Khadr's jurors

[Topaz]

Just read the article about who the people are that will send Khadr to prison for the rest of his life. IF the guy is innocence, he won't have a chance with the eye witness and the jury. I can't say for sure if he's guilty or not, but America needs to hang someone for 9/11 and since the government can't or won't find OBL, this guy is the fall guy. What I don't get is why Khadr is being tried for this crime he may have committed and yet the NATO forces and the US have killed many many innocence people and not one person is being charge for their deaths. Instead, they pay off families, to settle the issues. Khadr was there fighting a war and I don't think I've ever heard of someone on trial for killing one person during a war and if we are going to do that then both, Canadians and Americas could also be charged for killings. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/08/10/14975486.html

[Oleg Bach]

Just read the article about who the people are that will send Khadr to prison for the rest of his life. IF the guy is innocence, he won't have a chance with the eye witness and the jury. I can't say for sure if he's guilty or not, but America needs to hang someone for 9/11 and since the government can't or won't find OBL, this guy is the fall guy. What I don't get is why Khadr is being tried for this crime he may have committed and yet the NATO forces and the US have killed many many innocence people and not one person is being charge for their deaths. Instead, they pay off families, to settle the issues. Khadr was there fighting a war and I don't think I've ever heard of someone on trial for killing one person during a war and if we are going to do that then both, Canadians and Americas could also be charged for killings. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/08/10/14975486.html

He is as innocent as a Canadian soldier who alledgedly tossed a grenade at a Taliban fighter - we forget ...that this kid was taking part in what was his heritage - his religion - assisting kin in what may as well been his homeland - and the west were invaders...It would be like some invading force attacking your brothers farm - you would assist your brother....What makes the west so special that they can launch and undeclared war - invade sovereign nations ......AND THEN have the nerve to say that the aggressor is the victim? Or in the alternative that the person protecting himself in self defense is a crimminal for that act?

[bush_cheney2004]

.....What I don't get is why Khadr is being tried for this crime he may have committed and yet the NATO forces and the US have killed many many innocence people and not one person is being charge for their deaths....

Pretty simple....NATO has a license to kill.....Khadr doesn't.

[segnosaur]

I can't say for sure if he's guilty or not, but America needs to hang someone for 9/11 and since the government can't or won't find OBL, this guy is the fall guy.

Ummm... why exactly are you assuming that in the entire "war on terror" and 9/11, bin Laden is the only one who deserves punishment?

At the risk of Godwinning this thread.... Hitler could not have carried out his holocaust plans alone. He had to have assistants, from the generals making up his immediate staff right down to the prison guards. While those people were not in a leadership position, many of them were completely committed to carrying out the barbaric policies.

Similarly bin Laden may be the public face of al Quaeda, but he is not acting alone. He needs people to carry out his plans/policies, and those people are just as dedicated to terrorist acts as he is. To assume that arresting someone who carried out bin Laden's policies is just a "fall guy" is a misrepresentation.

Khadr may be guilty of the terrorist acts for which he was charged. He may be innocent of the acts for which he's been charged but involved in other terrorist acts. Or he may be completely innocent. He may also have been too young to understand the impact of what he was doing. But to suggest he's a 'fall guy' for an untouchable bin Laden is foolish.

What I don't get is why Khadr is being tried for this crime he may have committed and yet the NATO forces and the US have killed many many innocence people and not one person is being charge for their deaths.

Ummm... context is rather important here.

Yes, NATO forces have caused the deaths of innocent civilians. However, for the most part, American and NATO forces usually take steps to limit civilian casualties. (i.e. the Americans are not specifically targeting innocent Afghanis, and the goal is to bring an improved quality of life to the country.) Compare that to the actions of the Taliban and al Quaeda, organizations who deliberately kill civilians both in Afghanistan and abroad, and who seeks to re-implement a theocracy in the country.)

Oh, and by the way, American soldiers are charged when they engage in the deliberate killing of innocent civilians.

(See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/05/jeremy-morlock-us-soldier_n_601631.html )

Edited August 11, 2010 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

He is as innocent as a Canadian soldier who alledgedly tossed a grenade at a Taliban fighter - we forget ...that this kid was taking part in what was his heritage - his religion - assisting kin in what may as well been his homeland - and the west were invaders.

First of all, the Khadrs were not from Afghanistan. The father was of Egyptian heritage, the mother was of Palestinian heritage. And even though they had lived in Afghanistan, they had never given up their Canadian citizenship. So to claim they were fighting for their homeland against invaders is a rather thin argument.

Secondly, you seem to be engaging in a certain amount of moral equivalence. Personally I believe that a theocracy which (for example) supports the flogging and execution of women for breaking religious laws should not be viewed as an acceptable system of government, and while the current Afghan government has significant problems, civilians in Afghanistan have greater human rights than they did under the Taliban. Anyone defending such brutal tactics does not deserved to be idolized, even if they are seen as "defending their homeland".

