Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Khadr - Court rules he must be Repatriated


Recommended Posts

"

Khadr was only 15 years old in July 2002, when U.S. authorities allege he threw the grenade that fatally wounded a U.S. medic in eastern Afghanistan." His brainwash has begun earlier. A child is not responsible for having been the instrument of his father.

So when does he magically get this responsiability, when he is 16....

It's all about child welfare protection. Omar was destined by his father to become a sociopath. The Canadian society has a responsibility toward children growing up in hateful (new) Canadian families.

What a load of shit....What has Canadian society done in regards the Khadr family, other than ensure they are well looked after, welfare checks are paid, and thier medical status looked after etc etc etc ....what action have they taken to ensure this does not happen again, that these children are not subjected to any more brainwashing, radical religious teachings....we can't have it both ways...you either help these kids and make the tough chioces to ensure thier safety or you give them back to thier parents control after you deport them....

An adult soldier who killed, in combat, another adult is no big deal unless there was, among them, a soldier recruited while still minor. The whole idea of differentiating adult and infant soldiers is to prevent/break the formation of a vicious cycle of violence.

And just how are you going to do that ? and i don't mean to sound to cold hearted but once they are armed and show any hostile intentions they are targets, which are dealt with by any of the thousands of wpns man has devised to kill each other with....there is no ID check prior to getting on the battle field....you stay alive by killing as many of them as you can, as quickly as you can....those that survive and are taken prisoner thats when the ID check is done....thats when they are separated from the herd....thats when they get thier special treatment....but that does not happen to often ....

Modern Combat is very quick and very deadly, and not many survive....you want to stop the use of child soldiers you'll have to do it before they get to the battle field, by punshing all those that use them.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 753
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So when does he magically get this responsiability, when he is 16....

A lot of people make the argument that we are in Afghanistan because of our NATO obligation.

We have signed a lot of agreements and protocols that we take seriously. One of those agreements is on child soldiers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of people make the argument that we are in Afghanistan because of our NATO obligation.

We have signed a lot of agreements and protocols that we take seriously. One of those agreements is on child soldiers.

Do you think we signed onto that agreement with child terrorist in mind....or does everyone under the age of 18 get a blank check....thats the problem with your agreement it does not mean squat on the battle field....it does nothing to protect these children in a threater of war....and it does nothing to prevent some group, or nation from taking advantage of it....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think we signed onto that agreement with child terrorist in mind....or does everyone under the age of 18 get a blank check....thats the problem with your agreement it does not mean squat on the battle field....it does nothing to protect these children in a threater of war....and it does nothing to prevent some group, or nation from taking advantage of it....

There is nothing that says you should not protect yourself in the battlefield.

Khadr is no longer on the battlefield. He is a prisoner. And it is a prison that the courts in both the U.S. and Canada violates large sections of the Constitution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think we signed onto that agreement with child terrorist in mind....or does everyone under the age of 18 get a blank check....thats the problem with your agreement it does not mean squat on the battle field....it does nothing to protect these children in a threater of war....and it does nothing to prevent some group, or nation from taking advantage of it....

I personally have to agree with you that today's treaties were not written at a time when we contemplated a blurring of the line between conventional soldiers of adult age, and civilians engaged in a combination of terrorist (attacks on civilians) and conventional war attacks against soldiers, let alone child terrorists or soldiers.

It is the exact same problem we have with no international treaties that contemplete today's piracy situation.

I would argue Army, until we change the international laws and sign new treaties changing the status quo, we are stuck with the laws we have if he is repatriated as much as I do not think they would be appropriate in this case.

I personally thought he should have been detained as a military prisoner of war from the get go and then we would not have had this legal problem but the U.S. created a huge legal one creating this idiotic law where they tried to mix military and domestic law into a new hybrid system which was clearly unconstitutional and violated the constitutions of the U.S., Canada, and the constitutional laws of Britain, Germany, France, Australia, Holland and Poland and Romania all coalition members in Afghanistan.

He should have gone into a U.S. war stockade until the end of armed hostilities and then released, or left in an Afghani prison to face Afghani domestic laws.

The Bush regime wanted to make a political court to engage in a political message and mucked this up and this is why the British and Australians pulled their prisoners out and the Dutch did too. Canada was the only coalition member that remained silent.

Your point Army is precisely why we need to re-write both domestic and international laws. Until then what can we do? We can't ignore the existing laws. So I say we have to hold our nose with Kadr.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of people make the argument that we are in Afghanistan because of our NATO obligation.

We have signed a lot of agreements and protocols that we take seriously. One of those agreements is on child soldiers.

Canada will not act unilaterally and ignore any existing international laws or its existing criminal laws.

Stephen Harper has conceded that. The current delay in repatriating Kadr is a political sound bite for political partisan purposes for the upcoming election and we all know it. It makes Harper look tough on terrorism and anyone who argues Kadr should be repatriated as soft on terror. Its crass partisan politics using Kadr as the pawn.

Excuse the next cynical comment but I personally believe it is only a matter of time until Kadr comes back to Canada, is treated as a social victim of child abuse, given a free university education, housing and therapy and then is elected leader of the Islamic Bloc in federal parliament.

Its what we do in Canada.

So all I can do is prepare the Lox Bloc, a coalition of cynical Canadians who will push for smoked salmon becoming the national dish and the outlawing of beards as well as a law forcing everyone to dress like Lindsay Lohan as well as the arrest of anyone playing Celine Dion or Anne Murray music as well as the appointment of Shania Twain as Governor General and the arrest of Gary Bettman and his being imprisoned in Guantanomo Bay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again people make the false assumption, that since we ourselves are naive, that our leaders or military are also naive. They should already know better.

"today's treaties were not written at a time when we contemplated a blurring of the line between conventional soldiers of adult age, and civilians engaged in a combination of terrorist (attacks on civilians) and conventional war attacks against soldiers, let alone child terrorists or soldiers."

Ever heard of Guerrilla Warfare? Probably... it's been around for a long time.

"Guerrilla means small war, the diminutive of the Spanish word Guerra (war). The Spanish word derives from the Old High German word Werra and from the middle Dutch word warre; adopted by the Visigoths in A.D. 5th century Hispania. The use of the diminutive evokes the differences in number, scale, and scope between the guerrilla army and the formal, professional army of the state."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geurilla_warfare

"Strategy and tactics of guerrilla warfare tend to focus around the use of a small, mobile force competing against a large, unweildy one. The guerrilla focuses on organising in small units, dependent on the support of the local population. Tactically, the guerrilla army attacks its enemy in small, repetitive attacks from the opponents center of gravity with a view to reducing casualties and becoming an intensive, repetitive strain on the enemies resources, forcing an over-eager response which will both anger their own supporters and increase support for the guerrilla, thus forcing the enemy to withdraw."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_and_...errilla_warfare

Now, I aint no self-proclaimed "military expert" but its the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of the tactics used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Edited by Sir Bandelot
Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, I aint no self-proclaimed "military expert" but its the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of the tactics used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well if that's the first thing that comes to your mind then I agree you are mo military expert.

Tactically, the guerrilla army attacks its enemy in small, repetitive attacks from the opponents center of gravity with a view to reducing casualties and becoming an intensive, repetitive strain on the enemies resources, forcing an over-eager response which will both anger their own supporters and increase support for the guerrilla, thus forcing the enemy to withdraw."

This is not something that was seen either in Iraq or Afghanistan. In Iraq the overwhelming number of attacks were not against "the enemy" but against civilians and in contrast to the definition, the "guerillas" sis not reduce their casualties but suffered a hugely disproportinate amount compared to the "enemy"

Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, you try to obfuscate the meaning of a discussion with your pointless posts. Children have been used in warfare for centuries too. More commonly it is done by Guerilla warfare, less common by formal armies of a nation.

"Throughout history and in many cultures, children have been extensively involved in military campaigns even when such practices were supposedly against cultural morals..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_soldiering

Link to post
Share on other sites
As usual, you try to obfuscate the meaning of a discussion with your pointless posts. Children have been used in warfare for centuries too.

Only centuries? You're sure?

More commonly it is done by Guerilla warfare, less common by formal armies of a nation.

Nonsense

"Throughout history and in many cultures, children have been extensively involved in military campaigns even when such practices were supposedly against cultural morals..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_soldiering

Well posting a link confirming child soldiers exist certainly adds to tthe discussion....and isn't likely to be rebutted either so let me just add...

So?

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is nothing that says you should not protect yourself in the battlefield.

Khadr is no longer on the battlefield. He is a prisoner. And it is a prison that the courts in both the U.S. and Canada violates large sections of the Constitution.

The key word here is prisoner....not child soldier....And i will agree with you on serveral pionts our nation should have done something well before the piont we did act, but it needed to set an example for all that set down the same path as the Khadrs.....

We should have determined if he was a Combatant, or a terrorist....i think that has been done...and since terroist activites are criminal in nature he should be called upon to answer for those charges....just like any other minor...not given a pass because WE think he is a child soldier....because he's not, he's a terrorist, a criminal no more no less....

Link to post
Share on other sites
The key word here is prisoner....not child soldier....And i will agree with you on serveral pionts our nation should have done something well before the piont we did act, but it needed to set an example for all that set down the same path as the Khadrs.....

The problem is that if the government believed he was a terrorist and a criminal, they should have arrested him, charged him and taken him to trial. Instead, they interrogated him without access to representation or scrutiny from civilian courts.

It the government that decided to have the military take charge of his custody.

You have stated the military should not be involved in non-military stuff. Well, if he is not a soldier, then he is a civilians and as such should have been treated as such and taken into custody in a civilian court system.

You can't have it both ways

We should have determined if he was a Combatant, or a terrorist....i think that has been done...and since terroist activites are criminal in nature he should be called upon to answer for those charges....just like any other minor...not given a pass because WE think he is a child soldier....because he's not, he's a terrorist, a criminal no more no less....

The he should be released to the civilian court. What business does a military court have in trying a terrorist?

Edited by jdobbin
Link to post
Share on other sites
The key word here is prisoner....not child soldier....And i will agree with you on serveral pionts our nation should have done something well before the piont we did act, but it needed to set an example for all that set down the same path as the Khadrs.....

We should have determined if he was a Combatant, or a terrorist....i think that has been done...and since terroist activites are criminal in nature he should be called upon to answer for those charges....just like any other minor...not given a pass because WE think he is a child soldier....because he's not, he's a terrorist, a criminal no more no less....

To you, Khadr has merely the function of a scapegoat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Benny, I now keep expecting your posts to morph into haiku.

Khadr in prison

an Afghan Canadian

functional goat want out

When hate speech becomes overly cathartic, it is good to remember the symbolic nature of speech.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...and can snatch the pebble from my hand, Grasshopper...
Benny, I now keep expecting your posts to morph into haiku.

Khadr in prison

an Afghan Canadian

functional goat want out

It's funny that M.Dancer and G_Bambino have taken the same, insulting, nonsense-insinuating approach to your intelligent posts, Benny. Seems they have a comprehension problem with many people.

Edited by Radsickle
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's funny that M.Dancer and G_Bambino have taken the same, insulting, nonsense-insinuating approach to your intelligent posts, Benny. Seems they have a comprehension problem with many people.

M.Dancer and G_Bambino share something with terrorists: trying to destroy by worming their way in others' mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
M.Dancer and G_Bambino share something with terrorists: trying to destroy by worming their way in others' mind.

Rotten minds alone

in darkness and mushroom like

making food for worms

It was tonge in cheek, Radsicle. Hold a grudge much? :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...