[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Now now, let's not go confusing things with details. The good guys are soldiers at war, subject to the protection of the Geneva conventions. The bad guys are illegal enemy combatants.

The Law of Armed Conflict and the Geneva Convention are unsuitable for modern war in the sense that, these days, modern warfare involves at least one non-state combatant. These laws were developed with western-style state vs state conflict in mind, not the kind of population-centric armed social work we carry out in contemporary counter-insurgency or the kind of "global counter-insurgency" we carry out in the course of modern counter-terrorism. Attempting to apply these antiquated laws in a war against the globalized influence of non-state actors such as Al Qaeda has limited our ability to carry out this war effectively.

What are Canadian soldiers supposed to do in a war where every detainee we take is an unlawful combatant? Are they all war criminals? Of course not! Most of them are just grunts without uniforms. It's unethical to treat them any less humanely than we would a uniformed enemy combatant. But, that’s my opinion.

Anyway, Khadr can feck right off as far as I am concerned, but I also understand why the SSC ruled the way they did. The issue is not about what Khadr did or did not do before capture; the issue is what happened to him after capture. The unfortunate truth is that Canadian and US governments fecked up and created this $h!t sandwich.