Interesting Media Omissions

[Argus]

I might ask you the same question, Argus, but there would be no point to it. Your spleen has obviously got the better of your reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I am just too darned intollerant of those lovely crazed Muslim killers. I should learn to appreciate the religious beauty of a good explosion.

[err]

It would appear that even the US Senate agrees that the USA has to improve the treatment of its prisoners:

Senate defies White House with torture ban

The Senate issued an even sharper rebuke to the administration over the U.S. military's treatment of detainees in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.

Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona – with the strong support of virtually every senator – managed to include in the spending bill a measure that bans torture.

It also restricts interrogations and bans the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of foreigners in U.S. custody, in accordance with international law.

[Black Dog]

What's more surprising is you won't find any actual description of the killing. Whether in The Star or Post, CTV or CBC, the media all say Khadr killed a US solider or medic, ususually during a firefight, or in the case of the Star, "as US soldiers stormed the building". In fact, Khadr pretended to surrender, and then threw the grenade at a US soldier as he approached. That constitutes murder by almost anyone's reckoning, including the geneva convention.

So why is it not showing up in ANY of the news reports?

Source?

I doubt the US would have much, if any difficulty convicting him in a regular criminal trial - without having to disclose any kind of secret sources or information. However, that would set a precident and would raise further howls that all the others should be similarly tried.

I can't wrap my head around this thinking. On the one hand, we're told the Al Qaeda members are not P.O.Ws and thus not entitled to the basic rights of a soldier. Surely, though, trying them under a military tribunal legitimizes the claim that these guys are soldiers. If they are criminals, they should be tried as such, not as soldiers. It's this kind of dishonesty and double dealing that compromises the legitimacy of the "war on terror".

[Army Guy]

I don't think you have really grasped this issue, Army Guy.

The French resistance did not wear armbands at all until after DDay. The resistance was not an organised force but consisted of many groups who operated independently of each other and, for the most part were not in contact. They did not identify themselves in any way except their own secret ways.

The wearing of armbands came after a sort of unification following DDay and was for combat purposes not for the resistance as it had been conducted to that time.

Further, the French Resistance did fit the definition of terrorists and had no protection of the Geneva Conventions. They were that because France had capitulated and signed an armistice with Germany. Therefore, Resistance fighters were not acting on the part of any authority or government. Armbands had nothing to do with Geneva Convention protection.

Below there are a few sites that have photos of FFI fighters wearing armbands or some parts of uniforms. some are dating back to 1940, well before DDAY.

my piont is this, there is alot of evidance saying arm bands where in fact worn. I'm not saying "ALL" wore them but they were worn. there are dozens of other web sites with pictures as well showing the same thing.

there is also alot of evidance that pionts to the fact they were not all operating indepandently as you suggest by most were organized and controled by a larger organization by Charles de Gaulle as stated below.

How does the FFI fit in with the definition of terrorists.

On June 18th, 1940, Charles de Gaulle addressed the people of France from London. He called on the French people to continue the fight against the Germans. This message hit hard in occupied France but initially it was less well received in Vichy France. Regardless of what many thought of the Vichy government, the area they controlled was run by French people. However, when the Vichy government began to openly collaborate with the Germans, attitudes hardened.

The French Resistance movement is an umbrella term which covered numerous anti-German resistance movements that were based within France. There were resistance movements that took direct orders from the Special Operations Executive, there was the communist resistance, groups loyal to de Gaulle, regional resistance movements that wanted independence etc. In the north, the target was simply the Germans while in the south, the Vichy government was a target as well as the Germans. The first resistance movements were in the north, such as the OCM (Organisation Civile et Militaire) and by the end of 1940, six underground newspapers were being regularly printed in the north. In May 1941, the first SOE agent was dropped into northern France to assist the work of the resistance.

Because of the peculiar political complexities of France, the resistance movement got off to a difficult start. However, by June 1941, the resistance movement had become more organised and its work against the Germans increased accordingly. Two dates are important in explaining the work of the resistance movement in France.

On October 23rd,1944, de Gaulle was officially recognised by the Allies as the head of the French government and his administration received a similar endorsement. However, de Gaulle’s difficult relationship with Winston Churchill and Roosevelt continued when he was not invited to attend with the ‘Big Three’ (Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt/Truman) meetings at Yalta and Potsdam.

My Webpage

FFI

film

FRF 1940

The Afghanistan situation was quite different. It was war and the Taliban were resisting an invasion. What you or I think of the moral, or legal, justification for the war is irrelevant.

