Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian

[bleeding heart]

I know. You are bringing up semantics and I agree with your point but IMO the semantics are irrelevant.

By the way, which countries do you consider "terrorist states"?

Well, Canada, The United States, the UK, for starters. (I single them out only for the sake of brevity, and because of the close political and international-military relationship.)

And to clarify, I'm not personally crazy about the term "terrorist states," since terrorism alone doesn't define them (any of them) and because it's so widespread as to make "terrorist states" close to useless as a descriptor.

But if we are going to use the term--for Official Enemies, in the usual formulation--then I think we have to be as objectively even-handed as possible, to avoid discussions being entirely predicated on nationalist propaganda...but more to the point, for the simple sake of honesty and accuracy.

Edited October 11, 2012 by bleeding heart

[carepov]

Well, Canada, The United States, the UK, for starters. (I single them out only for the sake of brevity, and because of the close political and international-military relationship.)

And to clarify, I'm not personally crazy about the term "terrorist states," since terrorism alone doesn't define them (any of them) and because it's so widespread as to make "terrorist states" close to useless as a descriptor.

But if we are going to use the term--for Official Enemies, in the usual formulation--then I think we have to be as objectively even-handed as possible, to avoid discussions being entirely predicated on nationalist propaganda...but more to the point, for the simple sake of honesty and accuracy.

Well if I can make a suggestion, I would stop labelling Canada, the US and UK as “terrorist states”. Many people would wrongly assume that you are a jihadist and this is not helpful in a discussion as it fuels the nationalist propaganda that you seek to avoid.

If you want, you can replace my “War on Terror” buzz phase with “War in Afghanistan 2001-, Iraq War 2003-2011, War in NW Pakistan 2004-, and other operations against al-Qaeda and other militant Islamists”

[bleeding heart]

Well if I can make a suggestion, I would stop labelling Canada, the US and UK as “terrorist states”.

Have you made a similar suggestion to those labelling Official Enemies in the same way?

A rhetorical question; I don't think you have.

Why not?

Many people would wrongly assume that you are a jihadist

Since it's flatly untrue, it doesn't exactly touch a nerve.

At any rate, since I am wholesale opposed to all terrorism--period--it would be a pretty rich allegation.

Especially coming from posters who do endorse terrorism--provided it's for a "good cause" (ie "lesser evilism," as we battle the sinister forces etc etc....)

and this is not helpful in a discussion as it fuels the nationalist propaganda that you seek to avoid.

Are you saying I should not verbally oppose Western terrorism...and shouldn't even name it as such?

Seriously?

If you want, you can replace my “War on Terror” buzz phase with “War in Afghanistan 2001-, Iraq War 2003-2011, War in NW Pakistan 2004-, and other operations against al-Qaeda and other militant Islamists”

In that case, how do we rename Western terrorist actions?

[carepov]

Have you made a similar suggestion to those labelling Official Enemies in the same way?

A rhetorical question; I don't think you have.

Why not?

Well if it came up I would, but I usually try to avoid semantic disputes but somehow got myself entangled into this one… You are right “terrorist state” is not a good term and should not be used at all.

Are you saying I should not verbally oppose Western terrorism...and shouldn't even name it as such?

Seriously?

In that case, how do we rename Western terrorist actions?

No, you misunderstood. IMO, using the term “Western terrorism” (eg: Shock and Awe) is fine and I am opposed to it as well. My only suggestion is to avoid calling any countries “terrorist states”.

[g_bambino]

I am wholesale opposed to all terrorism--period--it would be a pretty rich allegation.

An important thing to establish before anyone answers any of your questions is: Do you adhere to the same definition of terrorism that everyone else does?

[bleeding heart]

An important thing to establish before anyone answers any of your questions is: Do you adhere to the same definition of terrorism that everyone else does?

For the sake of this discussion, I am avoiding the word "terrorism" for matters that it well might apply: say, the assault on Fallujah, or Nixon's "anything that flies on anything that moves" dictum.

I am sticking with designations that are broadly agreed-upon: either state or sub-national agents intentionally killing and terrorizing civilian populations for political ends--outside of direct, conventional warfare.

I am taking what I think is a more-than-fair, even generous stance for the sake of the argument, in other words.

[g_bambino]

I am sticking with designations that are broadly agreed-upon: either state or sub-national agents intentionally killing and terrorizing civilian populations for political ends--outside of direct, conventional warfare.

The IRA, Al Qaeda, etc. don't fit the definition of either a state or sub-national organisation, but they are no doubt terrorist groups.

Regardless, when has the Canadian or British governments - to pick just two from your already abbreviated list - intentionally targeted civilians for attack?

