Be careful what you wish for. What the mainstream media doesn't really seem to want to point out, is that quite clearly Omar's family were a family of Islamic extremist terrorists.
While, prior to his death, Omar's father was constantly denying ties to terrorism, continually alleging that he was simply a "charitable aid worker" - since his death, the story appears to be quite clear that he was a high-level associate of Osama Bin Laden, and his sons were trained to be Al Qaeda terrorists - including Omar.
See this short http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/story/2009/01/true-to-qaedas-cause.html, that starts with an interview of Omar's brother, Abdurahman Khadr:
We are an Al Qaeda family you know, we had connections to Al Qaeda.. my family in Pakistan, they will never admit this at all.. Why? Because they are totally.. you know, they are what they are and they deny it, they’ll never admit this.
The clip also includes videos of Omars mother and sister, affirming the desire of Omar's father to be "martyred" and to die at he hands of his "enemies" (read: us).. and similar sentiments by Omar's older brother.
My question to Devin, and others - do you want to share an airplane with Omar?
4 comments:
Rob:
Whether I would like to be on an airplane with Omar Khadr is irrelevant. The issue here is whether he, as a Canadian citizen, deserves the rights accorded to every human being under international and Canadian law.
Frankly, I would prefer to make my decision whether to sit next to him on an airplane after he has undergone a fair trial and it is determined whether he did all of the things that people like you have already convicted him of. As of this moment I have no reason to not want to sit next to Omar Khadr on an airplane.
That's in stark comparison to...you. After a few days of interacting with you on your blog and my blog, I can safely say that I wouldn't be too keen to sit next to you on an airplane. My experience is that loudmouthed, opiniated, 'holier than thou' blowhards grow quite tiresome after a very short amount of time.
Devin - everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I haven't convicted him of anything. I have voiced my oposition to torture, I have voiced my opposition to holding hearings on foreign soil away from the scrutiny of the American public.. and I've never suggested that he shouldn't get due process. My point was simply that there is a real issue that is ignored, which is the malevolent intent of the Khadr family and the fact that something needs to be done to protect our country from people like that.
Regarding due process, my concern, I suppose, is I have a great deal of difficulty getting my mind around the idea of "due process" applying to enemy combatants.. a point that you've never responded to.
Rather than drone on - and be a "blow hard" - I guess I'll leave two simple questions..
1) do we require due process hearings for every combatant captured in times of war, (POW's) with the associated obligation to provide them each with able legal counsel?
2) what is the justification for Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, and Irwin Cotler doing nothing to help repatriate Omar during their tenure, if Harper is to be the "goat" for those who DO support Omar?
January 26, 2009 9:50 AM
Correction:
I had neglected to notice a post on a previous blog where Devin did give a response on the Liberal non-action re Khadr:
"I can't fully explain why the Liberal Party did not do more for Omar Khadr prior to 2006, except to say that many of the revelations about his potential innocence have only come out in the last couple years."
..so, judge for yourselves.. does this absolve Liberals of their inaction, assuming you think action was warranted.
I choose to believe that Chretien, Martin, and Cotler actually did the right thing. But that's just me.
My point was simply that there is a real issue that is ignored, which is the malevolent intent of the Khadr family and the fact that something needs to be done to protect our country from people like that.
The malevolent intent of the Khadr family is not the issue here. The issue is whether our government should be doing more to fight for Omar Khadr, who is being held illegally in an illegal prison -- or even whether the fact that a child was tortured by officials of the United States causes you to 'lose sleep'.
I have a great deal of difficulty getting my mind around the idea of "due process" applying to enemy combatants.
Based on what possible definition is Omar Khadr an enemy combatant. And, even if he was, how would that possibly justify his torture and denial of basic human rights?
do we require due process hearings for every combatant captured in times of war, (POW's) with the associated obligation to provide them each with able legal counsel?
No. But those prisoners must be afforded the human rights guaranteed by international law. Also, I fail to see how you consider Omar Khadr (or the vast majority of the prisoners at Guantanamo for that matter) an enemy combatant.
does this absolve Liberals of their inaction, assuming you think action was warranted.
No one, least of all me, is asking to be absolved of their actions vis a vis Omar Khadr. I don't recall the Liberals asking for such absolution either. The point, which you conveniently and consistely sidestep, is that a Canadian citizen (who was a child at the time) was held, tortured and denied basic human rights at the hands of the United States and our Prime Minister has repeatedly refused to get involved.
If Paul Martin, Jean Chretien and Irwin Cotler had the same information in front of them that Stephen Harper does today (which they did not), then shame on them also.
Post a Comment