gitmo-pows.jpg
POWs captured while defending Afghanistan and its people from the unlawful war of aggression and occupation by the United States are inhumanely treated, tortured, and murdered by United States soldiers acting on the executive orders of the United States president. This image gives concrete evidence of war crimes. POWs are forced to endure a 22-hour flight from Afghanistan to the U.S. military concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay sitting on the bare deck of a military transport plane. The POWs are bound together like livestock, their restraints allowed to bruise and pierce their skin. their air is restricted by a black execution hood and they are forced to sit in the same position for the duration of the flight. The soldier to the right is obviously ashamed of what he is participating in as he is covering his face. But the U.S. Air Force isn’t ashamed as a United States flag was purposely hung over the POWs.

Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act definition - “crime against humanity” means murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, persecution or any other inhumane act or omission that is committed against any civilian population or any identifiable group and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes a crime against humanity according to customary international law or conventional international law or by virtue of its being criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.”

Article 49 of Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the deportation of people into or out of occupied territory under belligerent military occupation: “Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. … The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

The Geneva Convention states that “the human dignity of all individuals must be respected at all times. Everything possible must be done, without any kind of discrimination, to reduce the suffering of people who have been put out of action by sickness, wounds or captivity whether or not they have taken direct part in the conflict.

A POW (Prisoner of War) at the illegal US Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba is the first child soldier to go on trial for war crimes since Nuremberg, after a US military judge ruled in favor of his civilian commanders that there were no legal obstacles preventing the camp’s special military commissions from prosecuting him. Despite what the United States claims, there is are many major legal obstacles in regards to prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay - the military camp itself is illegal under Article 49 of Fourth Geneva Convention. Every prisoner held at Guantanamo Bay, , including Omar Khadr, has been illegally deported out of an occupied territory under belligerent military occupation: “Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory (Afghanistan and Iraq) to the territory of the Occupying Power (the United States) or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Omar Khadr, a Canadian national, was 15 at the time of his US alleged crimes. His defense team said his age should see him treated as a victim and rehabilitated, rather than prosecuted as a war criminal. The truth is Khadr should never have been put on trial for war crimes. The United States government is guilty of war crimes, not a person acting within his right to fight and kill in self-defense of an armed attack by the United States against a country which had nothing to do with the attacks on US soil on September 11, 2001.

A war of aggression is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense. Waging such a war of aggression is a war crime under the customary international law. During the Nuremberg trial, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, stated:

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

The FBI list of hijackers include mostly Saudi hijackers, bin Laden is also a Saudi. bin Laden has very close personal ties to the Saudi royal family yet Saudi Arabia remains a very close ally of the United States. Saudi Arabia had the majority of hijackers and the alleged leader of the attacks on US soil on September 11, 2001 yet the United States chose to immediately pardon Saudi Arabia for its crimes against the United States on September 11, 2001 and with the aid of the attacking country launched 2 wars of aggression (both war crimes) against 2 countries that had nothing to do with 9/11. There were no Afghani or Iraqi hijackers. For this reason alone the United States had absolutely no legal grounds to launch a war against either Afghanistan or Iraq. The US did not act in self defense. The United States launched wars of terror and aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq. The people who are attacking and killing US soldiers are the ones who have the full support of the law as their actions are in self defense of an unprovoked armed attack by the United States. The people who have killed US soldiers are not war criminals or terrorists. They are the resistance, defending their country and countrymen from the criminal acts of wars of aggression by the United States. They are fighting for the freedom of the people who have wrongfully been attacked, tortured, and murdered by the United States.

The Canadian government has been largely indifferent to the plight of its young citizen, Omar Khadr, as he languishes for more than eight years in the illegal Guantanamo Bay. Content with assurances from the United States that Omar will receive “due process” from a special military commission, the government has failed to follow the example of every other Western nation and demand the repatriation of its citizen from the “legal black hole” that is Guantanamo Bay. Ottawa’s confidence in the Guantanamo Bay military commission process is increasingly inexplicable, especially as it becomes clear that the “process” is designed to do nothing other than produce criminal convictions based on tainted evidence.

