Everyone -- from Romeo Dallaire to Bob Rae to Matt Good to whomever -- needs to stop referring to Omar Khadr as a Canadian. He isn't. Even mentioning his name in the same sentence as 'Canadian' is to denigrate the title.
Oh sure, Khadr was technically a Canadian at one time, prior to heading to Afghanistan with his father to conduct "charity work." But the moment he decided to side with the Taliban, our enemy, and fight against our allies and therefore Canada itself (in effect), he lost that privileged title and position. He willfully laid it down. He exchanged his citizenship for islamic jihad and potential glories of martyrdom.
Few, least of all the media, are mentioning that Khadr's actions were a form of High Treason. Even if he were returned to Canada at some point, he should be arrested at the border and held in custody until his Court appearance on said charges. If guilty, he is deserving of nothing except life in prison for his actions. If he's not returned to Canada, and I pray he isn't, he deserves every ounce of punishment he receives in Gitmo or any other US institution.
At the very least, our government should not allow this treasonous islamist to call upon his discarded citizenship and return to the very state that he fought against with his jihadist nutjob father. Omar Khadr cannot be allowed to wrap himself in the very flag of the nation he denounced and fought against while aiding and abetting our enemy.
- - -
Related: Sanctuary 1, Sanctuary 2.
22 comments:
Is capital punishment still on the books for crimes against the state (i.e treason?)
My sentiments exactly Mark. He discarded any Canadian rights (be they fewer and fewer thanks to Barbara Hall and other vermin) when he went to war against us.
Treason is the charge but I fear our current retributive laws are adequate. We should also be charging the rest of his family for the same reason.
kursk -- see the "life in prison" link. That's the max penalty for High Treason or plain old Treason.
Excuse me but the word "adequate" should have read "inadequate".
I agree with the general thrust of your article, although I feel it is important to highlight the fact that he is Canadian. Because, after all, this is the biggest sign yet that the children of immigrant parents do not integrate, the Big Lie of the multiculturalists. Ahmed Said Khadr laid his seeds in Canada knowing they would have the liberal support and freedom of our country. I hope we try him for treason, but the opposition and left will never let it happen.
Hypocrisy of the "Repatriate Omar Khadr to Canada" Movement
As soon as the Gitmo interrogation tape of Omar Khadr hit the Internet, the blogosphere was flooded with demands to repatriate him to Canada. This wave is reminiscent of a Soviet campaign to free Luis Corvalán from the "fascist regime" of Augusto Pinochet thirty five years ago. The scenario is strikingly similar. A "victim" held by "fascist regimes" this time run by Bush and Harper, and a public outcry for justice. Except for the fact that Luis Corvalán didn't kill anyone and didn't fight for a terrorist group that wants to impose Sharia.
The "repatriate Khadr" crowd describes him as "a child", "a kid", "a boy", and even "a torture victim", with no facts to substantiate the torture claims notwithstanding. They complain about Khadr being mistreated, again, without anything to back up their claims. Some of them are outraged about "child abuse." And they all scream for justice.
They want justice? OK, let's talk about JUSTICE. What about justice for Sgt. First Class Christopher J. Speer, who was (according to an eyewitness) murdered by this "child"? What about justice for Tabitha Speer, who is a widow because of this "kid"? What about justice for Taryn and Tanner Speer, who are left without a father by this "a boy"? And what about all those Afghani civilians and NATO troops who are a little bit safer because this "torture victim" is behind bars? How many of these "repatriate Khadr" hypocrites concern themselves with justice for real victims? In literally hundreds of posts, we couldn't find a single one.
One would ask, what is the reason for this idiocy? The answer is simple. Ignorance. Complete and utter ignorance. Let's forget for a second that Omar Khadr killed Christopher Speer. Let's forget that Khadr's father was an al Qaeda financier. Let's forget that Khadr's family is known for it being al Qaeda sympathizers. Let's just remember what this "child" was fighting for in Afghanistan.
This is what Taliban-imposed Sharia looks like in real life: http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2000/07/hypocrisy-of-repatriate-omar-khadr-to.html
Why don't all of you, bleeding heart demagogues go to Afghanistan and spend a day in a Taliban-controlled territory? And let's talk about Khadr when you get back. If you get back.
Well I hate to be the bearer of bad news but he was born in Canada, he's a Canadian. As Canadian as you are.
"Let's forget for a second that Omar Khadr killed Christopher Speer"
No, he is accused of that. And it appears that he may not have done it, since a person who was killed in that battle was originally reported as the person who threw the grenade.
But that is why we have trials. Innocent until proven guilty right? Or is it that his Muslimness and his brownness make it ok to forget most of what we in the West have considered justice since 1215?