An invasion designed to eleminate the AL quada organzation A terrorist organization.

[Army Guy]

ERR:

Thank you for the complete article.

But it sounds like they are comparing the two completely different laws

Western Law can not be compared to international law or the Geneva convention as they are two different subjects.

If one was to be tried by US law one has to be a US citizen. And they are clearly not.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

I can't wrap my head around this thinking. On the one hand, we're told the Al Qaeda members are not P.O.Ws and thus not entitled to the basic rights of a soldier. Surely, though, trying them under a military tribunal legitimizes the claim that these guys are soldiers. If they are criminals, they should be tried as such, not as soldiers. It's this kind of dishonesty and double dealing that compromises the legitimacy of the "war on terror".

Correct me if i'm wrong here, but has it been reported what the military tribunal is for. All i've read todate that he is going before a military tribunal but not what for. we assume it is to be charged for his crimes of killing a US soldier, And most of the media is pionting us in that direction.

My piont is perhaps the whole process is to find out exactly where this kid fits in, is he a terrorist or combatant, as the Geneva convention states, not to try him for his crimes which should come later.

[Black Dog]

Correct me if i'm wrong here, but has it been reported what the military tribunal is for. All i've read todate that he is going before a military tribunal but not what for. we assume it is to be charged for his crimes of killing a US soldier, And most of the media is pionting us in that direction.

My piont is perhaps the whole process is to find out exactly where this kid fits in, is he a terrorist or combatant, as the Geneva convention states, not to try him for his crimes which should come later.

No the military tribunal is the body that will try him. He's already been charged as a "unprivileged belligerent".

Omar Ahmed Khadr is charged with conspiracy to commit offenses triable by military commission; murder by an unprivileged belligerent; attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent; and aiding the enemy.

DoD News release

[PocketRocket]

If one was to be tried by US law one has to be a US citizen. And they are clearly not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You would think that is the case, but apparently it is not.

Look at the case of the Canadian who was busted for selling pot seeds into the USA. (Can't recall his name at the moment, but it's a pretty recent event)

If you or I were to go to the USA tomorrow and shoot someone, we would definitely be tried in the USA, under USA laws, for a crime commited in the USA against a citizen of the USA.

Don't necessarily need to be a citizen of the USA to be tried by a US court.

However, for someone who is NOT a citizen of the USA who may be tried there, it's tough to say what rights that person would have.

Would even Miranada still apply???

[kimmy]

So, to sum up the positions taken in this thread, people are not upset that Omar Khadr is being put on trial, they are just upset with the venue? Is that the sum total of complaints?

-k

[I Miss Trudeau]

So, to sum up the positions taken in this thread, people are not upset that Omar Khadr is being put on trial, they are just upset with the venue? Is that the sum total of complaints?

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its a lot more complicated than that. Military tribunals, as people have pointed out in this thread, have vastly differently rules and procedures than regular criminal trials. Its not just a different "venue."

[err]

Look at the case of the Canadian who was busted for selling pot seeds into the USA. (Can't recall his name at the moment, but it's a pretty recent event)

If you or I were to go to the USA tomorrow and shoot someone, we would definitely be tried in the USA, under USA laws, for a crime commited in the USA against a citizen of the USA.

Mark Emery... the leader of the BC Marijuana Party... I don't imagine they'll let him out for the upcoming election.....

[Guest eureka]

It also goes to a paractise that is institutional barnarism not democracy. Military Tribunals, as constituted in the USA, deny every tenet of the Rule of Law and every fundamental democratic principle.

I gave earlier in the thread some of the conditions of a Tribunal. They are a throwback to times of absolutist governments and to Fascist states. The Star Chamber was abandoned centuries ago because of its similarities to the Tribunals of today and due to the pressure of emerging democratic principles.

This is unspeakable.

There is also, Kimmy, a real question of whether the US has any right to put him on trial at all. That ahs certainly not been answered.

[Army Guy]

Military Tribunals have been used in the past, to convict Nazi war criminals, why is this case so different. Or is that we have grown past that stage. We have seen what International courts can do plus other types of tribunals in the case of EX pres of Yugo who's case is still ongoing.

So what is the solution ?

[Guest eureka]

Because this is akin to the Military Tribunals the Americans did use in the past following the liberation of camps like Dachau. There, the Tribunals were used for the mass murder of Germans they took in the camps. Guilt, Innocence, Nazi or not they were killed for vengeance.

