# Never Leave Canada.



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

So basically what Harper is saying: You do anything wrong abroad (or be_ accused _of doing something, or be held illegally by a foreign power acting outside of international law, or heck, just be non-white: let's call it what it is), then you are totally screwed. Better watch my back here in Mexico...

Back off on Khadr, Ottawa tells courts - The Globe and Mail


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

That's how I read it as well, CM. Sad.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> , or heck, just be *non-white*: let's call it what it is), then you are totally screwed. Better watch my back here in Mexico...


If all else fails let's play the "race card"...

Based on your statement above, you have nothing to worry about in Mexico.

You're way out of line with that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> If all else fails let's play the "race card"...
> 
> Based on your statement above, you have nothing to worry about in Mexico.
> 
> You're way out of line with that.


Agreed. Way over the top. 

And let's move this little pulpit over to the politics section where it belongs...you know better than that, Mark.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Two things:

1/ If he wasn't "Omar Khadr" but "Jimmy MacPhearson", would he have been left sitting in Guantanamo all these years without a peep from Ottawa (due blame to the Liberals as well). This was a *child* in a war zone. Not in dispute. International law is clear on how he *should* have been treated. Are you honestly going to assert that his ethnicity played no role in Canada's decision to let him languish? 

2/ Happy to have the mods move this to the Politics section... I just find that new posts in that area tend to be a wee bit out of sight (like the Social Groups bit - just found it today! When was the big update / reorganization? A month ago? Two?)


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> 1/ If he wasn't "Omar Khadr" but "Jimmy MacPhearson", would he have been left sitting in Guantanamo all these years without a peep from Ottawa (due blame to the Liberals as well). This was a *child* in a war zone.


If "Jimmy MacPhearson" was a terrorist engaged in acts of murder, and was fully supported by his fundamentalist zealot family who engages in continual acts of sedition against the nation - I'd expect that he would get the same treatment.

As for being a child, really, I know of no children in the neighbourhood that pack up, go to a war zone, and commit gratutious acts of murder, so Khadr gets what he deserves. And if he actually did commit murders, he deserves the noose for those crimes.



> International law is clear on how he *should* have been treated.


He was an enemy combatant and deserves to be punished fully under the laws of Afghanistan, where the punishment for murder is decapitation. Just because our country is effete and is soft on crime doesn't mean that this punk doesn't deserve a bullet in the head for his crimes.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1/ If he wasn't "Omar Khadr" but "Jimmy MacPhearson", would he have been left sitting in Guantanamo all these years without a peep from Ottawa (due blame to the Liberals as well). This was a *child* in a war zone. Not in dispute. International law is clear on how he *should* have been treated. Are you honestly going to assert that his ethnicity played no role in Canada's decision to let him languish?
> 
> 2/ Happy to have the mods move this to the Politics section... I just find that new posts in that area tend to be a wee bit out of sight (like the Social Groups bit - just found it today! When was the big update / reorganization? A month ago? Two?)


International law is a very sticky and slippery stone to touch. The government's decision was clearly a ethnically motivated one, in the least. There seemed to be no reasonable arguments, other than glossed rationalisations and emotional conjecture. 

Canadians are so ridiculously scared of everything that isn't McDonald's, Chevy Cobalts and American Idol and then lace it in pejorative value. This is simply Orientalism at an apex.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Adrian. said:


> International law is a very sticky and slippery stone to touch. The government's decision was clearly a ethnically motivated one, in the least. There seemed to be no reasonable arguments, other than glossed rationalisations and emotional conjecture.
> 
> Canadians are so ridiculously scared of everything that isn't McDonald's, Chevy Cobalts and American Idol and then lace it in pejorative value. This is simply Orientalism at an apex.


Nope.

Glad the government did nothing to assist Khadr.

BTW they also leave white people in prisons in foriegn countries too.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> International law is a very sticky and slippery stone to touch. The government's decision was clearly a ethnically motivated one, in the least. There seemed to be no reasonable arguments, other than glossed rationalisations and emotional conjecture.
> 
> Canadians are so ridiculously scared of everything that isn't McDonald's, Chevy Cobalts and American Idol and then lace it in pejorative value. This is simply Orientalism at an apex.



Sorry Adrain, that is so over simplified as to be nonsense. It is about terrorism, 911, politics and yes racial/ethnic/religious profiling (due to the fact that 911 was carried out by Muslims). If 911 were carried out by Germans, Spaniards, Irish or Greeks, the same kind of profiling would be taking place.

Whether we like it or not crime prevention/investigation and international security have a basis in profiling. Profiling exists for a reason, it is how one narrows down what is needle and what is hay in the stack. If you know that it is Asian gangs terrorizing a neighbourhood, it saves you time, effort, and resources not to have to investigate whites and blacks.When conducting murder investigations, profiling of one form or another is used all the time in order to narrow down the list of potential suspects. 

It is all too easy to refer to the government's position as racist because there is a factual element of race/religion to the case. But it is not *the* reason for their position, it is about policy/politics (tough on crime - how would bringing Khadr home jive with the the Governments policy), foreign affairs (the Government has let it be know that for the most serious of crimes they will not intervene with democratic free countries judicial decisions), playing nice with our biggest trading partner, believing that Khadr's crime was so serious as to make an example of his case and other factors. It is complex and far from being a simple matter of just being racist.

One may agree or disagree with the Government's position but to simply attribute it to racism is to ignore the layered facts and implications of the case to be able to demonize the Government to support one's own position.

Personally, I feel that Khadr was a child combatant who was brainwashed by the adults around him and he should be brought back to Canada, however I understand why the Government holds the position that it does and it is far from the simplistic notion of it simply being racism.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

screature said:


> Personally, I feel that Khadr was a child combatant who was brainwashed by the adults around him and he should be brought back to Canada, however I understand why the Government holds the position that it does and it is far from the simplistic notion of it simply being racism.


Ok, I get that, but... at some point, Khadr has to be held atleast partially responsible for his actions. I get that the child soldier argument and growing up and living with the family he did, and how they influenced his decisions and actions, and how he can't be treated the same way as others captured. However, with all this said, even at the age of 15, he has atleast some ability to think independently. Given his course of actions, and if returned to Canada, his likely return to his family and the so-called brainwashing, nothing will changes, accept affording another chance to do the same thing.

Overall, I get the argument, but I don't want him returned to canada.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ertman said:


> Ok, I get that, but... at some point, Khadr has to be held atleast partially responsible for his actions. I get that the child soldier argument and growing up and living with the family he did, and how they influenced his decisions and actions, and how he can't be treated the same way as others captured. However, with all this said, even at the age of 15, he has atleast some ability to think independently. Given his course of actions, and if returned to Canada, his likely return to his family and the so-called brainwashing, nothing will changes, accept affording another chance to do the same thing.
> 
> Overall, I get the argument, but I don't want him returned to Canada.


I think he should be held accountable for his actions within their proper context. I think he should be returned to Canada to serve out whatever sentence he receives due to the extenuating circumstances of his case. 

He would need to have limitations placed on the contact with his family or some such; I'm certainly no legal expert on what is possible in that regard.

Even at 15 your ability to think independently is extremely limited depending on the context of your upbringing. 

He has already been made to suffer greatly for his actions. Have you ever seen pictures of the chest wounds that were inflicted on him by the American military? I have, gaping chest wounds that you would swear no one could survive. His years of incarceration at Gitmo would be no cake walk either to say the least.

If not returned to Canada then where when Gitmo closes? Personally, I think his case is a rare one where the extenuating circumstances should be taken into consideration and some compassion be extended.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> Canadians are so ridiculously scared of everything that isn't McDonald's, Chevy Cobalts and American Idol and then lace it in pejorative value. This is simply Orientalism at an apex.


What does this even mean? Lots of people are scared of McDonald's - including a friend of mine who goes there and orders a "Monsanto-Burger and a Chocolate DuPont". People are afraid of Chevy Cobalts, because if they weren't, GM wouldn't be bankrupt. As for American Idol - even Americans are afraid of it.

I do not think that Canadians are "ridiculously scared of everything", because if we were, we would have interned Muslims in camps after 9/11. In fact, nothing has really changed, Muslims are free to worship and engage in their lifestyle, and own property, and operate businesses, and to come and go, just like every other Canadian. We never did have the perverted Bush World View that sought to pin everything on Saddam, but rather, viewed these acts as criminal acts deserving of punishment under the rule of law.