[Topaz]

First of all, the Khadrs were not from Afghanistan. The father was of Egyptian heritage, the mother was of Palestinian heritage. And even though they had lived in Afghanistan, they had never given up their Canadian citizenship. So to claim they were fighting for their homeland against invaders is a rather thin argument.

Secondly, you seem to be engaging in a certain amount of moral equivalence. Personally I believe that a theocracy which (for example) supports the flogging and execution of women for breaking religious laws should not be viewed as an acceptable system of government, and while the current Afghan government has significant problems, civilians in Afghanistan have greater human rights than they did under the Taliban. Anyone defending such brutal tactics does not deserved to be idolized, even if they are seen as "defending their homeland".

So you think that when NATO leaves Afghanistan, that the laws there will be more like Western laws, and women will have the same rights as over here? Do you remember when the government over there wanted to kill the Afghan that practice Christianity? GW had to step in and stop it. The Middle-East will never be like the West and freedoms will not change because it so joined to their religion.

[Sir Bandelot]

I admit I do not understand the nature of the charges either. Evidently he is charged with hurling a grenade and killing a US soldier. The soldier was a medic, yes but still a soldier. This was in the middle of a battle between US troops and Taliban insurgents, so it's entirely likely that had they seen Khadr first they would have shot to try and kill him. Can't imagine that during such a battle one pauses to ask for ID.

So if he killed a soldier, how is it terrorism? Is it because he is not an official soldier complete with uniform? Well, in that case they (taliban) all are not soldiers.

Yeah segnosaur they don't mean to kill civilians but they will shoot to kill anyone, when in doubt and ask questions/ apologize later. Intent to kill is still there, otherwise far more precautions could be taken if they were truly serious about not killing civilians. Like, not having this war in the first place...

Edited August 12, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Bonam]

So if he killed a soldier, how is it terrorism? Is it because he is not an official soldier complete with uniform? Well, in that case they (taliban) all are not soldiers.

That's right. Any Taliban militant that gets captured, especially if they killed a US soldier, would be tried. They are not POWs; they are criminals.

[eyeball]

That's right. Any Taliban militant that gets captured, especially if they killed a US soldier, would be tried. They are not POWs; they are criminals.

If that's the case they should be tried in a civilian court like any one of us would be if we committed a crime.

[Bonam]

If that's the case they should be tried in a civilian court like any one of us would be if we committed a crime.

I don't much care which type of court they are tried in, personally. I definitely see the reasoning why crimes of a military nature may be more proper to prosecute in a different setting than "civilian crimes", but I'm not particularly invested either way. That's up to the US politicians and judicial system to decide.

[bloodyminded]

I admit I do not understand the nature of the charges either. Evidently he is charged with hurling a grenade and killing a US soldier. The soldier was a medic, yes but still a soldier. This was in the middle of a battle between US troops and Taliban insurgents, so it's entirely likely that had they seen Khadr first they would have shot to try and kill him. Can't imagine that during such a battle one pauses to ask for ID.

So if he killed a soldier, how is it terrorism? Is it because he is not an official soldier complete with uniform? Well, in that case they (taliban) all are not soldiers.

Yeah segnosaur they don't mean to kill civilians but they will shoot to kill anyone, when in doubt and ask questions/ apologize later. Intent to kill is still there, otherwise far more precautions could be taken if they were truly serious about not killing civilians. Like, not having this war in the first place...

You're right; but in fact it's slightly uglier than that, which I suppose is why we don't normally talk about it accurately:

They do intentionally kill civilians, and frequently. It's that the civilians are not the primary target.

Edited August 12, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Sir Bandelot]

You're right; but in fact it's slightly uglier than that, which I suppose is why we don't normally talk about it accurately:

They do intentionally kill civilians, and frequently. It's that the civilians are not the primary target.

Seems to me from various news sources, they kill far more civilians than enemy insurgents. And some of the toll of enemies include anonymous persons who are counted as insurgents, by association, might not even be. THis is only a small percentage of the civilians killed, but typical in a war.

Dead men tell no tales.

[Moonbox]

So you think that when NATO leaves Afghanistan, that the laws there will be more like Western laws, and women will have the same rights as over here?

That's the idea. It probably won't work but that's the idea.

Do you remember when the government over there wanted to kill the Afghan that practice Christianity? GW had to step in and stop it. The Middle-East will never be like the West and freedoms will not change because it so joined to their religion.

Not too long ago that's how Western civilization acted as well. Ever heard of the Inquisition? The Salem witch hunts? WWII?

Oh right.

Afghanistan is probably the most ass-backwards country in the world, but it's only a few centuries behind us and that can change quickly with the right people leading the way.

Also, Topaz, to suggest that Khadr is the fall guy for 911 is just ridiculous. You're better than that.

[Topaz]

That's the idea. It probably won't work but that's the idea.

Not too long ago that's how Western civilization acted as well. Ever heard of the Inquisition? The Salem witch hunts? WWII?

Oh right.

Afghanistan is probably the most ass-backwards country in the world, but it's only a few centuries behind us and that can change quickly with the right people leading the way.

