Canadian Government Guilty of Violating Khadr's Rights

[Gabriel]

Because I think the disparity might have more to do with the availability of resources. Did you think of simply writing AI and asking them?

This is a discussion forum and I was interested in finding out what some of the folks in here think. As I said, resources are largely irrelevant to this discrepancy as it takes virtually nothing to spend some time a report on a given story. Remember that I am calling into question not just the volume of material on these two stories but the content, as well. There are serious variations with the forcefulness of language and of the expectations of the criticized parties coming from AI.

Amnesty International is just a thing don't forget it doesn't have real feelings - but no I don't think they are politicized in the malevolent way you seem to be implying they are. If AI had no articles whatsoever on Gilad Shalit and you could prove they were actively refusing to write or post any then you might have a case to make.

In any case I imagine the people who work/volunteer at AI are politicized, perhaps not as much as you are, but every human being is to some extent.

AI is a collection of people, most of whom largely have political/ideological solidarity. At least, that's my impression. The Liberal party is also just a 'thing', but there is some measure of political/ideological cohesiveness there. What about Fox News? Would you also describe it as just a 'thing' without real feelings? Of course it is, but an institution can still have a perspective. This is often true for all sorts of organizations and associations. I am in no way implying that there is a malevolence within AI regarding its bias(es), I am simply observing that political/ideological leanings manifest themselves in how AI conducts itself - I think I've provided a small sampling of evidence illustrating this. I specifically stated that I didn't intend for this brief examination to be viewed as some sort of hit piece against AI. You seem to have sidetracked the question, so I won't ask you again.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Gabriel

[eyeball]

As I said, resources are largely irrelevant to this discrepancy as it takes virtually nothing to spend some time a report on a given story.

Well then why don't you volunteer some time at AI and do what you can to reduce the disparity?

[Gabriel]

Well then why don't you volunteer some time at AI and do what you can to reduce the disparity?

Why don't you even TRY to make some posts with substance? You're not funny, and you're not contributing anything. Perhaps you've got limited mental 'resources' and are unable to participate meaningfully in this thread?

Edited February 3, 2010 by Gabriel

[eyeball]

You seem to have sidetracked the question, so I won't ask you again.

Sorry but you asked Why the large disparity between the efforts of AI towards Omar Khadr, who actually was apprehend whilst fighting American forces s part of a terrorist group, and Gilad Shalit, who was abducted during relative peacetime?

I in fact did answer your question in a very direct way.

[Gabriel]

Sorry but you asked Why the large disparity between the efforts of AI towards Omar Khadr, who actually was apprehend whilst fighting American forces s part of a terrorist group, and Gilad Shalit, who was abducted during relative peacetime?

I in fact did answer your question in a very direct way.

As I've explained, resources don't play much of a role with respect to the volume and content of information on AI's website. It doesn't explain the disparity, so it's not a good answer. Can't you admit this upon reflection? I understand that perhaps you have a knee-jerk reaction to defend AI and similar groups like HRW. Perhaps it's just a knee-jerk reaction to disagree with anything I say. Regardless of why you gave the answer, we're not talking about some limited resource here. It's not expensive to create brief commentaries on such stories. We're not talking about fundraising dollars going towards some sort of legal defense team. We're talking about website coverage.

I'll just wait for some other posters' opinions....

[eyeball]

Why don't you even TRY to make some posts with substance? You're not funny, and you're not contributing anything. Perhaps you've got limited mental 'resources' and are unable to participate meaningfully in this thread?

To repeat, you asked Why the large disparity between the efforts of AI towards Omar Khadr, who actually was apprehend whilst fighting American forces s part of a terrorist group, and Gilad Shalit, who was abducted during relative peacetime?

Speaking of mental resources do you recall asking for an answer to that or not?

[M.Dancer]

The answer of course is AI and Eyeball both have the same biases. Shalit is a Jew and an Israeli. On top of that he was honourably engaged in the lawful service of his country.

