3
   

Canadian Teenage Soldier Up Before Obama Military Tribunal

 
 
oralloy
 
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 05:39 am
Since the accused is Canadian, I'll use the Canadian media.


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100809/national/omar_khadr

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100809/national/omar_khadr_jury
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 06:01 am
@oralloy,
Your subject line is misleading.

Omar Khadr is not a soldier. And certainly not a Canadian soldier, as your heading seems to imply.

Do you have any thoughts on this situation, or are you just posting links without comment?

oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 06:14 am
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:
Your subject line is misleading.

Omar Khadr is not a soldier.


What was he doing fighting in a war then?



Intrepid wrote:
And certainly not a Canadian soldier, as your heading seems to imply.


What nationality is he?



Intrepid wrote:
Do you have any thoughts on this situation, or are you just posting links without comment?


I am a little wary of the confession that might be coerced. I don't know enough about it to form an opinion though.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 06:37 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Your subject line is misleading.

Omar Khadr is not a soldier.


Oralloy wrote:
Quote:
What was he doing fighting in a war then?


He was a militant and he accompanied some adult militants on some kind of raid against Americans. His family moved between Canada, Pakistan and Afghanisan.

Intrepid wrote:
And certainly not a Canadian soldier, as your heading seems to imply.


Oralloy wrote:
Quote:
What nationality is he?


He is Canadian, having been born in Toronto in 1986. But, he is not a Canadian soldier or a soldier at all. He was a militant. His father was Egyptian and his mother is a Palestinian. His family moved between Canada, Pakistan and Afghanisan and is said to have been connected to Osama Bin Laden.


Intrepid wrote:
Do you have any thoughts on this situation, or are you just posting links without comment?


Oralloy wrote:
Quote:
I am a little wary of the confession that might be coerced. I don't know enough about it to form an opinion though.


He was 15 at the time and was the youngest prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 07:12 am
From NBC News

Landmark Gitmo trial puts White House in tight spot
Top U.N. official calls defendant a 'child soldier,' says proceedings violate international legal norms

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba — A top United Nations official on Tuesday denounced the Pentagon's trial of so-called "child soldier" Omar Khadr at Guantanamo Bay, saying the proceeding was a violation of international legal norms and "may endanger the status of child soldiers all over the world."

"Since World War II, no child has been prosecuted for a war crime," Radhika Coomaraswamy, the U.N.'s special representative for Children and Armed Conflict said in a statement distributed by the U.N. on the eve of Khadr's trial here.

"Child soldiers must be treated primarily as victims … The Omar Khadr case will set a precedent that may endanger the status of child soldiers all over the world," he said.

The sharp criticism from the U.N. official created yet another public relations dilemma for Pentagon officials as they prepare to try Khadr, a Canadian citizen who has spent nearly a third of his life at Guantanamo, in the first military commission trial during Barack Obama's presidency.

And although Coomaraswamy has issued objections to Khadr's case before, the statement came on the day a military judge will begin picking a jury to hear charges that the defendant committed murder and attempted murder in violation of the "law of war" for allegedly hurling a hand grenade that killed a U.S. Special Forces medic in Afghanistan eight years ago.

At the time of the alleged incident, Khadr, now 23, was 15 years old.

Hardened al-Qaida operative?
Pentagon officials have vigorously defended their case against Khadr, portraying him as a hardened al-Qaida operative who boasted of his role in planting improvised explosive devices that would kill Americans in Afghanistan.
rabel22
 
  0  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 07:51 am
The defense of this person is stupid. By 15 years of age people know the difference between right and wrong and realize that if their caught they will be punished.
Intrepid
 
  4  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 08:00 am
@rabel22,
Defence by who? Lawyers?

You seem to have declared him guilty when there are only allegations. What, exactly, do you know about this case?

In custody for 8 years and now a trial?

I take no sides on this, but wonder if people know what they are talking about before making broad statements.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 08:51 am
I am glad he is finally given a day in court. I regret that he may have been tortured. (I wish that Obama would have went after all of that sort of thing and that is one of the things in this area I hold against him) The past torture (I hope not present) sets up legal problems in future cases.

However, apparently there is a video showing a teenage Kadr setting up and laying explosives in Afghanistan.

Quote:
The judge also decided a prosecution video showing a teenage Khadr making and laying explosive devices in Afghanistan could be entered as evidence.

JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 10:54 am
@revelette,
Quote:
However, apparently there is a video showing a teenage Kadr setting up and laying explosives in Afghanistan.


And there's something wrong with this. Compare what it's alleged he has done, kill one of a group of illegal invaders of a sovereign country to what Blackwater mercenaries did, kill a bunch of civilians.

How many years did the Blackwater guys get?
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 11:26 am
@Intrepid,
He was likely one of a number of poorly paid volunteers and he accompanied some native Afghans and other volunteers on some kind of raid against the illegal invaders, the Americans.

