Omar Khadr's performance wasn't too surprising, and we've come to expect supine, even fawning, media coverage of Khadr; but what was most interesting was the disgusting behaviour of Khadr's scuzzy, extremist lawyer and media coach, Dennis Edney, an unfortunate Scottish transplant of George Galloway's ugly, al-Qaeda sympathizing ilk. As one commenter noted:
So Edney spews all sorts of defamatory, slanderous invective against Harper, then turns around the next day and asks for “respectful” treatment of his (not presently) jihadi client.
Thou shalt not KILL
ReplyDeleteOmar Khadar killed a medic that crime is equivalent to killing 5 soldiers
how anyone can support him is very HARD to understand
fhl
As I have said before on blogging tories, I found particularly disgusting how this lawyer brought up PM Harper's children in his rant. Note how it is always Harper or Mr. Harper, never PM Harper, besides calling him an anti-Muslim bigot.
ReplyDeletePM Harper's only response was to say his thoughts and prayers are with Khadr's victim's family.
I find this whole situation, and it's politicization interesting. Omar Khadr was a child soldier, conscripted by his father to join a band of lunatics. This has universally been identified as a crime against the child, but because this occurred in the heat of 9/11, the world had to become a Manichean white v. black and he had to become evil incarnate. If he was the same age and had come out of the Congo or Rwanda, I daresay that our response would be somewhat different.
ReplyDeletekewyd,
ReplyDeleteOmar Khadr was tried by a U.S. war crimes tribunal as an "unlawful enemy combatant". His treatment was in accordance with prevailing rules, including those that took into account his age. He was not considered to be a "child soldier". His conviction was legal. Though he is appealing his conviction in U.S. court it remains to be seen how that will play out.
The "child soldier" description of Khadr is every bleeding heart sympathizer's first refuge, and they'll play that to the hilt in his appeal, but that doesn't make it so. Think of him as a once youthful criminal who has been tried, convicted and penalized as an adult. As a fully indoctrinated and experienced violent jihadi, he remains to be a public threat.
If he was under the age of 18 at the time of his arrest, he is legally a child combatant. He was 15.
ReplyDeleteMath problems?
Harper showed poor judgement approving Khadr's return to Canada.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous kevvyd said...
ReplyDelete> If he was under the age of 18 at the time of his arrest, he is legally a child combatant. He was 15.
And he would have needed to be 14, not 15, years old to meet the definition of 'child soldier' accepted by the Geneva Conventions (the only legitimate legal definition, agreed to by all). He would also have to be wearing a uniform to be considered a 'soldier' at all.
Face facts: a Canadian citizen traveled to a foreign country and murdered a citizen of yet a third country. You don't have a problem with that? Did you have a problem when Jean Chretien got Khadr's father released from a foreign prison despite being told the man was a terrorist? No?
> Math problems?
Reality problems?
Exactly, Fred.
ReplyDeleteAnd even if kewyd were technically correct, a 15 year old can be tried as an adult. His measly 8 year sentence from the US military court is one that more fits a juvenile than an adult. He should have received an adult sentence of 40 years.
These jihadi sympathizing bleeding hearts certainly do need a reality check.