That's 3 stikes against him and explains fully why, in a region crawling with AI agemnts, why they can't be bothered...after all, there are anti western, anti semitic terrorists who miss their mommies...

[Gabriel]

The answer of course is AI and Eyeball both have the same biases. Shalit is a Jew and an Israeli. On top of that he was honourably engaged in the lawful service of his country.

That's 3 stikes against him and explains fully why, in a region crawling with AI agemnts, why they can't be bothered...after all, there are anti western, anti semitic terrorists who miss their mommies...

Sure looks like that's the case. I hope others that we know to be on the left can at least concede that AI, is the very least, slightly politicized.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Gabriel

[Born Free]

Wow. Did you really just say that?

No the Geneva conventions say that.

If you wish to split hairs over what constitutes mistreatment of a prisoner then you would have been most welcomed as part of the Dick Cheney legal team of thugs. I expect my country to live up to the GC and that includes making sure that detaines arent being tortured or mistreated regardless of whether we are guarding them or if we have turned them over to others. Hillier didnt do that.

Other than the fact that Canada is a signatory of the GC, I dont expect you to understand why its important that we follow it. I'm not sure you would actually understand it.

It requires humane treatment for all persons in enemy hands, without any adverse distinction. It specifically prohibits murder, mutilation, torture, cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment, the taking of hostages and unfair trial.

You speak of me as being obtuse. Perhaps you can quote me where I have written that being put in a cell is mistreatment or where I have discussed handcuffs.

Try to be honest in your own writings rather than setting everyone to a standard that you dont seek to keep. You are a very good writer but tend to be on the verbose side....a stickler for form over substance...

Edited February 4, 2010 by Born Free

[Born Free]

Why don't you even TRY to make some posts with substance? You're not funny, and you're not contributing anything. Perhaps you've got limited mental 'resources' and are unable to participate meaningfully in this thread?

Gabby...Gabby....Gabby....

Why must you claim every time whenever you get an answer you dont like, the poster isnt contributing? Whats up with that?

I dont recall anyone suggesting or hinting about your "mental" resourses or taking unnecessary potshots at you.

Please clean up your act.

[eyeball]

Sure looks like that's the case. I hope others that we know to be on the left can at least concede that AI, is the very least, slightly politicized.

Thank you for conceding that I did too. Like I said every human being is to some extent.

Look, even Morris is human...

The answer of course is AI and Eyeball both have the same biases. Shalit is a Jew and an Israeli. On top of that he was honourably engaged in the lawful service of his country.

That's 3 stikes against him and explains fully why, in a region crawling with AI agemnts, why they can't be bothered...after all, there are anti western, anti semitic terrorists who miss their mommies...

Instead of whining about AI, he could follow the same suggestion I made to you - join them and make a difference.

VOLUNTEERING

Volunteering at Amnesty International Canada is very rewarding and does not require a huge time commitment. Hours are flexible and the staff and volunteers are dedicated to human rights activism globally, and in the community. Volunteering with Amnesty is a great way to meet others who want to make a difference.

Persons wishing to volunteer outside of office hours are encouraged to become members of the organization.

Link

[M.Dancer]

Instead of whining about AI, he could follow the same suggestion I made to you - join them and make a difference.

That's something like, instead of whining about the injustice of Soviet Party, join them....

A far better idea is to conduct a forensic investigation into their funding....

Edited February 4, 2010 by M.Dancer

[CANADIEN]

The answer of course is AI and Eyeball both have the same biases. Shalit is a Jew and an Israeli. On top of that he was honourably engaged in the lawful service of his country.

That's 3 stikes against him and explains fully why, in a region crawling with AI agemnts, why they can't be bothered...after all, there are anti western, anti semitic terrorists who miss their mommies...

Frankly, I expected better from you.

BTW, found this through Google )http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/feature-stories/detainees-used-bargaining-chips-both-sides-israelgaza-conflict-2).

Could have been a bit less diplomatic in tone. And I am sure that it will no satisfy people who believes that humane treatment should apply to some people only, but people who reads it and conclude it's anti-semitic needs a visit to the eye doctor, pronto.

[Gabriel]

Frankly, I expected better from you.

BTW, found this through Google )http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/feature-stories/detainees-used-bargaining-chips-both-sides-israelgaza-conflict-2).

Could have been a bit less diplomatic in tone. And I am sure that it will no satisfy people who believes that humane treatment should apply to some people only, but people who reads it and conclude it's anti-semitic needs a visit to the eye doctor, pronto.

I read that article when making my earlier posts. That article illustrates some of the inconsistencies in AI's approach to the two prisoners I'm comparing, Khadr and Shalit. AI actually considers Shalit to be a legitimate POW, yet doesn't extend this description to Khadr, although Khadr was captured after real conflict and Shalit was abducted during peacetime in a non-conflict area. Don't you find that odd? Suggesting that Shalit is a legitimate POW also implies that there is some sort of legalistic war being fought between Israel and another party adhering to the laws and conventions of war (i.e. declarations of war, uniformed combatants, etc). Israel's enemies are unlawful combatants, terrorists who operate within civilian areas and break every single convention of war. This is one example of the double standard of AI's approach to these two stories. Granted, Khadr was fifteen at the time of his capture, but he was old enough to playing a direct role in the harming and killing of American troops and its allies (Canadians, for example). I don't believe that Khadr's age at the time of his crimes absolves him from being a legitimate enemy combatant/POW.

Let's examine another inconsistency - if Gilad Shalit is a prisoner or war, what are the 900 prisoners from Gaza being held by Israel described as? According to the article, apparently they're just prisoners. This difference in description seems to suggest that there is some legitimacy to Shalit's abduction, while the 900 Palestinians from Gaza in Israeli prisons are not related to this conflict. Apparently Shalit's a POW, but Israel's prisoners aren't. Strange, eh?

Consider that Israel did, prior to September 2098, permit many visitations from family members to prisoners from Gaza. Do you think the Palestinian terrorists have ever permitted such courtesies to soldiers and other Israelis they've kidnapped over the past many decades? There's a definite inconsistency there, as well, however this consistency is between how Israel treats its prisoner and how the terrorists treat their victims. AI will clearly not acknowledge this difference, however, as it seems to put Israel and its enemies on equal footing.

Anyways....

Edited February 4, 2010 by Gabriel

[Sir Bandelot]

Frankly, I expected better from you.

Dancer has merely employed the "useful idiot" theory. And done well

[msdogfood]

That's the same opinion as the CSIS folks who investigated him. I think DFAIT officials also echoed your opinion. I also agree that his youth most likely contributed to his resilience in the face of the sleep deprivation he was subjected to. Keep in mind that he was subjected to sleep deprivation that can't honestly be considered severe. In my entirely unprofessional opinion regarding sleep deprivation, I'd guess that he was subjected to "mild-to-moderate" sleep deprivation.

For the record i do not condone sleep deprivation it was a fact that's all!!

[msdogfood]

I found this while doing some research on the conventions and Canada laws refering to Omars case. I'm not sure what to make of it . It's a copy of a court transcript filed Under Omar...

While we have spent alot of band width discussing Torture or what constuits it...the court documnet does not spend a lot of time on it. infact it only suggests that what happened to Omar "May" constuit torture...i think it goes along way into explaining the courts actions...perhaps someone can give us a deeper explantion. The para i'm reffering to is under the OVERVIEW, and in Para 7

My linkwww.law.utoronto.ca/

well the scc can not evaluate Omars health at the moment but they have good resin to think he is & was mistreated

[Peter F]

I read that article when making my earlier posts. That article illustrates some of the inconsistencies in AI's approach to the two prisoners I'm comparing, Khadr and Shalit. AI actually considers Shalit to be a legitimate POW, yet doesn't extend this description to Khadr, although Khadr was captured after real conflict and Shalit was abducted during peacetime in a non-conflict area. Don't you find that odd?

Did you actually read the same article Canadien posted the link for? its here: Canadien Link to AI article

Where does it AI say or suggest that Shalit is a legitimate POW?

Palestinian armed groups have held Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit for 1,000 days, denying him visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). They have also denied him communication with his family, bar a couple of letters in almost three years.

Gilad Shalit was seized by Palestinian armed groups from an Israeli military base near the Gaza Strip on 25 June 2006. His continuing incommunicado detention brings into relief the plight of detainees used by both sides of the Israel/Gaza conflict as bargaining chips in political negotiations.

I don't see a suggestion that Shalit is not being treated as a legitimate POW. Nor do I see any suggestion that he is.

Where do you get this POW stuff from?. He should, of course, be treated as one - IE allowed visits from the IRC and some communication with his family on a regular basis. Actually, as a POW or not, those things should be allowed anyways. You do see the criticism of palestinian armed groups for not allowing those things don't you?

Suggesting that Shalit is a legitimate POW also implies that there is some sort of legalistic war being fought between Israel and another party adhering to the laws and conventions of war (i.e. declarations of war, uniformed combatants, etc).

Shalit shouldn't be treated like a POW? As I said, I see no suggestion that AI is a POW or not a POW. That appears to be

something you've cooked up entirely on your own. I can't see how you could have gathered that 'suggestion' from the article.

Perhaps it was the mention of the IRC that threw it into POW territory for you.

Israel's enemies are unlawful combatants, terrorists who operate within civilian areas and break every single convention of war.

Ok. and what has that got to do with being a POW or not being a POW? So what if they are unlawful combatants and terrorists and break all conventions of war - every single one? Is that to say that Amnesty International is wrong to suggest

that a prisoner held by the so-called armed groups should be treated with a modicum of humanity? Or do you suggest that

AI should not be telling unlawful combatants/terrorists how they should treat thier prisoners?

This is one example of the double standard of AI's approach to these two stories. Granted, Khadr was fifteen at the time of his capture, but he was old enough to playing a direct role in the harming and killing of American troops and its allies (Canadians, for example). I don't believe that Khadr's age at the time of his crimes absolves him from being a legitimate enemy combatant/POW.

So Khadr is a legitimate POW but Shalit is not? And AI is persuing some agenda by saying that both should be treated in exactly the same manner?

Let's examine another inconsistency - if Gilad Shalit is a prisoner or war, what are the 900 prisoners from Gaza being held by Israel described as? According to the article, apparently they're just prisoners. This difference in description seems to suggest that there is some legitimacy to Shalit's abduction, while the 900 Palestinians from Gaza in Israeli prisons are not related to this conflict. Apparently Shalit's a POW, but Israel's prisoners aren't. Strange, eh?

There is no difference in description. Shalit isn't described as a POW nor are the Israeli prisoners described as POW's - that is something you are making up entirely on your own. And you appear to be doing so in order to create (yes - create) evidence that Amnesty International is has some sort of Political Agenda - Well, not some sort, but some very particular sort of agenda;

Anti-Israeli, Anti-American, Pro-Terrorist Agenda.

Consider that Israel did, prior to September 2098, permit many visitations from family members to prisoners from Gaza. Do you think the Palestinian terrorists have ever permitted such courtesies to soldiers and other Israelis they've kidnapped over the past many decades?

No, I do not think such. Do I need to in order to understand that AI is criticizing Shalids keepers for not allowing the IRC access to him or allowing some communication from him? Is that not a legitimate criticism? Are you suggesting that AI should not be shoving thier bleeding-heart noses into how Palestinian Armed Groups treat thier prisoners?

There's a definite inconsistency there, as well, however this consistency is between how Israel treats its prisoner and how the terrorists treat their victims. AI will clearly not acknowledge this difference, however, as it seems to put Israel and its enemies on equal footing.

They are on equal footing. BOTH palestinian armed groups and the Israeli government are using prisoners as bargaining chips.

