Army Guy

This is a news article form July 2014, That suggest he was charged with war crimes. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/omar-khadr-s-war-crimes-convictions-stand-despite-legal-questions-1.2706741

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime Here is another one http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/overview/crimes

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime Here is another one

For some reason they refuse to acknowledge that fact, as It would blow their theory out of the water.I also wonder if the conflict was illigal why has the UN not condemn it, In fact they issued this statement......in the escalation of the conflict in Afghanistan following sept 11 attacks by afghan based Al Qaeda group the security council expressed support for the afghan people to replace the Taliban regime,once again condemned for allowing afghanistan to be used as a base and the export of terrorism and for providing safe haven for Usoma Bin Ladin. Sounds like a condemnation to me, in fact it sounds like they are playing both sides of the fence here, not condemning nor approving direct military action and yet they play a role in setting up ISAF, playing a huge role in setting up the new government.....

http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/about%20the%20court/frequently%20asked%20questions/Pages/13.aspx

Yes, you provided a source in which according to you is an expert in inter national law. And I asked you to explain to me how he come to that conclusion, I read your source document but it does not make it clear. I asked these questions because my sources the UN official web site, on the genva conventions state murder is a war crime, shit I just searched war crimes and it provides a list with murder at the top, perhaps these sites are outdated. I am working from a tablet and can not post links so please work with me. Just figured the link opinion see below

Your response has nothing to do with the quote you responded to. The question was, is murder a war crime ?

You keep saying that but you've yet to provide a source.

Give us an example

Almost right, a combatant which includes enemy combatants, is one that follows the following rules. They have a chain of command, and are Responsable for suborniates. Wear a uniform or insignia that is clearly visible Carry arms openly Carry out operations that are in accordance with the rules of law.... These are the four rules that separate legal combatants from illegal combatants...... I am not familiar with this story and can not make a comment as I don't know the details.....that being said if he was involved in illegal orders or operations he as a soldier has a responsiabilty to report these actions to higher authority.... not sure what you meant by clearing out civilians from an area.....please explain. As for wearing a uniform he was not considered a murderer, is absurd, and false......soldier are held to higher standards than civilians in these regards there are no free passes....

Not sure what your experts are using for a source, perhaps you can provide one. As all my sources which include the genva conventions, inter national law, humanitarian law all list murder as a war crime. Even the list of war crimes list murder as its first heading.

Correct me if I'm wrong , but the killing of a combatant in a war zone, by a illiegal combatant is murder and is a war crime.

Thank you , I did mean never, is he a convenient target, I don't think so, he and some many others like him are the face of a group that I spent time hunting down for the crimes they committed, or trying to prevent them from committing more, the same group that's taken the life's of some many good friends, for me any many more that served there is no letting go.

Sorry , Jacee for me it will be over.

Then we need a whole new set of locals and values, we need to stop preaching this through out our lives to our children.....by changing our morals and values who do we become, what do we become, will we stop watching those sad commercials about children in thrid world countries, stop sending money, because we just don't care any more ? I think while we have not perfected our methods to effect change , that is who we are, and well our intentions have not produced the results we look for. I don't think we can sit on the side lines either. Perhaps some where in the middle. Do I think we have effected changed that has helped, I'd like to think so.....

US draws critics for doing bussiness as well.

Your right Jacee, Omar was charged with murder, attempted murder, and providing assistance and support to our enemies, oh and they're is the spying thing.....some people let go to soon....

Turn them to ashes, sorry I forgot that was dad.....

And yet nothing was overturned, in omars case, nor was there a plan to go back and over turn was there. MCA has been upgraded and is continues to receive upgrades as the laws changes. It is my opinion that the charges were laid by the MCA for war crimes against the U.S. , and the full sentence should have been served.

I to think that there is going to be a change in the US, only because of Americas frustration with the rest of the world, I find it alittle confusing when you state that complete isolation is not the answer, then you go on to say we should allow cultures to solve their own problems, and leave them alone. At what piont do we take any action, I mean your example of ISIL is a good piont, when do the human rights of others meaning The people ISIL are targeting when do we stand up for them, or do we close our eyes and let natural selection take its path. It's a catch 22 , we will deal with this when it hits our shores, or risk being condemned by the world for take sides.

You talk about these illiegal combatants rights like it is something that is owe to them, and yet fail to mention WHY is it that people have a problem giving them the same treatment that is afforded anyone else.....could it be these individuals don,t care about any of the conventions, nor do they care about any rights you think you may have, no instead they are perfectly fine with throwing acid in young girls faces for going to school, they are fine with cutting prisoners of war heads off, in front of a camera for the whole world to see, they are fine with peeling the skin of an old man and staking him to the ground to cook in the afternoon sun, his only crime was answering a few questions from NATO soldiers . Perhaps the question is what rights do these people deserve to have, or do we turn the other cheek, treat them like humans and pray they get their just rewards in the after life....

Squid , I agree Omar was put in a difficult postion for a boy , then a teenager, he was dragged over there by his parents, while over there he was asked to become a suicide bomber, or attend terrorist training camps, I get it not very good chioces....did it make any difference in the patty hurst case, were she was indoctrinated , brain washed, was she not held accountable for her actions, how many Canadian youths have been given adult sentences because of the seriousness of their crimes. Even the UN and it,s new child soldiers drive has left an opening that children can be sentenced for their crimes there is no free ride. That day of the attack Omar had lots of chioces he could have made, but did not, only Omar knows exactly what he did. During my tours overseas I've seen lots of kids Omar's age and much younger do terrible things and pay for those actions with there lives...all I've ever wanted was for Omar to complete his sentence....not paroled easily for good behaviour, but the full sentence. I wanted justice to be served...I do not agree with everything Omar has been subjected to, and I hope that those responsible for those actions pay for them.

Actually military commisions have been ongoing in the US since 1778, infact they have been used to try enemy combatants in WWI, WWII, and the world did not have a problem with them at the time. The 2006 version was designed to try illiegal combatants, it would later be modified in 2009 to answer some calls that it did not provide enough protection to these illiegal combatants. The entire process was started by the U.S. because the genva conventions are outdated and do no include or are very vague on articles dealing with terrorism. Under today's conventions terrorist are to be dealt with as combatants, and afforded protection under the conventions even though they do not follow any of the conventions themselfs Conventions designed to ensure safety of innocent civilians, to prevent confusion by other forces when they are engaged such as the wearing of uniforms or other markings to indentify them as combatants, carrying of arms openly etc etc. instead they purposely disregard these rules to further their survival by blending into the crowd. For these reasons it was the decision to deny these rights under the convention to these groups. The UN has not shown any interest in re writing these conventions nor has any of the other nations, so the US decided to act on it's own, hence the creation of a new military commision to deal with illiegal combatants, and there acts.

CMA, now MCA I'm getting confused could you spell it out for me which one did you mean and what does it mean.