Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian

[carepov]

So much to debate and so litle time... I'll start with one point:

Few times in history has there been a consensus in the west, there was a divide before this, and there will be a divide after this.

One of these time where there was Western - and almost worldwide - consensus was September 12, 2001. The US proceeded to flush their goodwill down the toilet with their idiotic policies.

[carepov]

I'm a suspicious man by nature. When a guy is charged with having gone to a training camp in Afghanistan, confesses to it (though he later recanted) had others saying he was there, and then refuses to say where he was at that particular time, well, call me cynical, but I have awful strong doubts at that point.

I am also typically sceptical. However, I tend to believe the a Royal Commissioner when he writes:

I have heard evidence concerning all of the information gathered by Canadian investigators in relation to Mr. Arar. This includes information obtained in Canada, as well as any information received from American, Syrian or other foreign authorities. I am able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada.

The public can be confident that Canadian investigators have thoroughly and exhaustively followed all information leads available to them in connection with Mr. Arar’s activities and associations. This was not a case where investigators were unable to effectively pursue their investigative goals because of a lack of resources or time constraints. On the contrary, Canadian investigators made extensive efforts to find any information that could implicate Mr. Arar in terrorist activities. They did so over a lengthy period of time, even after Mr. Arar’s case became a cause célèbre. The results speak for themselves: they found none.

Of course, it is virtually impossible to establish a negative, that is, to establish that Mr. Arar has never been involved in any illegal activities connected with national security. The same would hold true for any individual. However,

my conclusion, coupled with the RCMP’s position that Mr. Arar was never even a suspect in its investigation — that, at most, he was a person of interest28 — should remove any taint or suspicion about Mr. Arar that has resulted from the publicity surrounding his case.

[carepov]

Yes, but when 99 out of 100 claim torture, and the media has played the role of judge, jury and executioner against the military and the government basically stating that a terrorist need only cry torture without any sort of proof and will be thus believe while the government cannot be exonerated because no amount of proof is accepted.

And you honestly think that this will change anything? Nothing will change, the people who support and believe the terrorists will believe the torture and the people who support the government and military will support the government.

Good one Vic Toews! If the comment was not so ignorant I would be offended!

Of course I don't support the terrorists! Of course the Red Cross doesn't support the terrorists! Do you think that Romeo Dallaire supports terrorists?!

It is you and other blind supporters of the US military that are unknowingly and unintentionally supporting the terrorists by squandering away our most valuable assets in the ideological War on Terror.

[Signals.Cpl]

No, those "idiots" were scapegoats...folwoing directives.

In fact, the chief investigator, General Anthony Taguba, discovered widespread abuses...the responsibility for which, his investigation determined, went straight to the top.

Of course, after such results, the investigation was squashed.

I really really really want to see the evidence of this, the highest It could possibly go is the on scene commander who failed to control his troops but I think that any member of the US military with half a brain could have seen the disastrous consequences of such idiotic behaviour.

[Signals.Cpl]

So much to debate and so litle time... I'll start with one point:

One of these time where there was Western - and almost worldwide - consensus was September 12, 2001. The US proceeded to flush their goodwill down the toilet with their idiotic policies.

I agree with you, but that is one day/month/year in a relationship that spans a long time. I can pick up virtually any year since 1945 and show you a divided west while you try to present a united west by showing one date in time.

[Signals.Cpl]

Good one Vic Toews! If the comment was not so ignorant I would be offended!

How was that ignorant? Please explain.

Of course I don't support the terrorists!

I did not mean to say you support terrorism, I meant the people who see the terrorists or detainees as victims will see them as victims no matter what proof is presented by any organization.No matter what Khadr says or does, he will always be seen as a victim by some no matter what, if he come to Canada and gets a massive payoff from the government and gets on TV to tell us that he killed the US soldier and his IED's blew up a bunch of other soldiers people will still see him as innocent/victim. J

Of course the Red Cross doesn't support the terrorists!

I noticed that you left out Amnesty International.

