Omar Khadr

[js97]

Political stripes aside (i'm actually a liberal)..

why is there such push for the government to bring this guy home?

He was caught in afghanistan, fighting the war... why bring this guy home?

How does the supreme actually have a call to force a government to interfere with a POW of a foreign nation?

And WHY do we really want him back?

Poor kid has been brainwashed and trained to hate the west, why are we so eager to bring him back?

 

[GraphicMatt]

He's a Canadian citizen who has never received a proper trial.

 

[PukeGreen]

Khadr is not technically a POW. The prisoners at Guantanamo are there specifically because they are not classified as POWs. He is not being treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. He's been imprisoned for years without any sort of formal trial, and may in theory remain imprisoned indefinitely with no release date. The US claims he was in Afghanistan and killed an American soldier, however he has never been convicted of this crime, nor has he had a proper chance to defend himself. It is the word of the US against... nothing.

This sets a worrisome precedent: does that mean any Canadian traveling abroad can be detained and imprisoned indefinitely just because somebody says they are a terrorist?

I believe those fighting for Khadr's release are not doing so because they necessarily think he is innocent of all wrongdoing, they are doing so because of the frightening precedent that his treatment sets. The US needs to have proper trials for these prisoners, with all the evidence presented in front of a jury or judge. If they are found guilty, they should be properly sentenced.

In my opinion, the Canadian government absolutely should not allow a foreign country -- even a "friend" like the US -- to indefinitely imprison a Canadian citizen without trial under any circumstances. What any of us personally think about his probable guilt or innocence is irrelevant.

 

[kEiThZ]

Although I feel Khadr should be repatriated, everybody should understand that Khadr and other Taliban/AQ prisoners are not entitled to the protection of the Geneva and Hague conventions and protocols. There is a lot of ignorance out there on what these rules really mean and who they apply to.

Those rules only apply if they are to be reciprocated by the other side....and are usually administered by a third party (a Hague tribunal or the Red Cross, etc.). And they only apply if the combatants are fighting for an identifiable uniformed force (can be simple as wearing the same armband or baseball cap). That means they can't hide among civilians. The point of those rules is to ensure that ALL (ours and theirs) captured personnel are accorded the same treatment and to ensure that neither side can use the civilian population as a shield (for example by blending in). Given that the Taliban and AQ have taken to executing captured prisoners, using the Afghan population as human shields and directly targeting civilians it's highly unlikely that any of their fighters would qualify for any of these protections. Violation of the rules normally means that the combatant forfeits the protections of the Conventions. Hence, the unlawful combatant designation (the authority to designate prisoners rests with the detaining power though it is sometimes delegated to an independent third party). Beyond the designation, the detaining power also reserves the right to try the individual for any crimes committed and violation of the conventions by military tribunal....in the same way that soldiers would be court martialed for those violations by their own military forces. All this is why Obama is having a tough time closing the prison in Gitmo.

In addition to this, it is increasingly appearing that Khadr will be tried regardless of the system in use (military tribunal or civilian court) which means that it'll be harder to accuse the US of holding him without trial. I have seen various press reports that say the case against Khadr is one of the strongest. What needs to be pushed for now, is for Khadr to be tried as soon as possible so that his status (guilty or not) can be determined. If he is convicted, then we should put for him to finish his jail term in Canada. The government should move to assist him with legal assistance (if required) and to ensure that he is given a fair trial that takes into account both his actions and the context (virtually a child soldier).

We should all keep in mind though, that this could just as easily have been a Canadian medic. Personally, I am of the opinion that the son should not be punished for the sins of the father. However, his mother should be charged with treason, aiding and abetting a terrorist organization, and child abuse. Parents who ship their kids of jihad school should know that there will be consequences for their actions.

 

[afransen]

He was also a child soldier, even if he did kill a US soldier. We forgive the 12 year olds in Africa that are told to use machetes to hack limbs off of innocent villagers (because if they don't, their family might be killed). Khadr is alleged to have killed a US soldier using a grenade at age 16.

I agree though. Even if he is found guilty, he should have a trial. It is horrific that our government would abandon our citizens to penal purgatory...

 

[urbanfan89]

If you can't make a case against a supposed terrorist for seven years, you don't have a case.

End of story.

 

[nfitz]

Khadr is alleged to have killed a US soldier using a grenade at age 16.

Aged 15. Though I think the child soldier laws are only for 14 and under.

 

[kEiThZ]

Aged 15. Though I think the child soldier laws are only for 14 and under.

Correct. Those who try and cite international law should be careful what they wish for. If international law were strictly interpreted in the Khadr case, the US would be within its rights to do far worse than Gitmo.

 

[PukeGreen]

In addition to the legalities of the Geneva Convention and international law, I think that countries like Canada and the US also need consider the ethical obligations of actions like these. Even if there are legal loopholes that exempt Khadr from having a trial, his indefinite imprisonments looks bad, and it feels wrong to many Canadians. Worse, it justifies the negative opinions that many in other countries have about the West. Attempts to justify it just sound like doublespeak.

Even if the Taliban or similar groups would never reciprocate certain actions, I think we still have an obligation to do the right thing, within reason. The "we can treat them however we want because they would do even worse to us" argument only lowers us to being as bad as the enemies we condemn. We are supposed to be the "good guys" and on the side of right, so we need to act that way whenever possible, even if it means suppressing a base desire for revenge. I realize it sounds naive and idealistic, but sometimes it pays to rise above and lead by example, assuming that there is no immediate threat caused by those actions. For example, in this case, I don't believe that a liberated Khadr would ever be a threat to us or the US again.

 

[kEiThZ]

In addition to the legalities of the Geneva Convention and international law, I think that countries like Canada and the US also need consider the ethical obligations of actions like these. Even if there are legal loopholes that exempt Khadr from having a trial, his indefinite imprisonments looks bad, and it feels wrong to many Canadians. Worse, it justifies the negative opinions that many in other countries have about the West. Attempts to justify it just sound like doublespeak.

Even if the Taliban or similar groups would never reciprocate certain actions, I think we still have an obligation to do the right thing, within reason. The "we can treat them however we want because they would do even worse to us" argument only lowers us to being as bad as the enemies we condemn. We are supposed to be the "good guys" and on the side of right, so we need to act that way whenever possible, even if it means suppressing a base desire for revenge. I realize it sounds naive and idealistic, but sometimes it pays to rise above and lead by example, assuming that there is no immediate threat caused by those actions. For example, in this case, I don't believe that a liberated Khadr would ever be a threat to us or the US again.

I agree with you. Note that I only addressed the legal argument not the moral one. Even most military officers would agree that moral requirements of war required that our opponents are treated well enough to ensure that we can win on the moral plane not just on the physical plane of conflict. And most certainly, those detained by Canadians in Afghanistan are treated extremely humanely. Unfortunately for us, there's not too much we can do to ensure this treatment beyond our short detention (they have to be handed over to the Afghan authorities beyond a certain length of time).

When it comes to the Khadr case though, I have made these arguments, because I want people who routinely cite international law amost as definitive and Khadr's destiny to return to Canada as a fait accompli, to understand that the law isn't as clear as they wish. And their emphasis on demanding that such law be applied narrowly could actually result in far worse conditions for many of those they intend to help. If the US decides to interpret international law as strictly as many of these campaigners believe they should, the US would be within its rights to convene a courts-martial for Khadr and give him the death penalty. That's something I would not want. We should encourage the US to adopt the same moral understanding of armed conflict as we have instead of trying to corner them into narrow interpretations of international law that are largely seen as favouring the enemy (particularly in the US).

 

[afransen]

I agree with you. Note that I only addressed the legal argument not the moral one. Even most military officers would agree that moral requirements of war required that our opponents are treated well enough to ensure that we can win on the moral plane not just on the physical plane of conflict. And most certainly, those detained by Canadians in Afghanistan are treated extremely humanely. Unfortunately for us, there's not too much we can do to ensure this treatment beyond our short detention (they have to be handed over to the Afghan authorities beyond a certain length of time).

When it comes to the Khadr case though, I have made these arguments, because I want people who routinely cite international law amost as definitive and Khadr's destiny to return to Canada as a fait accompli, to understand that the law isn't as clear as they wish. And their emphasis on demanding that such law be applied narrowly could actually result in far worse conditions for many of those they intend to help. If the US decides to interpret international law as strictly as many of these campaigners believe they should, the US would be within its rights to convene a courts-martial for Khadr and give him the death penalty. That's something I would not want. We should encourage the US to adopt the same moral understanding of armed conflict as we have instead of trying to corner them into narrow interpretations of international law that are largely seen as favouring the enemy (particularly in the US).

One would think that if the US government could have done this, they would have. I doubt the previous regime would have had any compunction about doing this, except perhaps giving the Canadian government some really bad press to deal with.

 

[shumoon]

Although I feel Khadr should be repatriated, everybody should understand that Khadr and other Taliban/AQ prisoners are not entitled to the protection of the Geneva and Hague conventions and protocols. There is a lot of ignorance out there on what these rules really mean and who they apply to...

...Given that the Taliban and AQ have taken to executing captured prisoners, using the Afghan population as human shields and directly targeting civilians it's highly unlikely that any of their fighters would qualify for any of these protections. Violation of the rules normally means that the combatant forfeits the protections of the Conventions. Hence, the unlawful combatant designation.

Even though the Geneva and Hague Conventions do not apply, that does not mean a Canadian citizen should be subjected to a kangaroo court, which is what I believe the military tribunals are. The U.S. already has a competent judicial system and a fair jury trial is what could and should be administered.

Military tribunals are unnecessary. The U.S. could give prisoners like Khadr a full court-martial for killing a soldier or they could give a civillian trial for killing a person. Either of those options would be fair because Khadr would have the right to see the evidence brought against him, not the "secret evidence" bullsh_t of a military tribunal.