Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5863

A plea deal that would reportedly keep a Guantanamo prisoner in custody for eight more years isn't sitting well with a key witness against him: a former Army sergeant who was partially blinded and lost a friend in the firefight that led to the alleged al-Qaida militant's capture.

Layne Morris said Friday that Canadian-born Omar Khadr should get at least 20 years in prison, and perhaps much longer.

"They ought to lock him up until he's no longer a threat, and if that's for the rest of his life, so be it," Morris said in an interview with The Associated Press a day after Khadr's lawyers disclosed they were negotiating a possible plea deal.

Khadr, who was 15 when he was captured following the firefight in Afghanistan in 2002, was originally scheduled to go on trial Monday at the U.S. base in Cuba. He faces war crimes charges that include murder for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed Army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer, a special forces medic from Albuquerque, New Mexico. If convicted, he faces a maximum life sentence.
...
There have been plea talks before, but Khadr himself has resisted, saying it would excuse the harsh treatment he endured during captivity. He also denies throwing the grenade that killed Speer.

The Khadr case is problematic for the U.S. because of his age and the fact that his father, who was killed in 2003, had close ties to senior al-Qaida leaders. His lawyers and human rights groups say Khadr was a child soldier, essentially brainwashed by his family, who should be sent home and rehabilitated.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101015/ap_ … r_crimes_1

Does anyone beside me see it as kinda stupid to be charging a 15 year old with war crimes considering he was taken over there to fight by his father? Also how is it really a war crime to kill someone who would have killed you since it was a war?

Last edited by Macbeth (2010-10-16 05:01:03)

FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6688|'Murka

Since he was not following international conventions on the conduct of hostilities, the actions he took could be considered war crimes.

The bigger issue here, IMO, is the child soldier issue. His age at the time (15), makes that argument somewhat of a gray area, though. While we don't consider children to be adults until the age of 18 for those purposes, they are considered adults at earlier ages in other countries. There are valid arguments on both sides.

I would wonder what else did he do or has he done, other than the grenade incident to exacerbate the situation? If he were merely a child soldier captured on the battlefield, it would seem to be a lesser issue than this.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6927

It always strikes me as funny (as in weird, not haha) that because the people fighting out there aren't technically members of a formal army, when they kill someone it's considered murder rather than part of his job.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6688|'Murka

That's the bitch of not following international agreements that govern the conduct of hostilities.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6994

FEOS wrote:

That's the bitch of not following international agreements that govern the conduct of hostilities.
i lulz when people bitch about the US not following the GC whilst taliban and AQ obviously are not.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6688|'Murka

Cybargs wrote:

FEOS wrote:

That's the bitch of not following international agreements that govern the conduct of hostilities.
i lulz when people bitch about the US not following the GC whilst taliban and AQ obviously are not.
Those people obviously haven't read the GC, as it gives signatories an out when the other party doesn't follow the tenets of the Conventions, whether they are signatories or not.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6682|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

FEOS wrote:

That's the bitch of not following international agreements that govern the conduct of hostilities.
i lulz when people bitch about the US not following the GC whilst taliban and AQ obviously are not.
Those people obviously haven't read the GC, as it gives signatories an out when the other party doesn't follow the tenets of the Conventions, whether they are signatories or not.
Doesn't that kind of make them pointless though?
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6994

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:


i lulz when people bitch about the US not following the GC whilst taliban and AQ obviously are not.
Those people obviously haven't read the GC, as it gives signatories an out when the other party doesn't follow the tenets of the Conventions, whether they are signatories or not.
Doesn't that kind of make them pointless though?
not really. its more like a war agreement if you will. two countries fight both go "dont do this shit or we'll do it back"

just wish the pow laws in the GC apply all the time in the real world =/
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6688|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:


i lulz when people bitch about the US not following the GC whilst taliban and AQ obviously are not.
Those people obviously haven't read the GC, as it gives signatories an out when the other party doesn't follow the tenets of the Conventions, whether they are signatories or not.
Doesn't that kind of make them pointless though?
Actually, just the opposite.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5536|foggy bottom
pleas are automatically offered in courts martial usually
Tu Stultus Es
EVieira
Member
+105|6756|Lutenblaag, Molvania
So throwing grenades are now war crimes... Guantanamo is the stupidest thing hte US has produced. And these so called trials are ridiculous, there is absolutely NO LEGAL ground for them.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5635|London, England