Now maybe one group is the good guys and one that bad guys, but in this case, as pointed out by AI, Both are behaving pretty much the same way in regards to thier prisoner/s: Poorly.

[CANADIEN]

I didn't expect that a simple quote from Amnesty International about torture would lead to all this. Oh well...

Is Amnesty International always right? No. nobody is. I do not agree with their call that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay bw juat released. Humane treatment according to the rules of law is one thng, but it doesn't need extend and shouldn't extend to people not having to face the legal consequences of crimes they may have committed. Also, AI's legetimate need to be neutral sometimes lands them in the prcarious position of drawing moral equivalencies where none exist.

Yet, there can be little doubt as to the overall credibility of organizations such as AI, Human Rights Watch of Médecins sans frontières, to name three. Anyone who claims that these organizations "side with the enemies of the West" are ignorant of reality. And of the fact that for each accusation that AI"sides with the enemies of the West", there has been in the past accusation of it being biased in favour of Western countries, being an instrument of US or UK foreign policy, being alllie with enemies o f regimes like those of the old Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, etc.

Now, anyone have something new to bring to the table about the SCC decision?

[Keepitsimple]

Lets keep things in perspective. Khadr's rights are said "to be continued to be violated" because some of the information gathered in one or more "interviews" were said to be gained through sleep deprivation and without a lawyer.......and that information could be used against him at his trial. That information may very well be excluded at his trial on grounds that it was improperly obtained, thus elimainating that particular concern.

[M.Dancer]

I don't see a suggestion that Shalit is not being treated as a legitimate POW.

Of course you do. You acknowledge it ....here

He should, of course, be treated as one - IE allowed visits from the IRC and some communication with his family on a regular basis.

So Khadr is a legitimate POW but Shalit is not?

Correct. Prisoners of War have certain immunities from prosecution, mercenaries and other criminals involved in hostilities do not.

Shalit isn't described as a POW nor are the Israeli prisoners described as POW's

Correct again. Shait is a hostage and Arabs in Israeli custody are treated as alledged criminals.

To be fair the easiest way it would seem to get AI off the israelis backs is when they areest a terrorist, do not charge him. simply say he is a hostage, and then AI will give the arabs as much attention as they give Shalit.

[Sir Bandelot]

So Khadr is a legitimate POW but Shalit is not?

Correct. Prisoners of War have certain immunities from prosecution, mercenaries and other criminals involved in hostilities do not.

But I thought that you have denied this in other threads, hmm? Is that not so?

In any case it seems to me that the US government denies that gitmo detainees have POW status, since it would grant them certain rights that they don't want them to have. This classification would cause some problems for his prosecution.

"To be entitled to prisoner-of-war status, captured service members must be lawful combatants entitled to combatant's privilege—which gives them immunity from punishment for crimes constituting lawful acts of war, e.g., killing enemy troops."

[Army Guy]

Actually it states that any kind of torture or cruelty is prohibited. Ergo, defining it isnt a requirement.

Actually there is a need to define it, and it is defined under the Genva convention, Inter national law and Canadian law. Under which it states "...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental"...

This same content is used under all 3 of the above agreements that Canada has signed. Omar was not subjected to torture in fact his own lawyers have quoted he may of been subjected to torture...they did not say he was subjected to torture...Even our supreme court does not mention he was subject to torture...and thier main bone of contention was his other rights were not protected....hence thier judgement...

[Army Guy]

well the scc can not evaluate Omars health at the moment but they have good resin to think he is & was mistreated

Since we are talking about a court of Law here, one can not assume anything one must be able to prove it...It works for both sides. The US government might not be able to convict Omar on throwing the grenade as they assumed because he was the only one left alive who could have done so....

[M.Dancer]

But I thought that you have denied this in other threads, hmm? Is that not so?

Let me clarify for you. Khadr is not a POW. He is a criminal.

Shalit is not a POW, he is a hostage.

Edited February 4, 2010 by M.Dancer