Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian


Recommended Posts

Hell, in Britain there's even a whole new revisionist school of anthropological thought claiming that Britain is in fact a "nation of immigrants," and painting a rosy hue of lipstick on the theoretical pig by trying to argue that what were hitherto known as the saxon invasions was really an orderly immigration. Full, no doubt, of "vibrancy" and and "diversity." Clearly this is a politically inspired bit of nonsense, based entirely upon conjecture and the excavations of one small village (which don't even support the thesis), and ignores the fact that the Saxon invasions happened within recorded history, and that those records don't support this farce in any way.

.

Let it be said that I would never take a thread off topic........

.....but the evidence of a less than bellicose Saxon migration is not just from one village...there is archaeological evidence all over the place.....And the recorded histories are as reliable as Herodotus or any ancient chronicler....but never mind...go on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hell, in Britain there's even a whole new revisionist school of anthropological thought claiming that Britain is in fact a "nation of immigrants," and painting a rosy hue of lipstick on the theoretical pig by trying to argue that what were hitherto known as the saxon invasions was really an orderly immigration. Full, no doubt, of "vibrancy" and and "diversity." Clearly this is a politically inspired bit of nonsense, based entirely upon conjecture and the excavations of one small village (which don't even support the thesis), and ignores the fact that the Saxon invasions happened within recorded history, and that those records don't support this farce in any way.

.

Let it be said that I would never take a thread off topic........

.....but the evidence of a less than bellicose Saxon migration is not just from one village...there is archaeological evidence all over the place.....And the recorded histories are as reliable as Herodotus or any ancient chronicler....but never mind...go on

Wrong. There are friggin' battle digs everywhere along the Saxon shore and across the entire country, not to mention sacked and burned villas everywhere, including coin hordes not likely left because the owners forgot them. Obviously at some point the invasion turned into a migration, as all invasions tend to, but it's sheer nonsense to claim that the Saxons just came over bearing flowers and gifts and prepared to help build a vibrant and diverse multicutural society. As for discarding the ASC and Hengist and Horsa and everything else...everything else...written about the invasions, not to mention hundreds of battle digs, verbal histories and...well, anyway...think what you want, but it's as ahistorical to suggest the Saxons migrated peacefully as it is to claim the Vikings merely showed up to promote diversity and multiculturalism too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell, in Britain there's even a whole new revisionist school of anthropological thought claiming that Britain is in fact a "nation of immigrants," and painting a rosy hue of lipstick on the theoretical pig by trying to argue that what were hitherto known as the saxon invasions was really an orderly immigration. Full, no doubt, of "vibrancy" and and "diversity." Clearly this is a politically inspired bit of nonsense, based entirely upon conjecture and the excavations of one small village (which don't even support the thesis), and ignores the fact that the Saxon invasions happened within recorded history, and that those records don't support this farce in any way.

.

Let it be said that I would never take a thread off topic........

.....but the evidence of a less than bellicose Saxon migration is not just from one village...there is archaeological evidence all over the place.....And the recorded histories are as reliable as Herodotus or any ancient chronicler....but never mind...go on

Wrong. There are friggin' battle digs everywhere along the Saxon shore and across the entire country, not to mention sacked and burned villas everywhere, including coin hordes not likely left because the owners forgot them. Obviously at some point the invasion turned into a migration, as all invasions tend to, but it's sheer nonsense to claim that the Saxons just came over bearing flowers and gifts and prepared to help build a vibrant and diverse multicutural society. As for discarding the ASC and Hengist and Horsa and everything else...everything else...written about the invasions, not to mention hundreds of battle digs, verbal histories and...well, anyway...think what you want, but it's as ahistorical to suggest the Saxons migrated peacefully as it is to claim the Vikings merely showed up to promote diversity and multiculturalism too.

I would hazard an educated guess that over the course of the saxon migration which lasted a couple of hundred years, that sometimes the fought each other, sometimes they fought romano britains and most of the time they did what saxons do....tillled the soil and traded.

The salient point what many forget is that Britain had been depopulated after the roman exodus. The saxons were filling a vacuum and improving the land.

Another important piece of evidence that is sometimes overlooked is the genetic. The British carry in their genetic history ample markers of scandenavian and celtic ancsestors but genetic markers from germanic europe are less prevelant suggesting that a wholesale replacement of the populations did not happen.

What did happen that is not debated is that an Anglo Saxon elite to over the reigns of power from the Romans.

How that happened, whether it is close to the Bede's fanciful and often mythic histories or something more mundane is not 100% clear.

......what are we discussing again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Kadr issue has two components one legal, one political, neither dealing with immigration policy.

In regards to the legal issue, Kadr at the time of his alleged offence was a member of a terrorist cell. He was not engaged in an act against a civilian which is an important legal distinction. During his offence, he threw a grenade that killed a soldier in response to soldiers attacking the hideout where he was at.

If he was a civilian at the time of his offence or was a terrorist in a paramlitary terrorist cell as he was but not engaged in an act against a civilian, the law distinguishes this from his acting as a civilian.

The law basically says what he did was an act of war. As such he belongs in a military prison, as a prisoner of war. Under the current Geneva convention, after you capure a prison you do not kill enemy soldiers if during the their acts, the acts were not directed at civilians but at soldiers in what can be considered an act of war.

All the courts have said is at the time of his throwingt he grenade, Kadr can not be classified as a civilian and therefore be tried in a civilian court.

The US Judge Advocate General's office warned Bush of this and were ignored. Placing Kadr in Guantanamo Bay is as a result of a confused US administration wanting to try terrorists as civilians and not consider them prisoners of war, no more no less.

Here is the point. In today's word the Geneva convention has become outmoded because terrorists in fact can act at times as civilians and at times as soldiers of war and the line is often blurred by them.

A new convention has to be drafted as to the treatment of terrorists who are apprehended but not necessarily engaging in an act of terror against civilians at the time of their arrests or confrontations.

That said, no Kadr does NOT because he is a Canadian citizen get to come back to Canada and enjoy the rights of a Canadian citizen. The Supreme Court of Canada just yesterday passed a decision that said the Charter of Rights does not apply outside Canada (in that case it was for money laundering).

It is the height of naivity to think someone who joins a terrorist organization in another country and/or engages in war, should be protected and sent back to Canada.

What shpould have happened is he should have been detained as a prisoner of war ad not classified as a civilian.

This legal issue has become so absurd there are Canadians arguing since he is a youth, Kadr should be treated under the Youth Justice Act and so be released as he has already served his time.

No. Whether he was a boy, a half-man or a man, at the time of his offence he chose to engage in war and as such he is not entitled to protection under Canadian law. No you can't enjoy the benefits of Canadian citizenship once you go to another country, break its laws, and engage in war.

Anyone who argues from a legal perspective that Kadr is entitled to protection is wrong.He is entitled to a military court tribunal hearing and imprisonment as a war criminal.

In regards to the political issue, anyone who is born Canadian and then goes overseas or choses to engage in terrorism or war in other countries is NOT an immigrant, they are a Canadian and suggesting they are immigrants is bull. It has nothing to do with immigration.

Now in regards to those persons born outside Canada who come to Canada as a convenience and a cover as did the Kadr family then we have the right to be angry. No they should not be able to obtain citizenship if it is to serve as a convenience and cover for their hatred.

The point is the vast vast majority of immigrants feel the same way. They do not come to this country as a cover to be terrorists or to be disloyal and to lump them in with a minority of immigrants who try exploit our citizenship for terrorist purposes is unfair.

That said, whether we are new or old Canadians I am sure we all must agree someone engaging in terror or war has consequences to face and no they can't come running back to Canada and get off scott free.

How many times do you see a Canadian arrested overseas for selling or possessing drugs and then crying to be sent back to Canada. No its time people wake up. The Kadr family are not entitled to any protection from anyone but they are entitled to due process.

What is wrongw ith Guantanamo Bay is not that it exists but that it has failed to provide speedy trials. In that sense it violates everything the US constitution stands for. The US constitution never envisioned people being arrested for years without trial. That is a legal failure not a political one, but the legal failure is as a result of Bush political policies.

WE all have to seriously redefine the definition of terrorism and acts of war and decide where they should be tried, by who, and based on what standard of evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The salient point what many forget is that Britain had been depopulated after the roman exodus. The saxons were filling a vacuum and improving the land.

