Here's another viewpoint on that end of WW2 period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bacque



>>I cannot believe you see this as defending his home. Ridiculous. Did you read my message? He was videotaped making bombs. He was inside a residence that was being investigated for terrorist cells and was given ample opportunity to come outside - they called them out numerous times before the shooting began. From my understanding, U.S. soldiers didn't fire first. The situation is entirely different. U.S. soldiers are there investigating terrorism and rooting out cells and trying to maintain security. If he were in a country that is not under that situation, I would agree with you, but that is not the case. He was not defending his home. He wasn't even at his home. He was with other terrorist members. Would you see it the same way if the soldiers involved were not U.S. soldiers but from one of the other allies? Perhaps British or Polish?
>
>Sure I would. When the allies invaded Germany toward the end of WWII, they took prisoners. did they then try them all for murder or attempted murder? Of course not. There were those whose activities were so egregious that they were then tried as war criminals, but no regular soldier was tried as a murderer - even though Germany was the aggressor.
>
>It doesn't really matter much who fired first. If someone invaded your home would you wait for them to fire first? You say they didn't invade his home - Afghanistan is his home. This did not happen in the U.S., it happened in Afghanistan where the U.S. were the invaders. As I said before, I was solidly behind the invasion of Afghanistan. I felt it was a necessary thing. I just think that if you want to invade a country, you should expect resistance and not whine about it later.
>
>>
>>Having written that, his age does mitigate matters. Not only that, the entire detainees not 'enemy combatants' and not prisoners of war was wrong from the start. I've always stated that those caught under those situations and detained should be classified as pows (and treated according to the Geneva conventions) or prosecuted under the law for federal and local crimes. There is also his age to take into consideration.
>>
>>
>>>To be honest, I'm not sure it matters. Aren't you one of the ones who said you would be willing to shoot somebody who invaded your home? Would you then expect to be charged with murder or attempted murder? The U.S. invaded his home (with weapons). Justifiedly or not, they did it. He fought back against the invaders. Does it make him a murderer? If he came to the U.S. and shot soldiers (or anyone else), then I could see it, but this way? I'm hard pressed to say he did anything but commit self defense. And that is assuming he even threw a grenade, which I understand is not entirely certain.
>>>
>>>Soldiers get shot and they die. If the U.S. administration wants to charge everyone with murder because they fought against U.S. soldiers who invaded their country, then good luck to them, but for me, I think it's a bit far fetched, and about as arrogant as an attacking nation can possibly be. Plus, the fine distinctions they made up about soldier vs enemy combatant, or whatever they're calling it these days, is a little too artificial for me.
>>>
>>>>We do not have all the information. Granted he was young but his actions are not innocent. I see no evidence of anyone forcing him to do anything - don't know where that story came from. I do not doubt for a moment that the U.S. produces terrorists by simple fact of their policies. I saw no evidence of torture on the video you produced. The police use stronger tactics. However, do you have any idea what really went down that day? Have you ever served in the military? At least, before you judge, read the firsthand accounts and statements and even the Al Qaeda papers.
>>>>
>>>>There is a list of quotes and statements at the bottom of the wikipedia article. Perhaps video would be nice:
>>>>
>>>>Asked if there's evidence that Omar or that his family has connections to al Qaeda, Altenburg tells Simon, "There's evidence that he was fighting with people from al Qaeda, which would arguably make him a part of al Qaeda."
>>>>
>>>>Evidence like images caught on a videotape, found in the rubble after Khadr was captured. A man seen in the video is teaching the other men how to attach detonation wires to land mines. Also seen on the tape is a young man who appears to be Omar Khadr, helping put together a firing device.
>>>>
>>>>Later in the videotape, you can see the land mines being planted in the ground, in the dark, most likely aimed at American soldiers
>>>>
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr#cite_note-OC1-27
>>>>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/60minutes/main3516048_page2.shtml
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The whole thing is ridiculous anyway. How many people here have said that they would be quite happy to shoot anyone invading their homes. Well, soldiers invaded his home. He threw a grenade, and now they're charging him with murder. It's not as if he came to the U.S. and threw a grenade, for Pete's sake. The U.S. is pretty much saying that if U.S. soldiers invade someone's country, the citizens can be charged with murder for defending themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now, don't get me wrong, while I disagreed with the invasion of Iraq, I was solidly behind the invasion of Afghanistan. But to charge those who are being invaded with murder for fighting back is really stretching it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>OK, since you like to play with words and have the empathy of a lobster, I will stop loosing my time with you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I wonder if any criminal experiences this kind of 'torture' at the point of arresting. For example, handcuffing could qualify in both 'physical' and 'mental' categories. Also, it seems that any 'punishment' is a 'torture'. Advocating for centencing by Canadian court to incarceration in Canadian jail could mean supporting another kind of the torture. The only way, you and your ilk would be happy is an unconditional freedom for any terrosist suspect.