New witness account shows Khadr charges should be dropped

[M.Dancer]

If a US soldier is captured by al Queda does the US consider the soldier to be a POW or a kidnap victim? What do international laws say?

Kidnap victim. Al Qaeda is not a government body but a "civilian" organization. Much the same as if the Mafia is sicily kidnap an Italian soldier.

[guyser]

Kidnap victim.

...not to mention a dead one, sadly.

[Guest American Woman]

Kidnap victim. Al Qaeda is not a government body but a "civilian" organization. Much the same as if the Mafia is sicily kidnap an Italian soldier.

Would it still be kidnapping if the Italian government declared war against the Mafia and was fighting/attacking them, killing innocent Italians in the process?

Sounds as if a "civilian organization" vs a "government body" is just word games since war has been declared and is taking place. I've noticed that there's no problem with referring to the innocent civilians killed as collateral damage; no word games when referring to those deaths. On the other hand, if innocent civilians were killed while the police and/or military were going after the mafia, there would be an investigation; their deaths wouldn't be dismissed as collateral damage.

We are at war. Those "captured" are therefore prisoners of war.

[eyeball]

I've noticed that there's no problem with referring to the innocent civilians killed as collateral damage; no word games when referring to those deaths. On the other hand, if innocent civilians were killed while the police and/or military were going after the mafia, there would be an investigation; their deaths wouldn't be dismissed as collateral damage.

We are at war. Those "captured" are therefore prisoners of war.

I'd have to agree and conclude that al Queda is guilty of war crimes when they kill their prisoners.

By the same token any civilians killed on 9/11 were collateral damage from a military strike, especially in the case of the attack on the Pentagon. Personally I'd say the other attacks were crimes against humanity because they were deliberately directed at civilian targets but they'll probably be making similar cases against the West so...

Its sure going to be a mess when we finally get around to reconciling everything. The sooner the better they say.

Edited February 8, 2008 by eyeball

[Guest American Woman]

I'd have to agree and conclude that al Queda is guilty of war crimes when they kill their prisoners.

By the same token any civilians killed on 9/11 were collateral damage from a military strike, especially in the case of the attack on the Pentagon. Personally I'd say the other attacks were crimes against humanity because they were deliberately directed at civilian targets but they'll probably be making similar cases against the West so...

Its sure going to be a mess when we finally get around to reconciling everything. The sooner the better they say.

Whether one deliberately flies a plane full of passengers into a building filled with civilians or whether one drops a bomb on a civilian neighborhood, the result is the same -- the loss of innocent lives by deliberate actions; actions that those making the decisions realize will result in innocent deaths. How does one justify the killing of thousands and thousands of innocents in response to the death of our innocents? That's what I don't understand. The world mourns the 9-11 deaths while the thousands of innocent Afghans and Iraqis barely make the news. All lives are just as precious; just as deserving; just as important. The loss of an Afghan/Iraqi life is no different from the loss of an American life, but it sure doesn't seem as if it's perceived that way.

It bothers me no end how the U.S. will 'not negotiate with terrorists' but has no qualms about threatening to use nuclear power. I don't blame the world for worrying/wondering what we will do with our power.

It's a mess alright, and I couldn't agree more -- the sooner we attempt to reconcile the mess the better. Whoever wins the next POTUS election is going to have their work cut out for them.

As for Khadr, as I said in the earlier thread about him, I strongly believe that he was treated wrongly.

Edited February 9, 2008 by American Woman

[Rue]

Nope, not at all. What I'm saying is that his familly have openly declared themselves to be our enemies. They have aided those who are enemies of ours, beyond any doubt. As such they should be treated as enemies. After all if you proudly proclaim yourself to be an enemy then I think it is really quite unreasonable to expect all the privileges of a law abiding citizen.

I believe this whole issue is being clouded by his age at the time and the fact that our government under Paul Martin was too gutless to strip them (the whole bunch) of their citizenship and send them packing. As for age, if you are on the receiving end it doesn't matter one whit whether the finger that pulled the trigger was 10 years old or 50. That bullet is still going to do the same thing.

I believe he should be a military prisoner of war kept by the military of the country where he engaged in war and it is their military or government's issue. You engage in war or crimes in a country then that country deals with you. Pure and simple.

[Guest American Woman]

I believe he should be a military prisoner of war kept by the military of the country where he engaged in war and it is their military or government's issue. You engage in war or crimes in a country then that country deals with you. Pure and simple.

In the case of Al Qaeda, what government is going to take al Qaeda's prisoners of war and hold American/Canadian/etc. troops for them?

[Lazarus]

I wonder how military trials differ from civilian trials re: reasonable doubt

Simple really.

In civilian courts it's; "The defendant shall rise".

In military courts it's; "MARCH THE GUILTY BASTARD IN!!!!!!".

May sound funny, but its not all that far removed from the truth.

[AngusThermopyle]

I believe he should be a military prisoner of war kept by the military of the country where he engaged in war and it is their military or government's issue.

So in effect you are saying is that there is nothing inherently wrong with the transfer of prisoners? Do you think little Omar would have been happier if he'd been kept in an Afghani Prison?

Actually I wonder if little Omar would even be alive today if he'd been sent to an Afghani prison.

The bottom line is that good ole Omar chose his sides at an early age, those choices he made didn't turn out all that well. They did still turn out better than he should have expected though. He's still alive and has become something of a "cause celebre".

On a seperate note.

In military courts it's; "MARCH THE GUILTY BASTARD IN!!!!!!".

This is actually very true.

You are not presumed automatically innocent until proven guilty. You are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Edited February 9, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[Guest American Woman]

How does anyone know what "side" Omar chose? He could have, as a minor, simply been living with his father, where his father brought him. Bin Laden's son also attended terrorist training camps when he was Omar's age, now he's promoting peace worldwide. Who's to say what Omar would have chosen once he was 'of age?' Because again, there's no evidence that Omar is guilty of anything other than being in the camp with his father. Is it a crime to be with one's father? Is every child living with a father who's a member of al Qaeda or the Taliban "guilty?"-- Should they all be captured and detained?

[AngusThermopyle]

Who's to say what Omar would have chosen once he was 'of age?

Thats a very good question, I really don't think anyone can answer it, not even Omar.

The questions we can answer however are, where was Omar when he was captured? What was Omar doing when he was captured? Was he willingly in a place where he would have to fight? Was his support of the familly/ideological goles firm and unwavering? Was he a combatant at the time of his capture?

If the answer to one or more of those questions is yes then go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.

[Peter F]

Thats a very good question, I really don't think anyone can answer it, not even Omar.

The questions we can answer however are, where was Omar when he was captured? What was Omar doing when he was captured? Was he willingly in a place where he would have to fight? Was his support of the familly/ideological goles firm and unwavering? Was he a combatant at the time of his capture?

If the answer to one or more of those questions is yes then go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.

and here we arrive at the Kangaroo aspect of the Military Commission.

Should the commission find Mr.Khadr guilty he will be sent to jail.

Should the commission find Mr.Khadr is not guilty he will be sent to jail.

[eyeball]

Thats a very good question, I really don't think anyone can answer it, not even Omar.

The questions we can answer however are, where was Omar when he was captured? What was Omar doing when he was captured? Was he willingly in a place where he would have to fight? Was his support of the familly/ideological goles firm and unwavering? Was he a combatant at the time of his capture?

If the answer to one or more of those questions is yes then go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.

I swear I can hear Colonel Jessop squeaking in the background.

[Rue]

In the case of Al Qaeda, what government is going to take al Qaeda's prisoners of war and hold American/Canadian/etc. troops for them?

IF he is a prisoner of war, the United States Army under the Geneva War Cconvention would hold him as a prisoner of war since the Afghan nation legally recognized the United States Armed Forces as its proxy military agency. In theory if Afghanistan wanted him placed in an Afghan prisoner of war camp, they would have to build one. The key is a prisoner of war is not to be placed in the same jail as a civilian criminal and is tried under the convention's rules.

It is why from day one I said he belongs in a prisoner of war camp.

I agree with quite a few JAG officers who can not say so that this political exercise of inventing the term "enemy combatant" and using the US military apperatus to engage in a political legal exercise is wrong-dead wrong.

If the politicians wanted to create a new definition, i.e., enemy combatant" outside the Geneva war convention definition of prisoner of war, they should not have involved the US Armed Forces and kept it seperate and distinct.

They are using the US military as a cover for a political exercise and that is wrong. You either do it the proper military way and keep the politicians out of it, or yous top using the military as pawns and take the ball and run with it and not have the military involved.

Look the problem here is we have a new kind of combatant. They may have engaged in conventional war at the time of their action, or they may have engaged in civilian terrorism which is a domestic political crime.

The problem is until there is a new international convention as to how to handle terrorists you either treat them as prisoners of war or as domestic criminals youd on't mix the two in an onscure hybrid definition that makes no legal sense.

The tribunal system created by the Americans for Kadr is NOT I repeat not a conventional military tribunal at all. And it is not a conventional domestic legal tribunal either. Unlike both systems, it does not allow full disclosure of the charges or information that will be used to try Kadr-it does not allow for a speedy trial, its decision makers have a very real bias let alone an appearance of bias, and the alleged counsel for Kadr is not even given the information he needs to prepare a defence.

It makes a travesty of all the guarantees that form the basis of the US constitution and the fundamental precepts of natural justice which all administrative tribunals in free nations are governed by.

This to me is a political circus. The US military police should have simply taken him into custody and held him in a prisoner of war camp.

The world as a community must now decide what it does with terrorists, i.e., people who do not wear uniforms and make themselves readily indentifiable during times of war and only engage in combat with other soldiers.

Because terrorists spit in the face of conventional war rules and could care less, the war conventions are now outmoded. That is the problem. Its time to create an international treaty defining terrorism, outlining the protocol for arrest, detention, trying, and imprisoning of terrorists.

Either all nations subscribe to it, or each nation continues as it does now, arbitrarily doing what it feels like.

The issue in this case wasn't whether the US military should hold Kadr, it was Dick Chaney giving the finger to the US Jag office, and saying he would create something new and military will play along or else.

I can not stand it when politicians pollute and contaminate the code of the military for their own purposes.

[Rue]

Simple really.

In civilian courts it's; "The defendant shall rise".

In military courts it's; "MARCH THE GUILTY BASTARD IN!!!!!!".

May sound funny, but its not all that far removed from the truth.

Actually all kidding aside if he was brought before the US military as a prisoner of war, under the Geneva War Convention, he would be treated quite differently.

The reason why we have our problems today is because the Bush government chose to ignore the convention and US military and create a new arena for their own political purposes. They wanted a show trial for propaganda purposes but they never envisioned it would bog down and take so long. The US Military Code with war prisoners is very clear. Its when its not followed we have these problems. Its when Bush's regime contracted employees outside the military to interogate prisoners and build prisons to interogate them, this shit happened. Don't blame the military. Their role was subverted and superceded by Bush civilian employees.

The true reason Iraq failed is not because of the US military but the fact that there are more civilian soldiers in Iraq operating outside the rules of military law.

[Rue]

and here we arrive at the Kangaroo aspect of the Military Commission.

Should the commission find Mr.Khadr guilty he will be sent to jail.

Should the commission find Mr.Khadr is not guilty he will be sent to jail.

Peter I am livid because they are calling it a military commission bastardizing the military and using the military as a cover for what it really is, a political propaganda court.

No Jag Officer I know thinks its right. They can't say so for obvious reasons. It makes a mockery of military law for prisoners of war. Nothing good can come from it. It is by far the worst thing a US politician has ever done to his own country's constitutional legacy for fairness in legal proceedings. All American state bars have criticized it. You will find lawyers or judges in the US who will genuinely come out and say they feel good about this. It flies in the face of everything US domestic laws and their internal military codes stand for.

[DogOnPorch]

It is why from day one I said he belongs in a prisoner of war camp.

Yeah, a POW camp sounds good. Somewhere remote...away from the war...away from us...like perhaps in Cuba?

Sorry...couldn't resist.

---------------------------------------------------

Fly me to the Moon, let me play amoungst the stars...

---Frank Sinatra

[Rue]

Yeah, a POW camp sounds good. Somewhere remote...away from the war...away from us...like perhaps in Cuba?

Sorry...couldn't resist.

---------------------------------------------------

Fly me to the Moon, let me play amoungst the stars...

---Frank Sinatra

No you have a legitimate right to be cynical. We have not properly defined what a terrorist is and until we do this will remain a circus. The reality is if this guy did what he did against the Cuban government he would be sleeping with the fishes.

[DogOnPorch]

Well, I was refering to Guantanamo Bay...but I tend to agree none-the-less.

-----------------------------------------

Sittin' in the morning Sun-I'll be sittin' when the evening comes...

---Otis Redding

[HisSelf]

Being a traitor is a hangin' offence as well. Although, being a civilized country, the US should just drop him off in The Stan. Let him join his chums...

---------------------------------------------

You see, in this world, there's two kinds of people, my friend. Those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.

---Clint Eastwood: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Why not use the Pinochet apporach? A helicopter, a canvas sack, and a little binder twine...

Clint Eastwood. I love it. I've seen most of his movies. Psychopath-o-rama. Right up there with Schwartzenpecker.

So if Eastwood were to come up against Pinidiochet, which side would Schwartzenpecker be on? Something to mull over while you're contemplating the view from the porch, n'est-ce pas?

Edited February 14, 2008 by HisSelf

[DogOnPorch]

Friend of the Khadr's, I assume?

-----------------------------

Is this your pen?

---

[jbg]

What doesn't change is the fact that he and his familly (for the most part) are supporters of Al Quaeda and terrorism. As such he is still an avowed enemy of Canada and our Western allies, I don't think his people have come out and announced that they support Western values and denounce Radical Islam, have they?

Angus, you're trying to convince people who hate and feel guilty for Western freedoms and prosperity.

[Peter F]

I don't think his people have come out and announced that they support Western values and denounce Radical Islam, have they?

Neither have I. In fact I counsel seditious ideas to my infantryman son.

Funny, what a Canadian of European ancestry can get away with...

[Guest American Woman]

This is a really interesting interview with Abdurahman Khadr. It's long, but well worth the read:

In this interview, Abdurahman Khadr recounts his journey from Osama bin Laden to the CIA. He speaks of growing up alongside bin Laden and his family in Afghanistan and attending the terrorist training camps there; he tells of his capture by the Northern Alliance in Kabul after 9/11 and his work for the CIA as an undercover informant in Guantanamo and Bosnia; and he reveals why he decided to leave the CIA, return to Canada and go public with his story. This transcript is drawn from three interviews conducted by correspondent Terence McKenna in January 2004.

As to whether or not he's telling the truth:

FRONTLINE asked the CIA to confirm or deny Abdurahman Khadr's story but the agency declined to comment. However, Abdurahman did submit to a polygraph examination at FRONTLINE's request, in which he was asked about his work for U.S. intelligence, being paid for it and being flown on a small jet to Bosnia for his mission there. On all major aspects of his story, Abdurahman passed the polygraph.

Acording to him, al Qaeda wanted the U.S. to attack Afghanistan after 9-11:

...the biggest wish of Al Qaeda after Sept. 11 was that American troops attack Afghanistan. That was their biggest wish. They knew when it would be bombs, but their biggest wish was like they were like wishing America, begging America to send troops, you know, ground troops.

[Why?]

Because they wanted to have an American to kill, an American to kill them, because kill an American, good thing. Get killed by an American, you're a shaheed, you know, a martyr in Islam. So they really wanted it.

Anyway, Peter F, I don't think your "seditious ideas" compare to this family's situation/actions/beliefs, and I think under the circumstances it's not expecting too much for a Canadian to want them to denounce the idea that it's wonderful to kill Americans/westerners, whatever the case may be, since they are residing in Canada.

I think one can support the idea that Khadr is being unjustly held/treated in Gitmo and still oppose the idea of his family being allowed to reside in Canada without denouncing the father's ideas/ideals.

Would you argue about [Al Qaeda attacks] with your father?

Oh yeah, I argued about it, about this and about Sept. 11. We talked about it a lot. So when I saw the video [of the Sept. 11 attacks], I was like looking at it and all and everybody was smiling, laughing. I was just looking at it, you know.

I saw this person jumping out of the building, you know, committing suicide, from the building because of what he's going through. And I didn't think it was funny, you know. I didn't think it was smart. I was like more thinking about it, what was going through that person's mind when he did it, you know?

And so my father was like, "what's your problem?" I said "I don't know, this was not right, you know. I don't think this was right and this going to cause a lot of trouble." He's like "well, you know, we hit America." I was like "well, you hit so much people that were in that building that didn't have anything to do." "Well they pay taxes and taxes get guns and the guns kill Muslims. We're hitting the American economy and there is collateral damage." I just didn't understand it. They explained it in 100 ways. I couldn't understand it. …

[jbg]

Acording to him, al Qaeda wanted the U.S. to attack Afghanistan after 9-11:

...the biggest wish of Al Qaeda after Sept. 11 was that American troops attack Afghanistan. That was their biggest wish. They knew when it would be bombs, but their biggest wish was like they were like wishing America, begging America to send troops, you know, ground troops.

[Why?]

Because they wanted to have an American to kill, an American to kill them, because kill an American, good thing. Get killed by an American, you're a shaheed, you know, a martyr in Islam. So they really wanted it.

And this is the kind of person any rational country, other than a Muslim theocracy, would want to bring in consciously?