Omar Khadr Video of Gitmo Questioning Released

Lawyers for Canadian Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr, 15 when captured in Afghanistan and brought to Guantanamo Bay, have released this video of his questioning. From the accompanying BBC news article:

During the 10-minute video - filmed secretly through a ventilation shaft - Mr Khadr can be seen crying, his face buried in his hands, and pulling at his hair. He can be heard repeatedly chanting: "Help me."

At one point he tells the foreign ministry official and agents from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) that he was tortured while being held at the US military detention centre at Bagram air base in Afghanistan. He raises his orange shirt to show wounds and tells them: "You don't care about me."

His lawyer says: [More...]

I hope Canadians will be outraged to see the callous and disgraceful treatment of a Canadian youth.

According to this BBC News video, the interrogation lasted 7 hours and was presented to the Canadian Courts.

The Globe and Mail has more.

Before the rage, the resignation and the tears, came the trust. Teenaged prisoner Omar Khadr seemed sure that his countrymen from Canada had come to Cuba to help him and spoke freely when they asked questions.

On the second day, the reality almost visibly dawned on his face. Agents had asked about his links to al-Qaeda, about his friends and family in Afghanistan, about whether he really thought dozens of black-eyed virgins awaited him in janna, or paradise.

...After a series of Canadian court orders, remarkable footage of [Canadian]federal agents questioning Mr. Khadr was released Tuesday morning - starting with an eight-minute highlight reel released at 5 a.m., and a full seven hours of footage to come later in the afternoon.

Khadr faces life in prison if convicted at his military tribunal trial. Trancripts from earlier proceedings are here. Our past coverage of his case is assembled here.

< Obama Continues to Stress Accountability to Black Voters | Pols Are Not Your Friends >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Words fail me. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:51:22 AM EST

    Words don't fail me. Bastards (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Saul on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:57:55 AM EST
    Outrageous.  And we were the ones that were going to show people in the middle east that we were better than Sadamm Huessin

    Sometime back I wrote an article that was printed in our local newspaper concerning Bush and his manufactured war in Iraq.

    Here it is

    The Hypocrisy of It All

    One of the goals in Iraq was to bring democracy to the Iraq government.  Many Iraqis are now saying, "We do not understand this new democratic type of government you are talking about."
    Do you mean like the recent midterm 06 November election you had in the United States where the majority of your people voted for the democrats on the basis of ending the Iraq war?  However, your president said, I don't care what 65 percent of the American people want I will continue with this war even if the only supporters left  are my wife and my dog Barney.    
    Do you mean like the Baker-Hamilton Commission that told your president that the current course in the management of the war was no longer viable and that major changes had to be made to include using diplomacy with the adjacent countries?  However, your president said I heard the commission's recommendation but I chose not to follow them and we will do it my way.  
    Do you mean like the military supplemental spending bill that both houses of your government passed with conditions of a timeline to end this war because of the mandate the people gave your Congress to end this war, along with your generals who agree that the only solutions to this war is a political solution and not a military solution? However, your president said, I will veto this bill if it has a timeline to end the war and I am requesting a surge of more troops.  

    "Our government was a dictatorship type of government and its ruler was Saddam Hussein and this new democratic type of government you describe sounds very similar to the one we had. Thanks but no thanks."

    We are witnessing child abuse (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Need2Win on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:26:44 AM EST
    I can't even begin to say how shattered my heart is hearing and watching that child moaning for someone to help him.

    God Bless the Canadian court system for being the only official channels that have actually done something to help him.

    I thought he was saying "kill me" (none / 0) (#77)
    by sassysenora on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:48:51 PM EST
    for at least as long as he was saying "help me". in the longer video, it was heartbreaking to see the two adults who were questioning him come in for about half a minute during his long series of pleas and then just turn around and leave. they didn't seem like they cared about him at all. he wasn't cooperating with them so they ignored him and seemed to assume he was manipulating them.

    Imagine being a 21 year old kid..... (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:36:11 AM EST
    having spent nearly a third of your life in the maxixmum security detention center in Guantanamo Bay.  

    I'm trying and I can't even imagine that kind of horror.

    And I'm not even sure you can call what he has been accused of a crime in any way, shape, or form.  He allegedly threw a grenade at an invading force...how is that a crime?  That's what war is ain't it?  One side invades and the other defends...right?  

    Not to mention (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:36:45 AM EST
    Al - Queda is losing the propoganda war in Iraq.  But every time we do somehting like this we provide more fuel for their recruitment then they ever could on their own.  I wouldn't be surprised if he did join their war upon release.  I couldn't blame him if he did.

    Oh really?? (2.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:20:57 PM EST
    Uh, al-Qaiada would just have killed him.

    They know that. He knows that. The locals know that.

    I know that.

    In fact, looks like everybody except you know that.


    What? (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:28:00 PM EST
    That doesn't make sense.  He was fighting for them, why would they kill him?

    Also, a number of prisoners we released from Cuba have gone on to fight us overseas.

    I am not sure I follow your logic here unless you mean to say that if he was fighting on our side they would've killed him.  To which I say, duh, but we are supposed to be better than Al-Queda right, otherwise what's the point?


    Yeah right... (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by sarissa on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:30:23 AM EST
    When this kid gets out, he'll sign some sort of million-dollar book deal and live comfortably as a quasi-celebrity.

    Unbelievable (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Paprika on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:44:32 AM EST
    I'm Canadian and I'm really ashamed of our government's role in all of this. This kid never had a shot in the toxic family he was raised in. His father putting him in the position he was put in Afghanistan amounts to child abuse, as far as I'm concerned. And what he went through after he was captured just compounds that.  We have no moral authority over the bad guys if do things like this.

    Blame your society as it (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by sarissa on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:36:35 AM EST
    should do a better job of assimilating immigrants.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#25)
    by Paprika on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:53:16 AM EST
    I'm not sure whether you've read much about the Khadrs, but I doubt this is a simple case of assimilation and making newcomers feel welcome.

    I don't know if anything could have been done to assimilate people who hold the kinds of views this family holds. And to say that this family is typical of the Canadian immigrant experience is incorrect. The vast, vast, majority of Muslims, regardless of how strict they are about their religion, are not involved with terrorist organizations.

    I'm not saying our immigration system is perfect, but it was this kid's family that put him in that position. Further, at least one imam has offered to help re-integrate Khadr into Canadian society if he's ever released from Gitmo.


    People defending this kid (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:33:37 AM EST
    simply want the truth about the circumstances of his capture. There are numerous potential mitigating factors that would explain his actions. For example, what would have happened to him if he had NOT done those things he is accused of? What type of indoctrination did he undergo before he was sent to fight? We simply do not have the information to make this determination.

    Then there are the people defending his incarceration without charge and the torture who simply accept the US government's version of events. People like that have no respect for law. These methods make our government no different than the extremists who indoctrinated this kid, and then sent him into battle against an invading force, possibly against his will. It is infuriating to read comments by hypocritical individuals who claim to be patriotic americans and then condone the violations of human rights inflicted upon a (then) child without any factual evidence or even the due process to ascertain those facts. It is proof postitive that indoctrination takes many forms. These people are, IMHO, more of a threat to our country than some kid with an alleged hand grenade.

    Good to see ya Che.... (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:42:43 AM EST
    hope to see more of you now that we're digging into issues again...your sane voice has been missed.

    Counldn't agree more about who the real threats to life, liberty, and happiness are.


    Kdog, I'm just visiting (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:56:48 AM EST
    It is difficult to spend any significant time commissurating at a website where the law is disregarded by so many regular visitors. But I do visit occaisionally when legal issues come up to get JM's And T Chris's perspectives.

    You and I share a reason, then, (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by scribe on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:01:48 PM EST
    for the decline in our commenting-rate.

    I've gotten bored with the trolls, Repugs, supporters of this or that candidate, and all-around clowns who think an insult passes for a comment, who've made themselves incapable of examining an issue from any perspective other than their own, and all the other odiousnesses which have permeated this (and other) sites since the beginning of the campaign year.

    "My candidate/position/argument good, yours bad" just doesn't cut it for me.


    All the more reason.... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:56:05 PM EST
    for you and Che to comment more and share your unique persepctives.

    I'm just thinking selfishly cuz I like how you guys think and enjoy your sh*t:)


    There's no point in trying to help people (none / 0) (#55)
    by scribe on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:18:44 PM EST
    who don't want to be helped.

    And if you want Exhibit A for that, go read the Fourth Circuit's en banc decision today in al-Marri v. Pucciarelli  (warning - 216 page .pdf).  In this decision, the Fourth Circuit says that "if it's true al-Marri is an enemy combatant (whatever that means), then it's ok for the President to use the military to lock him up indefinitely.  Even though he was lawfully here, never did anything, and was seized out of a criminal proceeding by the military within the United States."

    The Rethugs listened to their own outcry over Boumedienne a couple weeks ago, and fine-tuned their way into a 5-4 majority on the Fourth Circuit.  And they'll be preening and cheering for this decision.

    All hail the Bush Dictatorship.


    Yes (none / 0) (#92)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:45:04 PM EST
    Nice to see you. I have been sticking around and it is not pretty. The GOP trolls have been replaced, not too much difference. Endlessly repeating talking points and not open to anything else, sound familiar? The only difference is that there are more of them then ever....

    Some new ones that are good though... So it is not all bad.


    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:47:35 PM EST
    I'm surprised to read some of the comments about this.

    How many people detained at Gitmo have actually been charged with a crime?

    Dunno. (none / 0) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    But I do know that Khadr, the subject of this thread, has been charged with crimes.

    Six years ago. (none / 0) (#52)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    I thought justice was swift.  

    What's the hold up?


    Time? (1.00 / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:34:49 PM EST
    Probably all the legal filings of the defense.

    BTW - This link describes the process. I have no idea as to how many remain. Quite a few have been released, many been killed or re-captured fighting against us.

    Again, for explanation/clarification, CSRTs, Combatant Status Review Tribunals, that is the determination if someone is or is not an enemy combatant.  So it strictly is or is not an enemy combatant; that's the only determination made by those boards.  And if an EC -- that is, if an enemy combatant -- then detained, and then they're scheduled for an administrative review board.  So administrative review boards' annual review, they determine if someone should continue to be detained after a determination of an enemy combatant status.  So they're the two boards and I'll give you a status of where we are, this time at the end of this year.


    "Of the people that we've released, we've captured a number of them or killed a number of them back on the battlefield in Afghanistan," Hunter, R-Calif., told FOX News on Sunday. "The question is, are we liberal enough in the application of our standards that determine who we release back into the world. I think some American parents who have kids out there would argue we're too liberal."

    Citing a memo prepared for him by his staff, Hunter proceeded to discuss some of the at least 10 detainees who have been released from Guantanamo Bay, or Gitmo, only to re-join the fight against the U.S. coalition bringing democracy to Afghanistan.

    The number 10 has been bumped to 30, and there is some disagreement. To me one is too many. We are not running a catch and release program.



    That was my point (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:45:54 PM EST
    And I also wonder how many of those 10 or 30 would have been fighting us if we had not subjected them to the treatment they received at Guantanamo bay.  We are running an Al-Queda recruitment camp.

    Also, compared to the number of people who leave prison and commit more crimes, this number seems a little low.  But that doesn't mean we have the right to keep people in prison indefinitely either.


    Uh, let me see (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:39:28 AM EST
    They were picked up for crimes against us.

    They were mistakenly let go....

    And that just made them madder...


    Is there something here I don't understand?

    Let's assume for a moment that we had designated them POW's. They escaped.

    Would they attack us again??


    No argument there. (none / 0) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:18:25 PM EST
    You asked a question, I answered it.

    Do you think this (none / 0) (#85)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:50:58 PM EST
    kid, now an adult (and less likely to garner sympathy because people will forget he was 15) was really guilty of the charges?

    What the Bush administration has done is repugnant.

    I only wish those who authorized it could suffer the same fate.

    Oh, how I wish that.


    Check this out (1.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:16:55 AM EST
    The young man in question tossed a hand grenade and killed US military.

    He was wounded, but was treated and nursed back to health by the US.

    He has been treated far better than he deserves.

    I suspect in the future the rush to provide medical assistance will be less than it was.

    If he tossed that grenade.... (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:41:00 AM EST
    on US soil that's a crime, but in Afghanistan during an invasion?  Isn't that just plain old war?

    I mean when you invade a country, shouldn't you expect the people living there to shoot and toss grenades at you?  Seriously...if that's a crime, then every veteran of the Revolutionary War was a terrorist, every memeber of the French Resistance was a terrorist, every Vietcong was a terrorist.  What am I missing?


    Uh, Kdog... (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:13:40 PM EST
    He was a Canadian. Supposedly he would then have no dog in the fight.

    He became involved in the fight on the terrorist's side. He attacked us. That made him an unlawful combatant...

    I'm all for giving a fair trial, convicting him and then hanging him, which has been the fate of such fighters since time began.


    We do not execute juveniles (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:35:01 PM EST
    in the U.S. who are guilty of premediated murder--it is now (thankfully) unconstitutioanl to do so.

    The boy was fighting in Afghanistan as a conventional soldier--his citizenship is irrelevent.  He is a POW.  We do not execute POWs....We should not torture them, either.  That is what separates us from the others who do.


    Actually, I believe we are one of the few (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:41:03 PM EST
    countries who do execute adults who committed capital crimes as minors.

    Roper? (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:43:49 PM EST
    No.... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:18:48 PM EST
    we attacked him...lets be real.

    Yes, on paper he is a Canadian citizen...but you know as well as I do home is where you lay your head...if he was laying his head at night under Afghani skies that is his home, and he has a natural right to defend it...regardless if the invaders are deemed by you or I to be benevolent or not.


    Oh really? (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:25:13 PM EST
    I'll just call myself whoever I want to be??

    Think I'll be a Brit Royalty.... They seem to have a bit of money and stuff...


    Go for it.... (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:46:52 PM EST
    and if you resided in a castle in England, you might have a case...your majesty:)

    He is not Afghan and neither are/were either of his parents, nor there parents before them.

    He went from Canada to Pakistan where he became Al-Qaeda and learned to be a soldier.

    Once he was trained he then went to Afghanistan where he and the rest of AQ searched for, found and fought against the legal gvt of that country.

    Would it be OK for you to join AQ, go to England, and bomb the Parliament merely because you "lay your head" there?


    I don't think that is a comparable analogy... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:03:32 PM EST
    a better one would be I decide to join Amnesty Int'l, end up living in England, and the French decide to invade...and I fight the French invaders.  Am I justified?

    What you are missing is that (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:16:57 PM EST
    the invader was Khadr. And that the legal gvt he was activly fighting against were not invaders.

    He is a prisoner of war (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:31:22 PM EST
    A very young prisoner of war.  

    I'm glad that the video was posted--I'll pass on watching it, however.



    Well, not surprisingly I suppose, (none / 0) (#62)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:42:41 PM EST
    there are those who disagree.

    That'd be you? (none / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:44:27 PM EST
    I would have been shocked (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:51:24 PM EST
    if his tribunal did not find that he was an enemy combatant.

    The label shouldn't (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:00:34 PM EST
    matter.  He was a boy fighting in what he thought was an army--it was an organized force pursuing military objectives.  It is not okay to torture or kill him.

    If he committed war crimes, the try him as a war criminal.....

    Conversations like these remind me why I could never be a Republican.


    Sorry, was anyone here suggesting (none / 0) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:11:39 PM EST
    that torture of him would be OK?

