Omar Khadr's Sister on Hunger Strike

[DogOnPorch]

You should try a better answer though. Pointing a finger up into the sky doesn't count. So, again:

Do you advocate setting up a different standard for our justice here? (i.e from innocent till proven guilty to "absence of evidence, ...")

Or do you advocate having different set of standards for us (innocent till proven guilty) vs. them ("absence of evidence ...")?

What part of "fallacy" are you having trouble understanding??

The point is Saddam had 'em (WMD)...but when they went to look for 'em, they were gone. That doesn't mean they were never there as some like to boldly pronounce. You being a great example.

---------------------------------------------------------

Hippies. They're everywhere. They wanna save the Earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad.

---Eric Cartman

[Peter F]

What part of "fallacy" are you having trouble understanding??

The point is Saddam had 'em (WMD)...but when they went to look for 'em, they were gone. That doesn't mean they were never there as some like to boldly pronounce. You being a great example.

[/color]

Sorry DogOnPortch, That stinks of conspiracy-theory; We know he had them because we never found them.

The eighteen-wheelers burried in the desert would leave behind some trace; The people who drove them, the people who buried them, the people that loaded them, the people that chose the spot etc. I realize that the 18wheeler example is just that - an example.

There is no 'secret' way of hiding all that VX without leaving a memory trail.

The WMD's were destroyed in the 90's just like Saddam Hussien said.

Nobody believed him, naturally enough.

[Peter F]

I did not say what I thought the Geneva Conventions say. You and others have said that Omar should get a free pass because he was 15 at the time he killed the US Medic. Then you and others cite the Geneva Conventions for protections on Child Soldiers... Well, the convention itself, even if he was a part of a legitimate armed forces, doesn't say that they are not criminally responsible - it merely provides recommendations on how to handle them.

Also, since Omar was 'fighting' and was flouting the rules of war, then even any of these recommendations would not apply to his case. He is being handled as a child who commits a crime under the US armed forces law. There is NOTHING in the Geneva conventions that prohibits this.

If you have information to the contrary, please feel free to 'correct' me - otherwise suck it up and move on.

The only recommendations on how to handle child soldiers are not recommendations at all.

EDIT to add link: Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict

Article 6

1. Each State Party shall take all necessary legal, administrative and other measures to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of the provisions of the present Protocol within its jurisdiction.

2. States Parties undertake to make the principles and provisions of the present Protocol widely known and promoted by appropriate means, to adults and children alike.

3. States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons within their jurisdiction recruited or used in hostilities contrary to the present Protocol are demobilized or otherwise released from service. States Parties shall, when necessary, accord to such persons all appropriate assistance for their physical and psychological recovery and their social reintegration.

Article 7

1. States Parties shall cooperate in the implementation of the present Protocol, including in the prevention of any activity contrary thereto and in the rehabilitation and social reintegration of persons who are victims of acts contrary thereto, including through technical cooperation and financial assistance. Such assistance and cooperation will be undertaken in consultation with the States Parties concerned and the relevant international organizations.

2. States Parties in a position to do so shall provide such assistance through existing multilateral, bilateral or other programmes or, inter alia, through a voluntary fund established in accordance with the rules of the Gener

and thats it for 'recomendations'. Article 6.3 and 7.1.

The Protocol is aimed at getting parties to armed conflict to not use child soldiers. There is nothing about what is done with them if gotten ahold of other than the two articles mentioned above.

Of course Terrorists are not signatory's.

Canada is a signatory so artlcles 6.3 and 7.1 apply. In the OK's case, 6.3 is moot since OK is not within Canadian jurisdiction.

7.1 states that signatories shall co-operate in implementation of the protocol, including the rehabilitation and social re-integration of persons who are victims of acts contrary to the protocal.

The USofA is certainly not fullfilling the requirements of 7.1 and Canada is certainly not fulfilling the requirements of 7.1 which requires the two nations to cooperate on rehabilitation and reintigration of the child soldier.

I wonder, too, under WhiteDoors concept of criminal action in a battle, would not every child-soldier in fact be a criminal?

When would a child-soldier not be considered a criminal?