Do you think that Romeo Dallaire supports terrorists?!

I dont trust his position for other reasons.

It is you and other blind supporters of the US military that are unknowingly and unintentionally supporting the terrorists by squandering away our most valuable assets in the ideological War on Terror.

Yeah sure, it can't be the people who are blaming the US for not putting the captured Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters in a category when in fact both those organizations work really hard to make sure that they don't meet the requirements for any of those groups. Please tell me what should we be classifying the detainees as, then go and look the requirements needed to meet said classification.

[bleeding heart]

I really really really want to see the evidence of this, the highest It could possibly go is the on scene commander who failed to control his troops but I think that any member of the US military with half a brain could have seen the disastrous consequences of such idiotic behaviour.

No...the highest it could possibly go was the civilian Administration...which was exactly what Taguba's ivestigation discovered.

And...in the military itself, it did go higher than the scene commander:

Taguba’s assignment was limited to investigating the 800th M.P.s, but he quickly found signs of the involvement of military intelligence—both the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, commanded by Colonel Thomas Pappas, which worked closely with the M.P.s, and what were called “other government agencies,” or O.G.A.s, a euphemism for the C.I.A. and special-operations units operating undercover in Iraq. Some of the earliest evidence involved Lieutenant Colonel Steven L. Jordan, whose name was mentioned in interviews with several M.P.s.

Numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees . . . systemic and illegal abuse.

"Systemic" means that Lynddie England was not the prime perpetrator.

At that point, Taguba recalled, “I described a naked detainee lying on the wet floor, handcuffed, with an interrogator shoving things up his rectum, and said, ‘That’s not abuse. That’s torture.’ There was quiet.”

Taguba said that he saw “a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee.” The video was not made public in any of the subsequent court proceedings, nor has there been any public government mention of it. Such images would have added an even more inflammatory element to the outcry over Abu Ghraib.

His orders were clear, however: he was to investigate only the military police at Abu Ghraib, and not those above them in the chain of command. “These M.P. troops were not that creative,” he said. “Somebody was giving them guidance, but I was legally prevented from further investigation into higher authority. I was limited to a box.”

Taguba came to believe that Lieutenant General Sanchez, the Army commander in Iraq, and some of the generals assigned to the military headquarters in Baghdad had extensive knowledge of the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib even before Joseph Darby came forward with the CD.

Taguba concluded that Miller’s approach was not consistent with Army doctrine, which gave military police the overriding mission of making sure that the prisons were secure and orderly. His report cited testimony that interrogators and other intelligence personnel were encouraging the abuse of detainees. “Loosen this guy up for us,” one M.P. said he was told by a member of military intelligence. “Make sure he has a bad night.”

The M.P.s, Taguba said, “were being literally exploited by the military interrogators. My view is that those kids”—even the soldiers in the photographs—“were poorly led, not trained, and had not been given any standard operating procedures on how they should guard the detainees.”

Taguba went on, “There was no doubt in my mind that this stuff”—the explicit images—“was gravitating upward. It was standard operating procedure to assume that this had to go higher. The President had to be aware of this.” He said that Rumsfeld, his senior aides, and the high-ranking generals and admirals who stood with him as he misrepresented what he knew about Abu Ghraib had failed the nation.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh

"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes.

[g_bambino]

[H]e was living in Afghanistan since 1996

He was living with his mother in Waziristan in 2002.

[wyly]

He was living with his mother in Waziristan in 2002.

absolute BS...I took my kids to Paris for a week so you'd be claiming they lived in paris, right...what crap he was with his mother in Kabul from 1996 until 2001 when they fled the war to pakistan...he was taken to back to afghanistan by his father and you have no evidence to the contrary...just as you have no evidence that he threw a grenade as there were no witnesses who saw him do so and the only witness the american commander on the scene report claimed the thrower was killed...

if there ever was a political scapegoat Khadr is it, his detention was illegal, his trail a mockery of justice...there is no civilian court in any western democracy where Khadr would've been convicted of anything...

Edited July 31, 2012 by wyly

[bleeding heart]

if there ever was a political scapegoat Khadr is it, his detention was illegal, his trail a mockery of justice...there is no civilian court in any western democracy where Khadr would've been convicted of anything...

Well, we're living in interesting times, as they say. Now, killing a soldier (or even being accused of it) is deemed "terrorism," while wiping out any number of weddings and funerals is not "terrorism." Just as torture is really "abuse" carried out only by the trailer-park villains like Lynddie England, rather than being the fault of high-ranking military officials and powerful civilian administrations.

And folks actually believe this stuff. It's easier, I suppose, and doesn't trample on delicate patriotic sentiment.

Also, the most powerful are given a pass, which is an ancient tradition, since human beings tend towards sycophancy, and admire the pomp and pageantry of power.

In fact, the Western nations generally have a far more brutal and widespread history of terrorist behaviour than do at least many of our Official Terrorist Enemies.

Adding insult to injury, the military policies enacted under the rubric of the "War on Terror" have actually precipitated terrorist acts, increasing them profoundly, notably bombings in Iraq and suicide missions in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

This all begs several very fascinating questions, I should think.

Edited July 31, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Army Guy]

Well, we're living in interesting times, as they say. Now, killing a soldier (or even being accused of it) is deemed "terrorism," while wiping out any number of weddings and funerals is not "terrorism." Just as torture is really "abuse" carried out only by the trailer-park villains like Lynddie England, rather than being the fault of high-ranking military officials and powerful civilian administrations.

Killing anyone on the battle field has to be done as per the Genva conventions, if it is not it is murder, or terrorism. it's actually balck and white.

The killing of civilians in war is colateral damage, and can be agaisn't the law if the commanders have not taken all precautions to prevent them. but it is not illigal, how many frnech men died on the beaches of normandy in the pre shore bombardments....war is hell...and when you use that much high explosive somebody going to get hurt....

Yes what they did was considered torture, just as playing music to loud is torture, or leaving the lights on 24 hours a day, or placing a insurgent in s stress postion....all torture, no more no less than making a soldier watch as they cut another prisoners head off with a dull blade, or my favorite cutting every inch of skin of somebody then staking them out in the sun....all considered torture.....but nobody is talking about those acts....

Edited August 1, 2012 by Army Guy

[bleeding heart]

Yes what they did was considered torture, just as playing music to loud is torture, or leaving the lights on 24 hours a day, or placing a insurgent in s stress postion....all torture, no more no less than making a soldier watch as they cut another prisoners head off with a dull blade, or my favorite cutting every inch of skin of somebody then staking them out in the sun....all considered torture.....but nobody is talking about those acts....

Since we all know about these occurrences, it's odd to hear you claim that "nobody is talking about these acts." In fact, every time bad behaviour is brought up, someone points out the evils of others, in the manner of a grand deflection.

But the point is moot, because elementary democratic principles demand that we be more concerned with our own behaviour than that of Official Enemies.

Of course the head-choppers are grotesque and rotten human beings. See, no one is arguing otherwise.

Our only argument, then, is how bad is the behaviour of the Western allies. And for some reason you wish dearly to underplay the severity.

Look at the torture issue. You belittle the matter, and say it is "considered torture," directly before listing the atrocities of certain Islamists (again, which no one is disputing). However, you left out some of the rather more severe things that were done, and which General Taguba reported in his investigation (before being shut down for coming to uncomfortable conclusions about war crimes): for example, rape.

But it doesn't matter; while some people might "consider" that to be torture, it's far better to concentrate on what the enemy does. Much easier, much less unpleasant.

The killing of civilians in war is colateral damage, and can be agaisn't the law if the commanders have not taken all precautions to prevent them. but it is not illigal, how many frnech men died on the beaches of normandy in the pre shore bombardments....war is hell...and when you use that much high explosive somebody going to get hurt....

First of all, you seem to take it for granted that the wedding and funeral bombings were legitimate cases of collateral damage...every time? That's not perfectly clear.

