Canada has no obligation to protect Khadr

What about our military, any military; is a child worth more than a 20 year old?

Canada has no obligation to protect Khadr

Canada has no obligation to protect Khadr

With utter amazement I read in the Citizen where two readers actually defended not only the obscene payment to the Muslim terrorist, but one actually “wished him well!”

Another reader wrote about ‘a government’s lack of moral obligation to protect its citizen’. So Canada has a moral obligation to protect a Canadian citizen’who has taken up arms against Canada and killed a man? I don’t think so Ms. Kelly; there’s a word for that — treason. Penalty: death.

Many, including Romeo Dallaire (who should know better, but wails: “A child, is a child, is a child”) harp on about Khadr being ‘only 15’. For those who remember, we found out about that in Northern Ireland during the troubles, didn’t we? Trained kids, years younger than Khadr were employed by both sides. Many years ago in Calgary I worked with a man who had been a para in Northern Ireland, and who shot two such kids, or they would have shot him! But still people wail about ‘child soldiers’ who are ‘brainwashed with hate’. What about our military, any military; is a child worth more than a 20 year old? Getting into deep waters here, aren’t we?

The definition of treason is, “violation by a subject of his allegiance to sovereign or state, punishable by death.”

Khadr, a Canadian subject, filled that definition perfectly.

What Justin Trudeau did, and tried to hide from Canadians, was not much better. Also, in my humble opinion, the ‘learned judges’ need to go back to school — they wouldn’t know justice if it reared up and bit them.

Peter Bell

Cobble Hill