What was he doing in Afghanistan?

From

"His name was Omar Khadr. Born into a fundamentalist Muslim family in Toronto, he had been prepared for jihad since he was a small boy. His parents, who were Egyptian and Palestinian, had raised him to believe that religious martyrdom was the highest achievement he could aspire to. In the Khadr family, suicide bombers were spoken of with great respect. "




Ahhhh, nothing like a little brainwashing at a young age. This kid didn't have a chance. He was trained in "bombmaking, assault-rifle marksmanship, combat tactics" before hwas twelve years old. He didn't know any better. He was raised to think this was how the world worked.


I don't defend his actions. I'm just trying to understand his situation. Imagine being raised from day one to think that anyone different from you is a potential danger, that any competing world view is a path to damnation. What "choice" do you have?

That shows how he's been brought up to be a fighter against "the west".

It *doesn't* explain how he's anything more than a n enemy soldier though.

How does him rushing out of a building and throwing a grenade at the people who were shooting at the building (and killed most of the inhabitants) constitute anything other than the normal terms of war?

Agreed.

My comment was to try and understand how he got into that position.

The term "unlawful enemy combatant" is just another term in this administration's lexicon of Orwellian phrases. I guess for Commander Codpiece, if you "ain't" got a uniform then you are "illegal". I've yet to understand that one.



I guess its a case of all men are equal, some are just more equal than others.

The fact that he was raised in Canada and went to fight against, amongst others, his fellow Canadians shows that he is more than simply an enemy combatant, but a traitor as well. So were his parents for raising him to do so against a country that had taken them in.

Actually, the Geneva Convention has more to say about that than anyone else.

And according to it, this kid could have been shot on the spot and the execution would not have violated any of the conventions.

Does that mean shot during the heat of battle or after hostilities had ceased?


Just curious.

Since he wasn't in uniform, it wouldn't matter. The soldiers who captured him could have just as easily shot him right then and there.

Understood. I thought it was just Hollywood cliche, but I assuming that a combatant not in a uniform could be considered a "spy". Correct?

If that is the case, I wonder how do we handle a conflict where the opposing side has no "uniform"?

Correct.

Which is still not completely accurate and shows the problem of trying to use "laws" that were created when wars / battles / conflicts were fought country against country.

This is the current debate in a nutshell. Do we adhere to the Geneva Conventions which were designed for country on country conflict even when one side isn't aligned with another country? Do we adhere to these rules even though the enemy doesn't? Should the rules be changed?

While all that goes on, politicians use the grey areas for their purposes (getting elected) and the problem isn't addressed adequately and the actual debate is muddled to a point where the casual observer has no idea what's going on.

s**t sucks, man.

Excellent conversation. It just rammed my understanding of the whole situation up three notches.

My initial reaction is we should afford "most" (weasle word, I know:) captive/detainee's these rights whether they extend them to us or not. I see these guidelines more as being for the benefit of human rights, be these humans either part of a standing army or a cobbled together militia.


This, I think, gives us the moral high ground and a greater stature in the "eyes of the world".

This is one subject that has seriously been a ponderance for me these past six years. It seems our leaders want to lower our morals to a level just above that of those we oppose. That I don't agree with.

No matter how many decapitations, we should not sink to their level of behavior. If so, we become what we oppose.





And, thank you, sincerely, for a very interesting and enlightening discussion. For me thats been a rare treat on these "internets" until I stumbled upon PLime. :)

YOU'RE AN IDIOT.

Nah... not really. This has been a great discussion... so I felt I needed to bring it down a peg. ;)

Okay... on to being serious (that first part was a joke, incase anyone didn't get it). I understand what you're saying, and mostly agree with you. However, I think "stooping to their level," would be trading a decapitation for a decapitation.

What we're doing (or in this case, the Canadians), is so much less severe than that. Waking him up every few hours, and making him change cells... I don't call that torture... I call that being the parent of a newborn!

I think in using such tactics... tactics that affect the mind, and are annoying, but not necessarily permanently scarring... allow us to keep the moral high ground, while still extracting necessary information.

"American officials say Khadr, a Canadian citizen, may look like a little boy lost but he is really a hardened terrorist, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. He allegedly served as a translator for a top al Qaeda operative being hunted by American commandos who leveled the compound where Khadr was hiding.

Sgt. Christopher Speer was killed when someone threw a grenade from the rubble. Khadr was the only one still alive in there, although no one actually saw him throw the grenade, reports Martin."

Wow, a translator? Who tossed a grenade at the commandos who completely destroyed the building he was in? What a hardened terrorist!