I certainly hope there has been no deal made to bring that Khadr fellow back to Canada after a year in Gitmo. If he steps back on Canadian soil, I expect to see the crown lay charges under the Criminal Code for High Treason.

Sec 46 (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;
(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or
(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

I think he should easily be found guilty of 1(b) and 1(c).

Ezra said it, he should have been killed on the spot.

I expect to see the crown lay charges under the Criminal Code for High Treason.

Not a chance because of his youth at the time of the offence.
He'll be protected by Brian Mulroney's Young Offenders Act.

Does anyone take Levant seriously? He plays out the prepared statement from the US Military?? like a bad propagandists working for Goebbels. He plays the endangered jew card badly too. If I were Jewish, I would be embarrassed by this person whose diatribes target those who are completely uninformed or of low mentality. Certainly a very poor spokesperson for any race or group of peoples.

Can't help but think of Oscar Wilde's quote, "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask (or burqa), and he will tell you the truth."
Khadr's sister and mother show their true aspirations and ideologies and lefty morons vehemently defend these scum. It absolutely baffles the mind.

I am wondering if "Hugger" is jealous. To answer your question - many persons, both in Canada and abroad, take Ezra Levant seriously including Mark Steyn. What is your opinion of Mark Steyn?

"If I were Jewish, I would be embarrassed by this person whose diatribes target those who are completely uninformed or of low mentality. Certainly a very poor spokesperson for any race or group of peoples."

Mr Pot-Kettle

He isn't a spokesman for the Jews or any 'race.' That you see him that way suggests you have some issues.

RFID his ass.

As soon as he sets foot on Canadian soil, he should be arrested and held on a minister's certificate. (I think that's the term for it.)

Hold him in a secure location, and fill his mushy little head with stories about how his life isn't worth a plugged nickel out on the streets of Canada. Convince him that we have reliable intelligence that friends and relatives of murdered American soldiers are already in Canada, armed, and ready to take him out, and that the police are powerless to stop them.

Then give him an out: let him know if he renounces his Canadian citizenship, and convinces his worthless relatives to do the same, that the Government will give them 50,000 dollars and one-way airline tickets to the buttcrackistan of their choice, the money payable on arrival.

Of course, when the payoff comes, hand them a sack of counterfeit money. No use wasting the real thing, we have Liberals that specialize in that.

Nice try Hugger, but you will have to do better than that if you expect us to fall for such simple-minded trolling.

Ezra spoke well as always. There's nothing much one can add.

Ezra was spot on. He should have had hid damn head blown off in combat.

What a sack of shit and its a shame we're getting him now.

Canadian justice. What a f**king joke.

Hugger- "If I were Jewish, I would be embarrassed by this person whose diatribes target those who are completely uninformed or of low mentality".
Relax, he's not targeting you! Oh, wait....

Be prepared to be extremely outraged when our Little Omar finally makes landfall in Canada. I foresee a short stay in Collins Bay or some other Club Fed,followed by an extensive program of rehabilitation paid for by taxpayers.

Omar will be a hero to fellow jihadists,and his presence here should result in a few more "Toronto 18's".

Ezra is right on,the little SOB should have been a combat casualty.

What in God's name would we want him back on canadain soil for?

Take him out, stand him in front of a wall and plug him.

Then deport his mother and sister!

I'm sure this fine young man will be quite popular in a federal penitentiary.

Eight years for murdering at least one person, likely many more. This is insanity! He should have been tried by a military tribunal and executed long ago.

Does Obama, Eric Holder, and the Demon Rats think we are playing a game of Risk here?

Slightly off topic. Ezra was on "Power and Politics" today debating the latest 'duck genocide' with none other than Elizabeth May. It was quite entertaining.

At one point she smugly chastized Ezra because he suggested that she eats murdered cows,and if he had done his research,he would know that she is a vegetarian.

Ezra replied,"Sure Lizzie,and I bet your favourite vegetable is poplar"....No,he didn't say that,though I wish he had.

Ezra is right about sweet little Omar.Omar's case should have been closed on the battlefield.

Q: "What do we do with him"
A: Tie him to a post and execute him by firing squad.

What is your opinion of Mark Steyn?
Posted by: No-One at October 27, 2010 11:40 PM

I haven't seen or heard enough from him to offer much of an opinion. I only saw one video of him debating some muslim students and that wasn't enough to draw a substantial conclusion. He did appear well spoken, but that doesn't mean much.

Levant on the other hand I have seen a number of times, and he plays to the crowd. He is purposely loud, obnoxious, boorish and in my opinion, someone whose main interest lies with his own pocketbook.

I kinda miss the days when people like Khadr, his wimmen folk, and treasonous wussies like Julian Assange simply got disappeared. I pay good money to have a first-rate clandestine organization like the CIA and I WANT RESULTS, Dammit!

The whole family acts in-bred, and Omar is definitely short a few marbles. Recall his claim that at Gitmo they gouged his eyes out. Huh!

OZ: The Young Offenders Act was replaced by the ineffectual and "namby pamby" Youth Criminal Justice Act by the Liberals under Jean Cretien in 2003.

I predict a reality show for the Khadr family.

Absolutely, Mystery Meat. If you could set that up near me, I can have a pilot for you in no time.

Just make sure you bring Omar. We'll call it 'Canadian' Survivor and ratings will be huge!

(Unfortunately I guarantee you it'll be a 'one shot' deal and consequently wouldn't get picked up by any of our networks)

Right you are, Alex in Winnipeg.
Thank you for the correction.

Let him serve the entire eight years in Ft Levensworth, Kansas.

At the end of the sentence, put him on the side of the road outside the prison with a change of clothes and $2920 in his pocket. Let him find his own way from there....

I predict a few cameo appearances on "Little Mosque",a short stint as a judge on "So you think you can dance Canada",which he loses because "the slut must die" is not an acceptable response to all acts,followed by a long career as a political expert on various cbc shows.

Mark Kelleys' reactions are hilarious. Check out his body language. Then at the end he is clearly mad at Ezra.

On the 2nd issue (tailings ponds) unfortunately I have to agree with Liz May....not because of the ducks but because there is no real need for tailings ponds in this day and age. They just happened to be the cheapest way of dealing with tailings.

Circulate rumors that he provided valuable info and fully cooperated with the US military, then send him back to Afghanistan.

Listening to the comments of the mother and sister, paraphrasing as "he, the dead medic, was merely an American soldier, so who cares", tempted me to unlock the gun safe and take some positive action.

But then, I realized that I am a human being, not a barbarian like these despicable people.

I bet that lying creep Arar is jealous that he will soon no longer be the main attraction for Canada's bleeding hearts.

If you are going into the theatre of war as a privateer or Jihadist against a uniformed army, you should expect to leave the theatre victorious or dead as the rules of war, as documented by the Geneva convention do not apply. Khadr is alive due to misguided and overlawyered US military humanitarianism.

"he might end up running for the NDP".....yeah, no kidding...

Remember O.J. and the search for the real killers? I was thinking, O.K. and the search for the real terrorists.

Mirror, mirror on the wall ...

You think CBC ratings are bad now, just wait till they have to compete with that!
Go Ezra!

Sell the CBC.

Seeing that Khadr only feels 'good' when he is killing other people, should he be walking Canadian streets due to the Canadian justice system, I would be keeping my bayonet sharp and my rifle handy.

The statement of facts makes interesting reading...

Khadr, who pleaded guilty to five war-crimes charges on Monday, still has strong ties to his "al Qaeda family" and has made no effort to distance himself from extremist views, Dr. Michael Welner told Khadr's sentencing hearing.

"He's highly dangerous," Welner said. "It is his belief that he should not have been here for a day ... and that it is everybody else's fault that he is."

Welner told jurors that Khadr "marinated in radical jihadism" during the eight years he spent in custody in Guantanamo Bay, and was considered a spiritual leader by his fellow inmates.

Prosit!

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”

Canada, in contrast to the United States, recognizes the enemy as soldiers regardless of whether or not they are in uniform, because we signed on to Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. If Omar Khadr had been captured by Canadian Forces, he would have been a prisoner of war.

As such, under Canadian law, he would not be a murderer. Now, you can debate whether or not Protocol I is valid; that is a separate question. But to call him a murderer? He threw a grenade at an invading force. Yeah, the invading force was justified, but the laws of war are not meant to evaluate whose side was right and whose side was wrong. If you are working for a military force, regardless of whether or not they are justified or "valid" in our opinion, you are a prisoner of war by our laws, not a murderer.

Now, leaving the fact that he is not a murderer by our laws aside, he committed treason by assisting an enemy of Canada. That is his crime, not murder. And the justice system should decide whether or not we prosecute him for that crime.

We do not allow our personnel to deploy overseas if they are under 18. Hell, you cannot even fire a service rifle with an optical sight if you are under 16. And yet we discard the standards we have set here for our service members and choose to apply different standards to our enemy. I am not sure whether or not he should be convicted of treason, but we should at least consider the fact that a 15 year old would not even be able to join the Canadian Forces, let alone fight for them.

You say he's a psychopath because he's proud he killed someone who he perceives as his enemy? You know what we do with people like that? We give them a medal. We don't call them a psychopath. We don't call them a murderer. The only difference is that you agree with our killings and disagree with his. And that makes him a psychopath? Call every proud soldier who has ever taken down an enemy a psychopath then.

And people say that he "should have died on the battlefield"? We do not fight our enemy because we hate the INDIVIDUALS who oppose us. We acknowledge that we have differences, and that those differences mean we will try to kill each other; this is fair. But once the enemy is down, we try to assist him. We do our best to save his life in the hopes that in the future someone would do the same for us even if they disagree with us. Yeah, they probably won't, but that doesn't mean we abandon our principles and kill surrendering and wounded enemy.

Lock him up for as long as we are at war as a prisoner of war (because that is what he is under Canadian law). Or prosecute him for treason (because he certainly committed treason). But he's not a murderer because he was on the wrong side of the war. And he's not a psychopath because he was on the wrong side of the war and is proud of his actions in combat. The soldiers of Canada do not make moral judgments on which wars are good and which wars are bad; that is the role of government. They could just as easily end up fighting a "bad" war as a "good" one. But no matter where they are ordered to go, when fighting an enemy in combat they are not murderers, and when proud of their actions they are not psychopaths.

Shee-it! VancouverGuy makes me glad I no longer live there. The stupid runs deep in that one.

Omar Khadr was not a soldier. He was, according to the Geneva Conventions, an unlawful combatant. Furthermore, he feigned injury to draw a medic in close so he could kill him with a grenade. False surrender is a capital offense under those same conventions, because it imperils the lives of those that would legitimately surrender.

The Americans f*cked up big-time by not shooting him on the spot. Too damn kind-hearted, they are.

Perhaps VancouverGuy, seeing as you like the little bastard so much, you will offer your home as a half-way house for him upon his release from the slammer?

Epic fail Vancouver Guy!

Articles 43 and 44 clarify the military status of members of guerrilla forces. Combatant and prisoner of war status is granted to members of dissident forces when under the command of a central authority. Such combatants cannot conceal their allegiance; they must be recognizable as combatants while preparing for or during an attack.

Art 43. Armed forces

1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

Art 44. Combatants and prisoners of war

1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he
carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.
...

7. This Article is not intended to change the generally accepted practice of States with respect to the wearing of the uniform by combatants assigned to the regular, uniformed armed units of a Party to the conflict.

Seeing as Khadr plead guilty to five war crimes he has forfeited his rights under Protocol I in particular to 44.3 and 44.4. Note also 44.7 does'nt abrogate the general rule to wear a uniform, which Khadr clearly did not. Further, concealing a hand grendae doesn't help Khadr cause either.

Normal protocol would give him a cigarette, blindfold, post and firing squad...

Prosit!

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”

Heh, VGuy, hope you know how to ride a horse!

"Levant on the other hand I have seen a number of times, and he plays to the crowd. He is purposely loud, obnoxious, boorish and in my opinion, someone whose main interest lies with his own pocketbook." Posted by: Hugger at October 28, 2010 12:09 AM

When was the last time you put your money where your mouth was - Ezra Levant has put $1000,000+ of his own money where his mouth is for something he and many Canadians believe in - freedom of expression. Are you related to Jennifer Lynch by any chance?

Pleading guilty to war crimes does not mean someone committed war crimes. It means that the best option for him in this situation was to plead guilty. His plea is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not he would have been a prisoner of war under Canadian law.

From what I have read, this was a four hour firefight, and Khadr threw a hand grenade during the firefight from behind a wall.

I am betting that he was probably pretty open about his intent to fight during the battle. It's not like he stood up, pretended to surrender, and then chucked a grenade.

Article seven says it does not change the convention on wearing uniforms with regard to REGULAR, UNIFORMED armed units. His obligation, essentially, was to make it clear he wanted to fight. By not giving up and throwing a hand grenade, I think he made that clear. I think that makes him a prisoner of war by Canadian standards. He's still a traitor though.

Normal protocol, by my understanding, would NOT be to give him a cigarette, blindfold, post and a firing squad. Normal protocol, by my understanding, would be treat him as a prisoner of war. If anyone here is a JAG officer I would be happy to hear a more informed stance; I am only going by what I have been taught.

mutter, mutter, dealing with twits.

Hey VGuy, before you comment, WATCH the damn video!

....sink....miss....fall.

If for a moment we accept VGuys assertion that Khadr was behind a wall, given that Canadian Forces don't have x-ray vision, how the hell is one going to ascertain Khadr's intent as an 'unlawful combatant' in a split seconds?

Of course the 'medic' who absorbed the blast would be delighted to testify, except for the fact that he is dead.

Maybe VGuy should read up on killing medical personnel in the Geneva Conventions...

Prosit!

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”

Thanks wallyj for letting us know about Ezra Levant on Power and Politics - here is the link.

Levant starts at 1:19 - http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=1626647030

@ VGuy for further clarity

"CHAPTER III
Medical Units and Establishments

* Article 19. Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service MAY IN NO CIRCUMSTANCE BE ATTACKED, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict. Should they fall into the hands of the adverse Party, their personnel shall be free to pursue their duties, as long as the capturing Power has not itself ensured the necessary care of the wounded and sick found in such establishments and units.

The responsible authorities shall ensure that the said medical establishments and units are, as far as possible, situated in such a manner that attacks against military objectives cannot imperil their safety."

Prosit!

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”

Regarding the requirement for x-ray vision:
I never said there was any issue in determining his intent. Fact is he was sitting in a compound with weapons, and using them, and therefore he's good to go as a target. Go for it (I certainly would). And they did, and they got him. Awesome. Then, when he's injured, you take him prisoner and do your best to save him. Pretty damn simple. If he dies in the attack instead, then so be it; not an issue.

Regarding medics:
Rules also say that we should not kill civilians. We do our best not to. If someone, who is a medic, advances into a compound with military forces, how are we to know not to fire at them? If I fire artillery at an enemy platoon position and there is a medic onsite and I kill him is that somehow a crime? No, because it was reasonable for me to fire artillery at a platoon position. No one is going to say, "There was one medic on position, and therefore, even though your call for fire was against a reasonable target, we are going after you because you killed a medic." If instead I called a fire mission on an ambulance sitting in the open that would not be on.

Got to meet Ezra last night in Dartmouth at his book signing.

He took questions at the end and one of them was about Khadr. It was pretty much a short version of what he said in the clip here.

It was the first book signing I ever went to. Interesting to watch the different reactions to various folks that were either for it or just happened on it. One gal was there with her four year old and you could just tell she was chomping at the bit to lay into Ezra (her look fairly screamed tree hugger). Her comment to her four year old son as she left? "Come on, my ears can't take anymore bullsh!t". Nice.

Ezra right on the money as usual. The Khadr apologists just don't have a case. Even the Liberals where smarter. Send him back to al Quada. Let Obama, the author of this be the one responsible for letting yet another monster free.
I figure most Canadians are sick of this family of parasites.
JMO

Omar and his family are proof that our refugee and immigration system lacks a means test to determine an applicant is coming to Canada in good faith.
They are citizen's of convenience that pull out their passport as an escape hatch, but will just as quickly condemn their adopted country to justify any action.

Recall his claim that at Gitmo they gouged his eyes out.

I got better.

And 'hi', Bugger, er, Hugger.

I'm not going to Google the actual clause but all forces, including guerrilla forces, must identify themselves as armed combatants to differentiate themselves from civilians. This means wearing a distinctive uniform or piece of clothing that can be as small as wearing an armband. (The technical term is a 'brassard' and you'll see French Resistance fighters in e.g. the liberation of Paris wearing them.) This is to protect civilians from being mistaken for irregular combatants.

Any forces using civilians as shields or setting up in civilian areas especially in very unsuitable locations like in or close to schools, hospitals etc. are the ones guilty of committing a war crime not the forces attacking the enemy hidden or set up in those areas. Forces always have the right to defend themselves from attackers.

[See you later, I've got work.)

BTW, what is it with girls and horses?

"he might even run as a candidate for the NDP"

aka you are judged by the company you keep.

Im happy that justice has FINALLY been served it just took too long for my liking. so who's next on the media-military justice carousel?

I don't know if it is a blessing in disguise but I can't get the video of Lizzy Mae on the cbc's Power & Politics site. Yeah, even trying two different browsers, audio only.

Yeah, People not poultry.

I have to say that I am looking forward to the bidding war between the Liberals and NDP to get Omar to run as their candidate. That will be amusing.

However, I'm not at all looking forward to Omar being our next prime minister.

i believe there was a foto of omar khadr back in afstan jubilantly holding up a necklace of hands and feet chopped off some 'perp'...

my imagination ?...or does something like this exist?

seeing such a thing might go far in adjusting certain minds...

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/10/28/15861156.html

The UN,who else,is calling for Khadr to be immediately sent "home" to Canada so his rehabilitation can begin.

Whose side do you suppose the UN is on?

*
"vguy says... Pleading guilty to war crimes does not mean
someone committed war crimes."

hmmm... what exactly would it take for joe lunchbucket, or, say...
yourself, vguy... to plead guilty to war crimes & murder?

if it walks like a jihadi... quacks like a jihadi...

*

Omar Khadr to run for the NDP.. hahaha!! Ezra owes me some windex, kleenex, and a slurp of coffee. But it's the truth.

Canada needs to follow France's lead and start revoking citizenships.

Ya gotta luv Ezra's line
"He(khadr) will probaly end up running for the NDP"

What to do with young Khadr? Take him back to Afghanistan and give him a 30-minute head start on US or Canadian troops.

Vancouverguy

Sorry

You are a bloody idiot

Has the NDP voiced outrage at the suggestion tha Omar would probably be a candidate for them?

"I think that makes him a prisoner of war by Canadian standards."

So if/when Khadr is picked up by Canadians, he'll be golden. But he wasn't picked up by Canadians so whatever status you think he might have had is irrelevant.

That brief clip of the female Khadrs' was truly creepy, which gave me a great idea. I suggested to my 9 year-old grandaughter that she dress up
as a Muslim girl for halloween. Go door to door saying "trick or treat infidel".
Of course her brother will have to accompany her to make it legitimate.
For some reason, her mother was not impressed.

To use a quaint Muslim saying ...

"Death to Omar Khadr"

According to the Khadr women....The 3 most important thing sfor a young boy to learn....swimming, aiming (sniping) and riding a horse. I think she really meant riding a goat (and likely not on it's back).

Seriously though, how could they possibly demonstrate much more of a cultural disconnect when they would still believe those things after living in Canada on and off since the 80's.

The only way Lizzy got to that weight living on roots and berries was if they were wrapped in bacon.

Well, Ezra Levant didn't pull any punches, did he?! Clarity! And that fool of a CBC "journalist" repeated that really, really tiresome lefty distortion of Khadr as a "child soldier".

All those "journalists" have to do is a minute's googling to find the Geneva Conventions online. They can then verify that Omar Khadr was, by legal definition, an "unlawful combatant". That category includes terrorists, spies and saboteurs, all of whom can be lawfully summarily killed on the battlefield. The little b*st*rd got a break he didn't deserve when they didn't do so.

begley at 9:21, see Charles Adler's blog. He's the only person that has the fortitude to post one of those pictures, and yes they should be published across this country before Khadr is "re-patriated" and we get to pay more money to the Khadr family!!!!!

I understand that the CBC has a contract waiting for him to star on "Little House On The Prairie",that is why they will be pushing for his fast release!

Speedy @ 12:07, OMG that was a good laugh! Well done!

Sorry for being a "bloody idiot", but I am merely telling you what standards we have signed on to. And if you read the language in the document, which Hans kindly posted, it does not indicate a requirement for wearing a uniform or identification.

Is it irrelevant whether or not he would have been a prisoner of war if picked up by Canadians? Maybe to what actually happens to him now (I have no idea what the legal implications are), but certainly not when we discuss whether or not he is a murderer. By Canadian standards, he would have been a prisoner of war and not a murderer. He is also a traitor.

Call me an idiot all you want, but from my perspective you are arguing like liberals: all bluster and no facts or analysis. The Canadian Forces recognize all insurgents who fight against our forces as lawful combatants, regardless of whether or not they are in uniform, because we have signed on to that specific Geneva protocol. That is policy.

Antenor, thanks for referring to that Charles Adler blog. I searched and found the blog and it's Omar Khadr page and photos. Disgusting, sickening...

No wonder the MSM (here in US also) studiously avoids even mentioning those photos. Had they gotten widespread coverage, there would have been a huge groundswell of opposition to the cop-out easy plea bargain deal the little psycho got.

vancouver guy - could you provide the specific rule that 'recognizes all who fight against the Canadian armed forces' as 'lawful combatants' and thus, covered by the Geneva Conventions?

My understanding of the Geneva Conventions is that they apply only to members of a nation's military, not to civilians who choose, on their own, to fight both citizens of that nation and a military. Khadr is not a member of any nation's military, whether in uniform or not, and thus, is not covered by the Geneva Conventions.

President Obama is not my president

No truer words were spoken than that.

ctv.ca has it up now of the Widows statement re: Khadr

Khadr is 'unworthy' slain medics widow say's

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101028/khadr-sentencing-hearing-101028/

and a must read are the comments to this article.
and I dont get it, I just dont get it.
Why do so many standup for this terrorist in Canada, Why do they feel sorry for a terrorist. In fact for the whole damm family Why? how can this family spew so much hatred & no reprocussions.

These terms thus divide combatants in a war zone into two classes: those in armies and organised militias and the like (lawful combatants), and those who are not. The critical distinction is that a "lawful combatant" (defined above) cannot be held personally responsible for violations of civilian laws that are permissible under the laws and customs of war; and if captured, a lawful combatant has to be treated as a prisoner of war by the enemy Power under the conditions laid down in the Third Geneva Convention.

If there is any doubt about whether a detained alleged combatant is a "lawful combatant" then the combatant must be held as a prisoner of war until his or her status has been determined by "a competent tribunal". If that tribunal rules that a combatant is an "unlawful combatant" then the person's status changes to that of a civilian which may give them some rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

"Unlawful combatants", this term really isn't in the Geneva Conventions, are to be tried as civilians under the criminal law of the country the offence took place in or under the civilian criminal law of the Power which captured them on the battle field.

bryanr- remember, the progressives in Canada are deeply anti-American. That's the reason they support the Khadr family. Any and all actions againt Americans are viewed with great favour by Canadian progressives.

It's almost a default position in Canada, to be anti-American. They don't have any rational reason of course. It's particularly strong in Quebec and Ontario - and therefore, in our civil service and academia, ie, anyone living off government funds.

Note how progressives disparage, for example, Harper. He's called 'pro-American' or 'governs like an American'.
Note how they are so hostile to a new media station up here - which they consider as 'Fox News'.

But, like the error that the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail made with regard to their promotion of George Smitherman, not all Canadians are progressives - and therefore, they voted for Ford. And Harper.

Protocol I specifies that armed forces consist of all organized armed forces, whether or not they work for a government or authority that is not recognized by their foe. So you need not be a "legitimate" force in our eyes, merely an organized force.

Protocol I (Section 43) then goes on to say any combatant who meets that definition shall be a prisoner of war. Combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from civilians, but to the extent they cannot owing to the nature of the conflict, they must carry their arms openly (44.3). Essentially, this means that if you do not have a uniform or any other distinguishing mark, you at least need to make it clear you're a fighter. The Protocol then notes that this does not change the requirement for regular, uniformed units to wear uniforms (44.7).

The interpretation, as per the Laws of Armed Conflict lecture I have received (which by NO means makes me an expert), is that any guerrilla enemy we fight who is not in uniform is entitled to the same rights as a uniformed enemy.

Link:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Unlawful_combatant

vancouver guy - what lecture did you attend? I'd suggest that it is profoundly incorrect.

Islamic terrorists, whether filiated with Al Qaeda or not, are not protected by the Geneva Conventions.

First, to define a group of people fighting as legitimately under the Geneva Conventions because 'they are organized' is nonsense. That definition would apply to drug and criminal gangs which are highly organized.

What does 'armed forces' mean? Drug gangs are most certainly 'armed forces'.
Therefore, 'armed forces' has to mean a member of either a recognized national military or a member of a guerilla force.

Islamic terrorists are not engaged in 'guerilla warfare' which is defined within the Geneva Protocols as:
Art 1,4 "include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination".

But - the Islamic fascists are not engaged in any of these agendas. Their goal is to remove the legitimate government of a territory and insert their own rules (Islam). Therefore, again, according to the Geneva Conventions, they are not covered by the Conventions. They are not members of a regular military or a guerilla force.

Are they mercenaries?

A mercenary is any person who: (Art 47)

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces."

Well, it seems to me that the Islamic fascists would fall more accurately under this definition and as such, are not protected by the Geneva Convention.

Kudos to Mark Kelley for having Ezra on there.

As I read the accounts of the day Khadr threw the grenade and was shot, the reason he wasn't double-tapped is that he was wounded but had stopped fighting. ROE then required the American servicemen to render first aid and assistance, which they did.

So, we can wish a mortar had landed in Omar's lap or that the Americans had better accuracy with their weapons or that the grenade he threw had bounced off a wall and landed at his feet. But anything beyond that is to wish for a change in ROE, and that's a much bigger fence to move.

Ironically, on one hand many Americans like to say that "the terrorists came from Canada" of some derivative of; yet,on the other hand they appear to intend to send a convicted murderer and terrorist back to Canada where the know damn well he will re-enter the battlefield at some point.

I can only assume that we're being played for a sucker and patsy.JMO

sorry for the poor spelling/grammer

but I'm sure you get my point

ET for the win!!
Khadr is a mercenary Islamic terrorist!!

ET,

Criminal gangs are not parties to international conflicts. This was an international conflict.

I think the guerrilla warfare argument is a red herring, because Protocol I does not mention it when defining a combatant, but I think it applies anyways. Guerrilla warfare includes where you are fighting against alien occupation. In this case, those fighting against coalition forces were fighting against alien occupation. Justified alien occupation, yes, but still alien occupation.

The lecture is the Laws of Armed Conflict lecture in basic training (I took my basic years ago now, but participate in running these courses still). And I've always heard a pretty consistent message that anyone we fight in an international conflict, regardless of whether or not they are in uniform, becomes a prisoner of war when captured and should be treated as such.

I would note in your definition of mercenary that "AND" is used, not "OR", and as such if they are not motivated by private gain they are not a mercenary.

To summarize my points:
1. Our side was right to shoot him up.
2. Once he gets shot up, by Canadian standards I think he would be a prisoner of war based on the fact that he was a combatant.
3. Regardless of the above, he committed treason, and so should be tried for that.
4. Combatants who kill opposing soldiers during battle in the course of war are not murderers.
5. Someone is not a psychopath for being proud of the fact that they killed an opposing combatant.

I don't agree with Omar Khadr or his family in any way. I don't believe in any of his his ideals. But I do believe that under Protocol I he is a member of an armed force (a force sanctioned by the former governing authority of Afghanistan and fighting in an international conflict). As such, we should lock him up forever (or as long as this endless conflict goes) as a prisoner of war, AND try him for treason on top of that.

What can we say other than Ezra Levant is spot-on?
If anyone else declared that murdering someone made them feel happy, one would be repulsed. Why is Omar Khadr's joy at killing a man any less morally repugnant?

Somebody commented earlier about a reality show for the Khadrs! Right on! Put 'em on Mantracker but this time give Mantracker a 30-06 with scope!

vancouver guy - I don't see how guerilla war can be a red herring; it is indeed defined within the Geneva Protocols I and such are defined as 'combatants'. See Art 1-4.

My point was that Khadr is not operating within a guerilla war force.

My comment on drug gangs was in reaction to your use of 'armed organized conflict' and I was saying that this is inadequate to use to put someone within the Geneva Protocols.

No, the NATO etc forces are not an occupying force. They do not function as a government and therefore they are not legally 'occupying Afghanistan'. They are there at the request of the Afghan govt to fight against Islamic terrorism.

The private gain for Islamic fascists is not financial (after all, their ideology rejects, at least verbally, such material gains); the gain is ideological. They want to take over the nation and rule by Islamic sharia law.

I understand that you've been told that anyone who is fighting is presumed to be a 'prisoner of war', but, according to the actual law, this is not the case. After all, this means that a mercenary would fall within the definition of what you've been told..and the Geneva Protocols are very specific; they deny that these protocols cover mercenaries.

That is, an Islamic terrorist is, by definition of behaviour, a 'combatant'. The question then moves to: 'what kind of combatant'...legal or illegal? I can't see any rule that allows Islamic terrorists to fall under any legal definition of a combatant. They aren't protecting their people and country from an occupying or alien force (remember, NATO is there because the elected Afghan Govt asked them to be there). So..Art 1-4 doesn't cover them.

They are, de facto, mercenaries. They are in it for personal gain, in this case, not material but ideological gain.

So, I agree with your list except for item 2.

The definition of Armed Forces within Protocol I does not utilize guerrilla war force in any way. It merely says that you need to be operating in an armed conflict (and this must be an international armed conflict for the Geneva protocols to apply, which this clearly is).

At the point where Omar Khadr was fighting, they were not trying to take over and rule according to Islamic law, but were trying to prevent the takeover of the country. Doing a bad job of it, of course, because we rocked them.

Regardless, NATO was not asked to be there by the government of Afghanistan in 2002. You could make the case now that they are no longer an occupying force; however, Protocol I is clearly intended to remove the issue of whether or not the opposing force is legitimate in the eyes of the party taking the prisoner.

On the mercenary question:
"(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;"

Material compensation is not ideological compensation. Sorry, not mercenaries.

Only those legally entitled to participate in war are entitled to POW status upon capture on the field of battle.

There is no controlling provisions for illegal combatants captured on the battlefield.

vancouver - right, I said 'de facto' mercenary not 'de jure'.

As for Khadr, I maintain that at all times, their agenda was to take over the country and insert Islamic rule. The US wasn't attempting to take over the country but to assist in outing the Taliban..who had taken over the country from the Afghan people - who certainly didn't want to live within its totalitarian rules. The US outed the Taliban in 2001 along with other NATO nations including the UK and Canada.

Remember, the only nation of the three that recognized the Taliban as the 'legal' government of Afghanistan was Pakistan.

That leaves Khadr, not as fighting for a legitimate govt of Afghanistan but for an illegal agenda.

That Obama...

A couple months ago he was in a hurry to return the Russian spies so they could enjoy freedom as soon as possible and now he is doing the same with Khadr.

The Obama administration made Khadr plead guilty to everything so they could quickly send him to Canada where they know he will be free in a few months.

It is all part of a big plan, this is not incompetence it is MALICE.

If I believed in angels and Demons I would say Obama is the devil.

The number one thing that p!sses me off about the little pr!ck is that him and his family have Canadian Citizen status. NONE of them deserve this priviledge.

They should all have this status revoked and be sent packing to .... whatever-istan.

The point of Protocol I is that it is not intended to differentiate between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" actors based on recognition of the relevant state or force. When considering whether or not someone is a POW I do not believe the legitimacy of their cause should be a factor, and I believe Protocol I's intent is for this not to be considered a factor.

I found the publication in question: http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/publications/Training-formation/LOAC-DDCA_2004-eng.pdf (actually someone else found it for me)

The LOAC lecture I received was a bit more straightforward than the pub itself. They actually took LOAC out of the TP for BMQ now... not sure if it is taught on any other course.

Anyways, Section 308 is directly from Protocol I and says that someone retains combatant status so long as they fight openly.

Section 305 sets the conditions for organized resistance movements to be considered lawful combatants.
"2. Members of militias, volunteer corps and organized resistance movements, belonging to a party to
the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, are combatants
provided they:
a. are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
b. wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
c. carry arms openly; and
d. conduct their operations in accordance with the LOAC." I would note that 305(2)(b) is then contradicted by 308, which says that no uniform is required so long as arms are carried openly.

304(2) notes that a party to a conflict need not be a government or authority recognized by the adverse party. This is what I was getting at in terms of the point that the legitimacy of the Taliban is not an issue.

In addition, section 306 states that if the inhabitants of a territory rise up against any invading force they need not even be organized in order to be considered lawful combatants.

So I am still of the mind that Khadr would have been treated as a PW if captured by the CF. I haven't heard of any determination trials being conducted, but I can ask someone from JAG whether or not they occurred and how they went. Hell, I can just ask someone from JAG what they think would have happened if Khadr had been captured by the CF and maybe I can get an easier answer there.

Re: the discussion above, the Taliban have a $1,500.00 bounty on any coalition member that is killed, ergo Khadr is a mercenary. End of discussion.

The obvious highlight is Ezra saying "for Christ's sake!"

safety forced - that was a thoughtless thing for a Jew to say, I'll forgive him the next time I come out with kike, hebe, shinny or yid. As much as I like him, he's quick to take umbrage when people are thoughtless, like himself.

shinny?
That's a new one to me.

Anyway, I agree with Ezra, the U.S. Army should have popped him on the battlefield.

Better than Ezra?
I think not.

Always with you, larben. I like to think that safety forced pointed out Levant's "for Christ's sake" (@3:10) as a "highlight" because of the sheer ludicrousness of the idiotic quote he was referring to; - Ezra as voice of sanity and all that.

When has Levant been "quick to take umbrage" over any implausible, "thoughtless" or question-begging accusation of anti-semitism? Quite the opposite: See Ezra on "Official Jews" and "Burny Farber" et al.

And in your word exclaiming ohferchissakes!, which is about as out of the ordinary as "drats!", is somehow the moral or social equivalent of saying "Yid! Kike! Hebe!" Lovely.

Black Mamba,
Always with you, B.M. - It is not likely you read obscure conservative Catholic journals, looking for something to complain about, but Levant apparently does, and is not shy about criticizing Catholic take on certain matters, nor is he shy to write in and make his point known. Fair play. It is very offensive to most Christians and especially to Catholics for someone, especially in public,to mis-use the name or title of the Redeemer; especially when that person should know better. Maybe he just doesn't give a damn? Mr. Levant, is not above playing the victim. It is part of the Jewish decalogue that thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain. The fact that Jesus is not his Messiah is no excuse for being so insensitive.

Maybe he just doesn't give a damn?

Maybe, because Ezra has been a champion of free speech and has made the point time and again that no one has the right to not be offended by speech Ezra has chosen to be an equal opportunity blasphemer in order to demonstrate evenhandedness as a defence against the accusation that he only offends Muslims.

Not to worry, larben, unbelievers have done much worse to my Redeemer, who was a "shinny", and a man's faith or faithlessness is between himself and God.

Look after your own salvation with fear and trembling, leave the rest in God's care.

Philippians 2:12

I'm a big Ezra fan ('haven't always been) and subscribed to his Western Standard, but I would have appreciated his not taking the Lord's name in vain.

I'm no prude, but I think it was imprudent -- and rather "leftish" -- of him to have used that expletive. It also shows a certain lack of imagination.

Let's execute his mother and sister as well.

...and them let's execute Bugger, I mean Hugger. "If I was a Jew" - you Nazi shitball.

Hugger

As I said, I like Mr. Levant, and when he was at Western Review, he published dozens of my letters in that magazine under my proper name. All I'm saying is to tread softly if you don't want your own dreams tread on. There are many reasons that some Muslims can justifiably be incensed at western culture, we're none, totally innocent.

we're none, totally innocent.

I'm a sinner, larben.
That's why I need the grace of Jesus.

I'm trust that the Lord has a plan for Ezra Levant and that's between Him and Ezra.

None of the arguments here counter the fact that khadr was a minor at the time of his crime and that he was not given a trial for his crimes. George Jonas wrote a much better article than whatever blather Ezra has here. Cons love limited government until it gets in the way of something they want.

Glad to hear you support a convicted terrorist, Tambora..plea bargains preclude trials..can't have it both ways.

Can't plead leniency with the courts for being an orphan after shooting your parents...ya dig?

Now crawl back to Rabble..

None of the arguments here counter the fact that khadr was a minor at the time of his crime

Omar Khadr wasn't a minor according to the customs and laws of the country he committed his crime in.
They marry 9 year old girls over there.

Ezra Levant is my new hero. He really spoke his mind and I agreed with every word. I agree it's a shame Khadr wasn't killed on the battlefield. Since he unfortunately wasn't, shame on the Americans for letting a murderer off so easily (he should be convicted and sentenced to hang by the tribunal), shame on Canada if we accept him back, and shame on the Canadian parole system because it doesn't take psychic to predict that this killer will be out on the streets basking in the spotlights and being fawned on by the left. It will be sickening if Khadr sues the Canadian government.