Bring Omar Khadr home and set him free!

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cueball Cueball's picture

Unionist wrote:

I don't know why my February comment has been revived here, but I stand by it.

Khadr is barred from Canada by Harper. Galloway is barred from Canada by Harper. The motives in both cases are identical. It has absolutely nothing to do with skin colour.

I guess, given the fog created above, I should say what those motives are:

Both Khadr and Galloway represent active opposition to the New World Order pursued by U.S. imperialism and its "allies".

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "security" concerns either.

I should have thought this much was obvious.

 

Galloways exceptionality does not prove anything.

fogbrella

Unionist wrote:

I don't know why my February comment has been revived here, but I stand by it.

Khadr is barred from Canada by Harper. Galloway is barred from Canada by Harper. The motives in both cases are identical. It has absolutely nothing to do with skin colour.

I guess, given the fog created above, I should say what those motives are:

Both Khadr and Galloway represent active opposition to the New World Order pursued by U.S. imperialism and its "allies".

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "security" concerns either.

I should have thought this much was obvious. 

right! to clarify, it's obviously not that hes a "nat'l security concern"! ( "terrorist") or that the purposefully-predominant "color" of so-called "terrorists" is Khadr's,,!  or his religion! at all! - they're not saying anything like that - but, by saying nothing, the implications are flappin' in the

endless winds aloft

i doubt that Khadr's had any access to internet, radio, tv, papers - i think he gets a fresh Q'ran whenever, and that's it - so I dunno what he knows, really - but I know what George Galloway knows - "Everything" - the whole thing - the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan being the thin edge of the NWO Wedge, etc., but, that's all just a tad too esoteric for most folk... know what I mean?

Galloway knows, and they know that he knows, and he's right in their face, but he's framing it all in the plight of the Palestinian people - a worthy cause!

I think that's the way to go - give the people something tangible - "fight the NWO", as a cause, is too diffuse - nobody'd know where to start!

Benjamin

Cueball wrote:

I maintain that the only reason he is alive is because when he was shot he was speaking English, and if were not for that, he would be dead.

Alternative theories:

(1) the special forces thought he would be of use from an intelligence perspective; and/or

(2) a member of the special forces was actually obeying international humanitarian law, and realized that Khadr was hors de combat.

I second that Khadr is where he is because of racism, and would add islamophobia too.

Cueball Cueball's picture

(1) Yes, and the fact that he mubbled in English indicated to the people who shot him that he was a special case, so they saved him. Had they thought he was Afghan they would have done him the way they did the other wounded man they found in tha alley. What is interesting about this discourse is that the testimony of the shooter clearly indicates that the shooter killed an severly wounded unarmed man just before he shot Khadr in the back.

saga saga's picture

Cueball wrote:

(1) Yes, and the fact that he mubbled in English indicated to the people who shot him that he was a special case, so they saved him. Had they thought he was Afghan they would have done him the way they did the other wounded man they found in tha alley. What is interesting about this discourse is that the testimony of the shooter clearly indicates that the shooter killed an severly wounded unarmed man just before he shot Khadr in the back.

And the other interesting thing is that he felt strongly enough about Omar's predicament to come forward and tell the truth, despite revealing his own crime. I give him a lot of credit for that.

saga saga's picture

Benjamin wrote:

Cueball wrote:

I maintain that the only reason he is alive is because when he was shot he was speaking English, and if were not for that, he would be dead.

Alternative theories:

(1) the special forces thought he would be of use from an intelligence perspective; and/or

(2) a member of the special forces was actually obeying international humanitarian law, and realized that Khadr was hors de combat.

I second that Khadr is where he is because of racism, and would add islamophobia too.

Yes, racism and islamophobia in the highest office in Canada - the office of the Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

saga wrote:

Cueball wrote:

(1) Yes, and the fact that he mubbled in English indicated to the people who shot him that he was a special case, so they saved him. Had they thought he was Afghan they would have done him the way they did the other wounded man they found in tha alley. What is interesting about this discourse is that the testimony of the shooter clearly indicates that the shooter killed an severly wounded unarmed man just before he shot Khadr in the back.

And the other interesting thing is that he felt strongly enough about Omar's predicament to come forward and tell the truth, despite revealing his own crime. I give him a lot of credit for that.

No he didn't. He filed an after action report that he understood would not get above the level of his CO. What is shows is the brazeness of how much this kind of thing is SOP.

Unionist

Unionist wrote:

[url=Kuebler">http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/bring-omar-khadr... fired by Pentagon[/url]

In preparation for the "closing" of Guantanamo, Obama appears to be cleaning house. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, in case anyone has forgotten.

 

Update: Obama's little plan has been foiled for the moment, by a "judge":

[url=http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/615226]Khadr's military lawyer reinstated[/url]

Unionist

Finally - maybe the courts will accomplish what even a parliamentary majority of Libs, NDP, and BQ have been unable or unwilling to do:

[url=PM">http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/04/23/khadr-harper-court042309.html]... must press U.S. for Khadr's return from Guantanamo, court rules[/url]

Quote:

"The ongoing refusal of Canada to request Mr. Khadr's repatriation to Canada offends a principle of fundamental justice and violates Mr. Khadr's rights," O'Reilly said in his 43-page decision.

"To mitigate the effect of that violation, Canada must present a request to the United States for Mr. Khadr's repatriation as soon as practicable."

Bravo!

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Harper stood in the House today and said he may appeal the court's decision. What a scumbag.

Unionist

There are three parties with a majority in the House who could pass a law forcing this to happen. They could have done so long ago. Besides the fact that the Liberals were in power for 3.5 years after Khadr's unlawful abduction and imprisonment. It's hard to tell one scumbag from another these days.

Ghislaine

Yes. Iggy and the Liberals are pretending that they are in opposition to Harper's position on this - but how is it credible? They had 3 1/2 years to bring a Canadian citizen home. Khadr's mother was interviewed on CBC this morning and pointed this out.

How is it that the opposition parties lack the guts to pass a law requiring the government to respect a judge's decision?

remind remind's picture

First the judge's decision came out yesterday, so they have hardly had time to make a law requiring government to do anything.

Second, the last time it was suggested that a law be made to bring him home, by the NDP, conceptions were framed that NO new laws  were needed, and that he should just be brought home under existing ones. Which really relegated him to staying there until the current laws were used. So I find it interesting that the  some of the same people are now advocating a  new law be made.

Ah, the arm chair punditry of it all, if only it was so easy.

Unionist

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/04/24/khadr-appeal.html]T... to appeal Khadr court ruling[/url]

remind wrote:
So I find it interesting that the  some of the same people are now advocating a  new law be made.

Ah, the arm chair punditry of it all, if only it was so easy.

Could you possibly lay off for two seconds? Leave me and others here alone? Pay attention to the issue here? Thanks.

remind remind's picture

Unionist, are seriously applying different standards to me than yourself? Say it ain't so.

 

Ghislaine

remind, I wasn't implying that the government would choose not to ignore a new bill passed by the opposition. However, it would at least make a strong statement and show some courage - as well as bring additinal attention to this issue.

Ghislaine

remind, I wasn't implying that the government would choose not to ignore a new bill passed by the opposition. However, it would at least make a strong statement and show some courage - as well as bring additinal attention to this issue.

remind remind's picture

The opposition can't pass laws forcing  the ruling government to do anything, let alone in this instance.

Jingles

Quote:
Second, the last time it was suggested that a law be made to bring him home, by the NDP, conceptions were framed that NO new laws  were needed, and that he should just be brought home under existing ones. Which really relegated him to staying there until the current laws were used. So I find it interesting that the  some of the same people are now advocating a  new law be made.

No, you're wrong.

The objection to the NDP nonsense was that they wanted to create a new law the would make Khadr a criminal after the fact in order to appease the "hang 'em high" crowd. They wanted to create a new offense, specifically to target Khadr, rather than show some courage and call for his repatriation and freedom without condition. The NDP were shown to be morally bankrupt on the matter.

Now, the idea that Parliament must pass a law to force the government to follow the law tortures logic so much that it would give Dick Cheney wet dreams. If the government decides to ignore the law that tries to force them to follow the law, then what? Pass another law?

Jingles

doppleposten

Unionist

remind wrote:

The opposition can't pass laws forcing  the ruling government to do anything, let alone in this instance.

Wrong. Where do you get these ideas?

Bill C-288, the "Kyoto bill", was passed by the House in February 2007 by 161-113, with Liberals, NDP, and BQ voting in favour, and the Cons voting against. It later passed the Senate and received royal assent. It is law.

 

remind remind's picture

Okay then unionist, I guess we are ascribing to Kyoto at this present time then, and it must be my imagination that it is being ignored by the Conservatives.

Unionist

Oh, you mean governments can violate laws? Gee, thanks for the revelation. I could have sworn you meant what you said.

ETA: After this law was passed and the government refused to abide by it, a [url=court">http://www.ecojustice.ca/media-centre/press-releases/canada-facing-legal... challenge was initiated[/url].

The same could have been done in the case of Omar Khadr - except I think the Liberals would have chickened out. Instead, the opposition parties contented themselves with motions. Luckily for them, at least one judge has found that the existing laws were enough to force the government's hand.

 

remind remind's picture

I did mean what I said, that you chose to intrepret  it as being other than what I was saying is a burden of your own making.

The opposition cannot pass laws to force government to do anything, period. They can pass em, but not force them to follow them. Force being the key word in both wordings. Hell, the government itself can pass its own laws it doesn't  follow, and they can't force themselves to either. :D

Unionist

Once a law is passed, the courts can force the government to comply. Force. That's the key. But there has to be a law first, and the courts have to decide the government is violating it, and that they have jurisdiction to enforce the law. It's not easy. But if you don't try, it's impossible.

I'm not sure why you started this fight, as the emphasis here should have have been on the effort to bring Khadr home, and the latest court victory.

Slumberjack

If you two don't get along, I swear I'll start posting Metallica youtube links again.

remind remind's picture

Unionist, the courts can force, if they decide the government is in violation, not the opposition.

As for skewing emphasis and false accusations of starting a fight, well that is and would continue to really take the emphasis away, to discuss that now would it not?

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Oh, you mean governments can violate laws?

Not at all. A government in Ottawa would never admit to aiding and abetting the American inquisition. Omar is a useful bogyman in this phony war, and our phony government at the time knew it, too. 

Quote:
The same could have been done in the case of Omar Khadr - except I think the Liberals would have chickened out.

The Liberals were the ones who handed Omar over to the American inquisition, and then they lied to the NDP in Canadian parliament and said that they would take good care of Omar's basic rights.

Unionist
Debater

I guess the Harper government is going ahead with the appeal afterall.  I thought maybe they wouldn't, considering even Conservative newspapers like The Ottawa Citizen have criticised them for it.

Unionist

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8051275.stm]Obama to revive military trials[/url]

Quote:
US President Barack Obama is expected to announce on Friday that he is reviving military trials for some of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. [...]

President Obama is expected to ask for a further four-month delay for the trials so that the new procedures can be implemented.

What a sweet and humane man.

 

CalmCalm

CalmCalm

Unionist

How did you get that photo?????? You've obviously breached new security rules:

[url=Obama">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5... attempts to block publication of 2,000 torture photos[/url]

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8051275.stm]Obama to revive military trials[/url]

Quote:
US President Barack Obama is expected to announce on Friday that he is reviving military trials for some of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. [...]

President Obama is expected to ask for a further four-month delay for the trials so that the new procedures can be implemented.

What a sweet and humane man

But the American inquisition is key to prosecuting the 9/11 Islamic gladios, and who at least some of apparently enjoyed their cigarettes, booze, and fast women while living and training for terror in the United States. We either accept that the trumped up charges and confessions obtained by torture are legit or not. Apparently even Liberal Democrats arent pushing for a legit trial for the 9/11 patsies.

Unionist

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8052999.stm]George W. Obama[/url]:

Quote:
Civil liberties groups have reacted angrily to US President Barack Obama's decision to revive military trials for some Guantanamo Bay detainees. [...]

In contrast, Mr Obama found support for his decision among his opponents.

"I am pleased that President Obama has now adopted this view," said Republican Senator John McCain, who lost the presidential election to Mr Obama.

Ari Fleischer, who was George W Bush's first press secretary, said President Obama "should acknowledge his campaign criticisms were wrong".