And even if it were clear, I went on to talk more generally about Western collusion with massive acts of outright terrorism, often at the state terror level. There, the facts are plain enough. The support for Indonesia's decades-long slaughter of the East Timorese is explicitly collusion in state terrorism, at a level exceeding the Taliban's darkest dreams. Why should the West get a pass? Why are we so eager to act as if there's moral and legal justification for the murder of two hundred thousand innocent people (and not a Soviet or Chinese Communist enemy in sight...not that this would justify it anyway).

Cowardice, I presume, and an unhealthy dollop of "West-is-best" indoctrination. What else could be the answer?

Further, what of the other point I made: that our actions have increased terrorism, not decreased it...and that this was predictable...in fact, widely predicted?

If we're precipitating terrorist acts, then don't we share some of the guilt?

Edited August 1, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Argus]

I am also typically sceptical. However, I tend to believe the a Royal Commissioner when he writes:

"We have no idea where he was during that period of time he is alleged to have been in Afghanistan, and he won't tell us, but what the hell"

Sorry, not convinced.

[jbg]

One of these time where there was Western - and almost worldwide - consensus was September 12, 2001. The US proceeded to flush their goodwill down the toilet with their idiotic policies.

Such as deciding that fighting the enemy on their turf rather than the skyscrapers of New York was a good idea?

I seriously think there are plenty of well-intentioned people who would rather weep over tragedies than be pro-active in preventing them.

[carepov]

Introduction:

The US is the greatest superpower that world has ever had. The US people, government and military do many great things and I am thankful that we Canadians (and the rest of The West) enjoy the peace and prosperity we do in large part from the protection of the US. This overall support for the US does not mean we should not criticise some policies and actions – au contraire!

Getting to the truth - who do you trust?:

Signals.Cpl called me naïve for trusting sources such as Amnesty, HR Watch, the US Supreme Court, the Red Cross, (also not mentioned were various other European parliamentary committees and courts) when I claimed that detainees are being processed illegally and being tortured. I am going to turn the table and call those people claiming that the US is adhering to all international laws, including the ban on torture, naïve. The US administration and military are masters of propaganda and only suckers would blindly believe them. I will put my trust in multiple sources dedicated to impartiality.

Winning the War on Terror – who’s side are you on?:

Of course no reasonable person would support the repressive/terrorist regimes of the Taliban or Saddam Hussein (wait a second, didn’t the US support these groups in the past…) Of course we want to defeat terrorism. The US is doing many things right but have made several major blunders that IMO have been counter-productive.

1. The War in Iraq

2. Breaking international laws (torture, rendition, Guantanamo Bay)

Boiling it down to “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” is simplistic, ignorant and wrong. I am with the US, against terrorism, but I am not going to agree with counter-productive policies.

The enemy does not follow international laws so neither do we:

IMO, one of the keys to winning the ideological war on terror is the West’s respect for the law and all human life. The US has squandered a big part of this advantage we have over the terrorists. This ideological war is not to be directed at he terrorists – the purpose is to isolate terrorists from as much support as possible.

Conclusions:

-This a not a choice between doing the right thing (protect human rights) vs. winning the war – it is more like: protect human rights to help win the war!

-After 11 years, how would you judge the results of the War on Terror? What policies and tactics worked and which ones backfired? Were resources wasted needlessly? What is the enemy thinking and planning? What should be the next steps in the War on Terror? These types of questions need to be addressed objectively.

Yeah, give them due process but not to the women in their country. Don't be so naive, they kill females for ridiculous and idiotic reasons that would embers a 13th century European and you think that a "double standard" is pissing them off... What a women does in Canada would get her killed in Afghanistan, so forgive me if I don't buy this bullshit line.

Yes what they did was considered torture, just as playing music to loud is torture, or leaving the lights on 24 hours a day, or placing a insurgent in s stress postion....all torture, no more no less than making a soldier watch as they cut another prisoners head off with a dull blade, or my favorite cutting every inch of skin of somebody then staking them out in the sun....all considered torture.....but nobody is talking about those acts....