    I didn't think so.

    He was a boy who knew he was in a foreign country and that he and a bunch of other similar foreigners were members of a group that was actively looking for and warring against that country's gvt.


    It did appear (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:34:47 PM EST
    that a couple of commentators here believed the boy was treated appropriately.

    It doesn't matter to me that the boy was "warring against" another government.  Capture him, and treat him as POW.  Anything else is barbaric and makes me ashamed of my country.


    Well, I guess we're all aware, now, (none / 0) (#79)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:20:49 PM EST
    of your personal definition of barbarity.

    As an aside, this is the second time in two days that we've interacted and you've brought in aspects of other people's conversations as though they were part of ours.

    Since both times, conceptually, they've been about on par with you asking me when I stopped beating my wife, unless you're looking for "I'm right, you're wrong" conversations with me, I'd ask that you keep our conversations reasonably focused on what we actually do say.

    But if it's just snarky comments you want to make, let me know. Makes no difference to me.


    It is all on the same thread (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:08:47 PM EST
    and was directly on point....

    Not snark at all--just clarity.


    And you asked about "anyone" (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:09:39 PM EST
    and I answered your question.

    Well, one last try. (none / 0) (#82)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:35:55 PM EST
    If you want to discuss with me stuff I said, I'm all there. If you want to throw in stuff from someone else's comments as though it was something I said, or something I believe in, or agree with, or whatever, I'm not interested.

    Seems reasonable, no?


    In the reddest (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:15:23 PM EST
    areas age of consent has always been all but irrelevant in other realms, so it probobly stands to reason that the predatory contagion should extend to  makin'-em-pay (irregardless of age), too.

    What legal govt.? (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:45:54 PM EST
    The Karzai govt.?  I don't know if I'd call that a legal govt. brother...but fair enough, it's not as cut and dried as I made it out to be.

    You know me when liberty is at stake...I take the ball I run with it:)


    "He went to.." (none / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:44:28 PM EST
    "Where he became Al Queda." Do you really think he ever had much choice in the matter? Whats the age of consent these days?

    A "fair trial" (none / 0) (#37)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:22:29 PM EST
    convicting and hanging.

    And the same for the policy makers who set the course that insured that we'd have to deal with kids like this down the road.

    If we tally up the trees in Crawford and Lampposts
    in D.C, we should have enough.


    Hmmm I see that you are (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:26:52 PM EST
    urging the death of the President and other high government officials.

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:31:33 PM EST
    I was speaking metaphorically. Anyway, any day now they'll probobly choke on their own greed and stupidity

    I don't know why you've got a wild hair (none / 0) (#43)
    by scribe on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:35:49 PM EST
    up you a*s today (more than any other day, for that matter), but remember the "no shilling" and "no organizing for causes antithetical to this site's ideals" rule.

    Since I've been here for 5 years (1.00 / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:09:17 PM EST
    although, like you, less in the last 9-12 months, I think I know the rules.

    Please explain why my pointing out Jondee's comment is "shilling" or "organizing for causes....etc.?" I did not solicit nor encourage him. In fact, I am always happy when I don't see his comments.

    As for organizing, on this blog I would say I am an Army of 1.


    More like a cipher (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:18:27 PM EST
    of one.

    In this case, all for executing children.


    He was a child (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by PA Lady on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:07:37 AM EST
    We have, unfortunately, children and adults in this country who commit murder, rape, etc., and even they are not allowed to be treated like this, no matter how heinous the crime. They aren't held without trial for years, suffering torture and deprivation to a degree that destroys their mental stability.

    This is not a criminal justice (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:18:09 PM EST

    Perry Mason isn't involved.

    This "kid" fought against us quite effectively and killed.


    I'm quite sure (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by scribe on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:31:36 PM EST
    Mr. Khadr's confinement is soooo much different from the confinement ordinary criminals get, that he could have no complaints about being confined for six years without ever (a) being tried for anything, (b) being convicted of anything, (c) having received a determinate sentence for anything, or (d) getting any of the other procedural or substantive protections ordinary criminals get.

