drummindiver Posted June 26, 2015 Report Posted June 26, 2015 1. as Cybercoma pointed out, Was the death of Sgt Speers and the wounding of the other soldier an Act of War? Or was it an act of Terror? If it was an act of War then no compensation will be forthcoming. The US government had most definitely declared war on Al Queda and the Taliban. The US government whole-heartedly directed the US armed forces against Al Queda and the Taliban to prosecute that war. That was why Sgt Speers et all were at Khost. That is why they demanded the surrender Khadr and his compatriots. The entire legal basis of his capture; designation as an 'enemy combatant'; detention and trial under the 2006 Military Commissions, is because the US is at War with Al Queda and the Taliban. The argument that it Sgt.Speer and Morris were victims of terror and not War seems pretty slim considering the conditions and circumstances under which they were injured: An assault on a compound being held by those their superiors were conducting war against. This isn't somebody lobbing a grenade into a passing jeep, or trying to ignite shoes/underwear in an airplane, or planting bombs in luggage. The examples of civil suits prevailing (Lockerbie, Beirut bomb etc) occurred in conditions of no state of war whatsoever existing. Omar Kadhr was a Canadian citizen in a war zone. Attacking an enemy in a war zone is an act of war. A citizen attacking an ally in a war zone is an act of terror. He committed an act of terror. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 26, 2015 Report Posted June 26, 2015 Omar Kadhr was a Canadian citizen in a war zone. Attacking an enemy in a war zone is an act of war. A citizen attacking an ally in a war zone is an act of terror. He committed an act of terror. Who attacked who here... Quote
Peter F Posted June 26, 2015 Report Posted June 26, 2015 Omar Kadhr was a Canadian citizen in a war zone. Attacking an enemy in a war zone is an act of war. A citizen attacking an ally in a war zone is an act of terror. He committed an act of terror. A citizen attacking an ally in a war zone is not terror - it is considered treason, and then only if Canada was at war with the Taliban when Sgt Speers was injured - which I am pretty sure Canada wasn't. Even the mess of the Military Commissions didn't charge him with being a terrorist - all his crimes were actual war crimes - all his crimes were "in violation of the laws of war" ergo he was expected to adhere to the laws of war. That means he was part of the forces of the Taliban who the US had declared war on. His crimes were not terror - his crime was not being in a uniform recognizeable at a distance - and therefore an 'unprivledged belligerent'. But a recognized beligerant nonetheless. None of his actions were directed against random non-beligerants. All his supposed actions were directed towards the US military. The same military that was there prosecuting a congressionally sanctioned war against the forces/associated forces of Taliban government of Afghanistan which, under the laws of war, include 'irregular' forces. I do not see a single hint of terror in any of his actions. As for treason: One must wonder why this present government - who despise the little sod and have never ever lifted a single finger to help him, even in the slightest. Even when the highest court in the land decreed that the government had failed in its duty, they still didn't do a goddamn thing. Even when this government finally agreed to take him off the US hands after he was found guilty they tried to renege on that until their hands were forced by further court challenges. This government, who couldn't give two shits about Omar Khadr have not and never even hinted it might even think about charging Omar Khadr with treason. Why is that do you suppose? Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
drummindiver Posted June 27, 2015 Report Posted June 27, 2015 A citizen attacking an ally in a war zone is not terror - it is considered treason, and then only if Canada was at war with the Taliban when Sgt Speers was injured - which I am pretty sure Canada wasn't. Even the mess of the Military Commissions didn't charge him with being a terrorist - all his crimes were actual war crimes - all his crimes were "in violation of the laws of war" ergo he was expected to adhere to the laws of war. That means he was part of the forces of the Taliban who the US had declared war on. His crimes were not terror - his crime was not being in a uniform recognizeable at a distance - and therefore an 'unprivledged belligerent'. But a recognized beligerant nonetheless. None of his actions were directed against random non-beligerants. All his supposed actions were directed towards the US military. The same military that was there prosecuting a congressionally sanctioned war against the forces/associated forces of Taliban government of Afghanistan which, under the laws of war, include 'irregular' forces. I do not see a single hint of terror in any of his actions. As for treason: One must wonder why this present government - who despise the little sod and have never ever lifted a single finger to help him, even in the slightest. Even when the highest court in the land decreed that the government had failed in its duty, they still didn't do a goddamn thing. Even when this government finally agreed to take him off the US hands after he was found guilty they tried to renege on that until their hands were forced by further court challenges. This government, who couldn't give two shits about Omar Khadr have not and never even hinted it might even think about charging Omar Khadr with treason. Why is that do you suppose? Cause he's a terrorist? Quote
