[desertdude]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Canadians, Brits, Aussies, Yanks, Kiwis have all been fighting on the same side for nearly hundred years now.

All those countries have formal exchange programs where soldiers/sailors/airmen/women from one country serve with the other.

Canadians have a long history of serving with the US, most notably many Canadian Aboriginals join the USMC. Brits/Aussies/Kiwis have been in and out of each others Forces for decades.

Try another example to illustrate your point.

Yes I know thats why I found the original comments odd.

Again simplyfing everything so he choose to fight for the side he thought were his allies ?

[EyeBrock]

He's right though DD, under the Geneva Convention he's not classed as a soldier.

If you look at the recent UN declarations though he could be seen to be a 'child soldier'.

[EyeBrock]

desertdude desertdude:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Canadians, Brits, Aussies, Yanks, Kiwis have all been fighting on the same side for nearly hundred years now.

All those countries have formal exchange programs where soldiers/sailors/airmen/women from one country serve with the other.

Canadians have a long history of serving with the US, most notably many Canadian Aboriginals join the USMC. Brits/Aussies/Kiwis have been in and out of each others Forces for decades.

Try another example to illustrate your point.

Yes I know thats why I found the original comments odd.

Again simplyfing everything so he choose to fight for the side he thought were his allies ?

He's a Canadian fighting as an irregular, not in any uniform but in civilian clothing against our biggest ally, the US. Plus he killed a medic wearing a red-cross armband, treating wounded of both sides in violation of the GC and UN conventions.

It's not even close to comparing him to a Canadian joining the British Army as a soldier. More warped logic.

[martin14]

desertdude desertdude:

martin14 martin14:

He wasnt a soldier DD, thats the issue here.


Not as GC defines it.

Martin for all the people on this forum your the first one to denounce the UN/International courts/International law etc etc.

So you either are for it or against it. You just can't choose to choose to use/apply it when you feel like it or when it suits you.

You're right DD, he should have been shot on sight or had an IED shoved up his ass.

[desertdude]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

desertdude desertdude:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Canadians, Brits, Aussies, Yanks, Kiwis have all been fighting on the same side for nearly hundred years now.

All those countries have formal exchange programs where soldiers/sailors/airmen/women from one country serve with the other.

Canadians have a long history of serving with the US, most notably many Canadian Aboriginals join the USMC. Brits/Aussies/Kiwis have been in and out of each others Forces for decades.

Try another example to illustrate your point.

Yes I know thats why I found the original comments odd.

Again simplyfing everything so he choose to fight for the side he thought were his allies ?

He's a Canadian fighting as an irregular, not in any uniform but in civilian clothing against our biggest ally, the US. Plus he killed a medic wearing a red-cross armband, treating wounded of both sides in violation of the GC and UN conventions.

It's not even close to comparing him to a Canadian joining the British Army as a soldier. More warped logic.

I'm just trying to apply the logic of what bacardi or was it No9 posted.

Ok so what if he was a uniformed fighting how would the situation and its conclusion would have been different.

And yes I agree with you he could be considered a child soilder, but ofcourse the such international laws are used only if and when they are suitable and not globally

And as for the GC The US changed the defenition of Enemny Combatant so the people captured cannot be tried, tortured as they are not POWs or held in detention illegaly. basically do whatever the fuck it pleases as no law now applies to them.

At worse OK could be seen as a unlawful combatant if not for the US congress resolution

[Zipperfish]

before folks on the right were saying how the Geneva Convention doesn't apply and/or is a pile of crap--you can't have it both ways.

[desertdude]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

before folks on the right were saying how the Geneva Convention doesn't apply and/or is a pile of crap--you can't have it both ways.

The GC, The Hague and UN is only valid when it suits your point of view. We had people here up in arms in the recent weeks how these things are totally meaningless etc etc

[Zipperfish]

desertdude desertdude:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

before folks on the right were saying how the Geneva Convention doesn't apply and/or is a pile of crap--you can't have it both ways.

The GC, The Hague and UN is only valid when it suits your point of view. We had people here up in arms in the recent weeks how these things are totally meaningless etc etc

Yeah--torturing a confession out of a 15 ywear old is OK, apparently.

[martin14]

desertdude desertdude:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

before folks on the right were saying how the Geneva Convention doesn't apply and/or is a pile of crap--you can't have it both ways.

The GC, The Hague and UN is only valid when it suits your point of view. We had people here up in arms in the recent weeks how these things are totally meaningless etc etc

all different organizations.. boo hoo for you.

[desertdude]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

desertdude desertdude:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

before folks on the right were saying how the Geneva Convention doesn't apply and/or is a pile of crap--you can't have it both ways.

The GC, The Hague and UN is only valid when it suits your point of view. We had people here up in arms in the recent weeks how these things are totally meaningless etc etc

Yeah--torturing a confession out of a 15 ywear old is OK, apparently.

I think in my view OK did what was best for his own intrest. He's already been in gitmo mind you not any average prison for 8 years, he would have admited to flying the planes into the WTC himself if it meant that would get him out in a years time and from what I read paroled shortly after that due to his being a minor at the time of the crime according to Canadian law.

I know this doesn't make most people here happy but anyone one would have done the same here.

One more down about 150 or so more to go.

[desertdude]

martin14 martin14:

desertdude desertdude:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

before folks on the right were saying how the Geneva Convention doesn't apply and/or is a pile of crap--you can't have it both ways.

The GC, The Hague and UN is only valid when it suits your point of view. We had people here up in arms in the recent weeks how these things are totally meaningless etc etc

all different organizations.. boo hoo for you.

Oh so you only oppose the UN, but not the international court at The Hague or the GC. Is that right.

[Zipperfish]

desertdude desertdude:

I think in my view OK did what was best for his own intrest. He's already been in gitmo mind you not any average prison for 8 years, he would have admited to flying the planes into the WTC himself if it meant that would get him out in a years time and from what I read paroled shortly after that due to his being a minor at the time of the crime according to Canadian law.

I know this doesn't make most people here happy but anyone one would have done the same here.

One more down about 150 or so more to go.

It's a sham court put together to slap a veneer of civility on the whole thing. And it makes it all go away, so most folks are happy.

[DrCaleb]

desertdude desertdude:

Ok so what if he was a uniformed fighting how would the situation and its conclusion would have been different.

And yes I agree with you he could be considered a child soilder, but ofcourse the such international laws are used only if and when they are suitable and not globally

If he were wearing a uniform of the Taliban (if one existed) being a Canadian Citizen who took up arms against an ally, he would have breached section 46 of the Criminal code.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs ... /en?page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason

"High treason
(1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;
(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or
(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

The mandatory sentence is Life.

[martin14]

desertdude desertdude:

martin14 martin14:

all different organizations.. boo hoo for you.

Oh so you only oppose the UN, but not the international court at The Hague or the GC. Is that right.

I actually havent said I support any of those organizations.

But the US uses the GC to determine that Khadr wasnt a soldier in any sense
of the word.


So, what Caleb said, since again he isnt a soldier, we probably cant try him for
treason.

Too bad for us, him and his pack of bilge rats are the poster family
for treasonous bastards.

[desertdude]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

desertdude desertdude:

I think in my view OK did what was best for his own intrest. He's already been in gitmo mind you not any average prison for 8 years, he would have admited to flying the planes into the WTC himself if it meant that would get him out in a years time and from what I read paroled shortly after that due to his being a minor at the time of the crime according to Canadian law.

I know this doesn't make most people here happy but anyone one would have done the same here.

One more down about 150 or so more to go.

It's a sham court put together to slap a veneer of civility on the whole thing. And it makes it all go away, so most folks are happy.

Ofcourse its a sham court zip, judge judy's court has more legitmacy than this.