The Khadr Thread

[rnkelly]

I dont think thats going to matter much. He will say that he was tortured in Gitmo....that the GoC knew it and that the GoC did nothing to protect him.

He will win.

With all your experience in law you would know that it isn't exactly an open and shut case.

Anyways that's just a bit of a side argument, who knows if he'll even go through with the litigation.  His priorities might be elsewhere.

 

[rnkelly]

You used the "assumed word"..........You know what that makes you and me.    >

You got me there.

 

[OldSolduer]

With all your experience in law you would know that it isn't exactly an open and shut case.

Anyways that's just a bit of a side argument, who knows if he'll even go through with the litigation.  His priorities might be elsewhere.

Theres millions to be made here. He'll sue. We'll pay.

 

[rnkelly]

I've spent my entire career til about a year ago practicing and discussing ways we can have the Grim Reaper pay house calls on our nation's foes. There is absolutley nothing wrong with that.
We are soldiers. Soldiers may have to kill people. If anyone has an issue with that being discussed on this board, maybe you should choose not  to participate.

I think this is a healthy and good discussion.  I'm being devil's advocate a bit because this thread was getting a bit one-sided in my opinion.  Trust me I wasn't getting offended just hard to keep up with multiple people, I think I doubled my post count in one day.  I'll come back to check this thread again but for now it is time to catch some Z's.

 

[aesop081]

With all your experience in law you would know that it isn't exactly an open and shut case.

Yeah but all my real-life experience tells me otherwise.

 

[hold_fast]

He killed another while not part of a uniformed, recognized force. That's murder, even in a theatre of war.

First off, thank you for providing strong arguments against what I was saying. However, I'm unsure as to whether we can throw out the idea of the AQ as a non-uniformed and unrecognized force. If we do so, then we throw out all militias throughout military history, do we not?

He's not a child soldier according to the UN Convention. He had passed his 15th birthday at the time of his capture.

You're right. By the UN convention's standards, he was not a child soldier. Yet - the SRSG of the UN referred to him as such (http://www.un.org/children/conflict/english/09-august-2010-trial-of-omar-khadr.html) and also referred to the ICC's statute ("The statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) makes it clear that no one under 18 will be tried for war crimes, and prosecutors in other international tribunals have used their discretion not to prosecute children").

I was also looking over this document (I believe it is by Professor Macklin of the UofT), which further elaborates on the laws that govern the treatment of minors: http://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/Mackin/Khadr_ChildSoldier.pdf
Found at this portal: http://www.law.utoronto.ca/search_content.asp?contentID=1617

Well welcome to the real world kid. Although it isnt something people talk about many of us did enjoy killing the enemy. What do you want us to say? "We HAD to do it... Ifeel so bad about it" would that better fit you British columbia university scene?

While I recognize the general opinions coming from the 'British Columbia university scene' (thanks for reading my profile, it shows me that you care ), I am not of that group. Do not pull out your old fashioned hatred for provinces, and to make snide remarks without foundation at academia is embarassing for you, at best.

Our job sometimes involves killing our enemies and I for one have no problems with that, maybe it's time you rethought joining our little club. It's not always about peacekeeping and handing out candy. :

It's not just your club. You're a member, but you don't get to choose who joins. Don't patronize me.

Educate yourself a little.........

I have, and I still believe that one could make a strong argument that the AQ consider themselves an armed and unified force with a semblance of a chain of command and therefore as a recognizable enemy. While German POWs were mistreated post-WWII (or treated exactly as they deserved, depending on who you're speaking to), they weren't tried for murder. Are we at war with every terrorist in the world, or a certain sect of fanatical terrorists that are unified beneath one banner?

Its a perfect idea.

I still stand that it's moronic.

I was going to give you credit but then, you said this. If you cant figure why there will always be a difference between us and them, you should log off and never come back here.

No, I think I'll stay. I understand that there are obvious differences between us and them. However, I also believe that it is apparent that we face an enemy that cannot be eradicated with bullets because that enemy is an idea, not a person. The only way to convince someone that your idea is the right one is to see them as an equal - demonizing our enemies is not the way that we should fight wars, though I'm sure it helps one sleep at night.




