Finally
Grand Mal
Alan Hope
I wonder how much of the evidence will be declared inadmissible? I
wonder how much will be left?
Fruit of the poisoned tree, my friend.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:26:48 GMT, in misc.writing "Grand Mal"
>
> >http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/13/khalid.sheikh.mohammed/
>
> >Why did it take so long?
>
> I wonder how much of the evidence will be declared inadmissible? I
> wonder how much will be left?
>
> Fruit of the poisoned tree, my friend.
>
> --
> AHhttp://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Washed clean by the waterboard no doubt. No chance that there will be
a not guilty verdict. This is just a visual display of the mechanical
motions of the justice system. There's already a vial with his name on
it.
Grand Mal
"Alan Hope" <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0pdrf55jvjefj3so9...@4ax.com...
I wonder why New York?
I wonder if the 'military commission' will ask for the death penalty for the
one who was 15 when arrested. Or, it being a military trial, was he
captured?
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> "Alan Hope" <usenet.ident...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Just as long as you don't ship him back to Canada.
Grand Mal
"Alan Hope" <usenet....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0pdrf55jvjefj3so9...@4ax.com...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58&feature=related
Grand Mal
"Koolc...@smurfsareus.xxx" <john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:a62fde2b-1ac7-4e72...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
-Just as long as you don't ship him back to Canada.
I disagree.
Robert McClelland
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Just as long as you don't ship him back to Canada.
Why not, he was a child soldier that was brainwashed into joining the
war by his arsehole father.
Mark
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/13/khalid.sheikh.mohammed/
>
> Why did it take so long?
What's the rush? He's got colored tv, free food,
magazines, mail, and sex too i bet. Now he
can drag it out another 20 years while we pay
about 45 grand a year to keep him.
I'd cut his fuckin head off last year.
---
Mark
Mark
> I wonder why New York?
> I wonder if the 'military commission' will ask for the death penalty for the
> one who was 15 when arrested.
Hope so.
Mark
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Just as long as you don't ship him back to Canada.-
The United States would never do anything
that cruel.
--
Mark
Grand Mal
"Mark" <blueri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f4b563f-6ea2-4a80...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
---
Mark
********************************************
'Course you would, you being such a hard-case, take-no-prisoners-type alpha
male 'n all.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
wrote:
Its where he's been living for the last while and with whom he's had
contact that has given him a certain "education" tha worries me.
If they had shippeed him back at 15, I would have no problem with his
return. Now, what he's become is someone else's problem.
ing
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Just as long as you don't ship him back to Canada.
He is a born-in-Canada citizen and as such, has every right to be
returned here. Let Canada try his case, according to the evidence
gathered against him.
It's to our world-wide shame as Canucks that that hapless hypocrite
Harper has turned to the Supremes in order to wash his hands of this.
Honestly, sometimes the people who lead this country just make me want
to puke.
ing
ing
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 4:28 pm, Robert McClelland <mcclelland.rob...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 13, 4:10 pm, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>
> > <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Just as long as you don't ship him back to Canada.
>
> > Why not, he was a child soldier that was brainwashed into joining the
> > war by his arsehole father.
>
> Its where he's been living for the last while and with whom he's had
> contact that has given him a certain "education" tha worries me.
He spent most of his first 15 years in THIS country. Surely that
stands for something.
> If they had shippeed him back at 15, I would have no problem with his
> return. Now, what he's become is someone else's problem.
You have absolutely *no idea* what he's become. Just the word of
torturers at Guantanamo. Khadr is a Canadian citizen. He has citizen
rights that apply -- not just when it's convenient for the rest of us,
but also when it's inconvenient and messy. Perhaps he *may* be a
problem -- but regardless, he's *our* problem. And we should be
bringing him home and dealing with it. If you can't see that, you're
as ignorant as the torturers.
ing
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Can he live with you at your house?
Ray Haddad
And how do you feel about apologists for terrorism like yourself? It's
all right to ignore what he did because he's Canadian? Good grief.
--
Ray
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:06:23 -0800 (PST), ing
>
My Quip is that he was a child soldier and should never been sent to
GITMO.
