Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Conservative War Crimes

New Canada's New Government says to hell with those treaties we signed. Geneva Conventions, what Geneva Conventions? The Conservative Party of Canada is coming out fully in favour of an extralegal tribunal determining the fate of child soldier Omar Khadr. The Conservative majority on the Foreign Affairs Committee has alleged that opposition calls for the repatriation of Khadr, in order to deal with him under the rule of law, are somehow a political gambit. The Conservative government, under Stephen Harper, prefers to sanction an illegal trial by a dubious military tribunal, the designs of which have been repeatedly slapped down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Our allies to the south have done away with such niggling hassles as due process, habeas corpus and disclosure of documents needed to make a full and fair defense. Khadr was 15 years of age at the time of his capture, a child soldier. Distasteful as his story and his actions might be, regardless of how detestable his family are, he was a child soldier. Canada is in breach of legal and moral responsibilities, not only are we now ignoring the young man's plight in an illegal gulag, we are giving the American regime our blessing. Canada, under Stephen Harper, has abandoned the rule of law and embraced torture and war crimes as part of our national policy. Stephen Harper and his government have declared their public approval and thus complicity in the war crimes committed by the American government.

The sham of a committee, chaired by Conservative Kevin Sorenson, has turned a blind eye to all notions of justice and rule of law, preferring to side with torturers and their trumped up kangaroo court.

The Conservatives' report cites testimony by American lawyer Howard Anglin, a government witness at the committee's hearings, who said Canada has no legal obligations to Khadr, but merely "moral obligations at best."
It quotes Anglin's testimony in support of military commissions, such as the proceedings Khadr is now facing in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on murder and terrorism conspiracy charges.
It pointed to Anglin's view that traditional courtrooms are inadequate because in battlefield arrests, "many witnesses are dead, there's no forensic detective squad to document the scene, and most of the surviving witnesses are serving overseas at the time of the trial."


When determining Canadian points of law, is it our Conservative government's policy to seek opinions from American lawyers brought north to plead the illegal and partisan cause? Why yes, yes it is. Mr Anglin seems to be saying that Mr Khadr can't receive a fair trial in the civil system, as no worthy case against him can be made. Thus it is best to detain him illegally for more than half a decade and then drag him before a trumped up commission in order to declare him guilty. Given that documentary evidence in his case is either withheld or tampered with, witnesses are unavailable and physical and forensic evidence is non-existent it would appear Mr Khadr will face his fate with no advocacy in his defense.

The Conservatives argue that since Canada signed the Transfer of Offenders Treaties in 1978, 1,351 Canadians who were tried and convicted abroad have been repatriated to Canada, but only after courts abroad dealt with them.
The Tories' report says the opposition selectively highlighted testimony to downplay Khadr's "alleged crimes and ties to terrorism" and to portray him "as a victim."
"It is important that a balance be struck between individual rights and national security considerations – not to mention obligations to the international struggle against terrorism.
"Mr. Khadr could become a litmus test on Canada's commitment to impeding global terrorism," it states. "The results of our actions today could result in consequences that are not in the long-term interest of the country."


When Canada abandons the rule of law, ignores the Geneva Conventions, sides with a government that illegally renders individuals from third countries, detains people in black site prisons and practices torture against those detainees, how exactly are we different from the terrorists?

23 comments:

Mike said...

Can we just refer to them as fascists now? Clearly that is what they are.

Wayne said...

"how exactly are we different from the terrorists?"

We won't be chopping their heads off.

LuLu said...

We won't be chopping their heads off.

Nice avoidance of PSA's actual query, Wayne. Care to address it with some semblance of honesty or is that the best you can do?

mikmik said...

Yeah. he came within fractions of a second to being executed. Chopping, blowing, just get his fucking head of before anyone can ask any questions.

BTW, Wiyne, are you saying that whatever the terrorists do it is alright for us to do? Are you using the terrorists actions as your moral guidance in that we can do whatever we want just so long as it does'nt go as far as teh terrorist?

Not only is your chickenshit avoidance of the topic feebley transparent, your red herring is moronic.

Wayne said...

It was my attempt at dark humour.

After reading what PSA wrote, the only difference that came to mind between us and the terrorists was head chopping. This is not true.