    When the cell door slams closed - before or after his torturers leave his cell - he's still behind bars.  And he's there though guilty of nothing.


    Guilty of nothing? (1.00 / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:17:46 PM EST
    He has been picked up in middle of a fire fight in which he threw a hand grenade.

    This is not.... should not be.... a matter of standard US criminal justice procedure. To make it so is a travesty.

    When you rob a Quickie Mart you have broken the law.

    When you attack US military forces without being a lawful member of a regular military forces you have no rights beyond determining if you have done so. The time and place of such investigations should be as determined by the military.


    The guy who tossed the grenade had been (none / 0) (#10)
    by scribe on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:27:09 AM EST

    The report was cooked to implicate this kid because they needed a live body to persecute for the dead American.


    What about the video? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:56:15 AM EST

    What about the video of him planting road mines?

    If the Taliban.... (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:04:23 AM EST
    invaded the shores of Long Island I'm setting booby traps too.  Hopefully with the help of all my neighbors.

    You may have missed the geography (none / 0) (#32)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:05:56 PM EST
    You may have missed the geography, but Canadians are our neighbors, not the Afghans.

    Many people join the armies of (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:39:42 PM EST
    other countries....Time immemorial.....

    The distinction between organized armies of the existing governments and rebel armies is not significant....

    We did not execute those in the Confederate forces.....


    Not the same (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:53:17 AM EST
    The states withdrew, formed their own country, their own army, currency, etc... The CSA met all of the requirements for GC covered.

    These folks were guerrillas. Guerrillas, from ancient times forward, get executed post haste.


    Yes, (none / 0) (#45)
    by bocajeff on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:47:26 PM EST
    But if the enemy caught you I doubt you would be given a pat on the head and told to go home and be a good person...

    My father was a resistance fighter in Russian during WWII as an 11-15 year old. Some would say a terrorist, some would say a freedom fighter. He did things he wasn't proud of, but he always said he knew the risks were death and/or prisoner.

    I don't think this person should be put to death, but let's face the fact that he wasn't going door to door selling candy bars for a school fundraiser...

    I'd be more ashamed if my government had just let him go...


    Not saying we should of let him go on the spot... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    that wouldn't be too smart militarily.  But he should receive the full protections of the Geneva Convention and his age should be considered when deciding his fate.

    An indefinite stay in Guantanamo is simply unacceptable...I'd call it a crime.


    He is a POW (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:41:11 PM EST
    You do not execute POWs.....Ultimately, you let them go, unless they are guilty of war crimes....If they are, then try them according to the Nuremberg principles....

    Did your father kill other Russians? (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:57:02 AM EST
    Women, children in the markets? Burn schools and hospitals?

    If he did, he's a terrorist.

    If he did not, he was a guerrilla fighting on the side of his country.

    If he had been captured he would have had no GC protection.

    And you wouldn't be here..


    KSM (none / 0) (#3)
    by Need2Win on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:25:44 AM EST
    Khalid Sheikh Mohammad's kids, who were 7 and 9 when they were kidnapped. They were tortured, according to an affidavit from the father of their cell mate, and haven't been heard from or about in years :(

    Jeralyn, have seen the video? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Need2Win on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:29:06 AM EST
    What are your immediate reactions?

    And Who, Pray Tell (none / 0) (#8)
    by The Maven on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:02:47 AM EST
    will seek to hold to account those responsible for these depredations?  Clearly Khadr's lawyers will try, but the best they could possibly achieve on their own would be a civil judgment.  This is the kind of treatment that cannot go unpunished, but, alas, almost certainly will.

    The entire Guantanamo experience is one of our nation's darkest hours, no matter how many of the detainees might actually be guilty, or what crimes they might have committed.  There is simply no excuse for what we caused to occur there.  None.

    sorry (none / 0) (#14)
    by mymy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:57:37 AM EST
    I've read this blog for 1 yr and have never made a comment.I watched all but the last bit of the video.Unless they brought in bats and clubs at the end most Mothers have been harsher to sons who break curfew a few times.I see a lot of teenage acting and the adults  having a whole lot of self control.The "you don't care about me" is just an effort to get pity. Ok have at me for what a hard hearted person I am.

    Mothers.... (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:03:14 AM EST
    lock their children in cells for 6 years for breaking curfew?  Damn...remind me to give my mom an extra big hug and kiss next time I see her.



    And keep them awake for two weeks straight (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by scribe on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:45:18 AM EST
    just prior to the nice Canadians coming to visit?

    mothers (none / 0) (#18)
    by mymy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:08:09 AM EST
    oh  please as we both know I was discussing the video.Don't read more into it than I said.

    So what are you saying.... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:13:11 AM EST
    they aren't beating him with rubber hoses in the video so everything is just ducky?

    I'd rather be beat with rubber hoses for 4 days straight than spend 6 years in a cell...the cell is the worst torture of all.  

    Not that I doubt that he was beaten and physically tortured at some point.


    new (none / 0) (#20)
    by mymy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:28:12 AM EST
    Let me state this very cearly.I was discussing what was on the video.Not before not  after.

    Curious as to your thoughts... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:33:20 AM EST
    on the before and after...care to share?

    I see what you're saying about the video, it could be compared to anyone unfortunate enough to find themselves in any precint interrogation room.  But the video is only news because it's been released, the real story is we captured a 15 year old kid in a warzone and he's still in a cage 6 years later.  Why?


    As a mother, I would never fail to listen (none / 0) (#78)
    by sassysenora on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:07:39 PM EST
    if my child said he could not move his arm properly or wasn't getting adequate medical care. i would not callously ignore him if he were sobbing and saying "kill me" or "help me" for several minutes, especially if he had been confined for months and there was good reason to question his emotional and mental stability.

    i don't know if Omar's medical care was proper or not. i don't know if he'd been tortured or not. i know that the two adults who were questioning him seemed completely indifferent to his health, his conditions of confinement, his emotional stability, and his overall well-being. it seemed like the only thing they cared about was obtaining information from him; everything else seemed irrelevant to them. that is not how a decent parent would act.


    6 yrs (none / 0) (#26)
    by mymy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:54:33 AM EST
    I tried to answer this a moment ago ,must have done it wrong sorry. I have no idea why it has taken 6 yrs.I would guess the GOV. and the defense ATT. both played a role. Just my guess

    I would guess the govt. alone... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:02:12 AM EST
    has denied him his due process, not his defense, or lack there of.

    Good for the Canadian Courts (none / 0) (#56)
    by laurie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:22:51 PM EST
    He's a Canadian, and no use saying he isn't. He was also a 15 year old kid tortured in Afghanistan immediately on capture.

    Internat'l RIghts of Children-Is Canada a signer? (none / 0) (#83)
    by jawbone on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:56:34 PM EST
    The US is not, iirc.

    We need to be able to torture 15 year olds.

    Celebrity Murderer (none / 0) (#84)
    by reformislam on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:11:29 PM EST
    Lt.C. Ralph Peters on Omar Khadr Gitmo Tape: "We Should Have Killed That Punk on a Battlefield where it was legal to do so!"

    Watch video at http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/07/ltc-ralph-peters-on-omar-khadr-gitmo.html

    That works for me.. (1.00 / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:41:16 AM EST
    Actually, all we had to do was to not provide medical treatment for wounds he had received in fighting us.

    which "legal government"? (none / 0) (#86)
    by cpinva on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:53:55 PM EST
    Once he was trained he then went to Afghanistan where he and the rest of AQ searched for, found and fought against the legal gvt of that country.

    would that be the one that existed before or after we invaded? perhaps some people in the area don't see the current regime as the legitimate government, since we installed it, not them.

    "Them" (none / 0) (#87)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:49:51 PM EST
    "Them" should not be confused with Canadian citizens.