Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am seriously going to puke my balls up at this rate.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I am seriously going to puke my balls up at this rate.

If you read up on this story, it's not really a ball-chucking moment. The guy really had no chance, raised as he was by ultra-right islamo terrorists. Then he was badly wounded in battle at 15, denied treatment and then tortured by his American captors for years.

Anyone got good info on this, besides the original link? Was he actually tortured at gitmo (waterboarded, enhanced interrogation, etc...??? Seems far-fetched)

My initial read of the story was that, this is at this "grey area" where he could or shouldn't be held accountable for his actions based on his age/upbringing.

Almost a child-soldier scenario...

Here in the states, it's very hard to charge a 15yo as an adult...

 whembly wrote:
Anyone got good info on this, besides the original link? Was he actually tortured at gitmo (waterboarded, enhanced interrogation, etc...??? Seems far-fetched)

My initial read of the story was that, this is at this "grey area" where he could or shouldn't be held accountable for his actions based on his age/upbringing.

Almost a child-soldier scenario...

Here in the states, it's very hard to charge a 15yo as an adult...

Almost, but this case is very very grey.
Its a very very complicated and somewhat difficult case.

However id not visit US if I was him...

Vaktathi wrote:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr

whembly wrote:Anyone got good info on this, besides the original link? Was he actually tortured at gitmo (waterboarded, enhanced interrogation, etc...??? Seems far-fetched)

My initial read of the story was that, this is at this "grey area" where he could or shouldn't be held accountable for his actions based on his age/upbringing.

Almost a child-soldier scenario...

Here in the states, it's very hard to charge a 15yo as an adult...

The point is not whether or not he is responsible for his actions as a child soldier, but that his rights as a Canadian citizen were violated. Rights are rights, even if you're a really bad guy.

And because his rights where violated, he deserves every penny of that settlement. Everyone likes to talk about rights and freedom till someone says Muslim, then apparently you deserve nothing

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If his rights don't matter, then your rights don't matter either.

Everybody is all "freedom and rights, civilized country, herp derp, better than savages we are" until someone does something they don't like

Are you really conflating me, a law-abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and defending terrorists at the same time?

Show me where the right to a lawyer or the right to not be tortured is limited only to law abiding citizens.

My point is that Terrorists should not have rights.

This right here is how we "civilized" societies become barbaric dictatorships...like, textbook "Politics-101 day 1" case. Particularly when there's no clear definition as to what a "Terrorist" is.

Again, would probably help if you read the backstory on the whole case. We're talking about a dude that was 15 years old when the incident in question occurred (literally half his life ago), a case that had lots of unclear and contradictory testimony, and conduct on the part of the US that would have made the KGB blush, enough that the Canadian government felt it was necessary to take the steps that it did.

Had the guy just been handed over to a Canadian court at the outset, the dude would probably have still been convicted anyway, and probably wouldn't be getting a huge payout.

As is, the dude has severe release restrictions and lifetime major medical issues (including blindness) as a result of shrapnel and gunshot wounds, and the best and most formative years of his life wasted. It's not like the dude is getting off scott-free here.

 whembly wrote:
Anyone got good info on this, besides the original link? Was he actually tortured at gitmo (waterboarded, enhanced interrogation, etc...??? Seems far-fetched)

My initial read of the story was that, this is at this "grey area" where he could or shouldn't be held accountable for his actions based on his age/upbringing.

Almost a child-soldier scenario...

Here in the states, it's very hard to charge a 15yo as an adult...

The Wikipedia page on the guy is actually pretty good and lists a ton of sources and gives as detailed a breakdown of the combat incident as I can find. There's nothing official (as to be expected from coming out of Guantanamo) on his treatment, but there's nothing particularly positive sounding about any of it. Sounds like lots of solitary confinement, prolonged stress positions and being shackled in them even after soiling himself, physical assaults, confiscation of privileged legal documents, direct threats of rape, etc according to his lawyers and diaries of other prisoners, and his original Marine attorney quitting the case in disgust at the proceedings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr

Curious... what rights were violated specifically?

Was it because he was sentenced by the U.S. military tribunal as a minor? The only thing I can see is the usual Gitmo stuff that impact every detainee... particularly the right for a trial/attorney... etc...