I will look into this deeper to see how accurate a picture PSA paints.

liberal supporter said...

No, wayne's right. We won't chop their heads off. Because if we chopped their heads off we wouldn't be able to keep torturing them. Alquaeda makes snuff videos. We're better, we do show trials.

CC said...

Now, now, Wayne has a point. We won't be chopping any heads off -- we're better than that.

Wayne said...

"BTW, Wiyne, are you saying that whatever the terrorists do it is alright for us to do?"

Of course not.

"Are you using the terrorists actions as your moral guidance in that we can do whatever we want just so long as it does'nt go as far as teh terrorist?"

If NATO or I were using terrorist actions as a moral guideline Afghanistan would be nuked and nothing would be left alive. It is much easier to win a war at 50,000 feet. Much easier to raise temples to what ever god from scratch.

Since we are not doing that I guess we are not like the terrorists, yet.

Wayne said...

All people can do very evil things CC. The pictures tell the tail.

But what was done in those photos are not the same as using drills on people or hacking peoples heads off.

CC said...

Fuck off, Wayne. Seriously. I have no interest in getting into a conversation with someone whose attitude is, "Well, sure we did horrible things to them, but they weren't exactly the same horrible things because we tortured them, then killed them in totally different ways."

Go play your relativism games somewhere else, you idiot.

Ti-Guy said...

I second that. The bibulous bohunk shows up periodically and just repeats the same damn stupid things, over and over again.

...as if some rustic from a sparsely-populated wasteland has anything useful to say about terrorism.

They won't be coming after you, Wayne, so just shut the fuck up.

liberal supporter said...

We are different from the terrorists because:

We are supposed to be following our own laws.

We are supposed to be doing the right thing.

We are supposed to be better.

We are expected to be better.

It is exactly the same as "why do we criticize Israeli government policies but are apparently less vocally critical of the thugs they are up against".

Because we are supposed and expected to be better.

Cherniak_WTF said...

" how exactly are we different from the terrorists?"
I'd say we are worse. There is this thin veneer that "we" are somehow more virtuous and just... In the end, I have the feeling that the Taliban and terrorists are more human and honest than the bunch of neo-fascist trying to run the country at the moment.

Wayne said...

Since when do you see our "neo-fascist" running around killing people for the clothing they have on or views they hold!!!!

We are worse than the Taliban and terrorists!!!!

Wow.

Cherniak_WTF said...

"If NATO or I were using terrorist actions as a moral guideline Afghanistan would be nuked and nothing would be left alive"
Given that bit of buffoonery, you'll never get it...

Frightmongering is what fascist little dictators like Bush and Harper seem good at.

Iraq is a disaster and I wish that some would be tried for war crimes. Afghanistan is a farce. I hope that Harper will send his kids there.

And yes, I prefer the ethics of the Taliban over Canadians allowing rendition, rape of children and other atrocities in the name of democracy... at least they are not hypocrites.

Frank Frink said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Frank Frink said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Frank Frink said...

Since when do you see our "neo-fascist" running around killing people for the clothing they have on or views they hold!!!!

Ask a murdered abortion provider. Or a gay person who has been murdered just for being, well... gay. Oh wait, guess you can't ask them after all.

btw, whyne. One exclamation point would suffice

Adam C said...

18 (now 19) comments on this thread, and all we're doing is rebuking Wayne? He's quite right, you know. The Americans won't be chopping Khadr's head off. If the trumped up kangaroo court decides on the death penalty (and they very well could) they will likely use lethal injection.

Wayne said...

The "neo-fascist" he was talking about is our federal government fynk.

In both cases of murder (the abortion provider or gay person) capital punishment would be a good idea. Murder is wrong.

Wayne said...

"Frightmongering is what fascist little dictators like Bush and Harper seem good at."

Like Global Warming..... oh its cold out.... I mean man made climate change. That kind of "frightmongering" sheeesh!!!!!

KEvron said...

"I mean man made climate change. That kind of 'frightmongering'"

does it come with a nifty color code?

KEvron

Adam C said...

"Murder is wrong" but capital punishment is "a good idea"? Good God, Wayne, quit while you're ahead.