They forget because it's not true. The legions left, but the Romano-Brits didn't. That's what the problem was. Britain had been colonized for 300 years...it was a Roman province, with villas all across the south and southeast, retired legionaires and their descendants, ex-officials, Roman businesses...everything. And all of it was left in place to fend for itself when the legions left. The only vacuum left was a power vacuum, not a population vacuum. The only depopulation took place by the Picts and Scots, and then by the Saxons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...We most certainily do arrest terrorist, and we do have laws that do allow for thier arrests...

justice

Who is it you see harbouring and supporting the same people you were fighting? Khadrs Mom?

That is a good question, but my guess is i don't know why they have not been arrested or deported. read the article below from an interview from one of the Khadr sons, then read the entire family bio you be the judge, would you want them living next to you...and can you honestly tell me they were not part of the same organizations we are currently at war with...

kdhar link

Khadr background.

Lets see...Omar was picked up in Afghanistan and dropped into Guatanamo. He co-operated with the Americans and was released. What was his crime? I mean real crime...not just unpleasant behaviour. His brother (allegedly) committed the crime of killing an american soldier with a hand grenade amongs other less violent things. So aside from the lad in guatanamo, what are the Khadr's crimes? Talking big. So far thats it. Bravado and bullshit are not crimes. Actions count...and so far Momma Khadr has taken none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Lets see...Omar was picked up in Afghanistan and dropped into Guatanamo. He co-operated with the Americans and was released. What was his crime? I mean real crime...not just unpleasant behaviour. His brother (allegedly) committed the crime of killing an american soldier with a hand grenade amongs other less violent things. So aside from the lad in guatanamo, what are the Khadr's crimes? Talking big. So far thats it. Bravado and bullshit are not crimes. Actions count...and so far Momma Khadr has taken none.

"

No it was not his brother it was him. You are mixing him up with another brother, There were six of them. Omar the one being held was charged with murder for throwing the grenade.

The dismissal of his charges is a technical one saying he is not a civilian and must be tried in a military court if any court. If he is tried in a military court then unless he acted outside the scope of combat which it does not appear he did, his actions would be considered in law an act of war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Lets see...Omar was picked up in Afghanistan and dropped into Guatanamo. He co-operated with the Americans and was released. What was his crime? I mean real crime...not just unpleasant behaviour.

Everthing is pretty well outlined here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr#Ac...s_against_Khadr

Accusations are: "The Americans claim to have found a video-tape in the ruins that shows Khadr planting mines. They say that while being interrogated at Bagram Air Base, Khadr confessed to entering a US occupied section of Afghanistan, to gather surveillance intelligence on the local airport."

Charges:

"[edit] First round of charges on November 7, 2005

Khadr was charged with murder for his actions against the squad inside the compound near Khost, Afghanistan. The charges against Mr. Khadr allege that his father, the late Ahmed Said Khadr, a Canadian Islamic extremist, was a close friend of Osama bin Laden and his Egyptian deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri, and that Omar Khadr also was acquainted with Mr. bin Laden, the Al Qaeda leader.[10]

On November 9, 2005, the Globe and Mail reported that the United States had informally indicated they would not seek the death penalty in Omar's trial. [11] On December 1, 2005 the officers were appointed to the Guantanamo military commission that would judge Khadr.[12]

The charges Khadr faced in 2005 were:[13]

[edit] Charge 1:Conspiracy

Omar Ahmed Khadr did, in and around Afghanistan, from on or about June 2002 to on or about 27 July 2002, willfully and knowingly join an enterprise of persons who shared a common criminal purpose and conspired and agreed with Usama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, Sheikh Sayeed al Masri, Muhammad Atef (a/k/a Abu Hafs al Masri), Saif al adel, Ahmad Sa'id Khadr (a/k/a Abu Al-Rahman Al-Kanadi), and various other members of the al Qaida organization, known and unknown, to commit the following offenses triable by military commission: attacking civilians; attacking civilian objects; murder by an unprivileged belligerent; destruction of property by an unprivileged belligerent; destruction of property by an unprivileged belligerent; and terrorism.

In furtherance of this enterprise and conspiracy, Khadr and other members of al Qaida committed the following overt acts:

On or about June 2002, Khadr received approximately one month of one-on-one, private al Qaida basic training from an al Qaida member named "Abu Haddi." This training was arranged by Omar Khadr's father, Ahmad Sa'id Khadr, and consisted of training in the use of rocket propelled grenades, rifles, pistols, hand grenades and explosives.

On or about June 2002, Khadr conducted surveillance and reconnaissance against the U.S. military. Khadr went to an airport near Khost, Afghanistan, and watched U.S. convoys in support of future attacks against the U.S. military.

On or about July 2002, Khadr received one month of land mine training.

On or about July 2002, Khadr joined a group of Al Qaida operatives and converted land mines to improvised explosive devices in the ground [sic] where, based on previous surveillance, U.S. troops were expected to be traveling.

On or about July 27, 2002, Khadr and other Al Qaida members engaged U.S military personnel when military members surrounded their compound. During the firefight, Khadr threw a grenade, killing Sergeant First Class Christopher Speer. In addition to the death of SFC Speer, two Afghan Militia Force members who were accompanying U.S. Forces were shot and killed and several U.S. service members were wounded.

[edit] Charge 2: Murder by an unprivileged belligerent

Omar Ahmed Khadr did, in Afghanistan, on or about July 27, 2002, murder Sergeant First Class Christopher Speer, U.S. Army, while in the context of and associated with armed conflict and without enjoying combatant immunity, by throwing a hand grenade that caused Sergeant First Class Speer's death.

[edit] Charge 3: Attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent

Omar Ahmed Khadr did, in Afghanistan, between, on, or about June 1, 2002 and July 27, 2002, attempt to murder divers persons, while in the context of and associated with armed conflict and without enjoying combatant immunity, by converting land mines to improvised explosive devices and planting said improvised explosive devices in the ground where, based on previous surveillance, U.S. troops were expected to be traveling.

[edit] Charge 4: Aiding the enemy

Omar Ahmed Khadr did, in Afghanistan, on divers occasions between on or about June 1, 2002 and July 27, 2002, while in the context of associated with armed conflict, intentionally aid the enemy, to wit: al Qaida.

[edit] Second round of charges on February 2, 2007[14]

[edit] Charge 1: Violation of Part IV, M.M.C., Section 950v(I5), Murder in Violation of the Law of War

Paragraph 25: In that Omar Ahmed Khadr, a person subject to trial by military commission as an alien unlawful combatant, did, in Afghanistan, on or about July 27, 2002, while in the context of and associated with armed conflict and without enjoying combatant immunity, unlawfully and intentionally murder U.S. Army Sergeant First Class Christopher Speer, in violation of the law of war, by throwing a hand grenade at U.S. forces resulting in the death of Sergeant First Class Speer.

[edit] Charge II: Violation of Part IV, M.M.C., Section 950t, Attempted Murder in Violation of the Law of War

Paragraph 26: In that Omar Ahmed Khadr, a person subject to trial by military commission as an alien unlawful enemy combatant, did, in and around Afghanistan, between, on, or about June 1, 2002, and July 27, 2002, while in the context of and associated with armed conflict and without enjoying combatant immunity, attempt to commit murder in violation of the law of war, by converting land mines into improvised explosive devices and planting said improvised explosive devices in the ground with the intent to kill U.S. or coalition forces.

[edit] Charge III: Violation of Part IV, M.M.C., Section 950v(28), Conspiracy

Paragraph 27: In that Omar Ahmed Khadr, a person subject to trial by military commission as an alien unlawful enemy combatant, did, in and around Afghanistan, from on or about June 1, 2002 to on or about July 27, 2002, willfully join an enterprise of persons who shared a common criminal purpose, said purpose known to the acused, and conspired and agreed with Usama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, Sheikh Sayeed al Masri, Muhammad Atef (a/k/ Abu Hafs al Masri), Saif al adel, Ahmed Sa’id Khadr (a/k/a/ Abu Al-Rahman Al-Kanadi), and various other members and associates of the al Qaeda organization, known and unknown, to commit the following offenses triable by military commission to include: attacking protected property; attacking civilians; attacking civilian objects; murder in violation of the law of war; destruction of property in violation of the law of war; hijacking or hazarding a vessel or aircraft; and terrorism.