RA,
"I feel it is important to highlight the fact that he is Canadian. Because, after all, this is the biggest sign yet that the children of immigrant parents do not integrate, the Big Lie of the multiculturalists."
So this one kid, under the influence of his father, fails to integrate so ALL immigrants don't integrate? Yes I guess the thousands of children of immigrants who aren't doing this mean nothing eh? Or Khadr's own older brother, who has renounced his family and even worked as an informant for the Americans at Gitmo...oops, so much for your hypothesis.
Muslims Against Sharia, Mark, in case you don't know or remember, isn't Muslim, its a sockpuppet for the Pajamas media guys. In short, he is a liar. And he appears to be on another cut and paste jihad across the blogsphere.
I am shocked that no one here thinks that maybe, just maybe, Khadr might be innocent of the crime he has been accused of. And that having a military "trial" in which there is no habeas corpus, rules of evidence that allow evidence gathered under torture and duress and the defense has no access to the evidence against him, makes the US more like USSR or the Taliban itself. After all, its part of what makes the West better is that our justice system is fair and open, right?
If you don't believe in the Magna Carta or the legal protections our Constitution (or the US constitution) affords, then I truly fear the day your ilk ever get a majority.
Mike -- First, thanks for your response. I appreciate your point of view, though I disagree with some of your points.
"Well I hate to be the bearer of bad news but he was born in Canada, he's a Canadian. As Canadian as you are."
Wrong; Omar Khadr is the antithesis of everything denoted by "Canadian"; he fought for the Taliban. I did not. He willfully abandoned his birthright citizenship that day. People who commit treasonous acts are no longer citizens of this nation; they belong to the enemy camp. Yes, that's my own opinion and not government policy, but I have a sneaky suspicion that many Canadians feel this way.
"No, [Khadr] is accused of [killing Christopher Speer]. And it appears that he may not have done it, since a person who was killed in that battle was originally reported as the person who threw the grenade."
Click the radio link in the post and listen to the Sgt. Layne Morris, the US soldier who was wounded in the same attack that killed Christopher Speer. Morris says Khadr was the only one alive in the compound after the air raids; he is the only one who could have possibly thown the grenade.
"Innocent until proven guilty right?"
Yes, absolutely, but in a military court under military terms and frames of reference, not civilian. It's an important point. Khadr relinquished civilian treatment in a public court of law by involving himself in the firefight. That's part and parcel why I have absolutely no qualms about him "languishing" in a cell in Gitmo awaiting trial. This isn't a civilian matter.
"Or is it that his Muslimness and his brownness make it ok to forget most of what we in the West have considered justice since 1215?"
It is neither, and you know it. Your references to Khadr's religion or race are insidious.
It is Khadr himself who has abandoned any semblance of historic lawful combatant activity. It is his willingness to engage in unlawful activities as a combatant that cause people to turn a blind eye to his weeping and calls for him to be dealt with under civilian law, or even to be spared from humiliation in a military compound (torture? please). Read the additional articles by Bill Whittle at Eject!Eject!Eject!. Khadr deserves to be dealt with under military law and an unlawful combatant. It's important to make that distinction.
"If you don't believe in the Magna Carta or the legal protections our Constitution (or the US constitution) affords, then I truly fear the day your ilk ever get a majority."
Again, Mike, I think you are conflating civilian law and military law. You can't expect Omar Khadr to be treated under civilian law for his role as an enemy unlawful combatant in the theatre of war. Khadr's decision means he will be dealt with in a military court. This is as historic as civilian law, if not more historic. His case is no longer a civilian matter; it has not been since he got involved in the firefight; it never can be. Civilian law is not equipped to handle war theatre scenarios. That's why there's a military court with its own set of processes, judges, laws and sentences.
And that, Mike, is why Omar Khadr's wait in Gitmo for military due process does not bother me one little bit.
If working for some other cause than that of Canada or even against Canada's interest makes on other than a Canadian than Harper certainly is not a Canadian.
He is a lap dog of the U.S. Sold us out on many issues such as softwood lumber, and tags along with Bush on the environment, and provides troops for U.S. lead adventures in Afghanistan and even has a new chief of the military who got a medal for serving in Iraq. So I guess we have a prime minister who is not a Canadian!
Sorry "lead"should be "led" and "on"shoud be "one" and you could substitute "Martin"for Harper and the remarks would still apply!
So you're in charge of deciding who is and isn't Canadian?
Lovely.
Kathy Shaidle has posted badly drawn cartoons asking the US Military to invade Canada, will you be booting her out?
In fact, given that you seem to be rejecting the rule of law (birth = citizenship), aren't you acting in an anti-Canadian manner?
Perhaps you can kick yourself out?
