Signals.Cpl Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Do you agree that in the handling of Omar Khadr, and other Guantanamo prisoners, some Laws were broken by the US military? Are we talking about International laws or American laws? Yes I agree with you - Let's do our best to hold the Taliban and other enemies accountable and try them to the full extent of the Law. BUT: This becomes much more difficult (next to impossible?) when we (the West) do not follow the Law. How is the west no following the law? Elaborate on that, I consider the west following the law as much as possible considering that the enemy in this case intentionally uses child soldiers, does not wear a uniform or distinguishing symbols, hides within and fires from crowds of civilians using them as a shield. Yes - let's improve the laws to ensure that they are appropriate for modern warfare. BUT: The way to do this is not to break current laws. Any suggestions how to do this? The laws that we adhere to are the same laws that are used against us by our enemy. us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Army Guy's statement still stands. And once you plead guilty to a lesser charge , regardless of your innocence, it stays on your record and can hinder you when you go look for a job. really I know people serving in the military who have criminal records ...a number other variables here as well Khadr was found guilty for crimes committed as a juvenile, as a child soldier illegally detained, tortured, interrogated, with canadian government assistance, the entire process was illegal so his record will be probably be expunged when he collects his multi-million payout...as well he can and likely will get a pardon...even without a pardon there are literally millions of jobs open to him, not that he'll need them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Sorry if I was not clear earlier, the subject is not "whether or not it was illegal for a 16 year old individual [to volunteer] to fight". It is the illegal treatment/processing of Omar Khadr since his capture and Canada's inaction in addressing this issue. If I am not mistaken, all other Western foreign nationals held in Guantanamo (UK, France, Spain...) have been repatriated many years ago. Well, the legality of Khadr volunteering to go off to Afghanistan was clearly at least part of the subject of conversation at the point I linked to. Still, above you're talking about two separate matters. The government of Canada's actions regarding Khadr are not forced at all by the way Khadr was detained and tried by the US. Whether or not Khadr is repatriated is a matter of foriegn policy that remains a Royal Prerogative, the exercise of which the executive is accountable for to parliament, not the courts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 -Various laws in the 1949 Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War -Various international laws banning torture He is not nor was he ever a PoW, and how was he tortured? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Well, the legality of Khadr volunteering to go off to Afghanistan was clearly at least part of the subject of conversation at the point I linked to. 10 yr olds cannot legally go off to Afghanistan and volunteer to go into combat training... this was his fathers doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 If I am not mistaken, all other Western foreign nationals held in Guantanamo (UK, France, Spain...) have been repatriated many years ago. How many of them killed a western soldier? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 10 yr olds cannot legally go off to Afghanistan and volunteer to go into combat training... this was his fathers doing. Who cares? He was 15 when he volunteered to go by himself - as in, sans papa - to Afghanistan and be with Al-Qaeda affiliates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Are we talking about International laws or American laws? Mainly international laws. How is the west no following the law? Elaborate on that, I consider the west following the law as much as possible considering that the enemy in this case intentionally uses child soldiers, does not wear a uniform or distinguishing symbols, hides within and fires from crowds of civilians using them as a shield. 1. Rendition 2. Torture 3. Lack of due process 4. Illegal detention - effectively holding someone outside the law IMO it does not matter what the enemy is doing, we should always follow the law Any suggestions how to do this? The laws that we adhere to are the same laws that are used against us by our enemy. us It seems easy to me: don't render, don't torture, and treat all captors as POWs. What do you mean when you say laws are used against us by our enemy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) He is not nor was he ever a PoW, and how was he tortured? How many of them killed a western soldier? I do not know enough of the details to answer your questions - but I know that the US Supreme Court ruled that many ongoings at Guantanamo Bay were illegal. That was the point - the West is breaking the Law. Edited July 28, 2012 by carepov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) Who cares? He was 15 when he volunteered to go by himself - as in, sans papa - to Afghanistan and be with Al-Qaeda affiliates. now you're lying, he was living in Afghanistan since 1996, he was 10 years old Khadr was a child soldier and Canada is a signatory to that policy that recognizes that...the facts may be inconvenient for you but I'm not going to let you get away with perpetuating the lie just because it doesn't mesh with your political slant... criminal record? no problem he can get a job in the PMOs office! Edited July 28, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Mainly international laws. Which once? 1. Rendition ? 