Former Gitmo Prisoner To Receive Million$ From Canadian Govt

I sign my John Henry under that!

 

President Bush ordered that jihadis captured in Afghanistan be treated in accordance with the GC even though we were not required to do so. Once their status had been determined to be fighting for the Taliban, al Qaeda, or other terrorist groups

GTMO inmates are treated IAW the GC. We used EIT's on a few people we needed information from and should use them again if necessary. That doesn't mean we threw out the convention and stooped to their caveman level. That's a very bad analogy IMO.

We are fighting savage people yet we are doing it under GC guidelines and jihadis are using that quite effectively against us. Its costing us dearly in blood and treasure.

I don't suggest we toss out the GC nor do I suggest we torture anyone as a general rule. But when fighting jihadi fanatics who do not abide by its guidelines we must use whatever means necessary to defeat them.

If using every means available makes the worst scum on earth give up vital information to save innocent lives, like we did with KSM and 2 others, then it has to be done.

 

The number of things you have wrong in this one short post is amazing ... no wonder you're so confused.

Not true. The forces involved, including US forces, sent two separate groups of Afghans in to ask the occupants of the compound to come out. Both times the occupants fired at the group of Afghans killing two of them. After that the occupants started firing at the troops around the compound and throwing grenades at them.

US forces went to that compound because a sat phone signal linked to al Qaeda had been picked up at that location.

Not true either ... one woman and one child fled the compound early on. US troops detained them in a safe location until the firefight was over. Only al Qaeda/Taliban jihadis affiliated with Abu Laith al-Libi were present.

You see, Omar Khadr had been given to this al Qaeda jihadi by his father ... at Omar's request. He wanted to go to a school for young jihadis. There is a video of Omar with IED materials that were used to plant 3 bombs in roads. A fact left out of most news accounts about this "poor boy".

More nonsense.

Not true again ... Omar and one other man were still alive after the firefight and airstrikes on the compound. Omar threw a grenade that killed Sgt. Christopher Speer ... his buddy was firing an AK at the troops sent in after the airstrikes.

He wasn't defending himself ... He was wounded fighting with al Qaeda/Taliban jihadis against US and Afghan forces and he was captured.

Reading is the only known cure for ignorance ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/OC-1_CITF_witness_report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Laith_al-Libi

 

According to the Geneva Convention jihadis fighting outside of the Conventions guidelines are not entitled to its protections when captured.

They are not civilians and they are not POW's ... so what would you like them to be called that doesn't offend you ... freedom fighters ... defenders of women and children ... The Tolerant Bunch.

Inmates at GTMO and those captured are being treated as POW's IAW the Geneva Convention even though we don't have to.

On the contrary, the GC is quite specific on who is to be protected and who isn't.

You just don't like the fact that by fighting outside of the GC, jihadis made their own bed and they're having to sleep in it ... neither of you are finding it comfortable.

 

You need another layer or two of tin foil ...

 

Captured combatants are to be held until the end of hostilities ... Omar was captured and hostilities haven't ended. He should still be at GTMO with several thousand others.

It's time you look into what we have done with other captured prisoners during other conflicts. The GC says we can hold them so we are. Get over it.

Omar was captured fighting with al Qaeda jihadis ... we didn't pluck him out of a corn field at random or arrest him for shoplifting.

Play stupid games ... win stupid prizes.

 

When a jihadi picks up an AK and joins a group like al Qaeda or the Taliban they deliberately give up any GC protections.

We are not fighting a legal battle ... if you view fighting this latest jihadi murder spree from a legal perspective you're going to get a lot of things wrong.

 

As outlined and IAW the Geneva Convention ... until the end of hostilities.

Poor wittle jihadis have to spend their lives in captivity ... no more running around killing innocent people.

His analogy is ridiculous and doesn't speak well of his understanding of the US or N. Korea.

But it isn't a choice between just a POW or a criminal ... the GC provides for a captured combatant fighting with forces using tactics and methods outside of the rules of the convention or in direct violation of it.

The GC calls them unlawful combatants:

Never before in our history, that I know of, has a POW, much less an "unlawful combatant", been granted the same US constitutional rights as a US citizen and granted the right to bring a trial before a US criminal court with all of the legal rights and privileges of a US citizen.

