GwNorth;

The legality of the invasion is not the issue. The issue is the legality of the presence of NATO forces in Afghanistan.
Oh, and elmysterio. Thank you for providing the text.

So all that being said... the reports we've heard about US snipers leaving out 'bait' and shooting whoever picks up the bait is prohibited under the above protocol.

massud: Article 37 of the Geneva Conventions:

Article 37.-Prohibition of perfidy

1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:

(a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
(b) The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
(c) The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and
(d) The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.

2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation.

One more time massud. the United States Invasion of Afhanistan is illegal under the law. They have no right to break into ANY home to kill any person there. They are NOT legal just because they wear a uniform.

The UN did not authorize the war.

The United States of America did not issue a declaration of war.

There is no legal authority whatsoever for the President of the United States to declare a group of people as Illegal Combatants, which he did prior to invading iraq when he claimed the Taliban and all its supporters as Illegal combatants.

He does not have the authority to do thi anymore then Jodl had the authority to do this when he made a like declaration about the Russians.

Now to your arguement that nation states can apply thier own courts and laws to an occupied country.

I suggest you review this as it pertains to Japanese Courts that held trials inside of Occupied China, and the complicity of German Courts in war crimes committed under the Nazis.

Under German and Japanese LAW no laws were broken. German Judges and senior prosecuters were charged with war crimes as were Japanese.

Whoa there, GwNorth. I've got a feeling this is gonna be a long one. Again, you fail to make a distinction between moral platitudes, natural rights and the law. An unlawful combatant may LEGALLY be tried as a criminal by the occupying power, based on that occupying power's own laws. If the Russians failed to do this while in Afghanistan, then the choice was theirs. You seem to have a difficulty in comprehending particular details and instead focus only on the broadest point. First, this point. Non-state actors are NOT NOT NOT the equals of nation-states. Get that out of your head. Hizbollah therefore cannot 'occupy' northern israel in the same way israel can occupy southern lebanon. Just because everyone is equal under the law does not mean everyone is equalized by the law. Does that make sense?

Does anyone actually think he should still be in jail? Not on this thread apparantly, the why is not in agreement, but not the fact that he shouldn't be tortured for information he doesn't possess. Well, there's still the dweebs in gov't who think as he's been charged, he's guilty...

>>The accused SHOULD have a trial. But if he is guilty of resisting without being a lawful combatant, he is still a criminal. That's the LAW.

No . You presume the invasion of Afghanistan was lawful it was NOT.

You are blinded by the fact one is a Muslim, and the other an American assuming that such makes a legal distinction. You seem unable to remove yourself from this distinction to give a reasoned and objective opinion.

Again the example of Hizbollah. Is it your contention that by virtue of wearing uniforms, were they to invade North Israel and an israeli settler resist, said settler committed a war crime?

Flash back to Afghanistan some 20 years to the Soviet occupation. Is it your contention that the Mujahadeen that resisted the occupation were war criminals?

They did not wear uniforms.

If in resisteing they were committing war crimes, then you have to admit that the United States of america, in supporting the Mujahadeen through the 1980's were supporting war crimes and war criminals.

This in and of itself constitutes a war crime. Should those Americans now be charged?

Now how is it the United States can presume to charge a person with resisting the occupation of Afghanistan by a foreign power, when they supported that same RIGHT 30 years earlier?

That is not the rule of law. That is picking and choosing when a law will apply. When one picks and chooses when laws will apply and gives exceptions, then you in fact do not have law at all.

United States forces assaulted the compound. That is a fact. The forces inside the compound did not feel the US forces had the right to do so and to seize their persons and thus resisted.

No perfidy was involved as you suggested. Perfidy would involve a duplicitous act on the part of those defending the compound.

PK

skippyagogo41 July 19th, 2008 11:47 am

When he has that gun in his hand you can call him anything you like, but he can kill. And he would kill you. And thats of course when he does it on a battlefield or a combat zone.

I really don't think we disagee that much.

I wouldn't disagree with your description of him. Now though, I think he just needs to go home. I can't see any earthly purpose in detaining him any longer.

I doubt he should have beejn there at all. At 15, they can kill but I doubt he had "secrets".

"Geneva Conventions. The only requirement to wear an armband is if one is to garner POW Status if captured.

POW status is simply a subset of the Geneva Conventions and other international law.

POWS have a number of extra protections. Such as they can not be interrogated for anything other then name rank and serial number."

Excellent point. Wish I had remembered that.

Pax

'Canada should uphold the rule of law.'

...Too bad our government is too busy being whores to Bushco...

