[PublicAnimalNo9]

Actually, what the UN says is; The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 38, (1989) proclaimed: "State parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in hostilities." However, minors who are over the age of 15 but still remain under the age of 18 are still voluntarily able to take part in combat as soldiers.

[martin14]

Jesus Andy, you really need all this spoon fed to you ?


Fine, after this please change your mind on a few things.

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

* 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
* 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
o that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
o that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
o that of carrying arms openly;
o that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
* 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
* 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
* 4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
* 4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


Show me where Omar fits in anywhere.

unlawful combatant

1942 Quirin case

The term unlawful combatant has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals and case law.[3] The term "unlawful combatants" was first used in US municipal law in a 1942 United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin.[28] In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US. This decision states (emphasis added and footnotes removed):

By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.








Child soldiers
Main article: Military use of children

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 38, (1989) proclaimed: "State parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in hostilities".




Lots of people say it.. lots of people are uneducated morons who try to apply
a national idea to international treaties... which the
Taliban have never signed anyway, and so NONE of their members are actually
entitled to this protection.


North Vietnam never signed, they used it as an excuse to torture US servicemen.
Same with the Japanese.

[andyt]

Here's what wiki tells me:

$1:

International law and practice

The term "unlawful combatant" has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals, and case law.[7] However, unlike the terms "combatant", "prisoner of war", and "civilian", the term "unlawful combatant" is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. So while the former terms are well understood and clear under international law, the term "unlawful combatant" is not.[3][8]

$1:

An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.[1]

Wouldn't the latter indicate that he should be tried by a civilian court?

[martin14]

It says may.

the 1942 example says military court, where he is now.

[commanderkai]

andyt andyt:

Here's what wiki tells me:

$1:

International law and practice

The term "unlawful combatant" has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals, and case law.[7] However, unlike the terms "combatant", "prisoner of war", and "civilian", the term "unlawful combatant" is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. So while the former terms are well understood and clear under international law, the term "unlawful combatant" is not.[3][8]

$1:

An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.[1]

Wouldn't the latter indicate that he should be tried by a civilian court?

No. At least, not in my interpretation. They are not covered by International law, and individual states can choose how to handle these sorts of cases. How said individual state deals with the selected unlawful combatant is entirely the choice of said state, be it civilian or military law.

[andyt]

Also found this:

$1:

Radhika Coomaraswamy, the UN special envoy for children in armed conflict, said today that the proceedings were of dubious legality and has released a statement urging the US to abandon them. She said:

The statute of the International Criminal Court makes it clear that no one under 18 will be tried for war crimes, and prosecutors in other international tribunals have used their discretion not to prosecute children . . . Even if Omar Khadr were to be tried in a national jurisdiction, juvenile justice standards are clear -- children should not be tried before military tribunals.

Looks like the UN position is not what you said it was.

[martin14]

andyt andyt:

Also found this:

$1:

Radhika Coomaraswamy, the UN special envoy for children in armed conflict, said today that the proceedings were of dubious legality and has released a statement urging the US to abandon them. She said:

The statute of the International Criminal Court makes it clear that no one under 18 will be tried for war crimes, and prosecutors in other international tribunals have used their discretion not to prosecute children . . . Even if Omar Khadr were to be tried in a national jurisdiction, juvenile justice standards are clear -- children should not be tried before military tribunals.

Looks like the UN position is not what you said it was.

Andy, try reading bout stuff BEFORE you throw it up.

First, she talks about war crimes for under 18.. fine, he isnt charged with that,
and he isnt sitting in the ICC.


Second, I'll bet the UN special bitch who doesnt read her own
fucking rules isnt calling the shots deciding the LAW in the US.

The UN itself says 15.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

I'm pretty sure Bush said the US would not be beholden to any decisions made by the ICC.
Despite my personal opinion on the matter, there is one thing that kinda bugs me. He's being charged for murder. Now, I'm not dumb but, isn't that what war essentially is, murder on a gov't sanctioned level? I mean seriously, if that's the case then every man, woman and child that ever killed someone in combat is a murderer.

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I'm pretty sure Bush said the US would not be beholden to any decisions made by the ICC.
Despite my personal opinion on the matter, there is one thing that kinda bugs me. He's being charged for murder. Now, I'm not dumb but, isn't that what war essentially is, murder on a gov't sanctioned level? I mean seriously, if that's the case then every man, woman and child that ever killed someone in combat is a murderer.

They make the distinction that his was illegal, while going in blowing up Iraq is perfectly legitimate because they were wearing uniforms.

Every other western nation made deals and got their people out of Guantanamo, we should have too. I doesn't fill me with joy to take Khadr back to Canada, but I think we should have. It's the difficult cases that show we're a land of freedom.

The latest is that his lawyer collapsed in court today, and the trial is on hold for at least 30 days.

[martin14]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I'm pretty sure Bush said the US would not be beholden to any decisions made by the ICC.
Despite my personal opinion on the matter, there is one thing that kinda bugs me. He's being charged for murder. Now, I'm not dumb but, isn't that what war essentially is, murder on a gov't sanctioned level? I mean seriously, if that's the case then every man, woman and child that ever killed someone in combat is a murderer.

specifics...

After the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was signed in October 2006, new charges were sworn against Khadr on February 2, 2007. He was charged with Murder in Violation of the Law of War, Attempted Murder in Violation of the Law of War, Conspiracy, Providing Material Support for Terrorism and Spying.[23]



and PA9,

$1:

Under the Geneva Conventions, members of a state's armed forces who kill enemy combatants on the battlefield may not be prosecuted for murder under the domestic laws of the enemy state. That protection is called the "combatant's privilege". Individuals who take up arms that are not part of a state's armed forces, so-called unlawful (or, more properly, unprivileged) combatants, enjoy no such immunity from domestic criminal prosecution. This means that the US government could have charged Khadr under US criminal law and tried him in a US federal court. The government chose not to do so.

[martin14]

andyt andyt:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I'm pretty sure Bush said the US would not be beholden to any decisions made by the ICC.
Despite my personal opinion on the matter, there is one thing that kinda bugs me. He's being charged for murder. Now, I'm not dumb but, isn't that what war essentially is, murder on a gov't sanctioned level? I mean seriously, if that's the case then every man, woman and child that ever killed someone in combat is a murderer.

They make the distinction that his was illegal, while going in blowing up Iraq is perfectly legitimate because they were wearing uniforms.

Yes andy, those are the rules.


A soldier who uses the uniform of the enemy has committed a war crime,
and can be shot on the spot.
The guys who pull the trigger did not commit a war crime.

A guy with no uniform can be shot on the spot, no problems.



Sorry if they werent set up to protect the Taliban
and other terrorist organizations.

It seems to bother you ?

[Thanos]

Given the sucessful track record of terrorists being convicted, l'il Omar should have gone through a trial in a US federal court instead of this military tribunal nonsense. Odds are he'd be doing life in a Supermax somewhere right now and the rest of would never have had to hear anything at all about the murderous little SOB ever again.

[PluggyRug]

andyt andyt:

Why is he not a soldier? Because no uniform? What's the uniform of the Taliban? Have US soldiers or agents really never killed an enemy while dressed to blend in?

Al Queerda trained. The uniform of the Taliban is worn by the civilians they hide behind.

$1:

If he's not a soldier, by definition he's a civilian. What other category is there?

See above.

$1:

If the UN says he's not child soldier, then fine - but lots of people seem to say he is - are they all ignorant of the UN and you know the truth?

The UN is the most ineffectual, corrupt organisation in the galaxy, therefore all your points are moot.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

The UN is the most ineffectual, corrupt organisation in the galaxy, therefore all your points are moot.

The UN should only be used as an example when you're trying to demonstrate failure and futility.

[desertdude]

Lets take this at face value instead of the estrogen filled PMS whining. There were two suspects alive although wounded heavily after the compound was blasted to kingdom come. No one saw who lobbed the grenade.

Conflicting stories from people who were there to exactly what went down. No hard evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that khadr was the one who lobbed the grenade. Remember there was a second person who was there aswell. He could have lobbed it aswell ?

At best he can be convicted on the IED charges and last time I checked they were passing out sentences like 5 years for that.

Like I said, call it even for time served and let him go.