I'm still in the camp that he fits the definition of a child soldier and shouldn't have been convicted 'as an adult'. Although, Convention of Rights of Child and ICC states that using childrends as soldiers under the age of 15 is, in face, a war crime... Omar was captured at age of 15 and appears to have been fighting for years.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If his rights don't matter, then your rights don't matter either.

Everybody is all "freedom and rights, civilized country, herp derp, better than savages we are" until someone does something they don't like

Are you really conflating me, a law-abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and defending terrorists at the same time?

Show me where the right to a lawyer or the right to not be tortured is limited only to law abiding citizens.

My point is that Terrorists should not have rights.

"child molesters should not have rights"
"rapists should not have rights"
"murders should not have rights"
"burglars shold not have rights"

You see the problem with that line of thought?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Therein lies the fault of our constitution.

This is one of sickest things I've heard you say. The point at which you are advocating summery executions and torture because they are the "bad people", is the point where you need to re-think your politics. If their rights don't matter your rights don't matter. That's kind of the point of rights. Unless you wouldn't mind getting your 1st, 2nd, and 4th ammenment rights taken away. And while we're at it, we could do away with trials too, it's just unnecessary cost right?

Besides, the label "terrorist" seems pretty absurd in this case. The guy he is accused of killing was a legitimate military target in the middle of a war, calling that "terrorism" is purely propaganda justification for stripping rights from people we have declared to be our enemies.

 Peregrine wrote:
Besides, the label "terrorist" seems pretty absurd in this case. The guy he is accused of killing was a legitimate military target in the middle of a war, calling that "terrorism" is purely propaganda justification for stripping rights from people we have declared to be our enemies.

That is also a point, shouldn't he have been treated with the same deference as POWs?

There's a lot of people who need murdering. People that the world will be better off without. But almost all of us will never murder anyone and it's for a very good reason. And it isn't because if we murder some people we fear that murder will become okay and then one day it might be our turn to get it. It's because we're not murderers. It is nothing to do with the victim and whether he deserves, and everything to do with who we are as people.

All the talk about this Canadian guy is the same. He isn't summarily executed because Canada isn't a country that does that. And torturing him is bad and something Canada rightfully recognised as wrong, not because torture might make him worse or encourage other terrorists, but for the simple that Canada is not a country that tortures its prisoners.

It isn't about how bad that guy is. It's about Canada sticking to a basic level of decency because it wants to be a country that has a basic level of decency.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
You what's better than a regular terrorist? A terrorist whose ass you have to kiss with ten million dollars.

Now this gak bag can go back to fund his Jihadist buddies in the great Middle Eastern sandbox.

The intelligence community would be hoping this guy would start dumb enough to start shipping money out to jihadist groups. It would red flag every jihadist and their money laundering network. It'd be the best $10m the intel community ever spent.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Besides, the label "terrorist" seems pretty absurd in this case. The guy he is accused of killing was a legitimate military target in the middle of a war, calling that "terrorism" is purely propaganda justification for stripping rights from people we have declared to be our enemies.

That is also a point, shouldn't he have been treated with the same deference as POWs?

Actually, no, at least not legally.

The Geneva Convention only dealt with soldiers of nations, not insurgents. And there lies the problem. He was not a soldier following orders, nor fighting for a country. It would be about the same if some 15-year-old follower of Clive Bundy decided to go to Mexico and murder some Federalis.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Besides, the label "terrorist" seems pretty absurd in this case. The guy he is accused of killing was a legitimate military target in the middle of a war, calling that "terrorism" is purely propaganda justification for stripping rights from people we have declared to be our enemies.

That is also a point, shouldn't he have been treated with the same deference as POWs?

Actually, no, at least not legally.

The Geneva Convention only dealt with soldiers of nations, not insurgents. And there lies the problem. He was not a soldier following orders, nor fighting for a country. It would be about the same if some 15-year-old follower of Clive Bundy decided to go to Mexico and murder some Federalis.

Huh, TIL.

The articles i read says its doubtful the Canadian Courts will grant the injunction to give the money to the wife of the solider he killed. Pity, but if Harper hadn't been busy on his knees to the Americans, we might have avoided this, and he would be in a Canadian prison.

