Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian

[Army Guy]

I think Peter has it right, our government just does not want to deal with it, there is more than enough evidence on the other family members as well, most of them have freely admitted to thier assisting the Al Quada or taliban forces...be it purchasing arms for them, involved with the training camps, raising monies here in Canada for them, the list goes on and on...

If it's not an issue for the people then it's not an issue for the government....but sooner or later this will rear it's ugly head again, the Khadrs are not the only Canadian citizens fighting again'st our allieds or Canadian soldiers. there are dozens of names...See the bottom of the page of the link below...these are just the ones that have been made public....not the ones of the lists that CSIS or RCMP have.

alleged Canadian terrorists.

[Oleg Bach]

What bugs me is that our citizens have been liberally conditioned to believe there are no bad guys and hate does not exist. I have seen Muslims that are sweet and loving and are fine new citizens...Then I have seen those that emulate hate - they look at you with murderous intent. AND that is the problem..we do not discriminate between good and evil - right or wrong. Even the word discriminate is not allowed to be used in it's real context - that being - allowing a citizen to decide and JUDGE what is good for you and what is bad for you. WHO is here in our nation to give and who is to take - who is here to destroy and who is here to create. There are nasty twits in the world...and from what I have observed in this family after listening to one of the females being interviewed is a sense that she holds us in contempt...YET we give our enemy strength - How typically liberally Canadian...some times you have to stop feeding the vampire.

[Radsickle]

Was Canada `officially' involved in Afghanistan in July of 2002? How would it be treason?

Khadr would have seen his Dad's buddies as the `home' team; fellow countrymen. Yes, they were fascist Taliban F-heads, but he was seeing it from their side at 15 years old. The `coalition' forces would be seen by him as the `invaders'. Isn't it natural to try to defend one's home from invaders?

Now that he's removed from the poisonous life his Dad gave him, shouldn't we try to show this impressionable kid who the bad guys really were? Canada used to show compassion for child soldiers. What happened?

I thought the mission was UN-endorsed and an international effort... Who said the States would have the right to try all the captors in a UN Coalition effort? Britain and Australia had the strength to oppose this and they re-patriated their own from Gitmo and dealt with them at home.

[jbg]

well, someone would need to point out how the Bloc's actions fit the crime of Treason....under Canadian Law specifically.

Advocacy of secession?

[Dr V]

No one's saying we should bring him back and immediately set him free. Just bring him back so we can deal with our own, our own way, just like every other country has done with their citizens who ended up in Gitmo.

He's a Canadian kid who was dragged into his father's nightmare. To not show him some mercy only galvanizes the attitude of his father's buddies.

While his mom and sisters were a national embarrassment on TV a while ago, here's what Omar said recently:

Omar's Letter

That is why I cringe at the "excuse" that Omar was only 15 when he was arrested. Canada should not have to make that excuse in order for him to be repatriated and tried by Canadian laws, military or otherwise. It should not matter one bit how old he was when the incident occurred. It's just a case of Canada mumbling excuses to the US, not something that makes me proud.

I'm proud to be a Canadian citizen (going on six years now) and I did not emigrate to this country to make use of its welfare medical system - I came here to live in a healthy balance between freedom and social protection in times of need. I intend to live here full-time and give back to the community. I can't speak for the Khadr family or what their expectations were in becoming Canadians, but once Canada makes someone their citizen - for good reason, I hope - , it should be prepared to stand up for them.

[Army Guy]

Was Canada `officially' involved in Afghanistan in July of 2002? How would it be treason?

Canada was offically involved in Oct 2001, ground forces operating along side of US forces began in Jan 2002. As to how it would be treason below is a para from Section 46 of the Criminal Code of Canada which describes treason.

assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Treason

Cdn forces in Afgan

Khadr would have seen his Dad's buddies as the `home' team; fellow countrymen. Yes, they were fascist Taliban F-heads, but he was seeing it from their side at 15 years old. The `coalition' forces would be seen by him as the `invaders'. Isn't it natural to try to defend one's home from invaders?

