BS: Omar Khadr

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 01:28 AM

"For a start "His only ambition in life is to kill westerners" is something you dreamed up, since there is no evidence whatsoever that it is true."

You have obviously not read Osama bin Laden's fatwa of 1996 then Kevin?

Like pirates you don't capture these people you kill them.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 04:06 PM

He had trained and fought as a member of Al Qaeda.
Killing unbelievers is their main objective.
They had succeeded in instilling in him the will to fight to the death against impossible odds with no fear of death.
I say that that is good evidence that killing westerners was indeed his main ambition in life.
You could make him a ward of court, but you could not lock him up.
Would you want him sleeping in your house Kevin?
Where would you put him?

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: meself
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 03:30 PM

"do the courts in Canada not have the option of trying and sentencing juveniles convicted of serious crimes as adults"

Yes, they do - although the logic, as much as I can follow it, strikes me as inconsistent. But that aside, being tried in a Canadian criminal court as an adult would be vastly preferable to sitting for eight years without trial in Guantanamo, then being put through an extremely questionable judicial process, and then being sentenced to another eight years. I wonder if a juvenile - whether tried as a juvenile or adult - has ever been sentenced to sixteen years for murder in Canada? I doubt it ....

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 03:16 PM

For a start "His only ambition in life is to kill westerners" is something you dreamed up, since there is no evidence whatsoever that it is true. I would suspect that both as a 15 year old back then and as an adult now he might have lots of ambitions in life, and that very likely these do not include killing "westerners" at random.

Canada would of course have been a more appropriate place than the USA for him to be charged with and tried (as a juvenile) or any crimes of which he was accused, since he is a Canadian citizen.

However before that could happen the most appropriate legal procedure would probably have been to apply for him to be made a Ward of Court.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: bobad
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 03:06 PM

meself, do the courts in Canada not have the option of trying and sentencing juveniles convicted of serious crimes as adults. It seems to me that this has been done in the past though I am not sure if this is, in fact, the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 02:58 PM

McG, suppose he had been handed over to some such country as Canada.
He would be guilty of no crime there.
No charge could be brought.
What would they do with him.
His only ambition in life is to kill westerners.
Any foster family would be likely to all wake up dead one morning.
Would you have him stay with your family?
A care home would be the same opportunity for him.
He would need to be kept secure but legally he could not be.
Any more suggestions Kevin?

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: meself
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 02:26 PM

But in criminal matters, a 15-year-old is charged as a Young Offender, or Juvenile, not as an Adult. It is recognized that it is simply unfair to apply adult law to a 15-year-old.

I didn't consider myself a child at 15, either - but looking back, I can see that I sure wasn't an adult.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: bobad
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 02:13 PM

I didn't consider myself a child at 15. In Canada a 14 year old has the right to leave home without their parent's consent. Calling a 15 year old a child is akin to calling a fetus a baby IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 02:07 PM

This thread is about what happened to a particular child who was alleged to have taken part in fighting in a conflict created by adults.

The right thing to do would have been to pass the responsibility for dealing with him to some country which had no involvement in the conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 01:52 PM

Your only suggestion so far has been to treat them as POWs.
That would mean indefinite incarceration, unless an exchange could be arranged.
The latter unlikely as Al Q like to behead their prisoners on line for the masturbatory delectation of Islamists everywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:56 AM

Just about as inappropriate as what they did do, and equally stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 03:20 AM

Just give them a hug and let them go.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 07:10 PM

I repeat: "This wasn't a terrorist action, it was a military engagement carried out by American forces against people who had been identified as enemy in which there were casualties on both sides.

Whether or not the people involved may have carried out terrorist actions in the past, or had plans to carry out terrorist actions in the future, or were associated with other people who had carried out terrrorist actions does not affect the truth of that statement.

Killing a member of an attacking force in those circumstances, in the course of a fire-fight lasting four hours, cannot in justice be termed murder.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: gnu
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 06:19 PM

15? I thought he was 9 when they abandoned him.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: meself
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 04:39 PM

So ... the boy's "upbringing was a failure". Isn't that exactly the point? He was brought up to believe that what his parents told him was right, and like a good fifteen-year-old boy, he acted accordingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: gnu
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 04:21 PM

Care to elaborate 999?

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 04:18 PM

You people have convinced me that the shape and size of the Vietnam peace table was important.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: gnu
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 04:15 PM

kieth A... "Omar is accused of training and operating for and with them."

Accused? There is video of him making bombs. That's not "accused". That's guilty.

Once again... the boy should never have been placed in that position. I HAVE to keep stressing that.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 04:05 PM

Foreign military forces move in to help overthrow a de facto regime - So that fits the bill for the Pakistani's

"This wasn't a terrorist action, it was a military engagement carried out by American forces against people who had been identified as enemy in which there were casualties on both sides.

No MGOH it was a group of terrorist murderers who got caught, they are neither uniformed, nor do they constitute a formally defence force of any recognised Government, so they are not classified as "soldiers" under the terms of the Geneva Convention, so have no status as Prisoners of War.

