• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Bringing 'Em Back or Not? (I.D.'ed Cdn ISIS fighters, families, kids?)

Kokanee

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
daftandbarmy said:
The Trudeau government just set the benchmark for cases like this, by making Omar Khadr a multi-milionaire, didn't they? ...

There is an extreme difference in these cases. One was the case of a young boy brought to a warzone against his will by his father, a rifle thrust into his hands. The other are cases of ADULTS knowingly travelling to that part of the world to join ISIS and who carried out brutal and reprehensible WARCRIMES, for which they absolutely should be punished to the full extent of the law.

So to recap, child soldier vs ADULTS. There is a huge difference.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,620
Points
1,060
Kokanee said:
There is an extreme difference in these cases. One was the case of a young boy brought to a warzone against his will by his father, a rifle thrust into his hands. The other are cases of ADULTS knowingly travelling to that part of the world to join ISIS and who carried out brutal and reprehensible WARCRIMES, for which they absolutely should be punished to the full extent of the law.

So to recap, child soldier vs ADULTS. There is a huge difference.

To us, there is a difference. To them, not so much.
 

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
213
Points
680
Kokanee said:
One was the case of a young boy brought to a warzone against his will by his father, a rifle thrust into his hands.....
While the fatherhood skills clearly weren't up to the level expected of Victoria Park & Eglington's finest citizens in Toronto, the rationale for the payout was the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling that found Khadr's human rights were being violated at Guantanamo Bay." 

The father was irrelevant;  Khadr could have been with al-Qaeda, the Shriners, or the Boy Scouts -- the slap was directed solely at the American's extrajudicial processes.

And to stoke the fires... while I disagree with the amount, and that Canada paid it and not the US (which, I suspect, was tied to CSIS involvement), I have absolutely no heartache with the thought process behind it.

    Gitmo is wrong  (as was Abu Ghraib)


And for anyone wringing hands about child soldiers, let's see what comes out of Mali.    :not-again:
 

Kokanee

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Journeyman said:
While the fatherhood skills clearly weren't up to the level expected of Victoria Park & Eglington's finest citizens in Toronto, the rationale for the payout was the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling that found Khadr's human rights were being violated at Guantanamo Bay." 

The father was irrelevant;  Khadr could have been with al-Qaeda, the Shriners, or the Boy Scouts -- the slap was directed solely at the American's extrajudicial processes.

And to stoke the fires... while I disagree with the amount, and that Canada paid it and not the US (which, I suspect, was tied to CSIS involvement), I have absolutely no heartache with the thought process behind it.

    Gitmo is wrong  (as was Abu Ghraib)


And for anyone wringing hands about child soldiers, let's see what comes out of Mali.    :not-again:

agreed, my post was more about how the OP equated Mr.khadr to a terrorist.
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
299
Points
1,030
Kokanee said:
agreed, my post was more about how the OP equated Mr.khadr to a terrorist.

He is a terrorist. He admitted it. To be honest, I wasn't fond of the criminal charges thing. Those pers captured on the battlefield could have just been treated as POWs and held until cessation of hostilities. Then we wouldn't have to worry about $10.5M payout, or ever seeing him walk free again.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
124
Points
710
Kokanee said:
There is an extreme difference in these cases. One was the case of a young boy brought to a warzone against his will by his father, a rifle thrust into his hands. The other are cases of ADULTS knowingly travelling to that part of the world to join ISIS and who carried out brutal and reprehensible WARCRIMES, for which they absolutely should be punished to the full extent of the law.

So to recap, child soldier vs ADULTS. There is a huge difference.

Question for those who understand the LOAC better than I do;  are the atrocities committed by ISIS considered war crimes (in the broad sense) or would they be breeches of international laws and / or crimes against humanity?

Throwing unarmed civilians off buildings, executing women and childen, etc were actions taken during the conflict but not directed towards the 'opposing foce' (Iraq as a nation state, and MESF forces as part of a Coalition). 

Just wondering, from a legal standpoint, which category their actions fall under (with a general understanding that crimes against humanity can fall under the broad definition 'war cime').
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
244
Points
730
Eye In The Sky said:
Question for those who understand the LOAC better than I do;  are the atrocities committed by ISIS considered war crimes (in the broad sense) or would they be breeches of international laws and / or crimes against humanity?

Throwing unarmed civilians off buildings, executing women and childen, etc were actions taken during the conflict but not directed towards the 'opposing foce' (Iraq as a nation state, and MESF forces as part of a Coalition). 

Just wondering, from a legal standpoint, which category their actions fall under (with a general understanding that crimes against humanity can fall under the broad definition 'war cime').

Not that I understand the LOAC better than you, but I would agree that the above actions constitute crimes against humanity at the very least. Coupled with their other actions such as perfidy, they are broadly classed as war crimes.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
88
Points
560
Eye In The Sky said:
Question for those who understand the LOAC better than I do;  are the atrocities committed by ISIS considered war crimes (in the broad sense) or would they be breeches of international laws and / or crimes against humanity?

Throwing unarmed civilians off buildings, executing women and childen, etc were actions taken during the conflict but not directed towards the 'opposing foce' (Iraq as a nation state, and MESF forces as part of a Coalition). 

Just wondering, from a legal standpoint, which category their actions fall under (with a general understanding that crimes against humanity can fall under the broad definition 'war cime').

They've been throwing people off of buildings and killing men, women and children under sharia and religion for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. They've been invading each other just as long. Nobody seemed to worry about crimes against humanity or LOAC then. I see them acting no different now. It's the information age. We just know more about them and still wouldn't care, except we got involved in their gang wars. Now it's affecting us and we want to try use our laws to stop them? They follow a higher (in their minds) calling and they only respect one law and it's not ours. I don't think they are listening and if they are, they don't care. You are not going to deal with this in international courts under any civilized law.
:2c:
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
643
Points
940
Eye In The Sky said:
Question for those who understand the LOAC better than I do;  are the atrocities committed by ISIS considered war crimes (in the broad sense) or would they be breeches of international laws and / or crimes against humanity?

Throwing unarmed civilians off buildings, executing women and childen, etc were actions taken during the conflict but not directed towards the 'opposing foce' (Iraq as a nation state, and MESF forces as part of a Coalition). 

Just wondering, from a legal standpoint, which category their actions fall under (with a general understanding that crimes against humanity can fall under the broad definition 'war cime').

To make a long story short, the acts by IS and it's members--depending on which ones you look at--fall within several categories namely: International Humanitarian Law; International Criminal Law; International Human Rights Law; and/or Customary International Law.

As with much of this law, enforcement is sometimes not easy and sometimes impossible.

For one discussion on the topic, see the Geneva Centre for Security Policy's paper "Does International Law Apply To The Islamic State?" which can be read and/or downloaded from here:

https://www.gcsp.ch/News-Knowledge/Publications/Does-International-Law-Apply-to-the-Islamic-State

Please note that this is but one opinion. There are numerous scholarly and not-so-scholarly opinions/papers on the subject.

Note as well that Part II.1 of the Criminal Code deals with Terrorism.

See here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-11.html#h-25

The laws here are severely hampered by the need to recover sufficient evidence from a chaotic war zone to lead to a successful prosecution.

:cheers:
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
124
Points
710
Fishbone Jones said:
They've been throwing people off of buildings and killing men, women and children under sharia and religion for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. They've been invading each other just as long. Nobody seemed to worry about crimes against humanity or LOAC then. I see them acting no different now. It's the information age. We just know more about them and still wouldn't care, except we got involved in their gang wars. Now it's affecting us and we want to try use our laws to stop them? They follow a higher (in their minds) calling and they only respect one law and it's not ours. I don't think they are listening and if they are, they don't care. You are not going to deal with this in international courts under any civilized law.
:2c:

My question was more related to "JIhad Jack" and what his status would be IRT International and Canadian Law.

I do, however, agree with your post.  They (ISIS) came on strong and fast...to the embarrassment of both the governments of Iraq..and the USA.

I still suggest these documentaries for "basic information" to those who don't really *get* where/why ISIS sprang into existence.  Not suggesting they're complete and cover all aspects...

How ISIS Came To Be

Gang wars...I don't like that analogy, personally, but that is because I spent a somewhat significant amount of time in that theatre "watching/reporting".  Some nights...your memory and conscience aren't your best friend.  :2c:
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
124
Points
710
FJAG said:
To make a long story short, the acts by IS and it's members--depending on which ones you look at--fall within several categories namely: International Humanitarian Law; International Criminal Law; International Human Rights Law; and/or Customary International Law.

As with much of this law, enforcement is sometimes not easy and sometimes impossible.

For one discussion on the topic, see the Geneva Centre for Security Policy's paper "Does International Law Apply To The Islamic State?" which can be read and/or downloaded from here:

https://www.gcsp.ch/News-Knowledge/Publications/Does-International-Law-Apply-to-the-Islamic-State

Please note that this is but one opinion. There are numerous scholarly and not-so-scholarly opinions/papers on the subject.

Note as well that Part II.1 of the Criminal Code deals with Terrorism.

See here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-11.html#h-25

The laws here are severely hampered by the need to recover sufficient evidence from a chaotic war zone to lead to a successful prosecution.

:cheers:

Thanks for that!
 

PPCLI Guy

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
170
Points
710
Fishbone Jones said:
They've been throwing people off of buildings and killing men, women and children under sharia and religion for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. They've been invading each other just as long. Nobody seemed to worry about crimes against humanity or LOAC then. I see them acting no different now. It's the information age. We just know more about them and still wouldn't care, except we got involved in their gang wars. Now it's affecting us and we want to try use our laws to stop them? They follow a higher (in their minds) calling and they only respect one law and it's not ours. I don't think they are listening and if they are, they don't care. You are not going to deal with this in international courts under any civilized law.
:2c:

I tend to agree with you...
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
124
Points
710
Journeyman said:
    Abu Ghraib)

The "Center of Excellence" for the insurgency.  A follow-on royal fuck-up of the sweep-nets...and (one of several major) contributing factors/events that lead to ISIS "rising up".
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,620
Points
1,060
Eye In The Sky said:
The "Center of Excellence" for the insurgency.  A follow-on royal frig-up of the sweep-nets...and (one of several major) contributing factors/events that lead to ISIS "rising up".

When it comes to counter-insurgency, all Armies seem to need to learn the hard way, sadly, like Internment in NI in the 1970s, which resulted in a huge set of unintended consequences:

'Historians generally view the period of internment as inflaming sectarian tensions in Northern Ireland, while failing in its goal of arresting key members of the IRA. Many of the people arrested had no links whatsoever with the IRA, but their names appeared on the list of those to be arrested through bungling and incompetence. The list's lack of reliability and the arrests that followed, complemented by reports of internees being abused far in excess of the usual state violence, led to more nationalists identifying with the IRA and losing hope in non-violent methods. After Operation Demetrius, recruits came forward in huge numbers to join the Provisional and Official wings of the IRA. Internment also led to a sharp increase in violence. In the eight months before the operation, there were 34 conflict-related deaths in Northern Ireland. In the four months following it, 140 were killed.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius

 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
88
Points
560
Eye In The Sky said:
My question was more related to "JIhad Jack" and what his status would be IRT International and Canadian Law.

I do, however, agree with your post.  They (ISIS) came on strong and fast...to the embarrassment of both the governments of Iraq..and the USA.

I still suggest these documentaries for "basic information" to those who don't really *get* where/why ISIS sprang into existence.  Not suggesting they're complete and cover all aspects...

How ISIS Came To Be

Gang wars...I don't like that analogy, personally, but that is because I spent a somewhat significant amount of time in that theatre "watching/reporting".  Some nights...your memory and conscience aren't your best friend.  :2c:

Many of us have been in much closer contact with them than watching/reporting. Matter of perspective I guess, not a pissing contest.  :salute:
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
821
Points
890
FJAG said:
The laws here are severely hampered by the need to recover sufficient evidence from a chaotic war zone to lead to a successful prosecution.