Of course, the Canadian right is blsming Trudeau, as if a Supreme Court ruling is the sitting Prime Ministers fault. *eyeroll*

If he's truly reformed he'd give them the money anyway.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Actually, no, at least not legally.

The Geneva Convention only dealt with soldiers of nations, not insurgents. And there lies the problem. He was not a soldier following orders, nor fighting for a country. It would be about the same if some 15-year-old follower of Clive Bundy decided to go to Mexico and murder some Federalis.

That is false. The Geneva Conventions apply to anyone who is affected by war but not actively engaged in fighting it. This might be because they are a civilian or non-combat support (medic, labourer etc), but it also if they were fighting and then stopped, either through injury or surrender. There is absolutely nothing in the conventions limiting their applicability only to soldiers acting for a formally recognised nation state.

Further, there's a lot of confusion that the conventions only apply when the war is fought between nations who are geneva signatories. but article 3 clearly states otherwise. The conventions apply to armed conflicts where only one party is a state signatory to the convention.

So yes, the geneva conventions applied to all combatants in Afghanistan, and soldiers who surrendered or were captured after being wounded deserved care and humane detention, even when they were acting outside the sanction of their government.

Pretty sure the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan at the time anyway, making Omar a militia member.

 feeder wrote:
Pretty sure the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan at the time anyway, making Omar a militia member.

Nope... they were done-done after 2001.

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Pretty sure the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan at the time anyway, making Omar a militia member.

Nope... they were done-done after 2001.

Oh, right. That whole thing was a clusterfeth from tits to tail.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If his rights don't matter, then your rights don't matter either.

Everybody is all "freedom and rights, civilized country, herp derp, better than savages we are" until someone does something they don't like

Are you really conflating me, a law-abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and defending terrorists at the same time?

Show me where the right to a lawyer or the right to not be tortured is limited only to law abiding citizens.

My point is that Terrorists should not have rights.

Ah well. Guess you don't mind goverment stripping away your rights as well at their convenience. Remove rights from anybody, that leads to path where goverment can take away rights from anybody they deem threat to their view of the world. Protesting too much about them? You are labeled bad guy and rights removed.

 feeder wrote:
Pretty sure the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan at the time anyway, making Omar a militia member.

It doesn't matter. This idea that non-state soldiers have no protection under the conventions, and therefore can be executed, tortured and everything else with no protections is morally abhorrent and factually incorrect.

tneva82 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If his rights don't matter, then your rights don't matter either.

Everybody is all "freedom and rights, civilized country, herp derp, better than savages we are" until someone does something they don't like

Are you really conflating me, a law-abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and defending terrorists at the same time?

Show me where the right to a lawyer or the right to not be tortured is limited only to law abiding citizens.

My point is that Terrorists should not have rights.

Ah well. Guess you don't mind goverment stripping away your rights as well at their convenience. Remove rights from anybody, that leads to path where goverment can take away rights from anybody they deem threat to their view of the world. Protesting too much about them? You are labeled bad guy and rights removed.

The government can take your rights at any time.

 sebster wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Pretty sure the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan at the time anyway, making Omar a militia member.

It doesn't matter. This idea that non-state soldiers have no protection under the conventions, and therefore can be executed, tortured and everything else with no protections is morally abhorrent and factually incorrect.

I never stated they don't have rights. I stated that they don't necessarily have the same rights as POW's. Similar arguments have been made about the Hague Convention, successfully I might add, that would allow the military to use hollow point ammunition when facing insurgents.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If his rights don't matter, then your rights don't matter either.

Everybody is all "freedom and rights, civilized country, herp derp, better than savages we are" until someone does something they don't like

Are you really conflating me, a law-abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and defending terrorists at the same time?

Are you claiming that you have never broken a law in the US? Because I don't think anybody on here is a law-abiding citizen 100% of the time and by your logic, those people do not deserve to have rights.

I don't think you understand what you are saying.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If his rights don't matter, then your rights don't matter either.

Everybody is all "freedom and rights, civilized country, herp derp, better than savages we are" until someone does something they don't like

Are you really conflating me, a law-abiding citizen, with that filth of a human being and defending terrorists at the same time?