Such as deciding that fighting the enemy on their turf rather than the skyscrapers of New York was a good idea?

I seriously think there are plenty of well-intentioned people who would rather weep over tragedies than be pro-active in preventing them.

… the people who support and believe the terrorists will believe the torture and the people who support the government and military will support the government.

How was that ignorant? Please explain.

“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” George W. Bush, September 20, 2001

“[people] can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.” Vic Toews February 13, 2012

[Signals.Cpl]

Introduction:

The US is the greatest superpower that world has ever had. The US people, government and military do many great things and I am thankful that we Canadians (and the rest of The West) enjoy the peace and prosperity we do in large part from the protection of the US. This overall support for the US does not mean we should not criticise some policies and actions – au contraire!

Getting to the truth - who do you trust?:

Signals.Cpl called me naïve for trusting sources such as Amnesty, HR Watch, the US Supreme Court, the Red Cross, (also not mentioned were various other European parliamentary committees and courts) when I claimed that detainees are being processed illegally and being tortured. I am going to turn the table and call those people claiming that the US is adhering to all international laws, including the ban on torture, naïve. The US administration and military are masters of propaganda and only suckers would blindly believe them. I will put my trust in multiple sources dedicated to impartiality.

Winning the War on Terror – who’s side are you on?:

Of course no reasonable person would support the repressive/terrorist regimes of the Taliban or Saddam Hussein (wait a second, didn’t the US support these groups in the past…) Of course we want to defeat terrorism. The US is doing many things right but have made several major blunders that IMO have been counter-productive.

1. The War in Iraq

2. Breaking international laws (torture, rendition, Guantanamo Bay)

Boiling it down to “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” is simplistic, ignorant and wrong. I am with the US, against terrorism, but I am not going to agree with counter-productive policies.

The enemy does not follow international laws so neither do we:

IMO, one of the keys to winning the ideological war on terror is the West’s respect for the law and all human life. The US has squandered a big part of this advantage we have over the terrorists. This ideological war is not to be directed at he terrorists – the purpose is to isolate terrorists from as much support as possible.

Conclusions:

-This a not a choice between doing the right thing (protect human rights) vs. winning the war – it is more like: protect human rights to help win the war!

-After 11 years, how would you judge the results of the War on Terror? What policies and tactics worked and which ones backfired? Were resources wasted needlessly? What is the enemy thinking and planning? What should be the next steps in the War on Terror? These types of questions need to be addressed objectively.

I would love to have a discussion, but I dont have to much time for the next two weeks, after that I would love to have a great discussion.

[JB Globe]

I'll rephrase the title of this post a little bit - I think the case of Omar Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian.

Let's run-down the basic facts of Omar Khadr:

- Raised by a religious extremist family and terrorist father

- Schooled mostly at extremist religious schools in Pakistan

- Once he reached adolescence he was taken by his father to a remote camp in Afghanistan cut off from the outside world and groomed for terrorism

Where in that does anyone see a realistic opportunity for Omar Khadr to be a normal kid? Nowhere. He was essentially abused by his father - it wasn't a case of being taught to be a hardline religious zealot, it was even beyond that - his father was grooming him for terrorism. If a father who's a drug dealer grooms his kid for a life of crime, we call that abuse, but when it comes to Omar Khadr, no one wants to acknowledge this.

Why?

Because many Canadians needed an "enemy among us" type bogeyman to project all their fears and hatred onto in the aftermath of 9/11. The only problem was that this "evil incarnate" individual happened to be 15 years old, and quite frankly, not entirely responsible for being in that camp at the time of the raid.

And let's be clear, there's no clear evidence Khadr actually did anything other than be at that camp - some US military officers say he had a gun when they found him, others said he didn't. Conflicting eyewitness reports. Even if he did, there's enough precedent in regards to child soldiers that he should have never have been treated and tried as an adult and held 100% responsible for his actions. Remember, he had family members dying around him. He plead guilty in court primarily because it was a show trial - a not guilty plea could see the case dragged out indefinitely, Khadr would have died from old age awaiting a verdict. His own lawyers (who were US military personel, by the way) were very vocal about this. It was the lesser of two evils.

