If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Last Western prisoner at Guantanamo Bay exiled to cold, desolate, unforgiving land   (thehill.com) divider line 64
    More: Interesting, Guantanamo Bay, Omar Khadr, prisoners, material support, Guantanamo  
•       •       •

6963 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Oct 2012 at 9:03 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-01 01:31:16 PM

corn-bread: Carth: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Flakeloaf: When he was fifteen. He was recruited as a child soldier, which international law says makes him a victim. Yes he is a victim that killed somebody and the fact that he was a kid doesn't mean an ice cream and a ticket home, but it doesn't mean rendition either.

Wait, so he threw a grenade at soldiers invading his country during a time of war during an actual firefight, and that's now considered a war crime? This is right up there with charging Osama's driver with carrying rockets that the prosecution actually argued could only have been used to target military aircraft and not civilians.

It is a war crime unless you are a recognized (uniformed) soldier. If you're a child dressed a civilian throwing grenades at people you aren't a soldier your a terrorist.


I see. So in your estimation the movie Wolverines was just one big war crime then?


YES, without a uniform or clearly identifiable symbol, worn by all members and recognizable on the battlefield, they were not covered by the GC. Go read the thing... Although, I don't think these high-schoolers in the movie, who were fighting for everything they knew, even cared though. In fact, in the movie the captured Russian soldier specifically tells Jed (or whoever Patrick Swayze played) that they were in violation of the Geneva Conventions, to which Jed screams "I never heard of it!" moments before executing the Russian - right there admitting that the "Wolverines" no longer cared for fair treatment in war anyway.

However, the invaders were executing members of the civilian populace en masse as reprisals, which is very clearly outlawed, and intentionally killed many non-combatants during their invasion and occupation, so they were in violation (badly) too; hence, the whole movie is really a large war crime. If the "Wolverines" had at least used arm bands, head bands, or something like that which marked them as a militia, they'd have been in the clear for that provision, but I don't remember them doing that. Executing the Russian would have brought Jed up on charges, but executing Robert (the traitor one) was internal unit discipline and in keeping with the rules of war (a hard line, no doubt, but covered).

As were the commoners in Libya who grabbed the nearest AK-47 and fought?

That's a civil war there, popular uprising of the people against the government, who started killing them in the first place, and on top of that the Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more sovereign states, so I'm not sure what point you had here.

And of course there was the French resistance and the Polish underground, terrorists and war criminals the lot of them.

In the conquering army's eyes, yes. Given that the conquering army was genocidal, white supremacist Nazis, I would call their resistances "moral," but still not covered... but hold on! GCIII wasn't held until August 12,1949, nearly a decade after all that - and to specifically define the rules of handling POWs after the terrible things that were done to prisoners by Germany, Japan and Russia. So, again, you totally fail your point here.

Needless to say, your definition as stated above is problematic.

This is true, you're not a terrorist in these cases, you are an Unlawful (or Unpriviledged) Combatant. This does not mean that you lose all rights - there are GCIV rules for treatment of all persons captured in a conflict. 

"Most unprivileged combatants who do not qualify for protection under the Third Geneva Convention do so under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), which concerns civilians, until they have had a "fair and regular trial". If found guilty at a regular trial, they can be punished under the civilian laws of the detaining power."

In the published opinion of the ICRC, "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action."

This is exactly what is happening here.

In this case, this douchebag partook in war against his own country and its allies (Canada is/was a martial ally of the US in Afghanistan at this time of this incident) and committed murder, and is very lucky that a civilian trial ruled in a sentence not involving execution (can't remember if Canada has capital punishment or not anyway).
 
2012-10-01 01:46:21 PM
Under international law, Omar Khadr was a Child Solder. Under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in armed conflict, signed by the United States in 2000, and ratified in 2002, a child soldier is anyone involved in an armed conflict under the age of 18.

As for the case against Mr. Khadr, no one actually saw him throw the grenades that killed specialist Speer. He was the only survivor of the attack on the compound, and he had been shot twice... in the back. He later went blind in one eye while in custody. He was the youngest person imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, and the last citizen of a western nation interred there. He should have been returned to Canada years ago.
 
