• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Khadr Thread

I dont understand how people can suggest that we just turn the other cheek with individuals like Khadr.

I find most often its easy to claim the moral high ground when its someone elses blood. I see in our court system all the time.

I would suggest that being Canadian is more than your passport, and having one makes you Canadian in name only and when you kill a medic, performing emergency aid, with a handgrenade from inside a bomb making compound you have done something so uncanadian, and infact in-human, that you deserve whatever follows next. Be you 12 or 120.

Sorry kid, I know your dad taught you wrong. But you have to go to jail forever.
 
Container said:
I dont understand how people can suggest that we just turn the other cheek with individuals like Khadr.

I find most often its easy to claim the moral high ground when its someone elses blood. I see in our court system all the time.
Like 152 Canadian soldiers, two Canadian aid workers, a Canadian reporter and a Canadian diplomat.
 
Food for thought.

PART II

OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Treason and other Offences against the Queen’s Authority and Person​

High treason

46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Treason

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

(c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

Canadian citizen

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,

(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or

(b) commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).

Overt act

(4) Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 46; 1974-75-76, c. 105, s. 2.

Punishment for high treason

47. (1) Every one who commits high treason is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

Punishment for treason

(2) Every one who commits treason is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) to be sentenced to imprisonment for life if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(a), (c) or (d);

(b) to be sentenced to imprisonment for life if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(b) or (e) committed while a state of war exists between Canada and another country; or

(c) to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(b) or (e) committed while no state of war exists between Canada and another country.

Corroboration

(3) No person shall be convicted of high treason or treason on the evidence of only one witness, unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated in a material particular by evidence that implicates the accused.

Minimum punishment

(4) For the purposes of Part XXIII, the sentence of imprisonment for life prescribed by subsection (1) is a minimum punishment.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 47; 1974-75-76, c. 105, s. 2.

Limitation

48. (1) No proceedings for an offence of treason as defined by paragraph 46(2)(a) shall be commenced more than three years after the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed.

Information for treasonable words

(2) No proceedings shall be commenced under section 47 in respect of an overt act of treason expressed or declared by open and considered speech unless

(a) an information setting out the overt act and the words by which it was expressed or declared is laid under oath before a justice within six days after the time when the words are alleged to have been spoken; and

(b) a warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued within ten days after the time when the information is laid.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 48; 1974-75-76, c. 105, s. 29.

I'll make sure to include this in my letter, so should you.

May I also point out that Khadr supporters are a minority, they only look like the majority because of all the media attention they get.



 
Grimaldus said:
I love hearing the left talk about giving him a medal and him running for some kind of office  ::)


  Really?  Who on the left is saying he should recieve some kind of medal.
 
Grimaldus said:
I love hearing the left talk about giving him a medal and him running for some kind of office  ::)
Just noticed this - any links to share along these lines?  I'm intrigued....
 
Grimaldus said:
I love hearing the left talk about giving him a medal and him running for some kind of office  ::)

Citation needed.

Undoubtedly there will be one or two individuals who are right (or left?) the f*** out of 'er, but I challenge you to demonstrate any wide sentiment amongst 'the left' (whatever that mythical, monolithic thing you conceive of is) that suggest Khadr should be given a medal and elected or appointed to any position of responsibility.

Sounds like you may have read a very extreme position at some point, and are broadly attributing it to the entire side of the political spectrum you're not a fan of. I'm calling bullshit.

The majority of support for Khadr's release comes from a couple of sentiments or beliefs. Either;
- He was a child soldier and is entitled to be treated as such,
- The facts given in the case are wrong and he was innocent,
- He was utterly indoctrinated and brainwashed by a screwed up family, and;
- The entire quasi-judicial system at Guantanamo is a farce and ought not be dignified by our complicity.

In nearly all cases I've seen people opposing the treatment of Khadr not because they believe he 'did right' (whatever that personal individual believes he, in fact, did), but because our side has 'done wrong' in how he was treated since capture. There's a huge difference. Khadr is largely a symbol of two competing viewpoints; the protection of rights, justice, and the rule of law with the consequent acceptance of very marginally greater risk on one side, versus a more expedient and security oriented focus on the other side that accepts some compromise as necessary to protect what is believed to be an enhanced provision of security from terrorism. But to claim that the former perspective wants to see him handed a medal and put into office is so absurd as to verge on being deliberately dishonest.
 