Prisoners captured on battlefields, be they "unlawful combatant, illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent", are to be kept until the end of hostilities IAW the Geneva Convention.

They are being treated IAW the GC, even though we don't have to, and that's still not good enough for the BDS leftys.

Granting a jihadi from Pakistan, captured on an Afghan battlefield, the rights and privileges of the "Constitution, including the Bill of Rights" is a such a foolish notion that only a bunch of pissed off leftys would ever come up with it.

 

After killing a medic? Seriously?

IMO you have not been reading this thread. It was already established that the US tried to return the youth ("child" is a sententious exaggeration) to Canada, where he had relatives, and Canada refused to take him.

This is Canada's problem, not ours. We paid to raise him, Canada., Good luck with him now that he is grown.

 

Enhanced interrogation yields wild goose chases. They say **** we want to hear, doesn't make it accurate. Then lives are wasted following up

 

You might want to brush up on your knowledge of the ICCPR. Like our Constitution, which permits the government to suspend habeas corpus in times of emergency, Article 4 of the ICCPR permits signatories to do the same.

Non sequitur.

I'm not aware of that ever happening, either, and there's a reason for that.

Even during the Civil War when we had Americans who were protected under the Constitution engaged in combat, the Writ of Habeas Corpus was suspended under Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which permitted the U.S. government (specifically the President of the United States) to hold American POWs without trial.

Yes, it is foolish, because it's a political argument, and not a very good one at that. There's absolutely nothing in the Constitution that extends the legal rights of American civilians to foreign combatants, legal or otherwise, captured on a battlefield.

 

Of course torture was proven. The torturers then sought to change the definition of torture.

While you may not care about the fact that the US justice system has descended into third world kangaroo status, I do not share your lack of concern.

 

Spare me your laughable nit picking. The two that left were not in the compound at the time of the attack.

That the best you can come up with is (there was one other who survived) does not change the central point that the kid was in a compound that was under attack by a foreign army - including blackhawk helicoptors - and "most" everyone had been killed.

You completely failed to address the point that fighting back in such a situation is not terrorism - by any stretch of the imagination.

If you can not figure out that Collateral Damage = Intentional killing of innocents, it is no surprise that you avoided discussing the central points by nit picking silliness.

 

Why aren't they civilians? Apparently they are non-state actors which would place them firmly in the "criminal" category. You know just like the numerous jihadis caught by american authorities in america.

classic idiotic strawman.

I am well aware of what the GC protects and doesn't. I am also well aware that "non-state combatants" wasn't considered to be an issue back in the day when the GC was crafted and ratified.

 

Yes, I understand you have no argument! You are like Dr. Paul Craig Roberts says:

https://rehmat1.com/2017/07/19/911-and-the-shylocks/

I can well understand that the US is fighting hard to maintain its dominant position it gained after winning the Second WW. If they didn't, someone else would grab the power and rule the world.
Then, God help us!!

 

There is no proof that Omar killed the medic... only an assumption. Omar himself has said he only admitted his guilt to stop the torture. It took him eight years to finally give in.

While cruising I found a nice informative website....

Timeline
Key events in the Omar Khadr case

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/key-events-in-the-omar-khadr-case-1.1153759

We got a few things wrong. For instance, his Dad died in 2003, not on the fatal night at the compound in 2002.

Profiles of the controversial Khadr family....

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/khadr/

 

As I noted... that can't be done on an arbitrary arrest and torture. And that he got tortured is a fact, and that he can't challenge his arrest (since the US placed him outside the law) makes it arbitrary.

 

You might want to check what the US government used as an excuse to torture and keep those people away from any kind of court to demand their rights. Because they didn't use that one,... they simply placed those people outside the law so not a single law can be applied to them. And that is illegally.

 

There's no point in checking because there's no legal instrument that guarantees illegal combatants like Khadr a right to trial - they exist in a legal black hole. The U.S. Constitution does not extend them any rights, they're not covered under the GC and the commitments made by state parties to the ICCPR can be derogated in time of emergency.

 

No. The US government claims they are in a legal black hole, but that is impossible and illegal.

