Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

[snip]

Good post. The Geneva Convention attempts to define a combatant, but the trouble is that under its somewhat archaic definition even a suicide bomber can reasonably be considered an enemy combatant.

Article 4 GC: A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(B) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

© That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinf...con/blart-4.htm

http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html

http://www.cfr.org/publication/5842/findings_report.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most medic's are armed, normally with a side arm (pistol) however i've seen them with rifles. this wpns are issued for thier protection and thier patients protection only. And should not be involved in any offensive type tactics ie taking enemy postions etc...but following the battle and giving aid...once they have engaged the enemy with these wpns your right they are no longer afforded protection under the genva convention.

Todays combat medics are very well trained, and are taught how to handle massive amputations, massive body damage, and adminstrate living saving drugs and techniques that used to be reserved for doctors only. the level of training has increased ten fold over what used to be considered standard, on par or greater than a EMS tech we find in our major cities today.

Todays soldiers are recieving TCCC training, very similar to the above and do admin combat first aid when needed or assist the medic, they do not wear the red cross, nor are they protected under it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Todays soldiers are receiving TCCC training, very similar to the above and do admin combat first aid when needed or assist the medic, they do not wear the red cross, nor are they protected under it.

I was being extremely facetious when i said "higher level of St John's"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and who, in particular, is living the life of reily here in Canada and is/has been fighting Canadian troops?

Are you kidding me, i thought we were just over that piont, lets start at the top shall we.

the sister, accused of assisting her brother in running a camp for training terrorist, has openily admitted on TV interview that she supports the taliban and it's way of life. now living in Canada, on our dime.

little brother, crippled in combat operations with Nato and Pakistan forces, now living here in Canada on our dime.

Abdurahman Khadr, living in Canada was on payrole from various intel agencies for info and intel, living in Canada on our dime...

The other 2 brothers are in jails or dentention centers coming out of the US pocket book.

then thier is MOMA , living in here, and yes on our dime.

lets save a few dimes deport them, back to where they are more comfortable, and could freely support the taliban anyway they wish...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lets save a few dimes deport them, back to where they are more comfortable, and could freely support the taliban anyway they wish...

I agree, Canada would be better served with the whole family back in their native Egypt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most medic's are armed, normally with a side arm (pistol) however i've seen them with rifles. this wpns are issued for thier protection and thier patients protection only. And should not be involved in any offensive type tactics ie taking enemy postions etc...but following the battle and giving aid...once they have engaged the enemy with these wpns your right they are no longer afforded protection under the genva convention.

You ought to add the reason medics are armed for self defence is the complete lack of compliance with geneva convention protocols on the part of the people we in the West are usually in conflict with these days.

A medic, like any other western soldier - or foreign aid worker, or journalist - would be tortured and murdered out of hand should he or she be captured by any Muslim "jihadist".

This does not, oddly, cause much indignation on the part of those who are so vociferous in attacking Western deviations from perfect human rights observations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was being extremely facetious when i said "higher level of St John's

Sorry, i got a bad habit of making sure everyone understands, saves time later on, i think you know the few posters i'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Unless you believe that the size of the box matters, for what is the atmosphere but a " box " created by gravity? The size of the U.S. box became dramatically smaller during the 2000 Presidential Election.

Speaking of the bliss of ignorance, that is exactly why the U.S. public is not more incensed by the crimes committed in their name. They are blissfully unaware of the shadowy side of their own history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Unless you believe that the size of the box matters, for what is the atmosphere but a " box " created by gravity? The size of the U.S. box became dramatically smaller during the 2000 Presidential Election.

Speaking of the bliss of ignorance, that is exactly why the U.S. public is not more incensed by the crimes committed in their name. They are blissfully unaware of the shadowy side of their own history.

Y'know, this sophomoric street-corner philosophy isn't even worthy of some acidhead 60s pontificate, and the attempt to make it sound profound by the clever use of "for" just makes it sound even more first year universityish. Boxes are square , not round, they aren't created by gravity, and the atmosphere over the US is exactly the same as that over Luxembourg or North Korea, just for starters, but the fact is that by any definition of anyone anywhere...even the French Enlightenment thinkers who put very stringent definitions on freedom...the US is right up there. I'm quite sure the nationcentric US education system makes every American very aware of their history...it's just that most of them choose, in spite of the dark side, to be proud of their accomplishments too. And frankly, these alleged "crimes" you speak of have nothing to do with the freedom of the denisens anyway, and pale in comparison to the crimes of most other regimes and all other governmental systems. You are incredibly naive if you somehow imagine that the US has a monopoly on, or is even a frontrunner in the game of "crimes."