A bit off-topic here, but I need to say this:
Lastly, there seems to have been some miscommunication on what irked me in dogger1936's post. As a result, we've gone off on a tangent about the soldier's profession as a killer. Let me clarify: I was disgusted at the image of someone smiling while taking another man's life. Of someone taking joy in killing another. I am far from understanding war and I'm sure that, even when I'm lying on my deathbed, it will still confound me.

As a result of my comments, individuals were quick to jump to the conclusion that I'm some hippy kid who is disillusioned as to the profession that I will be entering; yes, that is correct: the profession of arms that I will be entering. I will wear the very uniform that you do; I will don our Maple Leaf with pride, and even more so - I will ultimately enter as an officer in the Canadian Navy.

Make no mistake, I am not disillusioned as to my future career. When called to kill an enemy, I will without hesitation. But if the moment ever comes that I take joy in extinguishing another man's life, then that will be the moment that I hang up my uniform. That does not make me lily-livered. That makes me human.

 

[George Wallace]

A couple of points.

It's not just your club. You're a member, but you don't get to choose who joins.

Wrong.  2 Cdo may not have anything to say in who joins or not, but it is not a "Right" but a privilege and people are interviewed and accepted or weeded out in the process.

...... While German POWs were mistreated post-WWII (or treated exactly as they deserved, depending on who you're speaking to), they weren't tried for murder.

Seems to me that many were.  Why else did we have the Nuremburg Trials?  Kurt Meyer was tried and served five years in Dorchester Penitentiary, in New Brunswick. 

 

[Danjanou]

.... I'm a soldier.  I thought that was assumed by now.

No actually it wasn't. No details in your posts nor profile to imply that as far as I can see. The only thing we do appear to know for a fact is you have what appears to be a Simon Fraser University email.

 

[dogger1936]

at academia is embarassing for you, at best.

A bit off-topic here, but I need to say this:
Lastly, there seems to have been some miscommunication on what irked me in dogger1936's post. As a result, we've gone off on a tangent about the soldier's profession as a killer. Let me clarify: I was disgusted at the image of someone smiling while taking another man's life. Of someone taking joy in killing another. I am far from understanding war and I'm sure that, even when I'm lying on my deathbed, it will still confound me.

As a result of my comments, individuals were quick to jump to the conclusion that I'm some hippy kid who is disillusioned as to the profession that I will be entering; yes, that is correct: the profession of arms that I will be entering. I will wear the very uniform that you do; I will don our Maple Leaf with pride, and even more so - I will ultimately enter as an officer in the Canadian Navy.

Make no mistake, I am not disillusioned as to my future career. When called to kill an enemy, I will without hesitation. But if the moment ever comes that I take joy in extinguishing another man's life, then that will be the moment that I hang up my uniform. That does not make me lily-livered. That makes me human.

Well seems as every bit of life experience you have had on war and the military has been from books; go read On killing and on combat.You will quickly find it's normal. Calling a a member of the CF "un human" for having such feeling shows your total misunderstanding of what war is, what combat is. However thanks for being a pompus arrogant  uni student who can judge others. Maybe you should also look into non judgemental thinking; pick up some books on mindfulness. I can recommend a few books on that as well.

I hope war isnt something you ever experience. However some of us have.

 

[dogger1936]

To add. I'm sure you have a mental picture of soldiers in some drama type show holding each other talking about or feelings after dropping arty on a section sized element of enemy. fact is we usually got back into relative safety of a cop and fob had a few cold perrier's and made dark humour jokes about the dark things we have to do.Have a good laugh about it and carry on.

I ask...who are YOU to judge anyone.

 

[aesop081]

It's not just your club. You're a member, but you don't get to choose who joins. Don't patronize me.

The people who do get to chose who joins are members. The people who train those who join are members. The people who decide who gets to stay and who gets to leave are members.

I have, and I still believe that one could make a strong argument that the AQ consider themselves an armed and unified force with a semblance of a chain of command and therefore as a recognizable enemy.

It does not matter what AQ "considers" themselves to be, it only matters what they are. You need to read up on what the LOAC considers to be a lawful combatant.

While German POWs were mistreated post-WWII (or treated exactly as they deserved, depending on who you're speaking to), they weren't tried for murder.

Of course not. They fit the LOAC definition of lawful combatants. maybe you should read up on that.

