WWWTT Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Murder is Murder be it as a soldier or a civilian... This is an incorrect statement. In the Canadian justice system(aswell as other western countries) there are different degrees,such as first degree,second,or manslaughter. I am not sure but I wouldn't be suprised if a military court even adhere to some kind of similar standard aswell. And I believe much of this debate has to do with how the public percieves a soldier killing another soldier. If an Afgan soldier kills a Canadian soldier is that murder? But if a Canadian soldier kills an Afgan soldier wouldn't that be murder aswell? And if not then why the double standard? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 AQ declared thier intentions by slamming into the towers, that action is a stae of war if done intentionally... Can you provide a reliable link? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Just the act of Building up of troops is an act of war Why do I find this hard to believe? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 This is an incorrect statement.In the Canadian justice system(aswell as other western countries) there are different degrees,such as first degree,second,or manslaughter. I am not sure but I wouldn't be suprised if a military court even adhere to some kind of similar standard aswell. I stand corrected there are 3 types of murder and all 3 are the same as a soldier or a civilian... And I believe much of this debate has to do with how the public percieves a soldier killing another soldier.If an Afgan soldier kills a Canadian soldier is that murder? But if a Canadian soldier kills an Afgan soldier wouldn't that be murder aswell? And if not then why the double standard? there is no double standard, a soldier killing another soldier within Canadian laws, international laws, and the conventions is legal...take as many lifes as you want, government will provide the ammo, the other government the targets....It is murder when you fall outside the laws, for instance taking a Civilian life that is involved in the actions of the Battle field...that is murder...take a life of a soldier that is surrendering that is murder...which murder you pick... There is a big difference when a soldier intentionally fires upon a priest or medic carrying out his duties that is murder...as they are protected under the laws and conventions and you can be charged and tried ...be it in Canada, inter national court or a UN sanction court... If your going to play soldier then you got to know the rules, or find yourself in front of a court... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 there is no double standard, a soldier killing another soldier within Canadian laws, international laws, and the conventions is legal...take as many lifes as you want, government will provide the ammo, the other government the targets....It is murder when you fall outside the laws, for instance taking a Civilian life that is involved in the actions of the Battle field...that is murder...take a life of a soldier that is surrendering that is murder...which murder you pick... There is a big difference when a soldier intentionally fires upon a priest or medic carrying out his duties that is murder...as they are protected under the laws and conventions and you can be charged and tried ...be it in Canada, inter national court or a UN sanction court... If your going to play soldier then you got to know the rules, or find yourself in front of a court... Then don't the same rules apply to Kadr? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Just the act of Building up of troops is an act of war Why do I find this hard to believe? Look at the 6 day war for an example. History is full of them countries doing preemptive attacks becasue the other side was building up.... Professor Mark R. Amstutz (citing Michael Walzer) adopted a similar but slightly varied set of criteria and noted three factors when evaluating the justification of a preemptive strike.[30]The existence of an intention to injure; The undertaking of military preparations that increase the level of danger; and The need to act immediately because of a higher degree of risk. Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter is generally considered to be 'jus cogens' (literally: "compelling law", in practice: "higher international law"), and prohibits all U.N. members from exercising "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". Some have argued that Article 51 of the UN Charter permits self defense, however, article 51 also stipulates that self defense by a member state is justified only if, "an armed attack occurs," against it. From this it is reasonable to assume that if no armed attack has yet occurred that no automatic justification for preemptive 'self-defense' has yet been made 'legal' under the UN Charter. And while it may be illigal to make the first move, not many countries are going to sit on a war footing for long, some where some how something is going to spark and set the whole thing in flames... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 I think your getting confused to whom is AN ARMED FORCE,(AQ is clearly an ARMED FORCE...) Yes, Al-Qaeda certainly is an armed force. However, there's more to the clause to conisder: "any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are [emphasis mine]." That would indicate that the armed force engaged in hostilities with the Canadian Forces must be the armed forces of a country, which Al-Qaeda is not. Japan attacking pearl Harbour, Germany moving on Russia...Just the act of Building up of troops is an act of war, the act it self carried out in surpriase also an act of war. Acts of war, sure. But, putting aside the question of whether or not an act of war is enough to confirm the acting country is technically at war with its target, Al-Qaeda made no similar attack or action against Canada. The only engagement Canada has with Al-Qaeda is that our troops are fighting theirs in Afghanistan; does that mean Canada considers Al-Qaeda to be "an enemy at war with Canada"? I don't believe so. An enemy hostile to Canada, certainly; but not specifically at war with Canada; I don't think a stateless organisation can be at war with a country. I know this is getting pedantic, but the proper exercise of the law is reliant on these definitions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 AQ declared thier intentions by slamming into the towers, that action is a stae of war if done intentionally... In addition to this, non-state or terrorist organisations may claim to or be described as "declaring war" when engaging in violent acts.[ link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Then don't the same rules apply to Kadr? well , Khadr is an insurgent, who does not have the same rules applied to a soldier which is protected under the convention, as they bear arms openily, and wear a uniform which separates them from the rest of the population...however that being said he is covered under almost all the conventions dealing with treatment and care... Aside from that he killed a Army medic who was performing his medical duties at the time....which i mentioned before therefore he is charged with murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Then don't the same rules apply to Kadr? No they don't. What Army Guy is describing is 'combat immunity'. Killing others is murder. Even soldiers killing other soldiers is murder. However, when a soldier does his/her killing while serving the Armed forces of a state, they have combat immunity. That is they cannot be prosecuted for murder when they are killing with the sanction of the state in whose Armed forces they serve. Of course 'combat immunity' only applies in certain circumstances as Army Guy alluded to. Killing outside those conditions then the soldier is no longer immune to being charged with murder. There is a big fat grey area in regards to irregular forces. Can any armed mob (or for that matter, any armed individual) be considered to be part of a states Armed forces? or is that mob a bunch of thugs out for some loot? or that individual a nutbar out to kill somebody/anybody for their own purposes? This grey area is usually hurdled through the idea of identification. The Geneva conventions identify who is to be accorded P.O.W. status based on four things: 1. Openly bear arms 2. Be under the authority of a command heiarchy (sp?) 3. Wear a distinctive identifying mark/uniform visible from a distance 4. Operate within the Laws of War Of course those things are used for determining if a prisoner gets P.O.W. status under the geneva conventions. But they are also convenient to determine if a person has combat immunity. In wee Omars case he was operating with a group that openly bore arms, was under a command structure, did not wear distinctive identifying marks/uniform, and may or may not have been obeying the laws of war. Because of the identifying thing then he is not immune to murder charges if he kills someone. Thus the Murder charge laid against him by the USofA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Yes, Al-Qaeda certainly is an armed force. However, there's more to the clause to conisder: "any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are [emphasis mine]." That would indicate that the armed force engaged in hostilities with the Canadian Forces must be the armed forces of a country, which Al-Qaeda is not. Nither was the FLQ however the military was called in and martial law imposed. And this is were our laws are not very clear, however that being said there must be a legal piont that the UN invoked as they authorized the use of force, not only Again'st the Taliban and Afghan regime at the time but to all the terrorist organizations within it...Not sure on the number today but well over 15 different groups with different ties. Acts of war, sure. But, putting aside the question of whether or not an act of war is enough to confirm the acting country is technically at war with its target, Al-Qaeda made no similar attack or action against Canada. The only engagement Canada has with Al-Qaeda is that our troops are fighting theirs in Afghanistan; does that mean Canada considers Al-Qaeda to be "an enemy at war with Canada"? I don't believe so. An enemy hostile to Canada, certainly; but not specifically at war with Canada; I don't think a stateless organisation can be at war with a country.I know this is getting pedantic, but the proper exercise of the law is reliant on these definitions. The US used it's many defence pacts to invoke a coalition, such as NATO, etc...an attack on one is an attck on all.. I think this is covered on the War with Terror, and Canada must have agreed to the conditions set by the US/ UN because these terrorist were given high target values in Afghanistan...meaning they wanted them out of the picture quickly and Canadian forces did partake in most of these op's. The UN's rules are still being updated as are our's in regards to stateless targets or declarations....and are under the micro scope as the US attacks more of them in different countries without any agreements with the host countries... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 well , Khadr is an insurgent, who does not have the same rules applied to a soldier which is protected under the convention, as they bear arms openily, and wear a uniform which separates them from the rest of the population...however that being said he is covered under almost all the conventions dealing with treatment and care... Aside from that he killed a Army medic who was performing his medical duties at the time....which i mentioned before therefore he is charged with murder. I shall take issue with the latter bit about killing a Army medic performing his duties at the time. He was indeed an army medic and was killed and may even have been performing his duties at the time. Unfortunately he was not wearing any of the required identifications of a medic (white circle with red cross on helmet, white arm band with red cross), he was also armed and conducting combat operations at the time he was killed. see transcript of Omar Khadr military commission where SgtMajor says so under cross examination by Khadrs lawyer MC record, Omar Khadr ( I would love to identify which specific page to look at but my computer here wont let me access adobe) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Omar Ahmed Khadr (Canadian) Khadr pleaded guilty to murder in violation of the law of war, attempted murder in violation of the law of war, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism, and spying for killing a U.S. Army Special Forces Sergeant First Class, for attempting to kill other coalition forces, for building and laying landmines targeting coalition forces, and for spying on coalition forces. He was sentenced to 40 years confinement. Khadr’s pretrial agreement provides for a maximum sentence of 8 years’ confinement. The Convening Authority also agreed to support Khadr’s transfer to Canada to serve the remaining portion of his sentence once he serves an additional year in U.S. custody. I stand corrected he was not charged with killing a medic, but rather Murder of a US soldier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Omar Ahmed Khadr (Canadian) Khadr pleaded guilty to murder in violation of the law of war, attempted murder in violation of the law of war, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism, and spying for killing a U.S. Army Special Forces Sergeant First Class, for attempting to kill other coalition forces, for building and laying landmines targeting coalition forces, and for spying on coalition forces. He was sentenced to 40 years confinement. Khadr’s pretrial agreement provides for a maximum sentence of 8 years’ confinement. The Convening Authority also agreed to support Khadr’s transfer to Canada to serve the remaining portion of his sentence once he serves an additional year in U.S. custody. I stand corrected he was not charged with killing a medic, but rather Murder of a US soldier. I think his crime was in killing an ally of his country, for aiding the enemy. Doesn't that make a difference - the fact that he's a Canadian? I realize that the U.S. is the one who laid charges, but that makes me wonder - why hasn't Canada? Should Canada have laid charges? It doesn't have to be treason charges, but one can't legitimize his actions by saying 'he was killing a soldier in combat which isn't an illegal war crime,' either; if his action is "legitimized" by such reasoning, how does that fit in with his being a Canadian citizen? What if he had killed a Canadian soldier? Would that have been considered a legitimate act of war? Should it be considered any differently when it's an ally? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Thanks for the info. This does change my view slightly! I guess this boils down to wether or not he knowingly killed an unarmed medic.(and if it was un/avoidable) I will not comment on this since I lack the adequate info into Kadrs court findings. Thankyou WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Omar Ahmed Khadr (Canadian) Khadr pleaded guilty to murder in violation of the law of war, attempted murder in violation of the law of war, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism, and spying for killing a U.S. Army Special Forces Sergeant First Class, for attempting to kill other coalition forces, for building and laying landmines targeting coalition forces, and for spying on coalition forces. He was sentenced to 40 years confinement. Khadr’s pretrial agreement provides for a maximum sentence of 8 years’ confinement. The Convening Authority also agreed to support Khadr’s transfer to Canada to serve the remaining portion of his sentence once he serves an additional year in U.S. custody. I stand corrected he was not charged with killing a medic, but rather Murder of a US soldier. That may be true,but there have bein guilty pleas in the past that have bein overturned because those pleas were made under extreme stress and keep in mind this guy was locked up a long time and possibly tortured. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 That may be true,but there have bein guilty pleas in the past that have bein overturned because those pleas were made under extreme stress and keep in mind this guy was locked up a long time and possibly tortured. well his lawyers and the usgovt came to a deal if he pleads guilty to everything and gives up all rights to appeal then his maximum sentence would be 8 years of which 1 would be served in US custody. The rest will be served in Canadian custody if he requests it (which he has). The thing cannot be overturned because he gave up all rights of appeal. The trial judge also gave him tons and tons of opportunity to say he did not agree to plead guilty. He stood by the plea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 Thanks for the info. This does change my view slightly! I guess this boils down to wether or not he knowingly killed an unarmed medic.