[Newsbot]

Title: Khadr repatriation overturned by top court
Category: Political
Posted By: KorbenDeck
Date: 2010-01-31 00:46:19
Canadian

[TuavDan]

Once a "terrorist" always a terrorist. Wake up Canada, smell the coffee...you do the crime you do the time. Stop wasting tax money on those pretending to want to become "honest, loyal Canadian citizens," to end up raging crime.

[putz]

Ummm.... I think most people agree with you. It's just the small minority and his lawyer that got the ball rolling on this one.

[Curtman]

putz wrote:

Ummm.... I think most people agree with you. It's just the small minority and his lawyer that got the ball rolling on this one.

How should we decide who the charter of rights and freedoms applies to and who it doesn't? He's been in Guantanamo for 7 years, and hasn't been convicted of anything.

[Mr_Canada]

42% support repatriation. 40% don't.

That's not a minority. (for either side)

[EyeBrock]

Curtman wrote:

putz wrote:

Ummm.... I think most people agree with you. It's just the small minority and his lawyer that got the ball rolling on this one.

How should we decide who the charter of rights and freedoms applies to and who it doesn't? He's been in Guantanamo for 7 years, and hasn't been convicted of anything.

This is a great case and a fine icon for the defence of Canadian citizenship.

I'm glad you've taken this up as a cause worth fighting for.

[Curtman]

EyeBrock wrote:

Curtman wrote:

putz wrote:

Ummm.... I think most people agree with you. It's just the small minority and his lawyer that got the ball rolling on this one.

How should we decide who the charter of rights and freedoms applies to and who it doesn't? He's been in Guantanamo for 7 years, and hasn't been convicted of anything.

This is a great case and a fine icon for the defence of Canadian citizenship.

I'm glad you've taken this up as a cause worth fighting for.

Who's fighting? Either the rule of law applies or it doesn't. Either our constitution means something or it doesn't. I know what side I'm on.

[EyeBrock]

Me too and it's the opposite side to Khadr's.

[Curtman]

EyeBrock wrote:

Me too and it's the opposite side to Khadr's.

People have the right to a fair trial, and to not be tortured. Does your side offer any suggestion on how to decide when those rights apply and when they don't? Is there a wheel they spin to determine this, or are we just going to cancel everyone's rights?

[EyeBrock]

Well, I can't agree.

Giving people rights of citizenship who have no intent in being good citizens, enlist in an organisation that our military has been fighting since 2001 doesn't seem a noble cause to put forth about our Charter.

The Charter isn't written in stone and traitorous wankers like this POS and the rest of his family shouldn't be protected because a load of guys with gowns on say it should be so.

Do you really think we should give Khadr the same rights as we give our soldiers who are dying in combat fighting Khadr's comrades?

[putz]

Mr_Canada wrote:

42% support repatriation. 40% don't.

That's not a minority. (for either side)

80% of stats are made up 95% of people know that

[putz]

Curtman wrote:

putz wrote:

Ummm.... I think most people agree with you. It's just the small minority and his lawyer that got the ball rolling on this one.

How should we decide who the charter of rights and freedoms applies to and who it doesn't? He's been in Guantanamo for 7 years, and hasn't been convicted of anything.

He wouldn't have been in Gitmo if he hadn't of been in Afghanistan fighting against allied soldiers. The closest I would ever come to having him step foot in Canada is to stand trial for treason.

[Curtman]

putz wrote:

Curtman wrote:

putz wrote:

Ummm.... I think most people agree with you. It's just the small minority and his lawyer that got the ball rolling on this one.

How should we decide who the charter of rights and freedoms applies to and who it doesn't? He's been in Guantanamo for 7 years, and hasn't been convicted of anything.

He wouldn't have been in Gitmo if he hadn't of been in Afghanistan fighting against allied soldiers. The closest I would ever come to having him step foot in Canada is to stand trial for treason.

I'd prefer he get a trial in the U.S., they were American soldiers.

[putz]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought you were arguing to bring him back to Canada. That's what this thread and what the Supreme Court is talking about.

[Zipperfish]

Trial for what? That's the point of war, isn't it? To kill the enemy. The Americans run around invading countries--they kill hundreds of thousands in Iraq, and when one of theirs gets fragged they run around crying that it wasn't fair.