Sharpshooter Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 Funny, your link is dead. By the vaguness of your post, it appears as if it's saying that 15 is the minimum age of soldiering? If so, you have proved that if he abided by the 3rd GC wrt to waging war (as posted in my previous post), he would have been afforded the protections of the 4th GC. He did not, and was not protected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAH Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 Perhaps if you follow the bizarre definitions of the US but clearly under international law he is a child soldier. Even the current Canadian government has has never disputed that fact and the Parliament of Canada has accepted that he is a child soldier. The courts in Canada have also agreed with that position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 I think you could definately argue that his confession under interogation in Gitmo was coerced (clearly it was). However, he entered a not guilty plea in open court, and then about faced, under NO INTEROGATION OR DURESS, to being guilty. He is guilty. This is deemed by the court and most importantly, by him in open court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 Actually, I am following the 'bizarre' definitions set forth in the Geneva Convention(s). Funny, you like to back up your claims with legislation, but when I do the same in contradiction with your position, it becomes 'bizarre'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAH Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 ...children under 15 from taking direct part in fighting....between the ages of 15 and 18...recruitment of children under 15 ...again using 15 as the minimum age...prevent children under 15 from taking direct part in fighting and prohibits their recruitment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 He was not under 15! How many times do I have to post this? He was NOT A CHILD SOLDIER! He was close, admitidly, but close doesn't count. Again, the devil is in the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAH Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 It is bizarre since Khadr is a child soldier. And the US used "tortured" reasoning to attempt to get around international law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAH Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 ???? An illegal military tribunal. If the only way to get out of an illegal military tribunal and have the opportunity to get before a lawful court is guilty plea, then you take it and fight another day. That is the very definition of coercion. Pleading guilty before an illegal military tribunal has no significance. The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled the military tribunal process illegal as they they confirmed in their recent decision of 29 January 2010: We conclude that Canadian conduct in connection with Mr. Khadrs case did not conform to the principles of fundamental justice. That conduct may be briefly reviewed. The statements taken by CSIS and DFAIT were obtained through participation in a regime which was known at the time to have refused detainees the right to challenge the legality of detention by way of habeas corpus. It was also known that Mr. Khadr was 16 years old at the time and that he had not had access to counsel or to any adult who had his best interests in mind. As held by this Court in Khadr 2008, Canadas participation in the illegal process in place at Guantanamo Bay clearly violated Canadas binding international obligations (Khadr 2008, at paras. 23-25; Hamdan v. Rumsfeld). Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, 2010 SCC 3, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 44 The coerced guilty plea by Omar Khadr is worth spit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAH Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 He is not protected under Child Soldier legislation because he is: 1- not a child (15 at the time). 2- not a soldier in a recognizable force. He fails to meet the definition on both counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 When was he threatened with lifelong incarciration at Gitmo? That was never on the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 He was not under 15! How many times do I have to post this? He was NOT A CHILD SOLDIER! He was close, admitidly, but close doesn't count. Again, the devil is in the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 He is not protected under Child Soldier legislation because he is: 1- not a child (15 at the time). 2- not a soldier in a recognizable force. He fails to meet the definition on both counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAH Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 I hope one day you'll start thinking for yourself rather than blindly believing what a supposed authority figure spoonfeeds you. Seriously, you can't see the transparent bull**** coming out the U.S. military and its politicians, and conversely our own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAH Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 1) In afghanistan it was recognised by the U.N. that 18 was limit, as of 2002. 2) The CRC encompasses those in a non-state force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 What do you not understand that requires a translation? The Young Offenders Act was repealed in 2003. Try to keep up. There is also the matter of international law. Khadr is a child soldier and therefore a victim of a War Crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 I hope one day you'll start thinking for yourself rather than blindly believing what a supposed authority figure spoonfeeds you. Seriously, you can't see the transparent bull**** coming out the U.S. military and its politicians, and conversely our own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 That's odd...one would think you'd fight tooth and nail, and challenge the decision if convicted. And the SCC has neither the authority nor the jurisdiction to decide if the tribunal is illegal (I'm not arguing one whether it is or ins't. I am on record several times stating I think it's crap). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 The SCC is the Supreme Law Giver and Interpreter on the basis of The Supreme Law in this country, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No law shall supercede it...not in this country. It has every and all jurisdiction over citizens, of this country, while they are in this country. It has the authority to set him free and have it recognised worldwide, moreso than a sham of military tribunal. You can bet your *** on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAH Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 The SCC is the Supreme Law Giver and Interpreter on the basis of The Supreme Law in this country, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No law shall supercede it...not in this country. It has every and all jurisdiction over citizens, of this country, while they are in this country. It has the authority to set him free and have it recognised worldwide, moreso than a sham of military tribunal. You can bet your *** on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 So go after the ones who used him. It doesn't afect his status as a child soldier. editted to add: I'm not sure why you're referncing the State of Afghanistan. He wasn't a member of the ANA, in fact, he was fighting the ANA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.