The_Squid Posted June 27, 2015 Report Posted June 27, 2015 (edited) He was 15 and a child soldier. Nothing else really matters... Edited June 27, 2015 by The_Squid Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 27, 2015 Report Posted June 27, 2015 A citizen attacking an ally in a war zone is not terror - it is considered treason, and then only if Canada was at war with the Taliban when Sgt Speers was injured - which I am pretty sure Canada wasn't. Even the mess of the Military Commissions didn't charge him with being a terrorist - all his crimes were actual war crimes - all his crimes were "in violation of the laws of war" ergo he was expected to adhere to the laws of war. That means he was part of the forces of the Taliban who the US had declared war on. His crimes were not terror - his crime was not being in a uniform recognizeable at a distance - and therefore an 'unprivledged belligerent'. But a recognized beligerant nonetheless. None of his actions were directed against random non-beligerants. All his supposed actions were directed towards the US military. The same military that was there prosecuting a congressionally sanctioned war against the forces/associated forces of Taliban government of Afghanistan which, under the laws of war, include 'irregular' forces. I do not see a single hint of terror in any of his actions. As for treason: One must wonder why this present government - who despise the little sod and have never ever lifted a single finger to help him, even in the slightest. Even when the highest court in the land decreed that the government had failed in its duty, they still didn't do a goddamn thing. Even when this government finally agreed to take him off the US hands after he was found guilty they tried to renege on that until their hands were forced by further court challenges. This government, who couldn't give two shits about Omar Khadr have not and never even hinted it might even think about charging Omar Khadr with treason. Why is that do you suppose? Kudos for that post. Hopefully some will actually read and inculcate. Quote
eyeball Posted June 27, 2015 Report Posted June 27, 2015 He was 15 and a child soldier. Nothing else really matters... As was pointed out within hours of his capture but...oh well. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
drummindiver Posted June 27, 2015 Report Posted June 27, 2015 As was pointed out within hours of his capture but...oh well. What, when they were watching the videos of him and the convicted terrorist with him assembling the detonator packs that looked like game cartridges? He is a terrorist, who was working with terrorists, and was planning to do terrorist type things. The fact so many people want to absolve him of all his wrongdoings is absolutely repugnant. Has he done his time? Maybe. I don't know. But ffs, quit trying to make like he wasn't a terrorist. He was. Quote
drummindiver Posted June 27, 2015 Report Posted June 27, 2015 (edited) Omar the terrorist making IEDs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EQjYowsBgc&feature=youtu.be Edited June 27, 2015 by drummindiver Quote
eyeball Posted June 27, 2015 Report Posted June 27, 2015 What, when they were watching the videos of him and the convicted terrorist with him assembling the detonator packs that looked like game cartridges? He is a terrorist, who was working with terrorists, and was planning to do terrorist type things. The fact so many people want to absolve him of all his wrongdoings is absolutely repugnant. Has he done his time? Maybe. I don't know. But ffs, quit trying to make like he wasn't a terrorist. He was. Okay, he was a terrorist but ffs quit trying to make like he wasn't an indoctrinated child. Trying to make like he was anything else has and always will be a complete waste of time. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted June 27, 2015 Report Posted June 27, 2015 Omar Kadr was not a child soldier. Article 38 He also was not any type of soldier, child or otherwise. http://www.child-soldiers.org/international_standards.php Go take it up with the SCC. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
drummindiver Posted June 27, 2015 Report Posted June 27, 2015 Okay, he was a terrorist but ffs quit trying to make like he wasn't an indoctrinated child. Trying to make like he was anything else has and always will be a complete waste of time. Indoctrination does not absolve a murderer for murdering. I don't give a rat's ass if he was indoctrinated...most murdering jihadists are indoctrinated. He was not a child by law either, Quote
drummindiver Posted June 27, 2015 Report Posted June 27, 2015 Okay, he was a terrorist but ffs quit trying to make like he wasn't an indoctrinated child. Trying to make like he was anything else has and always will be a complete waste of time. What?? A leftie admitting Kadhr is/was a terrorist???? Of course he was. We knew it all along. Quote
eyeball Posted June 27, 2015 Report Posted June 27, 2015 Indoctrination does not absolve a murderer for murdering. It does when you're a juvenile. I don't give a rat's ass if he was indoctrinated...most murdering jihadists are indoctrinated. He was not a child by law either, Bully for what you think...in the meantime how do you explain the SCC ruling, by law, that he was in fact a kid? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted June 27, 2015 Report Posted June 27, 2015 What?? A leftie admitting Kadhr is/was a terrorist???? Of course he was. We knew it all along. We just don't take the meaning of the word terrorist very seriously anymore. But given lefties ARE terrorists...what more/less can I say? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Big Guy Posted June 27, 2015 Report Posted June 27, 2015 I am looking forward to his version of what happened and what he went through. He has never been allowed to do that for the public and may still be under those restrictions while on parole. If it comes in the form of a book then he will probably not need to find a job. The royalties will keep him in good stead. It will obviously be met with scepticism but any facts under contention could be scrutinized and verified or rejected. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
drummindiver Posted June 27, 2015 Report Posted June 27, 2015 We just don't take the meaning of the word terrorist very seriously anymore. But given lefties ARE terrorists...what more/less can I say? lol...you said it,not me. However, ties to Al Queda, making bomb detonating devices, throwing grenades... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 27, 2015 Report Posted June 27, 2015 Indoctrination does not absolve a murderer for murdering. I don't give a rat's ass if he was indoctrinated...most murdering jihadists are indoctrinated. He was not a child by law either, He certainly was under international law. Quote
drummindiver Posted June 27, 2015 Report Posted June 27, 2015 He certainly was under international law. He certainly was not. Please read link above. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 28, 2015 Report Posted June 28, 2015 He certainly was not. Please read link above. Go read article 37. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 28, 2015 Report Posted June 28, 2015 Indoctrination does not absolve a murderer for murdering. In this country it does when the person was indoctrinated as a child. Quote
drummindiver Posted June 28, 2015 Report Posted June 28, 2015 In this country it does when the person was indoctrinated as a child. Can you post a cite for this? I looked but could find nothing one way or the other. Thanks Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 28, 2015 Report Posted June 28, 2015 Can you post a cite for this? I looked but could find nothing one way or the other. Thanks http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx Quote
drummindiver Posted June 28, 2015 Report Posted June 28, 2015 http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx No where did I see it say in Canada, being indoctrinated absolves you of murder. On the topic of age- Your source (United Nations) states 18. Child Soldiers International states under 15. Yes, United Nations. Read the list of member nations. A list that includes many countries currently utilizing child soldiers and employing terrorist techniques. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 28, 2015 Report Posted June 28, 2015 No where did I see it say in Canada, being indoctrinated absolves you of murder. On the topic of age- Your source (United Nations) states 18. Child Soldiers International states under 15. Yes, United Nations. Read the list of member nations. A list that includes many countries currently utilizing child soldiers and employing terrorist techniques. Aside from the UN articles, US law itself doesnt allow for locking someone up for years and then enacting a law under which to charge them, especially in a bogus court (military commission). And then there is the problem of torture (waterboarding for instance) that certainly does contravene international law. Ad then there is the testimony against him that has changed ad ends up that no one actually saw him throw grenade. His very dubious convictions will be thrown out now that the way has been cleared for his appeal. To bad he lost 13 years of his life. Quote
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.