Thursday, July 17, 2008

Question: Is anything sacred with Stephen Harper?


This Khadr boy’s entire future is at stake and these Con politicos are worried about whether seeking his return from Gitmo will be perceived as a policy flip-flop or not.......funny, that didn’t get in the way of Harper’s raiding of seniors nest eggs to the tune of $35 billion. With zero justification.

Question: Is anything sacred with Stephen Harper?

Just what exactly is sacred with the Harper cons, apart from Big Lifecos, the CCCE and Bush league George.

We certainly know that Harper has no love for justice.......except when it comes to his own frivolous lawsuits

Gloves come off in Khadr fight


Dallaire lashes out at Harper for not intervening in detainee's case, says Canada's reputation at stake
Jul 17, 2008 04:30 AM

Michelle shephard
national security reporter
Toronto Star

A battle over the fate of Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr is brewing between two Ottawa heavyweights.

In one corner is Liberal Senator Roméo Dallaire, who says the Toronto captive's case has become personal, and he argues that Canada's reputation is at stake.

His opponent is Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has vowed that his government's hands-off stance will continue until Khadr is tried for war crimes in Guantanamo. Harper has reportedly faced dissent within the party – Conservative MPs who don't feel sympathy for the Khadr case but who support intervention if it will make the issue go away.

Dallaire calls the Guantanamo trial an abuse of law. Harper regards it as the best legal option.

"I do not believe this is the Harper government. I certainly don't believe it's the Canadian government. I believe it is purely the Prime Minister – his individual perspective," Dallaire said yesterday in an interview with the Toronto Star. "He's the leader of the party and it is his imprint, not anybody else's."

Harper declined an interview request, but his director of communications accused Dallaire of grandstanding and questioned why the senator had remained quiet on the Khadr case during the years his party was in power.

"It is revisionism and hypocrisy on the part of the Liberal senator and others in the Liberal party that are saying that a different path should be taken now," Kory Teneycke told the Star.

"Now at the 11th hour, they're having second thoughts and I think there are those who would say it's a flip-flop."

Khadr's trial is set to begin in three months and his lawyers are desperately trying to avoid going before a military commission where Khadr faces five war crimes, including murder for the death of U.S. soldier Sgt. Christopher Speer.

Dallaire believes Canada's reputation will be sullied if government support for the war crimes prosecution of a minor continues. That position could affect the influence Canada has internationally in fighting future civil rights cases, he alleges.

Khadr was 15 when he was captured in 2002 by U.S. forces after a firefight in Afghanistan. The Pentagon alleges he threw a grenade that mortally wounded Speer.

If the trial goes forward, the case will be the first modern-day war crimes prosecution of someone younger than 18 at the time of his alleged crimes. Prosecutors have said that Khadr's age could be taken into account during sentencing, but not for his prosecution.

Dallaire worries that once the trial is underway, there will be little chance for Harper to intervene.

"I think that once you're in actual trial, even though it's an illegal trial, it becomes very messy for politicians to start fiddling within the judicial process ...," he said.

But Teneycke said this week's release of a videotape depicting Khadr's interrogation in 2003 by Canadian officials at Guantanamo, where the then 16-year-old is seen weeping and asking for help, does not change the government's position. Nor will any future revelations made by Khadr's lawyers, he added.

"Trying people through the court of public opinion is no way for politicians to act. (Harper) feels, as any responsible leader feels, that politicians are not judges and that due process should be followed and there shouldn't be a separate process for high-profile cases."

12 comments:

Dr Mike said...

"Question: Is anything sacred with Stephen Harper?"

The quest for power appears to be king in Harper`s world--to be "Numero Uno" , the "big cheese" , el "Suprimo Dictador"--in other words the unquestioned Guy in Charge.

It appears that he thinks that "Power by Association" might be his ticket to success-----belly-up to George Bush & see what rubs-off.

Maybe even give away 70% of our oil , surely that will make you friends in high places.

I firmly believe that Mr Harper will do whatever it takes to develop a majority government so that he can rework this country into his own vision.

He has told us that we would not recognize this country once he was done with it.

I had hoped it would turn out for the better & not , as in this case , for the worst.

Dr Mike Popovich

Muslims Against Sharia said...

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.

Anonymous said...

Muslims Against Sharia said:

"As soon as the Gitmo interrogation tape of Omar Khadr hit the Internet, the blogosphere was flooded with demands to repatriate him to Canada."

Actually no. You couldn't be more wrong of you tried. I have not seen this tape and nor do I have any interest in seeing this tape. I have no interest in seeing people suffer.

My interest in the Khadr matter derives from one thing only. He is not being afforded basic legal rights in the Gitmo trial. He is not being allowed to see, and therefore not allowed to challenge, the so called evidence against him.