It was a stupid thing to do given all the conventions on this world
wide now.
It's what's happened to him at GITMO that worries me.
The US has had him for seven years now, longer than any other group,
and now the US must take full responsibility for him and what he's
become.
Ray Haddad
<john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Nov 14, 6:09�pm, Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:06:23 -0800 (PST), ing
>>
>> <ing.blue...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >On Nov 13, 4:10�pm, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>> ><john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >> Just as long as you don't ship him back to Canada.
>>
>> >He is a born-in-Canada citizen and as such, has every right to be
>> >returned here. Let Canada try his case, according to the evidence
>> >gathered against him.
>>
>> >It's to our world-wide shame as Canucks that that hapless hypocrite
>> >Harper has turned to the Supremes in order to wash his hands of this.
>> >Honestly, sometimes the people who lead this country just make me want
>> >to puke.
>>
>> And how do you feel about apologists for terrorism like yourself? It's
>> all right to ignore what he did because he's Canadian? Good grief.
>
>My Quip is that he was a child soldier and should never been sent to
>GITMO.
>It was a stupid thing to do given all the conventions on this world
>wide now.
>It's what's happened to him at GITMO that worries me.
>
>The US has had him for seven years now, longer than any other group,
>and now the US must take full responsibility for him and what he's
>become.
Not to worry. He'll get death then the Canadians can try him.
--
Ray
ing
<.....>
> > You have absolutely *no idea* what he's become. Just the word of
> > torturers at Guantanamo. Khadr is a Canadian citizen. He has citizen
> > rights that apply -- not just when it's convenient for the rest of us,
> > but also when it's inconvenient and messy. Perhaps he *may* be a
> > problem -- but regardless, he's *our* problem. And we should be
> > bringing him home and dealing with it. If you can't see that, you're
> > as ignorant as the torturers.
> Can he live with you at your house?
What an asinine juvenile response. Has anyone suggested that if he
returns he's gonna be living WITH ANYONE? Anyone asked you the same
question you asked above?
We have secure jails. He is a Canadian citizen. This would be a high
profile case. Bring him home along with ALL the evidence against him
and let's give him a solid, open trial -- based on that evidence.
That's what we owe him and that's what we owe ourselves, if our
judicial system and our standing in the world is to mean anything.
ing
ing
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> My Quip is that he was a child soldier and should never been sent to
> GITMO.
I agree with this.
> It was a stupid thing to do given all the conventions on this world
> wide now.
> It's what's happened to him at GITMO that worries me.
You're being guided by fear, plain and simple. What are you so afraid
of? What are you so worried about? Better we face up to any fears
(legitimate or otherwise) than hide from them, don't you think?
> The US has had him for seven years now, longer than any other group,
> and now the US must take full responsibility for him and what he's
> become.
Exactly **what** has he become? Please extrapolate and offer backup.
ing
Ray Haddad
You can have him next, Ing. Problem solved.
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
<ing.b...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Nov 14, 6:54�pm, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
><john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> My Quip is that he was a child soldier and should never been sent to
>> GITMO.
>
>I agree with this.
Oh, dear. Children commit no crimes? Since when?
>> It was a stupid thing to do given all the conventions on this world
>> wide now.
>> It's what's happened to him at GITMO that worries me.
>
>You're being guided by fear, plain and simple. What are you so afraid
>of? What are you so worried about? Better we face up to any fears
>(legitimate or otherwise) than hide from them, don't you think?
>
>> The US has had him for seven years now, longer than any other group,
>> and now the US must take full responsibility for him and what he's
>> become.
>
>Exactly **what** has he become? Please extrapolate and offer backup.
We rarely agree but I do for your second and third points here. John
is offering a specious argument. He's confused himself.
--
Ray
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
http://www.howardleague.org/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Barry%20Goldson.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/j-richard-cohen/mass-incarceration-of-chi_b_110710.html
http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2006/issue4/0406p38.htm
http://www.kidsbehindbars.org/english/index.html
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/11137/section/2
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/jul/28/youthjustice.crime
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/10/21/forced-labor-for-palestinian-children-in-israeli-prison/
He's been made to live with the purported worst of the worst
terrorists on earth, both in his captors and in his fellow prisoners.
