Omni Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 10 minutes ago, Spiderfish said: there's not much to discuss. No, because the issue has been pretty much decided Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 3 hours ago, The_Squid said: If he was recruited at 10 years old but isn't considered a child soldier, then what would the cons on this forum consider a child soldier? 5 years old? still shitting their diapers? Well, Like Omni and I agreed, Khadr was not a solider of any king, he was/is a terrorist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 2 hours ago, Spiderfish said: Well, he says he's remorseful now, and he wants to show Canada that he's turned over a new leaf. He realizes what he did was wrong and hopes he can be forgiven for the damage he's caused. I think a good start to walking this new noble path would be for him to honour his debt to Speer's widow and voluntarily give her the 139 million he owes her, or at least a 10.5 million dollar down payment towards rectifying his debt to her. Or, He could hide his money in a place where it can be channeled to a terrorist group while he smirks at all the stupid Canadians - either..or! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 1 minute ago, Hal 9000 said: Well, Like Omni and I agreed, Khadr was not a solider of any king, he was/is a terrorist. Clearly, you don't understand the definition. From the website Betsy uses as an authority on what is a child soldier (it seems to be a reputable site): Quote Child soldiers are children (individuals under the age of 18) who are used for any military purpose. Some are in their late teens, while others may be as young as four. They are not only boys – many are girls. https://www.child-soldiers.org/who-are-child-soldiers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 4 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said: Well, Like Omni and I agreed, Khadr was not a solider of any king, he was/is a terrorist. WHAT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 1 minute ago, The_Squid said: Clearly, you don't understand the definition. From the website Betsy uses as an authority on what is a child soldier (it seems to be a reputable site): To be a solider, you have to part of an army. Khadr was not part of an army. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) Just now, Hal 9000 said: To be a solider, you have to part of an army. Khadr was not part of an army. That's not the definition of child soldier anywhere. Nice try. Your disingenuousness is obvious. Edited July 13, 2017 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 2 hours ago, The_Squid said: Who is 'they'? And where is your evidence? also, please answer my child soldier question.... it's a simple one, but the cons here are avoiding answering it. Lol...says the guy who deletes posts from cons with opposing views. You know what's what at 15. I was on my own working, as was my partners father by that age. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 2 hours ago, The_Squid said: He was 10 when he was recruited. What age Betsy? Simple question. If he was 14? 5? In diapers? So what? Every muslim jihadi is recruited at 10. What if they capture a 25YO, would he still be a child in your books? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, The_Squid said: That's not the definition of child soldier anywhere. Nice try. Your disingenuousness is obvious. If he was a Canadian, he surely wasn't in the Canadian army. If he wasn't in the Canadian army, then he's not a solider and shouldn't be the responsability of Canada. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said: If he was a Canadian, he surely wasn't in the Canadian army. If he wasn't in the Canadian army, then he's not a solider and shouldn't be the responsability of Canada. Your convoluted backwards reasoning makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, The_Squid said: Your convoluted backwards reasoning makes no sense. Well then, tell me what army he was working for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 20 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said: If he was a Canadian, he surely wasn't in the Canadian army. If he wasn't in the Canadian army, then he's not a solider and shouldn't be the responsability of Canada. HELLLLOOO. He was born in Canada. That makes him a Canadian citizen. I can see we may have to take this piece, by little piece for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, Omni said: HELLLLOOO. He was born in Canada. That makes him a Canadian citizen. I can see we may have to take this piece, by little piece for you. You're a dummy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 1 minute ago, Hal 9000 said: You're a dummy! Oh that could well be. But this dummy understands the law a bit better than you it seems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 On 7/12/2017 at 3:06 PM, Peter F said: Unfortunatley, it was the Military Commissions judge that ruled Khadr was an illegal combatant. Judge Brownback dismissed the charges during the first edition of Khadrs trial, the US prosecuting authority appealed that ruling (that being that the MC required an illegal combatant in order to try Khadr and all Judge Brownback had before him was a combatant) to the Court of Military Commission Review. That particular court of review had to be rushed together because there wasn't one yet but certainly a lot of government memo's circulating that perhaps it would be a good idea to set one up. The MC dismissed the charge (without prejudice) and certain minds then got focused and the Court of MC Review was created. That Court heard the government appeal agreed that the judge was correct in that he did indeed require an illegal combatant and not any ol combatant but then also determined that the MC was quite capable of determining the legality or illegality of Khadr's combattantship prior to actually trying Khadr on the charges levelled. Judge Brownback subsequently did so and concluded khadr was an illegal combatant. Shortly after that Judge Brownback was removed from his position and Judge Parrish assigned to replace him. Then the USSC ruled that the MC's as constituted were contrary to the requirements of the Geneva Conventions and Khadrs trial stopped until the next edition of the MC's were cooked up. the next edition of the MC's were passed in Congress and the Senate and the MC's kicked off again. There was/is only one administrative hearing outside of the MC and that was the Combat Status Review Panel held at Guantanamo with only determines (Then and now) wether the person held is a combatant or not - it does not and cannot determine legality of supposed combatantship. see http://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/Omar07-001/T Military Judge Authority and Remanding Case to MJ to decide MC jurisdiction over Khadr case, 24 September 2007.pdf Taken from your own link..... Quote The military judge’s ruling he lacked authority to hear evidence on, and ultimately decide, the matter of Mr. Khadr’s “unlawful enemy combatant status” under the provisions of the M.C.A. is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the military judge, who shall, consistent with this opinion, conduct all proceedings necessary to determine the military commission’s jurisdiction over Mr. Khadr. which meant Omar was to be tried as an unlawful enemy combatant as they are the only ones the commission had jurisdiction over... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 On 7/12/2017 at 3:05 PM, Omni said: A no-nonsense military judge lobbed a bombshell into the Bush administration's controversial terrorist tribunals, dismissing all charges against Canadian Omar Khadr Monday because prosecutors failed to label him an "unlawful" combatant. "Charges are dismissed without prejudice," Colonel Peter Brownback said brusquely, putting an abrupt end to Mr. Khadr's trial - at least for the moment. source please , will need to place this statement in the time table to make any sense of it..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 52 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said: You're a dummy! Hmm. I see you're out of relevant things to say. That didn't take long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 7 minutes ago, Army Guy said: source please , will need to place this statement in the time table to make any sense of it..... None of those kangaroo courts really matter now. All that will matter is the result of his appeal of his conviction ... in a real court, a real trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, jacee said: None of those kangaroo courts really matter now. All that will matter is the result of his appeal of his conviction ... in a real court, a real trial. That is of course the real point of all this but I do have an answer for AG. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/guantanamo-judge-drops-charges-against-khadr-1.656485 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 On 7/12/2017 at 3:32 PM, jacee said: Lorne Gunter doesn't mention how our government screwed up badly by sending CSIS to participate in illegal interrogation. Semrau shooting a wounded insurgent: That's exactly what the US soldiers did to the armed (but out of ammo) man still alive: a war crime. And they tried to do the same to Khadr. I'm glad to know that Canadians don't consider such war crimes 'standard practice' the way the US does. Semrau case is apples to oranges, he put a man out of his misery, due to the pain of his wounds.....the wounded Taliban had been hit by an A-10 and 30 mm shells, taking of both legs and most of the lower half of his body....even if there was a surgeon right there it was unlikely they could save him....Air medicvac was 30 plus mins away.... Shooting a man with an empty wpn is not a war crime.....Can you tell if a wpn is loaded or unloaded in a quick glance....one would have to drop all wpn's in order for it to be a war crime and be in the act of surrender.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted July 14, 2017 Report Share Posted July 14, 2017 15 minutes ago, jacee said: Hmm. I see you're out of relevant things to say. That didn't take long. Look, if he cant understand a post, that's on him. It's infuriating having to spell out or hope that somebody like OMni can properly read and understand what is written. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted July 14, 2017 Report Share Posted July 14, 2017 2 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said: It's infuriating having to spell out Could be we are way ahead of you. No need to try and spell anything out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 14, 2017 Report Share Posted July 14, 2017 22 hours ago, dialamah said: Geneva Convention considers anyone under 18 a child soldier. We have an entire legal system specially for kids under 18 or 19 because they are considered less culpable than adults. Generally speaking, how much influence do you expect parents would or should have over their kids between the ages of 9 and 15, for good or ill. Look at the pic of Khadr under a pile of rubble, two bullets in his back, and explain how he could have been throwing grenades 15 seconds earlier. Consider the 7 different reports of that event, how they contradict each other and how 5 of the 7 do not implicate Khadr. If you refuse to even consider any alternate information that contradicts what you think is true then again I ask you, why do you expect more from a 15-year-old than you do yourself? Yes , it does, however show me the quote where it says that children CAN NOT be held responsible for their crimes...And are you saying that we here in Canada have not given a child an adult sentence for serious crimes? well he had to have been sitting up to get 2 bullet holes into the back .....time line is everything here.... Consider nothing.....every been to a car accident, or robbery, something traumatic.....talk to 100 people and you'll get 100 different stories....on top of that not everyone was in the same location, their stories will be from different angles....different stories.... No one will ever get the same level of evidence from a battle field engagement that is required here in Canada....there is no CSI unit that comes in after the battle to make sure it was all above board....and yet there are investigations that happen all the time, Take a look at the Capt Semeau case...very little evidence and what was collected would be in no way to the same level as here at home....and yet he was charged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted July 14, 2017 Report Share Posted July 14, 2017 25 minutes ago, jacee said: Hmm. I see you're out of relevant things to say. That didn't take long. Even if I run out of things to say I think I'll avoid the "you're a dummy" fall back. But to each their own. 1 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.