Army Guy Posted January 23, 2020 Report Share Posted January 23, 2020 On 1/22/2020 at 2:57 PM, dialamah said: Yeah, a 15-year-old, brainwashed by his father and sent to Afghanistan, caught in a firefight, the details of which are murky, accused of killing an American, about which there is conflicting evidence, held in Guatanamo for 13 years, and tortured to force a confession. Several courts ruled in his favor, including the US Supreme Court, which criticized the process under which Khadr was convicted in the US. Who is the piece of garbage, exactly? A 15-year-old held in jail for 13 years, for a crime he may or may not have committed, or the government/systems/public opinion who refused to treat him according to our own human-rights laws? He was not sent to Afghanistan he followed his family there , was he brainwashed ? not well enough I guess lets remember his mother and father wanted him to become a suicide bomber and become a martyr and a hero for the family name , guess he did not like his families plans for him....I mean this is how they show there love right.......this is the same family we are to feel sorry for....Sorry... He was held until he could be tried for war crimes….in his case the murder of a US soldier...normally trails did not happen until after the conflict is over, this one went on for ever...and to be clear he was subject to mild cases of torture , l.and while he was tortured , lets put it under some context please...Like loud music played all night, lights left on all night, anyone who has had a teenager has faced more torture, for way longer... lets say to other prisoners of war held by the Taliban or other terrorist groups...compared to them he was treated fairly for a terrorist Lets be clear he was tried on murder charges and convicted, normal sentence for murder is 25 years....without parole....he got what exactly , plus 10.5 million dollars...Supreme court may of criticized the military tribunal but it was a legal court and it produced a legal sentence, to which I might add Omar served not only in the US but Canada prison systems...how is that possible if it was not a legal sentence.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abies Posted January 24, 2020 Report Share Posted January 24, 2020 4 hours ago, Army Guy said: He was not sent to Afghanistan he followed his family there , was he brainwashed ? not well enough I guess lets remember his mother and father wanted him to become a suicide bomber and become a martyr and a hero for the family name , guess he did not like his families plans for him....I mean this is how they show there love right.......this is the same family we are to feel sorry for....Sorry... He was held until he could be tried for war crimes….in his case the murder of a US soldier...normally trails did not happen until after the conflict is over, this one went on for ever...and to be clear he was subject to mild cases of torture , l.and while he was tortured , lets put it under some context please...Like loud music played all night, lights left on all night, anyone who has had a teenager has faced more torture, for way longer... lets say to other prisoners of war held by the Taliban or other terrorist groups...compared to them he was treated fairly for a terrorist Lets be clear he was tried on murder charges and convicted, normal sentence for murder is 25 years....without parole....he got what exactly , plus 10.5 million dollars...Supreme court may of criticized the military tribunal but it was a legal court and it produced a legal sentence, to which I might add Omar served not only in the US but Canada prison systems...how is that possible if it was not a legal sentence.... His family brought him there and he was brainwashed. Under law he is a child soldier since he was below the age of 16 when he was captured. His charges do not hold up for one there is no evidence he threw the grenade and two he was tortured and gave a statement after said torture you described. His award was based on the fact Canadian intelligence violated his rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted January 24, 2020 Report Share Posted January 24, 2020 2 hours ago, Abies said: His family brought him there and he was brainwashed. Under law he is a child soldier since he was below the age of 16 when he was captured. His charges do not hold up for one there is no evidence he threw the grenade and two he was tortured and gave a statement after said torture you described. His award was based on the fact Canadian intelligence violated his rights. It's too bad for him that his parents brainwashed him into that religion, but he was a terrorist and there are lots of kids under the age of 16 who can carry a gun or a bomb and paying them off isn't sending the right message, unless you're Trudeau and you like Terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted January 24, 2020 Report Share Posted January 24, 2020 12 hours ago, Abies said: His family brought him there and he was brainwashed. Under law he is a child soldier since he was below the age of 16 when he was captured. His charges do not hold up for one there is no evidence he threw the grenade and two he was tortured and gave a statement after said torture you described. His award was based on the fact