Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

6970 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Oct 2012 at 9:03 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-10-01 09:08:05 AM  
Poor bastard.

Hope the polar bears don't get him.
 
2012-10-01 09:09:25 AM  
But hey, thanks for keeping one of our citizens - a child soldier - in a gulag for six or seven years before actually trying him with a crime. We really appreciate how you paid for him to get a postdoc at your little terrorist school, and we look forward to seeing what he can do with his new degree.
 
2012-10-01 09:12:20 AM  
Detroit?
/DRTFA
 
2012-10-01 09:13:10 AM  
He was sent to North Dakota?
 
2012-10-01 09:18:35 AM  
Siberia?

DNRFA
 
2012-10-01 09:19:50 AM  
I like the part where the Minister for Foreign Affairs admitted in parliament that we caved to American pressure. That's some good work there, minister.
 
2012-10-01 09:19:53 AM  
I was going to guess DC......
 
2012-10-01 09:23:36 AM  
The question remains, "What to do with a bunch of crazy jihadist whose only mission in life is to kill infidels?".
 
2012-10-01 09:24:13 AM  
The poor dear, totally innocent

FTA:Khadr pleaded guilty in 2010 to war crimes, including throwing the grenade that killed U.S. Army medic Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer during a firefight in Afghanistan on July 27, 2002.
 
2012-10-01 09:30:27 AM  

Joe Blowme: The poor dear, totally innocent

FTA:Khadr pleaded guilty in 2010 to war crimes, including throwing the grenade that killed U.S. Army medic Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer during a firefight in Afghanistan on July 27, 2002.


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.
 
2012-10-01 09:31:51 AM  
Aroostook County?

*clicks link*

Close enough.
 
2012-10-01 09:32:15 AM  

Flakeloaf: Joe Blowme: The poor dear, totally innocent

FTA:Khadr pleaded guilty in 2010 to war crimes, including throwing the grenade that killed U.S. Army medic Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer during a firefight in Afghanistan on July 27, 2002.

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.


Should have just been shot on the battlefield, being part of a death cult at an early age is not a defense
 
2012-10-01 09:33:02 AM  
In my humble opinion, someone needs to remove him and his family from Canada. Deport, throw him and the family off a cliff, whatever it takes, but he should never feel safe again as long as he lives. His family wants to over throw the government and want to turn Canada into an Islamic state. I'd personally like to turn them into cat food.
 
2012-10-01 09:34:07 AM  
Can a hardened jihadist and a pack of Canuck guards share a maximum security prison without driving each other crazy?

Do-do-do-do-do-do
Do-do-do
Do-do-do-do. . . .
 
2012-10-01 09:35:39 AM  

Flakeloaf: Joe Blowme: The poor dear, totally innocent

FTA:Khadr pleaded guilty in 2010 to war crimes, including throwing the grenade that killed U.S. Army medic Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer during a firefight in Afghanistan on July 27, 2002.

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.

 
2012-10-01 09:36:49 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-01 09:42:19 AM  

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.


Victor's justice at its finest.
 
2012-10-01 09:46:49 AM  

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?
 
2012-10-01 09:47:08 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-01 09:47:43 AM  

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 youryou're a terrorist.


ftfm
 
2012-10-01 09:50:43 AM  
confession was given after torture. watch the tapes when the Canadians first show up to speak to him (CSIS?). scary what they allowed to happen to a Canadian citizen in foreign custody.
 
2012-10-01 09:55:29 AM  

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.


Uniforms... how do the work within the geneva conventions?

FTA:Khadr pleaded guilty in 2010 to war crimes, including throwing the grenade that killed U.S. Army medic Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer during a firefight in Afghanistan on July 27, 2002.

Reading comprehension... how does it work?
 
2012-10-01 09:56:37 AM  

danzak: confession was given after torture. watch the tapes when the Canadians first show up to speak to him (CSIS?). scary what they allowed to happen to a Canadian citizen in foreign custody.


Or they had videos of him making IEDs like it said in the ruling. Has there ever been any proof he was tortured?
 
2012-10-01 09:56:52 AM  
Quick math tells me that if he was captured in 2002 and given an eight-year sentence, with time served he should have been released two years ago. Am I correct?
 
2012-10-01 09:57:58 AM  

danzak: confession was given after torture. watch the tapes when the Canadians first show up to speak to him (CSIS?). scary what they allowed to happen to a Canadian citizen in foreign custody.


This was in Rumsfeld's bizarro amusement park where nobody's laws seem to apply. We weren't in much of a position to "allow" anything.

And yes, what Khadr did was a war crime and if he hadn't been a child I'd have zero issue with him standing in a fair and speedy trial to answer for it.
 
2012-10-01 09:59:45 AM  

Carth: 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.


Winner, winner. Chicken Dinner.

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.
 
2012-10-01 10:01:38 AM  

lenfromak: Quick math tells me that if he was captured in 2002 and given an eight-year sentence, with time served he should have been released two years ago. Am I correct?


