Khadr lawyer calls on Harper to do 'responsible' thing

and has now spent a third of his life in prison.


poor little baby, lets all cry.. and then spare a minute for the medic he killed.

Harper should do the responsible thing. Ask American officials to prosecute Khadr according to American laws in an American court. He killed an American in an area that the world recognized as being under American jurisdiction.

Agree.

We neither want him or need him, American Miltray court is the appropraite place for him

The issue however is "the child soldier" and the U.N. has a policy on how they should be treated. The U.S. has violated that policy along with the Geneva Convention and for that matter the torture issue could leave some in the American administration open to prosecution for war crimes, based on how the law is written.

All other countries have repatriated their nationals from Guantanamo. Only Canada has not. Moreover by not doing so, Canada is implying an equal disregard for the violation of legal process: national and international, going on in the US with detention, rights abuses, torture, and commissions that even the US Supreme Court said were illegal.

That is a blot on Canada's reputation as a Peace Keeper and upholder of human rights. So, it is a much more complicated issue than simply whether he killed an American legally or illegally. Justice must be done and seen to be done, and that is not what is happening related to Kadr in the US.

Your talking out of your ass

The facts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_u ... tarian_law



According to Article 77.2 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, adopted in 1977:

The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, the Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.

As the ICRC commentary on Protocol I makes clear, this is not a complete ban on the use of children in conflict. The ICRC had suggested that the Parties to the conflict should "take all necessary measures", which became in the final text, "take all feasible measures" which is not a total prohibition on their doing so because feasible should be understood as meaning "capable of being done, accomplished or carried out, possible or practicable". Refraining from recruiting children under fifteen does not exclude child who volunteer for armed service. During the negotiations over the clause "take a part in hostilities" the word "direct" was added to it, this opens up the possibility that child volunteers could be involved indirectly in hostilities, gathering and transmitting military information, helping in the transportation of arms and munitions, provision of supplies etc


Article 4.3.c of Protocol II, additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, adopted in 1977, states "children who have not attained the age of fifteen years shall neither be recruited in the armed forces or groups nor allowed to take part in hostilities".

Under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, which was adopted and signed in 2002, National armed forces can accept volunteers into their armed forces below the age of 18, but "States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that members of their armed forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do not take a direct part in hostilities". Non-state actors and guerrilla forces are forbidden from recruiting anyone under the age of 18 for any purpose.



Kahdar was 15 and a volunteer, to this day he supports AQ. He's aware of the situation, knew what he was doing and is liable for his actions. If AQ is clainimg the protections of the charter they then cannot say they cannot be held responsible for the other parts of that same charter. If on the other hand they consider themselves 'non-state actors' they themselves have broken International Law by recruiting him and having him fight

Whatever is done to him, I don't want him or his cancerous family in Canada.

One big problem. If any sort of "ehanced interrogation techniques" have been used on Khadr, the evidence obtained that way won't be admissible in any court.

For all practical purposes he's done his time and should be immediately released.

One big problem. If any sort of "ehanced interrogation techniques" have been used on Khadr, the evidence obtained that way won't be admissible in any court.

That should be left up to the American courts to decide. He committed the crime against an American in their jurisdiction.

The rest of his family hasn't done their time yet.

When I said "any court", that includes US courts, both military and civilian.

Regardless of whether he killed a medic or not, he is not being treated with dignity, which every person save for lunatics who purposefuly kill civilians deserve.

If I were to kill a medic in combat, and then was captured, I wouldn't want to go through what Khadre has. A third of my life in POW camps would amount to 7 years of shitting in buckets and eating gruel 3 times a day. Not fun. And atleast as a POW I wouldn't be subject to psyological torment and tourture because some guard whats to get-off on my suffering. Take him to court and convict him of terrorist charges, and either exacute him or lock him away for 25 years on terrorism charges. Murderers don't even get that much time in this country.

That's why the US isn't gonna extradite the little prick back to Canada.

Even they know just how fucked up our judicial system is, and, like alot of Canadians, have no faith in it ever meeting out real justice.

He is a Canadian, born Canadian, no one can deny that. The problem is, Canada should have stepped in well before this. The reasons why is, he is a child soldier in need of rehabilitation and removal from his family that put him in that situation, he has been imprisoned without due process which is every Canadians constitutional right, and now he will come back as an angry adult that has endured brainwashing, war, killing, and torture at the hands of both family and captures. He will undoubtedly side with the family that led him into becoming a brainwashed child soldier and be even more hateful against the very thing they hate. This makes him a very scary and dangerous individual if his case is not handled properly in this country. Like it or not he will be coming back. Deprogramming and separation from his family, which IMO is vile to put a child in that situation, needs to be done...if it isnt too late.