Paragraph 28: In addition to paragraph 27, this specification realleges and incorporates by reference the general allegations contained in paragraphs 13 through 24 of this charge sheet.

Paragraph 29: Additionally, in furtherance of this enterprise and conspiracy, Khadr and other members of al Qaeda performed overt acts, including, but not limited to the following: a. In or about June 2002, Khadr received approximately one month of one-on-one, private al Qaeda basic training from an al Qaeda member named “Abu Haddi.” This training was arranged by Omar Khadr’s father, Ahmad Sa’id Khadr, and consisted of training in the use of rocket propelled grenades, rifles, pistols, hand grenades, and explosives. b. In or about June 2002, Khadr conducted surveillance and reconnaisance against the U.S. military in support of efforts to target U.S. forces in Afghanistan. c. In or about July 2002, Khadr attended one month of land mine training. d. In or about July 2002, Khadr joined a group of Al Qaeda operatives and converted land mines to improvised explosive devices and planted said improvised explosive devices in the ground where, based on previous surveillance, U.S. troops were expected to be traveling. e. On or about July 27, 2002, near the village of Ayub Kheil, Afghanistan, U.S. forces surrounded a compound housing suspected al Qaeda members. Khadr and/or other suspected al Qaeda members engaged U.S. military and coalition personnel with small arms fire, killing two Afghan Militia Force members. Khadr and/or the ther suspected al Qaeda members also threw and/or fired grenades at nearby coalition forces resulting in numerous injuries. f. When U.S. forces entered the compound upon completion of the firefight, Khadr threw a grenade, killing Sergeant First Class Christopher Speer.

[edit] Charge IV: Violation of Part IV, M.M.C., Section 950v(25), Providing Material Support for Terrorism

Paragraph 30: In that Omar Ahmed Khadr, a person subject to trial by military commission as an alien unlawful enemy combatant, did, in or around Afghanistan, from about June 2002 through on or about July 27, 2002, provide material support or resources to an international terrorist organization engaged in hostilities against the United States, namely al Qaeda, which the accused knew to be such organization that engaged, or engages, in terrorism, that the conduct of the accused took place in the context of and was associated with an armed conflict, namely al Qaeda or its associated forces against the United States or its Coalition partners.

Paragraph 31: In addition to paragraph 30, this specification realleges and incorporates by reference the general allegations contained in paragraphs 13 through 24 of this charge sheet. This specification also realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 29(a) through 2(f) above.

Paragraph 32: In that Omar Ahmed Khadr, a person subject to trial by military commission as an alien unlawful enemy combatant, did, in Afghanistan, from about June 2002 through on or about July 27, 2002, provide material support or resources to be used in preparation for, or carrying out an act of terrorism, that the accused knew or intended that the material support or resources were to be used for those purposes, and that the conduct of the accused took place in the context of and was associated with an armed conflict, namely al Qaeda or its associated forces against the United States or its Coalition partners.

Paragraph 33: In addition to paragraph 32, this specification realleges and incorporates by reference the general allegations contained in paragraphs 13 through 24 of this charge sheet. This specification also realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 29(a) through 29(f) above.

[edit] Charge V: Violation of Part IV, M.M.C., Section 950v(27), Spying

Paragraph 34: In that Omar Ahmed Khadr, a person subject to military commission as an alien unlawful enemy combatant, did in Afghanistan, in or about June 2002, collect certain information by clandestine means or while acting under false pretenses, information that he intended or had reason to believe would be used to injure the United States or provide an advantage ot a foreign power; that the accused intended to convey such information to an enemy of the United States, namely al Qaeda or its associated forces; that the conduct of the accused took place in the context of and was associated with an armed conflict; and that the accused committed any or all of the following acts: on at least one occasion, at the direction of a known al Qaeda member or associate, and in preparation for operations targeting U.S. forces, the accused conducted surveillance of U.S. forces and made notations as to the number and types of vehicles, distances between the vehicles, approximate speed of the convoy, time, and direction of the convoys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dismissal of his charges is a technical one saying he is not a civilian and must be tried in a military court if any court. If he is tried in a military court then unless he acted outside the scope of combat which it does not appear he did, his actions would be considered in law an act of war.

