The Khadr Thread

[Blindspot]

I'm just imagining if Khadr was a white kid brought up by neo-nazis or Klan. I wonder how much sympathy he'd be getting right about now.

 

[OldSolduer]

Lets bring poor Omar back, the poor young terrorist!! What's a poor terrorist to do, those mean CSIS and American agents!!
Bring the rotten little p@ick back, try him and deport him and his terrorist family!!

How hard is that to understand? And we actually have people saying he had a right to be in Afghanistan with terrorists!!

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm just imagining if Khadr was a white kid brought up by neo-nazis or Klan. I wonder how much sympathy he'd be getting right about now.

It should must not matter that Mr. Khadr is white or brown or green. He is a Canadian. He is, therefore, entitled to all the rights available to any other Canadian, including the support of the Government of Canada when he is in trouble abroad.  Our rights and freedoms exist, for all of us, only to the degree that we are willing to defend them for the most wretched and despised amongst us. If we deny Mr. Khadr any right then we are saying that we expect that right to be denied to us all – and to our brothers and sisters, too. Neither the government nor thinking Canadians can ‘cherry pick’ rights, nor can we ‘cherry pick’ the people who are entitled to have their rights protected.

With specific regard to Mr. Khadr, as I understand the situation – any my understanding may well be faulty, he, like any Canadian is entitled, by law, to consular access and the Government of Canada must do its best to ensure that Mr. Khadr is treated ‘properly’ and in accordance with the laws of the country with which he is involved. The Government of Canada is obliged to ensure that he is not treated unfairly – according to the laws of the country concerned – just because he is a Canadian.

In the case of the USA, the law is less than clear to Americans. The US courts are littered with challenges to ‘Gitmo’ and the military tribunals, and, and, and ... the rulings, to date, have been inconsistent which means that some US judges appear to have concluded that some US officials have failed, in some part, to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” as those officials have sworn an oath to do. Thus, the six years in question are understandable – the US law is in flux. Khadr is not being treated differently from any other detainees just because he is a Canadian. 

As to the ‘child soldier’ issue: there are no binding agreements regarding what a child soldier is but the UN says ” 18 [is] the minimum age for direct participation in hostilities, for recruitment into armed groups, and for compulsory recruitment by governments. States may accept volunteers from the age of 16 but must deposit a binding declaration at the time of ratification or accession, setting out their minimum voluntary recruitment age and outlining certain safeguards for such recruitment.” The US says that it ”ratified the UN Optional Protocol on the Use of Children in Armed Conflict that makes the minimum compulsory recruitment age 18” so it appears that Khadr ought to be considered a child soldier – probably would be considered a child soldier if he was being held in a US jail, anywhere inside the USA, proper, awaiting trial in front of almost any US court. But, once again, if Mr. Khadr is being mistreated it is not because he is a Canadian – his US lawyers will, eventually, have access to the US Constitution to deal with that issue.

Regarding the tapes: Khadr’s lawyers admit that they are trying to influence public opinion in order to challenge the current policy regarding Khadr’s detention; they want him brought back to Canada before he can be required to answer any US charges. It is, I guess about the best legal strategy available to them. They are being actively supported by a huge share of the Canadian commentariat who, regardless of how they see young Mr. Khadr and his clan, view George W Bush as public enemy number one and Stephen Harper as his evil apprentice.

It is neither the right nor duty of the Government of Canada to challenge US law. It is the duty of the Government of Canada to ensure that all of Mr. Khard’s legal rights are provided and protected.

 

[GAP]

It is neither the right nor duty of the Government of Canada to challenge US law. It is the duty of the Government of Canada to ensure that all of Mr. Khard’s legal rights are provided and protected.

And essentially, they have been.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Hi FD, greetings from the tropics. I hope your day is going well, and you are enjoying the northern summer.

OWDU

Thanks  OWDU. Good post. I agree. Also our cheerful disposition even when speaking about such a little turd is an example to us all 

E.R. Campbell,
I thought the US was one of the only two countries in the UN who hasn't signed the child soldier act?
While they generally do not send soldiers overseas unless they are 18, they still wanted to retain the capability to send younger soldiers if the need arose?

