Can someone explain to me why what he did is called murder? He was fighting in a war. He was in a firefight with armed invaders, and was shot himself. If he can be charged with murder, can the guy who shot him be charged with attempted murder? And if not, why not?
The first part of this video goes over the firefight
Yea, he was a medic. Usually medics will work work on the enemy soldiers as well and they are protected by the Geneva convention, they are not considered combatants.
"Speer was a combat medic with Delta Force. Speer was awarded the Soldier's Medal for risking his life to save two Afghan children who were trapped in a minefield on July 21,
2002, two weeks before his death."
Geneva convention protection:
In 1864, sixteen European states adopted the first-ever Geneva Convention to save lives to alleviate the suffering of wounded and sick combatants, and to protect trained medical personnel as non-combatants, in the act of rendering aid.
According to the Geneva Convention, knowingly firing at a medic wearing clear insignia is a war crime
Can someone explain to me why what he did is called murder? He was fighting in a war. He was in a firefight with armed invaders, and was shot himself. If he can be charged with murder, can the guy who shot him be charged with attempted murder? And if not, why not?
Khadr was an unlawful combatant, not a regular soldier. Therefore, he is not afforded the same protections that soldiers in an armed conflict receive.
Last edited by llwhiteoutll; 05-08-2015 at 05:17 PM.
There's also a 25 minute video of him making bombs, hanging out with jihadis and playing with ak's. Even if he didn't chuck the grenade, he's guilty of helping out in much the same way felony murder works in the US. And 15 is plenty old enough for that conviction. However, the circumstances of his guilt (totally bogus war), his trial and subsequent treatment are ridiculous. But I don't think he was just in the wrong place at he wrong time.
Khadr apologized for his actions as a teenager and offered advice to young people who might consider joining jihad against the West.
"Don't let emotions control you," he said. "I've noticed that a lot of people are manipulated by not being educated.".
"I can just say that I'm sorry for the pain that I might [have] caused the families of the victims," he said. "There is nothing I can do about the past but ... I can do something about the future."
Sounds guilty to me. This also sounded odd...
Quote:
He also reassured Canadians that he doesn't believe in violent jihad. “It’s not something I believe in right now.”
Okay the medic thing makes sense obviously. Don't shoot the medic. But this was an invasion. They had just bombed the area to smithereens. I'm sure the medic was armed, and he was part of a special forces assault team.
As for the "unlawful combatant" designation, that seems flimsy in this situation.
It was a bunch of foreigners fighting a war in a foreign land. None of them were invited, and the locals (most of them) likely didn't want either side there.
And this isn't about sympathy for this guy either. I read/heard the story about the soldier who shot him in the back and I didn't think "hey, he can't do that", because he can. He's in a war. He can shoot him in the back, because he's in a war, and that's the deal and they all volunteered. Far as I can see, they would have been justified to just let the him die there, and after seeing his injuries I can't believe he didn't, but he threw a grenade and now he's a murderer, but nobody else is.
Kadr was part of a terrorist group not a military organization, he was wearing civillian clothing and not wearing a uniform, that alone makes him an irregular and not under the protection of the convention.
That alone would allow the military group that captured him to summary execute him.
He was also part of a group that was fighting a campaign that intentionally targeted civilians.
Speers was a armed member of a Delta Force group, however he was wearing a uniform with clear medic insignias on him if I read the story right, he wasn't wearing a helmet.
Under the clearest definition, Kadr not wearing a recognizable uniform and not being part of a recognized military is what makes his actions murder.
And no the unlawful combatant designation isn't flimsy, at worst the requirement to wear a uniform or military designation prevents civilian casualties.
Like I've said I have little sympathy for Kadr. He was a Canadian that went to war against our ally in a war that we were involved in, and he was building road side bombs, who knows where they ended up. To me he's falls into the traitor category.
However he's out now, and he has every opportunity to show this country that he's changed and he's not a threat.
He's also got an opportunity to not allow himself to become a inspiration to the nut jobs out there in Canada and internationally.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Kadr was part of a terrorist group not a military organization, he was wearing civillian clothing and not wearing a uniform, that alone makes him an irregular and not under the protection of the convention.
That alone would allow the military group that captured him to summary execute him.
What are you saying here?
That any member of any force captured out of uniform is fair game for execution? All spies/agents etc?
Quote:
Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll
Khadr was an unlawful combatant, not a regular soldier. Therefore, he is not afforded the same protections that soldiers in an armed conflict receive.
I'm just curious how you got your definition of him being unlawful. Is it under Canadian or International law?
Okay the medic thing makes sense obviously. Don't shoot the medic. But this was an invasion. They had just bombed the area to smithereens. I'm sure the medic was armed, and he was part of a special forces assault team.
As for the "unlawful combatant" designation, that seems flimsy in this situation.
It was a bunch of foreigners fighting a war in a foreign land. None of them were invited, and the locals (most of them) likely didn't want either side there.
And this isn't about sympathy for this guy either. I read/heard the story about the soldier who shot him in the back and I didn't think "hey, he can't do that", because he can. He's in a war. He can shoot him in the back, because he's in a war, and that's the deal and they all volunteered. Far as I can see, they would have been justified to just let the him die there, and after seeing his injuries I can't believe he didn't, but he threw a grenade and now he's a murderer, but nobody else is.
Interesting opinion, what sort of law or legal standing are you basing that on?
You need to back up your points with some facts.
That any member of any force captured out of uniform is fair game for execution? All spies/agents etc?
Basically yes, even though its likely not to happen anymore. But if you are engaged in combat dressed as a civilian, and not part of a defined military or militia you are not afforded the same legal protections as a soldier.
Quote:
I'm just curious how you got your definition of him being unlawful. Is it under Canadian or International law?
International under the 3rd, 4th and 5th articles of the Geneva convention I believe. These rules are also supplemented by most nations nation laws and their defined rules of engagement.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Yea, he was a medic. Usually medics will work work on the enemy soldiers as well and they are protected by the Geneva convention, they are not considered combatants.
"Speer was a combat medic with Delta Force. Speer was awarded the Soldier's Medal for risking his life to save two Afghan children who were trapped in a minefield on July 21,
2002, two weeks before his death."
Geneva convention protection:
In 1864, sixteen European states adopted the first-ever Geneva Convention to save lives to alleviate the suffering of wounded and sick combatants, and to protect trained medical personnel as non-combatants, in the act of rendering aid.
According to the Geneva Convention, knowingly firing at a medic wearing clear insignia is a war crime
From what I have read speer was not wearing a uniform
That any member of any force captured out of uniform is fair game for execution? All spies/agents etc?
I'm just curious how you got your definition of him being unlawful. Is it under Canadian or International law?
The way I interpreted this is say a Canadian who is 15. Thats the main arguement for his sentence to be lenient was he was 15 and a canadian citizen right? If say I was just a 15 year old canadian citizen and went up to an American medic and put a bullet in his head for no reason other than I was told to do I get a pass like some think he should?
I don't think I would get a pass at all.
Essentially this is what he did. He was a Canadian civilian who was fighting on behalf of an enemy terrorist group that killed a medic of our ally.
Last edited by combustiblefuel; 05-11-2015 at 12:38 AM.
