114 Replies to “Ezra Levant on Omar Khadr”

  1. 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.)

  3. “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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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…

  8. *
    “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…
    *

  9. 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.

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

  14. “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.

  15. 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.

  17. 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.

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

  19. 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.

  20. 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!!!!!

  21. 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!

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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

  37. 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.

  38. 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?

  39. 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!

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  50. 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.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation