billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Quote>Fair point. Limit it to countries who we have enough cultural history
>with that war between us and them would be next to impossible.
Hmm. So an Iraqi immigrant to the US should not be allowed to join the Iraqi army as a translator?
The underlying problem is our tendency to change sides fairly often, so nearly any such attempt at regulation is doomed eventually.
What about the countries with compulsory service? The child of a Canadian Father and a Swiss mother has obligations to Switzerland. Should meeting them cost them their birthright?
Richards 0
QuoteHmm. So an Iraqi immigrant to the US should not be allowed to join the Iraqi army as a translator?
No, but he could join the US army as a translator.
"Quote"The underlying problem is our tendency to change sides fairly often, so nearly any such attempt at regulation is doomed eventually.
It's been a a little while since Canada, or Britain went to war with the US. I suspect it would be safe to allow it in the case of those countries.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Richards 0
QuoteWhat about the countries with compulsory service? The child of a Canadian Father and a Swiss mother has obligations to Switzerland. Should meeting them cost them their birthright?
He can make a choice. Swiss or Canadian. The exception would be if he was forced into it while travelling under circumstances where he could not have reasonably foreseen the possibility of being forced into service.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
nigel99 619
I don't understand the charges were dropped - doesn't that make him innocent in the eyes of the law?
I actually find it distateful that a military judge dismisses a case (not sure if its this person or the other chap) and yet he is STILL not released. And then the old Fart GWB wonders why huge parts of the world don't like the USA's double standards and seriously question the whole "land of the free" propaganda.
I actually find it distateful that a military judge dismisses a case (not sure if its this person or the other chap) and yet he is STILL not released. And then the old Fart GWB wonders why huge parts of the world don't like the USA's double standards and seriously question the whole "land of the free" propaganda.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.
Richards 0
QuoteQuoteI don't understand the charges were dropped - doesn't that make him innocent in the eyes of the law?
I actually find it distateful that a military judge dismisses a case (not sure if its this person or the other chap) and yet he is STILL not released. And then the old Fart GWB wonders why huge parts of the world don't like the USA's double standards and seriously question the whole "land of the free" propaganda.
The charges as an unlawful combatant have been dropped. That makes him a lawful combatant which I suspect should make him a POW now (lawyers please help). This means they do not have to release him.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
mr2mk1g 10
QuoteThe charges as an unlawful combatant have been dropped. That makes him a lawful combatant which I suspect should make him a POW now (lawyers please help). This means they do not have to release him.
You got it the wrong way round. Congress said last year that in order for people to go before a military tribunal instead of the ordinary open court system they must be "unlawful enemy combatants".
These two were never defined by anyone as "unlawful enemy combatants", only as "enemy combatants".
As they're were before a tribunal set up specifically to try only "unlawful enemy combatants", and no one was claiming they were "unlawful", the military tribunal had no jurisdiction to try them. Simple as that.
As for releasing them – well, yes normally they would go free unless new charges could be brought against them for entirely new and separate offences, (you can't be tried twice for the same offence).
Course there ain't much "normal" about these trials... seeing as the circumstances of their detention in the first place was rather legally suspect, shall we say, why the hell should the administration feel the need to play by the rules now?
Frankly I wouldn't be surprised to see double jeopardy thrown in the street to fester with habeas corpus, the presumption of innocence and all the other rules of law that have been washed down the pisser recently.
Gawain 0
QuoteThe charges as an unlawful combatant have been dropped. That makes him a lawful combatant which I suspect should make him a POW now (lawyers please help). This means they do not have to release him.
QuoteAn American military judge abruptly dropped all charges on Monday against Omar Khadr,
The DoD is going to appeal. It's a technicality, and I don't fully understand why Congress needed to make a difference or distinction.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Richards 0
QuoteYou got it the wrong way round. Congress said last year that in order for people to go before a military tribunal instead of the ordinary open court system they must be "unlawful enemy combatants".
These two were never defined by anyone as "unlawful enemy combatants", only as "enemy combatants".
As they're were before a tribunal set up specifically to try only "unlawful enemy combatants", and no one was claiming they were "unlawful", the military tribunal had no jurisdiction to try them. Simple as that.
OK thanks
QuoteAs for releasing them – well, yes normally they would go free unless new charges could be brought against them for entirely new and separate offences, (you can't be tried twice for the same offence).
Course there ain't much "normal" about these trials... seeing as the circumstances of their detention in the first place was rather legally suspect, shall we say, why the hell should the administration feel the need to play by the rules now?
Frankly I wouldn't be surprised to see double jeopardy thrown in the street to fester with habeas corpus, the presumption of innocence and all the other rules of law that have been washed down the pisser recently.
From a moral perspective would you want to see this guy be able to come back and live here?
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Richards 0
QuoteThe DoD is going to appeal. It's a technicality, and I don't fully understand why Congress needed to make a difference or distinction.
I really do hope so. To be frank, I felt that if he managed to get out, Canada would not have the guts to try him for his betrayal. As a matter of fact his whole family lives here including two brothers who were already captured in afghanistan; one of whom was severely wounded and is now a drain on our health care system. Therefore, while some may question the fairness of those tribunals, I was counting on those tribunals to provide the justice/consequence this guy deserved and which he would not have received back here.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
QuoteCanada would not have the guts
That's because there are far too many spineless socialist anti-US dweebs in this country (driven by the media) who like to think they are a special in the eyes of the world without doing anything of substance. Canada of today for sure is not the same country I was born in. It has turned into the land of special interest groups where the rights of a few trump the rights of the over taxed masses.
If he ever returns to Canada, he will be treated as a hero by the left wing media and their supporters. But I have this question for the lefties and LIEberals of this country. What was a teenager from suburban Toronto doing in Afghanistan fighting along side of Al Queda and the Taliban? Real Canadians don't just venture off to Afghanistan to join in a Jihad against the west.
Try not to worry about the things you have no control over
Richards 0
QuoteThat's because there are far too many spineless socialist anti-US dweebs in this country (driven by the media) who like to think they are a special in the eyes of the world without doing anything of substance. Canada of today for sure is not the same country I was born in. It has turned into the land of special interest groups where the rights of a few trump the rights of the over taxed masses.
That is the sad truth.
QuoteIf he ever returns to Canada, he will be treated as a hero by the left wing media and their supporters.
Again another sad truth.
QuoteWhat was a teenager from suburban Toronto doing in Afghanistan fighting along side of Al Queda and the Taliban? Real Canadians don't just venture off to Afghanistan to join in a Jihad against the west.
I don't know but undoubtedly our society will defend his right to do so. If you and I were to question it too heavily we would be called intolerant and accused of using him as a red herring to forward some insidious agenda
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
>with that war between us and them would be next to impossible.
Hmm. So an Iraqi immigrant to the US should not be allowed to join the Iraqi army as a translator?
The underlying problem is our tendency to change sides fairly often, so nearly any such attempt at regulation is doomed eventually.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites