Interesting Media Omissions

[err]

But have you ever made anti Taliban, anti-Al Quaeda, or anti-Saddam statements?

Yes, Yes, and Yes.

I have bitched about the abuses of human rights in North Korea, in India, in China, and in many other places. And I have probably been as critical of George Bush as anyone on this site.

Really....

But there is a scale of things, and the Americans are small scale when it comes to human rights abuses.

They've been caught red-handed as much as anybody else.... but manage to change the stories and/or keep them from getting much air time... How about the killing of tens, no hundreds of thousands of people for oil.... A lot of the treachery around starting the war is coming out now....

Is killing with guns and cruise missiles any more acceptable than killing with hand-knives and swords ????

So while it does concern me, to a degree, it doesn't drive me to distraction the way it does the lefties who hate America.

Your lack of criticism of the USA, and your vigilant defense of the US, their policies, motives, and actions, cause me to doubt that US abuses concern you at all.

[cybercoma]

Complete and utter ignorance. It's not even worth discussing anymore.

[PocketRocket]

In fact, Khadr pretended to surrender, and then threw the grenade at a US soldier as he approached. That constitutes murder by almost anyone's reckoning, including the geneva convention.

If this is murder then what do you call dropping bombs and cruise missles in areas with large civilian populations?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh... war?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting. Does this also apply to bombs which are delivered by hand???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To legitimate military targers, yes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So then, someone who delivers a bomb, by hand (or otherwise) to blow up a tank (for example), is perfectly "legitimate warfare", even if that bomb goes off and kills a bunch of civilians???

So, an insurgent who does this (as they do all the time) is not committing a "terror act"???

After all, if a cruise missile aimed at a "military" target which just happens to be in an area with high civilian population is legitimate warfare, then the other case must be the same, right???

Just want to make sure we're all on the same page with this.

[Argus]

then, someone who delivers a bomb, by hand (or otherwise) to blow up a tank (for example), is perfectly "legitimate warfare", even if that bomb goes off and kills a bunch of civilians???

So, an insurgent who does this (as they do all the time) is not committing a "terror act"???

After all, if a cruise missile aimed at a "military" target which just happens to be in an area with high civilian population is legitimate warfare, then the other case must be the same, right???

Just want to make sure we're all on the same page with this.

Things aren't quite so black and white. I think the critical element is "intent". And why not? It is the critical element in many crimes in western society, particularly murder. So the question of what the intended target was and why is important. And in moral consideration we also need to know if they care about possible civilian "colatteral damage" or not. Do they weigh the value of the target against the possible harm to civilians? Is the removal of the target important to the war effort? What is the level of urgency involved?

I think we would all agree that dropping a bomb into a crowded market because one suspected insurgent was there would be unacceptable. Would it be terrorism? That would depend, I think, on the intent of the people dropping the bomb. Whether it was terorrism or not there is a good chance anyone who did it would be severely punished if not imprisoned, depending on circumstances.

Now delivering a bomb to American soldiers directly would not be considered terrorism either. Regardless of how lacking in justification the insurgency is, military targets are military targets. But one has to consider, when delivering a bomb to a Humvee surrounded by children, whether that was a criminal action regardless of what label we put on it. I think it certainly would qualify as such. I have seen no sign whatever that the insurgents give a damn how many civiilans they kill in their attacks. In fact, they often deliberately target civilians to terrorise the population at large, especially the Shiite population.

[err]

Now delivering a bomb to American soldiers directly would not be considered terrorism either. Regardless of how lacking in justification the insurgency is, military targets are military targets. But one has to consider, when delivering a bomb to a Humvee surrounded by children, whether that was a criminal action regardless of what label we put on it. I think it certainly would qualify as such. I have seen no sign whatever that the insurgents give a damn how many civiilans they kill in their attacks. In fact, they often deliberately target civilians to terrorise the population at large, especially the Shiite population.

As a point of interest, the USA has promoted it's "smart bombs" that can pinpoint the ventilation shaft of a building.... They've video taped and shown this to the world over and over, to show how they're making sure there are no civilian casualties. The fact of the matter is, that out of the 7 Hirosima's worth of bombs they dropped on Iraq, less than 1/10 of 1% were "smart bombs".

The body count of civilians in Iraq for this latest war is between 27 and 30 thousand.... civilians.

to use your words Argus,

I have seen no sign whatever that the USA give a damn how many civiilans they kill in their attacks.

[Riverwind]

I think we would all agree that dropping a bomb into a crowded market because one suspected insurgent was there would be unacceptable. Would it be terrorism? That would depend, I think, on the intent of the people dropping the bomb. Whether it was terorrism or not there is a good chance anyone who did it would be severely punished if not imprisoned, depending on circumstances.

The US does this all of the time. Insurgents drive close to the green zone and lob a mortar at it. The electronic do dads that the US has can quickly pin point the origin of the mortor attack and fire a missle back at the source. Even though this exchange takes a few seconds it is enough time for the insurgants to get away and allow the missle to blow up a bunch on innocent bystanders.

[Army Guy]

The article about the wearing of something distinctive has been questioned by international lawyers of recent years. It belongs to another age and other wars between advanced antions. Did the VietCong, for example a;; wear something disitnctive?

Does it really belong to another age, even the french resistance during WW II wore an arm band. The convention is quite clear for a good reason. It is to protect the innocent from being targeted. Those not abiding by the convention are not entitled to be protected by it.

As for your question about the VC, they did wear black pajama's and a neck scarf and yes they did carry out terrorist activites.

He was fighting not for Al Quaeda but for Afghanistan whose inteerst in this coincided with Al Quaefa.

Where do you get this info from ...He has admitted freely to being a member of AL Quada, as with most of his family. The AL Quada organization are not a bunch of freedom fighters but a bunch of terrorists. who are using the conflicts in Afgan and IRAQ to thier benfit...to kill infidels, to spread thier beliefs thru terror.

He did not kill a US soldier after surrendering - Argus is right in his assessment of that possibility. He refused to surrender and continued fighting an attacking US unit after his comrades were all killed. He did what soldiers everywhere in every war have always done

Lets just say for a second your right. (which your not ) does his actions sound like those of a misguided little kid you paint him to be, or do thier sound like a highly motivated killer. Someone who knew exactly what he was doing, someone who had the oppertunity to surrender, instead made the decision to fight..to be killed in combat to fullfill his wacked out promise his religion has promised him.

Do we really want this scum bag in our schools.

You said " western countries see him as just a kid...a child..." He is being detained by a western country... who do not see him as a "child", even though he wouldn't be allowed to buy a drink in that country for another 6 years (after the "crime"), allowed to drive a car in that country for at least another year (after the "crime")..... because, according to their definition for their own citizens, he's a kid.....

Yes, he is being detained by a western country for adult crimes, those crimes are for being a terrorist. He lost any rights he had when he armed himself and used those wpns to kill another human being. What you are saying is he should be forgiven because of his age, what of the other kids who are tried for adult crimes do we forgive them as well. do we allow them a free ticket to do as they will regardless of the crime.

He's in his parent's custody ??? So they're in custody in Guantanamo Bay too... (Actually, I believe that I read his father was killed in Afghanistan).

His mother his legal gaurdian is she not, no she is not in Gitmo but nither is his brother who is at home now in Canada, parilized from the waist down, wounds recieved in the same fire fight his father died in. What message does this send that a family can be broken up if you beat them,abuse them, but if you send them into battle or they commit terrorist acts it's OK....Give me a break.

Nothing is being done to take these kids away from her because it would be a political nightmare and we as canadians would not be able to piont the finger at Uncle Sam. Is she Canadian or not. and should she not be come under our laws and regs...

The fact that his parents are not "good parents" by our definitition does not take away from the fact that the USA's actions are out of line.

What actions are those, detaining a 13 year old for terrorist activities.

But he's not in the muslim world right now, is he...

Nor is he in Canada for that matter. We as a nation need to take a stand...are we in this war to stop terrorism, or not..no middle ground ,no grey area, just yes or no. Because like it or not "WE", Canadians have troops in Afgan that take part is this war on terrorism, troops that are risking thier lives because our goverment on one hand says Yes we are fighting terrorism, It's OK to kill them on the battlefield,

Then NO on the other hand when it comes to having them pay for thier crimes,But it's not thier fault they are fighting...Are we truely this liberal, are we all talking out the side of our mouths...

We as Canadians are being taken advantage of by this family because we allow them to and the fact we can sit in our living rooms and piont at the US and say you bully.

Many of us have been doing just that since long before this incident came to light.... and for good reason...

And what good reason would we allow this family to take advantage of us.

[Guest eureka]

The Frenach resistance did not wear armbands. Some may have done so: many did not. The last thing they wanted was to identify themselves as an armed opposition. Neither did all the Viet Cong wear anything that could distinguish it.

The issue of uniforms is an economic one and has no place in the struggle of impoverished peoples. The Convention in that respect looked to Western Wars.

I do not paint this kid as anything. I have not said what I think of hime. I am dealing only with a legal and moral situation as the moral impinges on the legal. But, I am not wrong in my description of the incident. In fact, that description comes from an interview I heard on CBC Radio with one of the American soldiers who was wounded and beside the one who was killed.

He had no sympathy for Khadr but told the objective truth of the incident.

Whether he was a member of Al Quaeda is not relevant: it is a distraction from the affair. Al Quaeda was fighting with the Taliban - the legal government of Afghanistan - against a foreign invader and there is no international law or convention that was violated. Sure they were international terrorists and that was what the war was about.

That does not make it any less a war with Al Quaeda, in this circumstance, a legal entity and part of the army of Afghanistan for legal purposes.

[Army Guy]

The Frenach resistance did not wear armbands. Some may have done so: many did not. The last thing they wanted was to identify themselves as an armed opposition. Neither did all the Viet Cong wear anything that could distinguish it.

Instead of a blanket statement check for yourself on goggle Type in french resistance armbands and you'll recieve a wealth of info. you might want to try uniforms of the VC or scarfs of the VC

My Webpage

The issue of uniforms is an economic one and has no place in the struggle of impoverished peoples. The Convention in that respect looked to Western Wars.

We are not talking nor suggesting that a full uniform be worn, but care must be taken to make yourself different from the civilians. be it an armband scarf etc etc. The convention is used globally not just in the west, one can not follow the arts that suits them but it must follow all of them.

I do not paint this kid as anything. I have not said what I think of hime. I am dealing only with a legal and moral situation as the moral impinges on the legal. But, I am not wrong in my description of the incident. In fact, that description comes from an interview I heard on CBC Radio with one of the American soldiers who was wounded and beside the one who was killed.

He has undured considerable trauma through his upbringing and experiences, both in the war-zone and in his imprisonment and torture... Releasing him into society would probably not be the best idea without considerable treatment and appropriate custody arrangments.....

The above is your quote was it not, in which you paint him as a poor defenseless little boy who has suffered so much... but you fail to mention how much pain and suffering he has caused others nor have you mentioned what we should do with this terrorist, where do you stand when it comes to sentencing these terrorists.

Whether he was a member of Al Quaeda is not relevant: it is a distraction from the affair. Al Quaeda was fighting with the Taliban - the legal government of Afghanistan - against a foreign invader and there is no international law or convention that was violated. Sure they were international terrorists and that was what the war was about.

Being a terroist has everything to do about it, like you said it is one of the reasons we declared war...Terrorists are not afforded any protection by the geneva convention "NONE" regardless of who they are fighting for or what cause they are fighting for.

You need to pull up the geneva convention and have a read. Then tell me which art they did not break. You might want to do some reading on the Afgan conflict and tell me what it is the Taliban are fighting for. And why this is so important to the AL Quada terrorist organization.

Because Canada is at war with these guy's and Canadian soldiers are going to be getting more active in sending these guys to hell...

We are not an invading Army but one that stands for liberation. One that will give thier freedoms back, one that will allow them to chose for themselfs what happens in thier country.

That does not make it any less a war with Al Quaeda, in this circumstance, a legal entity and part of the army of Afghanistan for legal purposes.

They are not under the Afgan goverment or the Afgan army, they do not even come under taliban rule. they may be assisting the Taliban but not under thier command and control.

[Army Guy]

Correction:

Eureka

I do not paint this kid as anything. I have not said what I think of hime. I am dealing only with a legal and moral situation as the moral impinges on the legal. But, I am not wrong in my description of the incident. In fact, that description comes from an interview I heard on CBC Radio with one of the American soldiers who was wounded and beside the one who was killed.

QUOTE

He has undured considerable trauma through his upbringing and experiences, both in the war-zone and in his imprisonment and torture... Releasing him into society would probably not be the best idea without considerable treatment and appropriate custody arrangments.....

The above is your quote was it not, in which you paint him as a poor defenseless little boy who has suffered so much... but you fail to mention how much pain and suffering he has caused others nor have you mentioned what we should do with this terrorist, where do you stand when it comes to sentencing these terrorists.

The above quote was not yours but ERRS sorry.

[err]

He has undured considerable trauma through his upbringing and experiences, both in the war-zone and in his imprisonment and torture... Releasing him into society would probably not be the best idea without considerable treatment and appropriate custody arrangments.....

The above is your quote was it not, in which you paint him as a poor defenseless little boy who has suffered so much... but you fail to mention how much pain and suffering he has caused others nor have you mentioned what we should do with this terrorist, where do you stand when it comes to sentencing these terrorists.

The quote was mine.. I don't read from the quote that he was "a poor defenseless little boy"... And any pain he has caused others is irrelavent to the topic at hand...

He should be treated as a POW... but he's not....

He was a "soldier" for the other team... whether you like the other team or not... It was in a war zone... not a "terror zone" that the incident happened... It was soldier against soldier... Well, actually, one team had warplanes and big guns, and the other just had little guns, but we don't need to get into that....

Because Canada is at war with these guy's and Canadian soldiers are going to be getting more active in sending these guys to hell...

and the objective of the operation has to do with "heaven" and "hell" ???

We are not an invading Army but one that stands for liberation.

You are part of an invading army... the facts are the facts... there may well have been justification for the invasion, but it was an invasion....

[Guest eureka]

The French resistance did not wear armbands no matter what google says. And I knew people who had fought in the French resistance. No identification whatsoever was worn in clandestine operations which probably formed the major part of their operations.

Neither did the Viet Cong necessarily wear any identifying uniform. Much of it was from the South also engaged in clandestine operations where they could not risk identification.

Identification is only worn where identification of itself does not entail greater risk.

Terrorism does not enter into this. The American war on Afghanistan was a war against a government that sheltered terrorists. It would have been no different than Britain nuking New York City for harbouring and supporting the IRA. Would any IRA members who fired at the attacking planes be distinguished as "terorists" from the rag tag American Army resisters?

There is no indication that the "kid" in this place had any connection with the WTC or that he even approved of it. All he has done is fight to resist the invaders of Afghanistan.

The Rules of the Convention may apply as far as the words go, globally. But they do no fit global circumstances. That is what is now being questioned by many who see that independence movements and the resistance to tyranny in various possible locations can not fit the requirements.

[Army Guy]

ERR:

The quote was mine.. I don't read from the quote that he was "a poor defenseless little boy"... And any pain he has caused others is irrelavent to the topic at hand...

He should be treated as a POW... but he's not....

He was a "soldier" for the other team... whether you like the other team or not... It was in a war zone... not a "terror zone" that the incident happened... It was soldier against soldier... Well, actually, one team had warplanes and big guns, and the other just had little guns, but we don't need to get into that....

The whole piont is "he" and other AL Quada members are "not soldiers" and are not considered POW's. That is according to International LAW and the Geneva convention. I've shown you the arts within the convention and yet you still failed to see this. Show me where in the conventions or international law that this kid is entitled to POW status.

and the objective of the operation has to do with "heaven" and "hell" ???

You tell me what this operation is all about, and where you stand on this issue.

You are part of an invading army... the facts are the facts... there may well have been justification for the invasion, but it was an invasion....

Call it what you like i call it a liberation.

[Riverwind]

The whole piont is "he" and other AL Quada members are "not soldiers" and are not considered POW's. That is according to International LAW and the Geneva convention. I've shown you the arts within the convention and yet you still failed to see this. Show me where in the conventions or international law that this kid is entitled to POW status.

So why doesn't the US just take the out behind the barn and shot him? If he has no rights that should be perfectly legal right?

[err]

You tell me what this operation is all about, and where you stand on this issue.

Here's a good article that pretty much sums up how I feel about the issue:

Canada should insist rule of law applies to teen, Linda McQuaig

I have just quoted the beginning of the article, but I recommend that you read the whole thing.

When top White House aide Scooter Libby was indicted for perjury, George W. Bush was quick to point out that "(i)n our system, each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial."

It's reassuring that the president is aware of perhaps the most basic principle in western law: the presumption of innocence and the right to due process.

But it's disturbing — to say the least — that he only applies it selectively.

In the name of fighting the "war on terror," the White House has played fast and loose with the principles underpinning western democracy and the rule of law.

Among other things, it has put terror suspects — including Toronto teen Omar Khadr — beyond the reach of international legal safeguards set out in the Geneva Conventions.

[Army Guy]

Eureka:

The French resistance did not wear armbands no matter what google says. And I knew people who had fought in the French resistance. No identification whatsoever was worn in clandestine operations which probably formed the major part of their operations.

So i guess those dozens of web pages are a waste of band width because you know a few people. Perhaps you can show me your web site that states this, because a few of those sites i seen on google are by the french goverment and i'm sure they'd like to know there sites are fake.

Identification is only worn where identification of itself does not entail greater risk.

I think you miss the piont of why indentifacation is so important on the battle field.

and why following the convention is so important. it is set-up to provide all sides good and bad guys plus the civilians with some degree of protection and rights.

Terrorism does not enter into this. The American war on Afghanistan was a war against a government that sheltered terrorists. It would have been no different than Britain nuking New York City for harbouring and supporting the IRA. Would any IRA members who fired at the attacking planes be distinguished as "terorists" from the rag tag American Army resisters?

You have no idea what this war is all about, your comment above proves that. To you it is your chance to piont your finger at the US, nothing more.

There is no indication that the "kid" in this place had any connection with the WTC or that he even approved of it. All he has done is fight to resist the invaders of Afghanistan

Bullshit. This Kid was in Terrorist training camps well before the WTC happen, His father had direct links to Bin Ladin, His mother has been quoted as saying they shared many holidays together with Bin Ladin, do you really think he disapproved ?

He was part of an organization that used Terror as a wpn against the people of Afgan on a daily basis. And i'm not saying he had part in that either, but odds are he did.

"All he did was resist the invaders" Don't make him sound like anything but what he truely is, a terrorist Scumbag. Who if released would gladly return to Afgan to fight again.

The Rules of the Convention may apply as far as the words go, globally. But they do no fit global circumstances. That is what is now being questioned by many who see that independence movements and the resistance to tyranny in various possible locations can not fit the requirements.

Again bullshit. the convention was written for all parties involved in warefare including resistance and independant movements these type of groups existed well before the conventions were written.

And how does the last sentences apply to Afgan, Are you suggesting that the Taliban are resisting tyranny, if so i loved to here that explaination.

[Army Guy]

Sparhawk:

I wish it would be that easy, This is taken from Convention IV art 5, as to what rights a POW has then you'll have to read that convention.

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

[Army Guy]

ERR:

Sorry i could not read the entire art ,i don't have subscription.

Western Law can not be compared to international law or the Geneva convention as they are two different subjects.

If one was to be tried by US law one has to be a US citizen. And they are clearly not.

[Guest eureka]

I don't think you have really grasped this issue, Army Guy.

The French resistance did not wear armbands at all until after DDay. The resistance was not an organised force but consisted of many groups who operated independently of each other and, for the most part were not in contact. They did not identify themselves in any way except their own secret ways.

The wearing of armbands came after a sort of unification following DDay and was for combat purposes not for the resistance as it had been conducted to that time.

Further, the French Resistance did fit the definition of terrorists and had no protection of the Geneva Conventions. They were that because France had capitulated and signed an armistice with Germany. Therefore, Resistance fighters were not acting on the part of any authority or government. Armbands had nothing to do with Geneva Convention protection.

The Afghanistan situation was quite different. It was war and the Taliban were resisting an invasion. What you or I think of the moral, or legal, justification for the war is irrelevant.

[Argus]

The fact of the matter is, that out of the 7 Hirosima's worth of bombs they dropped on Iraq, less than 1/10 of 1% were "smart bombs". 

The body count of civilians in Iraq for this latest war is between 27 and 30 thousand.... civilians.

to use your words Argus,

Those bombs are far too expensive to use them as the mainstay of the military, and wars kill people - unfortunately.

I have seen no sign whatever that the USA give a damn how many civiilans they kill in their attacks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think someone as mentally blinkered as you could possibly see anything good about "The Great Satan".

[Argus]

I think we would all agree that dropping a bomb into a crowded market because one suspected insurgent was there would be unacceptable. Would it be terrorism? That would depend, I think, on the intent of the people dropping the bomb. Whether it was terorrism or not there is a good chance anyone who did it would be severely punished if not imprisoned, depending on circumstances.

The US does this all of the time. Insurgents drive close to the green zone and lob a mortar at it. The electronic do dads that the US has can quickly pin point the origin of the mortor attack and fire a missle back at the source. Even though this exchange takes a few seconds it is enough time for the insurgants to get away and allow the missle to blow up a bunch on innocent bystanders.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

People die in wars. Unfortunate, but utterly unavoidable. When the US knowingly and willingly puts a bomb into the middle of a crowd of schoolkids in order to kill one terrorist suspect you get back to me.

[Argus]

Whether he was a member of Al Quaeda is not relevant: it is a distraction from the affair. Al Quaeda was fighting with the Taliban - the legal government of Afghanistan - against a foreign invader and there is no international law or convention that was violated. Sure they were international terrorists and that was what the war was about.

That does not make it any less a war with Al Quaeda, in this circumstance, a legal entity and part of the army of Afghanistan for legal purposes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you ever read what you write? "Sure, he was a member of the Gestapo, and loved to torture Jews and skin them for lampshades, but he was no less a soldier and should be treated with all our respect."

Pah.

Anyone who went to Afghanistan to join Al Quaeda should be executed. Full stop. period. Make it legal, hand me a gun, and I'd put a bullet in this kid's head without a single moral qualm.

[Argus]

The whole piont is "he" and other AL Quada members are "not soldiers" and are not considered POW's. That is according to International LAW and the Geneva convention. I've shown you the arts within the convention and yet you still failed to see this. Show me where in the conventions or international law that this kid is entitled to POW status.

So why doesn't the US just take the out behind the barn and shot him? If he has no rights that should be perfectly legal right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They should, frankly. And if they were half as evil as most of you who hate them so much suspected they'd have done it long ago.

[err]

ERR:

Sorry i could not read the entire art ,i don't have subscription.

Western Law can not be compared to international law or the Geneva convention as they are two different subjects.

If one was to be tried by US law one has to be a US citizen. And they are clearly not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's free... as far as I know .... but here it is...

Canada should insist rule of law applies to teen, says Linda McQuaig

Nov. 13, 2005. 01:00 AM

LINDA MCQUAIG

When top White House aide Scooter Libby was indicted for perjury, George W. Bush was quick to point out that "(i)n our system, each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial."

It's reassuring that the president is aware of perhaps the most basic principle in western law: the presumption of innocence and the right to due process.

But it's disturbing — to say the least — that he only applies it selectively.

In the name of fighting the "war on terror," the White House has played fast and loose with the principles underpinning western democracy and the rule of law.

Among other things, it has put terror suspects — including Toronto teen Omar Khadr — beyond the reach of international legal safeguards set out in the Geneva Conventions.

Khadr, charged with murder by the U.S. military in connection with a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan, has been consistently denied legal protections while being held under horrific conditions for three years at the notorious U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay.

Since Khadr was only 15 at the time of his arrest, he's entitled to additional legal protections for children — set out in a U.N. protocol — but ignored by the United States. Canada has done almost nothing for Khadr, beyond asking Washington to avoid the death penalty.

Canadian security agents even took advantage of Khadr's captivity by questioning him in Guantanamo.

Ottawa has failed to protest the arbitrary military trial that Khadr faces — where the prosecutors are also the judges — even though this is clearly at odds with Canada's support for the right to a fair trial.

Ottawa's inaction is no doubt linked to its reluctance to irritate the Bush administration, which clearly relishes a free hand in dealing with terror suspects.

U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney is even championing the administration's right to engage in the ultimate human rights violation: torture.

So it would take political courage for Ottawa to insist that the rule of law be applied to a Canadian detainee, who stands accused of killing an American soldier.

It's been easy for Ottawa to avoid action, largely because of the unpopularity in Canada of the Khadr family, which reportedly has ties to Al Qaeda.

But unpopular cases are exactly the ones which most cry out for the protection of the rule of law.

The Canadian government could latch onto the coattails of the U.S. Supreme Court, which has held that even terror suspects are entitled to due process.

Last year, the court ruled that Guantanamo detainees can challenge their detentions in U.S. courts, and last week it announced it will consider the constitutionality of the military commissions, like the one the young Khadr must appear before.

If a body as conservative and pro-Bush as the American Supreme Court has insisted on legal rights for terror suspects, surely the Canadian government can summon up the courage to do the same — on behalf of a Canadian, indeed a Canadian child.

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

Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator. [email protected].

[Guest eureka]

I might ask you the same question, Argus, but there would be no point to it. Your spleen has obviously got the better of your reason.