Army Guy Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) Nothing mentioned in the Statute about Allies. True. However, since Al-Qaeda is certainly considered an enemy of Canada and an "armed [force] against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities", what Khadr did could still be considered "assist[ing] an enemy at war with Canada", if Al-Qaeda is considered to be either "at war" with Canada or the armed forces of a country. [+] Edited October 24, 2011 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 "Assisting an enemy" is pretty broad, and as such, you don't think killing Canada's allies is assisting Canada's enemy? Fighting with the enemy isn't assisting them? What do you think "assisting an enemy..." means? I think it means assisiting an enemy of the state, meaning a country at war with us. It is an old law ad perhaps is not up to todays standards. Either way, I seriously doubt any charges like this will ever show up for various reason, being a minor,not in a war per se (formally declared)among the few. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) re: canada's obligation to child soldiers: Last month, Senator Romeo Dallaire asked when Canada would bring in legislation to ensure that all applicable laws are in compliance with the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, which was ratified in 2002. This week, he got his answer, which – as it turns out – is that there are no plans to do so, as, according to the Conservatives, the government is already in full compliance with the protocol, despite its stubborn refusal to intervene in the case of child soldier – and Canadian citizen – Omar Khadr. Apparently, that’s what is known as a “multi-faceted approach”: Canada has a multi-faceted approach to implementing its international human rights obligations, including those found in the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflicts (“OP CRC (Armed Conflict)”). Prior to ratification in 2000, a comprehensive assessment of federal laws, policies, and practices was conducted to determine if they complied with the OP CRC (Armed Conflict). A similar assessment was also undertaken by the provinces and territories. Canada did not signal its intention to be bound until after these comprehensive reviews had been completed. As a result of this review, Canada amended its National Defence Act (NDA) to entrench into law the Canadian Forces pre-existing policy of precluding persons under the age of 18 years from being deployed into areas where hostilities are taking place. This amendment (section 34 of the NDA) came into effect on June 29, 2000. Canada also relies on the constitutional protections that are already in place under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as through existing legislation, policies, programs, and public education to implement its international human rights obligations respecting children. As with each of the major United Nations human rights treaties, Canada must periodically report to the United Nations on measures taken to implement Canada’s international human rights obligations. Canada submitted its first report on the OP CRC (Armed Conflict) to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2004. It can be found at: http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/pdp-hrp/docs/crc/pfcdeca_e.cfm) link Edited October 24, 2011 by bud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 True. However, since Al-Qaeda is certainly considered an enemy of Canada and an "armed [force] against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities", what Khadr did could still be considered "assist[ing] an enemy at war with Canada", if Al-Qaeda is considered to be either "at war" with Canada or the armed forces of a country. [+] This is where the problem in my mind lies. Wars are fought between countries and AQ isnt a country. It represents a bunch of people . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) dp Edited October 24, 2011 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 However, since Al-Qaeda is certainly considered an enemy of Canada and an "armed [force] against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities", what Khadr did could still be considered "assist[ing] an enemy at war with Canada", if Al-Qaeda is considered to be either "at war" with Canada or the armed forces of a country. [+] Along this line, a central question is this. Is a declaration of war required to wage military action? It has been noted that "developments in international law since 1945, notably the United Nations Charter, including its prohibition on the threat or use of force in international relations, may well have made the declaration of war redundant as a formal international legal instrument."[1] In addition to this, non-state or terrorist organisations may claim to or be described as "declaring war" when engaging in violent acts.[2][3] These declarations may have no legal standing in themselves, but may still act as a call to arms for supporters of these organisations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war#Denigration_of_formal_declarations_of_war Is there agreement that Al Qaeda initiated war like attacks and hostilities against its enemies? If the answer is yes, then a declaration of war in the traditional sense by the countries targeted by Al Qaeda's terrorist strikes is not necessary. Adding to that, Al Qaeda did not issue a formal declaration of war when it attacked the countries they consider enemies or countries that harboured said enemies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) Not really; to do otherwise goes against the concept of sovereignty. Would you approve of Rawandan laws having force and effect in Canada? If they happened to be of a better higher quality than our's or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we also subscribe to for example, why not? I'm an Earthling at heart, so this national sovereignty concept is getting more passe all the time as far as I'm concerned. It's time to...progress, evolve in other words...long long past time actually. Comity is never having to say you're sorry. Edited October 25, 2011 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 He was born into Al Qaeda, an organization to which his father was a founder. Actually, he was born in Canada, but in terms of the laws that should have taken precedent in lieu of the inability of Canada's to protect him, he should have been regarded as a human being with internationally recognized rights instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Yet his mother is still living the good life in Canada, without having had any charges laid against her. That's right, by not charging his mother with the war crime of indoctrinating a child soldier we handily avoided having to officially regard him and any other captured combatant in this war as a POW. Oh, it's disgusting, for sure. I thought I already I said that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) What are you trying to say that he could not be held accountable as a minor, as our history is full of minors being charged as Adults in Adult courts for serious crimes...which i think treason is pretty serious.... Or is there a clause that states other wise....Even under inter national law it states that children that are deemed child soldiers can be held accountable in court for their actions...it also states to be fair it is not the prefered course of action, but it remains one. There is or at least was discretion. I think that 15 year old soldiers that were indoctrinated from the age of 8 would have normally qualified for the kind of discretion that would waive the sort of accountability an adult who suddenly decided to kill people should expect. But