EVieira wrote:

So throwing grenades are now war crimes... Guantanamo is the stupidest thing hte US has produced. And these so called trials are ridiculous, there is absolutely NO LEGAL ground for them.
Really? Where should they be tried?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5863

I don't think they really should have charged him with murder or anything else really. The same "it's a war, get over it'' attitude I take towards American caused destruction and death I'll extend to the militants. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan, one soldier got killed by a 15 year old in a battle, it's a war get over it.

Having some silly little trial and charging him with murder seems really really stupid.

They should just killed him on the spot after the battle.

Last edited by Macbeth (2010-10-20 14:46:47)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6682|North Carolina

Macbeth wrote:

I don't think they really should have charged him with murder or anything else really. The same "it's a war, get over it'' attitude I take towards American caused destruction and death I'll extend to the militants. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan, one soldier got killed by a 15 year old in a battle, it's a war get over it.

Having some silly little trial and charging him with murder seems really really stupid.

They should just killed him on the spot after the battle.
I prefer that as well.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6383|eXtreme to the maX

Macbeth wrote:

They should just killed him on the spot after the battle.
Now that WOULD have been murder.
don't think they really should have charged him with murder or anything else really. The same "it's a war, get over it'' attitude I take towards American caused destruction and death I'll extend to the militants. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan, one soldier got killed by a 15 year old in a battle, it's a war get over it.
This makes more sense.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-10-20 18:02:36)

Fuck Israel
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6688|'Murka

EVieira wrote:

So throwing grenades are now war crimes... Guantanamo is the stupidest thing hte US has produced. And these so called trials are ridiculous, there is absolutely NO LEGAL ground for them.
Actually, there's TONS of legal ground.

Someone needs to do some readin'.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5863

It's been 4 years FEOS. You should have realized by now that : A. nobody gives a fuck about international law and B. saying that something is a law isn't a reasonable argument for it.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6688|'Murka

Macbeth wrote:

It's been 4 years FEOS. You should have realized by now that : A. nobody gives a fuck about international law and B. saying that something is a law isn't a reasonable argument for it.
That's right...factiness is sooo inconvenient.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
EVieira
Member
+105|6756|Lutenblaag, Molvania

FEOS wrote:

EVieira wrote:

So throwing grenades are now war crimes... Guantanamo is the stupidest thing hte US has produced. And these so called trials are ridiculous, there is absolutely NO LEGAL ground for them.
Actually, there's TONS of legal ground.

Someone needs to do some readin'.
They guy threw a grenade in a WAR in FOREIGN SOIL. Enlighten me with your arguments on how he can be tried for murder in an American court...
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6775

EVieira wrote:

FEOS wrote:

EVieira wrote:

So throwing grenades are now war crimes... Guantanamo is the stupidest thing hte US has produced. And these so called trials are ridiculous, there is absolutely NO LEGAL ground for them.
Actually, there's TONS of legal ground.

Someone needs to do some readin'.
They guy threw a grenade in a WAR in FOREIGN SOIL. Enlighten me with your arguments on how he can be tried for murder in an American Cuban court...
fixt
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6688|'Murka

EVieira wrote:

FEOS wrote:

EVieira wrote:

So throwing grenades are now war crimes... Guantanamo is the stupidest thing hte US has produced. And these so called trials are ridiculous, there is absolutely NO LEGAL ground for them.
Actually, there's TONS of legal ground.

Someone needs to do some readin'.
They guy threw a grenade in a WAR in FOREIGN SOIL. Enlighten me with your arguments on how he can be tried for murder in an American court...
Like I said, you need to do some reading. Specifically, the Geneva Convention articles concerning status and treatment of prisoners during hostilities. There is wording specific to trials for prisoners.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
EVieira
Member
+105|6756|Lutenblaag, Molvania

FEOS wrote:

EVieira wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Actually, there's TONS of legal ground.