"With some minor changes, he really is following the same path President Bush pursued," he said.

 

Fidel

Theyre all the same dubya. Makes for good inbreeding. Big biz news media will be saying much the same after presinut G.W.W. Obama III sometime down the road. News media lackeys make it sound as if torture is a new thing for the CIA and shadow gov. New broom sweeps clean as they say.

remind remind's picture

Has there been a war in recent history where prisoners of war were not allowed to go home?

 

Fidel

I think a lot of Americans, and Canadians for that matter, just assume they are all guilty at Guantanamo. I dont know if it's because they are brown people, or whether it's because they think torture is legit as long as the world is made safe for hypocrisy American style. But I do think Khadr is there as a representive bogeyman for the inquisition. None of them given fair trials and all tortured accordingly. And after reading the Maclean's articles on the matter, some Canadians at home must be whispering among themselves that the Khadrs are Canada's first family of terrorism. There might be show trials for the alleged 9/11 masterminds. Our vicious toadies in Ottawa will go away and be replaced by new colonial administrators at some point. Maybe then Omar will catcg a break in between changing of the toadies. It's all a charade.

remind remind's picture

Many thanks for your previous message. I, too, have been saddened and
deeply ashamed by Stephen Harper's refusal to stand up and defend the
fundamental rights of Omar Khadr as a Canadian citizen.

We are disappointed by the recent decision by the Harper government to
file an appeal rather than abide by a judicial order to seek the return
of Omar Khadr to Canada.

Last November, Americans wanted to turn the page on the Bush
administration's disastrous record on human rights. They voted for
change when they elected Back Obama and he immediately signed an
executive order to finally shut down the infamous Guantanamo Bay prison.

On March 24th, Canadians spoke through their elected representatives,
telling Stephen Harper that it's time to bring Omar Khadr home from the
depths of Guantanamo. The House of Commons passed New Democrat Human
Rights Critic, Wayne Marston's concurrence motion, calling for the
immediate repatriation of Omar Khadr. This motion endorsed a report
compiled a year ago by the House Subcommittee on Human Rights which
called for Khadr's repatriation.
Http://www.ndp.ca/press/marston-s-khadr-motion-passes-repatriation-urged
.

Now that President Obama has begun the process of closing Guantanamo,
there is no justifiable reason for Stephen Harper to still cling to
George Bush's legacy of brutality. In opposition, Mr. Harper once spoke
of the government's moral responsibility to respect to the will of
Parliament, because it was ultimately the democratic will of Canadians.
However, in government Mr. Harper has continued the Liberals' shameful
record of non-interference in the case of Omar Khadr.

As a free and democratic nation, I believe that we have a responsibility
to guarantee the basic human rights of all our citizens, regardless of
how we may personally feel about the accused. During his almost six year
incarceration in Guantanamo Bay, Omar has not been treated humanely and
has been denied a fair trial. Furthermore, at the time he was taken into
custody, Omar Khadr was by all definitions a child soldier. As mandated
by the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the
Child, in a warzone, children must be understood as the victims of
conflict rather than consenting participants in it.

This makes our government's indifference inexcusable, especially when
considering that all other prisoners from Western democracies being held
at Guantanamo Bay have been repatriated to their home countries. The
Canadian justice system and our inherit rights of citizenship are not
luxuries. Rather, they are democratic checks meant to protect our
fundamental rights, even in our nation's darkest hours. That's why I
want to assure you that our team of New Democrats will continue to
hammer the Harper Conservatives on this issue.

Again, thank you for taking the time to register your concern. Feel free
to pass this email to anyone who may be interested. I also invite you to
check our website at www.ndp.ca to learn the latest work being done by
our team of New Democrats.

Sincerely,

Jack Layton, MP (Toronto-Danforth)
Leader, Canada's New Democrats

Jingles

The NDP never misses an opportunity to present themselves as craven moral cowards.

If they can't see that Obama is continuing and worsening the situation for the hostages (I refuse to call them "detainees", a term so beloved by the fascists),  then they can go fuck themselves right into further irrelevance.

remind remind's picture

The email was sent to me before that move of Obama's was announced, I just hadn't checked my inbox for over a week.