So here you have this 15 year old kid, traumatized, crying, desperate, and what do we do? Do we try and turn him - he'd be a prime candidate given his desperation? Do we give him the opportunity to have a normal life and treat him according to our own laws, international laws, and our own policies? Do we utilize the "restorative justice" legal framework?

No, we treat this kid as if he were Bin Laden himself, the Canadian public mostly foams at the mouth concocting twisted and barbaric torture fantasies. The Canadian government stops short of sanctioning mediaeval torture, instead choosing a modern varient - giving the go-ahead to the Americans to use their patented "enhanced interogation techniques" at Bagram and Guantanamo. No wonder he developed full-blown PTSD (as confirmed by a Pentagon psychiatrist).

So rather than rehabilitate this kid and turn him into a positive symbol, we push him away, putting him into a situation where the only folks on earth who are reaching out to him are other inmates in Guantanamo, some still clinging to terrorist ideology. What a great situation, huh?

We basically confirmed all the worst things Khadr's father ever said about Canada and the West, and betrayed our own values, violated our own policy and laws, and for what? Did we get any valuable intel? Nope. He was 15 years old - Al Qaeda isn't run by idiots, as high ranking as his father was, they're not going to divulge operational details to a kid, knowing damn well he'd crack when interrogated. This notion that if he was ever released in Canada he'd organize a terror plot is absurd - not only do we not really know his thinking at this point, he and his family are under constant surveillance for life. They can't do anything, and anyone thinking of plotting an attack would stay miles away from them because then they'd become targets for law enforcement too.

So what did we get out of it? Nothing except satiate the bloodlust of that chunk of Canadians who needed a boogeyman to hate, and didn't care if they screwed up a kids life, violated their own countries values and laws, and damaged our international reputation in the process. Come to think of it, that's not really much of a benefit.

And it was all for nothing really - he'll be released at some point, and he has no education, no way to support himself, and nobody else to turn to besides his radical family. And he'll probably sue the government, and he'll probably win, considering it's black and white that we violated our own laws and policies on his treatment.

So really, what the hell was the point of all this?

[Radsickle]

Now that he's back on home turf, I hope Omar does make some of us very ashamed to be the Canadians who put him away. You twits.

[jbg]

Now that he's back on home turf, I hope Omar does make some of us very ashamed to be the Canadians who put him away. You twits.

Why should it be our problem that Khadr was brought up to hate us? And why shouldn't he suffer the consequences of his hatred?

[Mr.Canada]

He's just been sent away for over 10 years. Do you think he'll be a happy person when he gets out? he'll still hold the same as he did before his incarceration.

Omar is going to sue the government and win just like Maher Arar. Once Omar has his $10 million dollars he will go on a mosque speaking tour raising money to send overseas and to help train Islamists at home. He will become a hero to many Muslims who don't like the way the west is run. He'll be a hero to all those who wanted to bring Sharia law to Ontario.

This what I think will happen.

[g_bambino]

Omar is going to sue the government and win...

For what?

[eyeball]

Why should it be our problem that Khadr was brought up to hate us?

Because we're members of a supposedly civilized and enlightened society.

And why shouldn't he suffer the consequences of his hatred?

Because they are the result of the sickening of his very young mind by people who are not very enlightened. The consequences of his twisted upbringing are not his fault.

BTW do you vilify your children and deprive them of treatment, sleep, food, and freedom when they come home with a cold or flu?

[eyeball]

For what?

For violating his rights that are guaranteed by our Charter.

[g_bambino]

For violating his rights that are guaranteed by our Charter.

That case was already opened and closed years ago.

[eyeball]

That case was already opened and closed years ago.

Yes, and the government is still on the hook for not following it's ruling.