Canadian terrorist wins $10.5 million taxpayer lottery
-
What hypocrisy for an American to start quoting international law about a 15 year old boy when they don't sign up to it themselves and force other countries to agree to not prosecute US soldiers for war crimes.
If you don't want to be the victim of attacks in the middle east, get the fuck out and stop invading them. A US soldier invading another country is fair game. They are not victims of a crime. They are casualties of a war they started.
The most hypocritical country by far is INDIA…while they do have nuclear weapons, they also have people walking bareassed down the streets.. hordes of monkeys and rats all over the place being worshipped and fed, houses made out of bricks comprised of human feces and straw, people pulling bodies out of the river and cannibalizing them, and more political assassinations probably that all other countries COMBINED! So much for peace, love, and contentment!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/1365317/Indias-brutal-history-of-assassinations-and-conflict.htmlYou know anybody that lives in India Shami94?
-
Clearly you don't understand the meaning of the word "hypocrisy".
-
Clearly you don't understand the meaning of the word "hypocrisy".
I am understanding the english quite goodly, Kuthi.
Let me make it clearer for you…
India is supposedly the land of peace and tranquility.. but in fact, it is quite the opposite. It is a land of whackos, doped up on massive amounts of curry. in the USA, we sometimes will sprinkle half a teaspoon of curry onto a meal. In India, half the meal is curry powder - which is addictive - and obviously makes people think in a disturbing, twisted way.
So, perhaps you should refrain from attacking Americans.
I don't think much of a country in which their idea of success is to become a doctor that moves to the USA to perform abortions. -
What hypocrisy for an American to start quoting international law about a 15 year old boy when they don't sign up to it themselves and force other countries to agree to not prosecute US soldiers for war crimes.
If you don't want to be the victim of attacks in the middle east, get the fuck out and stop invading them. A US soldier invading another country is fair game. They are not victims of a crime. They are casualties of a war they started.
Sadam brought us into a war in the middle east when he invaded Kuwait.
Bin Laden Brought us into Afghanistan when he attacked the US on 9/11.
Both were approved of by the UN.
-
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 38, (1989) proclaimed: "State parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in hostilities".
Even here the UN says that 15yo and up are responsible for their actions, as they are no longer deemed children when it comes to combat.
The Geneva Convention (all 4 of them) only gives specific rights to legal combatants. "Unlawful Combatants" do not have the same rights as legal combatants. In fact, unlawful combatants have very few rights.
The International Red Cross does not dictate international law. They can propose or suggest, but they can not make it. This is why the they use the term Optional Protocol. So using them as "proof" of international law is dishonest.
Canada does not have jurisdiction over it's citizens outside of Canada. No international law allows for this. They can ask, but if the offer is refused, there is nothing they can do about it, legally anyway.
++++++
Let's recap the story.
Kadhr, under international law, was a legal adult and responsible for his own actions.
He was an unlawful combatant. As such, his actions were classed as terrorism and war crimes.
He confessed.
As an unlawful combatant, he did not have the same legal rights as a legal combatant.
"Unlawful combatant" are also called "unprivileged combatants" in the Geneva Convention due to the fact that they have very few rights. They have their basic human rights and the right to be seen by the International Red Cross. After that, they have almost no other legal rights.
Sending Kadhr to Gitmo was completely legal under international law. The international Criminal Court, in the Celebici Judgment, set the precedent for this.
The US sent at least 2 under 15yo's back to Canada, in line with international law.
So, what we have here is a Kadhr acting in a completely illegal manner and getting punished for it. Trudeau, in secret, gives him a $10.5 million taxpayer funded payout for his troubles.
Clearly, Trudeau has more love for self confessed terrorists/war criminals than he does for their victims.
-
The International Red Cross refers to an OPTIONAL PROTOCOL to raise the age to 18.
Canada subscribes to that "optional protocol." So everything you said after that is worthless, showing you have no clue what you're talking about. That's what's pathetic.
The only part of international law which is regarded in Khadr's case is how it is interpreted by the Canadian Charter. The Charter is the only "law" of significance here, and according to the Charter, 15 is a child. I noticed all your pretty "research" doesn't mention one thing about that.
Canada has a duty to protect its citizen children under Section 7 of the Charter. Knowing this, the Court ordered the government to request his repatriation. A Federal Court of Appeals upheld that order, adding that the violation of Section 7 occurred during Khadr's 2004 interrogation. That interrogation was a process contrary to Canada's international human rights obligations and contributed to Khadr’s ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person, something guaranteed by Section 7 of the Charter. Nothing you've said changes any of this.
Canada does not have jurisdiction over it's citizens outside of Canada.
The Charter ALWAYS applies to the participation of Canadian officials in acts later found to be in violation of fundamental rights protected by the Charter. In this case, there was significant government participation in the illegal process of the deprivation of Khadr’s liberty and security of the person as it applies in the Charter. International law has NOTHING to do with this point.
More than just a jurisdictional question as you've framed it, Canada's requirement to secure a citizen's liberty and security of the person includes interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel in order to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that this youth has been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of those interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors. This goes AGAINST the Charter's standards regarding the treatment of detained youth suspects. Despite your claim, the court HAD THE JURISDICTION and THE DUTY to determine whether a prerogative power asserted by the government infringed on the Charter and, where necessary, give specific DIRECTION to the government about the REMEDY. In this case, the courts gave that direction AND remedy to Prime Minister Harper, and he ignored BOTH.
As international law is clearly not your forte, why don't you do some studying on the Canadian Charter instead — Section 7 specifically — and when you're all done we'll see how much of it you're able to understand (although my guess is not much). :blind:
-
Why does Canada sign up to any international agreements, if they are going to disregard it? It's like Israel and extradition treaties.
Ok, so let's assume that Canada does subscribe to the International Red Cross's optional protocol. Now you have to show that the other countries involved also subscribed to it. I can tell you that they don't. Therefore it's not "international law" and has no bearing on the case except to terrorist lovers.
The Canadian Charter has nothing to do with international law and things that happen in foreign countries. You seem to believe that Canada is the ruler of the world.
In at least 2 cases, the US followed international law by sending back 2 underaged terrorists to Canada.
Even Canada isn't labelling Kadhr a child soldier.
-
Let's not forget that it's the same Supreme Court that let a woman off for fucking a 14yo boy because she thought he was old enough, even though it was her son's best friend of several years and class mate.
-
Let's not forget that it's the same Supreme Court that let a woman off for fucking a 14yo boy because she thought he was old enough, even though it was her son's best friend of several years and class mate.
Justice.. is supposed to be blind!
:blink:
-
Let's not forget that it's the same Supreme Court that let a woman off for fucking a 14yo boy because she thought he was old enough, even though it was her son's best friend of several years and class mate.
Justice.. is supposed to be blind!
:blink:
When it comes to moonbats… they are not only blind.. but deaf and dumb as well.
