Free Dating Site    

And remember,....

Please lets remember the "cause" that little innocent Omar was fighting for. The Taliban. Lets examine their track record;

a. forbid all music
b. forbid balloons and videos
c. forbid women to work or go to school
d. threw homosexuals off rooftops
e. hung and beheaded dissenters
f. destroyed 2 thousand year old Buddhist statues
g. masterminded dozens of suicide bombings throughout the world

I need no education in that arena, I know all too well
what an enemy is capable of. I take no pride is some of the
things I've done to defend myself and my unit. It's a horror
only another combat vet can ever truely understand... I don't want
to speak of it any longer.

I wasn't implying that be the case 100% of the time.

Yes, they do but most soldiers are ingrained to conduct
themselves like robots. Few if any of this latest generation seem
to understand they have a right and in fact a higher obligation
than their superior to protest an illegal order if so given. This
generation thinks war is some video game that can be reset when
things go wrong. Then when they are lying in the hosptial miamed
for life crying why O' why? It saddens me greatly for war is hell
and while you can never bring everyone home. One can be wiser in
their actions because this is real life, it ain't no video game
the mistakes you make can cost you and others their lives...

No, that's not the case at all, some of the most famous and
often praised soldiers of the past quiet frequently disobeyed
orders. To quote one in particular (which I'm not a big fan of)
Douglas MacArthur once said "It's often the orders you don't obey
that make you famous" He was referring to an order where Pershing
had ordered his unit to advance on the enemy during WWI. However,
MacArthur knew something Pershing didn't and that was any attack
on that position was suicide. So, he disobeyed Pershings order
which later made Pershing extremely upset with him but the truth
lay in the failed attack and he had no choice but acknowledge that
MacArthur's failure saved the lines from the counter attack that
followed...

I believe my definition is more fitting and the Geneva
convention concurs with what I've said.

The Al-Queda wasn't there in the opening days our presence
has brought them into the theather of battle.

Yea, that's what they want you to believe but guess what
doll, it just ain't so... Remeber that oath where you raised your
right hand and swore to protect the Constitution? They wasn't
asking you to protect USMJ... This is were a thinking person
knows the ruse that is about to come after.

Not at all. I’m just not blinded with hatred.

I’ve not advocated for anything but following norms and
standards of international and domestic law. But you seem like an
idealogue incapable of seeing the world in anything other than
black and white. You question nothing? Maybe that’s a hangover
from your days in the military…when you had “forfeited” your
constitutional rights (or thought you had). Well I haven’t, and
never would.

P.S. The Taliban had no formal army.

Then you do not understand what you are reading with the Geneva
Convention. The fact alone that he trained with Al Queda and was
openly in theatre performing random acts of violence constitutes
Khadr as a terrorist. He was not wearing a uniform, he was conducting
random acts of violence and he was not a citizen of that country.
Hence why he is sitting at Gitmo with other suspected terrorists.

He was not wearing a uniform, he was conducting
random acts of violence

he was not a citizen of that country.

was
openly in theatre performing random acts of violence constitutes

Yes he does. You, quite apparently, have no clue what the
conventions actually say or mean.

This kid is not being abused.
He is being treated humanely considering
he is standing accused of killing one of our military members.
What else do you want? Invite him out for dinner and fan him
with a fig leaf while he eats? Give me a break.

You can make your curt remarks about my service to my country...considering I have performed something you never have, I will sum that remark up as is.

By the way..I am a realist and yes, my opinion is that you do indeed
sympathize with terrorists.

Not everyone views the world through rose colored glasses, we were not afforded that luxury.

Granted I chose to serve my country and I did so proudly but I have viewed
reality up close and personal so just because I don't want to
do a prayer circle with these animals this does not mean that I
am a horrible person, it means that I understand them and it's obvious
you do not.

You are quoting me but not addressing what I said. And the
nonsense about dinner and fig leaves is just nonsense, of the sort
of that people resort to when they have no real argument.

Believe me, I'm not being curt. Your hatred and
irrationality alarm me.

It's your unreasoned "opinion" ...simply because I disagree
with you (narcissism?). I don't sympathize with terrorists--and
you saying it over and over won't make it so. You are not a
realist when it comes to evaluating others....clearly. You don't
even use evidence to support your conclusions....you just ASSERT:
"Dammit I said so...so it must BE!!"

Oh waaaaa. What, were you raised a poor slave child on an
ante-bellum plantation?

Anyway, the only two choices of lens for viewing the world
aren't rose and the deepest black. That's the problem--you are an
extremist,

Again, nothing you say here has any meaning.

Again, nothing you say here has any meaning. Prayer
circles? Who said anything about prayer circles? You are creating
straw men, just to knock them down again....so as to avoid saying
anything of any substance.....because?

What emotions does this stir in you?

Actually what I threw in there is in all actuality showing what I believe you
would more than likely perform with them as compared to they being
punished.

Oh waaaaa. What, were you raised a poor slave child on the banks of the Mississippi?

Oh waaaaa. What, were you raised a poor slave child on an
ante-bellum plantation?

Anyway, the only two choices of lens for viewing the world aren't rose and the deepest black....except for extremists.

Anyway, the only two choices of lens for viewing the world
aren't rose and the deepest black. That's the problem--you are an
extremist,

There is no questioning whether Khadr killed Sgt Speer,

You seem to be "accidently" forgetting the planting of land mines that are on video tape.That is against international law and is considered a random act of violence.It's on tape.Did you forget that or did you hope every one who had an opinion different than yours would?

Interestingly....nowhere in that piece does Sgt Morris SAY
he saw Khadr throw the grenade.

Mind you, I don't know whether he threw it or not....nor do
I think it particularly matters for the present issue. But it's
obviously not a clear cut case....there's QUESTIONS, however much
you might refuse to acknowledge them.

But MORRIS doesn't say it--in fact it's clearly stated
that he DID NOT see him throw it. You should practice more at
reading comprehension....you seem to misinterpret quite a lot of
what you read.

And btw, the lawsuit is irrelevent, at least as "evidence"
against Omar Khadr. And it wasn't even against him...but against
his father. So how does that help us?

Once again, Sgt Morris did indeed state that Khadr was the only
one left within the compound which leads to the fact that he threw
the grenade.

"And btw again, the US, at least, has refused to make funds confiscated from terrorists and terrorist networks available to families suing for wrongful deaths like this"

The only reason he is still alive is because others stopped his execution.

the reality of it in this situation is that persons who take up arms on the approach of an invading army, WITHOUT REGARD for the presence or absence of uniforms or insignia, are protected persons under the 3rd convention. The only requirements of them are that they carry their arms openly and are abiding by the rules of warfare at the time of their capture. All of these conditions, as defined by the conventions, were met in this situation.

civilians are permitted to take up arms, apart from joining the military, to resist an invader, even if they are not native to the country.

And, civilians are permitted to take up arms, apart from joining the military, to resist an invader, even if they are not native to the country.

Quite apparently you do not either and I'm not surprised.

Khadr was in Afghanistan with the
Taliban fighting against a foreign invader. This would
constitute Khadr as a enemy combatant but on the other hand,
due to not wearing a uniform he can also be considered an
unlawful combatant when he was fighting the US Army.

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:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even of this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subor-dinates ;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a govern-ment or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Person who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they jail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the junctions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

In accordance with these principles and with the provisions of Articles 1 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, those who take up arms are classified in three categories:

I. ' Belligerents are persons belonging to organized military forces, whether the army or militias and volunteer corps, provided that such militias or volunteer corps fulfil the following conditions: '
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his
subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a
distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws
and customs of war.

The qualification of belligerent is subject to these four conditions being fulfilled.

II. ' The status of belligerent also applies, in accordance with Article 2 of the Regulations, to inhabitants of a non-occupied territory who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces. '
The enemy is obliged to recognize the belligerent status of the inhabitants when they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war, even though they may not have had time to form themselves into regular armed units as required by Article 1

III. ' The third category includes all those who, whether fighting in organized units or individually, are unable to avail themselves of the provisions of Articles 1 of the Regulations, and who, in accordance with the Preamble to the Convention, are under the protection and empire of the principles of international law. '
In particular, this category includes armed units who do not meet the requirements of Article 1 of the Regulations, the inhabitants of a Part of the territory already taken over by the enemy who take up arms to fight against the enemy, as well as persons who, from time to time, participate on their own initiative in war operations and then return to their peaceful pursuits, and lastly, persons who take isolated action in the unoccupied part of the territory in order to be of service to their country.

You seem to be "accidently" forgetting the planting of land mines that are on video tape.That is against international law and is considered a random act of violence.

So where is it that you find:

Believe me, I know more about the conventions than you ever will.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even of this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

The enemy is obliged to recognize the belligerent status of the inhabitants when they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war, even though they may not have had time to form themselves into regular armed units as required by Article 1