2012-10-01 02:02:11 PM

alberta_beef: Under international law, Omar Khadr was a Child Solder. Under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in armed conflict, signed by the United States in 2000, and ratified in 2002, a child soldier is anyone involved in an armed conflict under the age of 18.

As for the case against Mr. Khadr, no one actually saw him throw the grenades that killed specialist Speer. He was the only survivor of the attack on the compound, and he had been shot twice... in the back. He later went blind in one eye while in custody. He was the youngest person imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, and the last citizen of a western nation interred there. He should have been returned to Canada years ago.


He should have been set free along with the rest of them.

In the middle of the North Atlantic.
 
2012-10-01 02:27:00 PM

Seraphym: In the conquering army's eyes, yes. Given that the conquering army was genocidal, white supremacist Nazis, I would call their resistances "moral," but still not covered... but hold on! GCIII wasn't held until August 12,1949, nearly a decade after all that - and to specifically define the rules of handling POWs after the terrible things that were done to prisoners by Germany, Japan and Russia. So, again, you totally fail your point here.


My point simply was that in the definition offered by the original poster, the above examples would have been considered "enemy combatants" as well.
Your comment addresses a question that was never asked. Now should someone ask for a history lesson then you can point to your post and make the relevant Fonzie-like "Ayyyy!"



This is true, you're not a terrorist in these cases, you are an Unlawful (or Unpriviledged) Combatant. This does not mean that you lose all rights - there are GCIV rules for treatment of all persons captured in a conflict.

"Most unprivileged combatants who do not qualify for protection under the Third Geneva Convention do so under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), which concerns civilians, until they have had a "fair and regular trial". If found guilty at a regular trial, they can be punished under the civilian laws of the detaining power."

In the published opinion of the ICRC, "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action."



The most knowledgeable minds in International Law still grapple over this yet you've figured it out so simply.
You're ignoring of course the fact that the Taliban was the governmental ruling faction of Afghanistan at the time (matters not whether the U.S. recognized them or not) which could have resulted in a "nation vs. nation" situation. Further you're ignoring the fact that the Northern Alliance was part of this as well which could create the Libya civil war situation you stated earlier. You ignore this of course because these questions cloud the argument considerably. What we have here was a mixing and matching of international law with inconsistent explanations to justify holding people.
 
2012-10-01 03:08:48 PM

Silverstaff: The Geneva Conventions are very explicit on this point. You want protection under international law? You need to be part of some kind of uniformed military. Even if it is your homeland being invaded, you are still supposed to actually be part of an actual military force, not just picking up grenades and throwing them at people. That's part of why we still have conscription on the books as a possibility in America. 

Want to know why? Civilians aren't supposed to be attacked or attack in war. They are supposed to be out of the equation. When civilians get involved, then the militaries have to start treating civilians as possible combatants. Even if they aren't supposed to, they'll see civilians as possible hostiles.

My Lai was a worst case scenario, but it's an example of when unlawful combatants (like the Viet Cong in that case) had abused the legal protections afforded to civilians to the point where a military officer felt the only way to stop them was to attack civilians. Yeah, Lt. Callie committed a war crime in the process, but he wouldn't have done it if the VC hadn't made them suspect every civilian was a possible communist infiltrator. He responded to one war crime with another.


Isn't it interesting that Khadr was held in Guantanamo for 10 years and has another 8 to serve out in prison in Canada for killing a single American soldier during a firefight but Lt. Calley who was found guilty of the massacre of 22 unarmed civilians served 3 and a half years of house arrest?
 
2012-10-01 03:53:26 PM
The Geneva Conventions are very explicit on this point. You want protection under international law? You need to be part of some kind of uniformed military.

The funny thing is that the special forces guys doing the attack were not in uniform and were dressed like Afghanis.

Khadr was in the compound but no one saw him with a weapon. The compound was straffed by 30mms and rockets by Apaches and A-10s then hit with 500lb bombs from a pair of F-18s. khadr was found on his knees and blind in one eye. They shot him twice in the back but decided to take him prisoner only after he spoke in English. Staements from witnesses said that US soldiers were throwing grenades over the compound wall not knowing that a team had gone in. 99% chance that it was a friendly fire accident but someone had to be blamed.

By the way, there is a new TV show coming out in Canada - Welcome back Khadr.
 
2012-10-01 04:19:10 PM
i1070.photobucket.com

They're violating my fargin rights!
 
2012-10-01 04:47:32 PM
Under Canadian law he should be tried as a traitor.
One news report states he will be released by mid 2013.
Too bad he won't be serving his time in general population.
 
2012-10-01 05:38:33 PM

alberta_beef: Under international law, Omar Khadr was a Child Solder. Under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in armed conflict, signed by the United States in 2000, and ratified in 2002, a child soldier is anyone involved in an armed conflict under the age of 18.

As for the case against Mr. Khadr, no one actually saw him throw the grenades that killed specialist Speer. He was the only survivor of the attack on the compound, and he had been shot twice... in the back. He later went blind in one eye while in custody. He was the youngest person imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, and the last citizen of a western nation interred there. He should have been returned to Canada years ago.


As much as some of us here in the US wish that he *had* been interred at Guantanamo, he's alive and kicking and your problem now, neighbors.
 
2012-10-01 06:32:21 PM
The kid is likely innocent, he should have been handed over to Canada as soon as he was captured.

The entire thing is a stinking mess, and I do blame Obama for not closing Gitmo with an executive order his first day in office.
 
2012-10-01 08:16:50 PM

eas81: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Flakeloaf: When he was fifteen. He was recruited as a child soldier, which international law says makes him a victim. Yes he is a victim that killed somebody and the fact that he was a kid doesn't mean an ice cream and a ticket home, but it doesn't mean rendition either.

Wait, so he threw a grenade at soldiers invading his country during a time of war during an actual firefight, and that's now considered a war crime? This is right up there with charging Osama's driver with carrying rockets that the prosecution actually argued could only have been used to target military aircraft and not civilians.

Omar Khadr, a Toronto native

/Not sure if serious, trolling, or just stupid?


Mildly amusing story:

I saw a bunch of Muslims outside near the Hard Rock Cafe in Toronto this summer, picketing signs like "LEARN ABOUT ISLAM" and the like.

This all occurred on the street beneath an advertisement for Sascha Barron Cohen's "The Dictator".
 
2012-10-01 08:19:07 PM

GranoblasticMan: super_grass: Is it so hard to give him a trial and be done with it?

Alternatively: take no prisoners, destroy the body, and avoid the mess altogether.

Not politically advantageous. They're much more valuable alive. The public needs a boogeyman and scapegoat. Nothing raises the "AMERICA F*CK YEAH" rating like publicizing the capture and conviction of public enemies or suspected terrorists. See: National reaction during the Saddam Hussein trial and public execution vs a relative collective "meh" when Osama bin Laden was killed.


What are you talking about? Students in Greek Town here at Mizzou started an impromptu parade when we nailed Bin Laden.

/it was an excuse for them to drink
 
2012-10-01 09:37:03 PM
I actually feel pretty bad for him. He was manipulated by his Bin Laden supporting family, then got convicted in a kangaroo court/sham trial and was tortured/stuck in the gulag, all while he was 15. The Canadian government licked the balls and kissed the asses of the guys who put him there the entire time.

I'm also annoyed by the schizo herp derp in the comments at the CBC's website. The same idiots who complain about Guantanamo Bay will go with a straight face that he's a 'terrurist' just because the US government says so. I don't think he's some misunderstood saint, I just think they should be rehabilitating him as a former child soldier rather than kicking him in the teeth.

Looks like public opinion is going a little more in his favor after Mr. Dallaire had the balls to point out that he was a child soldier.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/10/01/pol-khadr-hill-monda y .html
 
2012-10-02 12:48:12 AM
It is perfectly legal to commit acts of violence against a uniformed military presence while in civilian clothing as long as you do two things:
1. Make sure you don't get caught, and
2. Make sure your side wins.
 
Displayed 14 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report