This was brought up during a briefing where the speaker was pointing out child soldiers are just as deadly, sometimes if not more as their adult counter part. The first US soldier killed in Afghanistan was by 'child soldier'.
Was he mistaken about the US not signing the child soldier act?

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
E.R. Campbell,
I thought the US was one of the only two countries in the UN who hasn't signed the child soldier act?
While they generally do not send soldiers overseas unless they are 18, they still wanted to retain the capability to send younger soldiers if the need arose?

This was brought up during a briefing where the speaker was pointing out child soldiers are just as deadly, sometimes if not more as their adult counter part. The first US soldier killed in Afghanistan was by 'child soldier'.
Was he mistaken about the US not signing the child soldier act?

Dunno! Thus all my weasel-wording and appears etc. But the link I provided indicates that the US did sign, at least, the optional protocol in the UNICEF link.

 

[a_majoor]

WRT child soldiers, the way I understand it the signatories are obliged to refrain from recruiting, training or deploying children for their own armed forces (although I could be wrong).

As well, the wording of the document is very similar to the way "soldiers" are defined by the Geneva convention. Omar Khadar (like his AQ counterparts anyplace on Earth) does not fall under or conform to the definition of "soldier" as spelled out in the Geneva conventions or implied in other documents such as the UN one quoted earlier. Omar Khadar is an illegal combatent by definition, and the big question in law is how to deal with this category of person. How he came to be involved as an ilegal combatent against the Alliance may be questioned (was he brainwashed by the AQ, for example? Was his behaviour in Afghanistan voluntary or coerced?), and these questions should probably be explored by a court or tribunal.

I have very little sympathy for the family, however. They have chosen to publicly speak and act against Canada and Canadian law while at the same time demanding all the protections and privilages of citizens. If they don't like Canada, they are quite free to leave. Perhaps some Islamic paradise where Mrs Khadar is forced to remain housebound and silent under threat of severe beatings or death at the hands of male relatives would be more to her taste? (The irony of that "desired" end state by female Islamic radicals who blog on the Internet or speak in public in defense of their incarcerated menfolk is just overwhelming).

 

[axeman]

Boo Frickety Hoo. Let the  sap burn. I dont see any tears being shed for Daniel Pearl and many others that have been taken by his comarades, when they beheaded and mutilated them . If the bleeding hearts wanna lose sleep over someone like him who knew what he was doing when he was captured in a warzone with proven links to terrorists.. / freedom fighters. You wanna Fight ,you know some one lives and some one dies . I'll pay the 2 bucks for a round  and clean the  rifle after putting one into him. All this blaming someone else makes me sick at what point does one become responsible for his own actions...  screw him , he knew what he was doing ... if he doesnt get the death penalty  let him rot in jail.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Dunno! Thus all my weasel-wording and appears etc. But the link I provided indicates that the US did sign, at least, the optional protocol in the UNICEF link.

I never read the link, I'll take a look.

 

[tomahawk6]

I am surprised that people who have seen this image would doubt Khadar's guilt. If he had been in school in Canada he wouldnt be in Gitmo today. If Khadar was innocent how come he was shot during a firefight with US troops ? The kid is not innocent and must pay the piper. How long should he be sentenced for ? Twenty years is a good round number. These taliban/aq killers are so brainwashed or so committed to the cause that once they are released they will be back in the fight. We have seen this with previous Gitmo residents and even with the Kandahar jail break. I hate to say it but these fanatics need to be killed not captured. Locking them up doesnt work. Sounds like our civilian prison system. 



Edited to fix link

 

[wannabe SF member]

I hate to say it but these fanatics need to be killed not captured. Locking them up doesn't work. Sounds like our civilian prison system. 

Not sure I agree with you on this one. While calling these men regular criminals would be an understatement, there is no doubt that they are our prisoners and our responsibility.
We keep them because our values make it so, we're better than them and we prove it by feeding and providing the ones who fought us with a fair trial. What do they do? They behead and torture and commit all manners of atrocities. We're better than them and our treatment of prisoners prove it.

