Khadr Supporters
2Cdo @ Thu Apr 30, 2015 4:44 am
http://www.thestar.com/news/2015/04/28/should-omar-khadr-get-the-order-of-canada-.html
Didn't take long for the left to promote this.
DrCaleb @ Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:45 am
That's pretty fucked up.
I don't agree with his treatment, but that's a far cry from condoning his actions. But the Order of Canada!?! 
2Cdo @ Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:50 am
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
That's pretty fucked up.
I don't agree with his treatment, but that's a far cry from condoning his actions. But the Order of Canada!?!
I don't agree with his treatment, but that's a far cry from condoning his actions. But the Order of Canada!?!
I KNEW this would happen.
ShepherdsDog @ Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:52 am
There are some seriously screwed up people here. These same people would be some of the first to go in areas controlled by individuals who share the same beliefs as the Khadr pack and their ilk.
DrCaleb @ Thu Apr 30, 2015 7:02 am
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
These same people would be some of the first to go in areas controlled by individuals who share the same beliefs as the Khadr pack and their ilk.
I don't know why we stop them. Want to go backpacking in Afghanistan? Have at it! Don't expect us to pay to ship your remains home though . . .
Knight1911 @ Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:04 am
I think the way he was treated was shitty but I also think that giving him the Order of Canada is ridiculous, he didn't do anything noble for Canada at all.
andyt @ Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:10 am
wow, rick salutin, wonder where they dug him up? Seems more like an attention seeking ploy for him or the Star than anything to do with Khadr.
2Cdo @ Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:19 am
Knight1911 Knight1911:
I think the way he was treated was shitty but I also think that giving him the Order of Canada is ridiculous, he didn't do anything noble for Canada at all.
He was treated far better than he deserved.
Knight1911 @ Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:39 am
2Cdo 2Cdo:
Knight1911 Knight1911:
I think the way he was treated was shitty but I also think that giving him the Order of Canada is ridiculous, he didn't do anything noble for Canada at all.
He was treated far better than he deserved.
I think sending someone to Gitmo' on shaky grounds, is never good.
2Cdo @ Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:45 am
Knight1911 Knight1911:
2Cdo 2Cdo:
Knight1911 Knight1911:
I think the way he was treated was shitty but I also think that giving him the Order of Canada is ridiculous, he didn't do anything noble for Canada at all.
He was treated far better than he deserved.
I think sending someone to Gitmo' on shaky grounds, is never good.
He was sent there because he was fighting against us(the West). Which was a good enough reason.
andyt @ Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:47 am
Gitmo itself was on shaky ground
$1:
On June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in an historic
decision in Boumediene v. Bush/Al Odah v. United States that
the detainees at Guantánamo Bay have a constitutional right
to habeas corpus, to challenge their detention before a
neutral judge in a real court. The men at Guantánamo have
been struggling for this basic right to be recognized since
2002, when the first prisoners were brought to Guantánamo
Bay, and when the Center for Constitutional Rights’ first
challenge to their detention was filed. In 2004, in Rasul v.
Bush, the Supreme Court upheld the detainees' statutory right
to habeas corpus, and in 2006, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the
high court rejected the Bush administration's framework for
military commissions and upheld the rights of the detainees
under the Geneva Conventions.
In the decision, the Court strongly criticized the President and
Congress's attempt to declare that because Guantánamo
was outside the sovereign territory of the United States, the
Constitution did not apply. The Court firmly stated that "To
hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on
or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this
Court, say 'what the law is.'" Furthermore, the Supreme Court
held that the procedures created by the Detainee Treatment
Act were not an adequate substitute for real habeas hearings
and emphasized that the length of our clients' detention
required an end to further delays.
decision in Boumediene v. Bush/Al Odah v. United States that
the detainees at Guantánamo Bay have a constitutional right
to habeas corpus, to challenge their detention before a
neutral judge in a real court. The men at Guantánamo have
been struggling for this basic right to be recognized since
2002, when the first prisoners were brought to Guantánamo
Bay, and when the Center for Constitutional Rights’ first
challenge to their detention was filed. In 2004, in Rasul v.
Bush, the Supreme Court upheld the detainees' statutory right
to habeas corpus, and in 2006, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the
high court rejected the Bush administration's framework for
military commissions and upheld the rights of the detainees
under the Geneva Conventions.
In the decision, the Court strongly criticized the President and
Congress's attempt to declare that because Guantánamo
was outside the sovereign territory of the United States, the
Constitution did not apply. The Court firmly stated that "To
hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on
or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this
Court, say 'what the law is.'" Furthermore, the Supreme Court
held that the procedures created by the Detainee Treatment
Act were not an adequate substitute for real habeas hearings
and emphasized that the length of our clients' detention
required an end to further delays.
martin14 @ Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:47 am
Knight1911 Knight1911:
2Cdo 2Cdo:
Knight1911 Knight1911:
I think the way he was treated was shitty but I also think that giving him the Order of Canada is ridiculous, he didn't do anything noble for Canada at all.
He was treated far better than he deserved.
I think sending someone to Gitmo' on shaky grounds, is never good.
You're right.
He should have been interrogated in Kabul, and then shot as a spy/terrorist.
2Cdo @ Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:52 am
andyt andyt:
Gitmo itself was on shaky ground
$1:
On June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in an historic
decision in Boumediene v. Bush/Al Odah v. United States that
the detainees at Guantánamo Bay have a constitutional right
to habeas corpus, to challenge their detention before a
neutral judge in a real court. The men at Guantánamo have
been struggling for this basic right to be recognized since
2002, when the first prisoners were brought to Guantánamo
Bay, and when the Center for Constitutional Rights’ first
challenge to their detention was filed. In 2004, in Rasul v.
Bush, the Supreme Court upheld the detainees' statutory right
to habeas corpus, and in 2006, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the
high court rejected the Bush administration's framework for
military commissions and upheld the rights of the detainees
under the Geneva Conventions.
In the decision, the Court strongly criticized the President and
Congress's attempt to declare that because Guantánamo
was outside the sovereign territory of the United States, the
Constitution did not apply. The Court firmly stated that "To
hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on
or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this
Court, say 'what the law is.'" Furthermore, the Supreme Court
held that the procedures created by the Detainee Treatment
Act were not an adequate substitute for real habeas hearings
and emphasized that the length of our clients' detention
required an end to further delays.
decision in Boumediene v. Bush/Al Odah v. United States that
the detainees at Guantánamo Bay have a constitutional right
to habeas corpus, to challenge their detention before a
neutral judge in a real court. The men at Guantánamo have
been struggling for this basic right to be recognized since
2002, when the first prisoners were brought to Guantánamo
Bay, and when the Center for Constitutional Rights’ first
challenge to their detention was filed. In 2004, in Rasul v.
Bush, the Supreme Court upheld the detainees' statutory right
to habeas corpus, and in 2006, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the
high court rejected the Bush administration's framework for
military commissions and upheld the rights of the detainees
under the Geneva Conventions.
In the decision, the Court strongly criticized the President and
Congress's attempt to declare that because Guantánamo
was outside the sovereign territory of the United States, the
Constitution did not apply. The Court firmly stated that "To
hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on
or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this
Court, say 'what the law is.'" Furthermore, the Supreme Court
held that the procedures created by the Detainee Treatment
Act were not an adequate substitute for real habeas hearings
and emphasized that the length of our clients' detention
required an end to further delays.
And this is where the US fucked up. If they just called them POW's they could have held them until the "War on Terror" was over.
Knight1911 @ Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:57 am
You know what I find kind of funny? The U.S has it's worst prison on land in a country that until recently they had an embargo against. And tried to kill their leader once. The Bay of Pigs, was an utter failure, as everyone knows.
andyt @ Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:59 am
$1:
Montreal – The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision today in the Omar Khadr case, confirming that the constitutional rights of the young man from Toronto, protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, have been violated. The highest court in the country has not however forced the repatriation of Omar Khadr to Canada, contrary to what had been ruled by the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal a few months earlier. The judges have indeed said the government must “decide how best to respond to this judgment” because the information available to the Court was “necessarily incomplete”.
The decision’s findings, however, are unequivocal. The judges conclude that the rights of Omar Khadr have been breached since his capture in Afghanistan by U.S. troops in 2002 at the age of fifteen, and they continue to be. Referring in its news release to the conduct of Canadian officials in the course of interrogations in 2003 and 2004, the Court concluded that Canada had “actively participated in a process contrary to its international human rights obligations [...] so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.” The Court condemns the Canadian officials for having extracted information of high importance from a teenager while he was unable to consult a lawyer and knowing that he had suffered and continued to suffer of mistreatments.
The decision’s findings, however, are unequivocal. The judges conclude that the rights of Omar Khadr have been breached since his capture in Afghanistan by U.S. troops in 2002 at the age of fifteen, and they continue to be. Referring in its news release to the conduct of Canadian officials in the course of interrogations in 2003 and 2004, the Court concluded that Canada had “actively participated in a process contrary to its international human rights obligations [...] so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.” The Court condemns the Canadian officials for having extracted information of high importance from a teenager while he was unable to consult a lawyer and knowing that he had suffered and continued to suffer of mistreatments.