Interested to know MGOH at what age did you consider that you knew the difference between right and wrong. If you didn't know it by the age of 15, then by Christ was your upbringing a failure.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 03:50 PM

The business of Al Qaeda is terrorism.
They engage in acts of terror against civilian targets.
Omar is accused of training and operating for and with them.
If a terrorist resists the conventional force sent to curtail his illegal terrorist actions, does he cease to be a terrorist?

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 10:09 AM

I've explained that I use the term "invasion" in a completely neutral sense. Foreign military forces move in to help overthrow a de facto regime - I call that an invasion, and so do most people.

But call it something else. The point is that what Omar Kadhr is accused of cannot justifiably be called "murder". This wasn't a terrorist action, it was a military engagement carried out by American forces against people who had been identified as enemy in which there were casualties on both sides.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 07:06 AM

Just so McG.
Not an invasion. Afghans were participants.
It was an operation to deal with Al Qaeda, a recognised terrorist organisation that proudly admits the murder of thousands of ordinary civilian people and children.
Omar and his mates were not resisting invaders of their country. They were fighting for a terrorist group, making them terrorists not soldiers.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:30 PM

Of course there was no invasion, Teribus. There there...

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:00 PM

"I use "invasion" as a neutral term to mean what happens when a foreign army moves in and sets out to displace the existing regime."

Ah so Pakistan did "invade" Afghanistan, whereas the USA who were assisting the internatioanlly recognised Government of Afghanistan were not.

Remember that from 1989 to 1992 a "Civil War" raged in Afghanistan but in 1992 a Government was formed from ex-Mujahideen Warlords and the UN recognised it. In 1994 backed by the Pakistani Government, Army and ISI the Taleban reignited the "Civil War" which was still ongoing at the time of the 9/11 attacks. The USA agreed to provide assistance to the internationally recognised Afghan Government and a fellow member of the UN. In short Kevin there was NO U.S. INVASION

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: Charmion
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:28 PM

You got it, gnuzer.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: gnu
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:19 PM

I'd just like to clarify one last time that I find it truly sad that this boy has endured injustices.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:14 PM

That's unfair to marsupials...

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: Charmion
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:09 PM

Slip of the finger there, McGrath -- 1940, not '49!

It's foolish to argue about what's murder and what isn't when the whole tribunal has a distinctly marsupial character.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 12:56 PM

I use "invasion" as a neutral term to mean what happens when a foreign army moves in and sets out to displace the existing regime. I don't use it to imply anything about whether it's a good thing to happen or a bad thing.

The Germans invaded France in 1949, the Allies invaded Germany in 1945. The former was a bad thing and an unjust invasion, the latter, though tragic, was a good thing to happen, and a just invasion. But in both cases it would have been wrong to prosecute people taking part in resisting those invasions for murder.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 11:13 AM

Thanks Keith saved me from making exactly the same point myself.

If they cannot provide the date of this so-called "Invasion" then the whole premise upon which their arguments are based collapses.

I have never yet heard anything from MGOH denouncing the Pakistani "invasion of Afghanistan" and if he does not think that they did invade Afghanistan then on the same terms neither did the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:54 AM

McG, it was you you raised the issue of invasion in your first post.
"If you invade another country you should expect that people living there may feel entitled to resist violently"
It is valid to challenge that contention within the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 06:26 PM

Obviously the parents were responsible for his being there in Afghanistan. But the boy wasn't. Children live where their parents take them.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: gnu
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 05:47 PM

McGrath... ``People move around from country to country for all kinds of reasons, and they normally take their children with them. They don't actually get much say in it generally.``

Normally, they bring them back. Unless they are terrorists. Or, at the very least, unfit parents.

Canuck citizen my ass. Canuck citizens do not make bombs and do not fight Canucks or their allies.

Yes... he was just a boy and he should not have been there. But this bullshit about the parents not being responsible yet Canucks and Yanks being responsible for what happened to him is garbage.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 05:42 PM

If you want to talk about stuff like "When did the USA invade Afghanistan??", Teribus, start another thread about it instead of trying to drift off-topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 05:14 PM

Like I said Kevin he was lucky

Now Kevin I will ask you again - When did the USA invade Afghanistan??

I mean you must have at least a date for this invasion.

I can come up for a date on which the USA decided to assist and support the Northern Alliance in their civil war against the Pakistani supported and supplied Taleban.

But I can tell you this Kevin with absolute certainty - there was never any US invasion of Afghanistan - It is a dearly clung to myth of the left.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 01:21 PM

He wasn't charged with treason by a Canadian court. He was charged with murder, in an American court.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 12:21 PM

British subject caught during the war fighting for the opposition, and I mean caught fighting in the frontline sighting and firing on British troops or the allies of British troops would be guilty of treason, he would not under any circumstances be treated as a Prisoner of War.

Omar Khadr was caught in exactly those circumstances - He is bloody lucky to be walking away from this with his life.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 08:37 AM

I can't see how discussion about the rights and wrongs of the various military actions in Afghanistan over the years are in any way relevant to the case of Omar Khadr.