:cheers:

Yup, this. There is definitely no lack of thirst to investigate or prosecute this at any level, whether within the investigative teams, the police/intelligence services as a whole, the crown prosecutors' offices, or within the government / cabinet / PMO. Frnakly I'm sure our government would love nothing better right now than a couple of slam dunk prosecutions of Daesh returnees, because they quite rightly fear the impact this issue will have on the election.

We are, in the end, a nation ruled by law, however. I as a police officer am constrained in my job by our system of laws and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms - and quite rightly so! It's correct and appropriate than in a free society I, as an agent of the state possessed of considerable coercive powers, should have to justify my actions. If I want to investigate someone - just like any of you - who may be driving drunk, or accused of assault, dealing drugs, or making threats or committing a fraud or what have you - there are things that might make my job potentially easier but that the law doesn't allow me to do because they would trample your rights. I cannot make you confess to a crime, I generally can't force my way into your home and arbitrarily look for evidence, I can't just take your phone off you and have it searched for evidence without a warrant granted by a judge based on my grounds outlining a reasonable suspicion of an offense. I cannot arbitrarily listen in on your phone calls or seize and analyze your computer. We have mechanisms to do all these things but we have the judiciary as an oversight. I cannot burn certain investigative techniques in court proceedings. I cannot disclose the identity of confidential informants whose lives may be at risk from retribution by criminals. And these are all extraordinary simplistic comparisons in the realm of straight criminal investigations. Add international intelligence gathering and sharing arrangements into the picture, and holy hell does it get tough to use information. There is a whole sector within our national security infrastructure that wrestles with taking security intelligence (e.g., from CSIS, CSE, or foreign allied agencies) and handing off clean tidbits to the RCMP to say 'we can't tell you why, but look at this guy' and to try to build prosecutable criminal cases from there.

On the face of it it's easy to say 'Well OK, but drunk driver versus ISIS terrorist Come on, be reasonable". Yup. We can always pick two examples far removed from each other for comparison. Where it gets much harder is trying to discern the truth when someone purportedly travels overseas to a contested area to visit family, or to engage in humanitarian work, or what have you, and then on the flip side is accused of acts of terrorism. Are they giving money to Daesh, or to a legitimate charity? Might they be blissfully unaware of the difference? Where do we draw the line between combatants that are on the 'good guy' side and those that are not in such a conflict?

All that said- I'm by no means coming to the defense of these Daeshbags. I think among the first steps in effective solutions include better joint targeting and intelligence sharing, precision munitions, and where applicable sound application of the principles of marksmanship. We don't need to worry about prosecuting those dead as combatants on the battlefield. But one way or another we have to face the facts that some will return, and that the waters in many cases will be extremely muddied. It's very easy indeed to say all these people should be investigated, charged, convicted, and thrown in jail. I'm absolutely with everyone else on that part of the principle of this thing, for sure. But the rule of law matters, it's what keeps us the good guys and protects all of you from the dumb crap I could otherwise do in the course of efforts to enforce the law, and whether we like it or not those same protections do not end at some arbitrary line in the sand. I wish things were easier than this, but they're not.
 

reveng

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
122
Points
630
Eye In The Sky said:
I spent a somewhat significant amount of time in that theatre "watching/reporting".  Some nights...your memory and conscience aren't your best friend.  :2c:

:salute:








 

reveng

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
122
Points
630
Good post Brihard. You are correct (unfortunately) in so many ways, but it also shows why as a country we are weak and vulnerable.

We did have a choice to do more to kill these guys over there. Now we will suffer.

As for Jihadi Jack...you gotta love the article where it shows a picture of him doing the ISIS salute, and the CBC caption mentions his Dad saying he went there to help refugees:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-isis-jihadi-jack-1.4868495

WHAT A JOKE!

I threw my bling from IMPACT into a bin somewhere. I've had to resist doing worse. Disgusted I wasted some of the best years of my life on it.

:not-again:





 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
97
Points
480
If they had left Harper's law alone, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Join a terrorist group, don't bother trying to come back because you are no longer a citizen.  Nothing wrong with that.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
993
Points
890
YZT580 said:
If they had left Harper's law alone, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Join a terrorist group, don't bother trying to come back because you are no longer a citizen.  Nothing wrong with that.

Except that was not the law.
 
Top