Besides, seeing the state in which khadr was during his interrogation(providing he wasn't faking) made it seem like he was pretty unhappy already.

 

[1feral1]

Not sure I agree with you on this one. While calling these men regular criminals would be an understatement, there is no doubt that they are our prisoners and our responsibility.
We keep them because our values make it so, we're better than them and we prove it by feeding and providing the ones who fought us with a fair trial. What do they do? They behead and torture and commit all manners of atrocities. We're better than them and our treatment of prisoners prove it.

Besides, seeing the state in which khadr was during his interrogation(providing he wasn't faking) made it seem like he was pretty unhappy already.

Hi TIin,

Greetings and gooddiddly day,

You can't train cancer cells to be good, finatics are cancer, and must be destroyed. I have seen what they can do up close, smelled it, and tasted the fear.

Gitmo is not our responsibility, nor this the captured terrorist in question. Its all a matter of another country, the USA.

I am not saying destroy them once captured, thats murder, but they must be kept behind bars for life, any others on the battlefiled which are killed, well, so be it. There is a difference between killing and murder.

A leopard doesn't change its spots, never.

I do hope you are having a most pleasant evening, oops its morning in Canada now, just coming up 1900 here on a Friday nacht.

Happy days,

OWDU

His point is very valid.

 

[McG]

If he had been in school in Canada he wouldnt be in Gitmo today.

There is no law prohibiting school aged children from leaving Canada, and there is no law prohibiting school aged children from being in Afghanistan.  The issue is not that Khadr was not "in school in Canada."  The issue is not even that he was in Afghanistan.  The issue is specifically his goals and activities while in Afghanistan.

If Khadar was innocent how come he was shot during a firefight with US troops ?

Innocent people have been shot during firefights involving insurgents & ISAF/OEF forces.  It is unfortunate, but it happens and is probably unavoidable.  While your picture is a wonderful emotional tool, it does not prove anything one way or another.

Gitmo is not our responsibility, nor this the captured terrorist in question. Its all a matter of another country, the USA.

As Edward has pointed out, this is not true.  The Canadian Government has certain responsibilities for all of its citizens and (like it or not) Khadr is a Canadian citizen.

At the same time, I've not seen much (if anything) to prove "terrorist" applies to Khadr.  Yes, he did fight as an insurgent but (despite the fact that insurgent forces may employ terrorism) not all insurgents have involvement in terrorism.  In this case "terrorist" is just an emotionally charged word intended to win an argument without the need for facts to get in the way.

It seems that many will scream quite loudly when the left substantiates its positon on emotion as opposed to fact.  Yet, here many of the same faces seem ready to toss asside our values based largely on emotional arguments.

I hate to say it but these fanatics need to be killed not captured.

Absolutely not, and you know better.  We do not win by abandoning our values & becoming the worst of what our enemy is.

I am not saying destroy them once captured, thats murder, but they must be kept behind bars for life, any others on the battlefiled which are killed, well, so be it. There is a difference between killing and murder.

This does sound more reasonable to me.  The insurgent exists in some grey area between combatant and criminal (note: terrorists are not in this grey area as they are all the way into the criminal).  Once identifed as an insurgent by a competent tribunal, pers should be subject to longer incarcerations (with the potential for indefinate) and more restrictive release mechanisms.

 

[2 Cdo]

If the US had just called them POW's from the start, then they would have been able to hold them, without trial, until the War on Terror was over. Be that 5 years or 50 years!

 

[tomahawk6]

If he had been in school in Canada he wouldnt be in Gitmo today.
There is no law prohibiting school aged children from leaving Canada, and there is no law prohibiting school aged children from being in Afghanistan.  The issue is not that Khadr was not "in school in Canada."  The issue is not even that he was in Afghanistan.  The issue is specifically his goals and activities while in Afghanistan.

