Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian

[bloodyminded]

Why did you highlight the words if you acknowledge they don't apply?

Because you were having difficulty understanding them.

Because Al qaeda is not an armed group by that definition. Would you say that the Mafia is an armed group. Think hard before you respond.

Khadr WAs part of an armed group by any definition, in that he was armed.

The mafia analogy doesn't work...even by your own standards. You do not equate domestic crime with international battle scenarios. You see? YOU do not equate them. This is a cheap debating trick, slightly oily.

I take it from that emotional outburst you realize that facts are not made from your wishes.

Believe me, my wishes are not that people put patriotism above truth or justice. I see it as a weakness of character, little more.

[M.Dancer]

The mafia analogy doesn't work...even by your own standards. You do not equate domestic crime with international battle scenarios.

I'm not aware of Al Qaeda being involved in an international battle scenario...but they do get arrested by the FBI.

You see? YOU do not equate them. This is a cheap debating trick, slightly oily.

It only seems that way to you cause you really don't understand what you aretalking about. To wit, whether membership in an international criminal/terrorist organisation qualifies someone to bet given protection by UN accords. If membership in Al Qaeda does, so do the Bloods, the crips and the Mafia.

Believe me, my wishes are not that people put patriotism above truth or justice. I see it as a weakness of character, little more.

Why can't you just undertsand that your emotional outbursts aren't law. 18 year olds do not have the same rights as 19 year old whether you wish they did or not. your emotional plea fails, End of story

[bloodyminded]

I'm not aware of Al Qaeda being involved in an international battle scenario...but they do get arrested by the FBI.

So...you believe Khadr was arrested by the FBI, rather than shooting on the battlefield?

It only seems that way to you cause you really don't understand what you aretalking about. To wit, whether membership in an international criminal/terrorist organisation qualifies someone to bet given protection by UN accords. If membership in Al Qaeda does, so do the Bloods, the crips and the Mafia.

When it is a child, different rules apply. You keep pretending that children are only little adults, if that helps you.

Why can't you just undertsand that your emotional outbursts aren't law. 18 year olds do not have the same rights as 19 year old whether you wish they did or not. your emotional plea fails, End of story

You keep repeating the same nonsense, in effect arguing with yourself.

You see, I agree with you that 18 and 19 year olds do not have the same rights. After all, it's not an opinion...it's a simple fact.

You, however, appear to support the distinction in rights between 18 and 19 year olds...but wish to erase the distinction between 15 and 18 year olds.

And why?

Well, you refuse to offer an answer. All you've got is ad hominems (and not even original ones; simple rote repetition. Good job.)

Anyway, you needn't worry about these "emotional outbursts" that you imagine I'm having. While debating with effete little bullies can be slightly irritating, I find it kinda fun also.

[M.Dancer]

So...you believe Khadr was arrested by the FBI, rather than shooting on the battlefield?

Define battlefield.

When it is a child, different rules apply. You keep pretending that children are only little adults, if that helps you.

I believe you were the one who didn't believe a 14 year old could be tried as an adult.

You see, I agree with you that 18 and 19 year olds do not have the same rights. After all, it's not an opinion...it's a simple fact.

Wrong again. 19 year olds have exactly the same rights

You, however, appear to support the distinction in rights between 18 and 19 year olds...but wish to erase the distinction between 15 and 18 year olds.

And why?

]

Thwe law is the law.

All you've got is ad hominems (and not even original ones; simple rote repetition. Good job.

Sure, fairness and justice are trivial matters best left for children: not for big, strong, sober-minded, pantywaisted servile little nationalists.

Does your hypocrisay pain you as much as I find it funny?

Anyway, you needn't worry about these "emotional outbursts" that you imagine I'm having. While debating with effete little bullies can be slightly irritating, I find it kinda fun also.

too funny...

You are not debating. Like saying the US had bases in 130 coutries, debating implies you know at least something about the topic.

[bloodyminded]

Define battlefield.

He was with militants who were engaged in a battle with American forces in Afghanistan. He was then captured.

Now, how you define that as being "arrested by the FBI" is a mystery, I'm sure, to anybody who hears it.

I believe you were the one who didn't believe a 14 year old could be tried as an adult.

then you're not reading my posts. Which begs the question of why you respond to soemhting you don't even read.

I said a 14 year old shouldn't be tried as an adult. Not couldn't.

Does your hypocrisay pain you as much as I find it funny?

Hmm. I understand, you believe you should be able to insult anybody without them biting back. So you hold yourself to lower standards than you hold others.

You are not debating. Like saying the US had bases in 130 coutries, debating implies you know at least something about the topic.

Ah, but I freely and openly admitted i was wrong. You see, that's good evidence that if I"m proven wrong, i will happily admit it.

This makes me a better debater. Trustworthy, you see. Because, quite obviously, you can't admit you're wrong even about something like your misapprehension of grammar in a link that you provide.

Edited December 22, 2009 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

Now, how you define that as being "arrested by the FBI" is a mystery, I'm sure, to anybody who hears it.

He was captured during a gun battle. Gun Battles do not always make battlefields. How many "fighters" on the bad guys side were there?

IS this a battlefield?

http://www.bofunk.com/video/4251/police_gun_battle.html

Gettysburg had over 150,000 participants.

As far as the FBI goes, I was implying that for an "Armed Group" you claim that AL Qaeda is, they get arrested a fair bit by police forces.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGIH_enCA264CA264&ei=DhwxS57uIYzWlAfgmbmoBw&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAwQBSgA&q=FBI+arrests+al+qaeda&spell=1

I said a 14 year old shouldn't be tried as an adult. Not couldn't.

Who cares what you feel. Reality rules here.

Hmm. I understand, you believe you should be able to insult anybody without them biting back. So you hold yourself to lower standards than you hold others.

That's a funny apology for hypocrasy..

Are you the kind who feels being corrected is being disrespected?

Edited December 22, 2009 by M.Dancer

[eyeball]

It only seems that way to you cause you really don't understand what you aretalking about. To wit, whether membership in an international criminal/terrorist organisation qualifies someone to bet given protection by UN accords. If membership in Al Qaeda does, so do the Bloods, the crips and the Mafia.

Is this an actual legal ruling or a term of the GC you have a source for or is it an opinion?

[M.Dancer]

Is this an actual legal ruling or a term of the GC you have a source for or is it an opinion?

Of course it is in the Geneva Convention. For the puposes of irregular armed factions or guerillas, the parts that apply are in bold.

Article 4

1.Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1.Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2.Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

that of carrying arms openly;

that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

It even covers ad hoc groups who haven't had time to form..

6.Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention#Article_4

In other words no hiding your weapons, no lurking with civilians, no planting IEDs and land mines...otherwise you are a criminal and not a soldier.

[bloodyminded]

He was captured during a gun battle. Gun Battles do not always make battlefields. How many "fighters" on the bad guys side were there?

IS this a battlefield?

http://www.bofunk.com/video/4251/police_gun_battle.html

Gettysburg had over 150,000 participants.

Yeah, that has a lot to do with our discussion. Or nothing.

As far as the FBI goes, I was implying that for an "Armed Group" you claim that AL Qaeda is, they get arrested a fair bit by police forces.

So what? Khadr wasn't arrested by police forces.

Who cares what you feel. Reality rules here.

nope. hypernationalism, and hypersensitivity to any criticism of foreign policy.

Such quaint instances of moral cowardice are not my fault.

Are you the kind who feels being corrected is being disrespected?

No. I WAS corrected on another matter, and I immediately admitted I was wrong.

you should try it sometime.

[M.Dancer]

Yeah, that has a lot to do with our discussion. Or nothing.

They were teenagers in a gun battle, just like Omar.

Why should Omar be treated differently than them?

[bloodyminded]

They were teenagers in a gun battle, just like Omar.

Why should Omar be treated differently than them?

This isn't even a serious question.

[M.Dancer]

This isn't even a serious question.

Of course it is. Omar is an accused criminal. Now explain why he should be treated differently than any other american young offender.

[bloodyminded]

Of course it is. Omar is an accused criminal. Now explain why he should be treated differently than any other american young offender.

You don't think he should be treated like any other American young offender, which is how I know it's not a serious question. American young offenders are not held in prison for six or seven years without a trial.

[eyeball]

In other words no hiding your weapons, no lurking with civilians, no planting IEDs and land mines...otherwise you are a criminal and not a soldier.

Okay so he was a civilian, in that case he should be treated like one.

[bloodyminded]

Okay so he was a civilian, in that case he should be treated like one.

Exactly. If that's the argument people wish to make (and I notice it shifts around rather conveniently whenever someone has the affrontery to disagree with the "kill Khadr" brigade), then let's make that argument. If we can liken him to a civilian accused of crime, then try him as a 15 year old who (may have) committed murder; and also take into account parental indoctrination, as we would in a civilian trial.

[M.Dancer]

Okay so he was a civilian, in that case he should be treated like one.

He is being treated as a civilian caught under those circumstances. To wit, even better than a mercenary.

Had he committed his crimes in Canada, or the US, he would be subject to civilian law, but instead he committed them in a foreign country against the lawful forces of the US, hence he is a civilian, being treated as a civilian under military law.

It's not too difficult to grasp.

[M.Dancer]

Exactly. If that's the argument people wish to make (and I notice it shifts around rather conveniently whenever someone has the affrontery to disagree with the "kill Khadr" brigade), then let's make that argument. If we can liken him to a civilian accused of crime, then try him as a 15 year old who (may have) committed murder; and also take into account parental indoctrination, as we would in a civilian trial.

He will be tried as a civilian, under military law. They may even take into account he was 15 at the time, or, like any other civilian youth, decide his crimes are serious enough to sentence him as an adult.

.

[M.Dancer]

You don't think he should be treated like any other American young offender, which is how I know it's not a serious question. American young offenders are not held in prison for six or seven years without a trial.

I thought the question might be too difficult for you.

Care to try again?

Why is Omar differnt that another crimminal?

[bloodyminded]

He will be tried as a civilian, under military law. They may even take into account he was 15 at the time, or, like any other civilian youth, decide his crimes are serious enough to sentence him as an adult.

.

Alleged crimes, you mean. Yes? Or do you care? Whny even bother with a trial since you know he's guilty?

They're not even positive that he threw the grenade in question.

And several years without a trial is always unreasonable. Criminal, in fact.

Edited December 23, 2009 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

They're not even positive that he threw the grenade in question.

Who is this "They" you speak of.

Please find a citation that the prosecution is unsure...and get back to me.

[bloodyminded]

Who is this "They" you speak of.

Please find a citation that the prosecution is unsure...and get back to me.

"

U.S. NAVAL BASE GUANTANAMO, Cuba -- A secret document accidentally released by the U.S. military Monday raises questions about whether someone other than Canadian terror suspect Omar Khadr could have thrown a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier during a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan.

Comprising a U.S. investigator's report of his interview with the operative who wounded Khadr, the document reveals a second alleged al-Qaeda fighter was both alive and still fighting about the time the grenade was thrown.

The operative also testified Khadr had his back facing him when he hit the Canadian with two bullets. This could be significant because, the document additionally reveals, the U.S. soldier killed in the grenade attack had been behind the U.S. operative.

However, the document concludes that while the operative did not see Khadr throw the grenade, he believes the Canadian did it.

Officials for the military commission hearing Khadr's case repeatedly called for the document's return after realizing it had been attached to other court papers distributed to reporters."

http://www.nationalpost.com/newsletter/story.html?id=285287

[M.Dancer]

"

U.S. NAVAL BASE GUANTANAMO, Cuba --

http://www.nationalpost.com/newsletter/story.html?id=285287

My question again was too hard.

Try again..

Please find a citation that the prosecution is unsure...and get back to me.

[bloodyminded]

My question again was too hard.

Try again..

Please find a citation that the prosecution is unsure...and get back to me.

Jesus Christ on a cracker.

If the prosecution is aware of the same information as the soldiers in question and as the National Post--and obviously they are--then have to be unsure by definition.

The people directly involved, who were there, are unsure...but the Prosecution isn't?

That's your hypothesis?

[M.Dancer]

Jesus Christ on a cracker.

If the prosecution is aware of the same information as the soldiers in question and as the National Post--and obviously they are--then have to be unsure by definition.

The people directly involved, who were there, are unsure...but the Prosecution isn't?

That's your hypothesis?

Of course they are aware...that isn't the issue..you said "they" were unsure..the only they that count at this point is the prosecution. Show that "they" are unsure.

[bloodyminded]

Of course they are aware...that isn't the issue..you said "they" were unsure..the only they that count at this point is the prosecution. Show that "they" are unsure.

I just showed you.

If the people involved in the incident are unsure, then the Prosecution is unsure. Unless they're God.

It's elementary logic.

You're just being mischievous. Whatever floats yer boat.

Edited December 23, 2009 by bloodyminded