At 15 years old this was a young man, considering he started his career at much younger age, and the fact his culture sees him as such...At 15 he is very capable of knowing right from wrong , good side from bad side....he was very much aware of what he was doing....His family knew that Canada had entered the conflict on the opposite side, and they continued the fight...His home was Canada, not Afgan, he or his family had no ties there, other than the fact it was where he was living at the time...His home was thousands of miles away in Canada...

Now that he's removed from the poisonous life his Dad gave him, shouldn't we try to show this impressionable kid who the bad guys really were? Canada used to show compassion for child soldiers. What happened?

He has not been removed, he's confined with men that know nothing else but war, who have dreamed of nothing else but giving thier lives up for the cause, and given half the chance will return to Afgan to fight infidels like Canadian soldiers....Compassion...It was not all that long ago when this child as you call him was prowling the Afgan country side looking for coalition forces to kill....where was his compassion...Don't let his size or age fool you ,he his a radical muslim terrorist who would kill you and me for a joke if given the chance.

I will agree he should be returned to Canada, only because the US system is not working in this case....not that i think we can do a better job, but rather see if we will do the right thing.

I thought the mission was UN-endorsed and an international effort... Who said the States would have the right to try all the captors in a UN Coalition effort? Britain and Australia had the strength to oppose this and they re-patriated their own from Gitmo and dealt with them at home.

Has Canada Officially asked to have him returned ?

[jay22]

That is why I cringe at the "excuse" that Omar was only 15 when he was arrested. Canada should not have to make that excuse in order for him to be repatriated and tried by Canadian laws, military or otherwise. It should not matter one bit how old he was when the incident occurred. It's just a case of Canada mumbling excuses to the US, not something that makes me proud.

I'm proud to be a Canadian citizen (going on six years now) and I did not emigrate to this country to make use of its welfare medical system - I came here to live in a healthy balance between freedom and social protection in times of need. I intend to live here full-time and give back to the community. I can't speak for the Khadr family or what their expectations were in becoming Canadians, but once Canada makes someone their citizen - for good reason, I hope - , it should be prepared to stand up for them.

While to a point i do agree with what your saying.But i think there has to be some rules such as you have to respect canada/stay here. etc.In khadr case he was here for a very short time.I do not think canada should have to stand up for someone who does not plan on making canada there home.Of course kahdr had no say and yes i feel sorry for him but we at the same time can't just let him go free.The bigger concern is the remarks his family made the hate at that time they had to canada was unreal.

[Radsickle]

Canada was offically involved in Oct 2001, ground forces operating along side of US forces began in Jan 2002. As to how it would be treason below is a para from Section 46 of the Criminal Code of Canada which describes treason.

It was not all that long ago when this child as you call him was prowling the Afgan country side looking for coalition forces to kill....where was his compassion...Don't let his size or age fool you ,he his a radical muslim terrorist who would kill you and me for a joke if given the chance.

Dude, that's quite a claim. When was he `prowling'? Can you include a link to this part of the story?

Canada recently signed a treaty that defined anyone under 18 as a child soldier:

International Treaty

Canada hasn't bothered to ask for him back.

[jay22]

Dude, that's quite a claim. When was he `prowling'? Can you include a link to this part of the story?

Canada recently signed a treaty that defined anyone under 18 as a child soldier:

International Treaty

Canada hasn't bothered to ask for him back.

So i guess you want him set free and treated like a hero.

[Rue]

Would it? How many under 15 year old faced military tribunals in World War II?

Canadians don't think Khadr is sweet innocent boy. He certainly was a danger in Afghanistan to coalition forces. However, he was an underage fighter who is being treated as an adult despite Canadian and other international conventions not to do so.

The trial in the U.S. has been a mess from the start and what will be the result? If Khadr is sentenced, he will probably have to serve his time in the U.S. where civilian courts will take over and likely revisit the question of his age.