EDIT:

The Protocol above refers to the Convention on the Rights of the Child

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Article 40 of the convention needs be quoted at length I think

Article 40

1. States Parties recognize the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child's age and the desirability of promoting the child's reintegration and the child's assuming a constructive role in society.

2. To this end, and having regard to the relevant provisions of international instruments, States Parties shall, in particular, ensure that:

(a) No child shall be alleged as, be accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law by reason of acts or omissions that were not prohibited by national or international law at the time they were committed;

Every child alleged as or accused of having infringed the penal law has at least the following guarantees:

(i) To be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law;

(ii) To be informed promptly and directly of the charges against him or her, and, if appropriate, through his or her parents or legal guardians, and to have legal or other appropriate assistance in the preparation and presentation of his or her defence;

(iii) To have the matter determined without delay by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body in a fair hearing according to law, in the presence of legal or other appropriate assistance and, unless it is considered not to be in the best interest of the child, in particular, taking into account his or her age or situation, his or her parents or legal guardians;

(iv) Not to be compelled to give testimony or to confess guilt; to examine or have examined adverse witnesses and to obtain the participation and examination of witnesses on his or her behalf under conditions of equality;

(v) If considered to have infringed the penal law, to have this decision and any measures imposed in consequence thereof reviewed by a higher competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body according to law;

(vi) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if the child cannot understand or speak the language used;

(vii) To have his or her privacy fully respected at all stages of the proceedings.

3. States Parties shall seek to promote the establishment of laws, procedures, authorities and institutions specifically applicable to children alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law, and, in particular:

(a) The establishment of a minimum age below which children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the penal law;

Whenever appropriate and desirable, measures for dealing with such children without resorting to judicial proceedings, providing that human rights and legal safeguards are fully respected. 4. A variety of dispositions, such as care, guidance and supervision orders; counselling; probation; foster care; education and vocational training programmes and other alternatives to institutional care shall be available to ensure that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being and proportionate both to their circumstances and the offence.

Canada and the USofA are both signatories to this convention but the USofA has never ratified apparently.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Peter F

[myata]

What part of "fallacy" are you having trouble understanding??

The point is Saddam had 'em (WMD)...but when they went to look for 'em, they were gone. That doesn't mean they were never there as some like to boldly pronounce. You being a great example.

Of course he did. And them witches, spoiled good people for nothing, and got what they deserved. And diverse conspirators against miscellaneous dictators all were guilty because somebody knew they were - even if they wouldn't confess voluntarily.

The evidence, trial, who needs it really, if there's someone who just knows? As said by them, wise, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of innocence" or something like that.

[betsy]

Of course he did. And them witches, spoiled good people for nothing, and got what they deserved. And diverse conspirators against miscellaneous dictators all were guilty because somebody knew they were - even if they wouldn't confess voluntarily.

The evidence, trial, who needs it really, if there's someone who just knows? As said by them, wise, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of innocence" or something like that.

Whether Saddam has the WMD or not is not the point. The fact is the USA is at war.

Omar Khadr killed an American soldier.

[betsy]

Right, something we can finally agree on. Everybody does that they have to do, in whatever way they can do it. There's no winners and no claimers of moral right (really). It's a war.

And the incredible thing is that Omar Khadr still lives after killing an American soldier in battle. He should be grateful he's given a chance to fight his way in court. How hard can it be to have just killed him outright right there and then in that battlefield? It would've been justifiable.

I think his age played an important role, not to mention the tremendous self-discipline of the other soldiers in upholding their values. Discovering this cub, the adults chosed to retract their claws.

For that I think credit should be given to the victim's comrades who must've exerted such great restraint not to go tit-for-tat!

[DogOnPorch]

Sorry DogOnPortch, That stinks of conspiracy-theory; We know he had them because we never found them.

The eighteen-wheelers burried in the desert would leave behind some trace; The people who drove them, the people who buried them, the people that loaded them, the people that chose the spot etc. I realize that the 18wheeler example is just that - an example.

There is no 'secret' way of hiding all that VX without leaving a memory trail.

The WMD's were destroyed in the 90's just like Saddam Hussien said.

Nobody believed him, naturally enough.

I'm sure that the Kurds and Iranians will be happy to know they were gased by a conspiracy theory. Being you're so up on this, perhaps you can describe how impossible it is to drive a truck across the Syrian border...where they have their own chemical weapons program...including suspected development of their own VX nerve agent. He only had what...a mere 8 months or so to get 'er done?

Getting rid of VX isn't a 'throw it in a bag and bury it' operation. The US uses special facilities in the middle of the Pacific to 'dispose' of it and there have been plenty of accidents in the process. The Russians are incapable of getting rid of it on their own and use US expertise for the job.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBP/is_/ai_75832609

So...how did Iraq get rid of their VX again??

-------------------------------------------------

Yours is a society which cannot accept 10,000 dead in one battle.

---Saddam Hussein

[Peter F]

I'm sure that the Kurds and Iranians will be happy to know they were gased by a conspiracy theory. Being you're so up on this, perhaps you can describe how impossible it is to drive a truck across the Syrian border...where they have their own chemical weapons program...including suspected development of their own VX nerve agent. He only had what...a mere 8 months or so to get 'er done?

Getting rid of VX isn't a 'throw it in a bag and bury it' operation. The US uses special facilities in the middle of the Pacific to 'dispose' of it and there have been plenty of accidents in the process. The Russians are incapable of getting rid of it on their own and use US expertise for the job.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBP/is_/ai_75832609

So...how did Iraq get rid of their VX again??

Take it up with the CIA! The people that really really wanted to find the stuff!

DCI Special Advisor Report on Iraq's WMD

Key Findings - chemical

Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable

...

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.

...

Key Findings - Biological

In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specifi c work for military purposes.

...

Iraq would have faced great diffi culty in re-establishing an effective BW agent production capability. Nevertheless, after 1996 Iraq still had a signifi cant dual-use capability—some declared—readily useful for BW if the Regime chose to use it to pursue a BW program. Moreover, Iraq still possessed its most important BW asset, the scientifi c know-how of its BW cadre.

...

ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992, Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent. However ISG lacks evidence to document complete destruction. Iraq retained some BW-related seed stocks until their discovery after Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).

...

ISG is aware of BW-applicable research since 1996, but ISG judges it was not conducted in connection with a BW program.

...

In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent production systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons.

[DogOnPorch]

Of course he did. And them witches, spoiled good people for nothing, and got what they deserved. And diverse conspirators against miscellaneous dictators all were guilty because somebody knew they were - even if they wouldn't confess voluntarily.

The evidence, trial, who needs it really, if there's someone who just knows? As said by them, wise, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of innocence" or something like that.

Apparently you are unaware of the logical fallacies of debate of which non sequitur, weasel words and appealing to ignorance are three examples you used. Here's a list for you to study. It has nothing to do with how I feel about the justice system or Omar Khadr and his family.

http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html

------------------------------------------------

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

---Dr Carl Sagan

Edited October 25, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

Take it up with the CIA! The people that really really wanted to find the stuff!

DCI Special Advisor Report on Iraq's WMD

You actually trust the CIA to find anything? Either way, Iraq was incapable of destroying its VX stockpile (heck...the US is barely capable of the task)...so it's either buried somewhere waiting to be found or it's in Syria (most likely) where it was simply added to the pile of chemical weapons they already have...well beyond the inspection capabilties of the UN and the US military.

--------------------------------------------------------

Iraq did not spontaneously opt for disarmament. They did it as part of a ceasefire, so they were forced to do it, otherwise the war might have gone on. So the motivation has been very different.

---Hans Blix

[myata]

And the incredible thing is that Omar Khadr still lives after killing an American soldier in battle.

I thought we agreed that this is a war. And you know what people do in wars? Right. So, how is it a crime to do just what everybody else around you is doing?

Now the next question is of course, who started the war? And, if, by starting the war, they sanctioned the use of deadly lethal military force? Of course, they would insist that only one side (guess which?) uses deadly and lethal force "legally". But that would sound somewhat one-sided, wouldn't it?

The only logical conclusion would be then to say that by starting the war, they got what they intended to get. Really, it'd be a very far stretch, beyond all credibility stretch, to claim that one could start a war, and not expect a military hostility. Same stretch btw that would claim that dropping a bomb on a village does not intend to kill any civilians.