@ Raphael Alexander
". Because, after all, this is the biggest sign yet that the children of immigrant parents do not integrate, the Big Lie of the multiculturalists." Umm.. everyday I see evidence that totally, utterly completely refutes your dogmatic, fantasy based "opinion". From the Chinese guy who runs the dep around the corner who is 10 times the rabid Canadians fan than I am, to the vietnamese kids I know who speak joual as their first language, to my (now dead) mother, I see children of immigrant parents (Also known as Canadians) who have integrated perfectly.
"I hope we try him for treason, but the opposition and left will never let it happen." At some point you lot on the right get that you're now in charge right? That everything you don't like about what is going on in Canada is happening under a Conservative government run by Stephen Harper?
A final thought: the utter contempt for basic human rights, for the Geneva Convention, for the safety of CF personal who might get captured, for the rule of law, for habeas corpus shows quite nicely who is Canadian and who isn't.
A hint.
It's not you.
Unbelievable. A Canadian using distorted language and dismissing rule of law (both domestic and international), rules of evidence, due process and the principle of innocent until proven guilty to argue that someone else isn't a Canadian.
I can't think of an example of a more failed Canadian than that.
If I could, I'd feel embarrassed for you.
You don't have any other arguments other than you believe Khadr is guilty and you believe (contrary to evidence that supports the unconstitutionality of Gitmo) that the current legal process is fair.
Fine. Support those arguments. But don't debase your Canadian citizenship by making arguments that are plainly dishonest and fallacious.
Ti-Guy -- Thanks for your input.
"You don't have any other arguments other than you believe Khadr is guilty and you believe (contrary to evidence that supports the unconstitutionality of Gitmo) that the current legal process is fair."
Did Omar Khadr fight for the Taliban and against our allies? If the answer to that question proves to be 'yes' in a military court then indeed Omar Khadr is no longer Canadian. His actions constitute high treason.
Does it all have to be proven in a military court? Yes. Am I presuming guilt for a moment? Yes, but I do so based on the words of his own mother and sister, their admitted support for the jihad, their admitted involvement (as a family) in terrorist training in Afghanistan, pictures of Omar holding severed hands and wearing Taliban garb, and the words of the US military personnel involved in the firefight, whom I trust more than any member of the Khadr family.
Ken -- the equation of "working for a cause" and activities that constitute a High Treason charge is the beginning of the illogic in your argument. The rest isn't even worth a response.
Cameron -- You are equating the writings of a blogger with the actions of an unlawful combatant in the theatre of war. Read the law for Treason and High Treason. Ms. Shaidle's rant isn't a treasonous act. Omar Khadr fighting for the Taliban is.
As for your appeal to human rights, the GC, etc., please read Bill Whittle's tomes. Gitmo is the pinnacle of respect and accommodation for unlawful combatants in all of recorded history.
But Khadr is in a US military court. They are not trying him for treason against Canada. If you think he is guilty of treason why do you not seek his repatriation and trial in Canada?
Mike, do you think when a dumb fuck like you repeats his bullshit a few times it become true? Do you have actual proof that Muslims Against Sharia are not Muslims, or are you relying on good ol' cousin dad?
Mark
If the guy is not a Canadian then trying him for treason will be tough.
RA
Children of immigrants do not integrate into society - really every child of every immigrant, this has to be one of the silliest statements I have read since arriving in Canada.
But Khadr is in a US military court. They are not trying him for treason against Canada. If you think he is guilty of treason why do you not seek his repatriation and trial in Canada?
And since when is the penalty for high treason forfeiture of Canadian citizenship? The penalty for treason is imprisonment.
Canada is a nation of laws, not of men.
harebell -- You make an excellent point. Thank you.
Certainly, Khadr is still technically a Canadian. The penalty for treason isn't revocation of Canadian citizenship, as Ti-Guy points out.
In my own little mind, there are definite limits on citizenship, and Canada needs to start enforcing them. As the penalty for treason attests, we can't aid or abet an enemy, which Khadr seems to have done. As I see it, Khadr no longer has the right to call upon his Canadian identity; he forfeited that privileged position when he embarked on jihad.
What you decide in your own little mind as you put it about Khadr's citizenship does not have any effect on the reality of his citizenship. To my little mind this is fortunate.'
Indeed we are blessed in this country that licences are not issued to Conservative bloggers to revoke Canadian citizenship by simply declaring that so-and-so in their opinion is guilty of treason. To be fair I would not grant such licences to Liberal, Bloc, NDP or Green bloggers or others either!
It doesn't have an immediate effect, true, Ken. But if enough people are of similar mind then the day isn't unforeseeable when treason will once again be prosecuted and people will be required to forfeit their citizenship when found guilty of such high crimes.
A question for you though, completely personal opinion: is treason a high enough charge to warrant revocation of citizenship? And if not, then what is?
Post a Comment