Canada should have considered what its own options were before washing their hands of the thing. One possibility that the government hasn't even conceived of is that Kahdr will be set free and be returned to Canada after a short time.

The fact that he is underage does not mean he could not under the Geneva convention be detained as a pow. The intent of the Geneva Convention was to detain any combatant regardless of age. There are those suggest that in the interpretation of the Geneva Convention on POWS, to assure it is enforced in a humane manner, children should be seperated from adults in POW camps.

To answer your coment about child combatants in ww2, when a child in the underground or partisans was caught by the Nazis they were killed on the spot if they were lucky, otherwise tortured then killed or used as sex slaves by soldiers before being killed or sent to concentration camps to be used as sex slaves by the camp commanders and their guards.

In regards to the allies, well the Red Army simply would shoot them. They had no facilities or food for them. All armies raped them and then killed them if they caught them.

Some were placed in allied pow camps with adult pows where they became of course the sex victims of pows.

The Japanese Imperial Army used alleged child combatants as sex slaves.

Towards the end of the war when Hitler recruited children into the regular army, they were simply placed in pow camps.

There are many books on how child combatants were treated in world war two.

Of course it was a different time.

With the case of Kadr, he may have been 15, but at the time of his actions, he was fighting as a combatant.

The notion we treat him under the Youth Offender Act the way we do domestic criminals in Canada (give them a 6 month sentence for violent crime and send them to a half-way home) misses the point that he was engaged in criminal acts(violating the domestic laws fo Afghanistan), terrorist acts and war. Canada has zero jurisdiction for what he did and this notion he should be brought back to be dealt with under the Youth Offender Act is absurd. Its the same mentality of missionaries who go across the world thinking their laws and doctrines should be the ones used on us all.

He was no teenager in Canada. He was fighting overseas and a member of a terrorist organization dedicated to fighting not just conventional armies but killing innocent civilians as a means to express political opinion.

The domestic laws of Canada do not apply. They are subject to the sovereign laws of the nation he was in at the time he committed his crimes whether they be domestic or international or both which is the case.

He belongs in a pow camp under military detention since there are no other international laws at this time to deal with terrorist children who then turn to adults as he has.

Ideally he should have been treated by a psychiatrist and someone to try rehabilitate him with a job skil and try help reconstruct his approach to life. The practical reality is however, that no therapy or rehabilitation can truly undo the emotional and psychological conditioning that has turned him into what he now is. At best it might contain the more violent tendencies.

His emotional and psychological damage and political and social conditioning is compounded by some other factors preventing any kind of rehabilitation; i-the fact he was isolated so long; ii-the fact his family and certain Muslim Canadians feel he has done no wrong and try act to enforce what he did as acceptable.

More to the point, he's no victim. Its tempting to say since his father brain washed him he is a victim but he is no victim. That is not the word to use. He is someone who was trained to kill. Trained killers may have been made thay way in a manner that did not obtain their consent but they should not be classified with the same term as the people he and other terrorists terrorize.

We must use a different word. To call him a victim allows him the same moral equivalency as the civilians he and his fellow terrorists have viuctimized and that is insulting to them not to mention absurd.

Let's call him what he is, a criminal and a terrorist and stop trying to cloud what he is. The guilt feelings for his being turned into a criminal and terrorist won't help him, they will only harm him and feed his criminal and terrorist beliefs by reinforcing this notion he is somehow not to blame for what he did and the consequences of his actions. Until he can look at what he did and accept his responsibility for it, unconditionally, he will remain what he is, a criminal and a terrorist.

No I don't cuddle pit-bulls. A pit-bull at the best of times comes from a genetic history where it was born to kill and has a volatile mix of genetic predisposition for violence. No I will not suggest his dna code has components that make him a killer. I will accept the arguement he was made that way just as a pit bull by being placed in a cage, prodded with a stick, starved then fed live animals, is bred to be a killer.