Someone needs to do some readin'.
They guy threw a grenade in a WAR in FOREIGN SOIL. Enlighten me with your arguments on how he can be tried for murder in an American court...
Like I said, you need to do some reading. Specifically, the Geneva Convention articles concerning status and treatment of prisoners during hostilities. There is wording specific to trials for prisoners.
By the Geneva Convention, POWs cannot be harmed or tortured and must be repatriated. And I don't think there's anything there condemning the use of grenades or stating that sargents who loose buddies should get special treatment.

Actually, if the prisioners of Guantanamo are under the Geneva Convention (and the Bush administration refuted that, I don't know if the Obama admin changed that) all the US can do is keep them safe and well fed until the end of the war, after which they have to be repatriated.

If the Geneva Convention is your legal base, than you need to do some reading up yourself.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6994

EVieira wrote:

FEOS wrote:

EVieira wrote:

They guy threw a grenade in a WAR in FOREIGN SOIL. Enlighten me with your arguments on how he can be tried for murder in an American court...
Like I said, you need to do some reading. Specifically, the Geneva Convention articles concerning status and treatment of prisoners during hostilities. There is wording specific to trials for prisoners.
By the Geneva Convention, POWs cannot be harmed or tortured and must be repatriated. And I don't think there's anything there condemning the use of grenades or stating that sargents who loose buddies should get special treatment.

Actually, if the prisioners of Guantanamo are under the Geneva Convention (and the Bush administration refuted that, I don't know if the Obama admin changed that) all the US can do is keep them safe and well fed until the end of the war, after which they have to be repatriated.

If the Geneva Convention is your legal base, than you need to do some reading up yourself.
GC also states if your enemy does not follow any articles taliban in this case hiding behind women and children, not being uniformed etc.

there are war crimes involved that's why they have a trial.

what they're doing at gitmo aint shit compared to what would happen if a US troop got captured by the taliban.

and that kid is canadian or something so he probs broke a law in canada aiding terrorists or some shit.

edit: US gov is kinda in charge of afghanistan right now and theyre working hand in hand with karzai's gov which is the recognized government of afghanistan whether you like it or not.

Last edited by Cybargs (2010-10-21 08:39:21)

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6688|'Murka

EVieira wrote:

FEOS wrote:

EVieira wrote:


They guy threw a grenade in a WAR in FOREIGN SOIL. Enlighten me with your arguments on how he can be tried for murder in an American court...
Like I said, you need to do some reading. Specifically, the Geneva Convention articles concerning status and treatment of prisoners during hostilities. There is wording specific to trials for prisoners.
By the Geneva Convention, POWs cannot be harmed or tortured and must be repatriated. And I don't think there's anything there condemning the use of grenades or stating that sargents who loose buddies should get special treatment.

Actually, if the prisioners of Guantanamo are under the Geneva Convention (and the Bush administration refuted that, I don't know if the Obama admin changed that) all the US can do is keep them safe and well fed until the end of the war, after which they have to be repatriated.

If the Geneva Convention is your legal base, than you need to do some reading up yourself.
I am quite well-versed in LOAC, thank you--I receive annual training on it. READ THE GC. Don't just fucking browse them. Then come back.

I recommend looking specifically at the Third GC, as well as Protocol I. Basically, the gist is that those held in captivity whose status is unclear must have their status determined by a competent tribunal, at which point, they are either tried by the civil courts of the detaining country or held as a POW and can be tried under the GC for their actions as such.

Then there's the point Cybargs made, which is spot on: any violation of the tenets of the GC, even by a non-signatory, absolves a signatory of any responsibility of following the tenets themselves. That's in the GC (Article II of GCIII), as well.

Read.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
13rin
Member
+977|6756
yea...but. but.  Gitmo is bad because Bush came up with it.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard