Compensating Khadr

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Are you suggesting that he did not commit any crimes, not one Canadian law, inter national law, Geneva convention, that he comes out smelling like roses.

 

 

 

 

 

He MAY have committed a crime under a very strange US law that was created after 9-11, but if he did, he did so as a child under international law. Then he was incarcerated and convicted by a much maligned US military tribunal,and his rights to habeas corpus denied for 10 years. You don't have to like him but we must respect the law.  

[GostHacked]

58 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Not true, it has always been a war crime for a non combatant, or terrorist to kill a soldier according to the Geneva conventions.

So I have to be in the military to lawfully kill a solder from another nation?

[GostHacked]

16 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Are you suggesting that he did not commit any crimes, not one Canadian law, inter national law, Geneva convention, that he comes out smelling like roses.

What Canadian Laws did he break while in Afghanistan?

What International Laws did he break while in Afghanistan?

GITMO is a problem for Geneva Conventions where the US can rendition anyone illegally to GITMO.

[Army Guy]

I hope that all Canadians take a step back and see this pay out for what it is really.....to correct a mistake by our government and a few actions of people that work within it....i still can't believe that someone is not being held responsible......We are willing to go as far as pay out a massive amount to a convicted terrorist to save face......but we are not willing to take a hard look at how we treat our men and women in uniform, be it giving them the equipment they need, or improving the Vets pay out for injuries received fighting for our own country.....I guess if you want to make any money out of fighting it has to be done against our country......not for it.........this payout to one terrorist is equal to 30 payouts of maxims value to our own soldiers, I should add that getting a maximum allowed payout is like seeing a live unicorn under your tree Christmas morning.....yes Omar's rights were violated, but when does violating human rights over turn everything else attached to this issue......including all the laws he did mange to break, we forget how many other human rights violations did he commit in the course of all his adventures.

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

.including all the laws he did mange to break,

Explain which law(s) you think he broke.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Not true, it has always been a war crime for a non combatant, or terrorist to kill a soldier according to the Geneva conventions.

I did not know that.  The Maquis were all war criminals?  I didn't see them at Nuremberg.  Still pretty dumb, if you ask me, post 9/11 or not.

[Army Guy]

9 minutes ago, Omni said:

He MAY have committed a crime under a very strange US law that was created after 9-11, but if he did, he did so as a child under international law. Then he was incarcerated and convicted by a much maligned US military tribunal,and his rights to habeas corpus denied for 10 years. You don't have to like him but we must respect the law.  

Inter national law states that even a child soldier can be held responsible for their actions on a battle field.....It is recommended, and I will say that again it is recommended to over look war crimes committed by children you might want to take a closer look at that convention Canada signed on to.

There are lots of laws that were in place before 9/11, how about treason, or taking up arms against Canadian military forces, ....those are two there are plenty more....

[Queenmandy85]

Under the Canadian Criminal Code and U.S. law, you have the right to use reasonable force to defend your life. Khadr had been critically wounded and had the right to use reasonable force to defend himself.

If Sgt. Speer had been a North Korean, would Khadr still be considered a murderer and a terrorist?

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Inter national law states that even a child soldier can be held responsible for their actions on a battle field.....It is recommended, and I will say that again it is recommended to over look war crimes committed by children you might want to take a closer look at that convention Canada signed on to.

There are lots of laws that were in place before 9/11, how about treason, or taking up arms against Canadian military forces, ....those are two there are plenty more....

The only law he was "convicted" of committing, and apparently after being tortured, and by a very dubious military council, was one created by the US after 9-11 which claims essentially that the US can invade your country and start a war and kill people legally, but if you defend yourself by killing an invader, you do so illegally. And under other US law, when you are accused of a crime, you are supposed to have access to a proper court, within a reasonable time period to defend yourself. He certainly didn't get that.  

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Under the Canadian Criminal Code and U.S. law, you have the right to use reasonable force to defend your life. Khadr had been critically wounded and had the right to use reasonable force to defend himself.

If Sgt. Speer had been a North Korean, would Khadr still be considered a murderer and a terrorist?

Him and his whole family were Canadian citizens, who were ALWAYS traitors, who went to fight WITH THE TERRORISTS, against Canadian forces, IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY.

The second they stepped off that plane into Afganistan to fight AGAINST Canadian forces, their citizenship should have been revoked and the US can do whatever they please with him.

 

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, Omni said:

which claims essentially that the US can invade your country and start a war and kill people legally, but if you defend yourself by killing an invader, you do so illegally.

His country was CANADA.

Not Afganistan.  Him and his family had no business being there.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Goddess

[Queenmandy85]

Canada was not fighting in Afganistan at that time. Even if it could be proved it was murder, as a young offender, the maximum term of imprisonment is 6 years. He was tortured and denied the right to retain and instruct legal council without delay.

Sgt Speers was not a medic. He was training to be a medic but was not acting in that capacity in that attack.

 

[Omni]

8 minutes ago, Goddess said:

His country was CANADA.

Not Afganistan.  Him and his family had no business being there.

Ah nope, my country is Canada and I have spent time in Afghanistan, because I had business there. Afghanistan was the families country of origin. I don't agree with what Omar's father is reported to have been doing there, but Omar was 15 at the time and taken there by his father. 

[hot enough]

On 7/4/2017 at 0:22 PM, betsy said:

I knew something

 

Not only should Omar K be compensated, all CDN government officials who aided and abetted this crime against humanity should be charged and brought to trial.

[hot enough]

24 minutes ago, Goddess said:

His country was CANADA.

Not Afganistan.

His family was trying to stop the USA from its known war crimes/terrorism.

Quote

 Him and his family had no business being there.

tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk, you say that you are a university educated lady, Goddess.

 

[hot enough]

28 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Him and his whole family were Canadian citizens, who were ALWAYS traitors, who went to fight WITH THE TERRORISTS, against Canadian forces, IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY.

Those CDN forces were participating in the supreme war crime, the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. An illegal invasion by the USA/UK/... based on lies which you were gullible enough to fall for, Goddess,  ["Him and his whole family were..."] the university educated lady. 

[Omni]

Just now, hot enough said:

Those CDN forces were participating in the supreme war crime, the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. An illegal invasion by the USA/UK/... based on lies which you were gullible enough to fall for, Goddess,  ["Him and his whole family were..."] the university educated lady. 

It was not an illegal invasion. A waste of blood and treasure perhaps, but not illegal.

[Goddess]

[hot enough]

16 minutes ago, Omni said:

It was not an illegal invasion. A waste of blood and treasure perhaps, but not illegal.

You know as little of this as you know of 911 and its science, Omni. 

Quote

 

Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War

The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was every bit as illegal as the invasion of Iraq. Why, then, do so many Americans see it as justifiable?

By Marjorie Cohn / AlterNet

July 31, 2008, 9:00 PM GMT

 

So far, President Bush's plan to maintain a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq has been stymied by resistance from the Iraqi government. Barack Obama's timetable for withdrawal of American troops evidently has the backing of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Bush has mentioned a "time horizon," and John McCain has waffled. Yet Obama favors leaving between 35,000 and 80,000 U.S. occupation troops there indefinitely to train Iraqi security forces and carry out "counterinsurgency operations." That would not end the occupation. We must call for bringing home -- not redeploying -- all U.S. troops and mercenaries, closing all U.S. military bases and relinquishing all efforts to control Iraqi oil.

In light of stepped-up violence in Afghanistan, and for political reasons -- following Obama's lead -- Bush will be moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Although the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was as illegal as the invasion of Iraq, many Americans see it as a justifiable response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the casualties in that war have been lower than those in Iraq -- so far. Practically no one in the United States is currently questioning the legality or propriety of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan. The cover of Time magazine calls it "The Right War."

The U.N. Charter provides that all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no nation can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan. Resolutions 1368 and 1373 condemned the Sept. 11 attacks and ordered the freezing of assets; the criminalizing of terrorist activity; the prevention of the commission of and support for terrorist attacks; and the taking of necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist activity, including the sharing of information. In addition, it urged ratification and enforcement of the international conventions against terrorism.

The invasion of Afghanistan was not legitimate self-defense under article 51 of the charter because the attacks on Sept. 11 were criminal attacks, not "armed attacks" by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the United States after Sept. 11, or Bush would not have waited three weeks before initiating his October 2001 bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." This classic principle of self-defense in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the U.N. General Assembly.

Bush's justification for attacking Afghanistan was that it was harboring Osama bin Laden and training terrorists. Iranians could have made the same argument to attack the United States after they overthrew the vicious Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979 and he was given safe haven in the United States. The people in Latin American countries whose dictators were trained in torture techniques at the School of the Americas could likewise have attacked the torture training facility in Fort Benning, Ga., under that specious rationale. Those who conspired to hijack airplanes and kill thousands of people on 9/11 are guilty of crimes against humanity. They must be identified and brought to justice in accordance with the law. But retaliation by invading Afghanistan is not the answer and will only lead to the deaths of more of our troops and Afghans.

http://www.alternet.org/story/93473/afghanistan%3A_the_other_illegal_war

 

=================

http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=jil

 

Edited July 5, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

21 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You sure did fight for the wrong side, homeless vet. You fought, and lost an arm, for callous, insensitive people who support the most vicious war criminals and terrorists, people who will use you in propaganda like this silly cartoon, people who support those who lied their asses off to illegally invade Afghanistan to steal its wealth. It's not like this was the first time. There has been every Latin American country, more than once, the Philippines, Angola, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Korea, Laos, ... . 

Edited July 5, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

On 7/4/2017 at 0:22 PM, betsy said:

I knew something like this will be happening, when the narrative was about Canada "letting down Khadr" to rot in Guantanamo! 

Why are you, supposedly a christian, Betsy, always writing screeds supporting torture chambers and the torturers? Supporting war criminals/terrorists the equal of Hitler, PolPot, both of whom your favorite war criminals supported, and other equally unsavory butchers.

Do you teach this to your children, to bible class, when you speak to the congregation?

[Omni]

16 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You know as little of this as you know of 911 and its science

I know that ISAF was sully endorsed by the UNSC. And please don't try and drip drip your 9-11 conspiracy theory into yet another thread.

[The_Squid]

8 hours ago, Rue said:

Violated  his rights? Complicit in his torture? Lol.

Laugh all you want...   the Supreme Court of Canada found exactly this....    duh-har-har-har

Quote

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/khadr-repatriation-overturned-by-top-court-1.893059

However, the top court agreed Canadian officials violated Khadr's human rights, and that he continues to be threatened by the effect of those violations.

In a unanimous decision released Friday, the court declared that Canadian officials breached Khadr's right to life, liberty and security of the person under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

 

 

[Rue]

41 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

What Canadian Laws did he break while in Afghanistan?

What International Laws did he break while in Afghanistan?

GITMO is a problem for Geneva Conventions where the US can rendition anyone illegally to GITMO.

You are so full of it. What Canadian laws did he break?

Stop asking questions you know the answers to.  Yah you never heard of the Criminal Code. You need to ask.

2. In this Act, “terrorism offence” means (a) an offence under any of sections 83.02 to 83.04 or 83.18 to 83.23, (b) an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group, (c) an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament where the act or omission constituting the offence also constitutes a terrorist activity, or (d) a conspiracy or an attempt to commit, or being an accessory after the fact in relation to, or any counselling in relation to, an offence referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c);

.

7(3.74) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act, every one who commits an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be a terrorism offence, other than an offence under section 83.02 or an offence referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition “terrorist activity” in subsection 83.01(1), is deemed to have committed that act or omission in Canada if the person (a) is a Canadian citizen; (b) is not a citizen of any state and ordinarily resides in Canada; or (c) is a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and is, after the commission of the act or omission, present in Canada. Terrorist activity committed outside Canada (3.75) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act, every one who commits an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be an indictable offence and would also constitute a terrorist activity referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition “terrorist activity” in subsection 83.01(1) is deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada if (a) the act or omission is committed against a Canadian citizen; (b) the act or omission is committed against a Canadian government or public facility located outside Canada; or (c) the act or omission is committed with intent to compel the Government of Canada or of a province to do or refrain from doing any act. (3.76) and (3.77) [Repealed, 2000, c. 24, s. 42]

 

Oh wait you need to be told:

Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001:

...Declares that acts of international terrorism constitute one of the most serious threats to international peace and security in the twenty- first century,

Further declares that acts of international terrorism constitute a challenge to all States and to all of humanity,

Reaffirms its unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, in all their forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever committed...⁸

5. States must also fulfill their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and other provisions of international law with respect to combating international terrorism and are urged to take effective and resolute measures in accordance with the relevant provisions of international law and international standards of human rights for the speedy and final elimination of international terrorism, in particular:

Yah you never heard of the above. Who you?

Hell yah that's the same UN that is full of terrorist nations-yah that one.

 

The fact is there is no international law for terrorists like Kadr as you are ware precisely because the UN is now run by terrorist nations that will never agree on a definition of a terrorist unless it has to do with a Jew living in a Jewish nation.

The Genevea Conventions as you ae well aware only deal with soldiers of nations whose countries have signed the Geneva convention. Kadr was a terrorist not a soldier. He was a terrorist, He violated Afghani laws, Canadian laws, American laws.

He killed a medic in cold blood knowing he was not armed.

Go play with someone else.

 

[Rue]

38 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Not only should Omar K be compensated, all CDN government officials who aided and abetted this crime against humanity should be charged and brought to trial.

Lol yah that's right. Killing an unarmed medic, travelling to a foreign nation using your Canadian passport to violently  kill and terrorize its innocent civilians is no big deal. How dare anyone jail or kill a terrorist using Canada as his operations launch pad. Its a crime against humanity to stop terrorism.

Hey how about you stick to paint chips. This one is out of your depth.