But what we all know is you can't undo a pit-bull's killer drive once its been entrenched and quite frankly no therapy can undo what has been done to Kadr or other children who grow into adults. At best if you are lucky you can make very small attempts to contain some of their anti--social behaviour and violent tendencies. This notion you can simply stick him back in society with a hug and some adults watching him is sheer nonsense.

The first people likely to come into contact with him are a few Muslims with a negative, pro-terrorist political agenda and his mother deep in denial. Then he will encounter well meaning liberal guilt players both in and outside the Muslim community who try down play his extremism and tell him he is o.k. and a nice man and the only thing he did wrong was try kill. All he will pick up on is hippocracy and that the consequence of what he did is negative, simply because he was caught not because what he did was anti-social.

Been there, done that. I have seen children and youth first hand when they are let back into society. The only ones that change are those who have had the fortune not to come into contact with people who molly coddle them. It is why I am a strong supporter of the native healing circles of the native people.

They require the offender to apologize to the whole community and directly accept responsibility to the whole community. What we do in our legal system is to isolate such people from society during their alleged rehabilitation phase and focus on their individual rights-which in fact prevents healing by making it easier for the criminal to see himself as a victim and not a victimizer.

Now as for his being entitled to medicare or other Canadian benefits I can only say this to Peter F. in my respectful opinion you are mixing up the concept of treating prisoners humanely with the rights people are entitled to as citizens of a country.

I agree he must be treated humanely including being afforded proper medical care, but probably unlike you, no I do not see him being entitled to any right of citizenship. I believe terrorists once convicted of terrorism, should lose the rights of citizenship in any country until their term to be served for the terror acts is completed.

I personally believe anyone convicted of a crime, domestic or international, should be afforded basic human rights but not anything else. I do not understand this notion that people who engage in acts that say they have no respect for the citizenship rights of others, can use those same rights to protect themselves from the consequences of what they have done. This to me makes no sense.

To allow prisoners to vote and enjoy access to rights of normal citizens to me is bullshit.

My arguement all along is that the legal process Bush's cronies came up with is fundamentally defective and flawed and violates both the US constitution and Canadian Charter of Freedom of Rights.

My arguement is that the legal system he is now being treated under is defective and beyond repair.

However no I do not see Kadr as a victim. I see people who suffer from the indiscriminate killings of the Kadrs of the world, the victims.

I see people like Kadr as agents of terror. Terrorists necessarily must be segregated from humanity and contained so they can not harm others, first and foremost and yes if need be killed before they can kill others.

In regards to typecasting them as victims, heroes, misunderstood freedom fighters, sorry that kind of emotional liberal guilt others can have. I have seen what they can do and I would hope like hell if I was faced with the situation I would not hesitate to shoot dead a child terrorist before he could detonate a bomb. I doubt I could and that is why I do not morally judge police or soldiers who we put in that position and why we owe those soldiers or police as much concern as we do people like Kadr.

Does anyone care about the soldiers he shot and killed?

In regards to rehabilitating Kadr, with due respect the people who seem to offering to rehabilitate him are precisely the kind of people that probablyhelped turned him into a terrorist.

You really want to help this person-send him up north to live with aboriginal people and learn their customs and traditions and get back in touch with his soul and that of course is not going to happen. His mother, and certain members of the Muslim community (a few nasty people) will see to it he is depicted as a victim and go out of their way to resist anyone's effort to address his anti-social training.

If you think you can magically undo the kind of conditioning that terms someone into a killer I have this advise for you, stop trying to hug pit-bulls they are going to chew your guilt ridden face right off its hinges.

I respect the point Peter F was making. I know Peter F is trying to argue he should be treated humanely.

Edited October 7, 2008 by Rue

[Army Guy]

Dude, that's quite a claim. When was he `prowling'? Can you include a link to this part of the story?

Are you kidding me, it's no claim but fact.....check some of the links i've already provided, read his testimony,read the testimony of others.... he freely admits he was involved in combat activites, of gather intel on American convoys and troop movements and relaying all that to the Taliban and Al quida....Then there is the fact he was shot while US soldiers raided the compound....

Canada recently signed a treaty that defined anyone under 18 as a child soldier:

Heres my problem with the above treaty, on the battle field anyone that openily displays arms, or hostile intent or a soldier feels threaten in anyway that person or persons is a target, in which deadly force can be used...there is no age limit, no restrictions ....On the battle field everyone is treated the same...

At the end of the battle there is no one checking ID's, to see who is a child and who is not, they are restrained and shipped to the rear for processing....here is where they will take the little scumbags and place them in separate cells if available.... And before you judge me as a cold hearted bastard here in Afgan i've personal seen terrorist scumbags as young as 11, who would cut your throat wide open if given the chance...

Child soldiers are the norm here, don't get me wrong there is plenty of grown up scumbags as well....but here at age 11 you are considered a adult coming of age...

Canada hasn't bothered to ask for him back.

What does that say about this whole topic....

Edited October 7, 2008 by Army Guy

[White Doors]

The fact that he is underage does not mean he could not under the Geneva convention be detained as a pow. The intent of the Geneva Convention was to detain any combatant regardless of age. There are those suggest that in the interpretation of the Geneva Convention on POWS, to assure it is enforced in a humane manner, children should be seperated from adults in POW camps.

Here's another fact - He is not covered by the Geneva conventions because he was not a soldier.

look it up. He was an illegal combatant and the Geneva conventions do not apply to unlawful combatants.

Maybe you should research what the Geneva conventions say before you use them in your argument Rue

To be entitled to prisoner-of-war status, captured service members must be lawful combatants entitled to combatant's privilege—which gives them immunity from punishment for crimes constituting lawful acts of war, e.g., killing enemy troops. To qualify under the Fourth Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly.

[JB Globe]

Here's another fact - He is not covered by the Geneva conventions because he was not a soldier.

look it up. He was an illegal combatant and the Geneva conventions do not apply to unlawful combatants.

I think the entire idea of "illegal combatants" (as used in the "war on terror") is extremely problematic. The same definition could be used by countless authoritarian regimes as a way of denying the Geneva conventions to members of revolutionary groups within their countries.

ie - Chin nationalist rebels in Burma, they can't afford uniforms, which would make it easy for the Burmese government to claim that they're not covered under Geneva.

I also don't exactly see how it helps the situation to NOT be treating prisoners humanely and in accordance to international law.

[Radsickle]

Are you kidding me, it's no claim but fact.....check some of the links i've already provided, read his testimony,read the testimony of others.... he freely admits he was involved in combat activites, of gather intel on American convoys and troop movements and relaying all that to the Taliban and Al quida....Then there is the fact he was shot while US soldiers raided the compound....

Heres my problem with the above treaty, on the battle field anyone that openily displays arms, or hostile intent or a soldier feels threaten in anyway that person or persons is a target, in which deadly force can be used...there is no age limit, no restrictions ....On the battle field everyone is treated the same...

At the end of the battle there is no one checking ID's, to see who is a child and who is not, they are restrained and shipped to the rear for processing....here is where they will take the little scumbags and place them in separate cells if available.... And before you judge me as a cold hearted bastard here in Afgan i've personal seen terrorist scumbags as young as 11, who would cut your throat wide open if given the chance...

Child soldiers are the norm here, don't get me wrong there is plenty of grown up scumbags as well....but here at age 11 you are considered a adult coming of age...

What does that say about this whole topic....

Dude, I've checked all the links... If you meant post # 24, it says nothing about Omar `prowling'. Please post a link to your claim...

I saw the grainy video of Omar learning what his f-head role models were teaching him about IEDs. Did he ever put that lesson into practice? I don't know. There's a lot of doubt about whether he took up arms against the US soldiers raiding the compound. Whatever he might have said was probably said under `duress' at Bagram or Gitmo.