No, unless the credit him with time served

FTA: Khadr pleaded guilty in 2010


8 years for warcrimes and murder.... awsome
 
2012-10-01 10:02:55 AM  
Dear USA:

A lot of us in Canada did not want another episode of 'Welcome Back Kahdr', despite what the Toronto Star / CBC might tell you.
 
2012-10-01 10:03:35 AM  

Carth: If you're a child dressed a civilian throwing grenades at people you aren't a soldier your a terrorist.


A terrorist? Really? Title 22, chapter 28 of the U.S. Code defines terrorism as:

premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

The PATRIOT Act also adds the goal of intimidating or coercing a civilian population for political outcome to the definition.

I'm not quite sure how targeting a member of an invading military in active battle meets either of these definitions. Don't get me wrong, I despise Omar Khadr deeply, but the label "terrorist" has a specific meaning, and doesn't apply to just anyone we feel like slapping it on.
 
2012-10-01 10:05:09 AM  

THX 1138: Carth: If you're a child dressed a civilian throwing grenades at people you aren't a soldier your a terrorist.

A terrorist? Really? Title 22, chapter 28 of the U.S. Code defines terrorism as:

premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

The PATRIOT Act also adds the goal of intimidating or coercing a civilian population for political outcome to the definition.

I'm not quite sure how targeting a member of an invading military in active battle meets either of these definitions. Don't get me wrong, I despise Omar Khadr deeply, but the label "terrorist" has a specific meaning, and doesn't apply to just anyone we feel like slapping it on.


Which is slightly, but significantly, different than the Department of Defense definition of terrorism:
"The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
 
2012-10-01 10:05:54 AM  

Flakeloaf: danzak: confession was given after torture. watch the tapes when the Canadians first show up to speak to him (CSIS?). scary what they allowed to happen to a Canadian citizen in foreign custody.

This was in Rumsfeld's bizarro amusement park where nobody's laws seem to apply. We weren't in much of a position to "allow" anything.

And yes, what Khadr did was a war crime and if he hadn't been a child I'd have zero issue with him standing in a fair and speedy trial to answer for it.


So what about child gang bangers? Are they free to rape and pillage because of their age?
 
2012-10-01 10:06:04 AM  

Flakeloaf: But hey, thanks for keeping one of our citizens - a child soldier - in a gulag for six or seven years before actually trying him with a crime. We really appreciate how you paid for him to get a postdoc at your little terrorist school, and we look forward to seeing what he can do with his new degree.


yup..should have kept him there for 60 or 70 years.
 
2012-10-01 10:10:17 AM  

Silverstaff: Carth: 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.

Winner, winner. Chicken Dinner.

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. 
.


That's all good and fine, but if you want to invoke Geneva conventions here, I'm sure you would also accept that he was a child solider, indoctrinated all his life and he was put into that situation by others.

He admitted guilt becuase he had 2 choices. 1, plead not guilty and spend the rest of his life in a US prison. Or 2, plead guilty and get transferred to Canada where he would be released in a few years. Gee, what would you do? A reminder that this wasn't a normal court with normal rights he was in. I'm pretty sure you would pick option 2, since it is probably the truth.
 
2012-10-01 10:12:18 AM  

Joe Blowme: Flakeloaf: danzak: confession was given after torture. watch the tapes when the Canadians first show up to speak to him (CSIS?). scary what they allowed to happen to a Canadian citizen in foreign custody.

This was in Rumsfeld's bizarro amusement park where nobody's laws seem to apply. We weren't in much of a position to "allow" anything.

And yes, what Khadr did was a war crime and if he hadn't been a child I'd have zero issue with him standing in a fair and speedy trial to answer for it.

So what about child gang bangers? Are they free to rape and pillage because of their age?


The use of children as fighters in armed conflict against a foreign military is a far cry from a street gang. That's probably why the UNICEF and Amnesty International probably haven't weighed in on the immoral hiring practices of the Crips just yet.
 
2012-10-01 10:13:14 AM  

The_Fuzz: Silverstaff: Carth: 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.

Winner, winner. Chicken Dinner.

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. 
.

That's all good and fine, but if you want to invoke Geneva conventions here, I'm sure you would also accept that he was a child solider, indoctrinated all his life and he was put into that situation by others.

He admitted guilt becuase he had 2 choices. 1, plead not guilty and spend the rest of his life in a US prison. Or 2, plead guilty and get transferred to Canada where he would be released in a few years. Gee, what would you do? A reminder that this wasn't a normal court with normal rights he was in. I'm pretty sure you would pick option 2, since it is probably the truth.


I did not realize this kind of child soldiering kidnapping was so rampant in Canada.
cdn2.mamapop.com
 
2012-10-01 10:17:41 AM  

THX 1138: A terrorist? Really? Title 22, chapter 28 of the U.S. Code defines terrorism as:

premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

The PATRIOT Act also adds the goal of intimidating or coercing a civilian population for political outcome to the definition.