Are you claiming that you have never broken a law in the US? Because I don't think anybody on here is a law-abiding citizen 100% of the time and by your logic, those people do not deserve to have rights.

I don't think you understand what you are saying.

You might add that an individuals guilt can only be determined in a court. The executive branch cannot determine guilt alone. Far too many people trust the executive branch. Pretty shameful and gullible if you ask me. It is really troubling to me that people of a certain political persuasion are always droning on about the rule of law but seem to have no clue what that actually entails.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Pretty sure the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan at the time anyway, making Omar a militia member.

It doesn't matter. This idea that non-state soldiers have no protection under the conventions, and therefore can be executed, tortured and everything else with no protections is morally abhorrent and factually incorrect.

I never stated they don't have rights. I stated that they don't necessarily have the same rights as POW's. Similar arguments have been made about the Hague Convention, successfully I might add, that would allow the military to use hollow point ammunition when facing insurgents.

Wouldn't that be a bad things because of kevlar vests and harder pieces of cover and alike?

 cuda1179 wrote:
I never stated they don't have rights. I stated that they don't necessarily have the same rights as POW's. Similar arguments have been made about the Hague Convention, successfully I might add, that would allow the military to use hollow point ammunition when facing insurgents.

But that claim is simply wrong. Article 3, the one about POWs specifically, makes a point of explicitly stating the protections apply regardless of the status of the prisoner as part of a state's military or not, it doesn't even matter if they're recognised as a citizen of any nation. The plain and simple requirement of article 3 is any combatant who surrenders to the military of a state that is a signatory to the Geneva convention, that person must be given the protections owed to a POW.

I know that the Hague conventions are different, and only apply between nations where both are signatories. But the Geneva conventions have no such limitation.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Wouldn't that be a bad things because of kevlar vests and harder pieces of cover and alike?

Depends on the thickness of the cover, the particular bullet caliber involved, and if the person is actually wearing a vest(which is no guarantee of safety either).

But the irony is that hollow points are actually somewhat better when you want to limit collateral damage, since they aren't capable of flying through a house and retaining killing power. So oddly enough the rules against military use of hollow point means that bystander casualties are more likely. Also, in terms of being "humane", a hollow point is more likely to outright kill you, instead of leaving you to possibly die a slower more agonizing death because it was a through and through.

Thats one reason why hollow points are an ideal round for self-defense in your own home. The chance of a dangerous ricochet or it passing through walls is minimized.

 Grey Templar wrote:
But the irony is that hollow points are actually somewhat better when you want to limit collateral damage, since they aren't capable of flying through a house and retaining killing power. So oddly enough the rules against military use of hollow point means that bystander casualties are more likely. Also, in terms of being "humane", a hollow point is more likely to outright kill you, instead of leaving you to possibly die a slower more agonizing death because it was a through and through.

Hague Convention of 1899: The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

But the Hague Convention also says that it's intended to follow the goals of the earlier St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which spells out the purpose of limiting weapons of war (specifically, explosive ammunition):

Considering that the progress of civilization should have the effect of alleviating as much as possible the calamities of war:
That the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy;
That for this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible number of men;
That this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable;
That the employment of such arms would, therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity;
The Contracting Parties engage mutually to renounce, in case of war among themselves, the employment by their military or naval troops of any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes, which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances.

Basically, the Great Powers agreed in 1868 that explosive ammunition caused way more suffering than was needed to accomplish the ends of war (that is, defeating the enemy's military). And in 1899, they extended this to hollowpoint bullets. The later conventions against chemical and biological weapons followed similar reasoning.

I copied that from a reddit post, of all things. The basic idea is that an enemy soldier is just as much out of action if he's wounded by a FMJ bullet as if hit and killed by a hollowpoint, so it's enough. The war is won and we all pretended to be civilized. And ofc, in the sort of open battles they had those days any collateral damage was another enemy soldier so reducing penetration was just silly!

A more cynical take on it would be that a wounded man needs medical attention, at least one guy if not two have to drag him to safety and his screams of pain lower the morale of his team making them more likely to break. A dead man is another sandbag protecting his team.