Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian

[Army Guy]

what terror weapon are being used in afghanistan is worse than what the Nato forces are using?

This is a joke right...

[M.Dancer]

Yes I am.

Let the executions begin...

[GostHacked]

Let the executions begin...

They have already begun, try to keep up.

[eyeball]

I think your mistaking my meaning, I never said that Canadian soldiers are moral beacons, and I never said the enemy is always barbaric. (though the Taliban are by most measures)

Only barbaric soldiers would accept children as recruits into their ranks. Civilized soldiers and the countries that deploy them wouldn't and I expect they'd be outraged when the enemy does it.

Denying an 11 year old the status of a child, the age at which Khadr was recruited/drafted/pressed/inducted whatever is flat out barbaric and cowardly. I don't care what the God damn Geneva Conventions say. To pretend this kid was an adult volunteer is beneath contempt and I'll proudly spit on any combatant of any rank of any country under any flag, banner or pretext that thinks or says otherwise (including the Taliban).

And my comment isn't just in response to that single comment of eyeballs, eyeball has shown many time that he has no clue what being a soldier is like.

You misunderstand my meaning - I'm showing you, again, what a chicken-shit barbarian is like.

[Army Guy]

I think you're confessing some "support the troops" oversensitivity here. Like many people, I have had family and friends serve in the military; and when they're in the right mood, they can tell you some pretty harrowing stuff about brutality. Our brutality.

And eyeball wasn't on some perverse attack; he was contextualizing an absurd (and truly perverse) situation in which "the enemy" is always barbaric, and Canadian soldiers are moral beacons...in fact, morally superior to the rest of us.

Which any soldier worth his salt will tell you is pure hogwash

Our history is full of examples of what it is like to get caught up in war and all it's rituals....good and bad....would i say the Canadian soldier is a moral beacon, that would depend on the day, and the time....i truely believe most of us do hold the higher moral ground in regards to justifying why we are there, how we conduct our selfs for the most part, the tactics we use , the planning we use, and the amount of force we use....

That being said killing is a not a normal human response atleast not in any civilized world that i know, killing at a distance is the easist there is no face, no blood no emotion...just squeze the triger and it's done....training over takes you and you just do it and yes there is excitment , bravado cheers even stories after the event....but this is how soldiers deal with killing it self...it's well after the battle when that soldier is alone that the scene replays over and over in his head through dreams or flash backs that they have to learn to cope with the fact you just ended someones life...it is here while the soldiers is in private that those emotions are released...normally through regret,tears, what ever including suicide in some cases.......

Killing in close quaters is the hardest, it's face to face, it's dirty, it's bloody, and you see in slow motion the entire scene unfold...in OP mudusa it got close and personal...here you see your comrads get wounded or killed, you hear the screams and see the pain...every emotion you have is fighting to be released,

we were clearing a mud compound and i had a private witiness he best freind get shot in the back of the head while we were clearing a set of stairs...he could not stop laughing, he had tears streaming down his face but could not stop laughing, after a few mins his buddie slap him across the face which seem to work.

On top of every a soldier needs just to survive he needs to control his emotions, and bodily fuctions...a full blader normally means pissing yourself, or shitting yourself....your body is overloaded with all the information your recieveing....something has to give....Anyways you see a few of your buddies get hurt or die, and your moral buffer goes out the window....in mudusa i seen some shit that would make chainsaw 4 look like a sunday bapist church gathering,

it was'nt done because we like it it was done because that is what we had to do to stay alive....nobody wanted to be stuffed into that body bag....and nobody wanted one of thier comrads to get stuff either...so we did what we had to do, we did what you sent us over there to do...we killed as many as we could, as fast as we could, we gave no quater, and expected no back...but i can tell you this there was no cheering those days no bravdo , no anything....just killing and trying to stay alive....

So your both right Canadian soldiers are not moral beacons in comparison to the Pope, but we do hold the high ground in comparison with our enemies.... and i'm not making excuses but we did what you asked us to do, enter hell kick the shit out of the devil and return intact some what....Every tour i've done my wife states i've changed in major ways, I'm not the same man that left....shes right...and it takes years to return to some what normal human being again....on the outside i'm still me, ya a few scars from a taliban mortar, but it's still me ...on the inside....well i'm one of the lucky guys and i've learned to live with the ghosts i've created....don't get me wrong i've got my days....but for 99 % of the time i'm normal....

I'm glad i got to serve in Afghan and although my wife would kill me for volunteering for another tour i would go over again...in a heart beat...

[Guest TrueMetis]

So your both right Canadian soldiers are not moral beacons in comparison to the Pope,

Yes they are, the pope and the vatican cause millions to suffer every year. Our troops are way more moral than that asshole.

[eyeball]

...we did what you sent us over there to do...

Excuse me but I had no say whatsoever in the decision to send you over there. Please don't try to pin this on me.

...we killed as many as we could, as fast as we could, we gave no quater, and expected no back...but i can tell you this there was no cheering those days no bravdo , no anything....just killing and trying to stay alive.

So your both right Canadian soldiers are not moral beacons in comparison to the Pope, but we do hold the high ground in comparison with our enemies.... and i'm not making excuses but we did what you asked us to do, enter hell kick the shit out of the devil and return intact some what....Every tour i've done my wife states i've changed in major ways, I'm not the same man that left....shes right...and it takes years to return to some what normal human being again....on the outside i'm still me, ya a few scars from a taliban mortar, but it's still me ...on the inside....well i'm one of the lucky guys and i've learned to live with the ghosts i've created....don't get me wrong i've got my days....but for 99 % of the time i'm normal....

I'm glad i got to serve in Afghan and although my wife would kill me for volunteering for another tour i would go over again...in a heart beat...

Canada is not the same country anymore either.

How would your wife feel about Canadians voting directly on whether we should send you?

[bloodyminded]

That being said killing is a not a normal human response atleast not in any civilized world that i know, killing at a distance is the easist there is no face, no blood no emotion...just squeze the triger and it's done....training over takes you and you just do it and yes there is excitment , bravado cheers even stories after the event....but this is how soldiers deal with killing it self...it's well after the battle when that soldier is alone that the scene replays over and over in his head through dreams or flash backs that they have to learn to cope with the fact you just ended someones life...it is here while the soldiers is in private that those emotions are released...normally through regret,tears, what ever including suicide in some cases.

We're in agreement. This was just my point.

All which shows, with some clarity, I think, that those who would condemn my statements are doing so not out of some support for the soldiers, but rather from some misguided nationalist defensiveness about the State.

So your both right Canadian soldiers are not moral beacons in comparison to the Pope

I would not consider the Pope morally superior to Canadian soldiers, nor to myself.

,

but we do hold the high ground in comparison with our enemies.... and i'm not making excuses but we did what you asked us to do, enter hell kick the shit out of the devil and return intact some what

Yep. Which is why, aside from out-and-out, break the rules individual war crimes (and even there I often feel the need for a little circumstantial leeway), when there is blame to be laid, it is virtually always at the feet of policymakers and leaders.

Edited November 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Army Guy]

The scene in Jarheads, where the pre-battle Marines shout and hoot in joy while watching the "Flight of the Valkyries" scene in Apocalypse Now is not an invention, but is the recollection and reporting of a Marine. (The author said they watched a lot of Platoon as well: a distinctly anti-war film used as war-psyche self-propaganda.)

Of course soldiers are psyched up for killing; and it's not so much them doing it, as it is the military itself doing it for them.

How are you supposed to kill human beings while recognizing the sheer gravity and horror of the act? That tends to come later, upon self-reflection. It doesn't clearly mean you were wrong, either...which is a separate argument. (For example, war can sometimes be necessary. That I personally believe it is rarely necessary is a mere opinion, and changes nothing about what I've said.)

Not that i'm a big fan of the movies , as they rarely get it right, but the rest of your post is pretty much bang on, a soldier must be prepared and getting psyched is one approach...not the only one but one of them but one that happens very early, before a soldier steps onto the battle field...just before you step on the battle field your making peace with your god, praying he sees you though, your comrads though trying to control your emotions remembering your drills....then it's all up to murphy and his laws....

[Army Guy]

Excuse me but I had no say whatsoever in the decision to send you over there. Please don't try to pin this on me.

In a small way you did, wether or not your piont of view was heard is another question, but when our government decided to ship us out it was on behalf of all Canadians, you and me...

How would your wife feel about Canadians voting directly on whether we should send you?

My wife knows what i do for a living , she does not agree with all my views, but she does respect my opinion on this mission....trust me she has not always done so...Bosina for instance...anyways to her it does not matter who decides to send us over, i personal don;t think i want my life hanging on the majority of Canadians, i just don't believe they are interested enough about all tpics in general, would you want the majority of Canadians making decisions in ref to your lively hood...

Canada is not the same country anymore either.

That could be a good piont as well taking this experience and making something good become of it...change is always good.

[Army Guy]

We're in agreement. This was just my point.

All which shows, with some clarity, I think, that those who would condemn my statements are doing so not out of some support for the soldiers, but rather from some misguided nationalist defensiveness about the State.

To a certain piont i agreed with you killing at distance you will hear the cheers, or soldiers coping with the stress of killing....at close range it is a totally different story...just silence...men trying to cope with being overloaded with everything....

But i do agree with the other poster as well while we are not angels we are far from anything close to what the taliban have done or will do...and yet we share the same battle field just not the same moral playing field....

I would not consider the Pope morally superior to Canadian soldiers, nor to myself.

Hey i owe the big guy alot of favours, you can say what you want about his right hand man, but until my debt is paid he's number one in my books....

Yep. Which is why, aside from out-and-out, break the rules individual war crimes (and even there I often feel the need for a little circumstantial leeway), when there is blame to be laid, it is virtually always at the feet of policymakers and leaders.

To bad that does not happen rarely does the blame or punishment go to the policy makers or leaders....

[M.Dancer]

They have already begun, try to keep up.

Really? Care to point me towards those NATO pages showing who we captured and when we executed them?

Edited November 23, 2010 by M.Dancer

[GostHacked]

Really? Care to point me towards those NATO pages showing who we captured and when we executed them?

You think that information is made public?

[Oleg Bach]

Everyone who is trained to kill is trained to desensitize themselves to the enemy, it's why our own troops use terms like scum and vermin to describe theirs. The difference of course is that we wait until our troops are of legal adult age before doing so. We don't start them at age 11.

If our soldiers were video-taped during their own preparations for battle you'd see a very similar savage gleefulness, like the locker room bravado you'd see before a football team storms out to the field.

You know - I always hated that bumper sticker "baby on board" - it kind of said that all adults are nasty and fair in the game of vehicular homocide..and sweet little children are to be spared...well it pisses me off - All adults have and had mothers and were babes in the arm of a father at one time..This hate we have in western society for adults and the unconditional love of dogs that we so cherish is rather absurd.

Human beings are all of great value//BUT and here comes my infamous but...there is a thing called evil..and it can encase and control children as well as adults..It seemed like the old folk singer John Prime might have been right when he said "Jesus Christ died for nothing, I suppose".

Hate from my experience is intergenerational...it is a family trait and tradition in some clans..funny though - as I age - almost all of the haters that I have known since child hood die prematurely...I suggest that Khadrs arrest probably saved the little bastards life - because if he was NOT stopped - he would be dead by now..perhaps all we have done is sustain evil...Just a thought. Nature would have taken it's course and hate kills those that are hated and eventually the hater also...always.

[M.Dancer]

You think that information is made public?

Well you seem privy to information that has not been made public....so the assumptions I am forced to make are:

1) You have very high security clearance

2) Your talking toaster has very high security clearance

3) We are following the "non existent rules" and you're talking out of your ass.

[GostHacked]

Well you seem privy to information that has not been made public....so the assumptions I am forced to make are:

1) You have very high security clearance

2) Your talking toaster has very high security clearance

3) We are following the "non existent rules" and you're talking out of your ass.

You'd be naive to think that it does NOT happen.

[M.Dancer]

You'd be naive to think that it does NOT happen.

And without any proof, you might be just as comfortabel saying I would be naive to think we are not being controled by reptilian aliens.

Your premise, that terrorists are freedom fighters rests on the misguided belief that there are no laws and we do not follow any laws, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

I would be not only naive to subscribe to your beliefs, I would be stupid as well.

[GostHacked]

And without any proof, you might be just as comfortabel saying I would be naive to think we are not being controled by reptilian aliens.

No I don't buy into Ike's theories. But we do know torture has happened, and we do know that extra rendition happens. Bush said that the US does not use torture, but in his new book he says he did. He lied to you then and told the truth now. Don't take MY word for it. Take his word for it.

Your premise, that terrorists are freedom fighters rests on the misguided belief that there are no laws and we do not follow any laws, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

So let's say your government is not doing you any good. And you decide to pick up your gun, are you a freedom fighter or a terrorist? It is all in how you look at it and what side of the conflict you are looking at it.

This might be too advanced of a concept for you to understand, and I can accept that.

I would be not only naive to subscribe to your beliefs, I would be stupid as well.

Nah, for you, you don't need top subscribe to my beliefs to be stupid. I am sure you can handle that all on your own.

[M.Dancer]

So let's say your government is not doing you any good. And you decide to pick up your gun, are you a freedom fighter or a terrorist? It is all in how you look at it and what side of the conflict you are looking at it.

This might be too advanced of a concept for you to understand, and I can accept that.

Not advanced at all. If you abide by the geneva conventions which include provisions for irregular forces, then you are a lawful combatant and may call yourself a freedom fighter. If you do not, you are a terrorist.

Combatants

The Geneva Conventions distinguish between lawful combatants, noncombatants, and unlawful combatants.

Lawful Combatants. A lawful combatant is an individual authorized by governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. A lawful combatant may be a member of a regular armed force or an irregular force. In either case, the lawful combatant must be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; have fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, such as uniforms; carry arms openly; and conduct his or her combat operations according to the LOAC. The LOAC applies to lawful combatants who engage in the hostilities of armed conflict and provides combatant immunity for their lawful warlike acts during conflict, except for LOAC violations.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac_2.htm

See if you can wrap your brain around that.

[GostHacked]

Not advanced at all. If you abide by the geneva conventions which include provisions for irregular forces, then you are a lawful combatant and may call yourself a freedom fighter. If you do not, you are a terrorist.

Combatants

The Geneva Conventions distinguish between lawful combatants, noncombatants, and unlawful combatants.

Absolute bullshit. If you abide by the Geneva Conventions then you should be part of and participating in the ICC. Some countries that use the Conventions when they are convenient to them are not subscribers to the ICC.

So again, bullshit.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac_2.htm

See if you can wrap your brain around that.

I have a problem with the term Unlawful Combatants, those who are not part of an army or who are not sanctioned by a country are deemed Unlawful Combatants. And yet if a civilian population is part of 'Collateral Damage' we just say, meh it happens and move on.

But here is what your link tells me.

Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.

So Unlawful Combatants become Lawful Combatants as soon as they start attacking. That does not seem like a very clear definition to me. And if you are not doing anything, you can't even be considered an unlawful combatant. As soon as you attack, you become a lawful combatant and can expect to be killed. It seems like Unlawful Combatant is a term that is not needed, because as soon as you attack, you become a lawful combatant.

So in the case of Khadr ... we can say he was this

Undetermined Status. Should doubt exist as to whether an individual is a lawful combatant, noncombatant, or an unlawful combatant, such person shall be extended the protections of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention until status is determined. The capturing nation must convene a competent tribunal to determine the detained person’s status.

As soon as Khadr threw the grenade, he became a lawful combatant. And since Khadr was not given Undetermined Status, this allowed the US to drag his ass to GITMO without any repercussions.

[M.Dancer]

Absolute bullshit. If you abide by the Geneva Conventions then you should be part of and participating in the ICC. Some countries that use the Conventions when they are convenient to them are not subscribers to the ICC.

So again, bullshit.

That is your opinion. There is no demand for linkage with the ICC.

I have a problem with the term Unlawful Combatants, those who are not part of an army or who are not sanctioned by a country are deemed Unlawful Combatants.

Yes you have a problem with the term, and the definition it seems.

Pay attention...

Not being sanctioned by an army, or a country does not make you an unlawful combatant. Not following the rules of war make you an unlawful combatant.

And yet if a civilian population is part of 'Collateral Damage' we just say, meh it happens and move on.

Irrelevant. They also have lunch and move on.

So Unlawful Combatants become Lawful Combatants as soon as they start attacking.

That is not what it says...by not follwing international law they become unlawful combatants. If they follow the rules of war and initiate hostilities they are lawful as long as the maintain the rules of war. Once they break the rules they are no longer protected under the GC as lawful combatants.

That does not seem like a very clear definition to me. And if you are not doing anything, you can't even be considered an unlawful combatant. As soon as you attack, you become a lawful combatant and can expect to be killed. It seems like Unlawful Combatant is a term that is not needed, because as soon as you attack, you become a lawful combatant.

As soon as Khadr threw the grenade, he became a lawful combatant. And since Khadr was not given Undetermined Status, this allowed the US to drag his ass to GITMO without any repercussions.

No he was an unlawful combatant when he planted ieds out of uniform. He became a unlawful combatant by being a belligerent not party to any of the nations involved (mercenary) . In short, he was never a lawful combatant.

Edited November 24, 2010 by M.Dancer

[Army Guy]

Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.

Gost i think your misunderstanding the meaning of Unlawful Combatants, to become a unlawful combatant you must break the laws as set out in the conventions as Morris pionted out...once you do this you become an unlawful combatant and a lawful target, meaning you can be engaged at will by legal forces...once your an unlawful combatant you are one forever...it has no time limit, or expiration date unless pardoned or forgiven, as laid out as part of the peace agreements...This translates into if any soldier that sees you say planting IED's or engageing in a fire fight, or robbing banks etc etc i do not need special warrents to arrest you, detain you or engage you with deadly force you are considered a legal target...

The only time a person is given undetermined status is when there is doubt, to determine this staus it requires a court...but this status can be determined without a court if it is witnessed by a soldier that you have broken the laws of war....then you become an unlawful combatant no court needed and you become a lawful target...In Omars case he was involved in a fire fight with NATO soldiers, his status is a given, he is a legal target...and forefits his rights under the convention....

[Oleg Bach]

Morally the brat got what he deserved - legally he got screwed as did all Canadian citizens who now have no real protection by the feds who seemingly now - have no respect of a citizen...imagine - letting Bush and Cheney and ambitious egg heads like Carl Rove not to mention big business - dictate to Harper...in force telling him - YOUR citizens mean swat to us...

[Peter F]

to become a unlawful combatant you must break the laws as set out in the conventions as Morris pionted out...once you do this you become an unlawful combatant and a lawful target, meaning you can be engaged at will by legal forces..

Are Lawful combatants lawful targets? If so are there any unlawful targets who are combatants?

This whole string of who's lawful and who's not is a red herring. ALL combatants are "lawful" targets.

In fact the lawfulness/unlawfulness of a combatant only determines one and only one thing: Do the Geneva Conventions apply?

Thus the combatant Status Review panels to determine if those held are combatants or not. If the subject of the panel is determined to be a combatant then the state can continue to hold them as a prisoner of war. If the subject is determined to not be a combatant then they do not hold prisoner of war status.

This whole scam about lawful combatants and unlawful combatants was a smokescreen. An imaginary concoction to justify to the American public the necessity of Military Tribunals rather than civil courts to try criminal acts.

All combatants are lawful targets. The lawfulness or unlawfulness of the combatant is meaningless bullshit. If the person is partaking in combat they are combatants and are lawful targets. Army Guy can shoot any combatant he wants with no regard to lawfullness or unlawfullness of that particular combatant. For the very simple reason that such a distinction does not in fact exist. Nor is it necessary. Shooting non-combatants (lawful? nonlawful?) is a no-no.

The distinction was cooked up to justify Military Tribunals. Because without the distinction then Military Tribunals could not have been used.

[M.Dancer]

Are Lawful combatants lawful targets? If so are there any unlawful targets who are combatants?

1) Yes

2)No

... all combatants may be targets regardless of their right to be on the battlefield

This whole string of who's lawful and who's not is a red herring.

It is a red herring only if you wish to increase collateral damage/civilian deaths.

ALL combatants are "lawful" targets.

Correct, but not all targets are lawful combatants.

In fact the lawfulness/unlawfulness of a combatant only determines one and only one thing: Do the Geneva Conventions apply?

Incorrect. The GCs always apply....what they do do however is determine whether a combatant should be afforded the protection of POW status and the subsequent care etc etc...and whether they can be tried for war crimes.

Thus the combatant Status Review panels to determine if those held are combatants or not. If the subject of the panel is determined to be a combatant then the state can continue to hold them as a prisoner of war. If the subject is determined to not be a combatant then they do not hold prisoner of war status.

They are not required under the GC. No one held in Guantanamo Bay detention camp has been found to be a lawful combatant.

This whole scam about lawful combatants and unlawful combatants was a smokescreen. An imaginary concoction to justify to the American public the necessity of Military Tribunals rather than civil courts to try criminal acts.

So you are saying then that the Bush administration has a time machine that can go back in time to when the GC were written and they had the distinctions and the rules put in the GC just to justify who is a legitimate soldier and who is a terrorist?

I for one bow down to our new temporal overlords...

All combatants are lawful targets.

Repeating yourself will not make you sound smarter...

The lawfulness or unlawfulness of the combatant is meaningless bullshit.

So in your opinion, dressing up as civilian women in a marketplace to ambush a patrol is lawful? If so then you must also be okay with any noncombatant deaths.

If you do not agree that tactic is lawful, then you must also agree that the distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants is real.

Let me ask you, do you believe the the Bush team went back in time or ...what reasons do you think the authors of the GC included the characteristics of a lawful combatant?

If the person is partaking in combat they are combatants and are lawful targets.

You do like repeating yourself.

Army Guy can shoot any combatant he wants with no regard to lawfulness or unlawfulness of that particular combatant.

Incorrect. The same laws you call a sham also specify when a combatant can be fought, it is not carte Blanche. Army Guy must always keep in mind the lawfulness of his actions. Mind you, unlawful combatants are not so constrained.

For the very simple reason that such a distinction does not in fact exist. Nor is it necessary. Shooting non-combatants (lawful? nonlawful?) is a no-no.

The distinction was cooked up to justify Military Tribunals. Because without the distinction then Military Tribunals could not have been used.

So you do believe then that Bush et al went back in time and put the distinctions in....

Art 4. A. 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:[

(a) 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;

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

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e63bb/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68

Either they are POWs or they are something more sinister...and the claim that they can be simply prosecuted in normal courts is a red herring...what civil law is their that forbids a foreigner taking up arms in another country and waging jihad? Quite simply the courts in Canada or the US have no jurisdiction over Yemenites caught planting bombs in Kabul....

Anyway, once again...

Bow Down Before your Temporal Overlords....