I'm not quite sure how targeting a member of an invading military in active battle meets either of these definitions. Don't get me wrong, I despise Omar Khadr deeply, but the label "terrorist" has a specific meaning, and doesn't apply to just anyone we feel like slapping it on.


Civilian law does not apply on the battlefield. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does. The Geneva conventions do, if both parties are signatories. If not, the rules are much looser.
 
2012-10-01 10:19:23 AM  

The_Fuzz: That's all good and fine, but if you want to invoke Geneva conventions here, I'm sure you would also accept that he was a child solider, indoctrinated all his life and he was put into that situation by others.


This makes him no less deadly to those he is trying to kill.

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: carrying rockets that the prosecution actually argued could only have been used to target military aircraft and not civilians.


That's funny. I've never met a weapon that was so discriminatory.
 
2012-10-01 10:24:34 AM  
The torture claims were made by Khadr during his Canadian interrogation, I think finding proof would be a little difficult seeing where it's allegedly going on. The tapes were analyzed by 2 psychiatrists before his trial and Khadr was interviewed. The 2 are basically split - one says he's a bad dude manipulating everyone, the other that he's basically a child thrown into a shiatty situation. I don't know, I watched his interrogation tapes and just think he's more of a victim of circumstance than a terrorist but that's just my opinion. I think the Canadian gov't should have stepped in for him sooner and stronger and maybe tried him here for the alleged war crimes.
 
2012-10-01 10:33:51 AM  

danzak: The torture claims were made by Khadr during his Canadian interrogation, I think finding proof would be a little difficult seeing where it's allegedly going on. The tapes were analyzed by 2 psychiatrists before his trial and Khadr was interviewed. The 2 are basically split - one says he's a bad dude manipulating everyone, the other that he's basically a child thrown into a shiatty situation. I don't know, I watched his interrogation tapes and just think he's more of a victim of circumstance than a terrorist but that's just my opinion. I think the Canadian gov't should have stepped in for him sooner and stronger and maybe tried him here for the alleged war crimes.


If he wasn't what they said he was before - and there's a half-decent chance that he was - he certainly is now.
 
2012-10-01 10:37:11 AM  

eas81: Omar Khadr, a Toronto native


As usual, did not read the article.
 
2012-10-01 10:37:47 AM  

Galloping Galoshes: That's funny. I've never met a weapon that was so discriminatory.


At the time he was captured, there was a ban on all non-military airtraffic, and they were sam missiles.
 
2012-10-01 10:48:38 AM  
'cos at 15 no one can possibly know that killing is bad, mmmkay?

/really don't want - or need - this douche back in Toronto
//actually, his family is in Scarborough (of course)
///anyone else seen the pics of him posing with severed hands and feet of (alleged) infidels a few years ago?
 
2012-10-01 10:50:20 AM  
Exactly why dont we have exile as a punishment? There are certain crimes for which I think it would be fitting and the people who commit them do not deserve to be Americans anymore.After they serve a prison sentence we kick them out.

First on the list would be elected politicians convicted of any crime while in office and government employees who use their office to commit a crime or otherwise abuse its power . Basically any abuse of the public trust.

Second would be criminals who think they are at soem sort of war with the US. SDS/weathermen would be a good example, White Supremists, members of terrorists organizations or their sympathizers who hold US citizenship. They comit a cirme they are shipped off as soon as they complete their sentence.

If we cannot get another country to take them their are plenty of remote territories we can ship them off to like Johnston Island. Esatblish a colony of exiles.

media-cdn.tripadvisor.com

farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2012-10-01 10:51:29 AM  
I find it ironic that most of the "he was a terrorist, not a child soldier" comments are coming from people who live in a country where the legal drinking age is 21.
 
2012-10-01 10:53:16 AM  
danzak
I think the Canadian gov't should have stepped in for him sooner and stronger and maybe tried him here for the alleged war crimes.

Yeah, but he's brown, and Harper's been charge since 2006.

/obligatory

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, it doesn't matter what colour your skin is, or what colour tie is in 24 Sussex. If you're a Canadian and you get into trouble overseas, you're farked.

/William Sampson, Maher Arar, Amanda Lindhout, Zahra Kazemi, Brenda Martin
 
2012-10-01 10:56:51 AM  

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?
As were the commoners in Libya who grabbed the nearest AK-47 and fought?
And of course there was the French resistance and the Polish underground, terrorists and war criminals the lot of them.

Needless to say, your definition as stated above is problematic. It also happens to be a false interpretation.
 
2012-10-01 11:00:34 AM  
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.
 
2012-10-01 11:50:05 AM  

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.
 
2012-10-01 12:02:19 PM  
"Last Western prisoner at Guantanamo Bay exiled to cold, desolate, unforgiving land"

My ex-wife's bed?

/ba-dum tishh
 
2012-10-01 12:48:36 PM  
exiled to Best Western?

www.youmustbetrippin.com

Old_Chief_Scott: Poor bastard.

Hope the polar bears don't get him.


fitfordragoncon.files.wordpress.com
 
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 64 of 64 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report