Argus Posted May 12, 2015 Report Posted May 12, 2015 For starters the war itself was illegal. The US tried to use article 51 of UN law (which basically says you ca defend yourself against a threatening nation) after 9 11. Whoever knocked down the WTC was not a nation. The person responsible, the organization responsible, was an integral part of the Afghanistan government, using its military might to aid that government in crushing opposition, and protected, in turn, by that government. As such, the war was entirely legal and entirely justified. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted May 12, 2015 Report Posted May 12, 2015 What the hell would you call it if not a war, sheesh you outdid yourself with that one. And yes it was illegal. Cite? And I don't mean from some wacko news zine that caters to conspiracy theories. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted May 12, 2015 Report Posted May 12, 2015 Your version of what happened to POWs after WWII is simply wrong. The average soldier was held in POW camps until after the war. The average, yes, but thousands were held in prison for war crimes. And btw, the 'average' soldier was only released when the war ended. You might have noticed the war has not ended. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted May 12, 2015 Report Posted May 12, 2015 That comment made no sense whatsoever... It's like Argus is just making stuff up on the fly without any regard for actual facts! Kahdr's parents were foreigners who lived briefly in Canada, then took him and the rest of their kids abroad because they hated Canada and felt its sick, permissive culture would be bad for their children. Khadr grew up in Pakistan and Afghanistan. I don't consider any of the Khadrs to be Canadian in any way, shape or form. Their foreign extremists, and the whole lot of them ought to be shipped out. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Army Guy Posted May 12, 2015 Report Posted May 12, 2015 Horsesh!t. Soldiers get away with murdering civilians all the time. . Give us an example Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted May 12, 2015 Report Posted May 12, 2015 Tell me then, when will the U.S. and Israel be cited for war crimes given the countless civilian deaths that can be classified as murder? Murder is not a war crime, nor a crime against humanity. It's a criminal offence to be tried on civilian courts with due process. You keep saying that but you've yet to provide a source. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
The_Squid Posted May 12, 2015 Report Posted May 12, 2015 Kahdr's parents were foreigners who lived briefly in Canada, then took him and the rest of their kids abroad because they hated Canada and felt its sick, permissive culture would be bad for their children. Khadr grew up in Pakistan and Afghanistan. I don't consider any of the Khadrs to be Canadian in any way, shape or form. Their foreign extremists, and the whole lot of them ought to be shipped out. Your "feelings" play no part in whether Omar Khadr is Canadian or not. I don't think you would find any disagreeing about his extremist family members. They should be charged for indoctrinating Omar. Quote
Army Guy Posted May 12, 2015 Report Posted May 12, 2015 Really?!Are you really going to just keep rehashing THE PAST over and over and over ... ?! Wait for the results of Khadr ' s appeal, Army Guy, or ... just move on, eh? You think Khadr should have just died ... when the US soldiers dragged him blind out from under a pile of rubble ... where he was when the grenade was thrown, according to a US soldier ... AND THEY SHOT HIM TWICE IN THE BACK ... You think he should have just died right there so you wouldn't be haunted by this ... Canadian boy 'terrorist'?! So what are you going to do Army Guy? Just going to wallow in it and make yourself suffer? Going to go ape and pick up a gun and 'finish it'?! Should we be concerned about that? I am. You can't let it go can you? .[/quote What are suggesting Jacee that I stop posting on this topic because your tired of hearing another side of the story , one that you apparnently don't agree with. For that I should let it go. Nobody forces you to read my posts let alone respond to them. I'll stop when you get the facts right.... I don't recall giving anyone the impression that I was going to wig out and use violence on young mr Omar, I know hard to believe that someone can hold an opinion different from yours and be mentally stable.... Dont like my posts use the ignor feature, or skip over them..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
The_Squid Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) The average, yes, but thousands were held in prison for war crimes.And btw, the 'average' soldier was only released when the war ended. You might have noticed the war has not ended. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Axis_personnel_indicted_for_war_crimesThousands? Wiki lists every name of every person indicted for war crimes, and, while I admit I only got A- in university stats courses, even I can add up the names and they don't equal "thousands". Granted, there should have been many more... Clearly they didn't indict every Nazi who deserved it.... But that's besides the point. You are making stuff up! Stuff that is easy to reference too, which makes your response rather bizarre. Edited May 13, 2015 by The_Squid Quote
Army Guy Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 For starters the war itself was illegal. The US tried to use article 51 of UN law (which basically says you ca defend yourself against a threatening nation) after 9 11. Whoever knocked down the WTC was not a nation. As for Khadr, he languished in Gitmo for nearly 4 years before he was charged. Bush had tried to essentially cancel habeas corpus for detainees outside of US soil with a stroke of his pen. Once again, illegal as well as unconstitutional. Charging someone retroactively under a newly crafted law, and that term is used loosely when applied to the MCA, once again illegal under international law. It is little wonder the judge who granted Khadr bail had not a lot of trouble determining that his appeal case has merit. Add to that numerous reports he had been a model prisoner, and the door swung open for him. Your response has nothing to do with the quote you responded to. The question was, is murder a war crime ? Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