There's a lot of rumours. We would know more if we had him back here.

I don't want to create doubt in the mind of the Canadian soldier who has to fire back on the battlefield, regardless of age. That's another reason I left my previous group; some of them were about to ship out and I didn't want to upset them. It's a UN-endorsed mission, a noble cause, and I respect what they do. I look forward to everyone's return.

But, once Omar was `processed', Canada should have acted according to it's commitments. It was a Liberal failure then and a Conservative failure now.

[Army Guy]

Dude, I've checked all the links... If you meant post # 24, it says nothing about Omar `prowling'. Please post a link to your claim...

OK the info is within the links you just have to dig for it. Below is not current but it will give you an idea on what Young mr. Khadr was doing in a combat zone..Or what i called Prowling....

The link i gave you is a poor one, Not really making my piont, as some of it conflicts with other evidance given.....but if you look at all the evidance and keep an open mind to things like, A battle field is a very confusing place, and very often each soldier will tell or see things differently, like being in a drawn out car crash....so yes stories will conflict....does not mean it did not happen...

Also he was filmed planting mines and IED's, Most NATO rules of engagement, are to eliminate people who plant IED's on site....and if you've been involved in an IED strike you'll know why....Bomb making material was also found at the site he was captured...

Khadr

There's a lot of doubt about whether he took up arms against the US soldiers raiding the compound.

Give me a break, he was trained in a terrorist training camp, was in an active combat zone, what that means is he is trained to respond, do you actually think he was an innocent bystander, in the middle of a gun fight....no, they were attacked and all responded , all all with exception of himself were killed, read the account of the battle "he"'s a lucky guy to get out of it alive....Americans will use every Wpns sys available to win a fire fight....i'm surprised there is anything left....

Whatever he might have said was probably said under `duress' at Bagram or Gitmo.

mout piont, i agree that torture should not be used to gather info, soft torture is a grey area....not a big fan....but it does not mean that the info he provided was no good , if it could be backed up by another source...

I don't want to create doubt in the mind of the Canadian soldier who has to fire back on the battlefield, regardless of age. That's another reason I left my previous group; some of them were about to ship out and I didn't want to upset them. It's a UN-endorsed mission, a noble cause, and I respect what they do. I look forward to everyone's return.

Every soldier that comes here to Afgan has atleast 6 month training before going outside the wire, don't have it, your not going outside the wire period....the training is as such that you don't think you react, and putting bullets on target is done without having to think about it...no doubt, no feelings, no time to think....It's after wards that all that happens, and we don't recieve enough training on that event....

But, once Omar was `processed', Canada should have acted according to it's commitments. It was a Liberal failure then and a Conservative failure now.

Your right, he should have been returned to Canada stripped of his citizenship, and deported hopefully taking the rest of his family with him....setting the example to the rest of the terrorist operating here in Afgan with Canadian citizenship....Not drug out, smeared all over the media, everyone whinning he's only a child ....he's a terrorist and should be dealt like one...

[Army Guy]

I think the entire idea of "illegal combatants" (as used in the "war on terror") is extremely problematic. The same definition could be used by countless authoritarian regimes as a way of denying the Geneva conventions to members of revolutionary groups within their countries.

ie - Chin nationalist rebels in Burma, they can't afford uniforms, which would make it easy for the Burmese government to claim that they're not covered under Geneva.

I also don't exactly see how it helps the situation to NOT be treating prisoners humanely and in accordance to international law.

The genva convention does spell out very clearly the rules of war, you don't need uniforms, but you do need to wear something that identifies you as a combatant, be a pink tutu, an armband or what ever as long as that group makes it known that is thier unform,they must aslo carry arms openily, so observers can tell them apart from non combatants...