International law does. The US is a signatory to those laws.

 

My assessment isn't based on what the U.S. government says. It's based on my reading of the U.S. Constitution, Geneva Conventions and ICCPR and it appears to be both possible and legal.

A little over ten years ago I had the opportunity to discuss this matter with the former executive director of Amnesty International USA, William Schulz, and he said the only legal protections illegal combatants might have would be under the ICCPR, which grants them a few protections but not the right to a trial.

Not to my knowledge, and if Bill Schulz was aware of any such law I think he would have mentioned it.

Yes, the U.S. is a state signatory to the ICCPR , but I've already pointed out that Article 4 permits the parties to the covenant to derogate from their obligations.

For Islamist terrorists and illegal combatants who travel around the world to wage jihad in other people's countries it's a tough **** situation. They have no regard for any law, including Islamic law, so it's entirely fitting that they find no protection under the laws that they disregard themselves.

 

There is this idea called the rule of law, under which the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions were created, which seek to protect the weak from the strong and the strong from themselves under a set of rules, and not by the rule of the individual.

You, among others, keep saying that the law should be cast aside because you deem them illegal. By doing so we, as a nation, act much like al-Qaeda, and the Taliban. We have become like criminals willing to do the expedient because doing right can be hard.

So I will restate what I said earlier. Legally we could have treated the kid as a soldier, a suspected criminal, or an innocent civilian. We did not. We advoided the hassle of giving POW status, which would have afforded strong protections (and legimize the opposition) of a trial and shunted him, and many others, into a Purgatory called "enemy combatant."

We have also tortured them and have a war which cannot be, and indeed have no criteria for winning which means we can hold some forever.

 

First of all, all Islamist terrorists and illegal combatants are sanctioned by the US, NATO and Israel.

Excerpts:
Over the last seven years, several billion dollars’ worth of armament has been illegally introduced into Syria –
Numerous documents attest to the fact that the traffic was organized by General David Petraeus, first of all in public, via the CIA, of which he was the director, then privately, via the financial company KKR with the aid of certain senior civil servants.

The gigantic CIA arms traffic against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and India
Since the beginning of the Arab Springs, a gigantic arms traffic was organized by the CIA and the Pentagon in violation of a number of resolutions by the UNO Security Council. -

According to Eric Schmitt of the New York Times, the whole system had been created by General David Petraeus, director of the CIA -

the US Navy Military Sealift Command launched two tenders in 2015 for the transport of arms from the Romanian port of Constanta to the Jordanian port of Aqaba. The contract was won by Transatlantic Lines. -

All of this traffic was under the personal control of General David Petraeus, first of all via the CIA, of which he was the director, then via the financial investment company KKR, for which he worked thereafter. He benefited from the assistance of senior civil servants, sometimes under the presidency of Barack Obama, and then – massively – under that of Donald Trump. -

The Hebrew state, which pretended to be neutral during the whole of the Syrian conflict, nonetheless bombed the Syrian Arab Army on many occasions. Each time Tel-Aviv recognised the facts, it pretended that it had destroyed the arms destined for the Lebanese Hezbollah. In reality, all these operations, with perhaps a single exception, were coordinated with the jihadists.
So today we learn that Tel-Aviv supervised the deliveries of arms to these same jihadists, so that although Israel limited itself to the use of its air force to support them, it did in fact play a central role in the war.

Operation Timber Sycamore, in its various aspects, is the most important criminal case of arms trafficking in history. In the updated parts, it involves at least 17 states and represents several tens of thousands of tons of weapons.

For better understanding read the complete article here:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article197144.html
-------------
We, the common people, are being massively betrayed!
The US and its allies are not really fighting the "terrorists", but rather aim to destroy the various countries where these so called Jihadists operate.
We, the common people, are brainwashed into believing the Jihadists, the terrorists and the illegal combatants are our enemies, while in reality our own Governments use them as proxies to help destroy certain countries.

 

This sort of thing is the main reason I voted against both Bush and Hillary, but IMO Obama turned out to be just as bad.

At least Trump has ordered it stopped in Syria. For that reason alone it was worth voting for him.

 

Stopped what? Helping the Jihadists or bombing Syria?