g_bambino Posted October 10, 2012 Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 Twit. I rest my case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 The reason is political not legal. So long as your premise is wrong you'll never figure that out. The reason is legal, it's spell out very clearly in the conventions, inter national law, and you guessed it Canadian law.....He is a terrorist, illegal combatant, an insurgent....he always will be nothing more according to the law.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) The reason is legal, it's spell out very clearly in the conventions, inter national law, and you guessed it Canadian law.....He is a terrorist, illegal combatant, an insurgent....he always will be nothing more according to the law.... Really? I'd sure like to see that proven in real courts of law. I'll put the Hague and the SC up against that US military spectacle you call a legal process any day of the week and twice on Sunday. ESPECIALLY on Sunday given it's apparently special moral significance. Edited October 11, 2012 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 The reason is legal, it's spell out very clearly in the conventions, inter national law, and you guessed it Canadian law.....He is a terrorist, illegal combatant, an insurgent....he always will be nothing more according to the law.... you and others claim he should have known better but here you are an adult and you don't know better...international law absolutely defines him as a child soldier, an international law that canada has signed on to and accepts...it isn't legal issue at all, this purely a political game being played by conservatives courting the redneck vote...had omar been taken to the USA or canada for trial he would’ve been freed long ago as his civil rights in both countries were grossly violated, the evidence used against him so flimsy and contradictory no prosecution would stand.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Both you and eyeball keep saying the same thing, but why has the SC not struck down this whole court case and grant young mr Omar a free pass....Why becuase the court in which he is convicted in is "legal" and it's findings are legal, or young mr Omar would not being doing time in a federal prison would he.....International law does define him as a child soldier, but the same law does not prevent him or any child from being held accountable for his crimes.... But some how you two refuse to accept that fact....or do we need to post those laws back up here for you to read another time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Both you and eyeball keep saying the same thing, but why has the SC not struck down this whole court case and grant young mr Omar a free pass....Why becuase the court in which he is convicted in is "legal" and it's findings are legal, or young mr Omar would not being doing time in a federal prison would he.....International law does define him as a child soldier, but the same law does not prevent him or any child from being held accountable for his crimes.... But some how you two refuse to accept that fact....or do we need to post those laws back up here for you to read another time. I understand that in combat, child soldiers kill and are thus are treated like any other insurgent.I understand that child soldiers are held accountable for their crimes, with a strong focus on rehabilitation. That hasn't happened. Omar was imprisoned for 10 years without trial, with no rehabilitation and with illegal interrogation - ie, torture. Has this rehabilitated him? At some point even hardliners have to accept that enough is enough. He was a child caught in a war/insurgency not of his making and not there by choice. It's over ... except for the rehabilitation required for a child soldier. Can we get on with that please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 So Afghanistan is Khadr's country? Not Canada? Furthermore, the Afghan government wasn't fighting against the Americans. Or Canadians. Or NATO. The Taliban (the Afghan government) at that time was indeed fighting against NATO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 I agree. I dont think this guy did anything wrong at all. And as a POW you are right that he should be held until the war is over. The only problem I see is that the GWOT is not actually a war its a racket. It will go on until the people being tricked into funding it wise up, and that could be many decades. This is the first time I hear this from you. And you are right it IS a racket. One that never ends, it's perpetual. Why then was he held as an insurgent and not as a POW....Was he classified as a soldier....NOPE why is that what is the legal reason...... Illegal enemy combatant, is the term the USA used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 The Taliban (the Afghan government) at that time was indeed fighting against NATO. Minor note: The Taliban ruled until October 2001. Omar Kahdr was caputured in July 2002, over half a year after the Taliban lost power. So at the time, the "afghan governent" was not fighthing NATO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 The Taliban ruled until October 2001. Omar Kahdr was caputured in July 2002, over half a year after the Taliban lost power. So at the time, the "afghan governent" was not fighthing NATO. People keep trying to point that out to the others who go on as though the truth were something different; something conveniently fitting the end they wish to reach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 He was... caught in a war/insurgency not of his making and not there by choice. Apparently it was his choice: When his father returned, [Omar] asked to be allowed to stay at a group home for young men, despite his mother's protests. His father agreed, and a month later allowed him to accompany a group of Arabs associated with Abu Laith al-Libi, who needed a Pashto translator during their stay in Khost. Khadr promised to check in regularly with his mother. Omar Khadr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Minor note: The Taliban ruled until October 2001. Omar Kahdr was caputured in July 2002, over half a year after the Taliban lost power. So at the time, the "afghan governent" was not fighthing NATO. And NATO is STILL fighting the Taliban ... your time line is a minor technicality. Just like Omar's age seems to be a technicality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 The Taliban ruled until October 2001. Omar Kahdr was caputured in July 2002, over half a year after the Taliban lost power. So at the time, the "afghan governent" was not fighthing NATO. And NATO is STILL fighting the Taliban ... your time line is a minor technicality. Errr... not really. The post I was responding to said: The Taliban (The Afganistan government) was fighting NATO". I was pointing out the error in your post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 The Taliban (the Afghan government) at that time was indeed fighting against NATO. As has already been pointed out several times now, the Taliban was overthrown in 2001. The Taliban was not the government of Afghanistan when Omar was captured in 2002. This is the first time I hear this from you. And you are right it IS a racket. One that never ends, it's perpetual. That was a quote from dre, not Army Guy - the post just wasn't configured the way it should have been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Both you and eyeball keep saying the same thing, but why has the SC not struck down this whole court case and grant young mr Omar a free pass.... Because that would infringe on the executive's prerogative in matters of foreign affairs and policy. His ongoing treatment by that executive flows from a political state of affairs not legal, at least not yet. Why becuase the court in which he is convicted in is "legal" and it's findings are legal, or young mr Omar would not being doing time in a federal prison would he.....International law does define him as a child soldier, but the same law does not prevent him or any child from being held accountable for his crimes.... WTF, you can't even decide if it's "legal" or legal in the same breath. I shudder to think people like you are pointing guns at people in my name. But some how you two refuse to accept that fact....or do we need to post those laws back up here for you to read another time. No, I'm afraid it's you I can't accept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 I understand that in combat, child soldiers kill and are thus are treated like any other insurgent. I understand that child soldiers are held accountable for their crimes, with a strong focus on rehabilitation. That hasn't happened. Omar was imprisoned for 10 years without trial, with no rehabilitation and with illegal interrogation - ie, torture. Has this rehabilitated him? At some point even hardliners have to accept that enough is enough. He was a child caught in a war/insurgency not of his making and not there by choice. It's over ... except for the rehabilitation required for a child soldier. Can we get on with that please? They can't get on with that because acknowledging his status as a child soldier opens a slew of Pandora's Boxes. If he's a real POW from a real army in a real war there will be real legal consequences stemming from all the other POW's that have likewise been..."legally"...imprisoned, vilified and tortured, etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) People keep trying to point that out to the others who go on as though the truth were something different; something conveniently fitting the end they wish to reach. And some people keep imagining these meaningless quibbles within Omar Khadr's file somehow forever close the case he has against us. His record remains, and I quote, still before the SC. Edited October 11, 2012 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 ...[T]hese meaningless quibbles.... Courts make rulings based on fact, not emotional urges. It sometimes takes a bit of squibbling to determine what is fact and what is not. His record remains, and I quote, still before the SC. Are you quoting yourself? Khadr has a lawsuit against the Crown currently ongoing; there's nothing to indicate (as far as I've seen) that it's before the Supreme Court yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) The Taliban It's extremily hard to debate a topic when the person you are debating knows nothing about it. au contraire, It is incredibly easy to debate a topic when the person you're debating knows nothing about it. The taliban existed before 1996, and they continue to exist. You can't extinguish states, their scope of influence however can change. Hamid is a US puppet, always has, hasn't had a legitimate election yet. AFghan government that invited ISAF to stay and assist with gaining control over the country WRONG - it was ISAF that invited Hamid Karzai to stay and assist with gaining control over the country. insurgents = remnants of armed opposition to the invasion. it's changed from invasion to assistance no sorry. It changed from invasion to occupying part of the country.If you are denying the US invaded afghanistan you can deny that but I don't see any evidence saying so. So now Omar is a terrorist operating illigally in a country that does not want his assistance It is interesting how you put those peices together to fit your story. Where is the fairy godmother? Sorry Taliban arn't spending all their time planting flowers these days. Take today and yesterday for example. Headlines today "Obama nominates new Afghanistan commander " "A US drone attack has killed 18 in Pakistan" "11 people killed 30 injured near tea" "7 British Royal Marines Arrested by UKMOD for Murder of non civilians in Afghanistan" "Insurgents attack kill NATO soldier in southern Afghanistan" fat lady hasn't sang, no bright lights etc.. The line at the bottom of an attack today gives you the reality that this is not just giving massages At least 393 NATO service members including 271 US troops, 39 British troops and 43 soldiers from the other NATO member countries have been killed in Afghanistan since the beginning of 2012. Those are just the dead... take for instance these casualties of war http://rabble.ca/new...war-afghanistan You may eventually come to terms with what actually happened. You don't need to live in denile for everything, you arn't bad just because of your past actions. It is all the world we live in, that world isn't necesarily what we think it is, situations change, and I think everyone is doing what they think is right at any given time based upon the context they are in and what society made them. Do you really beleive your version of events, think deeply about the points and if they make sense to you. In your reality these people are hunting elk, does that make sense to you? http://afpak.foreign...istan_commander Edited October 11, 2012 by login Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 This is the first time I hear this from you. And you are right it IS a racket. One that never ends, it's perpetual. Sorry Gost hack i was having issues with the new format that is not my quote but rather the one below it. Illegal enemy combatant, is the term the USA used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 Because that would infringe on the executive's prerogative in matters of foreign affairs and policy. His ongoing treatment by that executive flows from a political state of affairs not legal, at least not yet. WTF, you can't even decide if it's "legal" or legal in the same breath. I shudder to think people like you are pointing guns at people in my name. No, I'm afraid it's you I can't accept. Thats bullshit and you know it, first the government can not agree to anything that would be illegal, meaning if this trail or court was not legal, there findings would mean jack shit here in this country....and Omar would have been returned back to Canada ASAP to face some sort of trail here.....Not to mention Omars defence team would have been all over that...instead today Omar sits in a federal jail house sitting out the rest of his term....And the SC Sits and does nothing....while a canadian citizen serves time in our penal system....i don't think so....A Canadian citizen can not do time because it was decided by the executive's prerogative to do so.....The whole process needs to be done in a legal court of law....get over it...or perhaps you can provide a source that spells it all out for those of us with piont guns at people all day........if it is not to much problem for a guy that just fishes all day...oh and lets not forget whine about omar as a hobby...maybe you can put up or STFU... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 I understand that in combat, child soldiers kill and are thus are treated like any other insurgent. I understand that child soldiers are held accountable for their crimes, with a strong focus on rehabilitation. That hasn't happened. Omar was imprisoned for 10 years without trial, with no rehabilitation and with illegal interrogation - ie, torture. Has this rehabilitated him? At some point even hardliners have to accept that enough is enough. He was a child caught in a war/insurgency not of his making and not there by choice. It's over ... except for the rehabilitation required for a child soldier. Can we get on with that please? I've said dozens of times i do not agree with everything that has happened to Omar, as it has been stated in the media his re education will commence very soon under the Canadian system. And while his situation was not all of his making "HE" has made some bad choices along this journey as well, those are the ones i would like to see him held accountable.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 And while his situation was not all of his making "HE" has made some bad choices along this journey as well, those are the ones i would like to see him held accountable.... He's been incarcerated for quite some time, and remains so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 au contraire, It is incredibly easy to debate a topic when the person you're debating knows nothing about it. The taliban existed before 1996, and they continue to exist. You can't extinguish states, their scope of influence however can change. Hamid is a US puppet, always has, hasn't had a legitimate election yet. How old are you ? your reading comprehension is well below a 5 th grader.....my son knows more about this topic than you do and he is in grade 6.... Show me where i said that the taliban did not exist before 1996....and while they continue to exist , in your mind what do they control, what government do they form.....and while they continue to combat ISAF and Afghanis governmental forces in Afghanistan they form no party that has any legal rights any where... Your right the state of Aghanistan still exists but it is controled by the elected government of Afghanistan....it's head of state is Hamid Karzi....perhaps you can provide a source that states something else....maybe the 100,000 topics in goggle are wrong....Yes the Taliban do have influence over Afghanistan they also have influence on Pakistan , shit to some degree Canada but that does not mean they are in charge., or form the government of those states..... As for the the election claim....again provide a source that states so, because your just pulling these facts out your ass....Show us where this election or any of the process was not legitimate..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamid_Karzai WRONG - it was ISAF that invited Hamid Karzai to stay and assist with gaining control over the country. Please provide a source,..... Not even sure what your piont is with the rest of your post, maybe one day you'll explain it to..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 Thats bullshit and you know it, first the government can not agree to anything that would be illegal, meaning if this trail or court was not legal, there findings would mean jack shit here in this country....and Omar would have been returned back to Canada ASAP to face some sort of trail here.....Not to mention Omars defence team would have been all over that...instead today Omar sits in a federal jail house sitting out the rest of his term....And the SC Sits and does nothing....while a canadian citizen serves time in our penal system....i don't think so....A Canadian citizen can not do time because it was decided by the executive's prerogative to do so.....The whole process needs to be done in a legal court of law....get over it...or perhaps you can provide a source that spells it all out for those of us with piont guns at people all day........if it is not to much problem for a guy that just fishes all day...oh and lets not forget whine about omar as a hobby...maybe you can put up or STFU... I have this image of carepov doing a face-palm in the wake of yet another homie's melt down. In case you hadn't noticed our government can pretty much do what ever the hell it wants. Harper's government could ignore any kangaroo court's finding if it chose too but I doubt it ever will in the case of any that helped frame Khadr. A Canadian citizen can not do time because it was decided by the executive's prerogative to do so. And yet there he sits, in Milhaven prison, branded by our government as a dangerous terrorist without so much as a single charge being laid, tried or ruled on by a Canadian court. 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.