View Single Post
Old 07-31-2010, 09:57 AM   #83 (permalink)
james t kirk
Junkie
 
james t kirk's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace_O_Spades View Post
I'm having a really hard time understanding the weird legal loopholes Harper is jumping through in order to not recognize Omar Khadr as a child soldier during the period in question. His status as a child soldier is invoked independent of any alleged activity during a conflict in which a child soldier is in the field. This is without even addressing the torture post-capture.
1. The definition of a child soldier is a person 14 or under. When OK was caught after the fire fight with the Americans - he was 15. Therefore, not a child soldier.

International humanitarian law
According to Article 77.2 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, adopted in 1977:

‘The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, the Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.’


2. Canada did not make him a child soldier - his parents did.

3. OK does not meet the recognized definition of a soldier.

I see no need to jump through any loopholes.

---------- Post added at 01:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:54 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by silent_jay View Post
Haven't you heard? Everything wrong with Canada is the fault of Liberals and the NDP, at least in JTK's world it is.

It sure is, I mean him being a child soldier and all......

He'll still have a US military lawyer though, even he think Khadr is the victim in this:

Omar Khadr agrees to be defended by U.S. lawyer - The Globe and Mail
Hardly as I pretty much always vote liberal. I'm not a fan of Harper, I thought Paul Martin was a good man.

I'm just pointing out the fact that the liberals had 4 years to do something about OK and they chose not to.

And here's a fact you can bank on....

If the liberals were elected tomorrow (not that that is going to happen) they wouldn't do anything any differently.

AND, the Americans wouldn't give OK back anyway.

OK will get his day in court. If he stopped playing games and firing legal team after legal team after legal team, maybe they could get it over with already.

Last edited by james t kirk; 07-31-2010 at 10:03 AM..
james t kirk is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360