Why do you think that had no right to do that?
WikiLeaks Guantanamo Detainee Omar Khadr
- Thread starter JihadJane
- Start date
Why do you think that had no right to do that?
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
We do know that Khadr was charged according to his status as an unprivileged belligerent. We also know that his defense counsel didn't challenge this status, and in fact he plead guilty to the charges.
Sure they do. Baghram air base is in the middle of a local village for example. The personnel there are every bit the Pashtun villagers that you claim Khadr is. And I guess all the military personnel stationed in Kabul are now civilian residents of Kabul?
And why now are you claiming that if US military personnel reside in a local village it's a war crime, yet you claim that Khadr et al residence in a village is not a war crime? Isn't this contradictory?
Last edited:
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
You're asking me why they didn't have the right to go into a foreign country for the purpose of being terrorists?
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
No, no.
Citizens of the US DO have the right to do this.
The US also has the right to prosecute them if they do so.
IOW, you have the right to do whatever you want, but must also be prepared to face the consequences when you do.
No free passes.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Except as a minor he automatically has protected status, regardless of his nefarious crimes. International Law is pretty clear on children in warfare. Just holding him is basically illegal.
We also know he was brutally tortured.
Bagram Airfield, with two runways over 3km long, is "in the middle of a local village"? Ah, no. No it's not.
No they're not. They don't live in a Pashtun village. They live on a US military base.
Do they "live" in Kabul, or are they just stationed there? How many US soldiers have brought residential property in Afghanistan?
Omar Khadr lived in Pashtun villages in both Afghanistan and Pakistan continually from before the invasion of Afghanistan until his capture.
No.
The rules are different for local Afghanis than it is for the invaders.
Yes. Clearly.
Last edited:
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
I'm not the original poster, but I have a few ideas:
They (the Khadrs) had no right to join al Quaeda in Afghanistan because:
- They were not citizens of that country (i.e. they could not use the 'defending my home' argument)
- They were not invited to participate by the recognized rulers of Afghanistan
- the organization that they "fought for" had been known to target civilians and engage in tactics that are not approved by the U.N.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
As inhabitants they have the right to spontaneously take up arms.
As inhabitants they have the right to spontaneously take up arms.
The same could be said of any western soldier in WW2. I'm assuming by "approved by the UN" you mean "permitted under International Law".
Virus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,875
No he doesn't. That's ass.
Why? If my reading of the article in question (this one) is correct then I would have thought that he would, provided that he follows Article 1 and obeys all the rules.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Khadr was:
- born in Canada
- Spent much of his life being raised in Pakistan
- Moved back to Canada when his dad was injured (if the family was an 'inhabitant' of Afghanistan, why didn't they stay there and use their medical system?)
- During part of 2002 (you know, when much of the fighting started in Afghanistan) he was again living in Pakistan
- His lawyers suggest he should return to Canada (Why, if he really considers himself a resident of Afghanistan, would he not request to be returned there?)
Heck, I doubt he was even in Afghanistan legally when he was captured, since he was in Pakistan and crossed the border to join the fight
So, claiming Omar Khadr was an "inhabitant" of Afghanistan is extremely tenuous at best, and probably no more accurate than claiming I was an "inhabitant" of the U.S. when I went on vacation there for a week.
Except of course the U.N. didn't exactly exist at the time of WW2.
(I could also point out that the actions of the soldiers during WW2 usually had strategic value; it was thought that crippling cities would affect the enemy's ability to engage in war. This sets it apart from the actions of terrorists who often engage in actions that are designed to cause death for no material or strategic purpose.)
More than that, I'm referring to the morality of organizations like the Taliban and al Quaeda. Granted, there will always be cultural differences, but I'd like to think the idea of driving planes into buildings with the idea of killing innocent people who have no strategic value would be something that would be considered morally wrong by everyone on the planet. Khadr should have known that.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Several key problems if you try to apply that article to Khadr:
The inhabitants of a territory...
As I pointed out, Khadr's status as "inhabitant" is tenuous at best, having spent a significant amount of time in Canada and Pakistan. He was even living in Pakistan and had to cross the border when he was captured.
...which has not been occupied...
Except that the United Nations had established the International Security Assistance Force in December 2001. Khadr was captured in 2002, after crossing the border, after the country was "occupied".
...who, on the approach of the enemy...
As I pointed out, the enemy was not 'approaching'. They were already occupying.
...spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.
Except al Quaeda does not operate "in accordance with Article 1", in that they do not "respect the customs of war". In particular, they do not "carry arms openly" (e.g. prior to the firefight they lied about being "Pashtun villagers")
peicurmudgeon
New Blood
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2011
- Messages
- 12
It is totally irrelevant what the rest of the family did or didn't do.
As was posted above. Khadr should have been considered a 'child soldier'. he never should have been treated the way he was.
In my opinion the whole affair is a very black mark on both the US & Canadian governments.
As was posted above. Khadr should have been considered a 'child soldier'. he never should have been treated the way he was.
In my opinion the whole affair is a very black mark on both the US & Canadian governments.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
I see. And your proof of that is what?
According to wikipedia (yeah, I know, not a perfect source), International law does not prohibit the prosecution of children who commit war crimes. I suspect that there are also similar rules against children who engage in terrorist activities. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children
Oh, and did you know that the U.S. never ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child?
Frankly, the whole "cannot hold him" claim seems a bit ridiculous. After all, what's keeping anyone from starting a criminal enterprise staffed by teenagers, then claiming "you can't arrest them because I'm claiming they're an army"?
It might surprise you to know that Afghanistan is actually a different country than Pakistan. Strange, I know. I was shocked when I heard about it too.
So, your claim that Omar Khadr was a resident of Afghanistan there was because "well, he lived near by"? Strange, here I thought a country's borders actually meant something.