He was clearly an illegal combatant. Secondly, I don't believe he has been released from U.S. custody. Thirdly, a person from one country not lawfully serving in the Armed forces of another country has no legal right to be engaged in warfare in that second country.DonQuixote said:He was in combat and was being shot.
Those with him were killed by the US.
Without any excuse in law?
Now that's a streach of the imagination.
The US must have had a reason for releasing
him to Canada. Were he such a heinous
criminal then why was he released?
Guantanamo Khadr interrogations
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
You're not missing a thing, it's the Team 'w' war criminals who are missing a lot here....DonQuixote said:Am I missing something?
Khadr's actions and "child soldiers" in Uganda etc. . are clearly distinguishable as have already been mentioned by other posters and my point three above.DonQuixote said:
Unlike the child soldiers of African, and unlike soldiers anywhere, he wasn't wearing any sort of uniform or insignia identifying the militia or army he was part of, nor was there any sort of command and control structure in place. That is the requirement under international law to be considered part of an army or militia.DonQuixote said:
There is an exception made for people who band together to defend themselves from a foreign attack (e.g., a classic guerilla insurgency) but since Khadr was a foreigner that does not apply to him.
So he is a common criminal, not a soldier of any sort.
You could make a claim that the Taliban in Afghanistan are a militia, a pretty strong claim I think, especially for those Taliban who are Afghans.
No claim has ever been made that Khadr was part of the Taliban, if anything, he was part of Al Qaeda, and that is even questionable.
Al Qaeda is a criminal organization, not a militia.
No claim has ever been made that Khadr was part of the Taliban, if anything, he was part of Al Qaeda, and that is even questionable.
Al Qaeda is a criminal organization, not a militia.
But what exactly is an illegal combatant? Is it someone who's fighting in an "illegal" war? Relationships between countries are essentially anarchy's; there are no defined rules that state what countries must or must not do. Instead we only have common sense - one country doesn't invade another for no reason would be one example.Aardvark154 said:
The fact remains, when country A sends troops over to country B to engage in offensive actions, country A has in effect declared war on country B. As such, Kahdr is a P.O.W. and not an illegal combatant. Therefore the Geneva Conventions apply and that's something the US has casually disregarded by choice.
Kahdr was caught in a combat zone. I don't think there's any denying that. But it's equally clear that the Bush Administration is morally corrupt and actively supports the very kinds of human rights violations it claims to uphold. How can any governing body that tries to support itself via deceit and outright lies be trusted to ensure fair trial? If a US soldier was going to be tried in say, China, all hell would break loose. So why is Kahdr's situation any different?
Kahdr should be tried for his actions. But he should be tried in a fair and impartial court of law and not by a sham system based on lies. To that end, the Canadian government has abdicated its responsibility to protect the rights of Canadians everywhere.
I'll say this as clearly as I can. If you break the law somewhere, you should be tried and convicted in an impartial manner. If impartiality is not possible, it is the moral responsibility of the government to bring that citizen home to be tried.
Texas today is not much different.danmand said:
Now they chain you to a pickup and drag away!....
1) he was not a member of the military of a state (Afghanistan) 2) he was not wearing a uniform (this doesn't necessarily mean what you or I might traditionally think of as being a uniform but it does have to be distinctive and discernable from a distance - as I've posted before a "Cat in the Hat" hat might possibly suffice, clearly a Maple Leafs Toque would not) 3) he was not a Afghani national engaged in "defending his home."xarir said:
This in large measure amounts to a rewording of Fuji's post No. 175 above.
It's an attempt by the US to give additional rights to insurgents who would otherwise not have any, because the insurgencies do not fit the definitions needed to be proper POW's.xarir said:
Without this designation Khadr would be classed as a common criminal and, potentially, summarily executed in the field. With this designation invented by the US Khadr gains access to a whole host of protocols and processes similar but not identical to what would be afforded to a prisoner of war.
You're confused. The legal status of the war has no bearing whatseover on whether Khadr is a legal or illegal combatant. The problem is that he is not in any way associated with any military or militia.
A lot of people are in combat zones who are not combatants. When those people are caught committing crimes they do not automatically get to claim POW status just because they were in a combat area!!!
It doesn't matter who he was with. What matters is:DonQuixote said:Once again, we don't have any independent verification
of who he was with or what happened that fateful day.
