Omar Khadr has just recieved his 10 million dollars that he won in the suit against the canadian government. How do you feel about that?

@FunReader55

Well he MIGHT have killed a soldier. He was given the deal to plead guilty and be transferred out of Guantanamo into a canadian prison.

But let's say he did kill him. That's tragic. As tragic as it is any time a person dies.
That's what happens in a firefight. That doesn't make him a criminal. That is legal under the rules of engagement.

[c=#7700B2]@FunReader55 I don't think you're right about bragging. He confessed to this under torture. But in any case the killing took place in battle. That's what happens in battles.[/c]

So according to both of you he was an enemy combatant. Maybe you'd like to look up the rules on the different between a defendant and and enemy combatant. This turd should have been pur to death.

@FunReader55

Perhaps you would like to explain it to us

Nope. You've both proved my point perfectly well. Theres nothing more I'd like to add.

@FunReader55

What was your point?
I'm interested in having a discussion, not shutting it down. How bout you?
Even if he is not classified as an enemy combatant, what does that have to do with how this turned out?

Are you interested in shouting that you're right and we're stupid or are you willing to have a civil discussion with someone who disagrees with you?

@FunReader55

No?
Well ok then. I'm glad you proved your point👍

@FunReader55 Assuming you are right and you are not based on the facts that have been presented. But even if you were you seem to forget there is this thing called the Geneva Convention. Might want to read that before lecturing others. And if you were held in a gulag and told you had to confess to even be given a trial you would probably agree to anything. But if you come from a country that believes in rights and the rule of law for a second let that sink it. He was told he had to confess before he could have a trial or rot in prison indefinitely. You might also while you are at it look at both US, Canadian and International laws on torture. And thanks to the Bush administration's legal fiction "enemy combatant" ie we have decided laws no longer apply to us has pretty much made sure US and Canadian soldiers will never be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention again and will likely be shot on sight. What makes you think anyone else will comply with the laws of war if you just ripped them up?

@MetalGreymon no, that is illegal. He was an illegal combatant. You need to understand what that is

@SW-User no, he was an illegal combatant. You need to understand what that is

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow this Fucker was not a soldier. As defined by the Geneva Convention he was an illegal combatant.

@HoraceGreenley Sorry but bullshit. The entire reason the convention exists is so you can't just declare someone "illegal" and do whatever the hell you feel like to them. Sorry but "enemy combatant" is a bull admin legal fiction created to let them do just that and is not recognized as legitimate even by many legal experts in the US nevermind outside.

Second he is also one of the most clear cut cases of a child soldier which the US, Canada and the US has laws about all of which were violated. And sorry but no legal classification even if it were true makes committing war crimes justifiable. But if you want to take your country back several hundred years in terms of due process I suppose that is your prerogative. Also you completely ignore the fact that it was never even proven he did it. Even the official after action report describes the culprit as an old man. Kadr looks 12 ten years later.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Not so:

1. The Geneva Convention clearly defines who is and who is not a soldier. You should try reading it some time.

2. Again, he's not a soldier as defined by the Geneva Convention. Again, you should read it.

This is like arguing over the color of grass. The Geneva Convention is very clear about this point. This is a well established concept in international law.

Now, you may not like this finding, but it's a clear cut situation to anyone that can read.

@HoraceGreenley I have read it and you clearly have not. Apparently you also have not read the laws established at Nuremberg or read the UN or NATO charter either.

And again the Geneva Convention was created specifically so you could not pull this kind of crap in the first place.

@HoraceGreenley Most would argue also the spirit of the law is more important then the letter of the law in some cases. After all if you want to be a stickler every POW since the convention was signed has had their rights violated because according to the letter of the law the capturing nation is required to pay their lost wages. I have never heard of this actually ever being followed.

Also the UN, NATO and Nuremberg have strict prohibitions on a war of aggression which is what Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria, ANd Libya were. All legally considered war crimes. Look up what the law says about those resisting a war of aggression.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow I have read it. Here's a brief synopsis:

"The term unlawful combatant is a term associated with the 1949 Geneva Convention and carries well-established international meaning. Convention III, relating to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (POW), contains criteria that separate civilians from lawful combatants and defines who should and should not be treated as a POW ... including: a person must (1) be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (2) have a fixed distinctive sign that is recognizable from a distance (be wearing a uniform); (3) be carrying arms openly; and (4) be conducting their operation in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

"The term unlawful combatant as applied in international law has been inferred from the definition of a lawful combatant.

"Unlawful combatants are either members of the regular forces or members of resistance guerrilla movements that do not fulfill the conditions of lawful combatants.

"The main legal impact of being a lawful combatant under the Geneva standards is the right to POW status. Unlawful combatants, although still targets of capture, are presumably not entitled to POW status."

By not wearing a uniform, with badges of rank and unit identification and not being part of a recognized military or political authority commanding his actions, this person is not a soldier. Since he is not a soldier, he is not afforded the protection of the Geneva Convention.

Unlawful combatants generally fall into one of two groups. Spies, who are people captured engaged in espionage and those that take up arms while not being soldiers.

@HoraceGreenley Find the section that legalizes torture, revokes due process, and allows for indefinite detention without charge which English Common Law ended in the 1500s. Also following that to the letter could be problematic since most special forces units could be fit into that category.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow If you are an unlawful combatant then all those rights are eliminated.

The spirit of the Geneva Convention is this:

1. Define the humane treatment of POW's. This requires defining who is and who is not a soldier, as only soldiers are given protection.
2. Provide disincentives to countries and people to engage in the following; espionage, mercenaries and people that want to blend in with civilian populations while carrying out warfare.

No country wants to allow the activities of item #2.

That's why there are no protections for spies, mercenaries and for self-organized militias, i.e., those that dress like civilians and are not under a recognized political authority. No one wants to put civilians at risk by having combatants blend in with the civilian population.

This is the intent of the convention.

So if someone wants to be an unlawful combatant, they are free to do so. They must accept the risk that such behavior will not be viewed kindly by those they take up arms against or spy on.

Trying to apply civilized rules to those that act in an uncivilized manner is preposterous. No country wants to encourage such behavior. No one wants to put noncombatants at risk. Allowing this behavior endangers noncombatants.

You may not like it, but this is what recognized political authorities are concerned with, i.e., member states of the UN and countries that actually signed the Geneva Convention.

@HoraceGreenley Clearly you misread the words of the convention perhaps unintentionally (I will be civil), but it just says they are not entitled to the privileges of being classified as a POW. It does not magically legalize torture, it does not magically revoke several hundred years of law.

You also completely ignored that the entire "war on terror." were illegal wars of aggression and seem to miss what international law and the laws of war state on resistance movements. Which is what most of these people became the instant the US decided not to arrest Bin Laden and instead attacked unprovoked the nation willing to hand him over. You might not remember but 15 years ago the Afghan government offered to hand Bin Laden over to a third Party for trial (not unreasonable) but Bush decided he wanted a war. Iraq was completely unprovoked too. But this is a case of history being written by the victor. You only have to follow the rules if you lose.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow I did not misread the convention. I'm just not a pussy.

Spies and mercenaries are usually tortured when captured by every nation. They have no legal rights whatsoever. There's no magic here, only no laws to protect them. You can argue that this is not the right thing to do, but international law does not protect them. There is no "revocation" of law here, only the absence of laws to protect them.

No country wants to be the victim of espionage and mercenaries.

as for the second issue, no country is forced to accept the adjudication of issues by a third party. Who gives a rat's ass about what a third party wants to do with bin Ladin.

That's weak and doing so encourages more terrorism. You don't kill 3000 people and just walk away.

@HoraceGreenley You might as well burn your flag because you have sold out every value your nation was founded upon and sound like the very people you clearly hate.


The classification as an enemy combatant even if it was justified only strips him of the rights laid out in the convention. It does not magically revoke half a millennium of western law.

Actually it is a fairly standard procedure for arrests. And regardless it was an unprovoked attack on a party that was not responsible. You can justify it all you want.

And that is hilarious. People like you prove Omar's father right that westerners are hypocrites. Congrats you are giving them all the propaganda they could dream of.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow OK. You're a Canadian and we have a difference of opinion.

We should have killed the bastard on the battlefield and saved everyone a lot of trouble.

Good luck with that attitude. You're lucky that you have America to keep you safe.

@HoraceGreenley I would say it is a bit more.

I guess you are cool with extra judicial executions now?

Lol. America has caused more death and destruction then any nation on earth by far since 1945 and more Canadians have died because of messes you guys dragged us into. The safest thing we could do is pull out of NATO and actually exercise some independence. The only problem we have is our ruling class dropped one empire for another in 45.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow As for keeping the Western World safe, on behalf of the US, I say, "You're Welcome."

I don't want your gratitude or money. Your silence will be sufficient.

You can continue to discuss nonsense with the other Lotus Eaters:

It refers to self absorbed, psuedo-intellectual dope smokers who are prone to grandiose ideas, but insulated from the real-world consequences. Lotus Eaters think that their skewed subjective reality is analogous to all other peoples in all other circumstances - even disparate cultures on the other side of the world.

You are safe in the knowledge that I, and my countrymen, will protect you.

@HoraceGreenley I don't need or want your self congratulation and self righteous arrogance. You have done more as a nation to put people in danger then anything else.


If you call that protection I will pass.