To think that he has not become accustomed to cruelty and violence is
to be totally naive of the realities of prisons. For the greatest part
of his juvenile life he has been the object of derision by his captors
and has had very little human contact other than that which is
dictated by the system.
So what would Canada do with him?
Can we afford him full freedom if he is found not guilty? Should we be
put in a position that we now have to protect his former captors from
him if he wants revenge? The only reason he's is in GITMO in the first
place is the American lust for revenge: should he not have the same
right as they had to take him?
What should we do with him?
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:28:00 -0800 (PST), ing
>
> >On Nov 14, 6:54 pm, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> ><john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >> My Quip is that he was a child soldier and should never been sent to
> >> GITMO.
>
> >I agree with this.
>
> Oh, dear. Children commit no crimes? Since when?
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children
Ray Haddad
<john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Nov 15, 3:57�pm, Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:28:00 -0800 (PST), ing
>>
>> <ing.blue...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >On Nov 14, 6:54�pm, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>> ><john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >> My Quip is that he was a child soldier and should never been sent to
>> >> GITMO.
>>
>> >I agree with this.
>>
>> Oh, dear. Children commit no crimes? Since when?
>
>See
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children
That was sarcasm, John. Children do commit crimes. Deal with it.
--
Ray
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 13:24:04 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>
>
>
> <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >On Nov 15, 3:57 pm, Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:28:00 -0800 (PST), ing
>
> >> <ing.blue...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 14, 6:54 pm, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> >> ><john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >> >> My Quip is that he was a child soldier and should never been sent to
> >> >> GITMO.
>
> >> >I agree with this.
>
> >> Oh, dear. Children commit no crimes? Since when?
>
> >See
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children
>
> That was sarcasm, John. Children do commit crimes. Deal with it.
> --
> Ray
no, that was just bad taste Ray.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
>
>
>
> > On Nov 14, 6:54 pm, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>
> > <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > My Quip is that he was a child soldier and should never been sent to
> > > GITMO.
>
> > I agree with this.
>
> > > It was a stupid thing to do given all the conventions on this world
> > > wide now.
> > > It's what's happened to him at GITMO that worries me.
>
> > You're being guided by fear, plain and simple. What are you so afraid
> > of? What are you so worried about? Better we face up to any fears
> > (legitimate or otherwise) than hide from them, don't you think?
>
> > > The US has had him for seven years now, longer than any other group,
> > > and now the US must take full responsibility for him and what he's
> > > become.
>
> > Exactly **what** has he become? Please extrapolate and offer backup.
>
> > ing
>
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/j-richard-cohen/mass-incarceration-of-c...
>
> http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2006/issue4/0406p38.htm
>
> http://www.kidsbehindbars.org/english/index.html
>
> http://www.hrw.org/en/node/11137/section/2
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/jul/28/youthjustice.crime
>
>
> He's been made to live with the purported worst of the worst
> terrorists on earth, both in his captors and in his fellow prisoners.
> To think that he has not become accustomed to cruelty and violence is
> to be totally naive of the realities of prisons. For the greatest part
> of his juvenile life he has been the object of derision by his captors
> and has had very little human contact other than that which is
> dictated by the system.
>
> So what would Canada do with him?
>
> Can we afford him full freedom if he is found not guilty? Should we be
> put in a position that we now have to protect his former captors from
> him if he wants revenge? The only reason he's is in GITMO in the first
> place is the American lust for revenge: should he not have the same
> right as they had to take him?
>
> What should we do with him?
And:
"The United States has detained minors during their War on Terror.
Omar Khadr, a 15 year old Canadian citizen, arrested in Afghanistan in
2002, and held at Guantanamo for the past five years was to have been
one of the first detainees to be charged before a military commission.