That is so fundamentally wrong that is is hardly deserving of being used in the same sentence as "justice" unless qualified by the word "kangaroo".

The fact that Khadr was a mere child at the age of 15 at the time of his alleged crimes, only serves to make the injustice even more unacceptable.

I believe in the rule of law, administered fairly and consistently and without bias or the presumption of guilt.

Do your beliefs about the rule of law perhaps differ from mine?

Brent Fullard

Muslims Against Sharia said...

"Actually no. You couldn't be more wrong of you tried."

How does the fact that you didn't see the tape negates the fact that "[a]s soon as the Gitmo interrogation tape of Omar Khadr hit the Internet, the blogosphere was flooded with demands to repatriate him to Canada."? What's with the delusions of grandeur?

"He is not being afforded basic legal rights in the Gitmo trial. He is not being allowed to see, and therefore not allowed to challenge, the so called evidence against him."

According to an international law, any combatant may be held until the cessation of hostilities without a trial. After the cessation of hostilities, he must be either charged with war crimes or released.

"The fact that Khadr was a mere child at the age of 15 at the time of his alleged crimes, only serves to make the injustice even more unacceptable."

Hopefully if this child is released, the next family he blows up is yours. Why should his age matter? What a bout a 12-year-old Taliban beheading an "American spy" on video? Should he also be treated as a child?

"I believe in the rule of law, administered fairly and consistently and without bias or the presumption of guilt."

What a bunch of crap! You believe in law only when it suits your agenda. When it doesn't, you're quick to ignore it. (See above).

"Do your beliefs about the rule of law perhaps differ from mine?"

Apparently. We believe that if the law says that a combatant can be held until the cessation of hostilities, then it is legal. You believe that since you don't like what the international law says on the subject, you want to apply a different law, that favors your position.

Anonymous said...

Dear Muslims against Sharia:

You must be a mind reader. What do you possibly know about "my position" or your claims about "what suits my agenda"?

Evidently, I am also presumed guilty before proven innocent.

As for your argument about "international law", that would be more convincing if Bush had not opted out of the Geneva convention or if the UK and Italy(?) had not repatriated their citizens out of Gitmo befire they were to be tried, such that Khadr is the only western citizen in Gitmo.

PS. Any future posts by yourself that contain veiled threats and not so veiled threats will be deleted. This blog is for civil discourse. You are entitled to your opinion. However, you are NOT entitled to making threats.

Brent Fullard

American Muslim, not Muslim-American said...

"What do you possibly know about "my position" or your claims about "what suits my agenda"?"

Doesn't the fact that you're discarding applicable law and attempt to substitute it with another makes your agenda transparent?

"Evidently, I am also presumed guilty before proven innocent."

That is not true at all. You proved your idiocy before being called an idiot.

If Canada wanted Khadr as "UK and Italy" he would have been in Canada by now. It doesn't take a mind reader to see how dumb one must be not to get it.

"Any future posts by yourself that contain veiled threats and not so veiled threats will be deleted."

Why don't you, hypocritical dipshit say what you really mean, that any opinions contrary to yours or facts that do not suit your agenda, are not welcome on your shitty blog?

Anonymous said...

American Muslim, not Muslim-American said:

"Why don't you, hypocritical dipshit say what you really mean, that any opinions contrary to yours or facts that do not suit your agenda, are not welcome on your shitty blog?"

Good grief.....what part of "This blog is for civil discourse. You are entitled to your opinion." don't you to seem to or want to understand?

Hypocritical Dipshit

American Muslim, not Muslim-American said...

"You are entitled to your opinion"

Am I entitled to my opinion that you are a hypocritical dipshit, or am I entitled only to the opinions that you do not disagree with?

Anonymous said...

American Muslim, not Muslim-American said...

"Am I entitled to my opinion that you are a hypocritical dipshit, or am I entitled only to the opinions that you do not disagree with?"

How many times to you need to hear it. For the third time, I repeat "This blog is for civil discourse. You are entitled to your opinion."

That said (for the third time), what part of "yes" do you not accept, or are you in constant pursuit of "no"?

As for your allegation that I am a hypocritical dipshit, I found your argument so compelling that you may have noticed (but obviously didn't) that I signed my response with:

Hypocritical Dipshit

American Muslim, not Muslim-American said...

Well, now that we have agreed on something, do you mind clarifying what you perceived as "veiled threats and not so veiled threats"?

Anonymous said...

American Muslim, not Muslim-American said...

"Well, now that we have agreed on something"

What exactly have we agreed on?

That I am hypocritical dipshit or that someone has to say something three times in order for you hear it once?

American Muslim, not Muslim-American said...

The former.