I can't see how any American could find fault with that. That's how their own country was formed.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 03:19 pm
@Intrepid,
You mean because it was the U.S military who made the accusation against the 21 year old we should assume he isent guilty and was forced to confess? I am not declaring him guilty or innocent but like you will wait for the facts most of which seem to be known. If you want to be fair be so to both sides.
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 03:23 pm
@JTT,
Not enough but politics play a big part in war in the U.S. just as it does where you live. Not happy about it but I am a minority in wanting real change in the U.S..
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 03:52 pm
What war crime did Khadr commit, exactly?

The second article states that,

"Khadr faces five charges: murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism and spying.

"The most serious charge is the accusation he murdered U.S. army special forces Sgt. Chris Speer in violation of the rules of war.

"The prosecution alleges a 15-year-old Khadr threw a grenade that killed Speer in Afghanistan in July 2002."

How is throwing a grenade at an enemy a violation of the rules of war? For that matter, how is it murder?

Are US troops that kill their enemies by throwing grenades at them also murderers and war criminals?
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 03:54 pm
@rabel22,
Quote:
You mean because it was the U.S military who made the accusation against the 21 year old we should assume he isent guilty and was forced to confess? I am not declaring him guilty or innocent but like you will wait for the facts most of which seem to be known. If you want to be fair be so to both sides.


What's he guilty of? By that logic, thousands of USA people should be prosecuted for trying to help get the Russians out.

He did nothing but try to get a bunch of foreign invaders out of the country of Afghanistan.

Yet again, the hypocrisy is stunning. There are hundreds if not thousands of war criminals walking the streets of America, people who have murdered civilians and there is a big to do about this young fella.

0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2010 11:22 am
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:
He was a militant and he accompanied some adult militants on some kind of raid against Americans. His family moved between Canada, Pakistan and Afghanisan.


As far as I know, the terms soldier, militant, combatant, belligerent, fighter (and probably a few others that don't spring to mind at the moment) mean the same thing and are interchangeable.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2010 11:23 am
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:
"Since World War II, no child has been prosecuted for a war crime," Radhika Coomaraswamy, the U.N.'s special representative for Children and Armed Conflict said in a statement distributed by the U.N. on the eve of Khadr's trial here.

"Child soldiers must be treated primarily as victims …


That's a good point.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2010 11:23 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
How is throwing a grenade at an enemy a violation of the rules of war? For that matter, how is it murder?


Unlawful combatants have no right to engage in combat, and it counts as attempted murder if they do (and as murder if someone dies).

The military tribunal law written by McCain and a few other senators in 2006 said that military tribunals could sentence unlawful combatants to 20 years for seriously wounding a US/allied soldier in combat, and to the death penalty for killing a US/allied soldier in combat.




InfraBlue wrote:
Are US troops that kill their enemies by throwing grenades at them also murderers and war criminals?


No. US soldiers are lawful combatants.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2010 11:42 am
@rabel22,
rabel22 wrote:

You mean because it was the U.S military who made the accusation against the 21 year old we should assume he isent guilty and was forced to confess? I am not declaring him guilty or innocent but like you will wait for the facts most of which seem to be known. If you want to be fair be so to both sides.


What are talking about? Fair? Both sides? Where did I say anything but? Where did I say anything about forced? Do you have a reading comprehension problem or do you respond without reading?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2010 11:44 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
He was a militant and he accompanied some adult militants on some kind of raid against Americans. His family moved between Canada, Pakistan and Afghanisan.


As far as I know, the terms soldier, militant, combatant, belligerent, fighter (and probably a few others that don't spring to mind at the moment) mean the same thing and are interchangeable.


Actually, a soldier is an enlisted man or woman who serves in an army. This did not apply to the 15 year old civilian Kadr.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2010 12:02 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
The military tribunal law written by McCain and a few other senators in 2006 said that military tribunals could sentence unlawful combatants to 20 years for seriously wounding a US/allied soldier in combat, and to the death penalty for killing a US/allied soldier in combat.


(13) Intentionally Causing Serious Bodily Injury.

a. Text. "Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally causes serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct, and, if death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commission under this chapter may direct."

b. Elements.
(1) The accused caused serious injury to the body or health of one or more persons;
(2) The accused intended to inflict such serious injury upon the person or persons;
(3) The injury was done with unlawful force or violence;
(4) The serious bodily injury inflicted by the accused was in violation of the law of war; and
(5) The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with armed conflict.

c. Definition. Serious Bodily Injury Defined.-- the term ‘serious bodily injury’ means bodily injury which involves--
(i) a substantial risk of death;
(ii) extreme physical pain;
(iii) protracted and obvious disfigurement; or
(iv) protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.

d. Comment. For the accused to have been acting in violation of the law of war, the accused must have taken acts as a combatant without having met the requirements for lawful combatancy. It is generally accepted international practice that unlawful enemy combatants may be prosecuted for offenses associated with armed conflicts, such as murder; such unlawful enemy combatants do not enjoy combatant immunity because they have failed to meet the requirements of lawful combatancy under the law of war.

e. Maximum punishment. Death, if the death of any person occurs as a result of the serious bodily injury. Otherwise, 20 years confinement.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/manual-mil-commissions.pdf
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Canadian Teenage Soldier Up Before Obama Military Tribunal
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/17/2018 at 02:55:41