Army Guy Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 It's not a question of how many they can hold. They have been catching and releasing prisoners. And then catching them again. So I am not worried about the ones that are locked up, we need to be worried about the ones that are let go back in the mix. Kadhr is behind bars, while other terrorists are running free. My piont was gitmo holds but a small fration of the prisoners caught and housed....And i totally agree with you we have Omar right where we want all terrorist behind bars....and we should be making more of an effort to put the rest behind bars as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 "No ties to Afghanistan at all"? Better look that one up. You are totally wrong. He lived in Jalalabad, after they came frm Peshawar. He attended school in Afg. He was also a minor at teh time of the incident and the first minor prosecuted in such a way since WWII What does that have to do with anything, I went to school in germany, france, england...i've lived in all across the globe, that however does not give me the right to terrorize anyone from that nation or pick up arms and fight again'st the government of the time.... Give me a break ? he was fighting with a terror organization, opressing people in Afghan....you can't have it both ways on one hand you say he is Canadian and should be entitled to all his rights and freedoms that every Canadian has....on the other hand you said he lived in Afghan for a short period of time entitles him to what exactly ? ....According to any convention he was a non combatant.....until he decided to pick up arms and fight along side a terrorist group now he is an illigal combatant .... I think you should read Canadian law in regards to fighting in aother nations wars as an illigal combatant...maybe even read the convention about combatants and terrorists...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) That doesn't contradict what I said, it aligns with it; though the above speaks of national armed forces, which the Geneva Convention does not; it refers to the broader parties to a conflict. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5 It becomes a sticky matter of legal interpretation: "Parties" with a capital P seems to refer to parties to the Convention. The matter of whether Khadr was a child or an adult is thus irrelevant. All that's pertinent is that he was over the age of 15 when he went to Afghanistan and became immersed in al-Qaeda there. Red herring. I said he chose to go to Afghanistan, contrary to your claim he wasn't able to make free choices. It's a fine line. I suspect that if Khadr Sr was still alive, we'd all be calling for his head on a platter for indoctrinating his son into Al Quaeda terrorism as a child. Maybe Chretien's too. Is Omar Khadr just a convenient, available target for vengeful feelings that can't be directed at the (deceased) proper target? Should we not direct our attention to Canadian laws to prevent future situations? And what are we arguing now anyway? Omar Khadr's finishing his time. He'll be out soon. Case closed. . Edited February 19, 2014 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Well, Army Guy, we aren't going to be putting more behind bars, because the Obama administration has determined that drone killings are a lot better than detention....even for "suspected" terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Wouldn't he have been 16 if he was over 15 when he was arrested? In any case, he was only 8 when his indoctrination began and that's more than enough to garner him the humanity required to make him completely innocent. According to experts on the subject of children that have been indoctrinated to fight in wars that's also more than enough to render him completely innocent. The inhumanity he's received from Canadians is downright disgusting to put it mildly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 "Parties" with a capital P seems to refer to parties to the Convention. It very clearly states "parties to the conflict", not the convention. And what are we arguing now anyway? Other than the above, your assertion that Khadr had no free choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Is Omar Khadr just a convenient, available target for vengeful feelings that can't be directed at the (deceased) proper target? Should we not direct our attention to Canadian laws to prevent future situations? This works both ways. I make no bones about hoping Khadr's name becomes synonymous with all that was wrong about Canada's involvement in the war of terror. That includes the manner in which critics of our involvement have been as denigrated as Omar himself. The lack of humanity afforded Khadr is a reflection on Canada's uglier side...make that Canada's ugliest side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 What does that have to do with anything, I went to school in germany, france, england...i've lived in all across the globe, that however does not give me the right to terrorize anyone from that nation or pick up arms and fight again'st the government of the time.... Give me a break ? he was fighting with a terror organization, opressing people in Afghan....you can't have it both ways on one hand you say he is Canadian and should be entitled to all his rights and freedoms that every Canadian has....on the other hand you said he lived in Afghan for a short period of time entitles him to what exactly ? ....According to any convention he was a non combatant.....until he decided to pick up arms and fight along side a terrorist group now he is an illigal combatant .... I think you should read Canadian law in regards to fighting in aother nations wars as an illigal combatant...maybe even read the convention about combatants and terrorists...... No I just corrected your comment about him havig no connection to Afg. Speaking of reading about laws, ever heard of Habeous Corpus? Bush took it out of existence with the stroke of a pen regarding Gitmo, using the excuse that it wasn't, in his weary mind, American soil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, which was adopted and signed in 2002, National armed forces can accept volunteers into their armed forces below the age of 18, ¥but "States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that members of their armed forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do not take a direct part in hostilities".