Perhaps you might like to throw a few “allegedlys” in there. Until Khadr is found by the court to be guilty of whatever crimes he is charged with, all he is, is a civilian under charges. At least do him the dignity of not finding him guilty until the court in his matter renders a decision as to whether he is guilty or not guilty. To the best of my knowledge, all American courts, even military ones, adhere to the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” in a court of competent jurisdiction, and the court of public opinion doesn’t count.
Excellent point. The US soldiers came all the way from the US to kill these people. An A-10 is not a negotiating tool. In the hypothetical abstract is there a red-blooded American who would refuse to take up arms against an invading Afghan army? If a bunch of Afghans surrounded and bombed your (royal you here) house in Kansas would you the homeowner refuse to take up arms and fight back because you might be found guilty of a crime under the Geneva Conventions?
Another thing no one has mentioned yet: how do you suppose Khadr feels when his lawyer, perhaps the only person in the world he can actually trust, collapses in court? Sure the guy is putting in long hours and is recovering from recent surgery but Khadr must be crapping his drawers thinking this has to be a deliberate move by his oppressors.
I still think he should be brought back to Canada and set free and then followed until he leads our commandos to Osama’s hideout. But the Harper government would never go for that.
One thing to consider, the entire point of the Geneva conventions is to prevent the situation that is in Afghanistan. The goal is to separate ‘military’ and ‘civilian’. The idea is that the military, any military, is not put in a position being attacked by people who look live civilians, thus prompting the military to kill anyone around who looks like innocent civilians, and may actually be so. The rules are meant to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. I don’t know enough about Khadr to have an opinion of his guilt or innocence, but I do know the situation he was captured in is exactly what the Geneva conventions and US military laws are designed to prevent. It is also exactly why the civilian casualty rate in Afghanistan is as god awful high as it is.
So like I said, I don’t know if Khadr is guilty. If he is, his punishment should be severe because the actions he is accused of are indirectly responsible for thousands of civilians killed by the US military. Yes, he was only 15. Even so, no nation will let a 15 year old murderer walk because of their age. Even though they’re 15, they are still punished for their actions. A fair debate could be made on what that punishment should be, but I do not understand those who seem to think there shouldn’t be any.
Needless to say, if he is not guilty then he should be freed and some attempt at compensated for his experiences since arrest.
As far as I know, Khadr is not even attempting to use the “I was just a civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time” defense. Which part of my description of the events do you object to? Do we not have the videos in question? Was he not a soldier posing as a civilian? The trial is about whether, by acting a soldier while posing as a civilian (which is not under question), he violated a law which we have the authority to punish him for.
Still waiting for examples of American soldiers fighting while posing as civilians. Where’d you go, spark240?
spark240 doesn’t claim American soldiers fight while posing as civilians. He claimed they fought without uniforms. Which is correct. For example, Zachary Boyd.
Would it be your claim that by fighting wearing pink shorts that Boyd is a war criminal? Should he have stopped to put on his pants? If captured by the Taliban, would you agree that he should be tried for being an illegal combatant?
No, no, and no. When come back, bring relevance.
…so you agree that spark240 doesn’t claim American soldiers fight while posing as civilians? And that he is correct that at times American soldiers fight without uniforms?
Are you being deliberately obtuse here? The “uniform” claim which spark240 responded to was understood by everyone (except you, apparently) to be shorthand for representing oneself as a soldier. Boyd never tried to represent himself as anything other than a soldier fighting for the US military. The group Khadr was with represented themselves as civilians, while actually acting as soldiers. Playing semantics doesn’t make you right, and this is the last post in which I will feed your trolling. If you want to argue that American soldiers pose as civilians while fighting, we can can proceed. If not, open a pit thread and we can finish this conversation there.
Do not accuse other posters of trolling in Great Debates, (or anywhere outside The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
…sorry, I’m not sure why you are so riled up. You claimed that spark240 said something that he quite clearly did not.
As for Omar, I’m glad he has got his day in court. I hope all the facts come out and that justice is finally served.
For those interested, Khadr has plead guilty to war crimes charges.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101026/khadr-sentencing-hearing-101026/
He’ll serve eight years in prison, at least one of which will be in the US.
Khadr also admitted guilt in two other murders.
Update: Omar Khadr has been released on bail. When I think about how he’s been treated all I can do is shake my head. I hope he can go on and live a happy and uneventful life.
The Harper government fought the bail hearing hard (with our tax dollars). For no apparent reason other than personal animosity.
I’m glad we still have an independent judiciary. Although Harper does seem to be wishing he could eliminate that too…
Any idea why this guy hasn’t been charged with treason? He was there supporting our enemies regardless of whether he threw a grenade or not.
Does it really matter? Child soldiers shouldn’t be “charged” with anything.
Oddly enough, I don’t see anything in the statute that mentions age.
That’s not remotely odd. Almost none mention age but that doesn’t change the fact that children are treated differently under our criminal code.
Does that mean he doesn’t get charged or that he doesn’t get the maximum punishment? Because people over the age of 12 can be charged with crimes in Canada.
The reason I am asking is because I joined the Canadian army when I was 17, which was legal for me to do. Does that mean I could have have gone on a rampage if I was deployed somewhere and not expected to be charged with anything because I’d have been considered a child soldier?
Because he wasn’t “In Canada” at the time, like line 1 says?