On Guard for Thee Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 The person responsible, the organization responsible, was an integral part of the Afghanistan government, using its military might to aid that government in crushing opposition, and protected, in turn, by that government. As such, the war was entirely legal and entirely justified. Yur comment, once again makes no sense. But in any case, the war was illegal, ad for reasons I have already discussed. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 Cite? And I don't mean from some wacko news zine that caters to conspiracy theories. Not sure what your idea of what war is, but I know from my time there, what was happening in Afghanistan was definitely a war. You know, planes flying around dropping big blowy up things. People with guns going around shooting people, that type of thing. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 Your response has nothing to do with the quote you responded to. The question was, is murder a war crime ? Murder is a crime, yes. Have you a point at all... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 That comment made no sense whatsoever... It's like Argus is just making stuff up on the fly without any regard for actual facts! Certainly sounds that way. Opinions are one thing, but blatant disregard for facts, quite another. Quote
cybercoma Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 You keep saying that but you've yet to provide a source.I provided a source in this thread from a respected international law scholar, who argued that Khadr will likely win appeal for those reasons. You want me to prove a negative? That something is NOT a law? How about you show me where murder is a war crime according to international law? Just provide me a link to the text, please. Because I'm just referring to what a legal scholar has argued. Quote
Army Guy Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) Yes, you provided a source in which according to you is an expert in inter national law. And I asked you to explain to me how he come to that conclusion, I read your source document but it does not make it clear. I asked these questions because my sources the UN official web site, on the genva conventions state murder is a war crime, shit I just searched war crimes and it provides a list with murder at the top, perhaps these sites are outdated. I am working from a tablet and can not post links so please work with me. Just figured the link opinion see below Edited May 13, 2015 by Army Guy Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/about%20the%20court/frequently%20asked%20questions/Pages/13.aspx Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
cybercoma Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/about%20the%20court/frequently%20asked%20questions/Pages/13.aspxThat's a start, now where's the definition of murder under the Geneva Convention? Quote
Army Guy Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) The person responsible, the organization responsible, was an integral part of the Afghanistan government, using its military might to aid that government in crushing opposition, and protected, in turn, by that government. As such, the war was entirely legal and entirely justified.For some reason they refuse to acknowledge that fact, as It would blow their theory out of the water.I also wonder if the conflict was illigal why has the UN not condemn it, In fact they issued this statement......in the escalation of the conflict in Afghanistan following sept 11 attacks by afghan based Al Qaeda group the security council expressed support for the afghan people to replace the Taliban regime,once again condemned for allowing afghanistan to be used as a base and the export of terrorism and for providing safe haven for Usoma Bin Ladin. Sounds like a condemnation to me, in fact it sounds like they are playing both sides of the fence here, not condemning nor approving direct military action and yet they play a role in setting up ISAF, playing a huge role in setting up the new government..... Edited May 13, 2015 by Army Guy Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
cybercoma Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) So I looked it up for you. I'm going to presume this website is referring to Article 3, which states: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; The problem is the United States Armed Forces are obviously not "persons taking no active part in the hostilities." They were a hostile invading force according to the Geneva Convention. Article 12 also brings up murder, but only when it comes to the wounded and sick. The person Khadr is alleged to have killed was not taken as a wounded or sick combatant, as far as I know. Article 32 talks about murdering protected persons. The allegations around Khadr still don't fit here. Article 75 talks about murdering civilians. Still doesn't fit with this case. I just don't see where any of these fit with the alleged facts of the case here and what people propose Khadr did. Edited May 13, 2015 by cybercoma Quote
cybercoma Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) Fact is, Khadr was charged with civilian crimes. He was charged with murder and attempted murder, as well as conspiring with terrorists. He was not charged under international conventions. That's the problem. The tribunal only had jurisdiction to try war crimes. His charges were criminal instead. They had no jurisdiction to try him for that. He should have faced charges in the criminal justice system like anyone else charged with murder and attempted murder, and been given the same rights. To put it bluntly, killing soldiers on the battlefield is not murder, unless they fall under those circumstances where they're sick, wounded, or surrendering. Then it's a war crime and would fall under the purview of that military tribunal. Edited May 13, 2015 by cybercoma Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 And I say again, he, and others in Gitmo were illegally stripped of their right of habeas by Bush. He had no authority to do that. Quote
cybercoma Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 That's the least of their problems. The United States government shackled a child in chains and dragged him around a concrete floor in his own piss, wrenching his arms and legs in their sockets. They did this to a child. And Army Guy wants to sit here and cite the Geneva Convention? Come on. Quote
eyeball Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 In which case, given his 'army' has never surrendered, he should still be in a POW camp.And if that's what Guantanamo actually is somebody will have a lot of explaining to do at the Hague regarding the treatment of POW's.Of course your ilk gets to have it both ways arguing that Khadr isn't a POW because he wasn't a soldier in some "country's" army which is why the Geneva Conventions don't count. He's not a soldier see he's a terrorist, a common criminal which explains why he was tried in a military tribunal... His maltreatment and the manner in which it's been justified and defended is retarted, disgusting and utterly FUBAR - a testament to the retarted, disgusting and utterly FUBAR way we've prosecuted the whole GWOT. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
marcus Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) This person's childhood and half of his life so far was taken away by his father and the U.S. military. His father by being an irresponsible parent and the U.S. military by allowing the torture and imprisonment of a child. I wish the best for this person. Edited May 13, 2015 by marcus Quote "What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.
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.