Human Rights Watch charges that, "the US government incarcerated him
with adults, reportedly subjected him to abusive interrogations,
failed to provide him any educational opportunities, and denied him
any direct contact with his family."[56] In 2004, three Afghan
children were released from Guantanamo, believed to be between the
ages of 13 and 15 at the time of their capture, to rehabilitation
programs operated by UNICEF in Afghanistan"
From:
Ray Haddad
>no, that was just bad taste Ray.
So if a child kills you, he should be let go because he's a child? Get
real, John. An act of terror committed by a child is just as deadly as
one done by an adult. When are you lefties ever going to learn that?
--
Ray
Grand Mal
And:
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children
*********************************************************
From the Death Penalty Information Center
"Since 1990, juvenile offenders are known to have been executed in only
seven countries: China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen,
Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and the United States."
Each of those countries except Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and the USA have since
adopted laws prohibiting execution of juvenile offenders or, in the case of
the Congo, have a moratorium on executions in place. Since 1990, 20 juvenile
offenders have been executed in the US, the last in Wisconsin on 4 Dec.,
'06.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 13:45:28 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>
>
>
> <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >On Nov 15, 4:33 pm, Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 13:24:04 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>
> >> <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 15, 3:57 pm, Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:28:00 -0800 (PST), ing
>
> >> >> <ing.blue...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> >> >On Nov 14, 6:54 pm, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> >> >> ><john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> My Quip is that he was a child soldier and should never been sent to
> >> >> >> GITMO.
>
> >> >> >I agree with this.
>
> >> >> Oh, dear. Children commit no crimes? Since when?
>
> >> >See
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children
>
> >> That was sarcasm, John. Children do commit crimes. Deal with it.
>
> >no, that was just bad taste Ray.
>
> So if a child kills you, he should be let go because he's a child? Get
> real, John. An act of terror committed by a child is just as deadly as
> one done by an adult. When are you lefties ever going to learn that?
> --
> Ray
But if a child killed you, it would be an act of mercy.
Ray Haddad
>But if a child killed you, it would be an act of mercy.
Poor John, joining the ranks of the Alan Hopes of the world. Why is it
when you begin losing an argument, you wish your opponent dead?
--
Ray
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:22:45 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
Who wrote this?
$Zero
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 5:57 pm, Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:22:45 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
[...]
> > >But if a child killed you, it would be an act of mercy.
>
> > Poor John, joining the ranks of the Alan Hopes of the world. Why is it
> > when you begin losing an argument, you wish your opponent dead?
> > --
> > Ray
>
> Who wrote this?
> "So if a child kills you, he should be let go because he's a child?"
i'd imagine that the only person who wouldn't want that terrorist
scumbag R dead is Bob Pastorio.
ba'dum, chsh!
-$Zero...
i'm a control freak, but in a good way.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/727bc640ee950150
Grand Mal
****************************************
It's a blatant non sequitur. There's also a wierd misapprehension going
around that all Taliban are terrorists. It's like the term 'terrorist' has
taken the place of 'commie' to describe the monster under the bed. All it
needs to condemn anyone is for someone to label them 'terrorist', no matter
what the circumstances of their capture was. All that's needed to be
labelled 'terrorist' is to resist an American invasion.
Ray Haddad
>Who wrote this?
>"So if a child kills you, he should be let go because he's a child?"
And I told you it was sarcasm. The child committed an adult crime.
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
wrote:
>Who wrote this?
>"So if a child kills you, he should be let go because he's a child?"
>****************************************
>
>It's a blatant non sequitur. There's also a wierd misapprehension going
>around that all Taliban are terrorists. It's like the term 'terrorist' has
>taken the place of 'commie' to describe the monster under the bed. All it
>needs to condemn anyone is for someone to label them 'terrorist', no matter
>what the circumstances of their capture was. All that's needed to be
>labelled 'terrorist' is to resist an American invasion.
Do try and keep up. We're discussing child criminals at the moment. If
terrorist is a bugbear for you, just say so. Otherwise, try not to
impose your own prejudices on my words.
--
Ray
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:03:17 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
alleged to have committed, have you forgotten you constitution?
Innocent until proven guilty, jury of his peers etc.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:15:33 GMT, "Grand Mal" <ironw...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx" <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
Just because you think you win all your arguments with the Kangaroos,
does not mean you are right. It just menas they are not as good at
verbal argument even though you may be their intelectual equal.
Grand Mal
"Ray Haddad" <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote in message
news:b8b1g5hi2h7lpro69...@4ax.com...
I wasn't talking to you. Go have a quiet tete-a-tete with yourself and then
you can moderate the topic of discussion.
If you do decide to follow along try to remember that there might be things
said that have nothing to do with you.
Ray Haddad
>Just because you think you win all your arguments with the Kangaroos,
>does not mean you are right. It just menas they are not as good at
>verbal argument even though you may be their intelectual equal.
And now you're cracking wise in spite of the discussion being about
men who killed nearly 3000 people. Those poor old planners of 9/11
won't get a fair trial in the US. Sniff . . .
Have you forgotten that minor detail?
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
wrote:
>I wasn't talking to you. Go have a quiet tete-a-tete with yourself and then
>you can moderate the topic of discussion.
>If you do decide to follow along try to remember that there might be things
>said that have nothing to do with you.
Nor you. See how funny things work out?
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
>alleged to have committed, have you forgotten you constitution?
Dream on, mate.
>Innocent until proven guilty, jury of his peers etc.
He is innocent until proven guilty. Where did I ever say he wasn't?
You feel free to criticize American jurisprudence but clearly do not
understand how it works. You can commit a crime and still be innocent
of the crime until tried and convicted.
--
Ray
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:07:25 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
Who wrote:
"The child committed an adult crime."?
There is no proof of that. If it was self defense or defense of
another, it's not a crime.
--
Alan Hope
<r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>We rarely agree but I do for your second and third points here. John
>is offering a specious argument. He's confused himself.
Nobody's talking to you, cunt. Haven't you noticed yet? You're being
ignored by everyone but me, and I'm only here to piss in your mouth.
Skipper
<usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
You need a dick for that, Hopeless, unless you're talking about lifting
your skirt and squatting high.
Ray Haddad
>Who wrote:
>"The child committed an adult crime."?
>
>There is no proof of that. If it was self defense or defense of
>another, it's not a crime.
Proven by trial. Until then, crime is crime.
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
Oh, Alan, as elegant as ever. Took you one post to remove the thin
veneer of culture from your writing and turn you into a profane loser.
--
Ray
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:49:31 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
or unproven.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:49:31 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
Actually in this case, even the crime is alleged, not just the act of
commission.
Ray Haddad
<john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Actually in this case, even the crime is alleged, not just the act of
>commission.
When you devolve into semantics like this, your point is lost, John.
--
Ray
ing
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
<......>
> He's been made to live with the purported worst of the worst
> terrorists on earth, both in his captors and in his fellow prisoners.
> To think that he has not become accustomed to cruelty and violence is
> to be totally naive of the realities of prisons. For the greatest part
> of his juvenile life he has been the object of derision by his captors
> and has had very little human contact other than that which is
> dictated by the system.
>
> So what would Canada do with him?
We do what we do with every Canadian citizen - first we bring him home
and we deal with what he's done (or hasn't done, who knows, I haven't
seen the evidence and neither have you) and when a trial is over, we
figure it out. We act like grownups and we DEAL with it.
> Can we afford him full freedom if he is found not guilty?
I don't know. Can we afford to turn our backs on a citizen? Can we
really?
> Should we be
> put in a position that we now have to protect his former captors from
> him if he wants revenge? The only reason he's is in GITMO in the first
> place is the American lust for revenge: should he not have the same
> right as they had to take him?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Americans aren't really
well-known for giving legal rights to people they profess to be
terrorists, regardless of the evidence, which none of us have ever
seen. They talk a good story about rights, but actions speak louder,
or so the story goes, when it comes to court cases against terrorists,
specially military trials.
>
> What should we do with him?
We deal with it Kool-chickie. We figure it out and we deal with it.
What we *don't* do, what we shouldn't be allowed to do, is to pass the
buck, walk away and let somebody else take over when one of our
citizens is accused. That makes us look like spineless idiots.
Canucks don't have to prove anything here, ya know. We've been in
Afghanistan taking up the fight that started because of 9-11. We've
lost MANY good soldiers over there and it's heartbreaking. I know,
because I've stood and watched them brought home -- it's
heartbreaking.
We went there, in defense of the US who we consider a strong ally - we
stayed after they pulled most of their troops out of there to go into
Iraq and we suffered the consequences. We're still there. Unless the
Yanks are completely totally bat-shit crazy, they surely have to know,
by this time, what side we're on. Just give us this Canadian citizen
back and we'll deal with him. It's his right to come home - it's our
right to have him back here. It's our RIGHT to try him in our courts
using the evidence (whatever it is, however accurate or inaccurate it
is) that they gathered against him.
What we do with him, after it's all over - well, we'll deal with that
when the time comes. We're strong enough, we've proven it many times
over -- and we shouldn't be governed by fear -- or 'what ifs'.
Regardless of what he's done, or hasn't done -- the man has rights,
same as you and me. It's our responsibility to see he gets those
rights and lives up to his responsibilities as a Canadian citizen - we
gotta deal with that -- as Canadians. I'm not as afraid as you are --
my faith in this country and our system is way stronger than yours.
Buck up and get a spine fer crissakes.
ing
Alan Hope
Still fantasising over my genitals, Lloyd? Does the cult allow that
sort of thing?
Alan Hope
<r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:00:58 +0100, Alan Hope
><usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:57:12 +0800, in misc.writing Ray Haddad
>><r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>>
>>>We rarely agree but I do for your second and third points here. John
>>>is offering a specious argument. He's confused himself.
>>
>>Nobody's talking to you, cunt. Haven't you noticed yet? You're being
>>ignored by everyone but me, and I'm only here to piss in your mouth.
>
>Oh, Alan, as elegant as ever. Took you one post to remove the thin
>veneer of culture from your writing and turn you into a profane loser.
Yeah, back in about 1997. Tell me something new, cunt.
Alan Hope
<ing.b...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Americans aren't really
>well-known for giving legal rights to people they profess to be
>terrorists, regardless of the evidence, which none of us have ever
>seen. They talk a good story about rights, but actions speak louder,
>or so the story goes, when it comes to court cases against terrorists,
>specially military trials.
The US is a rogue nation in terms of justice. No civilised nation
should cooperate with them in any way until they bring their system
into line with the requirements of human rights, starting with an end
to the barbaric use of the death penalty.
That means no cooperation on matters relating to "terrorism" (the US
abuses the term to allow it to do what it likes) but also no more
extradition to the US on any grounds whatever. They murder their own
citizens, they imprison people arbitrarily and without even a
semblance of trial, and they're fervent supporters of the use of
torture and extra-judicial execution. You'd be as likely to extradite
a prisoner to Zimbabwe: one is no better than the other.
Ray Haddad
<ing.b...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>We deal with it Kool-chickie. We figure it out and we deal with it.
What crime did he commit in Canada that you want to try him?
--
Ray
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:55:08 -0800 (PST), ing
>
> >We deal with it Kool-chickie. We figure it out and we deal with it.
>
> What crime did he commit in Canada that you want to try him?
> --
> Ray
What crime did he commit in the USA?
Robert McClelland
> Just give us this Canadian citizen
> back and we'll deal with him. It's his right to come home - it's our
> right to have him back here.
The problem isn't with the Americans. They'd hand Khadr over in a
heartbeat if we asked. The problem is that Harper won't ask despite
the SCoC ordering him to do so.
Ray Haddad
<john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Nov 17, 3:42�am, Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:55:08 -0800 (PST), ing
>>
>> <ing.blue...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >We deal with it Kool-chickie. �We figure it out and we deal with it.
>>
>> What crime did he commit in Canada that you want to try him?
>
>What crime did he commit in the USA?
That's why there will be a trial. Get over it, John. Reality may just
be too complicated for you, mate.
--
Ray
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:00:13 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>
> <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >On Nov 17, 3:42 am, Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:55:08 -0800 (PST), ing
>
> >> <ing.blue...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> >We deal with it Kool-chickie. We figure it out and we deal with it.
