Jump to content

Widow suing Khadr


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,723
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    DACHSHUND
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • babetteteets went up a rank
      Rookie
    • paradox34 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • paradox34 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      First Post
    • paradox34 earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...