Omar Khadr

Discussion in 'Canada' started by Gurdari, Feb 20, 2007.

  1. Gurdari
    Offline

    Gurdari Egaliterra

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    the West
    Ratings:
    +40
    Harper should flex what muscle he has and bring this guy home.
    Defending yourself against and armed invasion isn't illegal, even if your an Arab teenager.
     
  2. 90K
    Offline

    90K BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,204
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    in the back of GW in foggy bottom
    Ratings:
    +64
    Link it for us please
     
  3. Gurdari
    Offline

    Gurdari Egaliterra

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    the West
    Ratings:
    +40
    Link my source for that claim? That self-defence is okay even if you are arabic?

    Well, regarding Afghanstan, here:
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/army.htm

    This states there was no real army of Afghanistan, so all combatants would by virtue of resistance be 'unlawful'. Which really violates the spirit of any law... the weakest states then are due no Geneva conventions, or POW rules. Ridiculous, but I also read this from the American Society of International Law:

    "The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 - 27 and their annexed Regulations, which updated and codified the laws and customs of land warfare, recognized three categories of lawful combatants: (1) armies or regular forces; (2) irregular forces; and (3) the levée en masse.
    28 Article 1 of the Hague Regulations stipulates that the laws, rights, and duties of war apply to both regular and irregular combatants."


    Requiring a small resistance force to openly identify themselves to an invading army is tantamount to suicide, imagine if the French resistance had to identify themselves to the Germans? Were they unlawful combatants?
     
  4. 90K
    Offline

    90K BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,204
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    in the back of GW in foggy bottom
    Ratings:
    +64
    interesting read. I get the impression it was much easier having thew taliban control the country.
     
  5. Gurdari
    Offline

    Gurdari Egaliterra

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    the West
    Ratings:
    +40
    Personally - I think the invasion was an illegally conceived example of imperial aggression, and that US could have just acted in accordance with simple protocols (like provide evidence of an accusation) and achieved a better result. The US set itself up to be attacked the same way by countries whose terrorists the US harbors... (Haiti, Cuba, Nicaraugua).

    That said, I thought the Taliban was one of the worst things ever, even just destroying ancient artifacts and oppressing women is horrible, let alone being general, all-around dicks. But that doesn't give anyone the right to kick down their door and start shooting. There are some real assholes in my town, but I don't have the right to go kill them and put someone else in charge of their family... even if my friends all agree that I should.
     
  6. 90K
    Offline

    90K BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,204
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    in the back of GW in foggy bottom
    Ratings:
    +64
    Yeah but wasn't the reason to invade Afghanistan more to rid Osama? I believe the taliban just used there power to the extreme, but it held order. Having made that statement why is it when our country or some other western allies go into a war it is always wrong? Yet when countries like Afghanistan are pretty much held hostage it is acceptable? I didn't say you said that I'm making a statement on the liberal side.
     
  7. Gurdari
    Offline

    Gurdari Egaliterra

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    the West
    Ratings:
    +40
    After 911, US said hand him over I believe... Taliban asked for evidence, US said F-you hand him over... and then attacked... while in September of that same year Haiti asked for extradition of Emmanuel Constant (covicted in absentia for attrocities) and was ignored. Does Haiti have a right to attack the regime in America? According to US actions - yes. Unless a different set of rules apply to smaller nations.
     
  8. 90K
    Offline

    90K BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,204
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    in the back of GW in foggy bottom
    Ratings:
    +64
    What did Haiti loose? Private Haitians! the WTC was a loss of people from around the world! now when does life mean less? Can't answer that one but the world is a very difficult place and it is never fair. Governments do things that will beneifit their causes domestic and abroad. I mean 1995 the Clinton Administration could have gotten Osama handed to them but they opted out. He was part of the big picture of 9/11 and for years to come it is the way it will be.
     
  9. Gurdari
    Offline

    Gurdari Egaliterra

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    the West
    Ratings:
    +40
     
  10. 90K
    Offline

    90K BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,204
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    in the back of GW in foggy bottom
    Ratings:
    +64
    I agree because it is much larger than you and I. It has been this way since the beginning of time. I know protesting brings the issue out, but changing this is not going to happen. I'm not totally narrow minded but I've seen a few things and it seems that governments will use means to get what they want and not one government on this plant is exempt.
     

Share This Page