Army Guy Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 That's a start, now where's the definition of murder under the Geneva Convention? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime Here is another one 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 That's a start, now where's the definition of murder under the Geneva Convention? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime Here is another one http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/overview/crimes 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 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. This is a news article form July 2014, That suggest he was charged with war crimes. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/omar-khadr-s-war-crimes-convictions-stand-despite-legal-questions-1.2706741 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.
GostHacked 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. How would you classify those who belong to security groups like Academi (formerly Blackwater) who perform military type operations that would end up getting people killed? Give us an example Drone strikes. Innocents are classified as collateral damage when attacking a suspected (not even confirmed) 'terrorist'. But since the drone operators are not aiming for the innocents... Sorry that is more a US thing than a Canadian thing. Edited May 13, 2015 by GostHacked Quote
Je suis Omar Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 Not sure what your experts are using for a source, perhaps you can provide one. As all my sources which include the genva conventions, inter national law, humanitarian law all list murder as a war crime. Even the list of war crimes list murder as its first heading. Perhaps you can provide the basis for your contentions, AG. Quote
Je suis Omar Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 We executed a helluva lot of them, actually. And a lot more were sent to prison for long periods of time. But the worst were protected and brought into the employ of the USA. Fitting when the USA is in most every way the equivalent of the Nazis. The USA also protected from prosecution the people of Unit 731. You really are not at all up to speed on this stuff, Argus, or, alternatively, you knowingly hide things, which is a description for lying. Quote
Je suis Omar Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) This is a news article form July 2014, That suggest he was charged with war crimes. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/omar-khadr-s-war-crimes-convictions-stand-despite-legal-questions-1.2706741 Wikipedia and the some of the very media groups that supported the war criminals, the terrorism, the war crimes. WOW!These are the very media entities that speak not a breath of the myriad terrorist actions of the USA that have been going on for over a century, are still going on today. How many Canadians know that the General Assembly by about a 188 to 2 margin, (US & Israel) have for the last 23 years, been telling the USA to end its terrorist actions against Cuba? How many people know that the USA is the only country ever charged and convicted of being a terrorist nation? Have you heard that on CBC, on the BBC? Have you seen sanctions placed on the USA by the UK and Canada? Were sanctions placed on the USA for supporting PolPot and the Khmer Rouge? These are serious war criminals and terrorists, the USA, and you are trying to defend them. This is just one of many terrorist actions of the USA. These are the terrorists that you are trying to defend. These are the make up laws as they go along guys, or the completely ignore laws guys, yet you try to defend them. Edited May 13, 2015 by Je suis Omar Quote
Je suis Omar Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 These are the people, the USA, that commit all manner of war crime with their new toys, amoral actions and then they hide it all with massive doses of propaganda and a compliant media. That is how it has always been, USA governments and the USA "media" working hand in glove just like the Nazis. We didnt even really know who we were firing at former US drone operator Former US drone sensor operator Brandon Bryant admits he couldnt stand himself for his participation in the countrys drone program for six years firing on targets whose identities often went unconfirmed. Since 2001, and increasingly under the Obama administration, the US has been carrying out drone strikes against targets believed to be affiliated with terrorist organizations in countries like Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia. The program, which has been shrouded in secrecy, has been routinely criticized for the high number of resultant civilian casualties. Pakistans Peshawar High Court ruled in 2013 that the attacks constitute a war crime and violate the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Meanwhile the Obama administration continues to insist that drone warfare is a precise and effective method of combat. ... http://rt.com/news/225355-us-drone-operator-bryant/ Quote
Argus Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 Yur comment, once again makes no sense. But in any case, the war was illegal, ad for reasons I have already discussed. Your imaginary interpretation of imaginary laws does not constitute illegality in the real world. 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
cybercoma Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 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. Exactly the problem. He's not a POW. He's a civilian and as a result should be tried in a civilian court, not an international court for war crimes. That's what I've been trying to tell Army Guy, but these people accept wholesale that the US government just made up some new category "enemy combatant" without any regard to its legal status. "Enemy combatants" are not agreed upon in the Geneva Convention. It's not a term that's recognized by international law. It's a fabrication of the Bush government in order to torture children and remove their human rights. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 Your imaginary interpretation of imaginary laws does not constitute illegality in the real world. No Im talking about the laws that have been interpreted by, for one, a group you may not be familiar with. It is called the US Supreme Court. Quote
cybercoma Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime Here is another one http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime Here is another one http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/overview/crimes This is a news article form July 2014, That suggest he was charged with war crimes. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/omar-khadr-s-war-crimes-convictions-stand-despite-legal-questions-1.2706741 I'm quoting the actual Geneva Convention as found on the Justice Department's website and you're responding with wikipedia articles and news columns? Khadr was not a soldier. He was not a POW. He was a civilian and the Geneva Convention applies to him as a civilian. "Enemy Combatant" was a term made up by the United States that is not recognized by international law. His crimes were not war crimes, since he was not a soldier in a war. More importantly, murder is only recognized in those situations I mentioned earlier, namely when it's a recognized force committing murder against protected persons, injured/wounded soldiers, POWs, etc. Even if you recognize Khadr as a soldier or combatant, the person he killed was not a protected person under the Geneva Convention, nor was he injured/wounded, nor a POW or any other such person guarded against murder by the Convention. Since Khadr was a civilian, he faced civilian charges of murder, terrorism, and conspiracy. The military tribunal only has jurisdiction in international law for war crimes. That's not what he was charged with, at least not by any definition of murder that appears in the Geneva Convention. Point out the exact chapter and article of the Geneva Convention that he broke because so far, the things you're linking are unconvincing and international legal experts are claiming the tribunal was out of its jurisdiction with the charges. Quote
Argus Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 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... I'm not a lawyer, but that seems to be an intelligent and coherent argument. I can see why that sort of argument would confound you. His maltreatment and the manner in which it's been justified and defended is retarted, Boo. Hoo. Hoo. If you want to be kinder to violent religious fanatics go over there and give them a hug. 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 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 No Im talking about the laws that have been interpreted by, for one, a group you may not be familiar with. It is called the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court said the Afghanistan invasion was illegal? I'd like to see a cite for that. 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 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 How would you classify those who belong to security groups like Academi (formerly Blackwater) who perform military type operations that would end up getting people killed? If they wind up attacking another country and the US shelters them then the US, it would seem to me, would be guilty of being accomplices to that attack. 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
On Guard for Thee Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 The US Supreme Court said the Afghanistan invasion was illegal? I'd like to see a cite for that. Im talking about Khadr, which is what this thread is about. If you want to see why the war was illegal under international law, then the UN is the place to find that. Quote
eyeball Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 I'm not a lawyer, but that seems to be an intelligent and coherent argument. I can see why that sort of argument would confound you.No, it doesn't confound, I clearly said it disgusts. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
GostHacked Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 If they wind up attacking another country and the US shelters them then the US, it would seem to me, would be guilty of being accomplices to that attack. Attacking another country? I am talking about those private contracted security groups that are used instead of soldiers for military operations. Did Kadhr attack Canada? Don't forget it was US Law that put him in Gitmo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisour_Square_massacre On September 16, 2007, employees of Blackwater Security Consulting (since renamed Academi), a private military company, shot at Iraqi civilians killing 17 and injuring 20 in Nisour Square, Baghdad.[1][2] The killings outraged Iraqis and strained relations between Iraq and the United States.[3] In 2014, four Blackwater employees were tried[4] and convicted in U.S. federal court; one of murder, and the other three of manslaughter and firearms charges.[5]Blackwater guards claimed that the convoy was ambushed and that they fired at the attackers in defense of the convoy. The Iraqi government and Iraqi police investigator Faris Saadi Abdul alleged that the killings were unprovoked.[6][7] The next day, Blackwater Worldwide's license to operate in Iraq was temporarily revoked.[8] The US State Department has said that "innocent life was lost"[9] and according to the Washington Post, a military report appeared to corroborate "the Iraqi government's contention that Blackwater was at fault."[10] The Iraqi government vowed to punish Blackwater.[11] The incident sparked at least five investigations, including one from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.[12] The FBI investigation found that, of the 17 Iraqis killed by the guards, at least 14 were shot without cause.[13] Worried about the likes of Kahdr compared to a rouge private security company indiscriminately killing people? Quote
PIK Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 Lets not forget it was chretien that went to bat for his father and got him released. It was under chretien when he went over , and it was under chretien when he was caught and charged . Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Argus Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 Im talking about Khadr, which is what this thread is about. If you want to see why the war was illegal under international law, then the UN is the place to find that. So.... you got nothing? You're the one who said it was an illegal war, in case you forgot. 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 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) No, it doesn't confound, I clearly said it disgusts. Your confusion and distaste for logic and common sense are not my problem, they're yours. Edited May 13, 2015 by Argus 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
On Guard for Thee Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 So.... you got nothing? You're the one who said it was an illegal war, in case you forgot. Ever heard of article 51 of the UN charter. It is ONE of the bogus arguments the US tried to use to justify the war. Didnt work though, for reasons I previously discussed. Cant help it if you don't read before posting. Quote
eyeball Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 Your confusion and distaste for logic and common sense are not my problem, they're yours.What confusion? I can see right through your logic and sensibilities.As for the disgust your ilk's sensibilities cause, it's not just my problem given how many other Canadians, about half from what I can tell, are also disgusted. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted May 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 What confusion? I can see right through your logic and sensibilities. As for the disgust your ilk's sensibilities cause, it's not just my problem given how many other Canadians, about half from what I can tell, are also disgusted. It's also not my fault that so many Canadians are ignorant and lack any grounding in reality. 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 13, 2015 Report Posted May 13, 2015 Ever heard of article 51 of the UN charter. It is ONE of the bogus arguments the US tried to use to justify the war. Didnt work though, for reasons I previously discussed. Cant help it if you don't read before posting. So... you got nothing, right? The US has a right to defend itself. Period. 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
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.