>
> >> What crime did he commit in Canada that you want to try him?
>
> >What crime did he commit in the USA?
>
> That's why there will be a trial. Get over it, John. Reality may just
> be too complicated for you, mate.
> --
> Ray
So for what crime commited in the USA is he going on trial?
Grand Mal
-So for what crime commited in the USA is he going on trial?
You have patience of biblical proportions.
Ray Haddad
wrote:
>"Koolc...@smurfsareus.xxx" <john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:8f4e19de-448f-4121...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>On Nov 17, 1:57 pm, Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:00:13 -0800 (PST), "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>>
>> <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >On Nov 17, 3:42 am, Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:55:08 -0800 (PST), ing
>>
>> >> <ing.blue...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >> >We deal with it Kool-chickie. We figure it out and we deal with it.
>>
>> >> What crime did he commit in Canada that you want to try him?
>>
>> >What crime did he commit in the USA?
>>
>> That's why there will be a trial. Get over it, John. Reality may just
>> be too complicated for you, mate.
>
>-So for what crime commited in the USA is he going on trial?
>
>You have patience of biblical proportions.
And the stupidity of an ironworker.
--
Ray
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:13:26 GMT, "Grand Mal" <ironw...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx" <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
ing
<....>
> The US is a rogue nation in terms of justice. No civilised nation
> should cooperate with them in any way until they bring their system
> into line with the requirements of human rights, starting with an end
> to the barbaric use of the death penalty.
>
> That means no cooperation on matters relating to "terrorism" (the US
> abuses the term to allow it to do what it likes) but also no more
> extradition to the US on any grounds whatever. They murder their own
> citizens, they imprison people arbitrarily and without even a
> semblance of trial, and they're fervent supporters of the use of
> torture and extra-judicial execution. You'd be as likely to extradite
> a prisoner to Zimbabwe: one is no better than the other.
yeah, you're right - I know you're right. thing is we're dealing with
a PM whose hero is GWB, he patterns all his decisions and political
philosophy by taking Bush's lead. He's an arrogant prick.
Thing is, Khadr is the only national from a western country still at
Guantanamo. The UK, France and Germany got their detainees back -
because they demanded it. Our PM won't demand it -- he *refuses* to
demand it. That's what's pissing a lot of people here off. Because,
regardless of what he's done or hasn't done, under our Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, he has the right to access to his attornies, he
has the right to an open trial and to face the evidence against him.
Not some military trial with no right to question the evidence and no
right of appeal.
The whole thing just makes me feel ashamed of my country. We are so
much better than this.
ing
ing
wrote:
I know the problem's Harper -- but the Supreme's have *not yet*
ordered Harper to demand Khadr's return. Harper's appeal to the SCoC
is going on right now - he's appealing a judicial order he got back in
April to get Khadr back. He didn't want to do it, so he went to the
Court of Appeal this past summer - and the Court of Appeal upheld the
April judicial order. Harper wasn't pleased.
That's why he's now gone to the Supreme Court for yet *another*
appeal. To the highest court in the land. From what I hear, the
Supremes will expedite a decision, but it'll still be weeks away.
Why Harper refuses to do his duty to this man is anyone's guess. My
thought is that he just doesn't like people telling him what to do.
God help us all if he ever gets a majority government.
ing
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:13:26 GMT, "Grand Mal" <ironw...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx" <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
Alan Hope
<r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>Poor John, joining the ranks of the Alan Hopes of the world. Why is it
>when you begin losing an argument, you wish your opponent dead?
Everyone wishes you dead, Haddad. Even people who have never argued
with you.
Ray Haddad
<usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:57:45 +0800, in misc.writing Ray Haddad
><r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>
>>Poor John, joining the ranks of the Alan Hopes of the world. Why is it
>>when you begin losing an argument, you wish your opponent dead?
>
>Everyone wishes you dead, Haddad. Even people who have never argued
>with you.
And yet you come back for more and more and more and more and . . .
Got any idea how foolish that makes you?
--
Ray