Yes. And apparently he can be held in Guantanamo for life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to a different Wikipedia article, the U.S. Department of Defense considers any combatants captured who are under the age of sixteen to be minors.

The point that I wonder about in the legal proceedings, how do you establish a minor has willfully of his own volition volunteered to join an organization in which a parent and siblings are a part of? While I certainly think that the murder charges should be applied as an adult, and that he should stay in prison for a long, long time, I have doubts about how you can determine a minors culpability for joining an organization while being under a form of family initiated duress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus the fact that if the country in which you are part of is invaded do you not fight for that country and try to repel the invaders. I know if some other country invaded Canada I would find a gun or do whatever I had to do. That's really what I don't get about this whole thing, the USA fought for their country but don't expect anyone else to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/aldridge060507.htm

Decent Canadians don't do this - Decent Canadians don't do that -

I'm sick to death of conforming to some boneheads idea of a 'Decent Canadian'.

Ditto for "decent Americans". We as free nations are not party to a suicide pact with barbarians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, it is the logical extension of only a few basic facts...

- U.S. elections are unreliable.

- U.S. administration has no interest in the will of the people.

- U.S. administration believes that all of the rules designed to keep authoritarians in check don't apply to them.

Think of this analogy:

Say you are an oxygen molecule, and the whole of atmosphere is your rightful domain. Then, someone decides that to enclose you in a huge glass box. You continue along, smashing into other particles merrily, completely unaware of your imprisonment, and conclude that because you can still smash into other particles and diffuse that you are still free. However, even though you never see the sides of the box, other particles have, and many of the particles you smash into are only there because when they met the side of the box, they bounced back. So, to you it seems that you are free, but your moment to moment existence has already been altered by the fact that you are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dismissal of his charges is a technical one saying he is not a civilian and must be tried in a military court if any court. If he is tried in a military court then unless he acted outside the scope of combat which it does not appear he did, his actions would be considered in law an act of war.

Yes. And apparently he can be held in Guantanamo for life.

At leat he has one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus the fact that if the country in which you are part of is invaded do you not fight for that country and try to repel the invaders. I know if some other country invaded Canada I would find a gun or do whatever I had to do. That's really what I don't get about this whole thing, the USA fought for their country but don't expect anyone else to?

Well you actually are stating what conventional international law tries to and that is if someone at the tim

they engage in an act are fighting invading soldiers to defend their nation, then it would be considered a legitimate act of war and the person when captured is a pow and is supposed to be released at the end of the hostilities when a peace treaty is signed or there is a cessation of hostilities.

The problem is in these cases, the combatants are not part of soevrign nation armed forces. They are in fact people who are not even citizens of a country who enter that country and join terrorist cells which by their nature are vigilante groups operating outside the law. Sometimes these combatants or terrorists enagge in legitimate acts of war, i.e., fighting soldiers of other armies wearing uniforms, other times they engage in illegal acts by not wearing uniforms and attacking civilians.

International conventions as to warfare did not contemplate the blurring of roles and terrorists who can switch back and forth from legitimate to illegitimate acts of war.

Now before you say the US like terrorists are foreigners, unfortunately whether people agree or not, under international law, the US and other armed forces are legally in Afghanistan. Taliban native to Afghanistan would be one thing. Taliban or terrorists who come from other nations would be another. Non Afghani natives engaged in terror or even war with the US legitimately are not in the country legally and so from that perspective have no legal right to engage in war which again was not contemplated by international law which assumed only natives of countries at war would be fighting each other and these wars would not be engaged by people outside armies of the countries at war and say by illegals who sneak into countries and then joing terror cells.

It is not easy. Your point though goes to show we must redefine under international law how to define illegal from legal combatants and that is not going to be easy and is precisely why you have people like Colin Powell and most lawyers in the US Jag unit saying Kadr is a military prisoner, but civilians such as Dick Chaney saying he should be treated as a civilian. Technically he was a civilian terrorist illegally in the country but at the time he engaged in his action, it would be considered a legitimate act of war in the sense that Kadr had not initiated the precise attack on where he was and responded to an armed attack.