Tribunals were hastily convened without any pretext of process, evidence or witnesses and thousands of Germans were simply rushed in one door and out the other to be shot.

That is what a Military Tribunal is. Something to avoid the inconvenience of a trial. The first part of the solution is to ban Military Tribunals and make it a crime under Intarnational Law not to observe Due Process.

[Army Guy]

Eureka:

Because this is akin to the Military Tribunals the Americans did use in the past following the liberation of camps like Dachau. There, the Tribunals were used for the mass murder of Germans they took in the camps. Guilt, Innocence, Nazi or not they were killed for vengeance

You mean the tribunals that the Allieds used, not just the americans. And correct me if i'm wrong but those Nazi's where charged after the war in Europe was over, not after the liberation of the camps. And the Nazi's were charged for all the crimes they committed not just for the death camps. And what "Mass" murder of germans are you talking about. And are you suggesting that Innocencent Nazi's were convicted. Name one...

Tribunals were hastily convened without any pretext of process, evidence or witnesses and thousands of Germans were simply rushed in one door and out the other to be shot.

Perhaps you can back this claim up with a source. Just how many were shot, or hanged. how many were even convicted and served time in jail.

That is what a Military Tribunal is. Something to avoid the inconvenience of a trial. The first part of the solution is to ban Military Tribunals and make it a crime under Intarnational Law not to observe Due Process

I will agre with you that the military should not be involved with proscuting anyone. unless it is thier own people and then only for non capital crimes. It is not thier job or station.

That all being said what organization is equiped to handle international trails quickly and efficiently plus carry out sentences and house prisoners.

[Guest eureka]

I have not looked anywhere for that information, Army Guy. It was well known historical fact. It had nothing to do with the trials of Nazi War Criminals later. Thousands of German Officers from the camps were rushed through hastily set up Tribunals and shot.

Some would have been guilty of "crimes against humanity," no doubt. But, just like in Guantamo, we don't know that and they are too dead to defend themselves. Many may not have been guilty. Since none were tried, we will never know.

Actually, I am not suggesting any institution to replace the Tribunal. I am merely pointing out that it is a barbaric institution. If there is some replacement needed and none exists, then something should be created that observes the basics of the Rule of Law.

Our vaunted love of freedom and democracy demands no less.

[Army Guy]

I have not looked anywhere for that information, Army Guy. It was well known historical fact. It had nothing to do with the trials of Nazi War Criminals later. Thousands of German Officers from the camps were rushed through hastily set up Tribunals and shot.

Look all i'm asking you to do is back up your claim, without a source it is nothing more than your opinion. and from every source i could find they suggest your claim is false.

My Webpage

My Webpage

My Webpage

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Army Guy,

Eurka's claim is not false, but perhaps too difficult to prove the numbers. The Russians had liberated the Polish extermination camps such as Auschwitz and Majdanek, and the British dismissed their reports as Russian propaganda. Then they themselves came across some camps such as Bergen-Belsen.

From "The Reader's Digest Illustrated History of WWII" (1989) pg.416...

The SS guards still lurked in their quarters-and despite intense revulsion for them the British soldiers had to protect them from the prisoners. There were similar scenes when the Americans liberated Buchenwald near Erfurt on April 13 (1945) and Dachau near Munich on April 29-although at Dachau some SS men were summarily executed by GIs.

Does 'some' equate to 'thousands'? Difficult to say, but I guarantee you the Russians killed thousands.

As to the Nuremburg Trials, most historians agree that there wasn't a whole lot of legal 'legitimacy' to them, they were 'victor's justice', and it went ahead because no one wanted to see the Nazis (at least the important ones that caused everything) walk away unpunished. The French, most notably, but other occupied countries too, killed thousands of 'collaboraters' for years after the war.

[geoffrey]

I can't wrap my head around this thinking. On the one hand, we're told the Al Qaeda members are not P.O.Ws and thus not entitled to the basic rights of a soldier. Surely, though, trying them under a military tribunal legitimizes the claim that these guys are soldiers. If they are criminals, they should be tried as such, not as soldiers. It's this kind of dishonesty and double dealing that compromises the legitimacy of the "war on terror".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They commited war crimes, thats why they can legally be tried under a military tribunal. It is against international military law to do a few things they do, first and most importantly, they are no part of an army, they are terrorists. They fight in civilian clothing, they target civilian populations and use civilian populations as human shields for their operations.

These are all violations of military law, and thats why its legit to try them in a military trial. And they aren't soilders, they are terrorists, so they don't deserve rights as a traditional POW (a traditional POW hasn't really broken the law, these people have).

[Army Guy]

Tribunals were hastily convened without any pretext of process, evidence or witnesses and thousands of Germans were simply rushed in one door and out the other to be shot.

Eurka's claim is not false, but perhaps too difficult to prove the numbers. The Russians had liberated the Polish extermination camps such as Auschwitz and Majdanek, and the British dismissed their reports as Russian propaganda. Then they themselves came across some camps such as Bergen-Belsen.

What you are describing sounds like soldiers taking matters into there own hands. And yes there is historical records of these killings by russian, US, British even Canadian troops and to include POWs that took part in the liberation of the death camps.

But what i'd like to piont out is there was no formal or informal tribunal when these killings took place. it was individual soldiers taking the law into thier on hands. As for the evidence or witnesses the camp survivors where really all you needed and as for thier innocence please give us a break.

However perhaps i misunderstood eurekas comments as i thought they were pionted towards the formal military tribunals held through Europe.

As to the Nuremburg Trials, most historians agree that there wasn't a whole lot of legal 'legitimacy' to them, they were 'victor's justice', and it went ahead because no one wanted to see the Nazis (at least the important ones that caused everything) walk away unpunished.

Here is where i have a problem, Are you guys suggesting that anyone who was tried at Numemburg recieved punishment that was unwarrented. because you make it sound like revenge.

And for that matter are you suggesting that those killings of concentration gaurds by individual soldiers and POW's was unwarrented or unjustified.

[Black Dog]

Eureka could be referencing this story (incidentaly, from the wikipedia article on military tribunals).

Roosevelt ordered military tribunals for some German prisoners accused of sabotage. His decision sparked controversy. Some critics thought that the tribunals were unjust. The suspects were not aware that one of the suspects had been promised immunity if he implicated the other saboteurs. The convicted suspects were executed, by firing squad, the same day they were convicted. The suspect who had been promised immunity was given a thirty year sentence.

These are all violations of military law, and thats why its legit to try them in a military trial. And they aren't soilders, they are terrorists, so they don't deserve rights as a traditional POW (a traditional POW hasn't really broken the law, these people have).

A POW could be tried by a military tribunal.

Military tribunals have jurisdiction over any person under custody of the United States armed forces, no matter how it was captured or in what country it is, who is an enemy combatant and charged with crimes by a military authority.

To me, the question isn't one of whether or not trial by a military comission is proper, only if it is just. The way military tribunals are set up, there's no guarantee of impartiality, rules for admissible evidence are more lax than in civilian trials and secret evidence can be used to convict. Thes effects give the proceedings the air of kangaroo courts. If these guys are not soldiers, but criminals, why not hold a proper criminal trial?

[Army Guy]

To me, the question isn't one of whether or not trial by a military comission is proper, only if it is just. The way military tribunals are set up, there's no guarantee of impartiality, rules for admissible evidence are more lax than in civilian trials and secret evidence can be used to convict. Thes effects give the proceedings the air of kangaroo courts. If these guys are not soldiers, but criminals, why not hold a proper criminal trial?

The only reason i agree they should have there day in an international court is so there is no finger pionting, the last thing the US needs right now is more negative press or someone or group screaming foul. Capture them, interrogate them then hand them over to an international group for trial and carrying out of sentences.

There is no guarantee of impartiality in civilian court either. Rules for admissible edvidence is as shaky in civilian court. not admissable because obtained with a warrent for something else, etc etc or someone made a clerical error etc. evidence is evidence for both sides. it is up to concil to prove it's worth.

[Black Dog]

AG: Guarantee is the wrong word, I suppose. I would say that a civilian trial would have a higher probability of impartiality than a military commission that would, in all likeliehood, have a vested interest in obtaining convictions. After all, how could they justify holding these people if they aren't guilty of anything.

[Guest eureka]

After relieving Dachau, the Americans set up these "Tribunals." They were virtually revolving doors to the execution site. Ask anyone who was there and I have spoken to some who were.

The point seems to be getting lost that these "Tribunals follow no rukles of psocedure: the Judges are the prosecutors: there is secret evidence to which the accused are not privy and defence councils are not informed.

There is a raft of problems with them as I noted earlier. They are merely a pretext to justify sentences, guilty or not.

[shoop]

Really? In what context did you meet these people?

After relieving Dachau, the Americans set up these "Tribunals." They were virtually revolving doors to the execution site. Ask anyone who was there and I have spoken to some who were.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>