I guess you missed my point. Normal kid stays in Canada goes to school,the mall and maybe has a part time job.Instead he is a jihadist at what 15 years of age ? Takes up arms against an ally of Canada. Thats not normal nor can it be condoned - at least by me.

 

[KevinB]

I guess you missed my point. Normal kid stays in Canada goes to school,the mall and maybe has a part time job.Instead he is a jihadist at what 15 years of age ? Takes up arms against an ally of Canada. Thats not normal nor can it be condoned - at least by me.

It would also be against Canada as Canada had comitted to the Afgan mission as part of the 9/11 responce package.

Kadr is thus a traitor - I would hang him from the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill, and that would be Canadian nationalism in action.

 

[Old Sweat]

I also think we had troops in Afghanistan at the time, so it was perhaps only by chance that he missed engaging our guys.

 

[stegner]

Let's see after the Second World War did Canadian servicemen and women go around rounding up Hitlerjugend to be hanged from the Peace Tower?  (Now that's ironic; even more so then no fighting in the war room a la Dr. Strangelove).  Or did we try to rehabilitate them?  Did we doom them to death or criminality because they were influenced by very bad adults?  Or did we invoke an element of humanity that distinguishes us from our foes and transform that generation to one of the most successful German generations ever.  Despite the most macho assertions we can't kill all the extremists-we don't have enough bullets.    Again, no one here knows what exactly what occurred and the degree of guilt of young Khadr.  Could he have killed the medic?  Sure.  Could the medic been killed by someone else and even friendly fire as some claim?  Possibly.  Let's not condemn him without knowing all the evidence as that sounds like something like our foes would do.  Can we intervene in this situation?  Sure. Britain and other NATO allies have extricated their citizens from Gitmo and dispensed their justice.  Should we?  Not up for me to decide.  But, if the U.S wants to claim itself as the beacon of freedom to the world they should realize that this should reflected in their political system and not merely serve as empty platitudes.  Keep in mind that Khadr's lawyer is an American and a military officer-not just some hippie civilian. 

 

[Old Sweat]

We (the Western Allies) did go after major war criminals. A Canadian court martial sentenced Kurt Meyer to death for the murder of Canadian prisoners by troops under his command early in Normandy when he was commanding 25 SS Panzer Grenadier Regiment. After the war the British tried and executed the CO of 2nd Battalion 26 SS Panzer Grenadier Regiment and one of his officers for the murder of other Canadian prisoners. I also believe that at least one Japanese guard was tried and convicted for mistreatment of Canadian prisoners of war. The main reasons we didn't go after more members of the Hitler Youth Division had nothing to do with humanity; the ones that escaped prosecution either had been killed, were unidentified or evaded successfully. In other words, we couldn't apprehend them.

I want to stress that fighting hard and/or being a brutish thug are not war crimes. In my opinion most of the members of 12 SS Panzer Division were not war criminals. There were, however, a significant minority including officers and NCOs that were. 

 

[stegner]

Old Sweat you are off the mark.

From wikipedia:

The Hitler Youth was disbanded by Allied authorities as part of the Denazification process. Some HJ members were suspected of war crimes but - as they were children - no serious efforts were made to prosecute these claims. While the HJ was never declared a criminal organization, its adult leadership was considered tainted for corrupting the minds of young Germans. Many adult leaders of the HJ were put on trial by Allied authorities, and Baldur von Schirach sentenced to twenty years in prison. He was however convicted of crimes against Humanity for his actions as Gauleiter of Vienna, not his leadership of the HJ.

Despite this, several notable figures have been "exposed" by the media as former HJ Youth members. These include Stuttgart mayor Manfred Rommel (son of the famous general Erwin Rommel); former foreign minister of Germany Hans-Dietrich Genscher; philosopher Jurgen Habermas; and the late Prince Consort of the Netherlands Claus von Amsberg.

In April 2005 the media reported that Pope Benedict XVI had, as 14-year old Joseph Ratzinger, been a HJ member. The German government's response was that compulsory membership of the HJ had little bearing on the pope's religious convictions or on his ability to lead the Roman Catholic Church.