2. Torture Once again where is the proof? His word? Was he sleep deprived? Because if thats the case I have been tortured as well, many times at work and even more while in school. 3. Lack of due process What was denied to him? He was charged and plead guilty to murder, case closed right? 4. Illegal detention - effectively holding someone outside the law I don't consider Guantanamo Bay "outside the law", if it was truly so the Marines would be using the detainees as moving targets, give them no access to food, medicine, lawyers etc... IMO it does not matter what the enemy is doing, we should always follow the law Change the law, add new once where if you do not abide by the laws you will be prosecuted and held accountable for you actions. When they don't abide by the laws of war, once captured put them on trial, if found guilty execute them, kind of like what we(the allies) did at Nuremberg. It seems easy to me: don't render, don't torture, and treat all captors as POWs. If they don't qualify for POW status they don't get POW status. You want to abide by the laws? No POW status for illegal combatants, you don't meet the criteria you don't get the protection. What do you mean when you say laws are used against us by our enemy? 1)When a terrorist is captured and promptly cries torture knowing full well that some bleeding heart fool in the west, will pick up the cause to liberate them. 2)Using that fact that we have to abide by Laws of War while they don't, which means they hide in the civilian population and fire from civilian locations There are more but I am tired and will continue this tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 I do not know enough of the details to answer your questions - but I know that the US Supreme Court ruled that many ongoings at Guantanamo Bay were illegal. That was the point - the West is breaking the Law. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Supreme court deals with domestic laws right? And please provide proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 RICK: I believe you hit the nail on the head here wyly, those in the military do lead sheltered lives. They really do think they're somehow better or more deserving than others and the country in it's misguided views have enabled them by giving them 'hero' status. I don't know where this Sheltered lives crap comes from but please feel free to explain in detail, As for your thinking we are better or more deserving than others your wrong, in fact we don't enjoy all the rights you take advantage of on a daily basis. Nor do we enjoy all the benifits you recieve as a Canadian citizen. and yes we do enjoy a few benifits thats not available to you, but they are few. As for the Hero status i think you'll find thats being driven by the general public and not the military it self. nobody has asked them to line the streets and wave welcome back banners, or shake our hands at the airport when we arrive, or buy us a few Pints of beer at the local tavern....sorry thats all on them, but i think your statement was made out of envy.. You ever had DND move you when you were transferred?I know for a fact that up until 2 years ago none of those movers had a background check done. There's at least one major van lines who does the bulk of all dnd moves who only started insisting on background checks for all labour this year and that's been spotty at best because they can't find enough manpower to keep up with the work. Yes i have been moved alot, and while they are hired by DND there is nothing stopping me from asking the moving company the same questions as i would to any contractor, and have not had one refuse yet. You are aware that crinmal back ground checks can be done on line with any computer access. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 WYLY: many sign up after high school other than mowing lawns working at timmies they've never had to really make a go of it in the real world, they don't get laid off, they don't have to compete for jobs, they don't worry about where their next cheque is coming from, they don't worry about medical/dental attention, everything is looked after by the state, it's the ultimate welfare job... Your joking me right, perhaps you can show we a source on this new found knowledge of yours, in my case i was working on a farm during the summer when i was 14, cutting pulp during the summer and fall at 15. but your right they are not real jobs,most Military members do not make this a carear, and instead use this as a jumping off piont for their future. Again the leadership, ethics, job knowledge the military provides are what civilian companies are looking for. As for competing lets see military has over 14,000 applicants a year and only take on 5000 no competing there, and with 64,000 members we compete for jobs internally every year... we can't get laid off perhaps you should check your facts again, members have been told they are no longer required, it was a huge issue during the 80 and 90's. not having to worry were your next pay check is coming from, ask some of those soldiers that were wounded in combat, dismebered or disfigured, ask they if they are still employed, no work mans comp for military members, and the pension they recieve i guess is ok if you like kraft dinner or hotdogs..... Yes we get free medical treatment then again so do you under our great health care system... dental for members are covered as it is part of employing healthy members we still pay for family members and if you ever visted a military dentist you would not complain... But your right it is a welfare job, one that we've signed on for unlimited liabilty, meaning i can be sentenced in a court of law for refusing to serve or charge that machine gun postion as order. your only worry is what exactly....I'm not saying my job is tougher than yours, but i refuse to say you got it tough and i should feel sorry for you and your circumstaces...after all we live in a country where the chioces you make you live with , you had the same oportunities as i had and could have choose the same path if you wanted...or for that matter been a doctor or lawyer, etc... so someone right out of high school joining the military has little understanding of the real world, they continue to live in an entitled protected shell like they did when they lived with mom and dad...then they come on this forum and try lecture adults who have been finding their own way in life for decades on what the world is really like... little understanding of the real world, i use to think that about civilians then i grew up, see i've serve with over 9 different tours of shit holes around the globe, i think i have a pretty goof perspective on what is going on and what man is capable of and as the average Canadian you sir live a shelter life, on made posiable by largely military pers. to say you have a better grip on reality is well BULLSHIT. and ya there's that rambo "I'm a hero" fantasy...sorry no, doing a job they signed up to do and getting paid to do it doesn't make them a heroes, if they don't want the risk don't sign up...they're no more heroes than the fishermen who go out in their boats everyday risking their lives bringing in the fish we eat... I'M going to chalk this one up to you don't like Military guys , maybe one of them pumped your wife or girlfriend not sure , but i do senase alot of envy on your part, but you do know the military does hire up until age 50 so perhaps there still is hope for you and your ego....As for the Rambo or calling us heros....you can call us what ever you want and it would not bother me one bit....but if you think that putting your life in danger when you don't have to is not a sign of couage then maybe you need to take a look at you standards again. they do it not for you they do these acts for comrads, or defenceless people....and its not for praise, or recongnition it's because they wanted to....And your right heros come in all forms any one imply so is full of shit. One members comments or acts does not paint us all with the same brush, maybe take some time and readjust your comments or opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) Here is my source: http://www.pch.gc.ca/cs-kc/arar/Arar_e.pdf Again - this commission established that: 1.He was and still is an innocent man 2.He was tortured What do you have to dispute these facts? These are not established facts as no evidence has been presented to support them, including at the commission. The commission evidently made little effort to determine the validity of Arar's claims. Where was Arar during the disputed time if not in Afghanistan? Pretty damned easy question to answer. So why hasn't he? And why didn't the commission even bother to ask? Edited July 28, 2012 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 10 yr olds cannot legally go off to Afghanistan and volunteer to go into combat training... this was his fathers doing. Perhaps our manifestly incompetent immigration system should be altered to be more careful about the type of people it lets into Canada in future, hmm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 So do we forgive all terrorists? I think it safe to assume the majority had a similar experience, after all. Do we let all child abusers go because they were made that way by abuses in their youth? Absolutely if they're still kids when they're taken into custody, and probably more often than you could possibly stomach even when they're adults. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Absolutely if they're still kids when they're taken into custody, and probably more often than you could possibly stomach even when they're adults. it's all a political game, define your opponent as illegitimate and demonize them...one sides terrorist is the other sides freedom fighter... the nazi's thought the resistance units of ww2 as terrorists,the west considered them brave heroes, Israel defines Palestinian resistance to occupation as terrorists, how is it any different?...Ghadaffi consider the irregular forces facing him illegal terrorists, the west defined them as freedom fighters, and supported them...I knew a former hitler youth member who the allies considered child soldiers as brainwashed victims, now because it' politically convenient to promote their own agenda child soldiers who engaged with western forces are identified as "terrorists" while others in africa who are not engaged in conflicts with western forces are defined as "child soldiers" and treated as such and rehabilitated...the hypocrisy is incredible and blatant but the public buys into the propaganda game and fall into line like obedient sheep buying into the government BS never questioning the inconsistencies... it's hypocritical contradictions like that cause problems with the third world, our western governments claim moral superiority but do exactly opposite when it suits their own political interest.