Gw North, you are a worthy opponent. That said, it seems like you fail to make distinctions between moral platitudes, natural rights and legal rights. Moral and natural rights do not necessarily become legal rights, ya know.
Whether true to this particular case or not, combatants operating under the guise of non-combatants are war criminals and are, in fact, guilty of perfidy regardless of the balance of power in a given conflict.
You mention that, until proven otherwise, this is a case of non-belligerents defending themselves by an attacker who was not granting them civilian status. I have a question, then. If the house contained only non-belligerents, why did they not display a white flag to signal they were civilians? Of course, the white flag is how non-belligerents communicate their status. So were they doing this? Or were they just shooting? This is the question that needs to be answered, were they belligerents or not? Because belligerency from civilians makes them 'unlawful combatants'. And for the record, the Geneva Conventions clearly allows for unlawful combatants to be tried as criminals by the occupying power. So a sense, we are both right. The accused SHOULD have a trial. But if he is guilty of resisting without being a lawful combatant, he is still a criminal. That's the LAW.

>>Namely, combatants MUST wear distinguishing clothing and/or a distinguishing armband in battle, as well as to openly display their weapons

this is a misread of the Geneva Conventions. The only requirement to wear an armband is if one is to garner POW Status if captured.

POW status is simply a subset of the Geneva Conventions and other international law.

POWS have a number of extra protections. Such as they can not be interrogated for anything other then name rank and serial number.

A Civilian that is resisting an Invasion, has protections and "rights" outside of POW status. Again if the United States were invaded and a citizen picked up a gun to prevent Russian soldiers from kicking in his door in order to kill him said citizen can hardly be deemed a murderer if he killed the Russian.

These Civilian protections include prohibitions against torture and proper legal counsel. This is not fulfilled by deeming said person an Illegal combatant therefore unentitled to rights.

Perfidy does not legally define civilian resistance to an occupation.

The action on the ground as defined by the invading forces, that of the United States, made it clear perfidy could not apply here as the US soldiers attacking the home were NOT giving Civilian status to those resisting. They were trying to kill them.

The United States would have to demonstrate they were witholding their fire on the compound or some such out of concern for Civilians that might have been inside it.

Slapping on a uniform hardly means "I have the right to kill you legally, even if you are a civilian, but no one who is not in uniform has the right to shoot at me"

If Hizbollah was in North israel killing Civilians, it can hardly be claimed that the israeli settlers who live there have no right to defend themselves because Hizbollah in a uniform and they are not.

Tom,
It takes a bit more than picking up a freaking rifle to be a soldier. Being a soldier is also more than just putting on a costume. Khadr has not had the time to become a soldier, certainly not at the age of 15. Could he have become a killer, perhaps, but there is more evidence coming to light that the yank who's said to have been killed by the kid was actually felled by a yankee gernade, not the russian models that the taliban had access to.

I'll point out that there are many yankee fathers who take their 12 year olds out to learn how to use a firearm. Tell me, if what you claim is true 'the minute that child picks up that rifle or grenade he ceases to be a child. He is either a killer or a soldier that will kill you'. How would you propose that people deal with those who take their children into an environment where they're going to be a killer or a soldier?

On another note, if we're going to go strictly by the rule of law, 15 year olds can't be soldiers! They can play at being soldiers in the cadet corps, really Scouts who get to shoot guns occasionally, but they're not allowed on the battlefield until your nation is losing whatever war it's fighting in. (see Germany 1945, and most of the kids who fought then either died before they had the chance to kill, or figured out how best to surrender.)

Khadr wasn't brave, nor a hero, he was an abused kid who was taken to Afghanistan by his nutty parents. He should not be facing life in jail because of their actions.

skippyagogo41 July 18th, 2008 9:43 pm
"Eeep, I'm agreeing with T. More, sortof anyhow. To a point"

GOOD GOD! The earth moved and the angels sang! It may be the start of a trend.

"Oh, tom, most of us will say nasty things about us soldiers, but none of us really want them to suffer death anymore than we want to see Iraqi's or Afghans being killed off to enrich the us corporate state."

I wasn't referring to you, but I'm glad you think thats the case. I hope so.

John F. Butterfield

All he and I were talking about was soldier or not. Nothing else. I don't believe that was his country though was it?

As to the child aspect of it, just let me tell you that the minute that child picks up that rifle or grenade he ceases to be a child. He is either a killer or a soldier that will kill you. If you were killed by a 12 year old would you be any less dead?

Gw North and John F. Butterfield...

