BS: Omar Khadr

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: 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: Charmion
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:28 PM

You got it, gnuzer.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:21 PM

Care to elaborate 999?

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 - 06:19 PM

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

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: 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: 11 Nov 10 - 08:56 AM

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

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.