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 These are not established facts as no evidence has been presented to support them, including at the commission. The commission evidently made little effort to determine the validity of Arar's claims. Where was Arar during the disputed time if not in Afghanistan? Pretty damned easy question to answer. So why hasn't he? And why didn't the commission even bother to ask? Yes they are established facts. There is no evidence that he is guilty or poses any threat. Don't you believe in the concept innocent until proven guilty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Supreme court deals with domestic laws right? And please provide proof. Which once? Once again where is the proof? His word? Was he sleep deprived? Because if thats the case I have been tortured as well, many times at work and even more while in school. What was denied to him? He was charged and plead guilty to murder, case closed right? I don't consider Guantanamo Bay "outside the law", if it was truly so the Marines would be using the detainees as moving targets, give them no access to food, medicine, lawyers etc... Change the law, add new once where if you do not abide by the laws you will be prosecuted and held accountable for you actions. When they don't abide by the laws of war, once captured put them on trial, if found guilty execute them, kind of like what we(the allies) did at Nuremberg. If they don't qualify for POW status they don't get POW status. You want to abide by the laws? No POW status for illegal combatants, you don't meet the criteria you don't get the protection. I do not have the knowledge to provide proof that laws were broken, including torture, in Guantanamo and specifically in the case of Khadr. I trust my sources and think that detainees were processed illegally. You have your opinion and that's fine but let me ask you this: given that Guantanamo stinks of injustice was it a strategic blunder for the US to handle detainees the way they did? Consider: -Many credible sources are calling the processes illegal: Romeo Dallaire, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch... from wiki: "The International Committee of the Red Cross has stated that, "Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law."" -Consider also the US admin led by Rumsfeld and Cheney were saying that water-boarding was not torture, and other "torture is OK" memos -Consider that, from wiki: “Red Cross inspectors accused the U.S. military of using "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions" against prisoners. The inspectors concluded that "the construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture.”” -Consider Abu Ghraib -Consider that Khadr was under the age of 16 -Consider that it has been over 10 years... At best, the US handling of detainees is as innocent as OJ Simpson! Regardless of the legalities, it stinks of injustice, has divided Western opinions and I suspect it has fuelled Taliban hatred of the West and helped in their recruitment. I can imagine jihadi’s saying: "The West has a double-standard fro Muslims and non-Muslims, due process for them and torture for us". It does not matter if it is true, the perception is their and the US Military created that perception. Why did they not just do like everyone suggested: classify detainees as POWs or non-POWs. Handle POWs as per Geneva, and try non-POWs in the US courts? Perhaps all detainees could have been classified as POWs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 (edited) 1)When a terrorist is captured and promptly cries torture knowing full well that some bleeding heart fool in the west, will pick up the cause to liberate them. Do you even consider the possibility that a detainee has actually been tortured? Also, the solution to this problem seems simple: 1.) don't torture and 2.) allow the ICRC to verify that you do not torture. 2)Using that fact that we have to abide by Laws of War while they don't, which means they hide in the civilian population and fire from civilian locations I agree with you, this is a real bitch of a problem. It should have nothing to do with handling of detainees though. Edited July 29, 2012 by carepov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 Yes they are established facts. There is no evidence that he is guilty or poses any threat. Don't you believe in the concept innocent until proven guilty? I'm a suspicious man by nature. When a guy is charged with having gone to a training camp in Afghanistan, confesses to it (though he later recanted) had others saying he was there, and then refuses to say where he was at that particular time, well, call me cynical, but I have awful strong doubts at that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 I do not have the knowledge to provide proof that laws were broken, including torture, in Guantanamo and specifically in the case of Khadr. So you believe that there were laws broke, prisoners were tortured simply because someone said so? I trust my sources and think that detainees were processed illegally. Care to share those sources and what they provide as evidence to support your accusation? You have your opinion and that's fine but let me ask you this: given that Guantanamo stinks of injustice was it a strategic blunder for the US to handle detainees the way they did? how does Guantanamo stink of injustice? I Consider:-Many credible sources are calling the processes illegal: Romeo Dallaire, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch... from wiki: "The International Committee of the Red Cross has stated that, "Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law."" What makes those sources credible? Taliban and al-Qaeda don't qualify for PoW status because they are no legal combatants, they are definitely not civilians and they tend to kill medical personnel therefore I wouldn't put them in that category either. - Consider also the US admin led by Rumsfeld and Cheney were saying that water-boarding was not torture, and other "torture is OK" memosSource?