Container said:
I find most often its easy to claim the moral high ground when its someone elses blood. I see in our court system all the time.

This is irrelevant. An argument's cogency has nothing to do with the person espousing it.
 
HavokFour said:
PART II

OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Treason and other Offences against the Queen’s Authority and Person

High treason

46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

Khadr was decidedly out of country when he was caught.

However....

  assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

His family remained in Canada while they sent/supplied an individual (Omar Khadr) to the enemy to fight. Would they not possibly be guilty of this?
 
uncle-midget-Oddball said:
Khadr was decidedly out of country when he was caught.

However....

His family remained in Canada while they sent/supplied an individual (Omar Khadr) to the enemy to fight. Would they not possibly be guilty of this?


See:

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,

(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or

(b) commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).

ie: Canadian citizens and persons owing allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada who commit acts of high treason or treason are punishable under Canadian criminal law even if the acts were performed outside Canada.
 
uncle-midget-Oddball said:
Seen.

Still wondering about his family though (as a seperate question).

Perhaps something would happen if a person or persons dragged this little gem into the light.  ;)

EDIT: I've decided to shoot off an email to Lowell Green of 580 CFRA.
 
Out of curiosity, when was the last time someone in Canada was prosecuted for treason?
 
hold_fast said:
Out of curiosity, when was the last time someone in Canada was prosecuted for treason?

Just after WW2. A Japanese-Canadian left for Japan in 1938, served in the Japanese army, and was apparently a rather brutal guard at internment camps, including being responsible for the deaths of some Canadians taken prisoner at Hong Kong. He was hanged in '47.
 
Interesting parallel -- I'd vote for following the precedent...
 
Jim Seggie said:
Can you imagine the howls of protest if we even contemplated executing a traitor?

Given the incredibly poor application of law in the Khadr case- in this instance, yes.

Personally I have a strong objection to the death penalty. Not for philosophical reasons, or because some people don't deserve it - some absolutely do - but because I simply don't trust the state to administer the criminal justice system effective enough to implement such an irrevocable sentence. You can't bring someone back to life if you screw it up, and so long as there is any rate of error in the justice system I don't think it's justifiable.

I don't think any reasonable argument can be made that the gong show at Guantanamo is in any way a close enough approximation of an actual fair trial for such a result as the death penalty should even be contemplated. Even a real criminal justice system typically remains rather flawed, never mind what they've got going on down there.

If, somehow, we can devise a way to read minds with absolute 100% certainty, and from that can prove guilt or innocence in a case, then by all means go ahead with limited application of capital punishment. But not in the current system or anything we're likely to develop.
 
Jim Seggie said:
Can you imagine the howls of protest if we even contemplated executing a traitor?

I'm not suggesting we execute him. More along the lines of throwing him down a deep deep hole. (Oh, and there's that whole Martyr thing to consider...)

I encourage anyone who feels as strongly about this as I to write your MP. If we can't keep him out, we can damn well make his stay a living hell.  ;D
 
Well Brihard, how do you figure that young Khadr is anymore ill treated than Italian, German, or Japanese POW's during WWII

Inturned for the duration -- well guess what the GWOT is not done...

 
Brihard said:
Given the incredibly poor application of law in the Khadr case- in this instance, yes.

Personally I have a strong objection to the death penalty. Not for philosophical reasons, or because some people don't deserve it - some absolutely do - but because I simply don't trust the state to administer the criminal justice system effective enough to implement such an irrevocable sentence. You can't bring someone back to life if you screw it up, and so long as there is any rate of error in the justice system I don't think it's justifiable.

I don't think any reasonable argument can be made that the gong show at Guantanamo is in any way a close enough approximation of an actual fair trial for such a result as the death penalty should even be contemplated. Even a real criminal justice system typically remains rather flawed, never mind what they've got going on down there.

If, somehow, we can devise a way to read minds with absolute 100% certainty, and from that can prove guilt or innocence in a case, then by all means go ahead with limited application of capital punishment. But not in the current system or anything we're likely to develop.

So someone pleading guilty is not certain enough for you?
 
Back
Top