[Guest American Woman]

If you don’t mind me asking… in your opinion, was the US treatment of Khadr...

...legal or illegal?

...moral or immoral?

...productive, counter-productive or insignificant towards the goal of winning The War on Terror?

I'm not sure what you mean by "treatment;" do you mean holding him at Gitmo - or litererally how he was treated there? After lots of reading, I no longer believe he was tortured, if that's what you mean - and I believe that mostly based on what he has said. So I believe the way he was treated was moral. Do I believe it was legal to hold him indefinitely? He was charged, he was given legal counsel, so I believe, under the circumstances of war and in light of his confession, that it was legal. As far as the impact towards winning the war on terror - I think it had little to no effect in that ultimately, I don't think it was a game changer. There are always going to be those who defend the Omars of the world, and that would be the case regardless of what our governments do.

I also don’t get the need to either defend or attack him.

I can certainly understand anger directed at a Canadian citizen who took the enemy's side against Canadian/allied troops.

Edited October 11, 2012 by American Woman

[bleeding heart]

Regardless, when has the Canadian or British governments - to pick just two from your already abbreviated list - intentionally targeted civilians for attack?

for one of the most egregious examples, Canada's military aid to Indonesia was expressly used for massive state terror--terror far worse than anything Hezbollah or Hamas, those contemporary demons which cause such consternation have ever managed.

Canada's military aid was for the purpose of Indonesia's ongoing slaughters in East timor...which were understood all along to be occurring.

This is direct, intentional complicity in State Terrorism; this is intentional collusion in mass murder, which makes Canada as bad as the Indonesian Generals themselves, as well as the terror Militias (which received training from American forces, bypassing American law through some preposterous semantic acrobatics).

The UK, and especially the US, were even more eagerly helpful to the killers and rapists...but morally, I'd place us all on equal footing; that is, awful.

Hell, part of the justification for a war on Iran is based on far, far less severe aid to terrorists.

Now, I'm predicting a "Cold War" justification, not necessarily from you...but terrorist-apologists always pipe up in this way, and at this point.

So while I can easily argue against that silliness as justification, I'll for now only point out that it's moot to the main argument: the existence of Western backing for massive terrorist atrocities, and (thanks to knowing about it, not caring, keeping publically mum, and supporting it all) making us a "terrorist state," at least so far as Iran or Pakistan are. (Though that's unfair...to them, since the terrorism we materially aid and diplomatically support is way worse.)

Edited October 12, 2012 by bleeding heart

[carepov]

I'm not sure what you mean by "treatment;" do you mean holding him at Gitmo - or litererally how he was treated there? After lots of reading, I no longer believe he was tortured, if that's what you mean - and I believe that mostly based on what he has said. So I believe the way he was treated was moral. Do I believe it was legal to hold him indefinitely? He was charged, he was given legal counsel, so I believe, under the circumstances of war and in light of his confession, that it was legal. As far as the impact towards winning the war on terror - I think it had little to no effect in that ultimately, I don't think it was a game changer. There are always going to be those who defend the Omars of the world, and that would be the case regardless of what our governments do.

Thanks for the response. By "treatment" I meant everything, the whole process, from his capture until transfer to Canada.

I disagree - I think that he was tortured - based mainly on an interview with one of his torturers that admitted to torturing him.

Does it bother you that he was <16 years old when captured?

Does it bother you that the "Gitmo process" was declared illegal by the USSC, the IRCC, Amnesty International?

Omar's case may be almost insignificant and the whole "Gitmo process" is probably not a game changer but IMO it was still a big step in the wrong direction. IMO if Khadr and other detainees would have been processed as POWs as per International Law, you would have seen no credible "defenders of Omar".

[eyeball]

IMO if Khadr and other detainees would have been processed as POWs as per International Law, you would have seen no credible "defenders of Omar".

You're dreaming. Anyone suggesting following international law would be deemed a terrorist supporter by at least 50% of your hard-assed homies. The other half would deem the first 50% as being soft on terrorists.

[g_bambino]

for one of the most egregious examples, Canada's military aid to Indonesia was expressly used for massive state terror...

I did some brief research and read about abuses of the Timorese population by Indonesian officialdom (though, there's a blurry line there between indiscriminate terrorism and controlling and subjugating the enemy and all the facets thereof, including the civilian one) in the 1970s and 80s, but I could find nothing to say the Canadian government encouraged or supported these activities at that time. At best, all I could find was that Canada's ambassador to the UN, between 1975 and 1980, abstained from voting on resolutions condemning the Indonesian actions and thereafter voted in favour of the same or similar motions.

