Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian

[M.Dancer]

I don't agree with you at all, I'm mocking your ridiculous assertion that it's actually Khadr who's delayed his day in ahem...court...all these years.

Sorry, it's hard to tell the difference between your mocks and your deeply held beliefs, they are so similar...

[GostHacked]

Geneva Convention articles of war-Unlawful combatant. Everything stems from that, from the construction of boms to the murder of a lawful combattant, as well as membership in a proscribed terrorist organization.

Anyone in Al-Queda or any terror group can be charged with that. Hell, you can charge almost anyone with that. Seems too broad.

[Army Guy]

So what law did he break?

American Law?

NATO Law?

UN Law?

Afghanistan Law (aka at the time Taliban Law)

And depending on the law, how was it applied?

He broke all of them, like anything in life there are rules govening everything we do, one does not deep fried beacon in an open frying pan naked for instance ...stepping onto a battlefield one has to know the rules, the rules that govern warfare, the rules on survival, there is cultural our rules, our morals and values, and to top it all off there is murphies law....

American law, declares him an unlawful combatant, and everything that comes under that. He was charged with murder, and i beleive 7 other charges....

NATO law,no such thing, however they do follow the Geneva convention, inter national law, plus national law of the country involved IE Canada, US , Britain.....and according to all these laws he is guilty of being a terrorist, carrying out terrorist activites. Being a Terrorist or "illigal combatant" he forfiets any protection that the Geneva convention affords him, with some small exceptions....

The list of geneva conventions that he has broken is many here is a few, He did not carry arms openly, nor wore a distinctive uniform,armband, or markings, i know it seems to be a small piont, however it does put the inocent civilain population at risk, which has been a very large source of grief to everyone involved in this war....to list but a few....

Afghanistan law...He is not an Aghanis citizen but a vistor to that country, so he is not entitled to take up arms regardless of his religious affliation ...instead he was involved in Al Quadia a terrorist organization, which the world has declared it so.

Not very good choices....

[M.Dancer]

Anyone in Al-Queda or any terror group can be charged with that. Hell, you can charge almost anyone with that. Seems too broad.

Ummmmm.....no...unlawful combatant is specific to individuals caught in the act of belligerency but are not following the rules of war. Terrorism is different. You could be a sincere unlawful combatant and not be a terrorist.

[GostHacked]

He broke all of them, like anything in life there are rules govening everything we do, one does not deep fried beacon in an open frying pan naked for instance ...stepping onto a battlefield one has to know the rules, the rules that govern warfare, the rules on survival, there is cultural our rules, our morals and values, and to top it all off there is murphies law....

However, our laws, our morals and values, are allowing Afghanistan to go back to the way it was before the 2001 invasion. Karzai wants to talk to the Taliban and make them part of the process again, sharia law is back in action in Afghanistan.

The battlefield does not have any clear discernible borders.

American law, declares him an unlawful combatant, and everything that comes under that. He was charged with murder, and i beleive 7 other charges....

Yes I understand that part.

NATO law,no such thing, however they do follow the Geneva convention, inter national law, plus national law of the country involved IE Canada, US , Britain.....and according to all these laws he is guilty of being a terrorist, carrying out terrorist activites. Being a Terrorist or "illigal combatant" he forfiets any protection that the Geneva convention affords him, with some small exceptions....

The list of geneva conventions that he has broken is many here is a few, He did not carry arms openly, nor wore a distinctive uniform,armband, or markings, i know it seems to be a small piont, however it does put the inocent civilain population at risk, which has been a very large source of grief to everyone involved in this war....to list but a few....

Well at least you admit there is a problem with the term.

Afghanistan law...He is not an Aghanis citizen but a vistor to that country, so he is not entitled to take up arms regardless of his religious affliation ...instead he was involved in Al Quadia a terrorist organization, which the world has declared it so.

Not very good choices....

All of Al-queda fits into that category. All terrorists fall into that category then. Al-queda does not wear any uniform, armband or carry weapons openly.

[Army Guy]

Anyone in Al-Queda or any terror group can be charged with that. Hell, you can charge almost anyone with that. Seems too broad.

We are talking about an organization that employes terrorism again'st mostly non military targets to gain public support....we are talking about an organization that it's very existance is again'st the law....we are also talking about war, in a war zone...But once you or the group your fighting with uses terrorism as part of their tool kit, then ya , things get alittle one sided.

[M.Dancer]

All of Al-queda fits into that category. All terrorists fall into that category then. Al-queda does not wear any uniform, armband or carry weapons openly.

You are confused. All of al Qaeda would bot fall under unlawful combattant, only those who engage military forces (or paramilitary) without as army guy said, using the conventions of war (carrying arms openly, a uniform or badge etc, a duly recognised command chain..)

For instance, the 9-11 hijackers would not be considered unlawful combatants.

[wyly]

We are talking about an organization that employes terrorism again'st mostly non military targets to gain public support....we are talking about an organization that it's very existance is again'st the law....we are also talking about war, in a war zone...But once you or the group your fighting with uses terrorism as part of their tool kit, then ya , things get alittle one sided.

you mean like the Stern gang the Irgun or the Contra's...you have these convenient double set of rules, if they reflect your view point they're freedom fighters but if not they must be terrorists...

[Army Guy]

However, our laws, our morals and values, are allowing Afghanistan to go back to the way it was before the 2001 invasion. Karzai wants to talk to the Taliban and make them part of the process again, sharia law is back in action in Afghanistan.

The battlefield does not have any clear discernible borders.

Can you blame him, i mean really from his piont of view, does the world give a rats ass what happens to Afghanistan....He has known for some time now that NATO's days in country are numbered, even the US has set pull out dates, Shit how long have we been saying 2011 is it , were going home.....we can't have it both ways we either stay and finsih the task which will take generations....or we pull out hoping something good will grow.....well life goes on in Afghanistan, and he is making the best out of what he is being left with...

As for SHaria law it never left, it has and always will be a major part of their culture....besides we did not go over to change them into our vision , but rather share our vision with them, and allow them to pick and choose which parts of our vision they liked and run with it....

Well at least you admit there is a problem with the term.

I think that it should be defined more clearly, as a soldier i perfer terrorist, because that is what most of them are, be it AL Queda or taliban they both employ terrorist tactics....and i'm fine with them employing road side IED's and mines as a means to fight back agia'st NATO or Afghan military forces, however in most cases they are used again'st the population in general, thats a whole new game....

All of Al-queda fits into that category. All terrorists fall into that category then. Al-queda does not wear any uniform, armband or carry weapons openly.

Thats why there is a whole set of rules for fighting these guys...

[Army Guy]

you mean like the Stern gang the Irgun or the Contra's...you have these convenient double set of rules, if they reflect your view point they're freedom fighters but if not they must be terrorists...

I don't have a double standard, some countries may but me as a Canadian soldier don't ....nor did i write the defination of what a terrorist is, the UN came to some sort of agreement, as did the Inter national court...a spade is a spade...regardless of what country they serve..

That being said you would be hard pressed to find one nation that has not employed terrorism or some form of it in it's past...including Canada....Today the laws are some what clearer, and define terrorists as an illigal process, top to bottom...

[M.Dancer]

you mean like the Stern gang the Irgun or the Contra's...you have these convenient double set of rules, if they reflect your view point they're freedom fighters but if not they must be terrorists...

The stern gand were considered terrorists..until they weren't terrorists anymore. The Minutemen were considered rebels, until they were considered the lawful forces of the 13 colonies.

Your point is?

[wyly]

I don't have a double standard, some countries may but me as a Canadian soldier don't ....nor did i write the defination of what a terrorist is, the UN came to some sort of agreement, as did the Inter national court...a spade is a spade...regardless of what country they serve..

That being said you would be hard pressed to find one nation that has not employed terrorism or some form of it in it's past...including Canada....Today the laws are some what clearer, and define terrorists as an illigal process, top to bottom...

the laws are only conveniences for governments in power to hide behind or ignore as they see fit...the entire us military of the revolutionary war by your definition were illegal combatants/terrorists...the chinese communist forces resisting the Japanese invaders were terrorists by your definition...the resistance forces of occupied ww2 europe were by your definition illegal/terrorists...a spade apparently is not a spade dependent upon convenience when it may become a hoe, the USA among other countries ignorethe UN, international treaties and courts on a whim... Edited October 26, 2010 by wyly

[ToadBrother]

Anyone in Al-Queda or any terror group can be charged with that. Hell, you can charge almost anyone with that. Seems too broad.

That ripping you sound you hear is merely the sound of goal posts being moved.

[ToadBrother]

the laws are only conveniences for governments in power to hide behind or ignore as they see fit...the entire us military of the revolutionary war by your definition were illegal combatants/terrorists...the chinese communist forces resisting the Japanese invaders were terrorists by your definition...the resistance forces of occupied ww2 europe were by your definition illegal/terrorists...a spade apparently is not a spade dependent upon convenience when it may become a hoe, the USA among other countries ignorethe UN, international treaties and courts on a whim...

So you're now asserting that Khadr was a freedom fighter?

[jbg]

Well don't look to me for mercy. Let me put it this way, i wouldn't do what he did. But ask instead why your Hillary would want to get involved. No doubt this is at the behest of Obama himself. So it's political, a face saving effort of some kind. They seemed pretty keen on giving him a deal. Why don't they want to test their shiny new military tribunal on him? We may never know, JBG

I have serious doubts that Obama's sympathies and loves lay with the country he is sworn to lead. But I've posted on that elsewhere (link).

[GostHacked]

That ripping you sound you hear is merely the sound of goal posts being moved.

I've heard that sound before.

[GostHacked]

So you're now asserting that Khadr was a freedom fighter?

That depends what side of the conflict you are on.

Edited October 26, 2010 by GostHacked

[wyly]

That depends what side of the conflict you are on.

absolutely...a technicality many seem to deliberately ignore

[eyeball]

He is not an Aghanis citizen but a vistor to that country, so he is not entitled to take up arms regardless of his religious affliation ...instead he was involved in Al Quadia a terrorist organization, which the world has declared it so.

Not very good choices....

You make it sound like he just chose to buy a plane ticket and take off on his own volition a week or so before he was arrested when its far closer to the truth to say he was effectively kidnapped and taken there when he was 11.

[M.Dancer]

That depends what side of the conflict you are on.

You can take that point of view only if you believe the laws of war only apply to us.

[capricorn]

If I was Khadr, I think I'd want to get out of the clutches of the US government before it falls to the real wing-nuts that are likely to take it over again after the next election cycle.

There's no doubt Khadr wants to rush into Canada's protective bosom. Arms are outstretched to welcome him.

I think he's probably also counting on history and of course the Supreme Court of Canada, to exonerate him. I would certainly encourage him to.

History? I thought Khadr was the first of his kind to come out of Canada. It would be interesting to see how the SCoC deals with this case. Essentially, to exonerate Khadr the High Court would have to make a finding that the system the US constructed to deal with terrorists they have captured is contrary to Canadian law. See the problem?

[eyeball]

There's no doubt Khadr wants to rush into Canada's protective bosom. Arms are outstretched to welcome him.

No doubt there'll also be a mob with pitchforks and torches.

History? I thought Khadr was the first of his kind to come out of Canada. It would be interesting to see how the SCoC deals with this case. Essentially, to exonerate Khadr the High Court would have to make a finding that the system the US constructed to deal with terrorists they have captured is contrary to Canadian law. See the problem?

No I don't, in fact that sounds like a very concise way to state exactly what happened. In any case I think Khadr's compensation cheque will settle the problem clearly enough. You know what they say about money and bullshit.

[capricorn]

No doubt there'll also be a mob with pitchforks and torches.

Pitchforks and torches are so passé. The trend now would be to film whoever greets him gleefully at the airport as he makes a triumphant return to his beloved and native Canada. That's what would make the front pages and expose his supporters for posterity.

No I don't, in fact that sounds like a very concise way to state exactly what happened.

I doubt the SCoC can issue judgments which indict the foreign policy and affairs of other countries.

The Supreme Court of Canada is Canada's final court of appeal, the last judicial resort for all litigants, whether individuals or governments. Its jurisdiction embraces both the civil law of the province of Quebec and the common law of the other provinces and territories.

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/mission/index-eng.asp

In any case I think Khadr's compensation cheque will settle the problem clearly enough. You know what they say about money and bullshit.

The only reason for Khadr receiving a cheque is if it can be proved that Canada was complicit in structuring the US system for dealing with detainees at Guantanamo.

As for money and bullshit, I don't know what you're getting at.

[eyeball]

I doubt the SCoC can issue judgments which indict the foreign policy and affairs of other countries.

What's stopping it from disregarding a foreign countries extra-judicial ruling?

[eyeball]

I doubt the SCoC can issue judgments which indict the foreign policy and affairs of other countries.

So do I but Khadr's compensation will be the price Canada pays for the government having participated in a process that was contrary to Canada’s international human rights obligations.

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2010/2010scc3/2010scc3.html

IV. Conclusion

[48] The appeal is allowed in part. Mr. Khadr’s application for judicial review is allowed in part. This Court declares that through the conduct of Canadian officials in the course of interrogations in 2003-2004, as established on the evidence before us, Canada actively participated in a process contrary to Canada’s international human rights obligations and contributed to Mr. Khadr’s ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. Costs are awarded to Mr. Khadr.

His compensation settlement will be his final vindication and the shadow it casts will obscure that tattered little scrap of a confession he was forced to make.