And I call BS on the craven moral cowards comment, Marsten put the Bill forward, which is more than anyone else has done.

Jingles

Forgive my lazyness, but isn't Marsten the one who wants to create an entirely new "Omar Khadr Law" that would try him and only him for whatever crime they can think of to appease the fascists?

I may be wrong, but I'm sure that was an NDP idea.

Fidel

Jingles, they were fascists in the Chretien Liberal government who initially wanted Omar tried on charges of terrorism. The NDP interrogated the Liberals as to whether they, as government of the day, were looking after Omar's rights as a child as well as his international rights as a child soldier. And the Liberals stood their and lied to Canadian parliament that they would. It was the Liberals who aided and abetted the American inquisition with Omar's first interrogation, and then they abandoned him to a US kangaroo military justice at Gitmo where he's been ever since. Dont blame the American inquisitors - blame our snivelling, conniving vicious toadies in Ottawa for not standing up for a Canadian citizen detained illegally in Cuba.

Unionist

remind wrote:

And I call BS on the craven moral cowards comment, Marsten put the Bill forward, which is more than anyone else has done.

It wasn't a bill. Someone argued on babble that there was no point putting forward a bill, because Parliament can't force the government to do anything. Remember that?

 

Fidel

That's right!! Every time the NDP stood up in the House of Commons and demanded our vicious toadies repatriate Omar Khadr, Liberal government ministers, and now the Tories have answered them with.....

[Pee Wee Herman on] "We cant HEAR you, NDP!!! lalalalalalalala"

But nnnnow! Now that the Liberals are looking for some edge in phony opposition to the Property Party, theyre finally seeing a certain few things the NDP's way: [url=http://www.ndp.ca/press/marston-s-khadr-motion-passes-repatriation-urged...'s Khadr motion passes: repatriation urged[/url]

Now we just have to wait for the Liberals to stop propping-up the other wing of the Property Party in government. Final Jeopardy tune plays on still after 70-some odd confidence votes for the Tories

remind remind's picture

You bet I do unionist, and was going to say something about the fact that the Bill won't do any good,, but decided that would be just a unnecessary  thread drift, as we all know Harper, the dictator, does whatever he wants regardless of whether or not there was the passage of a Bill. And some still want to see him remain in power anyway.

Frmrsldr

Latest news from CP:

"OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper has told Fox News and its American audience that Canada is not willing to take in Guantanamo Bay detainees. In a wide-ranging interview from his office on Parliament Hill on Friday afternoon, Harper said his government has a strong record in opposing terrorism and is 'not offering Canada as a safe haven for anyone that the United States considers to be a terrorist.' Without mentioning Omar Khadr by name, the prime minister said there is a Canadian at Guantanamo who's charged, and his government is waiting to see what U.S. President Barack Obama's administration does in that particular case.... The administration reportedly sent an envoy to Canada to ask the federal government to accept Guantanamo detainees, but the the request was rejected."

Yep, that's Stephen Harper for you. Gotta love him. Not.

Unionist

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/23/khadr-ottawa023.html][=bl... appeals court order to bring Khadr home[/color][/url]

Quote:
Federal lawyers filed an appeal in Ottawa Tuesday of a court ruling that ordered the government to seek Omar Khadr's return to Canada from Guantanamo Bay. [...]

The Federal Court judges grilled [Harper's mouthpiece lawyer Doreen] Mueller over the perceived harm in asking the U.S. to send Khadr home. "Canada doesn't want to ask for this because Canada doesn't want to get a yes answer," Judge Karen Sharlow said.

Interfering in the matter would be tantamount to the courts dictating Canada's foreign affairs, Mueller said.

Moreover, the prospect of the U.S. abandoning its court case against Khadr and returning him to Canada was the "most remote of all possibilities," she said. "That's one one-millionth of possible outcomes."

Outside court, Navy Lt.-Cmdr. William Kuebler — who was recently fired and then reinstated as Khadr's U.S. military lawyer — disagreed with Mueller, saying the U.S. would honour a request for Khadr's repatriation.

Frmrsldr

GTMO is closing, man. The U.S.A. wants to get rid of all of its detainees.

Pages

Topic locked