In Iraq and Afgan they do not do this, they wear nothing to identify themselfs, and they don't carry arms openily until they are about to attack....It also states in the conventions one must not use terror as a wpn, and blowing up markets, schools, etc etc is using terror....That all being said it also states that ALL prisoner are to be treated humanely and with respect., it is a court that decides who is a terrorist or not, once this is decided then they no longer are afforded all the rights under the prison of war convention....but they still must be treated fairly, humanely, all accordding to the genva convention, and international law... Not much difference between a legal combatant, and illigal combatant in the way they should be treated....

[White Doors]

I think the entire idea of "illegal combatants" (as used in the "war on terror") is extremely problematic. The same definition could be used by countless authoritarian regimes as a way of denying the Geneva conventions to members of revolutionary groups within their countries.

ie - Chin nationalist rebels in Burma, they can't afford uniforms, which would make it easy for the Burmese government to claim that they're not covered under Geneva.

I also don't exactly see how it helps the situation to NOT be treating prisoners humanely and in accordance to international law.

It's the law. I think it is a good thing to at least encourage people to wage war in civilized terms.

There needs to be consequences to your actions. The Geneva conventions, if applied to some terrorists, would absolve them of responsibility.

[GostHacked]

The genva convention does spell out very clearly the rules of war, you don't need uniforms, but you do need to wear something that identifies you as a combatant, be a pink tutu, an armband or what ever as long as that group makes it known that is thier unform,they must aslo carry arms openily, so observers can tell them apart from non combatants...

In Iraq and Afgan they do not do this, they wear nothing to identify themselfs, and they don't carry arms openily until they are about to attack....It also states in the conventions one must not use terror as a wpn, and blowing up markets, schools, etc etc is using terror....That all being said it also states that ALL prisoner are to be treated humanely and with respect., it is a court that decides who is a terrorist or not, once this is decided then they no longer are afforded all the rights under the prison of war convention....but they still must be treated fairly, humanely, all accordding to the genva convention, and international law... Not much difference between a legal combatant, and illigal combatant in the way they should be treated....

Consider this. After Iraq was invaded and the army disbanded, there are nothing BUT 'illegal enemy combatands'. Afghanistan suffered the same fate. Create a situation where everyone other than you can and will be considered an 'illegal enemy combatant'. Only because there was not an official delcaration of war on Iraq OR Afghanistan, you can be considered an 'illegal enemy combatant' despite wearing a real uniform. And by that you are not guarenteed anything by the Geneva Convention. Works both ways. Or am I wrong?

[White Doors]

Consider this. After Iraq was invaded and the army disbanded, there are nothing BUT 'illegal enemy combatands'. Afghanistan suffered the same fate. Create a situation where everyone other than you can and will be considered an 'illegal enemy combatant'. Only because there was not an official delcaration of war on Iraq OR Afghanistan, you can be considered an 'illegal enemy combatant' despite wearing a real uniform. And by that you are not guarenteed anything by the Geneva Convention. Works both ways. Or am I wrong?

You are wrong

[tango]

OK the info is within the links you just have to dig for it. Below is not current but it will give you an idea on what Young mr. Khadr was doing in a combat zone..Or what i called Prowling....

The link i gave you is a poor one, Not really making my piont, as some of it conflicts with other evidance given.....but if you look at all the evidance and keep an open mind to things like, A battle field is a very confusing place, and very often each soldier will tell or see things differently, like being in a drawn out car crash....so yes stories will conflict....does not mean it did not happen...

Also he was filmed planting mines and IED's, Most NATO rules of engagement, are to eliminate people who plant IED's on site....and if you've been involved in an IED strike you'll know why....Bomb making material was also found at the site he was captured...

Khadr

Give me a break, he was trained in a terrorist training camp, was in an active combat zone, what that means is he is trained to respond, do you actually think he was an innocent bystander, in the middle of a gun fight....no, they were attacked and all responded , all all with exception of himself were killed, read the account of the battle "he"'s a lucky guy to get out of it alive....Americans will use every Wpns sys available to win a fire fight....i'm surprised there is anything left....

mout piont, i agree that torture should not be used to gather info, soft torture is a grey area....not a big fan....but it does not mean that the info he provided was no good , if it could be backed up by another source...

Every soldier that comes here to Afgan has atleast 6 month training before going outside the wire, don't have it, your not going outside the wire period....the training is as such that you don't think you react, and putting bullets on target is done without having to think about it...no doubt, no feelings, no time to think....It's after wards that all that happens, and we don't recieve enough training on that event....

Your right, he should have been returned to Canada stripped of his citizenship, and deported hopefully taking the rest of his family with him....setting the example to the rest of the terrorist operating here in Afgan with Canadian citizenship....Not drug out, smeared all over the media, everyone whinning he's only a child ....he's a terrorist and should be dealt like one...

Army guy, you are a scary dude.

I hope you are not in our army now.

Do you know what 'evidence' is?

Do you know that circumstantial evidence - he was there, he was trained - isn't enough to convict someone?

Do you know what a child is?

Fortunately, one American soldier did.

Fortunately, American soldiers are standing up for him and telling the truth.

Edited October 9, 2008 by tango

[AngusThermopyle]

Do you know that circumstantial evidence - he was there, he was trained - isn't enough to convict someone?

Do you know what its like to be in a place like that?

As AG said, the little shit is lucky he's still on the top side of the dirt and not six feet under.

Frankly, I feel pretty much the same way about him as I do his sister, just don't give a rats ass about either of them. I reserve my concern for those who are actually worthwhile humans, not bottom feeders like the Khadrs.

[jbg]

But, once Omar was `processed', Canada should have acted according to it's commitments. It was a Liberal failure then and a Conservative failure now.

Would Khadr be so concerned about you, or other real Canadians, if the shoe were reversed. An American or Canadian travelling in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan would simply be slaughtered.

Would people be agonizing about whether that was a "failure" or simply the way the system is supposed to work?

[guyser]

Do you know what its like to be in a place like that?

As AG said, the little shit is lucky he's still on the top side of the dirt and not six feet under.

Frankly, I feel pretty much the same way about him as I do his sister, just don't give a rats ass about either of them. I reserve my concern for those who are actually worthwhile humans, not bottom feeders like the Khadrs.

AT, most of that is moot.

As for what its like there, and how lucky he is alive is all unnecessary. Your feelings for them , while honest, are not the issue wither.

I would bet you are concerned with the rights of all. And that is the crux. Hate em, love em, wish they were dead are all valid feelings.

But lets just put them , or him, to trial and let the truth prevail. There is much in this case to be concerned about, from the truth not being said about his actions, to the investigation of the case, to the trampling of his rights and the refusal of our govt to man up and get him back.

Give him a fair trial. If the outcome is he is incarcerated for the rest of his life then so be it. . But why joepardize a trial by trampling his rights?

[guyser]

Would Khadr be so concerned about you, or other real Canadians, if the shoe were reversed. An American or Canadian travelling in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan would simply be slaughtered.

YOu are a lawyer.

And you know damn well that isnt the point. We in NA do things different. Most of Europe does too.

Its called a trial in front of your peers. Hear the evidence, weigh it, and then sentence or let them go.

[Radsickle]

The genva convention does spell out very clearly the rules of war, you don't need uniforms, but you do need to wear something that identifies you as a combatant, be a pink tutu, an armband or what ever as long as that group makes it known that is thier unform,they must aslo carry arms openily, so observers can tell them apart from non combatants.

The Geneva Conventions also consider a situation which the French Resistance sometimes found itself in, a "Melee en Masse," when a number of `locals', wearing different clothes, would band together to resist an invading force. I think the CF rules of engagement mention this also.

Your right, he should have been returned to Canada stripped of his citizenship, and deported

Where do you suggest deporting a kid who was born in Toronto?

I'm concerned about this kid BECAUSE I'm concerned about our country and its soldiers; we are not winning any hearts and minds by ignoring our agreed-upon duties and responsibilities as a freedom-loving and human-respecting nation.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Radsickle