Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyWolf
There's little doubt that the Khadr family has some shady dealings with terrorists. Philanthropist? Yes, but in the same way that Bin Laden is a philanthropist to those who protect him (maybe not as bad as that, but in the same vein).
BUT... Omar was a 15-yo kid in a compound attacked by US forces, whose life was threatened in an hours-long firefight that eventually resulted in the breaching of the compound wall by explosives, and an invasion of armed military personnel. To claim that the US soldier was murdered is ludicrous. It was a military operation operation, and the people inside the compound were justifiably afraid for their lives. It was not a police operation where they went up to the door and asked to enter.
To deny any prisoners taken there the benefits of the Geneva Convention is an embarrassment to the US (all of Gitmo is). To allow the evidence attained through torture to be used is in blatant violation of international law. To torture a 15-yo boy into confessing is just abhorrent.
And the fact that the Canadian government is fighting so hard to abdicate ITS responsibility to make sure its citizens are protected to the fullest extent of international law and conventions is simply sickening. There is nothing in this situation that any US or Canadian politician can be proud of.
|
Ditto. The point I was making though was that a potentially huge driving force behind the prevailing Canadian-US attitude could be as a result of the kid's family. I'm definitely not saying that's right, I was just trying to get some further insight into Ahmed Khadr/HCI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silent_jay
I just read an article in the National Post and found the funniest comment from another reader:
Now, what criminal act was committed is my big question, if it's the apparent act of killing a US soldier in a war zone, well that's just stupid, it's a war, the house Khadr was inside was attacked by US forces, as GreyWolf said it wasn't a police action to arrest anyone, it was a military operation, so to clam he was murdered is ludicrous. Using the logic that the soldier was murdered in a military operation, does that not mean that the combatants inside the house were murdered by US soldiers? Not to mention no one seems to have a clue who actually threw said grenade which killed said soldier.
Here's a link to the article, comments are below, they also seem to have a misunderstanding of the supporters of Khadr, they seem to think people like myself, Bob Rae, the NDP Party and the Liberal party was an unconditional release with no punishment at all, not too sure who's ass they pulled this from but I certainly haven't read that.
Kelly McParland: The one-sided world of Khadr coverage - Full Comment |
Very interesting point you're making about criminal acts during wartime... but to me if the military did have proof that a militant was responsible for the deaths of one or several of its members they probably would have some avenue to pursue punishment, regardless of the fact that these things are inevitabilities in a war. I'm sure there's other cases of this which might be a little more black and white; I'll do some digging when I'm off work.
And as a quick aside, I personally wouldn't spend too much time worrying about comments you see on news websites... from my experience the overwhelming vast majority of people who weigh in on discussions have I.Q.s somewhere in the one-digit region.