Fifteen at the time of his initial detention, Omar was allegedly sent into combat as a child soldier by his father. It goes without saying that Omar was unable to control the circumstances of his birth or his family’s decision to move him from Canada to the Middle East as a child. Omar was shot and suffered near-deadly wounds in the course of a four-hour armed attack against him and others by the United States during which he allegedly threw a hand grenade that killed a U.S. solider. In any war a soldier is a legal target. Any soldier can be legally killed when they participate in any armed attack against any other person. The person or persons who gave the order to launch any armed attack is also a legal target - that includes the president of the United States.

War of aggression, torture and mass murder of civilians are all criminal acts

The Nuremberg tribunals were the first international courts established to try crimes against international law, and they firmly established the responsibility of individuals, at whatever level they participate in atrocities, as well as denying immunity to political leaders. Article 7 of the Charter expressly rejected sovereign immunity for military and political leaders: “The official position of defendants, whether as heads of state or responsible officials in government departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.”

United States Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the Nuremberg Prosecutor, opened his case with a proclamation that the privileges attaching in international law to the State should never again shield human beings from retribution for their own wickedness, at least before an international court:

[i]These defendants were men of a station and rank which does not soil its own hands with blood. They were men who knew how to use lesser folk as tools. We want to reach the planners and designers, the inciters and leaders…. The idea that a state, any more than a corporation, commits crimes, is a fiction. Crimes are always committed only by persons…. t is quite intolerable to let such a legalism become the basis of personal immunity…. Modern civilisation puts unlimited weapons of destruction in the hands of men. It cannot tolerate so vast an area of legal irresponsibility.

It was the judgment at Nuremberg which heralded the removal of the shield of state sovereignty for crimes against humanity:

It was submitted that … where the act in question is an act of state, those who carry it out are not personally responsible, but are protected by the doctrine of the sovereignty of the state. In the opinion of the tribunal (this contention) must be rejected…. Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced…. [T]he principle of international law, which under certain circumstances protects the representative of the state, cannot be applied to acts which are condemned as criminal by international law. The authors of these acts cannot shelter themselves behind their official position in order to be freed from punishment in appropriate proceedings.

Gross injustice by the real war criminals - the United States

Unlike other child soldiers, whom Canada and the international community view as victims deserving sympathy and rehabilitation, Omar Khadr was illegally deported from an occupied territory to the attacking United States and rigorously exploited as a potential source of intelligence about his father and family. Rather than receiving “assistance for his physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration” as required by international law, Omar instead faced indefinite detention and trial for “war crimes” based on nothing more than the allegation that he engaged in combat against opposing military forces during an armed conflict.

Omar has been put on trial in a system that is fundamentally flawed and unfair — so much so that the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down military commissions once already for failing to provide the most basic protections required for a fair trial under international law. Military commissions are designed to produce convictions based on unreliable evidence derived through “enhanced interrogation techniques” (i.e., torture and coercion). They do so using special rules that allow prosecutors to admit statements and confessions extracted from detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. If you have any doubt as to whether Omar will receive a “fair trial” from this process, look no further than the fact that only non-U.S. citizens can be tried by military commission.

The US trial of a person they attacked unlawfully is a mockery of all legal systems. A war of aggression is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense. Waging such a war of aggression is a war crime under the customary international law.

In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace, in Principle 6, specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, as:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

On December 14, 1974, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 3314, which defined the crime of aggression. This definition is not binding under international law, but it is often cited in opposition to military actions.

This definition makes a distinction between aggression (which “gives rise to international responsibility”) and war of aggression (which is “a crime against international peace”). Acts of aggression are defined as armed invasions or attacks, bombardments, blockades, armed violations of territory, permitting other states to use one’s own territory to perpetrate acts of aggression and the employment of armed irregulars or mercenaries to carry out acts of aggression. A war of aggression is a series of acts committed with a sustained intent. The definition’s distinction between an act of aggression and a war of aggression make it clear that not every act of aggression would constitute a crime against peace; only war of aggression does. States would nonetheless be held responsible for acts of aggression.

Both International law and domestic law allow lethal force to be used in self-defense against armed attacks. The US used its military in an unlawful armed attack against the sovereign country of Afghanistan. It’s legal to use lethal force in response to the US armed attacks. There’s no special protection given to soldiers or even heads of state that protects them from the otherwise lawful use of lethal force in self-defense. In any and all wars a soldier is a legal target. Any and all uniformed members of any military, US or otherwise, is a lawful target under the laws of armed conflict. Soldiers engaged in armed conflict are not afforded due-process rights. Even away from the battlefield, “deprivation of life shall not be regarded as a violation of the right to life when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary in … defense of any person from unlawful violence.”

In self-defense any person can use lethal and deadly force in defending themselves, others and their country from an unlawful war of aggression. A war of aggression, a war crime, was committed by the US against Afghanistan and Iraq. War crimes were not committed by Omar Khadr, they were committed and continue to be committed by US and NATO forces. Afghanistan did not attack the US or any NATO country. The US attacked Afghanistan. Omar Khadr had every legal right to not only kill one US soldier but as many as he could because Omar Khadr’s actions were purely in self-defense. He was wounded during an attack by armed US soldiers. In self-defense he had every legal right to use deadly force.

Legal Afghan Resistance and illegal US Unlawful Combatants

During conflict, punishment for violating the laws of war may consist of a specific, deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisal. Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war, but only after facing a “competent tribunal” (GC III Art 5). At that point they become an unlawful combatant but they must still be “treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial”, because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5. According to the laws of war soldiers become unlawful combatants when they break specific provisions of the laws of war. The US fraudulently declares the Afghan resistance which are fighting in self-defense from the US unlawful war of aggression as unlawful combatants. The Afghan Taliban and other resistance groups are not breaking any laws. The Afghan Taliban and other resistance groups are the only ones operating within the law as their fight is one of self-defense. The Taliban and other resistance groups are killing US, Canadian and NATO troops legally. They are the ones being unlawfully attacked by US, Canadian and NATO troops. They, the Taliban and the Afghan resistance, are defending their country and their fellow countrymen from the unlawful war of aggression, crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity that are being committed on a daily basis by the US, Canada and NATO.

Self-defense is the act of defending oneself, one’s property or the well-being of another from physical harm. In the United States, the defense of self-defense allows a person attacked to use reasonable force in their own defense and the defense of others. A person may use physical force to prevent imminent physical injury, however a person may not use deadly physical force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death.

Canadian Criminal Code, Sections 34-37

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

The Hague and Geneva Conventions guide military rules of action for US forces. They are:

* Fight only enemy combatants.
* Do not harm enemies who surrender; disarm them and turn them over to the chain of command.
* Do not kill or torture detainees.
* Collect and care for the wounded, whether friend or foe.
* Do not attack medical personnel, facilities, or equipment.
* Destroy no more than the mission requires.
* Treat all civilians humanely.
* Do not steal; respect private property and possessions.
* Do one’s best to prevent violations of the law of war.
* Report all violations of the law of war to superiors.

The US, Canada and NATO are attacking the Afghan people and their legal Taliban governing body on a daily basis since October 7, 2001. The Afghan people and the Taliban are acting in legal self-defense of themselves and the defense of their country and fellow countrymen. The Afghan people and the Taliban are forced every day to use deadly physical force in defense from the unlawful life threatening daily attacks by US, Canadian and NATO forces. According to US, Canadian and International Law the US, Canadian and NATO leadership are guilty of War Crimes, Crimes against Peace, Crimes against Humanity, Murder and Torture.

The Third Geneva Convention (”Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War”) covers members of the armed forces who fall into enemy hands. They are in the power of the enemy State, not of the individuals or troops who have captured them.

Prisoners of war MUST be:

- Treated humanely with respect for their persons and their honour.
- Enabled to inform their next of kin and the Central Prisoners of War Agency (ICRC, the International Red Cross) of their capture.
- Allowed to correspond regularly with relatives and to receive relief parcels.
- Allowed to keep their clothes, feeding utensils and personal effects.
- Supplied with adequate food and clothing.
- Provided with quarters not inferior to those of their captor’s troops.
- Given the medical care their state of health demands.
- Paid for any work they do.
- Repatriated if certified seriously ill or wounded, (but they must not resume active military duties afterwards) .
- Quickly released and repatriated when hostilities cease.

If you or a member of your family was being attacked by someone who broke in and invaded your home, would you defend yourself or would you let the attacker cause you great harm or even kill you? Would you regard yourself as being a terrorist or a murderer if you fought off your attacker? The answer is clear. The law is clear. The law allows for the use of deadly force any time a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him.