there's that problem of extending the notion of child soldier to Omar Khadr again, doing so really throws a kink in all the horrific propagandizing and rationalization that's gone into this whole conflict. Hold him accountable as a child soldier and history changes before you've even had a decent chance to re-write it. I guess that just wouldn't be fair or something. Edited October 25, 2011 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 That's right, by not charging his mother with the war crime of indoctrinating a child soldier we handily avoided having to officially regard him and any other captured combatant in this war as a POW. Is there such a crime with defined elements of the offense...even in Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) Is there such a crime with defined elements of the offense...even in Canada? I think there could have been if we'd chosen to employ a little bit of higher-minded discretion when interpreting Article 8.2.26 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), adopted in July 1998 and entered into force 1 July 2002; "Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities" is a war crime. Source I take it you would have been a dissenting intervenor in such a case? Edited October 25, 2011 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 I think there could have been if we'd chosen to employ a little bit of higher-minded discretion when interpreting Article 8.2.26 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), adopted in July 1998 and entered into force 1 July 2002; "Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities" is a war crime. Source That doesn't apply to Mom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 That doesn't apply to Mom. It does if you squint your eyes a little and at least try to focus on what's best for children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 It does if you squint your eyes a little and at least try to focus on what's best for children. C'mon man...Mom gets to abort your ass if she wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 C'mon man...Mom gets to abort your ass if she wants. For awhile but use it or lose it as they say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 I think it means assisiting an enemy of the state, meaning a country at war with us. It is an old law ad perhaps is not up to todays standards. Either way, I seriously doubt any charges like this will ever show up for various reason, being a minor,not in a war per se (formally declared)among the few. This is where the problem in my mind lies. Wars are fought between countries and AQ isnt a country. It represents a bunch of people . [quote]© assists an enemy at war with Canada, or 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. Assisting an enemy can mean anything from Spying and reporting our movements , convoys, routes ETC this is what Omar did before he got into planting IED's...Offering any assistance that may be helpful to their war efforts... Being a minor means squat on the battlefield if your armed then you are a legal target, it only comes into play after capture and how your treated. Even the new child soldier laws change very little on how they are treated... I want to make this clear a state of war does not have to exist as long as they (a nation or any armed group)are engaged with Canadian forces or their allieds...Although not specifically mentioned they are assumed to be one in the same , if our Nation is part of a coalition or allieds...when these coalitions are formed each country has to agree on basic principles so that they are fighting from the same page, not 15 different types of law, but rather one blended rules of operations manual. the AQ is certianly defined as a group of armed people with a clear chain of command who operate across the planet... Canada did agree to enter the war on terror in this specific mission area...and others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Is there agreement that Al Qaeda initiated war like attacks and hostilities against its enemies? If the answer is yes, then a declaration of war in the traditional sense by the countries targeted by Al Qaeda's terrorist strikes is not necessary. Adding to that, Al Qaeda did not issue a formal declaration of war when it attacked the countries they consider enemies or countries that harboured said enemies. The AQ actions alone are a formal declaration of war, if i punch you in the face, you don't have to wait until i announce my intentions, it's "game on", you can kick my ass. The US is free to strike back with out inter national agreements, or UN approval, all nations are entitled to defend themselfs...in this case the US took the fight to them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 There is or at least was discretion. I think that 15 year old soldiers that were indoctrinated from the age of 8 would have normally qualified for the kind of discretion that would waive the sort of accountability an adult who suddenly decided to kill people should expect. 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... 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... But there's that problem of extending the notion of child soldier to Omar Khadr again, doing so really throws a kink in all the horrific propagandizing and rationalization that's gone into this whole conflict.Hold him accountable as a child soldier and history changes before you've even had a decent chance to re-write it. I guess that just wouldn't be fair or something. 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 If they happened to be of a better higher quality than our's... why not? 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 The AQ actions alone are a formal declaration of war... Are they? One has to be sure, since whether they are or not is central to the question of whether or not Khadr could be guilty of high treason. I don't think it's as clear as you make it out to be, and my suspicions lean towards Al-Qaeda having never declared, nor even being capable of declaring, war; Al-Qaeda is neither a country nor the armed forces of a country, and, as far as I undersand it, a state of war can only exist between countries (unless it's a civil war, which is still a label that doesn't apply in the circumstances). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 he should have been regarded as a human being with internationally recognized rights instead. Regarded as such by whom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Are they? One has to be sure, since whether they are or not is central to the question of whether or not Khadr could be guilty of high treason. I don't think it's as clear as you make it out to be, and my suspicions lean towards Al-Qaeda having never declared, nor even being capable of declaring, war; Al-Qaeda is neither a country nor the armed forces of a country, and, as far as I undersand it, a state of war can only exist between countries (unless it's a civil war, which is still a label that doesn't apply in the circumstances). © assists an enemy at war with Canada, or 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. I think your getting confused to whom is AN ARMED FORCE,( AQ is clearly an ARMED FORCE with a clear chain of command and they are engaged with the CF)( 2 rednecks in Alberta could be an amred force.).....Besides A state of war does not need to exist it states so on the bottom line... AQ declared thier intentions by slamming into the towers, that action is a stae of war if done intentionally... 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. The US also that day announced the War on Terror....with the AQ having front row seats.... 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.