Here, in case you just dont want to look it up :

A lawful combatant is an individual authorized by governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. A lawful combatant may be a member of a regular armed force or an irregular force. In either case, the lawful combatant must be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; have fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, such as uniforms; carry arms openly; and conduct his or her combat operations according to the LOAC. The LOAC applies to lawful combatants who engage in the hostilities of armed conflict and provides combatant immunity for their lawful warlike acts during conflict, except for LOAC violations.

Lastly, there seems to have been some miscommunication on what irked me in dogger1936's post.

No, we understood quite well.

Let me clarify: I was disgusted at the image of someone smiling while taking another man's life. Of someone taking joy in killing another.

We understood what you were saying.

the profession of arms that I will be entering.

MAY be entering......

I will wear the very uniform that you do;

MAY wear........

I will ultimately enter as an officer in the Canadian Navy.

MAY enter.........MAY stay........

 

[aesop081]

Just so you are further clear :

Unlawful Combatants : Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations

 

[OldSolduer]

"Let me clarify: I was disgusted at the image of someone smiling while taking another man's life. Of someone taking joy in killing another. "

Tell you what: Get some experience and then talk to me. I, for one, may not take joy in taking another person's life, but if it is necessary, then so be it. The Canadian Forces aren't Boy Scouts. The whole point of it  the CF is "To close with and destroy the enemy"

 

[rnkelly]

No actually it wasn't. No details in your posts nor profile to imply that as far as I can see. The only thing we do appear to know for a fact is you have what appears to be a Simon Fraser University email.

Aha, forgot about the profile thing, new to posting on forums.  Old email from when I joined army.ca but I see the humor that the two BC University dudes are of similar views.  I've been out of BC for a few years so shouldn't be too hippie anymore.

While it's hard to judge what people are basing their opinions on I don't think it's fair to blindly discredit all non-military posts.  Also, I thought that one of the points of Internet forums, was a certain anonymity, I know I don't want to post my personal details for all to know.

LOAC is great but interpreting it is where it gets tricky, the most powerful write the rule book.  They also seem to have the best lawyers to manipulate it to their needs.  It also helps that history is written by the victors.

 

[aesop081]

LOAC is great but interpreting it is where it gets tricky, the most powerful write the rule book.  They also seem to have the best lawyers to manipulate it to their needs.  It also helps that history is written by the victors.

Those definitions are from the Geneva convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war of August 12, 1949, part 1, article 4 (2). Afghanistan is signatory to that convention.

 

[Danjanou]

Aha, forgot about the profile thing, new to posting on forums.  Old email from when I joined army.ca but I see the humor that the two BC University dudes are of similar views.  I've been out of BC for a few years so shouldn't be too hippie anymore.

While it's hard to judge what people are basing their opinions on I don't think it's fair to blindly discredit all non-military posts.  Also, I thought that one of the points of Internet forums, was a certain anonymity, I know I don't want to post my personal details for all to know.

LOAC is great but interpreting it is where it gets tricky, the most powerful write the rule book.  They also seem to have the best lawyers to manipulate it to their needs.  It also helps that history is written by the victors.

We don't blindly discredit all non military posts, nor do we demand you fill in your profile details, fully understanding the need for privacy and anonymity in some cases. Please reread the site guidelines you agreed to when you joined, they do make thse factrs clear.

That said and done the more one knows about a person, often translates into the more credibility they may have here, plus of course well thought out arguments irregardless of the point of view taken.

 

[desert_rat]

Hmmm, looks like he has at least one groupie mentor too : -  between his crusading lawyer Dennis Edney and this one, they'll probably throw him a F@$%ing homecoming parade in Edmonton when's he's "re-patriated" to the halfway house or whatever...

"Edmonton professor, Khadr exchanged letters for 2 years

King’s University College English prof urged convicted terrorist to read, write"


Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Edmonton+professor+Khadr+exchanged+letters+years/3749790/story.html#ixzz13s2lc4Pn

 

[OldSolduer]

Please avoid the word 'repatriate'. This is not "repatriation". This is laughing at us all the way to the terrorist bank.

 

[HavokFour]

Please avoid the word 'repatriate'. This is not "repatriation". This is laughing at us all the way to the terrorist bank.

You're right. Can't repatriate someone who was never a patriot to begin with.

 

[desert_rat]

Indeed, my intent by use of the quotations was to imply sarcasm  - and it didn't translate well in my post - the idea very of "repatriation" of this individual in any way, shape or form is truly repugnant.