Army Guy Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 I have observed that very few people who refer to the Geneva Convention during their argument (valid or not) have actually read that declaration. No country ( and I emphasize NO COUNTRY) has ever followed the letter and law of those overly optimistic articles. The attempt was to create “civilized” parameters to war. By its nature war can never be “civilized”. Those with time on their hands may be interested in reading them; http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5 Except in the question to which i responded....so my question to you is... Is Canada in breach of that genva convention regarding the use of child soldiers ? or is it following it to the letter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted February 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 And my son can tear apart a computer tower in 15 minutes, technical skill does not equate to intent. Gee, when I was 15 years old, we would go to Radio Shack for electronic parts, not anti-personnel mines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 Except in the question to which i responded....so my question to you is... Is Canada in breach of that genva convention regarding the use of child soldiers ? or is it following it to the letter. My position is that it is disingenuous to use the Geneva Convention of any argument because; 1. No country has ever followed it to the letter and intent. 2. To "cherry pick" any agreement is to invalidate that agreement. I do not think that any nation can be a "cafeteria style" adherent to only parts of an agreement and then claim to be a proponent and "signer". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 Big Guy.. we need a bigger font, can't read your posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) I think you make a suggestion for our cause, those that were released have not learned a thing from their prison term....in fact they have gone out to reoffend, to terrorize the same people again.......well Omar has not had that oportunity because he remains behind bars....where all terrorist should be behind bars..... I agree that terrorists should be locked up. But Kadhr is still behind bars. Where as others were let go from GITMO back into the mix. Some could have been completely innocent but their time at GIMTO created another terrorist once released. Unlike those other terrorists, we know where Kadhr is. Edited February 17, 2014 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 Harper is taking Canada backwards with his so called "tough on crime" bills. The crime rate has been dropping here for over 4 decades and the violent crime rate for over two. Of course he does this, like everything else he does, to try and grab a vote or two. The worst and most damaging part are his minimum mandatort sentences. This will serve to create more criminals. Spend a few bucks up front on prevention rather than a whole bunch of bucks after the fact and we will all reap rewards. Of all sources even the state of Texas attempted to point that out to Harper with actual facts and figures but he decided to ignore it. Get out your wallets everybody. We have to pay for a lot of new jail cells. Does anyone know the cost of repeat offenders doing their thing on the outside because they spend so little time on the inside? What are Khadr's chances of rehabilitation once he is released and reunites with his terrorist supporting family? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 Omar was consider an Illigal combantant was he notYeah. This is a cute way America has retooled war. Attack countries that can barely defend themselves and/or don't really have an army, then call the civilians that fight back against their occupation "illegal combatants." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 And my son can tear apart a computer tower in 15 minutes, technical skill does not equate to intent. Would you say Omars terrorist sex tape was not proof of intent, and skill. that and of course US military reports that confirm US forces did infact have IED strike in that very place that omar said they planted his IED's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 My position is that it is disingenuous to use the Geneva Convention of any argument because; 1. No country has ever followed it to the letter and intent. 2. To "cherry pick" any agreement is to invalidate that agreement. I do not think that any nation can be a "cafeteria style" adherent to only parts of an agreement and then claim to be a proponent and "signer". Well for that to be true first we would have to see which conventions, or for that matter Inter national law is being broken by Canada. I mean you must have serveral examples if you made a statement as the above one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 Well, if, as certainly seems to be the case, Canada was part of the plot (with France and the US) to overthrow the elected (and highly popular) leader of Haiti, and supported in his party's stead a violent dictatorship....,I would put it to you that this explicitly breaks international law on more than one measure...as well as breaking Canadian law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 I agree that terrorists should be locked up. But Kadhr is still behind bars. Where as others were let go from GITMO back into the mix. Some could have been completely innocent but their time at GIMTO created another terrorist once released. Unlike those other terrorists, we know where Kadhr is. Just a question how many prisoners did gitmo hold at any one time, ? or was gitmo the prison that US forces kept the special guys of interest....i would not say that they're were no innocent prisoners in gitmo but the odds are probably like winning the lotto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 Yeah. This is a cute way America has retooled war. Attack countries that can barely defend themselves and/or don't really have an army, then call the civilians that fight back against their occupation "illegal combatants." Your blowing smoke here.... Illigal combatants has been in the convention dating back to WWI...so it was not an american retooling for the war.... The Taliban should have thought about that before they went out on a limb to protect Bin Ladin and his merry men....As for not having a real army, well over 100,000 .....thats not a real army ?, thats almost twice that of the Canadian military....with tanks and stuff as well.... Most of those Civilians were foreigners ....The regular people of Afghan were elated to have the taliban gone....Once the interm government was est, they asked the coalition to stay and help restore power back to the government..... Omar was a Canadian , with no ties to Afghan at all, he joined a terrorist group, not the Afghan army, he was fighting to opress the people of Afghan....Why can't you see that ???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 Well, if, as certainly seems to be the case, Canada was part of the plot (with France and the US) to overthrow the elected (and highly popular) leader of Haiti, and supported in his party's stead a violent dictatorship....,I would put it to you that this explicitly breaks international law on more than one measure...as well as breaking Canadian law. That would be a perfect example, however why have no charges been laid or why has their been no investigation that produced evidence . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 ??? Charges laid by whom? Impverished Haitians? Your actual question is this: why have the most wealthy, powerful, allied nations not punished themselves for illegal invasions....or to resorting to terrorism, mass murder, etc.? Is that a serious question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 ??? Charges laid by whom? Impverished Haitians? Your actual question is this: why have the most wealthy, powerful, allied nations not punished themselves for illegal invasions....or to resorting to terrorism, mass murder, etc.? Is that a serious question? Are you saying that there is no organization that could see to these aligations, the UN, another western country, wiki leaks, shit there has to be someone .....Is there proof that these aligations took place, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 That would be a perfect example, however why have no charges been laid or why has their been no investigation that produced evidence . That would be a good question for our politicians and military brass. Also a good question for the UN. No one cares about Haiti, this is why you don't see charges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 Just a question how many prisoners did gitmo hold at any one time, ? or was gitmo the prison that US forces kept the special guys of interest....i would not say that they're were no innocent prisoners in gitmo but the odds are probably like winning the lotto. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 Army Guy, As I said, there is not (or not necessarily) proof...but there is certainly strong enough evidence to warrant an investigation, especially since the meeting about "regime change" (which occurred directly before the violent and illegal regime change) between Canadian, French and American officials took place in Montreal. And again, what "Western country" is going to hold an alliance of France, Canada and the United States accountable? Too funny. As for the UN, they went in after being invited by the coup-plotters themselves, working closely with American, French and Canadian forces. So...nope. And "wikileaks"? Wikileaks first of all is not some sort of investigative unit...but it's moot anyway, sicne the coup was plotted and took place in 2003 and 2004. Who do you propose would have intervened in the illegal behavior of an alliance...of the US, France, and Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 I have no problem with him being treated as medium-security. He is serving the time for his crime and he was, after all, a brainwashed child soldier at the time he committed the crime he was convicted of. I have no sympathy for terrorists of any kind, but I do make some allowances for children who were indoctrinated and used by terrorists. I know this won't be a popular opinion, but I'm fine with that. I hope Omar is OK in medium security. I mean personally safe. The inmates in high security tend to be a lot more isolated from each other than in medium security. he's a celebrity. They often don't do so well in jail in these circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 I am sure he will be out in time to run for MP in toronto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Just a question how many prisoners did gitmo hold at any one time, ? or was gitmo the prison that US forces kept the special guys of interest....i would not say that they're were no innocent prisoners in gitmo but the odds are probably like winning the lotto. • Largest captive population since detention center opened: About 660 in November 2003. Current detainee census: 155 http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/guantanamo/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Your blowing smoke here.... Illigal combatants has been in the convention dating back to WWI...so it was not an american retooling for the war.... The Taliban should have thought about that before they went out on a limb to protect Bin Ladin and his merry men....As for not having a real army, well over 100,000 .....thats not a real army ?, thats almost twice that of the Canadian military....with tanks and stuff as well.... Most of those Civilians were foreigners ....The regular people of Afghan were elated to have the taliban gone....Once the interm government was est, they asked the coalition to stay and help restore power back to the government..... Omar was a Canadian , with no ties to Afghan at all, he joined a terrorist group, not the Afghan army, he was fighting to opress the people of Afghan....Why can't you see that ???? "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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Reading your link, all mentioned are adults making free choices. Omar was neither. The first isn't relevant and the second is untrue. Per the Geneva Convention, Khadr was, at 15, of an age when it was permissible for a party in a conflict to recruit him. He chose to go to Afghanistan; he appealed to his father to let him do it, against his mother's wishes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) The first isn't relevant and the second is untrue. Per the Geneva Convention, Khadr was, at 15, of an age when it was permissible for a party in a conflict to recruit him. He chose to go to Afghanistan; he appealed to his father to let him do it, against his mother's wishes. Apparently neither is true:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children 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. "Omar volunteered"? That isn't allowed either as AlQuaeda/Taliban are 'non-State' forces. . Edited February 19, 2014 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Apparently neither is true: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children National armed forces can accept volunteers into their armed forces below the age of 18. 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. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, the Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest. Practice Relating to Rule 136. Recruitment of Child Soldiers 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. "Omar volunteered"?That isn't allowed either as AlQuaeda/Taliban are 'non-State' forces. Red herring. I said he chose to go to Afghanistan, contrary to your claim he wasn't able to make free choices. 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.