So who should be to blame for this war and all what transpired (and will yet transpire) in it? Is it Khadr, really?

[betsy]

I thought we agreed that this is a war. And you know what people do in wars? Right. So, how is it a crime to do just what everybody else around you is doing?

Are you saying they should've just killed him?

Now the next question is of course, who started the war? And, if, by starting the war, they sanctioned the use of deadly lethal military force? Of course, they would insist that only one side (guess which?) uses deadly and lethal force "legally". But that would sound somewhat one-sided, wouldn't it?

Irrelevant!

We're not talking about how the war started. We're talking about the soldiers who are at war. They don't analyze how the war started....they follow orders!

The only logical conclusion would be then to say that by starting the war, they got what they intended to get.

I bet both sides are saying exactly the same thing!

Edited October 25, 2008 by betsy

[myata]

Are you saying they should've just killed him?

Either they; or them. Who knows? That's what people do at wars, that we at least understand? So, to pretend out of the sheer blue that it's such a high crime to pull the trigger - after sending all those trigger pulling folks there, into another people's land - must be very close to the top of hypocrisy this world has ever seen.

Irrelevant!

We're not talking about how the war started. We're talking about the soldiers who are at war. They don't analyze how the war started....they follow orders!

Well of course they do. So why all the cry about "terrorists"? They also are soldiers, and follow their orders; different orders, but also resulting in suffering and death. If that's OK with you, there's nothing more to say. Business as usual. If we wanted to stop the bloody machine though, shouldn't all those who give the orders to kill, suffer the same fate - no matter which side they count themselves on, or which rationales they justify their acts with? Wouldn't that be the fastest (and the only real one) way to the peaceful humankind, if we ever happen to get there?

Edited October 25, 2008 by myata

[betsy]

Either they; or them. Who knows? That's what people do at wars, that we at least understand? So, to pretend out of the sheer blue that it's such a high crime to pull the trigger -

There's a lesson in this: don't get caught by the enemy! As I've said before he's lucky to be alive.

This episode about Khadr and the reactions of people like you will most likely drive soldiers to resort to a practical solution to avoid anymore such outrage in the future: No prisoners - especially when it comes to child soldiers.

Edited October 25, 2008 by betsy

[jbg]

There's a lesson in this: don't get caught by the enemy! As I've said before he's lucky to be alive.

This episode about Khadr and the reactions of people like you will most likely drive soldiers to resort to a practical solution to avoid anymore such outrage in the future: No prisoners - especially when it comes to child soldiers.

Certainly I disagree with torture. One question I have for his sympathizers is how gentle was/is the Taliban with their opponents?

I suspect Gitmo, where Khadr is, is a walk in the park compared to what goes on in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Even if the impossible stories of Korans being flushed down toilets at Gitmo were true, how does that compare to the fate of someone bringing a Bible into Saudi Arabia?

Ask his sympathizers those questions sometime.

[Peter F]

Certainly I disagree with torture. One question I have for his sympathizers is how gentle was/is the Taliban with their opponents?

I suspect Gitmo, where Khadr is, is a walk in the park compared to what goes on in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Even if the impossible stories of Korans being flushed down toilets at Gitmo were true, how does that compare to the fate of someone bringing a Bible into Saudi Arabia?

Ask his sympathizers those questions sometime.

uh huh. Any act is justified as long as it passes the Taliban test. Since the Taliban will never compare favourably with anything, then all acts may be disagreeable but fair. Sorta like the Pirahna brothers.

"I understand he nailed your head to a coffee table"

"Well, yes, he did do that"

"And he also nailed your wifes head to the table too"

"Oh yes. He was a cruel man, but fair"

I suggest you get your head out of the gutter.

[myata]

I suspect Gitmo, where Khadr is, is a walk in the park compared to what goes on in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Even if the impossible stories of Korans being flushed down toilets at Gitmo were true, how does that compare to the fate of someone bringing a Bible into Saudi Arabia?