If he'd been charged with murder for killing a member of the Taliban or of Al Qaeda in similar circumstances I'd see that also as unjust.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 07:59 AM

MGOH - What invasion of Afghanistan?? Care to tell me when it happened?? And remember we are talking about a land-locked country two-and-a-half times the size of France witha population of 32 million people.

Here is an example of an invasion Kevin - 24th December, 1979 - Units comprising the USSR's 40th Army numbering 154,000 men entered Afghanistan, a unit consisting of 700 KGB troops flew to Kabul stormed the President's Palace and executed the President of Afghanistan.

The US assisted the Northern Alliance in their war against the Taleban, just as the Taleban were assisted in their war against the Northern Alliance by the Pakistani Government - Where is all your outrage at the Pakistani Invasion of Afghanistan? - After all Kevin you cannot have it both ways.

Troops operating in Afghanistan now are UN-ISAF troops assisting the elected Government of Afghanistan at their specific request.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 07:55 AM

Or passed it to the country where he had been living for 6 years since he was 9?
He would prefer the infidel I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 07:16 AM

In this particular case the US could have passed the problem of what to do to the Canadian government, since the child was a Canadian citizen.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 06:06 AM

I do not attempt to justify it.
If treated as Geneva Convention POWs they would be incarcerated until the end of hostilities.
That could be a vey long sentence.
Al Q, as you say, abused this boy, using him as a fighter.
As a result of that abuse, US forces were put in a position of having to deal with him.
If released he would go back to killing them.
So what to do?
(The Russians would have killed him. They had no Guantanamo equivalent.)

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 05:52 AM

Kids of fifteen may think they are grown up. They are still children.

There are no redeeming features to the abuse of children. Al Qaeda and the US authorities have jointly been guilty of the abuse of this child.

Even aside from this, the killing of which he is accused was not such as to justify a charge of murder, even if he had been an adult. Not unless all the killings on that day by both sides were murder.

If this had been a story about something the Russians had done in the course of their war in Afghanistan, I somehow doubt if Keith would think that it deserved defending.

What should be done with captured Al Qaeda fighters? They should be treated as prisoners of war in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. In the case of children they should be recognised as victims of war with special arrangements for rehabilitation.

The treatment of Omar Khadr has been and continues to be shameful. So are attempts to justify it.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 03:29 AM

It was a war McG.
A war declared on the West by Al Q.

"And a pity this child got caught up in the fighting,"
He was not "caught up in the fighting."
He was a trained, equipped and paid fighter.
Al Q find it acceptable to use children as cannon fodder.
Another of their despicable beliefs.
Do they have any redeeming features?
Do we have any choice but to fight back against them?
What should be done with captured Al Q fighters?

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: Beer
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 12:52 AM

What were you doing at 15? I was shooting birds with my Daisey BB gun and wanting to get laid. I was also buying a cigarette for 2 cents and going to our local high school dance learning to jive. What has this young man now in his early 20ies got to remember as his most important time in his life. I say this because I truly believe that your teenage years are the ones you remember the most as you get older. I think we have in a way developed in a lab a person that we have no idea what we have created.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: meself
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 12:31 AM

Apparently it's okay to murder your prisoners - unless, of course, someone tells you not to.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 02:29 PM

So it wasn't a war, and it still isn't, the same way the fighting in Afghanistan with the Soviets wasn't a war, and Vietnam wasn't a war, and Korea wasn't a war. There aren't any wars these days, isn'tb that great...

Just a lot of people going round playing soldiers. A pity people still get killed.

And a pity this child got caught up in the fighting, in which he may have taken part, lost an eye, was shot twice in the back and was then locked up for eight years, very likely tortured, and sentenced to 40 years in prison after all that.

The amazing thing is he is still alive:

Entering the alleyway, OC-1 saw two dead men with a damaged AK-47 buried in rubble who he believed had been killed in the airstrikes,[44] and confirmed that the man he had shot was dead. Moving back to Khadr, OC-1 tapped the motionless youth's eye, confirming that he was still alive... Khadr was given on-site medical attention, during which time he repeatedly asked the medics to kill him, surprising them with his English. An officer present later recorded in his diary that he was about to tell his Private Second Class to kill the wounded Khadr, when Delta Force soldiers ordered them not to harm the prisoner.[60]

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: meself
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:32 PM

Sorry, I guess I was the one confused: while a Sgt Morris lost his right eye, Khadr apparently has lost the vision in his left eye. I must have forgotten about that.

That Wiki article, 3 posts up, is sobering reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:32 PM

There was a war on?
Not between Afghanistan and ISAF.
Most Afghans took no part and welcomed ISAF.
The war is between Al Q. (who declared it and launched the 9/11 attack among others), and ISAF and the Afgham national forces.
Shame on Al Q for using kids to fight for their despicable beliefs. (Do you support any of those beliefs McG.?)

POWs are normally incarcerated until hostilities cease.

Subject: RE: BS: Omar Khadr
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:28 AM

And what is he supposed to have done wrong? There was a war on, and a battle on, and he is supposed to have killed a soldier on the other side. Since when did that become murder?