International law would say the US attack initiating the incident was legal but that Kadr would have the right to defend his life. Its a mucky confusing legal definition that makes little sense.

The bottom line is he was a child exploited for political purposes. He was a child of a terrorist family brought up to believe terror was legitimate.

Do we treat a boy brought up with such hatred and presumably under the control of his terrorist father say the same way we treat an adult terrorist?

It is admirable to think we should show compassion and sympathy for children exploited to engage in war but froma purely practical point of view it may not be possible to think we can apply the Youth Justice Act to such incidents. First of all they are happening overseas. Secondly the degree of violence is so severe it

goes past say simple non violent crimes of a misguided youth.

Child terrorist issues are not going to be easy to define legally because of their very nature.

One thing is for sure, you would not want sucha "boy" living next to you if you heard him saying his aim was to destroy you and your family and anyone of the same religion as you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, it is the logical extension of only a few basic facts...

- U.S. elections are unreliable.

- U.S. administration has no interest in the will of the people.

- U.S. administration believes that all of the rules designed to keep authoritarians in check don't apply to them.

Think of this analogy:

Say you are an oxygen molecule, and the whole of atmosphere is your rightful domain. Then, someone decides that to enclose you in a huge glass box. You continue along, smashing into other particles merrily, completely unaware of your imprisonment, and conclude that because you can still smash into other particles and diffuse that you are still free. However, even though you never see the sides of the box, other particles have, and many of the particles you smash into are only there because when they met the side of the box, they bounced back. So, to you it seems that you are free, but your moment to moment existence has already been altered by the fact that you are not.

Cute analogy, and if radical libertarianism were the ideal state of being, and if human disorganization were the prototype of freedom, and if we didn't actually have to eat or sleep or live in a state of at least minimal temporal order, and if metaphysical theory were actually praxis, you'd be right. As it is, however, you have just defined every form of government everywhere and always into slavery.

That's why I say you are naive. In order for someone to define the US as an unfree nation, one has to be blissfully unaware of history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

peter F:

Lets see...Omar was picked up in Afghanistan and dropped into Guatanamo. He co-operated with the Americans and was released. What was his crime? I mean real crime...not just unpleasant behaviour. His brother (allegedly) committed the crime of killing an american soldier with a hand grenade amongs other less violent things. So aside from the lad in guatanamo, what are the Khadr's crimes? Talking big. So far thats it. Bravado and bullshit are not crimes. Actions count...and so far Momma Khadr has taken none.

I take it your talking about Abdurahman Khadr He was the one that was offered the deal with the americans in exchange for info and intel, what was his crime no one is saying, he was picked up in Afgan by US troops. But then again what is it that you consider a real crime, spying on NATO soldiers, reporting thier movements, for the taliban use..training taliban combatants, all have the same consquences they lead to the deaths of NATO soldiers, including our own.

As for the rest of the Khadr family did you even read they're bio's, currently there are 2 in US jails. the sister has been accussed of assisting her oldest brother in running a training camp for terrorists.

the youngest has been crippled from injuries recieved in combat again'st NATO troops. that leaves Moma who's only crime is allowing her children to be involved in a terrorist organization, even allowing the taliban to convince her son to becoming a suicide bomber....unpleasent behavior as you claim could be contributing to NATO soldiers deaths...

That american soldier that was killed by the grenade was a medic, whom at the time was giving aid to other wounded slodiers, and just minutes before a wounded taliban insurgent...Medics are protected under the genva convention...

my point being: The ones that acted are either dead or in jail. Those that talk and do nothing else are bitchin and moaning and chest thumping harmlessly next door.

all is as it should be.

And my piont is they should not be living the life of reily here in Canada when they have been on the other team, fighting our own troops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That american soldier that was killed by the grenade was a medic, whom at the time was giving aid to other wounded slodiers, and just minutes before a wounded taliban insurgent...Medics are protected under the genva convention...

Ummmm...no I don't think that's the case.....

The Red Cross is protected, medics are simply soldiers with a much higher level of St John's......as I understand the story and the protocols, he was armed and therefore not protected.

Link to comment
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.




  • Tell a friend

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