(and if it was un/avoidable) I will not comment on this since I lack the adequate info into Kadrs court findings. Thankyou WWWTT The medic was armed and participating in the combat. In fact the constant referral to Khadr killing a 'medic' has been part of the propaganda game since day one. Sgt.Speers was certainly trained to provide medical assistance when required but he was also a member of the Special Forces and expected to take active part in combat with his weaponry. But the propaganda machine played on his 'medic' part to increase the perception of immorality of khadr's crime. Worked very well too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 well his lawyers and the usgovt came to a deal if he pleads guilty to everything and gives up all rights to appeal then his maximum sentence would be 8 years of which 1 would be served in US custody. The rest will be served in Canadian custody if he requests it (which he has). The thing cannot be overturned because he gave up all rights of appeal. The trial judge also gave him tons and tons of opportunity to say he did not agree to plead guilty. He stood by the plea. Ok sounds like a clear case so far,but then whats the problem with him coming here and completing his sentence? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 Ok sounds like a clear case so far,but then whats the problem with him coming here and completing his sentence? Nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 Ok sounds like a clear case so far,but then whats the problem with him coming here and completing his sentence? Can I please murder somebody in Canada and do my time in Hawaii? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 There is discretion, but it has it's limits it's not a free ticket to massicre people because they have a great desire to live, and fear their masters...(And while these African kids to whom the Child soldier laws were designed to protect) look pretty harmless in front of the TV, while in the play ground or at school lets not forget they have raped,tortured, extingished life on a whim....and are very capable of doing it again...you can't turn it off nor can you wash it off...They need to be reeducated , for long periods of time...they are mentally unstable for the lack of better words... We usually treat mentally unstable Canadian kids with therapy and drugs in hospitals not prison camps in legal limbo. And accounting for all that they still need to be held accountable for their actions it is part of the healing process, plus acts as a deterent for others the same age...I don't know why you continue down this road, when our own Canadian children have commited adult crimes and have been treid in an adult court and recieved adult sentences...what makes Omar any different because he was a soldier BS he is a Canadian citizen who stepeed on his dick, and now needs to pay for that mistake...nobody gets a free ride...Murder is Murder be it as a soldier or a civilian... There you go again, confusing vengeance with justice. I continue down this road because Khadr was only 8 when he was forced down his. So what sort of...healing process...involving deterrence in a mental healthcare context did you have in mind, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, something more Dickensian or would Inquisition era methods be more to your liking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 (edited) Simple: Lack of control. Canadians have no say in the crafting of Rwandan law; they therefore would likely not take well to being subject in their own land to such foreign authority. And vice-versa; US citizens and their authorities (including those detaining Khadr) don't want to and don't have to within US jurisdiction adhere to Canadian crafted and/or controlled law, constitutional or otherwise. Well, my response to Army Guy should clearly indicate why I favour taking a more internationalist approach towards protecting human rights using universal laws that supersede those of ethically challenged government's like our's. Edited October 26, 2011 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 Regarded as such by whom? My guess would be the ICC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 Can I please murder somebody in Canada and do my time in Hawaii? Be carefull how you word such comments! I understand the point you are making but at the same time you sound like you want to commit a violent criminal offence in Canada! You could have made your point without a negative misinterpretation if you put a little more thought into them! Actually I believe if an American citizen was here in Canada and did commit a crime and was given a jail sentence,then yes he/she could be transferred to the US to serve out their sentence there. As far as the criminal picking out which pen. he/she actually gets to serve their term out in? Actually I do vaguely remember a case about an American whom was convicted of several murders in Canada(Ng).He was supposed to be sent back to California or somewhere in the US that has the death penalty.But he made some kind of humanitarian plea and for a long time the Canadian government couldn't deport him. There's another similar case about a Canadian who was convicted of murder in Texas and was given the death sentence. The conservative government decided to not bother asking/pressuring the Americans to extradite him to Canada to serve out his sentence.This caused some controversy in parliament since it went against Canadian tradition/policy because we do not believe in the death sentence in Canada.(I believe that this case also started a rumour about the conservatives wanting to bring the death penalty back to Canada!) WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.