Also, Topaz, to suggest that Khadr is the fall guy for 911 is just ridiculous. You're better than that.

I"M not the only one that thinks that, I also heard a few people on TV say the same thing.

[Guest American Woman]

I"M not the only one that thinks that, I also heard a few people on TV say the same thing.

For the record, there are a lot of idiots on TV. Being on TV doesn't automatically give one credibility.

[PIK]

Here is person who's family hates our country and our way of life and would love to see canadian soldiers killed on the battle field buy yet people here support him. He was not a child nor a soldier. He was involved in attack against NATO soldiers , attack against NATO is attack against everyone. The only picture the media like to show is him in high school or in jail ,but never the pics of him training to kill NATO soldiers or making IED's to kill NATO soldiers.And the biggest facty is , nobody gave a damn about him while the LIBERALS were in power, it was not until harper took over when the tears started to flow, you are all full of shit.

[Topaz]

So how to you explain the mercenaries like Blackwater that was hired by GW to go into Iraq? Just Look At how many Iraqis they killed for the joy of it from their trucks, do any you remember that? The eye-witness US soldier also say that it could have only been Khadr because he was the only one alive after the building he was in was hit by rockets. Well, he could have OR someone could have thrown it just before the building was hit and beside that the soldier had his eyes injured, so how could he see so plainly? The soldier also said he wasn't after revenge for 9/11 or for his friend the medic who was killed, yeah, right.

[segnosaur]

So you think that when NATO leaves Afghanistan, that the laws there will be more like Western laws, and women will have the same rights as over here?

I do not expect Afghanistan to be a perfect country with western style laws and respect for human rights in the near future. I expect that there will be some cases of injustice/intolerance and other areas of criticism that would probably not happen here in the western world.

However, even if there are problems in Afghanistan, I do think they can be better than the Taliban. Whatever human rights abuses exist now (and will probably exist in the future), they do not compare to a society where women have no right to work or for education, where women are stoned to death for adultery, and athiesm was punishable by death.

I think the improvements in human rights (even if not currently at western standards) was worth fighting for.

[eyeball]

He was not a child nor a soldier.

Yes he was.

Edited August 12, 2010 by eyeball

[g_bambino]

Yes he was.

No, he wasn't.

[eyeball]

No, he wasn't.

Oh yes he was.

[segnosaur]

I admit I do not understand the nature of the charges either. Evidently he is charged with hurling a grenade and killing a US soldier. The soldier was a medic, yes but still a soldier. This was in the middle of a battle between US troops and Taliban insurgents, so it's entirely likely that had they seen Khadr first they would have shot to try and kill him. Can't imagine that during such a battle one pauses to ask for ID.

So if he killed a soldier, how is it terrorism? Is it because he is not an official soldier complete with uniform? Well, in that case they (taliban) all are not soldiers.

Actually yes.

In order to be considered a 'soldier' an individual must be wearing a clearly designated uniform, and must be a member of a clearly defined chain of command. (One of the reasons why this is the case is to prevent innocent people from being casualties after being used as human shields.) It should also be noted that the taliban soldiers were not representing any recognized government.

On the other hand, they (the Taliban members) were also not mere criminals... unlike your garden variety murderer, they were A: acting as a unit (or with a cohesive plan) with at least some military tactics, B: often were from foreign countries, and C: were acting against people who were not from Afghanistan (e.g. American and other soldiers).

That's why we have the term 'unlawful combatant', to handle individuals who do not fit into the basic division between POWs and Criminals. While things like the Geneva Convention do not define this term, it has been used for decades in international court cases.

Yeah segnosaur they don't mean to kill civilians but they will shoot to kill anyone, when in doubt and ask questions/ apologize later. Intent to kill is still there, otherwise far more precautions could be taken if they were truly serious about not killing civilians. Like, not having this war in the first place...

There are very specific rules of engagement that a U.S. soldier in afghanistan must follow. Failure to follow those rules can result in penalties. In fact, in some cases people have complained that those very same "rules of engagement" have actually caused U.S. deaths because at times they've been too restrictive.

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061803760.html for some descriptions of some of the U.S. rules of engagement.

[eyeball]

This quibbling over uniforms is especially ridiculous in what is arguably one if the poorest countries on Earth - where it stands to reason the people who live and fight there don't wear uniforms because they simply can't afford the stupid things.

Edited August 12, 2010 by eyeball

[bloodyminded]

This quibbling over uniforms is especially ridiculous in what is arguably one if the poorest countries on Earth - where it stands to reason the people who live and fight there don't wear uniforms because they simply can't afford the stupid things.

It's highly convenient, to be sure.

Otherwise, how are you going to prosecutue child soldiers?

I suppose if child soldiers are issued uniforms (since they have no choice either way), they can still do what they do and then receive better treatment from us.

[g_bambino]

Oh yes he was.

Okay, okay. He was: in the minds of those who love to feel good about themselves by creating imaginary victims they can then strive to save.