Canadian intelligence violated his rights. To start with you are probably referring to the Paris Principles on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict 2007 which defines a child soldier as: "A child associated with an armed force or armed group refers to any person below 18 years of age who is, or who has been, recruited or used by an armed force or armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to children, boys and girls, used as fighters, cooks, porters, spies or for sexual purposes." The above is not a law. It also when drafted contemplated children in state armies when it referred to armed force or armed groups and this is why before the above principles were drafted: " n 2000, the UN General Assembly adopted the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict to protect children from recruitment and use in hostilities. The Optional protocol is a commitment that: States will not recruit children under the age of 18 to send them to the battlefield. States will not conscript soldiers below the age of 18. States should take all possible measures to prevent such recruitment –including legislation to prohibit and criminalize the recruitment of children under 18 and involve them in hostilities. States will demobilize anyone under 18 conscripted or used in hostilities and will provide physical, psychological recovery services and help their social reintegration. Armed groups distinct from the armed forces of a country should not, under any circumstances, recruit or use in hostilities anyone under 18. The Protocol entered into force in 2002 and has now been ratified by a majority of the world’s countries.." (link for above quotation is: https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/six-grave-violations/child-soldiers/) The UN does not make laws. It can make recommendations through enunciaated principles as to how nations should act but they are not legally binding. The UN can draft a convention. Countries can then voluntarily sign on to that convention and undertake to incorporate in their domestic laws the principles enunciated in the conventions they sign. You removed the Paris Principles from their actual contextual and reference points which was not terrorist groups and did not quote the actual convention that would be relevant. You will also note the protocol's last sentence which clearly like any law of any nation or any principle of the UN is not recognized and is in fact rejected by terrorist groups. The UN did provide this "training manual" as to the subject of trying to prevent recruitment of terrorists who are youth: https://read.un-ilibrary.org/children-and-youth/prevention-of-child-recruitment-and-exploitation-by-terrorist-and-violent-extremist-groups_dee195f7-en#page1. So I question calling a child terrorist a child soldier. and then stating laws exist defining the two as the same. Next, the concept that Omar Kadr was not responsible as an adult would be comes from taking the Youth Offender Act of Canada, arguing what Kadr did would be considered homicide in Canada and therefore then making the assumption he would get a lesser sentence and be held to a lower standard of criminal culpability than an adult. That assumption comes from the Declaration of Principles in the Youth Offenders Act that states: "The youth justice system must be separate from the adult system and must be based on the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability." The Youth Offender Act's incorporation of the above principle came about because Canada signed a convention and agreed to apply the above principle from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Youth Offenders Act calls first or second degree murde as per s.231 or 235 of the Criminal Code of Canada "serious violent offences". It is important to note the Youth Offenders Act also states; 3 (1) The following principles apply in this Act: (a) the youth criminal justice system is intended to protect the public by (i) holding young persons accountable through measures that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person, (b) the criminal justice system for young persons must be separate from that of adults, must be based on the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability and must emphasize the following: (i) rehabilitation and reintegration, (ii) fair and proportionate accountability that is consistent with the greater dependency of young persons and their reduced level of maturity, (iii) enhanced procedural protection to ensure that young persons are treated fairly and that their rights, including their right to privacy, are protected, (iv) timely intervention that reinforces the link between the offending behaviour and its consequences, and (v) the promptness and speed with which persons responsible for enforcing this Act must act, given young persons’ perception of time; (c) within the limits of fair and proportionate accountability, the measures taken against young persons who commit offences should (i) reinforce respect for societal values, (ii) encourage the repair of harm done to victims and the community, (iii) be meaningful for the individual young person given his or her needs and level of development and, where appropriate, involve the parents, the extended family, the community and social or other agencies in the young person’s rehabilitation and reintegration, and (iv) respect gender, ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences and respond to the needs of aboriginal young persons and of young persons with special requirements; and (d) special considerations apply in respect of proceedings against young persons and, in particular, (i) young persons have rights and freedoms in their own right, such as a right to be heard in the course of and to participate in the processes, other than the decision to prosecute, that lead to decisions that affect them, and young persons have special guarantees of their rights and freedoms, (ii) victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their dignity and privacy and should suffer the minimum degree of inconvenience as a result of their involvement with the youth criminal justice system, (iii) victims should be provided with information about the proceedings and given an opportunity to participate and be heard, and (iv) parents should be informed of measures or proceedings involving their children and encouraged to support them in addressing their offending behaviour. Act to be liberally construed (2) This Act shall be liberally construed so as to ensure that young persons are dealt with in accordance with the principles set out in subsection (1). It is the above wording in its totality used to argue Kadr was entitled to a diminished sentence. It is further argued the above act did take into consideration child terrorists because it states: "Orders (2) A youth justice court has exclusive jurisdiction to make orders against a young person under sections 83.3 (recognizance — terrorist activity), 810 (recognizance — fear of injury or damage), 810.01 (recognizance — fear of certain offences), 810.011 (recognizance — fear of terrorism offence), 810.02 (recognizance — fear of forced marriage or marriage under age of 16 years) and 810.2 (recognizance — fear of serious personal injury offence) of the Criminal Code and the provisions of this Act apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require. If the young person fails or refuses to enter into a recognizance referred to in any of those sections, the court may impose any one of the sanctions set out in subsection 42(2) (youth sentences) except that, in the case of an order under paragraph 42(2)(n) (custody and supervision order), it shall not exceed 30 days." However and this is what I would like to point out, this same act goes on to state: Included offences (2) If the Attorney General has given notice under subsection 64(2) of the intention to seek an adult sentence and the young person is found guilty of an included offence for which an adult is liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years, committed after he or she has attained the age of 14 years, the Attorney General may make an application under subsection 64(1) (application for adult sentence). 2002, c. 1, s. 69 2012, c. 1, s. 180 Hearing — adult sentences 71 The youth justice court shall, at the commencement of the sentencing hearing, hold a hearing in respect of an application under subsection 64(1) (application for adult sentence), unless the court has received notice that the application is not opposed. Both parties and the parents of the young person shall be given an opportunity to be heard at the hearing. 2002, c. 1, s. 71 2012, c. 1, s. 182 Order of adult sentence 72 (1) The youth justice court shall order that an adult sentence be imposed if it is satisfied that (a) the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability of the young person is rebutted; and (b) a youth sentence imposed in accordance with the purpose and principles set out in subparagraph 3(1)(b)(ii) and section 38 would not be of sufficient length to hold the young person accountable for his or her offending behaviour." So the automatic assumption Kadr should not have been tried as an adult is incorrect and in Canada there is ample precedent for treating minors as adults in murder cases. I trust that helps shed light on the actual laws that are relevant. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abies Posted January 24, 2020 Report Share Posted January 24, 2020 (edited) Regardless there is no evidence he threw the grenade and the testimony acquired from Khadr was obtained after being tortured. Khadr was only charged because he was pressured to take a plea deal for better treatment. While you are correct there are no laws on child soldier and I should not be worded as such but that isn’t necessary to my point to be relevant. What is relevant is that in the eyes of the UN he is a child soldier and should be treated as such. This isn’t the same as a youth being radicalized on the internet and committing violence soon after. He was taken by his family to another country at a young age and exposed to violence and extremist rhetoric. Also one of your points contradicts what you are saying. “ You removed the Paris Principles from their actual contextual and reference points which was not terrorist groups and did not quote the actual convention that would be relevant. You will also note the protocol's last sentence which clearly like any law of any nation or any principle of the UN is notrecognized and is in fact rejected by terrorist groups.” It states armed groups and armed forces which covers terrorists groups. So I did not not remove anything from their actual context and reference points. Edited January 24, 2020 by Abies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 24, 2020 Report Share Posted January 24, 2020 On 1/23/2020 at 11:03 AM, Shady said: Which judges and legal experts are you referring to? Besides, judges don't give legal advice. I have no intention of suffering your disingenuousness gladly. Piss off and grow up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 25, 2020 Report Share Posted January 25, 2020 On 1/23/2020 at 2:12 PM, Army Guy said: or maybe, the military tribunal was legal, and it had authority to press murder charges, and it's conviction was also upheld.... Not according to any real court though. International laws prohibit the trial of civilians in military tribunals. You people routinely refer to Khadr as not being a soldier in uniform as well as pretending this wasn't an actual war so Geneva Conventions don't apply. But now for the sake of your argument he's suddenly a soldier subject to a military tribunal. /facepalm... You can try getting away with having it both ways in a forum like this but it should be obvious why real world judges and courts around the planet ROTFLTAO at the suggestion these kangaroo courts in Guantanamo are anything but a sick joke where civilians are concerned. Thanks to Trudeau settling out of court you won't have to put up with the indignity of a trial and a ruling that rubs this reality in your ridiculous noses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 25, 2020 Report Share Posted January 25, 2020 On 1/22/2020 at 11:00 AM, Shady said: 15 year olds know what's right and wrong. 15 year olds know that murder is wrong. Give me a break with the brainwashing bullshit. It's just an excuse. Not 15 year old's who've been indoctrinated from the age of 8. It's really just the peach fuzz you can't get over isn't it? Funny how that got past Trudeau's advisers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 25, 2020 Report Share Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) 21 hours ago, Abies said: His family brought him there and he was brainwashed. Under law he is a child soldier since he was below the age of 16 when he was captured. His charges do not hold up for one there is no evidence he threw the grenade and two he was tortured and gave a statement after said torture you described. His award was based on the fact Canadian intelligence violated his rights. Your assuming he was brainwashed, and yet there was no proof provided by defense or prosecutor that was the case, do you have proof from a valid source? Like I have said many times already, the military tribunal, "which determines his classification, ie unlawful combatant , combatant, or terrorist and was found that he was not a child soldier but a terrorist, and so he was tried as a terrorist, under US law...to say anything else would require a valid source...and not info that was pulled out of someone's bum. Correct me if i'm wrong was he convicted of murder in a US court of law...., and was he forced to serve the sentence handed down to him in both the US and Canada, your right he was awarded is cash settlement because of CSIS had violated some of his rights as a Canadian. not because of torture or the time spent in Gitmo... what should have happen was he be returned to Afghanistan to face his crimes against the people there.. If we really cared about justice. Edited January 25, 2020 by Army Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abies Posted January 25, 2020 Report Share Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Like I have said many times already, the military tribunal, found that he was not a child soldier but a terrorist, and so he was tried as a terrorist, to say anything else would require a valid source...and not info that was pulled out of someone's bum. Correct me if i'm wrong was he convicted of murder, and was he forced to serve his sentence, both in the US and Canada, your right he was awarded because of CSIS had violated some of his rights as a Canadian. not because of torture or the time spent in Gitmo... Khadr took a plea deal. The facts of the case were not tried in the court of law. Khadr took the plea deal so he can come back to Canada. He is still appealing the tribunal ruling. When tried in a real court instead of tribunal none of the evidence would past muster since it was not obtained legally. he was serving the sentence because he plead guilty in exchange for being sent back to Canada after a year. The facts have not been tried in the court of law. Edited January 25, 2020 by Abies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 25, 2020 Report Share Posted January 25, 2020 53 minutes ago, eyeball said: Not according to any real court though. International laws prohibit the trial of civilians in military tribunals. You people routinely refer to Khadr as not being a soldier in uniform as well as pretending this wasn't an actual war so Geneva Conventions don't apply. But now for the sake of your argument he's suddenly a soldier subject to a military tribunal. /facepalm... You can try getting away with having it both ways in a forum like this but it should be obvious why real world judges and courts around the planet ROTFLTAO at the suggestion these kangaroo courts in Guantanamo are anything but a sick joke where civilians are concerned. Thanks to Trudeau settling out of court you won't have to put up with the indignity of a trial and a ruling that rubs this reality in your ridiculous noses. He was not a civilian, he was a terrorist, re read the conventions and perhaps Canadian and US laws....he was a war criminal and ALL wear criminals are charged in a military tribunal, see Nuremburg , Germany for examples of civilians being hung by military tribunals for their acts during war... Never have I said Omar was a soldier, he was classified as a terrorist, I have called him a terrorist scumbag but never a soldier.... meaning he is not entitled to any special treatment of the conventions with exception of being treated humanely, feed, and his religion respected when possible to which everyone is entitled .. These conditions are laid out in the UN web site under Geneva conventions you really should read them.... If these tribunals where a kangaroo court as you suggest, why was Omar forced to serve his sentence ? why did the US supreme court just call it a sham and took over the prosecution....or let him go, Omar did serve time in a US prison, and then went on to serve time in a Canadian prison. to get into these institutions you must be found guilty of breaking the law yes or no ? Nobody is saying that CSIS did not respect his Canadian rights....for which Omar was paid out, you really need to do some more research... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 25, 2020 Report Share Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Abies said: Khadr took a plea deal. The facts of the case were not tried in the court of law. Khadr took the plea deal so he can come back to Canada. He is still appealing the tribunal ruling. When tried in a real court instead of tribunal none of the evidence would past muster since it was not obtained legally. Plea or not , was he not sentenced for his role in the murder of a US soldier If your excepting the same level of "without a doubt " 100 % certainty in a war zone it would be impossible to get any conviction against anyone , think about that one for a minute...this is a war zone...planes are dropping bombs , vehs are tearing up the area, troops are walking all over the place, engineers are ripping up the place looking for duds, and unexploded ordnance, not one person is looking for evidence to be used in a court of law..... .there are no police investigations after each shooting, no team of investigators to record each battle field, in fact there is really very little police or officials presence on the battle field at all, bodies are picked up, buried if time does not permit removal, time of deaths is approximated and remains sent home if they can be retrieved or found again . sound like a sterile ground where you'd find evidence to be used in a court of law.... Your right in a war zone, it is "impossible" to obtain the same level of evidence required to convict a normal Canadian law trail. for instance the actual battle field was not cordoned off for a forensic team to scour, it had already been scavenged by locals. bodies had been removed and prepared for burial, all that remained was statements written by US survivors....all the bad guys were dead, with one exception, Omar, who was worked on by US medics, the same medics that had just lost a comrade and fellow medic ….even he has said he is not sure if he killed the medic or not....why would he say that , after he finished serving his time, and was released...make sense to you... Edited January 25, 2020 by Army Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abies Posted January 25, 2020 Report Share Posted January 25, 2020 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: Plea or not , was he not sentenced for his role in the murder of a US soldier If your excepting the same level of "without a doubt " 100 % certainty in a war zone it would be impossible to get any conviction against anyone , think about that one for a minute...this is a war zone...planes are dropping bombs , vehs are tearing up the area, troops are walking all over the place, engineers are ripping up the place looking for duds, and unexploded ordnance, not one person is looking for evidence to be used in a court of law..... .there are no police investigations after each shooting, no team of investigators to record each battle field, in fact there is really very little police or officials presence on the battle field at all, bodies are picked up, buried if time does not permit removal, time of deaths is approximated and remains sent home if they can be retrieved or found again . sound like a sterile ground where you'd find evidence to be used in a court of law.... Your right in a war zone, it is "impossible" to obtain the same level of evidence required to convict a normal Canadian law trail. for instance the actual battle field was not cordoned off for a forensic team to scour, it had already been scavenged by locals. bodies had been removed and prepared for burial, all that remained was statements written by US survivors....all the bad guys were dead, with one exception, Omar, who was worked on by US medics, the same medics that had just lost a comrade and fellow medic ….even he has said he is not sure if he killed the medic or not....why would he say that , after he finished serving his time, and was released...make sense to you... The plea is a very significant part of this argument and that he is appealing his charge at the tribunal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 25, 2020 Report Share Posted January 25, 2020 12 hours ago, Abies said: The plea is a very significant part of this argument and that he is appealing his charge at the tribunal. The plea was used in the US justice system, where he pleaded guilty to his crimes , in exchange for being returned to Canada .and then he still remained in Canadian prison until he had served his time....So if he wants to redress those sentences he would have to do that through the US system, and they are not going to pay him anything.. …..But also the widow has already filed claims against his new found wealth.....once on American soil do you think they are not going forward with the widows claims...If Justin had any back bone, he would have made sure that 10.5 mil was re directed to the widow...instead he made sure that it was untouchable... giving the terrorist a gift for which he did not deserve. Canada owes him nothing, he made a chioce one that he reveled in being able to kill American soldiers, who were Canadian allies, fighting in the same theater... In Afghanistan he was considered an adult, in Canada he would have been an adult in a few months, he knew what he was doing , but many here consider he was brain washed....HE was a terrorist period , one that planted mines that claimed not only soldiers lives but unarmed innocent civilians.....he also spied on American and NATO troop movements and reported that info to a known terrorist Groups…so direct action groups could take their life's … all these things he freely admitted to on his tapes, made by himself, and while in terrorist hands...all of those actions are treason...Something that he did not stand trail for....Something all of his groupies forget.. something our government forgot , He is a terrorist nothing more, he'll always be a terrorist, something I hope All Canadians will remember when he is asking for a job....or buying a home your sub division. I spent 3 combat tours in Afghanistan and I'm very familiar with how these terrorist work , how they treated the people of Afghanistan like dirt, pieces of shit to be kicked around on their leisure, forcing children to become suicide bombers, forcing adults do become bombers so the Taliban would not harm their families, your problem here is you have never been terrorized , or lived in a war zone... or had your life dictated to you by some ruthless thugs who would gladly kill you over a glance in there direction.... He has never faced his crimes he committed in Afghanistan, nor the ones in Canada...How anyone here in this nation could even look at him let alone take up his case, and not loath him is beyond my comprehension...he has made you his bitch and now he is taken you for a ride.. By now you can tell I'm not a fan of Omar and his band of little scumbags, I don't care how old he was , I don't care he was Canadian, just like most that defend him don't care he killed American service members, be it from IED's or the gun battle. they don't care what he did to the Afghanis people, they don't care he was in a group that claimed 159 plus Canadian service members through IEDS, or direct action, they don't care how many Canadian families are now without a father or mother, because people like Omar wanted the right to enslave millions of people through terror, torture, force them into there dream world , where the only way out was death. Yes none of that shit matters as long as we did not infringe on any of his rights... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 25, 2020 Report Share Posted January 25, 2020 16 hours ago, Army Guy said: He was not a civilian, he was a terrorist, re read the conventions and perhaps Canadian and US laws... ...you really need to do some more research... You really need to follow your own advice. The Convention refers to irregular groups like Al Queda as insurgents and treats these as soldiers. The term terrorist is a political invention. Vietcong guerrillas were not part of any standing army yet captives were treated as POW's according to the Convention. Terrorism is crime that should be dealt with by police not soldiers. Everyone knew this going in especially governments and they should have behaved accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 25, 2020 Report Share Posted January 25, 2020 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: I don't care how old he was. Then you're not fit to wear the uniform and the enemy in it's rights to treat you no better. This is why you need to pay attention to the Convention. It's there for your protection too after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 26, 2020 Report Share Posted January 26, 2020 23 hours ago, eyeball said: You really need to follow your own advice. The Convention refers to irregular groups like Al Queda as insurgents and treats these as soldiers. The term terrorist is a political invention. Vietcong guerrillas were not part of any standing army yet captives were treated as POW's according to the Convention. Terrorism is crime that should be dealt with by police not soldiers. Everyone knew this going in especially governments and they should have behaved accordingly. Lets start from the start, the first process in a military tribunal is to classify the defendant determine what they are, IE illegal combatant, non combatant, etc etc...Omar was declared a terrorist under US law, (As the conventions do not have a terrorist clause yet) it was the first time that classification was used, he was also charged with the murder of a us service member...The convention clearly notes what it takes to be classified as a soldier, non combatant, illegal combatant which is a non combatant that has taken up arms and join the fight, he is now a legal target and can have lethal force used against him, regardless of age, religion, political views, sexual preference, what ever...in combat he is another terrorist with a wpn.... Quote There is no such dichotomy in the norms governing acts of terrorism. The defining feature of any act that is legally classified as "terrorist," whether under domestic or international law, is that it is always penalized as criminal. Thus, no act of violence legally designated as "terrorist" is, or can be, exempt from prosecution. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/applicability-ihl-terrorism-and-counterterrorism Vietcong members were not regular POW's most were treated as Illegal combatants, even back then that definition was clearly stated in the convention Quote b) Civilians detained for imperative reasons of security must be accorded the protection provided for in the Fourth Geneva Convention. Combatants who do not fulfil the criteria for POW status (who, for example, do not carry arms openly) or civilians who have taken a direct part in hostilities in an international armed conflict (so-called 'unprivileged' or 'unlawful' belligerents) are protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention provided they are enemy nationals.(OMAR was Canadian)ike POWs, such persons may be tried under the domestic law of the detaining State for taking up arms, as well as for any criminal acts they might have committed. They may be imprisoned until they have served any sentence that is imposed. If they are not prosecuted, they must be released as soon as the imperative reasons of security that led to their internment cease to exist. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/what-does-ihl-say-about-terrorism Terrorism is crime that should be dealt with by police not soldiers. Quote As IHL applies only during armed conflict, it does not regulate terrorist acts committed in peacetime. Such acts are however subject to law, i.e.domestic and international law, in particular human rights law. Irrespective of the motives of their perpetrators, terrorist acts committed outside of armed conflict must be addressed by means of domestic or international law enforcement agencies. States can take several measures to prevent or suppress terrorist acts, such as intelligence gathering, police and judicial cooperation, extradition, criminal sanctions, financial investigations, the freezing of assets or diplomatic and economic pressure on States accused of aiding suspected terrorists. Afghanistan was declared a conflict, but in this case both military and civilian police were used to combat terrorist... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 26, 2020 Report Share Posted January 26, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Lets start from the start...Omar was declared a terrorist under US law Yes, that was the first mistake. Everything turned to shit from there on. They should have classified him as a child. It must have been that damn peach fuzz again I guess. Edited January 26, 2020 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 26, 2020 Report Share Posted January 26, 2020 On 1/25/2020 at 2:15 PM, eyeball said: Then you're not fit to wear the uniform and the enemy in it's rights to treat you no better. This is why you need to pay attention to the Convention. It's there for your protection too after all. Eyeball I don't really care what you think, you were not there nor did you see the horrors these scumbags did in the name of their religion...with a good majority not even being from Afghanistan, they just wanted a chance to kill, NATO, or civilians it did not matter. Omar was not the only under age child in combat over there, his age was common, all it takes is to be able to pull a trigger and your in combat, age plays no role in that....and once you lose a close friend or comrade, trust me it gets easier to take a life, in order to survive...you continue to standup of Omar , but in the end he was in that organization that has killed , tortured, terrorized , an entire population. I personal think he got off way to easy, and that pay out , was a slap across every soldiers face that served in that CONFLICT... The Canadian armed forces applied the Geneva convention at all times those that did not were charged and dealt with by military tribunal.. The Talban did not abide by any Conventions, at any time... they committed war crimes on a regular basis , and most have not faced any form of justice. Omar made a mockery of our justice system, and what it means to be Canadian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 26, 2020 Report Share Posted January 26, 2020 17 minutes ago, eyeball said: Yes, that was the first mistake. Everything turned to shit from there on. They should have classified him as a child. It must have been that damn peach fuzz again I guess. you think that US medic felt any better from his wounds , because Omar had peach fuzz..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 26, 2020 Report Share Posted January 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: you think that US medic felt any better from his wounds , because Omar had peach fuzz..... No think it made it easier for you and others to pretend he wasn't a child. The same sort of pretending this wasn't a real war that allowed governments to dodge other conventions like those against illegal detention, torture, extra-judicial killing and other hallmarks of civilized...conflicts. Takes a terrorist to know one I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 26, 2020 Report Share Posted January 26, 2020 2 hours ago, eyeball said: No think it made it easier for you and others to pretend he wasn't a child. The same sort of pretending this wasn't a real war that allowed governments to dodge other conventions like those against illegal detention, torture, extra-judicial killing and other hallmarks of civilized...conflicts. Takes a terrorist to know one I guess. like I said before , you have no idea what your talking about, you have not been forced into that situation where the target at the end of your rifle looks like a child, but if you don't do something that child will kill you or one of your own....and when you do, come back to me and tell me how you live with that decision....and then spend 3 years of your life day after day staring at the horrific scenes that the Taliban left behind for you to clean up... and tell me you don't form a hatred for their kind...In the end they are nothing more than paper targets we use on the range, and all you fell is recoil over and over again.. This war was real, very real for me and those guys that served in it, ever day we were outside the wire I feared for my life, I prayed every morning that today we did not run into any more bad guys, so I did not have to bring home another ghost, ... it may have been fake to those at home who really tuned it out early in the conflict. It's as real as it gets, Now if you could prove any of your accusations please do, take it to the courts... until then it is all here say like hot gasses passing for ones bum....the facts remain Omar has a criminal record for murdering a soldier...he was lucky that was his only charges.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 26, 2020 Report Share Posted January 26, 2020 1 minute ago, Army Guy said: like I said before , you have no idea what your talking about, you have not been forced into that situation where the target at the end of your rifle looks like a child, I know perfectly well what I'm talking about and that is that nobody forced us into this situation or to follow our allies lead on reinterpreting the law and our obligations to international conventions intended to protect child soldiers and prisoners from abuse. At the end of the day the fact remains that Omar Khadr was a kid that was compensated for the consequences of our government's decision to do so anyway. You are 100% wrong. Nobody forced us. Nobody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 26, 2020 Report Share Posted January 26, 2020 1 minute ago, eyeball said: I know perfectly well what I'm talking about and that is that nobody forced us into this situation or to follow our allies lead on reinterpreting the law and our obligations to international conventions intended to protect child soldiers and prisoners from abuse. At the end of the day the fact remains that Omar Khadr was a kid that was compensated for the consequences of our government's decision to do so anyway. You are 100% wrong. Nobody forced us. Nobody. He was charged under US law, and a court of law classified him as a terrorist, those are the facts....and even if he was a child soldier , no where in that convention does it say that a child can not be held criminal reasonable for his actions...in this case murder, nobody gets a free ticket to ride for murder, not here in Canada and not in the US... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 26, 2020 Report Share Posted January 26, 2020 7 minutes ago, Army Guy said: He was charged under US law, and a court of law classified him as a terrorist, those are the facts....and even if he was a child soldier , no where in that convention does it say that a child can not be held criminal reasonable for his actions...in this case murder, nobody gets a free ticket to ride for murder, not here in Canada and not in the US... What it says is that he was a kid. Full stop. Whatever else you think the GC says about child soldiers is and was moot without that singularly important first initial acknowledgement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.