[PENATRATOR]

Just the fact that this KNOWN terrorist will be walking the same streets as my kids in not so many years has me enraged.

I hope everybody out there pays your taxes on times, I'd hate to see poor little Omar not get what he rightfully deserves in the way of welfare cheques every two weeks for his contributions to our society.

[desertdude]

martin14 martin14:

But the US uses the GC to determine that Khadr wasnt a soldier in any sense
of the word.

No its the US that bends and warps its own laws so that it doesn't have to apply the GC.

[desertdude]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

desertdude desertdude:

Ok so what if he was a uniformed fighting how would the situation and its conclusion would have been different.

And yes I agree with you he could be considered a child soilder, but ofcourse the such international laws are used only if and when they are suitable and not globally

If he were wearing a uniform of the Taliban (if one existed) being a Canadian Citizen who took up arms against an ally, he would have breached section 46 of the Criminal code.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs ... /en?page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason

"High treason
(1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;
(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or
(c) 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.

The mandatory sentence is Life.

Thanks Doc

[EyeBrock]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

before folks on the right were saying how the Geneva Convention doesn't apply and/or is a pile of crap--you can't have it both ways.

Hey Zip, I merely pointed out that international law has differing definitions. Under the GC he would be classed as an irregular and could be shot, under the UN declaration he is classed as a child soldier.

To complicate matters further he killed a medic in uniform who was clearly identified as such while the medic was tending wounded from both sides, another offence covered under the GC but not clearly defined in other trans-national statutes.

There is law covering the Yanks and there is law damning them. International law is like that.

[martin14]

desertdude desertdude:

martin14 martin14:

But the US uses the GC to determine that Khadr wasnt a soldier in any sense
of the word.

No its the US that bends and warps its own laws so that it doesn't have to apply the GC.

No its Omar who didnt put on a uniform.


The GC covers real wars with real governments and real soldiers,

not terrorists.

[desertdude]

Check. I'll send out a memo to all the taliban pronto to put on a uniform from now on just in case they get captured so the geneva convention applies to them.

Thanks for the heads up martin.

And while we are GC

$1:

The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more states. Article 5 of the GCIII states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal." Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war. After a "competent tribunal" has determined his status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial.

Yes it was from wiki...bite me !

[martin14]

3rd.. the US chose not to.

4th.. he got a fair trial.



your own post defeats you.


As far as other Taliban being captured or not, I'll let Bart answer that one.

Funny we haven't heard too many more of these stories in the last
oh say 5 or 6 years.

[desertdude]

martin14 martin14:

4th.. he got a fair trial.

Again just because you say so, doesn't means its true.

The 3rd or 1st whatever you just said the US uses it and now you say it doesn't. Make you up mind lad.

[martin14]

the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention,


learn how to read, boyo.

[Gunnair]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

He's right though DD, under the Geneva Convention he's not classed as a soldier.

If you look at the recent UN declarations though he could be seen to be a 'child soldier'.

I'm not really a fan of that argument as it certainly doesn't stand up to previous examples of non uniformed soldiers. The US posters here seem to have forgotten their own roots - the minutemen of Lexington and Concord were not uniformed soldiers, but were a local militia. The Maquis of France, or any other resistance group under the Nazi occupations did not run around in recognizable uniforms either.

I prefer to focus not on the fact that these people don't wear uniforms, but that many of them target civilians, civilian targets such as schools. In the case of Khadr, I focus on the fact that he was a Canadian fighting against our allies. That's treason in my mind. I'd love to see him charged for that once he gets back.

[desertdude]

martin14 martin14:

the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention,


learn how to read, boyo.

So what it is ? Does it use the GC or not ? I can read very well, just that you eyes won't let you read what you dont want to. The very next line

$1:

An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial.

Not a national of a nuetral state : Check

Not a national of a co-belligerent State : Check

Under the 4th GC must be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial

[martin14]

DD,

the US could have chosen to treat all prisoners with POW status; they didnt,
so all GC stuff is out the window for that, by the GCs' own rules.



You are allowed to think Khadr didnt get a fair trial.




Oh my, another US war crime, quick call the UN and start bombing the States....

in your dreams

[Demian_164]

martin14 martin14:

desertdude desertdude:

martin14 martin14:

But the US uses the GC to determine that Khadr wasnt a soldier in any sense
of the word.

No its the US that bends and warps its own laws so that it doesn't have to apply the GC.

No its Omar who didnt put on a uniform.


The GC covers real wars with real governments and real soldiers,

not terrorists.

by this definition, if nazi germany successfully invaded and took over great britain, and installed a puppet regime, and ordinary brits fought against them but without a british army uniform, they would be terrorists?

if anything, soldiers without a uniform could represent the true will of hte people. they are without any central organization, or government funding. they are fighting for their homelands by any means necessary.

[Demian_164]

Gunnair Gunnair:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

He's right though DD, under the Geneva Convention he's not classed as a soldier.

If you look at the recent UN declarations though he could be seen to be a 'child soldier'.

I'm not really a fan of that argument as it certainly doesn't stand up to previous examples of non uniformed soldiers. The US posters here seem to have forgotten their own roots - the minutemen of Lexington and Concord were not uniformed soldiers, but were a local militia. The Maquis of France, or any other resistance group under the Nazi occupations did not run around in recognizable uniforms either.

I prefer to focus not on the fact that these people don't wear uniforms, but that many of them target civilians, civilian targets such as schools. In the case of Khadr, I focus on the fact that he was a Canadian fighting against our allies. That's treason in my mind. I'd love to see him charged for that once he gets back.

i was also going to write about this, the minutemen were just average citizens taking up the cause for rebellion against the british crown. are they terrorists?

[EyeBrock]

You are not getting this demian. Khadr is a Canadian citizen, not an Afghani. He killed a US Army medic tending wounded in Afghanistan. The US are our allies, they invoked Article 6 of the NATO treaty. This isn't the Brit's fighting a Nazi German invasion that didn't happen.

This happened.

A 15 year-old Canadian citizen, born in Canada, attacked and killed a US Army medic in Afghanistan.

No little hypothetical ‘stories’ to illuminate the point required. It speaks for itself.

Why is this so difficult to get your head around?