Right off the top of my hat, I can think of couple of other differences (between "them" and "us"):

- they usually do their barbaric undemocratic business in their own land; so to avoid terrible outcomes of all sorts it's usually sufficient to not be there; i.e. to not bring the Bible into Saudi Arabia, if they don't want you to. We, on the other hand, also do our staff also in their land; the only way to avoid our enlightening interference is to become just like us, complete with adopting our gods, Britney Spears and McDonalds. Wonder why would this strategy sound so familiar?

- they don't normally preach and educate others in the need to adopt their way of life. Really, when was the last time Prince of Arabia (or whatever he is) urged America to convert to Islam? US presidents and such are in 7/24 permanent show tasking these people and that with being less than perfect in their quest for holy democracy.

[jbg]

uh huh. Any act is justified as long as it passes the Taliban test. Since the Taliban will never compare favourably with anything, then all acts may be disagreeable but fair. Sorta like the Pirahna brothers.

I see your point but Western sensibilities must never become a suicide pact.

"I understand he nailed your head to a coffee table"

"Well, yes, he did do that"

"And he also nailed your wifes head to the table too"

"Oh yes. He was a cruel man, but fair"

I suggest you get your head out of the gutter.

Nice little ditty, but I don't see the relevance. As far as my head it's attached to me and not in the gutter. Perhaps Islamists would have it differently.

Right off the top of my hat, I can think of couple of other differences (between "them" and "us"):

- they usually do their barbaric undemocratic business in their own land;

Except on September 11, 2001, March 11, 2004, July 11, 2005 etc. And numerous bus attacks, disco attacks in other democracies.

so to avoid terrible outcomes of all sorts it's usually sufficient to not be there; i.e. to not bring the Bible into Saudi Arabia, if they don't want you to. We, on the other hand, also do our staff also in their land; the only way to avoid our enlightening interference is to become just like us, complete with adopting our gods, Britney Spears and McDonalds. Wonder why would this strategy sound so familiar?

We're no longer sending out missionaries, or asking them to adopt our G-ds. If they can practice Islam openly here, why can't we go there with reading material of our choice and not die in the process.

- they don't normally preach and educate others in the need to adopt their way of life. Really, when was the last time Prince of Arabia (or whatever he is) urged America to convert to Islam? US presidents and such are in 7/24 permanent show tasking these people and that with being less than perfect in their quest for holy democracy.

I don't know what you're talking about, honestly.

[WarBicycle]

- they don't normally preach and educate others in the need to adopt their way of life. Really, when was the last time Prince of Arabia (or whatever he is) urged America to convert to Islam? US presidents and such are in 7/24 permanent show tasking these people and that with being less than perfect in their quest for holy democracy.

It's time you wake up and smell the coffee. Islam is the fastest growing religion, drive around any Western city and count the mosques; all have been built with money coming from the King of Saudi Arabia. Moslems refuse to assimilate, and have pressures Western governments to allow sharia courts. It is also the fastest growing religion.

Fast-growing Islam winning converts in Western world That link is 10 years old, the situation is even worse today.

[jbg]

It's time you wake up and smell the coffee. Islam is the fastest growing religion, drive around any Western city and count the mosques; all have been built with money coming from the King of Saudi Arabia. Moslems refuse to assimilate, and have pressures Western governments to allow sharia courts. It is also the fastest growing religion.

Fast-growing Islam winning converts in Western world That link is 10 years old, the situation is even worse today.

And aided by Western-style social welfare they have lots of kids.

[WarBicycle]

The West's newest cottage industry for Muslims is the child tax benefit.

[WarBicycle]

She quit her hunger strike, Khadr's trial has been postponed to January and she feels an Obama government would be more favourable to her cause.

[DogOnPorch]

She quit her hunger strike, Khadr's trial has been postponed to January and she feels an Obama government would be more favourable to her cause.

Whew...was gettin' worried, there.

---------------------------

...theres so much that we share

that its time we're aware

its a small world after all...

[jbg]

Whew...was gettin' worried, there.

---------------------------

...theres so much that we share

that its time we're aware

its a small world after all...

Very few of these "hunger strikers" die. I will profess to have been very concerned for Sister Khadr's health. I do have other worries. Edited October 26, 2008 by jbg

[Oleg Bach]

Thank goodness - I thought for sure she was going to reinforce the idea that anorexia was cool----