You are too reliant on the explanation given by this
administration. Rely on them at your risk & peril.
1. Was he wearing a uniform?
2. If not, was he wearing a militia insignia?
3. If not, was he a local resident banding together with others to defend his home?
4. In any case, did he have a commander and a rank?
He fails those tests and therefore fails to be a POW.
Finally that determination can legally be made by a "competent tribunal" put together by the United States and no independent verification of any facts is required by international law. A competent tribunal from the GC point of view is any tribunal made up of military officers (as opposed to soldiers in the field). It is the US SC that has an issue with the tribunals that have been set up--it's not a problem of international law.
You may not like the law, you may disagree with it, but that is the law.
The uproar is that Khadr is a Canadian and should be returned to Canada and face a softer justice system here. You say "those Afghanistan fighters were fighting an invading army" which is a fair comment, so then he was fighting for another country, not Canada. In fact he was fighting against NATO of which Canada is a member. He was fighting for Afghanistan, but now wants Canada to help him out. Since he fought for them, why does he not ask them for help?DonQuixote said:
I believe like many others abusing this country, the family only had Canadian passports of convenience. The mother has stated her disdain for the Canadian way of life, but demanded that this country speak up for her son. I believe the other foreign prisoners whose countries repatriated their citizens did not have such serious charges against them.
Some may be interested in this article in today’s Globe on Khadr’s military defence lawyer. Although normally, I don’t like born again Christians, in this case, I think he represents the best in Western (including American) traditions. I think that Americans can be proud of the way he is representing their country. BTW, thanks for responding to my question DQ. I had not thought about the positive effect this might have on a civilian career
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...r19/BNStory/National/home?cid=al_gam_mostview
Before I get some dumb response from some misguided poster. I in no way support what Kandr is accused of doing. Indeed, given that Canada was involved at the time through JTF2, I think that if he did what he was accused of doing, it was effectively treason. However, even if he was not a juvenile, I would still say he is entitled to due process. Given that he was a juvenile, I think that a good case can be made that he was more a victim of child abuse than guilty of a crime.
BTW, some time ago a media outlet aired an item on the Khandr family and a social worker reported them for child abuse. Does anyone know that the outcome of that was?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...r19/BNStory/National/home?cid=al_gam_mostview
My understanding is that he was born in Canada. Thus it is not so much a passport of convenience but his only possible passport.The Fruity Hare said:
Before I get some dumb response from some misguided poster. I in no way support what Kandr is accused of doing. Indeed, given that Canada was involved at the time through JTF2, I think that if he did what he was accused of doing, it was effectively treason. However, even if he was not a juvenile, I would still say he is entitled to due process. Given that he was a juvenile, I think that a good case can be made that he was more a victim of child abuse than guilty of a crime.
BTW, some time ago a media outlet aired an item on the Khandr family and a social worker reported them for child abuse. Does anyone know that the outcome of that was?
You would have scored some reasonable points if you waited until after any of what you said had been proven. None of it has.ManAboutTown said:
In any system that values the rule of law, it's the courts and not just anyone with an opinion—or a prejudice (pre-judge, get it?)—that decides guilt. The prosecution has yet to name anyone who they will bring as a witness to say—which doesn't prove—that "The kid tossed a hand grenade that killed a soldier". They've been forced by the tribunal to admit they know of other American witnesses, whose statements have said Khadr was not the only combatant alive and able to have thrown the grenade. But their entire case was the circumstantial evidence that Khadr was the only one alive to throw anything.
Since they managed to supress those facts long enough for records and transcripts to disappear, they may yet secure a conviction. But the trial hasn't even begun yet—six long years after the fact—so he's guilty of nothing for certain, except being abused by a hypocritical and incompetent Administration whose every attempt to keep him and the other detainees beyond the reach of real American justice has so far failed in real courts. Everyone who believes in the basic goodness of American democracy should be thankful and proud of that at least.
As for his citizenship, whether he and his family 'should have' been here or not is just hot air. They were. He was born a Canadian citizen. If the government or anybody picks and chooses who has what rights of citizenship based on anything but proper law, we don't have democracy, we have arbitrary dictatorship. That's what we're supposedly struggling against. That some of our own people seem to prefer such a system is beyond understanding.
