Terror Charges Reinstated Against Omar Khadr

Omar Khadr turned 21 in Guantanamo this week. He's been detained there since he was 15.

A military judge threw out the charges against him on jurisdictional grounds in June. Another judge later upheld that decision.

Today, the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review issued its first opinion. It reinstated the charges against Omar.

The ruling reverses a military judge's June 4 ruling that the tribunal system created by Congress did not have authority to try detainees unless they were first determined to be unlawful enemy combatants.

The New York Times has this more in-depth report on the ruling.

My all-time favorite quote on Omar Khadr is by Jeanne D'Arc at her now defunct Body and Soul blog:

He's eighteen years old. When he was captured in Afghanistan, he was fifteen -- a child turned into a soldier by parents from hell. And our government's response to this victim of child abuse was to abuse him further.

His lawyers have alleged he was tortured.


Omar Khadr was 15 when he was shot three times and captured at a suspected Al Qaeda compound in Afghanistan in July 2002, following a gun battle with U.S. troops.

In February, his U.S. lawyer told reporters the teenager had been used as a human mop to clean urine on the floor and had been beaten, threatened with rape and tied up for hours in painful positions at Guantanamo Bay.

One of the bullets hit Omar in the eye. For more on his story, check out Omar Khadr: At 15, an 'Unprivileged Belligerant' and A Child of Jihad.

From a Rolling Stone article on Omar:

....An hour or two later they came back, checked the tautness of his chains and pushed him over on his stomach. Transfixed in his bonds, Omar toppled like a figurine. Again they left. Many hours had passed since Omar had been taken from his cell. He urinated on himself and on the floor. The MPs returned, mocked him for a while and then poured pine-oil solvent all over his body. Without altering his chains, they began dragging him by his feet through the mixture of urine and pine oil. Because his body had been so tightened, the new motion racked it.

The MPs swung him around and around, the piss and solvent washing up into his face. The idea was to use him as a human mop. When the MPs felt they'd successfully pretended to soak up the liquid with his body, they uncuffed him and carried him back to his cell. He was not allowed a change of clothes for two days.

Today's ruling is just another day in, as Rolling Stone puts it, The Unending Torture of Omar Khadr.

< Loopy Rudy | Policy over Personality: What The Netroots Should Focus On >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Moral clarity (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 04:13:33 AM EST
    Ain't it grand?

    fine jim (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by cpinva on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:13:06 AM EST
    i'll bite, let's declare them all POW's. oh, wait, if we do that, we then have to abide by the terms of the geneva conventions. can't have that, now can we? it would mandate independent inspections of all of our "POW" camps, by such as the international red cross or red crescent.

    this could be a serious setback to bush's agenda.

    so no, i don't expect they'll be calling them POW's anytime soon.

    Take your choice (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 11:14:51 AM EST
    But you can't have it both ways.

    its Bush's decision (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Jen M on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 03:21:30 PM EST
    not to call them POWs and ignore the Geneva Conventions.


    Where have you been?


    I was speaking in the (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 07:46:27 PM EST
    "Truth to power mode...."

    IF the young man (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by tnthorpe on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 09:37:43 AM EST
    is a danger, oughtn't the Bush Administration be able to make that case based on evidence to a neutral magistrate? Clearly, the military commissions can't function as such, as criticisms made by people involved in the process like Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham make all too clear. Further, as testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee by Lt. Commander Charles Swift asserts: " If successful, Section 6 of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) permits the government to do exactly what I was able to prevent- coerce a guilty plea in an unlawful forum." That is, subvert habeas and keep people indefinitely without charge, legal representation, or communication with the world outside.

    If I were leader of the free world, I know what I would do. Tear down those walls, Mr. Bush!

    heh (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 11:16:38 AM EST
    Tear down those walls and let a known killer of a US soldier free.

    You define yourself so well.


    your post (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by tnthorpe on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 03:47:23 PM EST
    is a tortured misrepresentation. If there's evidence, as I imagine there is, there's no reason not to bring charges. Guantanamo is a profoundly un-American blight, pure and simple, and as a proud liberal it offends my sense of justice.

    I call for a neutral magistrate, not release. You can tell the difference can't you?

    Your persistence in misrepresentation is simply ludicrous. But chase them phantoms, it's the conservative approach to most things these days.


    Oh, so you want a neutral what?? (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 05:20:10 PM EST
    We are going to give him a military tribunal. And after they have found him guilty I hope we will give him a fair and proper hanging.

    There is a way around this, and that would be for you to claim he was a POW, and should just be held until the war is over.

    Of course to do that you would to prove that he meets the requirements of the GC, which he does not.


    The posts below (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by tnthorpe on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 05:49:52 PM EST
    answer your rhetorical puffery with facts about treaties concerning child soldiers.

    Yes, I want a neutral magistrate to determine the truth of the assertions that keep people in Guantanamo, not some ad hoc kangaroo military tribunal nonsense created by the Bush Administration to gloss over its illegal detention and torture practices.

    One of the lawyers representing prisoners at Guantanamo puts it this way: ""Habeas action" means an action brought on behalf of someone in the custody of a government. In this article, "habeas action" refers to one or more of the approximately 180 habeas actions pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. It is important to clarify that a Guantánamo habeas action does not involve defending people accused of committing acts of terrorism. Instead, these actions seek to have a presidentially-appointed federal judge see the reasons why the military is holding someone. The parties in habeas actions are asking a judge to tell a government to either charge someone in their custody or let that person go. A habeas action seeks to stop a government from holding someone indefinitely without explanation."

    Like you said 6 times or so the other day, pretty simple, eh?


    You kid your friends (1.00 / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 11:11:44 AM EST
    And I'll kid mine. But don't think you can pull the wool over reality's eyes. (tehehe)

    The prisoners held in GITMO have received reviews:

    So we now have two detainees at Guantanamo out of 230 that we have determined no longer to be an enemy combatant and 228 determined have been enemy combatants.  And so there's still, out of the 507, there's still a number in process; that is, in process from the time of the tribunal through the determination by Admiral McGarrah.

     Now again, as we've mentioned, as in previous conflicts, we do not want to release someone who will return to the battlefield to fight Americans and our allies.  And this is the dilemma we have trying to strike a right balance.  And as you are aware, there's been at least 12 of the more than 200 detainees that have been previously released or transferred from Guantanamo that have indeed returned to terrorism. So this is a very difficult process we're in.  We don't want to let people out who will come back, fight and kill Americans or anyone else in the world; at the same time, we are trying to strike the right balance in terms of their rights and their freedoms.  So it is not without risk.

     Now to shift for a moment to our second detainee review process at Guantanamo.  Last week to conducted our first Administrative Review Board. In fact, this last week we had four Administrative Review Boards.  Again, as you will recall, our plan has always been proceed through the Combatant Review Status Tribunals, the CSRTs, and then once that determination is made, move into the Administrative Review Boards.  So now you will see we will have these running concurrently for a while until we finish up the CSRTs next month, then it will be strictly ARBs.  But for a while, you will have these running concurrently.


    The habeas issue is an edge tactic to have a full up US CJ trial. When you do that you hit the bail issue and follow with the "purity" of the trail of "evidence." Next thing you know they'll demand the hand grenade fragments that killed and injured the soldiers and then claim it was a US made grenade and the terrorist was just trying to return it to the soldiers.

    You know what? You may think you are smart, but this time around there is the Internet, Talk Radio and cable TV to keep the issues and facts in front of the population.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by tnthorpe on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 11:33:25 AM EST
    I know about the CSRTs. I posted about one when you complained about a terrorist being released only to be picked up again. Read the post, make the connection on your own. I argued that a habeas proceeding would have been preferable. CSRTs do not provide neutral magistrates. Your post again hasn't taken issue with the argument I've made, why am I not surprised?

    Habeas is not an "edge tactic." It's a means of limiting executive power that's been part of the Anglo-American world since 1215. A presidentially appointed federal judge would be the proper venue for that action, not an ad hoc innovation that has failed already several times.

    BTW-it is the military's own procedures that failed, which you designate with the underlining. In light of such manifest failures, both of release and detention, habeas is by far preferable.

    So, what's it now? 0 for 5? That's not a very good grip you've got  on reality there. And I really like how your final two paragraphs veer off into the ad hominem, always a nice touch when your argument stinks.


    Try reading (1.00 / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 04:35:20 PM EST
    Your post again hasn't taken issue with the argument I've made, why am I not surprised?

    My whole comment is in objection to your strategy of getting the Left's desire to replace how we handle foreign prisoners who have attacked us by claiming a need for "habeas."

    And the legal rights of our citizens have nothing to do with the rights of foreigners fighting against us outside the US.

    The thought of a lawyer assigned to every platoon to read the captured their "rights" reminds me somewhat of the Political Officer in the old USSR military.

    Your attempt is the classic "camel's nose under the edge of the tent."

    And I underlined the 12 to show that if 12 get through the crack when being reviewed by a group with an admitted bias against release, God knows how many would be released under your plan.

    Our war effort, dear tnthorpe, is not a "catch and release" program designed to repopulate the world with terrorists and killers.


    Wrong wrong (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by tnthorpe on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 06:45:56 PM EST
    a thousand times wrong. Catch and release, pure comedy.

    It's about limiting unwarranted expansion of executive power. If you think Guantanamo and a chain of CIA blacksites are a good and noble thing, that's your bag. Torture, wave of the future, eh ppj? I despise authoritarian garbage like that and think that it puts this country on a quick path to totalitarian rule. You'll note that historically such regimes are typically democratically welcomed as protectors from various threats to the integrity of a nation or culture. So, no, you've misrepresented the argument I've made, as you have before.

    Catch and release is a typical far right nugget of thoughtlessness that has nothing at all to do with what serious and realistic people would like to see done. As I noted before and will now again, the military is releasing people and getting it wrong. Habeas proceedings would be much better suited to keeping dangerous people in prison and letting the innocent go. Why you refuse to see this is mind-boggling, but I suppose you think anyone captured on hearsay or rumour in Afghanistan or Iraq must be guilty. Whatever.

    Sandra Day O'Connor told the Bush Administration that war is not a blank check for unlimited expansion of executive power. The continued incarceration of prisoners without charge or legal representation is a stain on our country's honor. Period.

    The Bush Administration's pursuit of an illegal, immoral war in Iraq is producing terrorists by the flattened city full. The Bush Administration's denial of a basic human right, one which predates America, is contemptible. It's a moral disaster to compound the disaster of the war. It's that failed war effort, dear jimakappj, that is making the world ever less safe, producing ever more anti-Americanism, ever greater numbers of terrorists.


    Nope. (1.00 / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 07:52:33 PM EST
    It's about limiting unwarranted expansion of executive power

    Look, at least let us agree that you are for open borders. This position you claim to support here matches that profile exactly. With open borders and no true national identification, you would want everyone, everywhere, to be protected against actions by the US.

    I totally and completely disagree with your positions.

    The actions you speak of involve foreign nationals committing crimes against the US military and our interests OUTSIDE the US. Thus as prsioners and non-citizens not protected by the GC they have no rights beyond what we give them. And we have been very kind. The reviews do that, and are very generous from a historical perspective. Normally guerrillas are quickly tried and then executed.

    BTW - I am LOL at your reaction to the apt description of "catch and release." Such short snappy statements become cliches because they are essentially accurate.

    So keep the personal insults coming. They prove that you are losing...and desperate..


    Now you're 0 for what, 8? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by tnthorpe on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 08:16:49 PM EST
    Hey, you like holding people in perpetuity without charge. Great, put it on a t-shirt, but I laugh when you tell me that it's necessary, or good, or valuable, or justified, or American.

    You can't handle my argument, so you spin and change the subject and whine about being insulted. (YOU WHO NEVER INSULT ANYONE, IMAGINE THAT!)

    I've consistently argued that a habeas proceeding would put America on the moral high ground, rein in our out of control executive, and vastly improve our international reputation. You choose to fulminate about your phantom opponent. Typical.

    Give the people, like this unfortunate young man, a real hearing before a neutral magistrate. It's the not the least we can do, but it's the best thing to do.


    I see you still love to misquote (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 10:46:29 AM EST
    Nothing new in that. It is the typical trick of the smearer....

    No. I don't "like" to hold anyone in custody.

    In fact, I insist that US citizens and foreigners legally and illegally in the country receive all their constitutional rights.

    But if the courts say keep'em locked up, that's life.

    No. I don't "like" to hold those accused of being foreign terrorists who have attacked us in custody.

    I do think that it is the correct thing to do, and I don't think they have the same rights as US citizens.

    Your desire to put America on what you call the "moral high ground" is fatuous. By the very fact that we are not summarily executing these people we prove our intent and position.

    Remember. Khadr was given medical attention and his life saved when he could have easily been ignored and left to die.

    BTW - Countries do not succeed based on "international" reputation. They succeed by properly responding to threats and challenges to their national interests. Preventing terrorist attacks within the US and throughout the world is certainly one of those interests.

    As for your plea, your camel remains outside the tent, even if the desert is cold at night.

    BTW - Insults? A Leftie resorting to ad hominem
    attacks and personal insults when losing an argument? Naaaa. Couldn't possibly happen.


    0 for 9 (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by tnthorpe on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 12:11:00 PM EST
    damn, the side's retired and not a single hit.

    You're wrong when you assert that

    1. habeas = full rights of American citizen. Basic basic error.
    2. being on the moral high ground = fatuous. It's just that you and your  JihadWatch ilk are so persuaded by your own paranoia that you can't see the moral high ground anymore.
    3. Khadr is a child soldier and we treat them differently according to law. I don't excuse his actions; nobody I've read does. But no matter his actions, we haven't the prerogative to torture him and to deny him the basic right to challenge his detention, which is what you support, so no mistake on my part there and a typical error on your part.
    4. The Declaration of Independence was written because the brililant men who created recognized that a "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" was incumbent upon them. That's what international reputation involves, and it helps with the implementation of policy. That's a basic error on your part. You fail to recognize this, as your argument fails in so many ways.
    5. Your complaint about being insulted is HILARIOUS, since you've slimed, belittled, mocked, and misrepresented folk across this blog. Methinks you do complain too much.
    6. Military tribunals are not adequate substitutes for habeas proceedings. You may think so, but like I said, put it on a t-shirt with a flag, but your claim that it's a valid approach is simply wrong.

    But hey, what's a string of fatal flaws in an argument when you can whine about being insulted, continue to reiterate empty phrases, and turn your back to the need to do things better? Like I said, we need to do not the least we are capable of, but the best. That you disagree with that is a sign the debilitating moral complacency of your argument.

    Khadir was born in Canada, (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 11:55:55 AM EST
    and, like the rest of his family, is a Canadian citizen. Like the rest of his family, he spent years in Canada, on and off, and had significant exposure to westerners, ie., Canada and America.

    Although the AQ in Afghan was made up of non-Afghans, Khadir and the rest of OBL's AQ did have an alliance with the Afghan Taliban.

    In 2002 American forces along with a group of Afghan translators surrounded a compound in Afghan and started negotiating with the AQ fighters inside to surrender.

    During the process some of the Afghan translators went inside the compound to talk with the fighters but soon after they entered they were summarily slaughtered by the AQ fighters and those fighters and the American forces got into a fire fight.

    The American forces then called in an air strike which essentially leveled the compound.

    After the air strike American forces entered the compound and Khadir jumped out from behind a wall and ended Sgt. Speer's life and injured three other American troops with a grenade.

    His lawyers have alleged that he was tortured in gitmo. If those allegations are true, those actions are unconscionable.

    He was old enough to throw a grenade. (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 06:59:35 AM EST
    And the Sergeant that he killed will not have a birthday this year.

    If you want to declare that he is a POW and keep him, and the others who have been captured, locked up until the war is over, you should say so.

    If you want to claim he is a civilian then quit protesting and support trying him for what he is. A Guerrilla.

    But you can have it both ways.

    and it's ok to torture him (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Jen M on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:09:07 AM EST
    a kid?

    Two wrongs make a right?


    And your proof of torture is....?? (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 04:40:40 PM EST
    Grrr early morning.... "can not" (1.00 / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 07:01:00 AM EST

    "child soldiers" (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by diogenes on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 10:02:57 PM EST
    So do all the writers here agree that Omar Khadr should only be held until he is "rehabilitated", whenever that is, since he is a "child soldier" and that the adults at GITMO are held there properly.
    Or is this yet another stalking horse in the battle to shut down GITMO completely.
    How and exactly does "catch and release" apply in this treaty about child soldiers?

    was the (none / 0) (#2)
    by cpinva on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 05:18:36 AM EST
    jena DA at all involved in guantanamo? the more i read, the more i begin to think this guy (the jena DA), got blooded there.

    Omar Khadr (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 10:50:10 AM EST
    ...was dragged to meet al Qaeda leaders from the age of 10, sent to military training camps at age 15 and then out to the battlefield to be shot at," said Jennifer Daskal at Human Rights Watch.

    When a young kid is exposed to and indoctrinated in, for example, a dogmatic religion such as Roman Catholicism (or any other doctrine), from a young age the mindset created is nearly impossible to break out of, and the entire world is seen through the lens of what s/he has been taught. Anything that questions it is seen as threat.

    Khadr's entire experience with Americans took place after he had already been indoctrinated, and consisted of being shot at and bombed by Americans.

    The US troops entered the flattened compound and the kid jumped out from behind a wall and killed one US troop and maimed another with a grenade.

    Should anything different have been expected? Whose fault is it? His? Anyones?

    CTV, June 03, 2007:

    Khadr, who was only 15 years old when he was taken into custody, presents a special challenge as the first juvenile to face war crimes charges in decades.
    For activists, Khadr's as much of a victim as Speer and Sgt. Layne Morris, who was nearly blinded during the firefight.

    "We have a kid who was dragged to meet al Qaeda leaders from the age of 10, sent to military training camps at age 15 and then out to the battlefield to be shot at," said Jennifer Daskal at Human Rights Watch.
    Authorities insist international law permits them to prosecute Khadr as an enemy combatant without the rights afforded prisoners of war while others argue the United States has an obligation to rehabiliate child soldiers under a United Nations treaty it has ratified.

    Meantime, some find it strange that Khadr is among only three prisoners to be formally charged since the military commission system was revamped last year after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it was illegal.

    "You have to wonder why it's Omar Khadr who may be the first to go on trial," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the national security project at the American Civil Liberties Union in New York.

    To give others with links to the Sept. 11 attacks a hearing may expose some uncomfortable information about interrogation techniques employed by the CIA, he said.

    "They don't want that information on the front of the New York Times."

    Today's ruling is just another day in, as Rolling Stone puts it, The Unending Torture of Omar Khadr, indeed.

    Anyone feeling pleased with the treatment of Omar Khadr and today's ruling should be feeling deep self-disgust and overwhelming shame.

    And your point is?? (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 11:18:31 AM EST
    That he had terrible parents?

    So?? That's not a reason for what he did, that's an attempted excuse.


    Whoisaid Bush had terrible parents? (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 11:23:00 AM EST
    Wow (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 12:04:00 PM EST
    "We have a kid who was dragged to meet al Qaeda leaders from the age of 10, sent to military training camps at age 15 and then out to the battlefield to be shot at," said Jennifer Daskal at Human Rights Watch.

    So. You think the above is good parenting?


    Look, if you want to claim that the boy is a POW, do so.

    If you want to claim he is not a guerrilla, then make your claim. It won't work, but try it.

    Just don't claim he is an innocent victim.

    And that is alleged torture.


    yeah, terrible parents (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by txpublicdefender on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 12:09:50 PM EST
    The point is not that he had terrible parents.  The point is that he was, as a child, indoctrinated by his parents into Al Qaeda.  I assume you agree that Al Qaeda engages in this type of heinous indoctrination of young people.  That's why we're trying to shut down these madrasas, right?  

    He was, in essence, a conscripted child soldier.  And under a treaty that the United States ratified on child soldiers, we are not supposed to prosecute a child soldier for war crimes.  We are supposed to offer rehabilitation to the child.  Even if you don't buy into the strong moral argument against prosecuting a child for war crimes, do you also believe that we have the right to disregard treaties at will?  Is the word of the United States of America supposed to mean nothing?  


    What I believe is that the Left (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 01:17:12 PM EST
    has two choices.

    Pick which ever one you choose.

    I also believe that millions of people are exposed to bad things and don't do them.


    BTW - Let him go isn't a choice. (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 01:17:50 PM EST
    Nice (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by txpublicdefender on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 01:48:17 PM EST
    So, it's basically "heads you win, tails I lose."  Okay.

    I see that one of the choices isn't that the United States should uphold its treaty obligations to rehabilitate, and not prosecute, child soldiers.  Good to know.

    Why do you get to decide which choices we have?  Do you, unlike so many of your Republican counterparts, not believe in the "rule of law."  Our constitution does, after all, state that ratified treaties are law.  

    Please explain.


    Nope (1.00 / 2) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 05:29:45 PM EST
    He was, in essence, a conscripted child soldier

    To enroll into service by compulsion :

    The act of his crime is that he emerged from the wreckage and threw a grenade. That is an act of free will. Your conscription theory doesn't hold water.

    So the treaty doesn't apply. Following the rules and all that stuff.

    The best that anyone can do for this young killer is to prove that the GC applies and that he is a POW, but I don't think you can do that.


    The act of his crime (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 05:38:42 PM EST
    is that he emerged from the wreckage and threw a grenade.

    To defend himself from people trying to kill him.

    That is an act of free will.


    child soldiers (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by txpublicdefender on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 06:35:37 PM EST
    Have you read any of the news stories about the conscripted child soldiers in Sierra Leone or Uganda?  Those soldiers, too, shot people, and killed them.  Those were all, in theory, acts of free will.  But they did not volunteer for the "army" they killed on behalf of.  They were forced to join.  This kid was 10 years old when his parents sent him off to Al Qaeda indoctrination.  You think he got on a plane and flew to Afghanistan himself?  No one is saying he was an android, acting at the command of a remote control.  That's not required to fall under the protection of the child soldier treaty.

    The life of the soldier he killed is not worth more than the principles this country stands for.  The lives of a thousand soldiers aren't worth more than that.


    Great gobs of drizzling goose fat (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:17:48 PM EST
    are you for real?

    The life of the soldier he killed is not worth more than the principles this country stands for.  The lives of a thousand soldiers aren't worth more than that.

    How fatuous.

    I don't care how he got to Afghanistan. Perhaps he wiggled his nose.

    This is a simple case of a guerrilla fighter and true believer who entered another country in the employ of a group that had taken over the country through a second group and was busy destroying any hope of a modern society when we entered into that fray.

    Worse, as SUO pointed out, he was a citizen of Canada and had a great deal of exposure to western civilization, although obviously it did not impress him.

    After being part of a group that butchered the Afghanistans who were trying to arrange a surrender with no bloodshed and surviving the fire fight and the air attack he used his good fortune by willingly and with malice attacking and killing one and injuring three US soldiers.

    And even then, the US military did not kill him, but gave him medical treatment and saved his life.

    These are the people you think need sacrificing.

    I think they have. I think they have a lot.

    It is time you get to know them.


    This is a simple case (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:39:03 PM EST
    of a 10 year old kid conscripted as a guerrilla fighter and defending his country from people destroying any hope of any kind of a society in his country.

    Defending his country from people like you, ppj.


    His country?? (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 08:23:49 AM EST
    He was a citizen of Canada if I can believe all the propaganda being babbled and blathered on his behalf.

    As SUO pointed out, he received considerable exposure to western civilization. That none of it stuck is evident in his actions.


    Considerable exposure? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 08:29:54 AM EST
    Khadr's entire experience with Americans took place after he had already been indoctrinated, and consisted of being shot at and bombed by Americans.

    Catch a clue (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 09:38:05 AM EST
    I'm lol..

    You make excuse after excuse and get no where, yet you continue... The kool aid must be especially good for you.

    He was a Canadian citizen. I said he had plenty of exposure to western civilization, but it didn't take. But even beyond that:

    He was in the compound when the Afghanistan translators, who had gone into to help arrange a surrender, was butchered. So he knew that a peaceful surrender was possible. He survived the fire fight and the air attack. He could have surrendered.

    He chose to throw a hand grenade killing one and injuring three US soldiers. He was shot three times and captured. Instead of just leaving him to die he was treated and his life was saved.

    Compare that last act to cutting off heads and displaying the corpses of food delivery workers if you need to see the differences between us and the radical Moslem terrorists.

    So, as usual, you are full of beans. But we know your position from your past comments. Here is one that tells the tale:

    Posted by edger at December 4, 2005 08:12 AM

    (I had written)Insurgents don't use car bombs to kill civilians or give booby trapped dolls to children. That is terrorist work, edgey.

    (This is edger's reply.)That is not "terrorist work" in the way you try to twist it to mean, at all. It is the work of the Iraqi people - the very people BushCo thought would throw flowers - fighting to kick the US out of Iraq":

    The above also points out the remarkable similarities between what the terrorists have done in both countries.

    They kill civilians to terrify them into obeying.


    Incompetency defense. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 09:40:43 AM EST
    You don't really want to shout, ppj. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 09:47:33 AM EST
    It's likely to be self-defeating.

    They kill civilians to terrify them into obeying.

    While you continue, as you have for years, lovingly cheering them on.


    edger (1.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 11:15:53 AM EST
    Your inability to understand that real live fighters trying to overcome "invaders" do not kill their fellow citizens is not believed.

    You are just making excuses.


    You want to compare (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 11:21:24 AM EST
    scores? Numbers of people killed? By both sides?

    Be my guest. Bury yourself. Have fun.

    Once again, I apologize for my gaffe above in using the word "learn" in the same comment with your name. I really don't mean to saddle you with any unwarranted expectations, you know?


    But I understand, ppj, Really I do. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 08:38:26 AM EST
    Today is a brand spankin' new day, and you can use the incompetency defense again and just discount and forget everything you learned yesterday in this thread and others... well... everything you were exposed to yesterday.

    I apologize for my gaffe in using the word "learn" in the same comment with your name. I really don't mean to saddle you with any unwarranted expectations, you know?


    Bush (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jen M on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 03:24:22 PM EST
    Does not comply with treaties. The president is above the law.

    No one expects you to get it.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 12:06:51 PM EST
    the point is dangerousness (none / 0) (#17)
    by diogenes on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 12:24:22 PM EST
    Child soldiers aren't charged with war crimes.  On the other hand, even the Geneva Convention doesn't require countries to play catch and release with POW's who have killed your soldiers before being captured.  
    If he's a POW, he can be held for the duration.  If he's a guerilla "enemy combatant", then in most other wars he would have been shot on site, thus rendering this thread moot, and he should be pushing for a rapid trial now in hopes of being released for mitigating youthful factors.
    Criminal defense lawyers have been known to lie or to amplify the truth to advance their clients' causes; why is it that people who usually are sceptical of lawyers take their allegations of torture as gospel truth?

    He isn't a POW (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Jen M on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 03:25:27 PM EST
    the administration calls them enemy combatants.

    POWs have to be treated according to the Geneva Conventions.


    Geneva Convention isn't the only convention (none / 0) (#21)
    by txpublicdefender on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 01:52:02 PM EST
    You are correct that a POW under the Geneva Convention can be held for the duration.  But that is not the only convention at issue.  We have ratified a treaty on child soldiers, and we are not following it.  That treaty is the law of the United States.  Why is our military allowed to disobey it?  

    Under the treaty, child soldiers are supposed to be rehabilitated, not prosecuted as war criminals or held for the duration of hostilities.

    Again, I ask, why is our military allowed to break the law?


    One more time (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 08:11:10 AM EST
    He was and is a common al-Qaida guerrilla.

    Cry for some of our dead.

    Cry for the homosexuals who have been killed by al-Qaida.

    Cry for the women killed because they were accused of infidelity...


    I do all of those, Jim... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 11:10:49 AM EST
    ...and STILL have the capacity to consider this kid to have been abused and mistreated by everyone involved, them and us.  Further abuse and mistreatment serves no purpose but cruelty.

    Part of what makes life hard to live, Jim, is that many things coexist legitimately at the same time, often contradictory things.  To repeat, all of what you wrote was legit and true and inarguably so (all victims deserve our grief and effort), but this does not alter the reality that this kid is also a victim and deserves equal justice.


    Time for an (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 10:07:53 PM EST
    upgrade, diog...

    The treaty (none / 0) (#36)
    by roy on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 10:26:52 PM EST
    The recent articles aren't specific, but I think the treaty they refer to is an Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  Some of the older, related articles mention it.

    States Parties shall cooperate in the implementation of the present Protocol, including in the prevention of any activity contrary thereto and in the rehabilitation and social reintegration of persons who are victims of acts contrary thereto, including through technical cooperation and financial assistance. Such assistance and cooperation will be undertaken in consultation with the States Parties concerned and the relevant international organizations.

    It's not clear to me whether "acts contrary thereto" includes acts by non-states or acts by non-signatories.

    roy (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 08:07:49 AM EST
    It means this is either reason or rhyme that can mean anything at anytime..

    Edger (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 11:20:04 AM EST
    Khadr's entire experience with Americans took place after he had already been indoctrinated
    1) What is your source for this claim?
    2) What is the relevance of the claim?