The UK, and especially the US, were even more eagerly helpful to the killers and rapists...

Again, some sourced examples would be nice.

Regardless, even if there were an example of a state aiding a group that itself employed what could be defined as terrorist tactics, I don't think that makes the state a "terrorist state". One is not guilty just by association.

[GostHacked]

An important thing to establish before anyone answers any of your questions is: Do you adhere to the same definition of terrorism that everyone else does?

Terrorism has a very broad definition. And when looked at objectively any national intelligence service that covertly undermines a foreign government is terrorism.

[g_bambino]

Terrorism has a very broad definition.

It doesn't have a fixed definition. But, bleeding heart already set the parameters for the sake of our discussion, keeping them close to the most popularly accepted definition.

And when looked at objectively any national intelligence service that covertly undermines a foreign government is terrorism.

Yes.... That's obviously a very objective view...

[ed.: c/e]

Edited October 12, 2012 by g_bambino

[eyeball]

Regardless, even if there were an example of a state aiding a group that itself employed what could be defined as terrorist tactics, I don't think that makes the state a "terrorist state". One is not guilty just by association.

Somebody should tell that to the people of Iraq.

[bleeding heart]

I did some brief research and read about abuses of the Timorese population by Indonesian officialdom (though, there's a blurry line there between indiscriminate terrorism and controlling and subjugating the enemy and all the facets thereof, including the civilian one)

They were "controlling and subjugating the enemy" in the same way other military aggressors "control and subjugate."

I don't quite know what you're getting at here; are you suggesitng the two countries were at war, with legtimate grievances on both sides?

It's akin to Nazi and Soviet aggression. No exaggeration.

East Timor wasn't an enemy; it was a helpless, peaceable nation, in the process of democratically declaring independence during Portugese de-colonization.

Indonesia decided they wanted the territory and resources--without any sort of legal, cultural, or historical claim--and invaded.

Given a green light from Ford and Kissinger, who met with General Suharto. (And they asked him to keep their permission quiet, because the American people might not support a murderous invasion.)

And then over 25 years, from '75 till '99, they killed somehwere between 100 000 and 200 thousand people. That is, up to a third of the population.

You're pretty cavalier about a situation that is probably in the top ten of worst atrocities in the postwar era (which is no small achievement, given the competition.)

Certainly, it was about a thousand times worse (literally) than what occurred in Kosovo...while we proclaimed our "humanitarian intervention" there, moaning about "the new era" of "Responsibility to Protect," precisely as the killings in East Timor were at one of their peaks...with our assistance.

It's jaw-dropping.

Here's a bit from ETAN, the action network working towards a Truth and Reconciliation process...which is impossible, since both Indonesia and the Western powers balk at discussing the issue at all.

(Little wonder: gangsters don't generally discuss their crimes.):

On December 6, 1975, then Secretary of State Kissinger and President Gerald Ford met with Indonesia’s dictator in Jakarta. At their meeting, Ford gave Suharto an explicit go ahead for the invasion of the Portuguese colony of East Timor, which was seeking independence. Indonesia launched its brutal invasion the next day. According to East Timor's Commission on Reception, Truth and Reconciliation (CAVR) up to 180,000 died as a result of the invasion and illegal occupation, which lasted until 1999. Declassified and leaked documents clearly show that Kissinger understood that Suharto was balking at invading, concerned that the U.S. would cut off its supply of weapons and military training. Kissinger guaranteed continuation of weapons shipments and increased them the following year. For more on Kissinger's role in East Timor.

The Indonesian dictator then raised the Timor issue, saying, “We want your understanding, if we deem it necessary to take rapid or drastic action.” Ford replied: “We will understand and will not press you on the issue. We understand the problem and the intentions you have.” We understand the problem and the intentions you have.” Kissinger said "you appreciate that the use of U.S. weapons could create problems" and added that “It is important that whatever you do succeed quickly.” (Quotes from Embassy Jakarta Telegram 1579 to Secretary State, 6 December 1975)

.......

in the 1970s and 80s, but I could find nothing to say the Canadian government encouraged or supported these activities at that time

Selling weapons and weapons parts (right into the 1990's, btw) for a proto-fascist military aggressor, committing mass murder with those very weapons...while our government(s) knew it is occurring--is not "encouragement or support"?

At best, all I could find was that Canada's ambassador to the UN, between 1975 and 1980, abstained from voting on resolutions condemning the Indonesian actions and thereafter voted in favour of the same or similar motions

And opposed three. Because...well, who can say? International politics (and support for attempted genocide) is all very comlicated...for us; not when we're talking about the behaviour of enemies, mind, none of whom in sixty years has been worse than our ally Suharto.

It's true, of course--a truism, in fact--that we were schizophrenic about the relationship; as was the US (so that the Pentagon had to do an end run around a Congressional ban) and doubtless all the enablers of the Suharto regime.

So some noises were occasionally made. but at the same time, efforts were also made to stop a diplomatic solution. This was most obvious with the Americans, these successful attempts to keep the Indonesian aggression going forward, notably by Ambassadors Paul Wolfowitz and, moreso, Daniel Patrick Moynihan:

The United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success

Nice stuff, no?

Regardless, even if there were an example of a state aiding a group that itself employed what could be defined as terrorist tactics, I don't think that makes the state a "terrorist state". One is not guilty just by association.

Well, I see you take a different view on Iran, especially as concerns Hezbollah and Hamas, as most people consider Iran guilty, including our monumentally hypocritical government (both Liberals and Conservatives, considering the timeline).

Unless you think the much-worse terrorist atrocities are simply not as bad as the lesser ones...a position actually held by people with whom I've discussed this subject, a stance presumably generated from the moral cowardice inherent to nationalism.

However, I disagree with you: you're talking about "looking away from atrocities," a common occurrence, and one that, I agree, is a complex matter indeed. But that's not the case here; here, we're talking about intentional material aid for murder. Quite a different theme.

Since Canada, the UK, Japan, Australia, and especially the US materially aided the ongoing State terror, fully cognizant that they were doing so, then by definition they (we) are guilty.

It's not "by association"; it's direct complicity.

Doctrinal "truths" about how Canada Simply doesn't Behave This Way are worse than useless; they're damaging.

If it makes you feel any better, the UK and the United States were far more materially involved. Imperial States don't balk at a little mass murder, aside from the bad political metrics. And as I said, Ford and Kissinger directly and explicitly encouraged the invasion, which makes them, by definiton, parties to War Crimes of the sort that resulted in the Death Penalty at Nuremberg.

(And if you think any of this last passage is crazed exaggeration and unfair rhetoric...I think this would be a good time to explain exactly how and why I'm wrong about this.)

[g_bambino]

They were "controlling and subjugating the enemy" in the same way other military aggressors "control and subjugate."

I suppose so, yes. Which, I think, is something rather different to terrorism, at least by the common definition of the word. Though, I still concede that there is no fine line between the two concepts.

However, I disagree with you: you're talking about "looking away from atrocities," a common occurrence, and one that, I agree, is a complex matter indeed. But that's not the case here; here, we're talking about intentional material aid for murder. Quite a different theme.

And I've still seen no evidence that Canada provided material aid for the execution of terrorism.

[bleeding heart]

I suppose so, yes. Which, I think, is something rather different to terrorism, at least by the common definition of the word. Though, I still concede that there is no fine line between the two concepts.

I agree; but murdering somewhere between a sixth and a third of the populaiton, using rape as a tool of war, torturing and slaughtering civilians...all under the auspices of a war of aggression...certainly constitutes "State Terrorism" by any measurement I've ever heard.

If not, then "terrorism" has no meaning, none at all. And the State variety, by virtue of its power, is a heck of a lot worse than the radical-group variety that currently has us so exercised.

And I've still seen no evidence that Canada provided material aid for the execution of terrorism.

Supply weapons for an aggressive regime, while it's committing it's aggression, and knowing full well it is doing so...is material aid for the horrors. How could it be otherwise?

Hell, I looked up a Hansard's debate from, I believe, '96 (should have linked it, but I'll find it again) in which an Opposition Member said we should stop supporting the "genocide" in East Timor.

There were no objections to the term, none at all, but instead a sort of agreement that crimes were ongoing... and that the Canadian Government was doing everything to blah blah blah.

Edited October 12, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

Thanks for the response. By "treatment" I meant everything, the whole process, from his capture until transfer to Canada.

You're welcome; I trust I covered everything you were referring to?

I disagree - I think that he was tortured - based mainly on an interview with one of his torturers that admitted to torturing him.

Could you please provide a link to that interview? I'd be interested in reading it.

Does it bother you that he was <16 years old when captured?

Sure it does.

Does it bother you that the "Gitmo process" was declared illegal by the USSC, the IRCC, Amnesty International?

Not necessarily, the reason being that I believe there is too much bias and tendency to be one-sided in such organizations. That's not to say that I dismiss what they have to say, but I don't automatically agree with and/or respect all that they say, either. I'm more interested in doing my own research and drawing my own conclusions. As for what I believe about Gitmo - I certainly don't agree with all that went on, but I don't think it was nearly as bad as what it was made out to be. Did you see what Omar had to say about it?

In a letter written to his parents on Nov. 25, 2002 he wrote: The Americans are the opposite of what the whole world denies. Health services 24 hours, three meals a day, Ramadan eat before dawn and sunset

Why do you think he would have written that? And everything I've read confirms that what he said is true.

Omar's case may be almost insignificant and the whole "Gitmo process" is probably not a game changer but IMO it was still a big step in the wrong direction. IMO if Khadr and other detainees would have been processed as POWs as per International Law, you would have seen no credible "defenders of Omar".

I don't think there are any credible defenders of Omar.

[Mr.Canada]

Omar Khadr is only the first of many I';m afraid. Situations like his will only increase as Canada becomes more and more multicultural. With Canada embracing everyone's culture no matter how dangerous this situation will only get worse. More real Canadians will become victims to a government that is more concerned with pr than protecting its citizens.

[eyeball]

I think your reasons for saying this are completely out to lunch but I agree wholeheartedly that we're all victims of a government that is more concerned with pr than protecting its citizens.

[g_bambino]

I agree; but murdering somewhere between a sixth and a third of the populaiton, using rape as a tool of war, torturing and slaughtering civilians... certainly constitutes "State Terrorism" by any measurement I've ever heard.

I keep saying there isn't a defined line between the two. However, there is a difference between soldiers committing rape and torture on their own accord and the government itself directing it.

Supply weapons for an aggressive regime...

Again, I've seen no proof that such a thing ever happened. What I've read so far says the Canadian government was either neutral or saw the fight for East Timorese independence as a lost cause, which both are something quite different to supporting terrrorist activities.

[Mr.Canada]

I think your reasons for saying this are completely out to lunch but I agree wholeheartedly that we're all victims of a government that is more concerned with pr than protecting its citizens.

not out to lunch. Actually quite accurate. Omar Khadr would never be a Canadian if not for our sieve like immigration system that let his family into Canada in the first place. Why was his family not booted from Canada? They enemies of the State, plain and simple. They want nothing to do with Canada and its culture and traditions. Omar Khadr is a traitor, plain and simple. How is he not a traitor?

[carepov]

Could you please provide a link to that interview? I'd be interested in reading it.

Regarding the interview of the US ex-guard, he basically said, "I did not consider it torture at the time but yeah it was definitely torture." I saw it on the CBC National within 1-2 days of Khadr's return to Canada - unfortunately I cannot locate the link.

Not necessarily, the reason being that I believe there is too much bias and tendency to be one-sided in such organizations. That's not to say that I dismiss what they have to say, but I don't automatically agree with and/or respect all that they say, either. I'm more interested in doing my own research and drawing my own conclusions.

These organizations (USSC, IRCC, AI) are dedicated to being unbiased - the Red Cross one-sided, really? Of course there is no such thing as perfect objectivity, but they are more trustworthy and objective than any government or military and specifically the Bush Administration.

As for what I believe about Gitmo - I certainly don't agree with all that went on, but I don't think it was nearly as bad as what it was made out to be. Did you see what Omar had to say about it?

In a letter written to his parents on Nov. 25, 2002 he wrote: The Americans are the opposite of what the whole world denies. Health services 24 hours, three meals a day, Ramadan eat before dawn and sunset

Why do you think he would have written that? And everything I've read confirms that what he said is true.

Yes, Gitmo surely was no gulag. However, it is probably not as nice a place as you imagine.

When you had Team Rumsfeld saying, "It's OK to torture - just a little bit...", looking for my source I came across interviews of several ex-Gitmo guards you may be interested in hearing their descriptions, look at what happened in Abu Ghraib - to me it adds up to torture.

I don't think there are any credible defenders of Omar.

Perhaps not, but I'll put another way - if Khadr and other detainees would have been processed as POWs as per International Law, you would have seen no credible condemnation and criticism of the US on this issue.

[Guest Peeves]

Omar Khadr is only the first of many I';m afraid. Situations like his will only increase as Canada becomes more and more multicultural. With Canada embracing everyone's culture no matter how dangerous this situation will only get worse. More real Canadians will become victims to a government that is more concerned with pr than protecting its citizens.

I can't agree with that conclusion though I can understand it.

I believe many Canadians are pissed with multiculturalism and its divisiveness. Our present government seems quite prepared to enact legislation that is contrary to good p.r.

Personally I like governments that do what they say they will do and that get elected on their platform, those like Mike Harris and Harper.

The opposite holds true for those making promises that turn out to be lies..like Dalton.