If I were you, I'd read up a little philosophy before embarking on a teaching tour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and who, in particular, is living the life of reily here in Canada and is/has been fighting Canadian troops?

Are you kidding me, i thought we were just over that piont, lets start at the top shall we.

the sister, accused of assisting her brother in running a camp for training terrorist, has openily admitted on TV interview that she supports the taliban and it's way of life. now living in Canada, on our dime.

Zaynab Khadr accused of helping her brother run a terrorist training camp. Did she serve donuts? What precisely is the charge and who is making the accusiation?

little brother, crippled in combat operations with Nato and Pakistan forces, now living here in Canada on our dime.

that would be the youngest. Abdulkareem, crippled in the shootout in 2003 that killed his father. Born 1989.

Abdurahman Khadr, living in Canada was on payrole from various intel agencies for info and intel, living in Canada on our dime...

Hell, he provided some actual service to various intel agencies.

So whats wrong with this guy?

The other 2 brothers are in jails or dentention centers coming out of the US pocket book.

Yeah. Thats the way it should be is it not?

then thier is MOMA , living in here, and yes on our dime.

lets save a few dimes deport them, back to where they are more comfortable, and could freely support the taliban anyway they wish...

I agree. But first, lets actually gather up some evidence that they are combatting us and/or aiding and abetting others who are fighting us.

Till then, they get to say whatever pleases them. Just like everybody else.

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.

And by your rather strange fable, what countries would you define as free, Saudi Arabia? Link to list of free, partly free, and not free countries (PDF required)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say a similar, more up-to-date table earlier today.

United States had a 1 in Political Rights and 2 in Civil Liberties, instead of 1 in both like that one. When you regularly claim to be the " Leader of the Free World " and the " Freest Nation of Earth " it is rather unsightly when your ratings slip below the top rating. Maybe I was exaggerating a little, maybe a lot, but to some extent I was reading the righting on the wall: The United States is becoming less free.

Also, I looked at the table for Media Freedom as well, and in the last few years that has taken a nosedive in the U.S. Ours has as well, coincidentally since Harper took power in '04, going from 0.75 in 2002 to 4.90 last year, I think, whereas the U.S. went from 6 something to like 13.5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Khadrs should just *** off.

-k

Please. I usually agree with you, but I have an 11 year old and a 9 year old that watch me post from time to time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter:

Zaynab Khadr accused of helping her brother run a terrorist training camp. Did she serve donuts? What precisely is the charge and who is making the accusiation?

Does it matter what role she played, when they bust a grow op, does everyone throw up thier arms and say "hey i'm just the donut guy" and then walk...i actually think they're all lead away in handcuffs, they are all guilty, it is up to the courts to decided to how guilty they are...

The US government and NATO are making the accusations.

little brother, crippled in combat operations with Nato and Pakistan forces, now living here in Canada on our dime.

that would be the youngest. Abdulkareem, crippled in the shootout in 2003 that killed his father. Born 1989.

Again, guilty of combat operations as a taliban /al quada member...his condition was the result of a gun shot wound, recieved in combat, now his medical needs are being meet on our dime....make no mistake this kid picked up a wpn and was involved in combat with coalition troops.

Abdurahman Khadr, living in Canada was on payrole from various intel agencies for info and intel, living in Canada on our dime...

Hell, he provided some actual service to various intel agencies.

So whats wrong with this guy?

Whats wrong with this guy, just because you decide to role over and spew info, does not make you any less guilty, does it.

I agree. But first, lets actually gather up some evidence that they are combatting us and/or aiding and abetting others who are fighting us.

Till then, they get to say whatever pleases them. Just like everybody else.

How much more evidence do we need, and what message are we sending other immigrants and what message are we sending our soldiers and allies....

I think i agree with Kimmy, lets give a trip to the airport, a pat on the ass, a nice "thanks for showing up" but now it's time for you to go home....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say a similar, more up-to-date table earlier today.

United States had a 1 in Political Rights and 2 in Civil Liberties, instead of 1 in both like that one.

Cite?

Also, I looked at the table for Media Freedom as well, and in the last few years that has taken a nosedive in the U.S. Ours has as well, coincidentally since Harper took power in '04, going from 0.75 in 2002 to 4.90 last year, I think, whereas the U.S. went from 6 something to like 13.5.