The word of the day is perfidy. Let me explain. It is true that International Law recognizes organized partisan resistance as legitimate. However, there are conditions to be met in order to fall under this criteria. Namely, combatants MUST wear distinguishing clothing and/or a distinguishing armband in battle, as well as to openly display their weapons. This is why some groups like Hezbollah and the Mahdi Army have their members dress in black and wear armbands, to meet this criteria. Failure to do so is Perfidy, and perfidy is a war crime. Look it up.

massud and Thomas More,

I guess you forgot that the U.S. invaded Afghanistanat and that the Taliban was in charge of the Afghan government.

I guess if your country is ever invaded you will rush forward to give the invading soldiers flowers and chocolates.

There has been a long history of people fighting on behalf of a country they were not citizens of.

It happened in the Battle of britain, It happened in China with the Flying Tigers, it happens today with the USA recruiting soldiers to fight from South America.

So throw that he was not an Afghani out the window.

There has also been a long tradition RECOGNIZED by the Geneva Conventions of people fighting while not in unirform. See the resistance in Yugoslavia or in Poland against the nazis.

Throw THAT out the window.

All that is left is a child soldier allegedly throwing a grenade that kiled an American Soldier part of a group that was trying to kill everyone inside the house inside which this child soldier was holed up. That the sum total of his "war crimes".

The US soldiers that took the house admit they executed a wounded survivor and that they shot this child soldier in the back twice.

It baffles me how any can feel Khadr guilty of war crimes.

How many who claim to fight for liberty and freedom would not have done the same thing that Khadr did..Forget it an American killed. that does not make Khadrs alleged crime worse as some would suggest.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, Omar Khadr fits every criterion of child soldier victims of war, and a brave one at that.

But, if we're going to quibble over legalistic fine points about who is a "legitimate" soldier and who isn't, how about the much more fundamental legal issues involved when a nation ignores its obligations under ratified treaties and international laws. In fact, those treaty obligations, including the treatment of prisoners, children, torture, aggressive warfare, etc., are "supreme laws" according to the U.S. constitution.

Or, even more simply, just ask yourself how you would look upon your own children's similar treatment under similar circumstances.

I have read that the original reports did not credit Kadr as the one who had thrown the grenade. The report was subsequently changed (as I understand it) because the US wanted to pin the perceived "crime" on someone they could then hold the crime against. So discussing whether Kadr had the right to throw the grenade he threw, is taking as factual a claim that has yet to be proven in a court of law.

The facts as I understand them is that the US dropped a bomb on the building Kadr and his associates were occupying. Most of his associates were killed and he was badly wounded by that bomb. US forces then conducted mop up operations with weapons drawn. A grenade was thrown by someone as the US advanced towards the bombed building, (I've never read of anyone in the building earlier offering surrender, so the throwing of the grenade was as legal as for a US serviceman to throw that same grenade when threatened by hostile forces) and a US serviceman was killed. Later on entering the bombed building Kadr was found badly wounded, but still alive.

I do dislike the way that so much in the US media is rather like Alice in Wonderland -- verdict first - trial later. I grew up in a society which valued the notion that an individual was to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

In Kadr's case there appears more reasonable doubt present than any proven guilt. And the harsh truth irrespective of any finding is that a 15 year old is protected under legal
international treaties that the US has signed and is pledged to honour. Whether one approves or not he is legally a child soldier and is entitled under international law to support and help as a child soldier. If you don't like that change the laws the US has signed on to... failure to abide by current international law ratified by the US constitutes in and of itself a crime. No one is above the law.

Arvy
Yes, they were unlawful combatants. Did you miss Ben Franklin's writings about being hung separately or together? I'll point out that using uniforms in war really wasn't required when you fought your revolutionary war. Yes, the English complained, but the Russian army of that period didn't put all of their soldiers into a 'proper' uniform until the 1800s. I'll also mention that it's not quite the same thing to compare the us revolutionaries to the taliban...

Tell me, how many countries honour their citizens who went to fight in the Spanish Civil war? I know Canada doesn't. Were they right to have fought? I think so, but they weren't there legally. They may have prevented Spain's entry into WWII, but even if Spain had fought for Hitler the outcome wouldn't have been much different. Spain has a worse record when it comes to fighting the English than Germany does... (grin)

Eeep, I'm agreeing with T. More, sortof anyhow. To a point, if he was a soldier then he should be covered under the GC. But he wasn't a soldier, he was a kid. And no, Tom, kids on the battlefield are nothing more than cannon fodder. Iran used child soldiers to clear minefields, that's pretty much all an under 18 year old is good for in that situation. In some African countries the reason they used kids was that the kids were on drugs and their enemies were incompetent. I highly doubt that Khadr shot anyone on the battlefield, if he did more than crap his own pants I'd be very surprised.