[10] Non-state actors and guerrilla forces are forbidden from recruiting anyone under the age of 18 for any purpose. Recruiting isn't allowed, under 18. Maybe you could get that translated into Farsi and hand out leaflets on a street corner in Mazar-e-Sharif. We wouldn't want to see this happen again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 It becomes a sticky matter of legal interpretation: "Parties" with a capital P seems to refer to parties to the Convention. It's a fine line. I suspect that if Khadr Sr was still alive, we'd all be calling for his head on a platter for indoctrinating his son into Al Quaeda terrorism as a child. Maybe Chretien's too. Is Omar Khadr just a convenient, available target for vengeful feelings that can't be directed at the (deceased) proper target? Should we not direct our attention to Canadian laws to prevent future situations? And what are we arguing now anyway? Omar Khadr's finishing his time. He'll be out soon. Case closed. . It's not a fine line, it's black and white, your correct Parties means parties to the convention, however in para 10 it explains that non state actors or guerrilla forces are forbiden ....Omar belong to a terrorist group, which has no state, There has been no movement on charging any of the Khadrs with any crimes, including his mother sole surviving parent. There is bills on the cabinet floor that adress some of the problems but your right they do not go far enough. Omar will be out when he is finished is term, and like so many of his kind will be back in the future....and we'll all be asking WTF did'nt see that coming.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) No I just corrected your comment about him havig no connection to Afg. Speaking of reading about laws, ever heard of Habeous Corpus? Bush took it out of existence with the stroke of a pen regarding Gitmo, using the excuse that it wasn't, in his weary mind, American soil. And i was just commenting on that going to school or living in a coutry for a few years does not give him any legal connection to it....., does he have a Afghanis citizenship, or was he a guest in their country.....And he paid them back by joining a terrorist group that help surpressed them....and it seems your OK with that ? I'm not making excuses for other governments here i don't agree with all our foreign policies or that of other nations. This debate is about Omar and his crimes.....his choices and actions. You have claimed that you have served in the military, my question to you is where, and did you serve in Afghanistan. Edited February 20, 2014 by Army Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Well, Army Guy, we aren't going to be putting more behind bars, because the Obama administration has determined that drone killings are a lot better than detention....even for "suspected" terrorists. I wonder what you have to do to become a suspected terrorist ? ...what is the guide lines that the US has set ? ...maybe this policy is a good one, until we know what and how these suspected terrorist are selected i'll reserve judgement.... targeting known Terrorist i'm all for it bring down the rain..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) Well, thanks to all the publicity surrounding the killings of innocents--and there've been a lot--one has to indeed wonder what the methods are. Part of the problem appears to be that they have replaced a lot of human intelligence with computer "intelligence"...for example, killing targets who are carrying certain cell phones. The problem with this, of course, is that cell phones get tossed away, picked up by other people...and so on. now, of course, you can't expect Presidents, military intelligence, the CIA and other such folks to have considered this possibility. Very complicated. But hell, it's only some innocent Afghans, Yemenis, and so on....not important when you're tasked with saving the world from the evil Commu....er, Narco-traffic...I mean terrorists. Edited February 20, 2014 by bleeding heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 your correct Parties means parties to the convention... No, she's not; the convention clearly says "parties to the conflict"; that covers any group involved in a conflict, whether a state army or rebel militia or terrorist organisation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 No, she's not; the convention clearly says "parties to the conflict"; that covers any group involved in a conflict, whether a state army or rebel militia or terrorist organisation. I think there is some confusion here, maybe including myself now. How can you enforce a nation to uphold this convention if they have not signed on to it. Hence why i agreed with Jacee, the example Overthere posts gives the impression that the states parties have signed onto this convention... A nation could be part of the conflict but did not sign on to that convention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Well, thanks to all the publicity surrounding the killings of innocents--and there've been a lot--one has to indeed wonder what the methods are. Part of the problem appears to be that they have replaced a lot of human intelligence with computer "intelligence"...for example, killing targets who are carrying certain cell phones. The problem with this, of course, is that cell phones get tossed away, picked up by other people...and so on. now, of course, you can't expect Presidents, military intelligence, the CIA and other such folks to have considered this possibility. Very complicated. But hell, it's only some innocent Afghans, Yemenis, and so on....not important when you're tasked with saving the world from the evil Commu....er, Narco-traffic...I mean terrorists. Yes there is alot of Computer intel, for example cell phome monitoring is done by capturing all cell phone calls in a area, or country the computer listens for certain key words, and compares voice recongition if picked up that info gets checked out by a human operator....if it is a priorty piece of intel that number gets flagged, and monitored until it dies.... i would bet a years wages that a strike would not be done unless that target was on the phone...I would also bet that this would not be the only piece of intel hard ware to be used, Sat imaging could confirm if target is the one they are looking for, or assets on the ground could do the same thing ...i don't think they just blast off a few missles see who we got..... ..if they had dumped it the human operator would know "hey can you pick up some milk on the way home.....vice some coded talk about terrorist things....besides the people who tossed it would then be picked up once again by computer....it can happen quite fast...dump it use another phone from approx the same loction, remember there is also vioce recongition that can pick up users on any phone., clean phones are becoming a thing of the past ....Tech has come along way....Is the system 100 % infalable , NO....but i don't think some computer is launching missles willy nilly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 How can you enforce a nation to uphold this convention if they have not signed on to it. From the wording I quoted, the convention obviously doesn't apply only to nations. Further, Common Article 3 outlines how the convention applies to non-international conflicts, including between government and rebel militia or even between two or more rebel militias. I don't believe a non-state militia can be signatory to the Geneva Conventions; yet, they appear to still be subject to its clauses. Apparently, the conventions can have "universal jurisdiction" via the UN Security Council. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 america 1 canada 0 after the 2nd. womens hockey gold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 2 - 2 going to OT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 I don't think Dadhr was ever anything other than a Canadian citizen. And he was also a minor, apparently heavily influenced by the adults around him. He was held for years in Gitmo without a charge being laid, and then when they were, it seems the process may have been just as dubious. As to the drone strikes, I think the legal people call that "extrajudicial execution". I wouldn't want that on my hands. I know there are a bunch of bad guys out there and I am certainly not siding with them, but putting a hellfire into a wedding party to take out one of them doesn't seem the best way to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 ...putting a hellfire into a wedding party to take out one of them doesn't seem the best way to me. I can't think of a better way to provoke terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 I don't think Dadhr was ever anything other than a Canadian citizen. And he was also a minor, apparently heavily influenced by the adults around him. He was held for years in Gitmo without a charge being laid, and then when they were, it seems the process may have been just as dubious. As to the drone strikes, I think the legal people call that "extrajudicial execution". I wouldn't want that on my hands. I know there are a bunch of bad guys out there and I am certainly not siding with them, but putting a hellfire into a wedding party to take out one of them doesn't seem the best way to me. A Canadian Handley-Page Halifax on display. Aircraft such as this bombed Germany using a method known as night area bombing. I can't think of a better way to provoke terrorists. Oddly, Canada experienced no terrorism that I can think of re: Canada bombing Germans in their homes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 ...Oddly, Canada experienced no terrorism that I can think of re: Canada bombing Germans in their homes. Indeed...I am still anxiously waiting for wave after wave of Serbian terror attacks as payback for Canada's/NATO's Operation Allied Force in 1999. Be afraid...be very afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) Indeed...I am still anxiously waiting for wave after wave of Serbian terror attacks as payback for Canada's/NATO's Operation Allied Force in 1999. Be afraid...be very afraid. It's a false argument that gets trotted out on occasion that fighting terrorism breeds terrorism. A Hellfire missile doesn't increase terrorism. But it does terrorize terrorists. A lot more accurate than night area bombing, as well. Perhaps if it is a common enough occurrence...getting waxed from on-high...folks in the affected regions will stop associating with terrorists. Stop marrying their daughters to them...providing shelter for them...etc, etc. If not...well...job well done...because these "innocent civilians" were supporting terrorists trying to murder Canadians and their allies.. Edited February 21, 2014 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 It's a false argument that gets trotted out on occasion that fighting terrorism breeds terrorism. A Hellfire missile doesn't increase terrorism. But it does terrorize terrorists. A lot more accurate than night area bombing, as well. Perhaps if it is a common enough occurrence...getting waxed from on-high...folks in the affected regions will stop associating with terrorists. Stop marrying their daughters to them...providing shelter for them...etc, etc. If not...well...job well done...because these "innocent civilians" were supporting terrorists trying to murder Canadians and their allies.. Try and make that nonsense hold up in any real court of law! 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.