| Submit your comments on this article |
| Great White North |
| In Canada, an Outcast Family Finds Support |
| 2005-06-10 |
| EFL: Blood pressure alert. My first candidate for the shark food solution. U.S. Detention of Teen Draws Concern TORONTO -- The thundering F-16 and A-10 warplanes reduced the fighters' compound in Afghanistan to smoldering rubble. No one could still be alive, figured the U.S. soldiers crouched nearby. But inside, saved by a half-standing wall, a lanky 15-year-old waited as the wary soldiers neared. As the Americans recount it, he leapt up, threw a grenade and was cut down by the soldiers' fire. The grenade scored: A 28-year-old sergeant was mortally wounded. The boy was not, however. Blinded in one eye, his chest ripped opened by bullets, Omar Khadr lay on the ground and asked the soldiers to kill him -- in perfect English. He was a Canadian. "Everybody who walked by wanted to put a round in him," said Master Sgt. Scotty Hansen, who was awarded a Bronze Star for Valor after the battle in 2002. "But we all knew that's not the way we do it." |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #22 I'm sure if they asked, France would love to have them and make the mom some sort of national hero. But then the men all fought, and not surrendered, truely not of French tradition. OK mom can go to france but the one surviving man have to stay. |
| Posted by: 49 pan 2005-06-10 21:10 |
| #21 That should be lawfully, summarily shot |
| Posted by: john 2005-06-10 20:22 |
| #20 So can jihadi mercenaries, dressed in assorted camo and civies, (not in the uniform of a regular national army or pretending to be soldiers of same) be summarily shot when captured? |
| Posted by: john 2005-06-10 20:20 |
| #19 Free the lad. Dip him in meat-tenderizer and a nice marinade and let him swim home from Gitmo. Given that this is the height of shark season he will finally be doing something useful in his life by contributing to the food-chain. And for crying out loud...quit announcing we've captured these morons. Just whisk 'em away to Club Med Gitmo and be done with it! |
| Posted by: Justrand 2005-06-10 19:10 |
| #18 During WWII we caught a number of Germans who were raised in the U.S. but were fighting for Germany in U.S. Army uniforms, posing as Americans. They were questioned, given a cigarette, then shot. No uniforms (or wrong uniforms), no rights. End of story. |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2005-06-10 19:04 |
| #17 Armed civilians? No. However there is an area that says guerillas who follow the rules in the Geneva Conventions are considered to be combatants and have some of the same rights as regular members of armed forces. In international conflicts, guerrillas must distinguish themselves from the civilian population if they are preparing/engaged in an attack. At a minimum, guerrillas must carry their arms openly. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 2) However, there's a case to be made that foreign fighters in Afghanistan (and Iraq) could be classed as mercenaries. A mercenary is defined as any person who is specially recruited to fight in an armed conflict, takes a direct part in hostilities, who is motivated by money and is promised substantially higher pay than that paid to other combatants of similar rank, not a national of one of the countries involved in the conflict nor a resident of a territory controlled by any of the parties, not a member of the armed forces of any of the parties, and who has not been sent by another country on official duty as a member of its armed forces. (Protocol I, Art. 47). Mercenaries are not classed as combatants nor classed as prisoners of war (Protocol I, Art. 37). |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-06-10 18:56 |
| #16 My blood pressure spiked reading this story. *Aaaarrggghhh* whatever happened to the good old days when people like this just disappeared? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-06-10 18:50 |
#15 The requirements for being considered a POW are:Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: If you've got problems with YOUR DARLINGS sporting a distinctive sign that declares to the US military that I AM THE ENEMY, then you ought to read this. NOT that you'd agree. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2005-06-10 18:42 |
| #14 Questions The Geneva convention gives rights to recognized, uniformed combatants. Where does that leave armed civilians engaged in warfare? If they are not following the "rules", are they entitled to the protections? Could armed civilians caught on the battlefield be summarily executed? |
| Posted by: john 2005-06-10 17:45 |
| #13 He is guilty of Murder and should be charged and brought to trial. A trial infront of a Military Tribuine. Then he should be left to rot. No Virgins for Omar. Killing him will give him and his supporters what they really want. I too would have been tempted put a 45 round between his eyes with my personal sidearm. This guy doesn't even deserve that. I am sure he is full of info. We will get it a little at a time. Time is on our side, not his or his families. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-06-10 15:15 |
| #12 Run a search on them in Rantburg. They've been here before. Many times. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-06-10 13:22 |
| #11 "As the Americans recount it, he leapt up, threw a grenade and was cut down by the soldiers' fire. The grenade scored: A 28-year-old sergeant was mortally wounded." Canada can support this family full of losers if they want to, but it pains me to know that my taxes are securing and feeding their Gitmo trash. For the life of me, I don't see why he doesn't get a quick tribunal and a firing squad. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-06-10 13:20 |
| #10 This sounds like a family that REALLY needs some "axehandle counselling". Begin with Mom and work down and out. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2005-06-10 13:03 |
| #9 Of course they want their passports. Canada won't give them passports. Why you ask? Because in the past they kept "losing" them and applying for more. Go figure? Give them a one way travel document to whoever will take them. I guarantee they will be banging at the nearest Canadian Embassy door 6 months later looking for their "rights" as Canadians to return. |
| Posted by: Glaitch Wholurong7714 2005-06-10 12:22 |
| #8 "But his Koran? Is his Koran okay?" Classic just classic! I never thought of using someone as a human mop over urine soaked floors. Sounds like a nice non-leathal (non-Koran abusing) way to get a prisoner to talk. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-06-10 11:32 |
| #7 This whole family needs their asses kicked clear off the fucking planet. Who cares a rat's ass about asshole that want to kill us? Leave the kid on Devil's Island to rot and send those women back to whatever sandy shithole they came from, hopefully to be prosecuted there. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2005-06-10 11:26 |
| #6 ...Canada's lawmakers cannot look the other way when a citizen is held in foreign custody for years, under abusive conditions, and denied due process," said an editorial in the Toronto Star in February. "That makes Ottawa a silent partner in human rights abuse." Let's ask that Iranian-Canadian journalist what she thinks of all this. Whoops, can't. |
| Posted by: Angie Schultz 2005-06-10 11:25 |
| #5 Whether it's terrorists or drug cartel thugs, why should we have to pay for long expensive trials, transportation, food shelter and medical? |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2005-06-10 11:23 |
| #4 Was he wearing a uniform? If he was then he can be let to rot in a prisonner camp until the war ends. If he wasn't he should have been shot on the spot. Both according to the Geneva conventions. |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-06-10 10:29 |
| #3 No good deed goes unpunished. I can't help but think the grunts should have alloted him one or two rounds in the head before the shooting stopped. I've got alot of respect for the men who resisted the urge to cap him after the shooting stopped. Don't think I would have been able to do the same. |
| Posted by: Tkat 2005-06-10 10:13 |
| #2 "Isn't that supposed to be the thing that differentiates the Western world from the Eastern world? Freedom of speech? Freedom of thought? " Zaynab Khadr asked mockingly. But not beyond being held responsible for their actions you asshat. Its that cause -->> effect thing. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-06-10 10:08 |
| #1 "Canadian citizens should not be left beyond the reach of law," said Alex Neve, head of the Ottawa office of Amnesty International, a human rights group. If they're not on your soil when they comitted the deed, they're pretty much beyond the reach of YOUR law. Unfortunately, that's usually how things work. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-06-10 09:57 |