body against my wishes?

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Charter of Rights doesn't say a fetus is not a human either? I don't recall it giving any definition of what constitutes a human but if it does feel free to share it.
    That said you are correct, its perfectly legal for you or any other woman to have the life within your womb terminated for any reason or at anytime until a full exit of the uterus takes place. Yes its legal but that doesn't make it morally right. It was once legal to own a slave, beat your children or drive drunk but we saw the light and laws changed. Until they do again, pro-lifers and choicers will continue to lock horns.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I don't recall [the Charter of Rights] giving any definition of what constitutes a human..."

    Exactly! So what makes you think you're allowed to define it and make everyone else live by your definition of it?

    "...its perfectly legal for you or any other woman to have the life within your womb terminated..."

    If it's there without my consent and against my wishes, it's a trespassing alien, and yes, I will be rid of it.

    "Yes its legal but that doesn't make it morally right."

    According to your definition of "morally right." But I do not live by your definitions of anything. Nor does anyone else who values the individual's freedom of reproductive choice. You guys need to get it through your heads -- when you attempt to interfere with the individual's right to determine her own body's actions, reactions, processes, and disposition, you are stepping way out of your allowed bounds!

    ReplyDelete
  15. "I don't recall [the Charter of Rights] giving any definition of what constitutes a human..."

    Exactly! So what makes you think you're allowed to define it and make everyone else live by your definition of it?

    "...its perfectly legal for you or any other woman to have the life within your womb terminated..."

    If it's there without my consent and against my wishes, it's a trespassing alien, and yes, I will be rid of it.

    "Yes its legal but that doesn't make it morally right."

    According to your definition of "morally right." But I do not live by your definitions of anything. Nor does anyone else who values the individual's freedom of reproductive choice. You guys need to get it through your heads -- when you attempt to interfere with the individual's right to determine her own body's actions, reactions, processes, and disposition, you are stepping way out of your allowed bounds!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Lady Janus: Yes, you are absolutely correct. I give you your point. But everyone is not entitled to live by whatever morality they so choose. There always exists a societal unconsciousness where certain principles and morality rule. Without such a template, we can not live in an essentially peaceful state with each other.

    People don't have the right to choose to live by killing another. It is as universally held a tenet of civilization as exists among us. The taking of an innocent life is always wrong.

    The issue at hand in the abortion debate is not a question of competing moralities. It's about whether or not this essential value of the sanctity of life is relevant to the issue.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics