Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian

[Army Guy]

Are Lawful combatants lawful targets?

Yes....

If so are there any unlawful targets who are combatants?

I'll reword this for you, it might be what your looking for....Are there any Unlawful targets in uniform Yes, Any medical personal clearly wearing a red cross or cresent, Note speacial rule.....these pers are normally unarmed, however they may carry small arms for protection of patients, once they have fired they're wpn they become a lawful target....And must take down they're red cross arm band or cover there symbol on thier vehs....

also Priest or padres,who are never armed, they to can wear the red cross,or cresent as addtional protection or indentification.

Also unarmed wounded pers, once a wounded soldier becomes wounded and is no longer armed he falls under the protection of the covention....

Surrendering soldiers are also afforded this protection,

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?

No they determine who can or can't be engaged....legally...According to the conventions everyone is protected until it is determined a lawful combatant or unlawful combatant,by either a court or a soldier has witnessed a breach in the conventions....

I know it sounds confussing but really it's not....me as a soldier already knows who i can engage at will ....only lawful combatants...normally the enemy soldier in uniform carrying arms openly,etc etc ....if any soldier has seen you rob a bank, commit a rape, beat or attack a surendering soldier, or take a combative role with other soldiers or myself...i can use deadly force, at will ....you become a legal target forever....meaning 2 weeks later i could use deadly force in the market, store or in your house ...no questions asked....

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.

The panel will not only determine if he is a combatant or not but which type...which is important, because if they are deemed an unlawful combatant, then they are tried in a court for those crimes....if they are deemed non combatants then they should be released....in Omar case he was an unlawful combatant....Charged with the murder of a US medic...remember what i said earily about medical pers....

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.

No it's not, because on paper you do not see that an unlawful or lawful combatant are not dress the same, one is in some sort of uniform carrying arms openily etc etc and unlawful combatant is a local who may or may not be armed, but wears no uniform or wpns per say....shit an unlawful combatant may be a child, a women , an old man....anyone...and may not stand out in a crowd....

And yet the all may share the same battle space....a soldier must be able to pick out his legal targets and engage....and if he kills any civilians in the process he must justify why....

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

No the distinction was to have the soldiers make better chioces on the battle field...to try and limit the number of civilains killed in each engagement.....and it works,

[eyeball]

No the distinction was to have the soldiers make better chioces on the battle field...to try and limit the number of civilains killed in each engagement.....and it works,

Now we just need something that causes national security agencies to make better choices in their battles...to try and limit the number of dictators and despots they create that give rise to combatants like Al Qaeda.

We need some international convention on the behaviour of governments.

[Oleg Bach]

Now we just need something that causes national security agencies to make better choices in their battles...to try and limit the number of dictators and despots they create that give rise to combatants like Al Qaeda.

We need some international convention on the behaviour of governments.

Number one - stop paying heed to the UN...seeing that those with the most veto power are from crimminal states - failed states - dictatorships and general loser nations....secondly - allow nationalities to thrive like the old days and stop attempting to blend the world in to one mass of shit...Look at the European Union..it make all the national extended families equal and poor...those Germans have some great ideas when it comes to mechanical engineering but utterly fail with this belated Nazi idea.

[jbg]

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.

They may be lawful targets but they don't get the protected status of prisoners of war. This is essential since any common criminal could allege that they are in "combat" with the U.S. or Canada and resist trial and possible execution.

[jbg]

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?**********

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?

I think one of the problems with the GC is that they don't account for the possibility of "out of uniform" warfare. The possibility that someone dressed up as a civilian woman in the marketplace can suddenly, out of nowhere, explode.

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....

I don't understand why "Yemenites caught planting bombs in Kabul" cannot simply be shot.

[M.Dancer]

I think one of the problems with the GC is that they don't account for the possibility of "out of uniform" warfare. The possibility that someone dressed up as a civilian woman in the marketplace can suddenly, out of nowhere, explode.

Oh but they do, but they do....belligerents out of uniform were treated as spies and could be executed.

[eyeball]

On the topic of un-uniformed warfare, I'm reminded of the un-uniformed covert behind-the-scene operatives that super-rogues use. Especially when aiding, abetting or installing the sorts of dictators that give rise to freedom-fighters, soldiers, combatants, belligerents or whatever else they choose to call themselves.

[M.Dancer]

On the topic of un-uniformed warfare, I'm reminded of the un-uniformed covert behind-the-scene operatives that super-rogues use. Especially when aiding, abetting or installing the sorts of dictators that give rise to freedom-fighters, soldiers, combatants, belligerents or whatever else they choose to call themselves.

Everything reminds you of that....

[eyeball]

Everything reminds you of that....

What do you expect when our side has committed just about everything it's accused it's enemies of doing?

[Bob]

I know this is an old thread, but I came across a documentary recently that I found interesting and decided to use my powers of resurrection. I may be able to provide you folks with information on how to obtain a higher quality copy of this documentary if you want to watch it on your laptop or television. Let me know.

Here is the first part, you can follow the links for the rest. Particularly interesting, unsuprising, and disturbing, are the attitudes of the Khadr matriarch and her daughter Zaynab. These two really are the enemy within. Abdurahman Khadr, Omar's older brother, also has a compelling story about his work for the CIA while an undercover prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.

[Radsickle]

I hope Khadr sues us for millions once he's back. We ignored his rights as a citizen and as a child soldier.

Recent Globe and Mail article

[The_Squid]

I am not my government. The current and previous governments should be ashamed of themselves. Canadians should be furious at the blatant hypocrisy of allowing a child soldier to be arrested and detained for so long.

[jacee]

I am not my government. The current and previous governments should be ashamed of themselves. Canadians should be furious at the blatant hypocrisy of allowing a child soldier to be arrested and detained for so long.

In selling the idea of repatriating Mr. Khadr Wednesday, the government also suggested it might keep the convict under restrictions and monitoring even after his eight-year sentence is up.

“A transfer into Canada’s legal system allows for longer term protection of Canadian society through monitoring and other restrictions approved by a judge,” a source said.

Does anybody know how it's possible to monitor someone whose sentence is over?

Just a reminder of the least reported story through the entire Khadr saga, reported only by the Toronto Star, but not reported until 9 months after the evidence was presented in a military pretrial hearing:

Omar Khadr 'innocent' in death of U.S. soldier

Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr was buried face down under rubble, blinded by shrapnel and crippled, at the time the Pentagon alleges he threw a grenade that fatally wounded a U.S. soldier, according to classified photographs and defence documents obtained by the Star.

The pictures, which were taken following a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan and have never been made public, show the then 15-year-old Canadian covered in bricks and mud from the roof of a bombed compound.

The body of an adult fighter – the unnamed man Khadr's lawyers contend could have thrown the grenade that killed U.S. Sgt. Christopher Speer – lies beside him.

The photographs were part of an 18-page submission presented earlier this year by Khadr's former military defence team to an Obama administration task force investigating Guantanamo.

While the defence's argument that it was physically impossible for Khadr to have thrown the grenade first surfaced at a Guantanamo hearing last year, the military judge would not release the photos or declassify the written submissions.

The Pentagon is expected to announce in the next three weeks whether Khadr's case will be transferred to a Washington, D.C.,

will be transferred to a Washington, D.C., criminal court, or go before a military commission. The Toronto-born captive had been charged with five war crimes ..

It was based on evidence summarized at a military pretrial hearing in January 2009 that was shut down by Obama (along with all other Guantanamo military trials), so the actual evidence (including photos) was never publicly released. You would have thought that such explosive information would have gone viral in Canada, but it didn't. ... ?

Where was the Canadian media at the time the evidence surfaced in court (albeit in summary form only)? Why did this information never become public knowledge at the time it was first reported (albeit only in local news near the hearing location in Texas)? Perhaps because the evidence would have convicted US soldiers of war crimes? Omar was shot twice in the back. The older man with him was shot dead. It's a war crime to shoot a wounded prisoner. A senior officer told the soldiers to stop trying to kill Omar when he said he was Canadian and 15 years old.

One brave US soldier, who was present when Omar was taken captive, told the truth and gave the evidence (photos) to the military lawyers, but he was never allowed to testify.

Obama's Task Force investigating Guantanamo had the information.

Next step: Threaten Omar with 40 years in prison to get him to plead guilty for a reduced sentence of 8 years and the possibility of going home to Canada after a year.

Omar has been consistent throughout in saying all he wants to do is come home to Canada and be a normal kid. He never had that chance.

One other significant piece of information, relevant to whether Omar had a 'choice' about following his father's wishes/orders: When his older brother rebelled, his father threatened and tried to get him into training as a 'suicide' bomber. He ran away. Much younger, Omar knew what his fate would be if he rebelled against his father.

When the book is written and the movie is made, Canada is going to look bad.

Edited April 20, 2012 by jacee

[eyeball]

When the book is written and the movie is made, Canada is going to look bad.

Look worse you mean.

[jacee]

Look worse you mean.

Agreed. And Cons and Libs are both on the hook for this one.

It's to be hoped that Omar will get the supports he needs to finally have a chance at an ordinary existence once he is released.

[DogOnPorch]

Look worse you mean.

No movies or books for Khadr. Part of the agreement to let this wood tick back into Canada.

[cybercoma]

The way we've allowed Khadr to be treated is completely hypocritical in light of our policies about child soldiers. End of story.

[Guest Manny]

<crickets>

[Guest American Woman]

No movies or books for Khadr. Part of the agreement to let this wood tick back into Canada.

I think there can be movies and books, he just can't profit from them - and I'm not so sure it extends to giving speeches. He can still become a "media star," from what I've read:

What will we do with our infamous child soldier? Set him free as his supporters will no doubt demand? Make him a media star who travels the highly-paid speech circuit decrying his inhumane treatment at the U.S. naval base with an autobiography and movie rights to follow?

As part of his plea deal, Khadr agreed not to profit from any publication of his story....

link

Do you have information that says otherwise?

[DogOnPorch]

I think there can be movies and books, he just can't profit from them - and I'm not so sure it extends to giving speeches. He can still become a "media star," from what I've read:

What will we do with our infamous child soldier? Set him free as his supporters will no doubt demand? Make him a media star who travels the highly-paid speech circuit decrying his inhumane treatment at the U.S. naval base with an autobiography and movie rights to follow?

As part of his plea deal, Khadr agreed not to profit from any publication of his story....

link

Do you have information that says otherwise?

True enough. Just get his story published outside of Canada should be enough. He can't sue the US govt but I'm not so sure about the Canadian taxpayer. Like I said: wood tick.

[Guest American Woman]

True enough. Just get his story published outside of Canada should be enough. He can't sue the US govt but I'm not so sure about the Canadian taxpayer. Like I said: wood tick.

Just having his story out there, whether he profits directly monetarily or not, will be beneficial for him - and will likely lead to profits in other areas.

[Boges]

Just having his story out there, whether he profits directly monetarily or not, will be beneficial for him - and will likely lead to profits in other areas.

Wait didn't this guy kill someone? Why is anyone shedding tears for him?

[Guest American Woman]

Wait didn't this guy kill someone? Why is anyone shedding tears for him?

Some people are not only shedding tears for him, but think he should be given millions. It boggles the mind.

[DogOnPorch]

Wait didn't this guy kill someone? Why is anyone shedding tears for him?

There will be a parade for him, I'd imagine. Similar to Kuntar's. Lot's of supporters for wee Omar.

[huh]

If you're man enough to go to war, man enough to throw a grenade, man enough to kill, you're man enough to be punished for it. This guy is far from you're average child soldier, once again i wonder if the government needs to lie to us to get anything done, it's incredible how many stupid people there are in this country as evidenced by the support for this treasonous bastard.