-Consider that, from wiki:“Red Cross inspectors accused the U.S. military of using "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions" against prisoners. The inspectors concluded that "the construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture.”” Yeah, and many prison systems use the exact same tacts. Define forced position, if it is the same as stress position there are perfectly legitimate reasons for us of that tactic. -Consider Abu Ghraib Considered it, it was not US government policy nor was it sanctioned by the US military. It was a bunch of idiots who screwed up the the whole Iraq mission and cost the US forces all the goodwill they had gained. You can use this as evidence, or whatever you want as long as you provide proof that is was government sanctioned event rather than a bunch of idiots. -Consider that Khadr was under the age of 16 considered it, at 16 he is perfectly capable of determining and understanding right from wrong. Being 16 is not an excuse, otherwise every 16 year old could go on a crime spree, rape and plunder their neighbourhood and get of scot-free because he was 16. -Consider that it has been over 10 years... Over 10 years for what? I would say the first year was more of trying to bring the POS back to health. At best, the US handling of detainees is as innocent as OJ Simpson! When you provide proof that the US has done all of those things you accuse them of , then you can talk about how bad they are. Regardless of the legalities, it stinks of injustice, No proof therefore no value to this statement. has divided Western opinions Few times in history has there been a consensus in the west, there was a divide before this, and there will be a divide after this. and I suspect it has fuelled Taliban hatred of the West and helped in their recruitment. Really is that so? I can imagine jihadi’s saying: "The West has a double-standard fro Muslims and non-Muslims, due process for them and torture for us". Yeah, give them due process but not to the women in their country. Don't be so naive, they kill females for ridiculous and idiotic reasons that would embers a 13th century European and you think that a "double standard" is pissing them off... What a women does in Canada would get her killed in Afghanistan, so forgive me if I don't buy this bullshit line. It does not matter if it is true, the perception is their and the US Military created that perception. BS! It matter if its true, once a terrorist is captured the first thing they are taught to do is claim torture, so taking their word and claiming that the US is doing something wrong because the media takes the word of a bunch of extremist religious murderers over a legitimate government is saddening. Why did they not just do like everyone suggested: classify detainees as POWs or non-POWs. Because the detainees did not follow the laws of war and thus disqualified themselves from being classified as POWs. Handle POWs as per Geneva, and try non-POWs in the US courts? Then none would qualify as POW's and I don't think the US courts should handle terrorists captured from a foreign battle field. Perhaps all detainees could have been classified as POWs. As long as they meet the requirement then they should be classified as POWs, if they don't fit in to any category as prescribed by international law, I don't see how the US could be blamed that the other side exclude themselves don't follow the rules and thus fall in to a proper category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 Considered it, it was not US government policy nor was it sanctioned by the US military. It was a bunch of idiots who screwed up the the whole Iraq mission and cost the US forces all the goodwill they had gained. You can use this as evidence, or whatever you want as long as you provide proof that is was government sanctioned event rather than a bunch of idiots. No, those "idiots" were scapegoats...folwoing directives. In fact, the chief investigator, General Anthony Taguba, discovered widespread abuses...the responsibility for which, his investigation determined, went straight to the top. Of course, after such results, the investigation was squashed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted July 29, 2012 Report Share Posted July 29, 2012 Do you even consider the possibility that a detainee has actually been tortured? Yes, but when 99 out of 100 claim torture, and the media has played the role of judge, jury and executioner against the military and the government basically stating that a terrorist need only cry torture without any sort of proof and will be thus believe while the government cannot be exonerated because no amount of proof is accepted. Also, the solution to this problem seems simple: 1.) don't torture and 2.) allow the ICRC to verify that you do not torture. And you honestly think that this will change anything? Nothing will change, the people who support and believe the terrorists will believe the torture and the people who support the government and military will support the government. I agree with you, this is a real bitch of a problem. It should have nothing to do with handling of detainees though. Yes, it should. If they are intact committing a warcrime than it has everything to do with the detainees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.