Jump to content

Compensating Khadr


betsy

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Hal 9000 said:

There has to be a point in which your Canadian rights are taken away or severely diminished.  There obviously isn't one now, but in this day and age, we can't (like europe) get into a position where we have obvious "unlawful combatants" coming home from fighting ...us and getting a job, going on pogey or using our medical system to recover.  It's insanity.

Once it's known that someone has travelled off and fought against us or our allies - brown people...and yes, whites too, they should have their passport revoked and put on the next plane back, in the case that that is not possible, there should be treason charges levied upon arrival.  

I think the idea of; "Don't go away and fight against us, but if you do, we'll give you medical and a big fat cheque", may not be effective. 

I agree to a certain point. 

There should be a process to revoke citizenship if someone joins a terrorist organization. It shouldn't be arbitrary though. 

However, when a child is involved, it's different. There is a reason why we treat children differently than adults when they commit a crime. This should have been done to Khadr and our governments failed to do so.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

Clearly he was an "unlawful combatant".  

All we can hope is that the Americans and Canadians toughen up a bit and leave no survivors -- regardless of age.

I hope not. I think we too try to adhere to the rules of war and geneva conventions that our governments have signed on to. I have no desire to see our boys committing war crimes in order to fulfill some fools idea of being tough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Army Guy said:

The charges are dropped in 2007, and yet he was released in 2014/15...how could that be......i know our justice system is slow but 8 years slow...come on....i think your article is timed out....written before the transfer to Canadian prison....ask your self this why transfer him to prison if the charges had been dropped....it does not make sense....or maybe i'm missing something....

The charges were dropped a couple of times, mainly because of the mistake made by the administrative commision that claimed Omar was a enemy combatant....when that very commision was instructed by the US government and the President to classify all taliban and terrorists as Unlawful combatants.....this all stems from the UN not being able to clarify the definition of terrorist....and because of that it was not able to produce any updates on illegal combatants...which is already a definition used by the UN.

 The Combat Status Review Panels are a requirement of the Geneva Conventions. They only determine whether a prisoner is to be a combatant or a non-combatant. This idea of 'legal' or 'illegal' combatant was cooked up by the Americans when they cooked up the Military Commissions.   There is no way for a CSRT to determine legality or illegality of combatantship.  Thus all those CSRT's pushed through after the Hamdan decision and zero of those pushed through were determined to be 'illegal' combatants. The GC's do not recognize such a distinction.  No mistake was made. Due to the ad hoc nature of the Military Commissions and the belief of some in the Bush admin at the time, they need not worry because the detained were held outside of the USofA and therefor no US court would have jurisdiction and they would never run into any problems.   How very wrong those clowns were.

  this whole 'legal'/'illegal' combatant crap was cooked up to allow the enhanced interrogations and retention at undisclosed locations with no legal representation.  Such a distinction doesn't exist under the GC's.   Khadr, being charged with a crime of war, should have been tried using the day to day UCMJ's, not some special cooked up ad hoc system that they threw together to avoid recognizing rights of the accused. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Omni said:

It was a bogus court for various reasons, but the most important is probably because people were held without access to any legal representation. That by itself goes against both US and Canadian Constitutions.

No representation? His lawyers fought it and got appeals multiple times. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Omni said:

I get your point But in this particular case we are talking about someone who was a kid when this tale began. If you're 10 years old and your dad says we are going to Afghanistan, what are you going to do? You're going to go to Afghanistan. And his dad took him down this path and he paid a big price for that. We have to be careful when we talk about when we talk about depriving people of their charter/human rights. 

Bullshit. Every terrorist was taken down that path by their father. I guess indoctrination  is a get out jail free card in your world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Lol.....untrue. His lawyers were appealing Canadian consulate talking to him early 2003. Check your facts.

He had been tortured and they passed the results of the meeting with him to the Gitmo gestapo. Illegal. Check yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, The_Squid said:

The website that made the definition is calling Khadr a child soldier.  You're looking at their definition and claiming it means the opposite of how they're intending it.  

Thats either lying....  or you don't understand what you read. 

 

If that's the case, that website is giving disinformation.  They're contradicting their own article.

 

Quote

A military, generally consisting of an Army, Navy, Air Force, and in certain countries the Marines and Coast Guard, are forces authorized to use lethal or deadly force and weapons to support the interests of the state and some or all of its citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military

 

See the definition of an UNLAWFUL COMBATANT.  Terrorists fall into that category.


 

Quote

 

An unlawful combatant, illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a person who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war. An unlawful combatant may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action, subject of course to international treaties on justice and human rights.[1]

The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more sovereign states. Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal". Until such time, he must be treated as a prisoner of war.[2] After a "competent tribunal" has determined that an individual detainee is an unlawful combatant, the "detaining power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Omni said:

Yours!

READ your source!

Where does it says that Guantanamo itself,  is illegal?  It talks about rendition, and some practices.

The way you're trying to sell that opinion would be like saying, all prisons are illegal because some prison guards violate the rights of prisoners!

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Omni said:

He had been tortured

Quote

According to J. D. Gordon, a former Pentagon spokesman and retired Navy commander familiar with this case, “Omar Khadr was treated humanely at Guantánamo.” Gordon escorted members of NGOs and the media attending Khadr’s military commission hearings at Guantánamo and saw something far more cynical in the works. “His claims of torture were merely ploys to gain sympathy and secure his release—a tactic taken straight out of the Manchester Manual, an al Qaeda training document seized by authorities in the U.K.”

Gordon is not alone in his position that Khadr was not tortured. One of Canada’s top human rights scholars and Trudeau’s predecessor as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Michael Ignatieff, defended the methods used in interrogating Khadr at the time. The so-called “frequent flyer program”—which prevented Khadr from sleeping for more than three hours at a time—does not amount to torture, Ignatieff declared. “Permissible duress might include forms of sleep deprivation that do not result in lasting harm to mental or physical health,” he wrote of American enhanced interrogation techniques.

Omar Khadr was considered a “high intelligence value” detainee, according to Guantánamo reports made public through WikiLeaks. Khadr possessed important information in the war against Islamist terror groups. Given his family history, his father’s high-ranking position within al Qaeda, and his own connections to senior terrorists, Khadr was routinely questioned, including using enhanced interrogation methods. No one denies this.

The only court ever to rule on whether Khadr was tortured explicitly found that “there is no credible evidence the accused [Khadr] was ever tortured .  .  . even using a liberal interpretation considering the accused’s age.”

Khadr and his lawyers concocted a long list of alleged acts of torture committed by American officials, yet Khadr refused to testify in court to describe the alleged assaults against him. One of these claims, that Khadr was abused during a weigh-in at Guantánamo, was specifically disproven by Judge Patrick J. Parrish. “The accused alleged in his affidavit that he was mistreated while he was being weighed. The videotape of the accused being weighed .  .  . clearly shows the accused was not abused or mistreated in any way by any of the guards.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/a-jihadist-hits-the-jackpot/article/2008843#!

I would not categorize Omar Khadr's treatment in Gitmo as torture. There is just too much evidence against such a claim. Yet, if it's repeated often enough that he was tortured some people begin to believe it, just as the claim that he was a child soldier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, capricorn said:

I would not categorize Omar Khadr's treatment in Gitmo as torture. There is just too much evidence against such a claim. Yet, if it's repeated often enough that he was tortured some people begin to believe it, just as the claim that he was a child soldier.

You can take the word of the foxes who tended the chicken coup all you want. I have my doubts. There is no doubt he was a child held without access to legal rep.

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.

Guest
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.

×
×
  • Create New...