Oh, tom, most of us will say nasty things about us soldiers, but none of us really want them to suffer death anymore than we want to see Iraqi's or Afghans being killed off to enrich the us corporate state.

First my friends, a 14 year old with an AK47 and grenades is no child on the battlefield.

I'm sure some of you would be happy if he had killed more American soldiers as you've stated before.

That said, I haven't a clue what the right thing to do here is. As Massud said "bands of irregulars are NOT necessarily legitimate combatants" at the same time, they could be legitimate. American Patriots during our reveloutuionasry war as someone pointed out, seldom had uniforms till much later on.

Also I tend to agree with Bill from Saginaw. "it is simply not a crime to kill your enemy on the field of battle." And this was on the field of battle. He wasn't carrying a shoeshine bomb or anything.

Then the arguments confuse me, someone says he is a soldier and he is denied his right to an attorney, POW's don't have that right. So if he's a soldier, thats a bogus argument.

And as Arvy poinyts out, what about Blackwater? These aren't soldiers, but I think Khadr was probably a soldier. I believe he should be set free and released to the custody of the Canadian government.

I doubt he is as much a threat to my families safety as GWB at this point.

To all, a question. What national army did Omar Khadr belong too? What professional military did he belong too? Read more into 'war crimes' and see that bands of irregulars are NOT necessarily legitimate combatants. To be factual, the only certain case of legitimate combatants or members of a professional, national military.

The Harper government is not going to upset the Bush administration regarding the Khadr affair. Harper is becoming an embarrassment internationally.

When the Harper government didn't as much as offer a protest against Israel when it essentially murdered 4 UN soldiers when it invaded Lebanon. The fact one of those murdered was Major Hess-von Kruedener serving with UN Truce Supervision Organization in clearly marked buildings and grounds indicating a UN post.

The Canadian Harper government is willing to tolerate the killing of its own soldiers and the abandonment of a child soldier to torture as long as it serves the United States and Canadian imperialists interests in the Middle East.

Why is anyone surprised?!

skippyagogo41 July 18th, 2008 5:03 pm:

Hmmm. Didn't an awful lot of civilians in Africa and elsewhere take up arms against the British imperialists? For that matter, weren't a lot of those nasty Yankee rebels improperly uniformed for their armed resistance efforts once upon a time. And how about all those foreigners who helped out in the pre-WW2 Spanish war? All criminals?

I guess only the U.S. is allowed to use armed mercenary assistance to "defend freedom and democracy" in foreign lands.

Arvy and elmysterio hit the crux of the matter: engaging in infantry combat on a battlefield against a rival nation state's infantry forces can NEVER legitimately be prosecuted as a "war crime".

The only historical analogy that comes to my mind (and I'm not at all sure how much of this is true and how much was WWII propaganda) was the story of some of the surviving Doolittle raid bomber team who were captured in China by Japanese troops after their raid on Tokyo. Supposedly, the Americans were subjected to a trial of sorts before a Japanese military tribunal, and some were later executed as war criminals for taking part in what clearly was not a war "crime" (even though there were the proverbial collateral civilian casualties).

As an US Army infantry vet, I certainly sympathize with with the casualties suffered in Khadr's grenade attack (assuming those facts will be proved to the tribunal). But it is simply not a crime to kill your enemy on the field of battle.

Wholly apart from Khadr's age, and the issue of who invaded who and why in Afghanistan in 2001, there really is something called the law of war. What Khadr is accused of doing does not become a crime just because George Bush feels he can succeed in attaching that label.

Bill from Saginaw

Actually, if he did gun down a platoon of us soldiers than he'd be guilty of taking up arms as a civilian, or at best a child soldier. Maybe a child foreign mercenary...

He's not a citizen of Afghanistan, thus had no right to take up arms in defence of that country. He's not an adult, so by allowing their kid to take part in a war his parents are guilty of child abuse/endangerment. Why weren't they ever charged?

Either way, the kid shouldn't be in a jail being tortured by yanks. I very much doubt that he'll ever be freed if the bushies and harpies of the world have their way. I suppose the rule of law is dead in Canada too, pity. Pity us all.

elmysterio July 18th, 2008 12:44 pm

Wow!

Thanks!

A couple of interesting things.

One, the Sun newspaper chain is one of the most reactionary chains in Canada; the fact that they are inveighing against Khadr's treatment actually means something.

Two, I've been reading various online comment fora in Canada for a while, and I can certainly say that there are clear signs of astroturfing at minimum the CBC fora under particular types of stories (the most obvious of which has been the taser stories around the RCMP), and the fora under the articles about Khadr show the same thing.

The right wing in Canada has been in strong communication with the US right wing for quite a few years now, including money flowing north as well as expertise, and this is showing. While the online commentary on the CBC is running two to one against Khadr's repatriation, on the street here app. 98% of people I've spoken with are simply appalled at what has been revealed in the past week... ranging from university professors to construction workers.

Oh yeah, I'm not in Van, I'm in K-town, in SE Ontario. Not a place particularly noted for its hippie credentials....

bowarm: They didn't say how many respondents to the poll there were... so who knows. I've written to 24hrs a number of times calling them out for their lack of coverage of important event, excessive use of the Reuters news feed (Hopelessly biased), and general spreading of misinformation. Considering that during the morning commute, most of the people on the train are reading either 24hrs or Metro, these rag papers have a lot of influence on what people believe as truth. Therefore, we must be relentless in taking them to task for their bullshit. Every so often, they will publish one of my letters, but most of the time, they don't.

"Something I saw today in the local free rag newspaper 24hrs is that they had an online poll with the question "Should the Canadian Government petition for the release of Omar Khadr?"… and 70% of the respondents said No."

Arrggh.

The only consolation I can think of here is that (in my observation anyway)"24hrs" is a pretty slanted right wing publication, and the people who would bother to respond to their poll may be a small faction of like minded individuals. On the whole, Vancouver is a fairly liberal place, so I doubt - ok, hope - that the 70 percent was drawn from a small pool of 24hrs fans...

Remember Maher Arar? The Canadian government had to pay him a multimillion-dollar settlement for their participation in his kidnapping and torture by the Americans. Arar was only held for around a year and he was an adult. Imagine how much Khadr's settlement is going to be.

Yo, Canucks - welcome to the ...... Staes of America. Too Bad!

zaz: You're right about your assertion... that's one thing that REALLY pisses me off about Paul Martin/Stephen Harper's governments... they're giving Canada a bad name! I don't wanna be no stinkin' American... so therefore, our government needs to quit acting like it!

Arvy Said: "Only if you buy into the absurd notion that any and all forms of self-defence against the imperialist aggressor makes one an "illegal enemy combattant" worthy of torture and "indefinite" detention without trial is any strained rationalization even possible."

EXACTLY my friend. Even if Omar mowed down an entire company of US soldier a-la-rambo, he wouldn't be guilty of war crimes. One soldier killing another soldier on the battlefield is not a war crime.

On the other hand, Dropping 2 500lb bombs on a "compound" where you don't know if there's civilians inside, is a crime. Not giving wounded 'enemy' troops proper medical care, is a crime... the fact that Omar was almost summarily executed by a US soldier, until he was stopped by the soldier's LT, is a crime. Torturing and mistreating a CHILD SOLDIER, is a crime.

Something I saw today in the local free rag newspaper 24hrs is that they had an online poll with the question "Should the Canadian Government petition for the release of Omar Khadr?"... and 70% of the respondents said No. I was shocked! That tells me that 70% of the people who responded have bought the government/MSM lies, hook line and sinker. They painted Omar as a "terrorist" and terrorists have no rights.

The terrorists in Afghanistan are the NATO forces. In a country where they don't belong, indiscriminately killing people, and unilaterally destroying everything... that sounds like terror to me.

Canada was at one time the gold standard for human and legal rights. Welcome to the club "O Canada"

Even in Khadr Case?! Why EVEN?

Supposing, for sake of argument, that a 15-year-old kid had the courage to do exactly what he's accused of having done in response to a heavily armed attack, of what crime is he guilty?

Only if you buy into the absurd notion that any and all forms of self-defence against the imperialist aggressor makes one an "illegal enemy combattant" worthy of torture and "indefinite" detention without trial is any strained rationalization even possible.

This makes me angry to the point where I'm very much tempted to communicate directly with the current director of CSIS. I know that Teddy Finn (their original director with whom I once worked) would be appalled by their complicity in this egregious behavior.

It important to point out that Both Liberals and Conservatives were complicit here, trying to curry favor with the Bush administration.

Thus the relative silence from the Liberal side of the house.

This is a crime. Too many Canadians are simply trying to pretend it not happening and buying into the Us versus them arguement or the "he a muslim and must be guilty of something".

At least the newspapers are reporting on it and to this point most seem to be opposed to the Government position. Let us hope that enough to increase public pressure.