ManAboutTown said:
Heaven only knows why you are continuing your bigoted nonsense afterManAboutTown said:
OldJones politely pointed out your errors.
It has nothing whatsoever - repeat nothiong whatsoever - to do with Khadr's
case that (you think) his family shouldn't have been allowed immigration to
Canada. Khadr is a canadian citizen and deserves the same treatment as you.
Canada's immigration system, which I know first hand, does not let everybody in.
Far from it, the canadian immigration service is racist as it is. And I do not have
any information about when and on which basis Khadr's family was
given landed immigrant status. If you have the information, let us know.
Omar Khadr has not been convicted of any crime. Being found in a location
where US soldiers are shooting hardly seems to qualify as a crime, i.e.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343/
The VC had ranks, commanders, orders to follow, and so on, and on top of that, they were native to the country they were defending. There are at least two different ways for the VC to claim protection under the Geneva Conventions.DonQuixote said:
Khadr has not claimed to be part of any organization, much less one with commanders and ranks, much less one that is native to Afghanistan. Even if he claimed to be part of Al Qaeda it is not organized into a militia the way the VC are.
All of this is a matter of legal fact: The Geneva Conventions are online for all to read, if you feel like you need further clarification on what does or does not entitle someone to protection under the convention, it is well spelled out.
Unbelievable that a canadian can spew such nonsense.ManAboutTown said:
No, I don't care to read about his father or about your father.
The ONLY thing that matters to me is that Omar Khadr is a canadian citizen.
Wheteher you like it or not, he deserves exactly the same treatment from the
government of Canada as you and I.
If you believe in some kind of apartheit system, there are few places left for you.
How did you become so familiar w/ my opinion on immigration? I didn't express any in my post. As to who we should or shouldn't let in, the criteria you cited will do for me too. And it's as good a micro-summary of official policy as a short sentence can be. But don't let that, or my agreement stop you from arguing against your straw men.ManAboutTown said:
I absolutely would like to apply "innocent until proven guilty" to killers of police in Canada, and I am thankful and proud that is not just my opinion, it's the law of the land. It is in the USA too, although GeorgeII and his toadies have wrung their poor legal system through unending hearings contending it isn't—at least when they say it isn't. Fortunately for America he's been judged wrong every time.
You seem to be under the impression that someone's seriously proposing that Khadr be set free summarily. Another straw man. When you find someone making such a proposal maybe you'll also find arguments that carry weight.
We do let people who have not been convicted go free all the time. Read that sentence again: If you haven't been convicted of a crime. you should be free should you not? If the authorities, acting according to law have arrested you on reasonable evidence, then that freedom will only be yours under strict conditions, when upstanding and responsible citizens have bound themselves to ensure you'll appear for trial. Works reasonably well most of the time; we call it bail.
Your right to bail, to be free from any but lawful arrest, and to speedy trial on known charges before a jury of your peers goes back to Magna Carta. It's been part of our legal system and the Americans' for just shy of eight centuries. Are you suggesting we toss that away? Careful, or you too could be jailed with no right to trial, and you'll rot in a cell till you pay in years or dollars. Those traffic courts are such an expense, and they let people off!
Y'know, it happens all the time that governments, like Mr Harper's go to bat for their citizens caught up in other country's legal systems. Like the woman held in Mexico for two years before her trial. Khadr's been held for six. While legal systems differ, it's commonplace to insist that charges be laid promptly, that a trial with opportunity to confront witnesses and present a defence happen speedily. For Canada to patiently and silently wait while GeorgeII tries to invent a whole new system of 'justice' with the same competence that made Katrina a shining moment for the Executive branch does Canada no credit.
In fact, just as you have no arguments, so you have no evidence that "the kid" as you call him decided to do anything, let alone that he actually killed anyone. And don't we usually assume that "kids" aren't competent to make important decisions anyway? If he was fifteen when captured, how old was he when he "…decided to go on a jihad"? Perhaps you could outline how a thirteen year-old would come to say, "Sorry Dad I see through you now, you and your Osama and your beliefs are full of it, I'm going back to Toronto. can I have the money for the ticket". It is to laugh.
Time to started thinking for ourselves and put the embarrassing party-line bullshit of Cheney & Co. away. Can't be too hard, you seem to think Omar coulda done it, in spite of the guns his hardline buddies carried.
