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 15
    More: Interesting, Guantanamo Bay, Omar Khadr, prisoners, material support, Guantanamo  
•       •       •

6963 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-01 09:30:27 AM  
5 votes:

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 09:47:08 AM  
3 votes:

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 09:46:49 AM  
3 votes:

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 09:36:49 AM  
3 votes:

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 01:31:16 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:17:41 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:59:45 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:09:25 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:53:16 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:19:23 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:13:14 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:56:37 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:33:02 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:32:15 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:23:36 AM  
1 votes:
The question remains, "What to do with a bunch of crazy jihadist whose only mission in life is to kill infidels?".
 
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report