Cite?

Can you name one any particular incidents which would result in a belief press freedom in Canada has deteriorated? Any government policies or actions which have limited media freedom?

For that matter, can you name any government policy or law in the US which has cut the scale of media freedom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

In Khadr's case, apparently he had ample time to flee the area of combat, along with other civilians.

But instead, he opted to stay and engaged in battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you name one any particular incidents which would result in a belief press freedom in Canada has deteriorated? Any government policies or actions which have limited media freedom?

For that matter, can you name any government policy or law in the US which has cut the scale of media freedom?

For Media:

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

I've tried looking for the other one, but I can't remember exactly how I found it. The one I saw had Venezuela at 5/5, instead of 4/4 like the Freedom House one, but it had been updated in the last week of May, I believe. I do not know when Freedom House released theirs.

As far as policys go, it seems it is the policy of the U.S. to obfuscate anything and everything. Same here, to a lesser degree. Media freedom is a meaningless gesture without transparency and truth. That is tied to political rights, because what good is the right to participate in decision making without the right to know the truth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you name one any particular incidents which would result in a belief press freedom in Canada has deteriorated? Any government policies or actions which have limited media freedom?

For that matter, can you name any government policy or law in the US which has cut the scale of media freedom?

For Media:

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

I've tried looking for the other one, but I can't remember exactly how I found it. The one I saw had Venezuela at 5/5, instead of 4/4 like the Freedom House one, but it had been updated in the last week of May, I believe. I do not know when Freedom House released theirs.

As far as policys go, it seems it is the policy of the U.S. to obfuscate anything and everything. Same here, to a lesser degree. Media freedom is a meaningless gesture without transparency and truth. That is tied to political rights, because what good is the right to participate in decision making without the right to know the truth?

Transparency is all very well and good, and has a lovely ring to it, but transparency also means giving the enemy all our secrets. Whatever curb on civil liberties you imagine there to be today, it pales in comparison to the curbs on civil liberties during total wars like WWs I and II, and we are, like it or not, in a state of war.

On a side note, be careful what you say. Saying things like "it seems it is the policy of the U.S. to obfuscate anything and everything" devalues your argument. It's so broad as to be indefensible, it's demonstrably untrue, and it pleads for a comparison to beacons of sweetness and light like Zimbabwe, Sudan, and North Korea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Transparency is all very well and good, and has a lovely ring to it, but transparency also means giving the enemy all our secrets. Whatever curb on civil liberties you imagine there to be today, it pales in comparison to the curbs on civil liberties during total wars like WWs I and II, and we are, like it or not, in a state of war.

On a side note, be careful what you say. Saying things like "it seems it is the policy of the U.S. to obfuscate anything and everything" devalues your argument. It's so broad as to be indefensible, it's demonstrably untrue, and it pleads for a comparison to beacons of sweetness and light like Zimbabwe, Sudan, and North Korea.

War is such a broadly defined term as to be nearly useless as a measurement of what can and cannot be allowed. The idea that you can declare war on some piddling little country and then limit rights and exert power as if you were fighting the Third Reich is simply ridiculous, yet that is what you imply by saying we are in a " state of war " . Being at war, and being in a state of war, could be defined as two different things. We are not in a state of war. Afghanistan is more like a prolonged skirmish than even being at war.

As for the other thing, the slightly altered " Anything and everything important, " covers the conduct of the U.S. Administration with a minimum of exaggeration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are not in a state of war. Afghanistan is more like a prolonged skirmish than even being at war.

Something like being "all most a virgin" you either are or your not. We are asking our youth to fight and die because our nation has made a commitment. Only it seems now that the only ones living up to that commitment are our soldiers and the minority of Canadians....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are not in a state of war. Afghanistan is more like a prolonged skirmish than even being at war.

Something like being "all most a virgin" you either are or your not. We are asking our youth to fight and die because our nation has made a commitment. Only it seems now that the only ones living up to that commitment are our soldiers and the minority of Canadians....

I was thinking of " state of war " as meaning more when an entire country must mobilize in order to conduct the business of war, as in World Wars I and II. When industry is converted to producing weapons and vehicles, when hobbies and everyday pleasures are abandoned in order to serve the war effort. I make the distinction mostly to illustrate that there must be a certain level of conflict before the leader of a country can presume to rightly take the mantle of " war leader " and all of the tyrannical powers that comes with it.

Like the difference between sex and marriage.

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...