In fact, considering the number of terrorists that abound in the world, Canada has been relatively free of violence, with far more being killed and injured in the various Mafia Wars that go on than any organized terrorism. In fact, Fenians were a bigger threat than Al Qaida will ever be - since if some Al Qaida dude was caught in Canada, he would suffer the worst possible punishment - an infinite number of court dates that set up more court dates, with the prospect of an actual judgment being decades in the future.

Not sure what your definition of Orientalism is. Perhaps Islamophobia is the term you are looking for. But I do not think Canadians have any collective fear of Islam, Arabs or Muslims, so long as they are not going IRA or Unibomber on everything...


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

"He is accused of killing a U.S. soldier during a 2002 battle in Afghanistan when he was 15 years old."
So Americans can kill people in battle but the other side can't kill Americans.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

arminia said:


> "He is accused of killing a U.S. soldier during a 2002 battle in Afghanistan when he was 15 years old."
> So Americans can kill people in battle but the other side can't kill Americans.


I believe he killed a medic which would constitute a war crime for an American soldier as well?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

Apparently Americans have killed their share of civilians. Are any Americans being charged with war crimes?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

arminia said:


> Apparently Americans have killed their share of civilians. Are any Americans being charged with war crimes?


Americans can't be charged with war crimes, unless they charge their own soldiers in their own courts.

The US does not participate in the International War Crimes Tribunal, although from time to time they insist that people from other countries be so charged.

As for Khadr, he certainly was acting like he was in a war, and acting as if he was an adult. But he should have had a trial a long time ago, in Afghanistan by local authorities or in the US according to American law--which has no jurisdiction in Guantanamo.

If he had killed a soldier of any kind in Canada, he might actually be out of jail by now, after having had something like a reasonable trial. There would certainly be no sympathy for someone, 15 or not, who ambushed/defended themselves in the way he did. There are different circumstances in Afghanistan, of course. That doesn't make it right for anyone involved.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

arminia said:


> "He is accused of killing a U.S. soldier during a 2002 battle in Afghanistan when he was 15 years old."
> So Americans can kill people in battle but the other side can't kill Americans.





MacGuiver said:


> I believe he killed a medic which would constitute a war crime for an American soldier as well?


For those who take the time to learn about the case.... the U.S. soldiers who testified as to Khadr's actions made highly contradictory statements - and* no-one saw him throw the grenade.* 



> In February 2008, the Pentagon accidentally released documents that revealed that although Khadr was present during the firefight, there was *no other evidence* that he had thrown the grenade. In fact, military officials had originally reported that another of the surviving militants had thrown the grenade just before being killed. (Source: Michael Melia (March 13, 2008). "Lawyer: Khadr report altered". Toronto Star, cited in Wikipedia article)


So there is doubt as to what he actually did. Certainly he was there, and was with the "enemy", but we return again to the essential point: *this was a child* involved in a situation orchestrated by his father.

From the website Bring Omar Khadr back to Canada 



> BACKGROUND
> 
> Omar Ahmed Khadr is a Canadian citizen, born on 19 September, 1986 in Ottawa Ontario. On July 27, 2002, at the age of 15, he was captured by American forces during a four-hour firefight with militants in the village of Ayub Khey, Afghanistan . Now 21 years of age, Omar has been in U.S. custody, ever since his capture six years ago.
> 
> ...



We've been over this extensively in other threads.

The point of* this* thread is to comment on the position of the Harper regime, which is telling the Canadian courts that Ottawa is not bound by law to protect Canadian citizens... a position which I personally find disgraceful.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

When the dust cleared, OC-1 saw Khadr crouched on his knees facing away from the action and wounded by shrapnel that had just permanently blinded his left eye,[33] and shot him twice in the back.[32]
OC-1 estimated that all the events since entering the wall had taken less than a minute up until this point, and that he had been the only American to fire his weapon, although an American grenade had also been thrown into the living quarters after initially entering the complex.[32]
Silver initially claimed that two Delta Force troops had opened fire, shooting all three of the shots into Khadr's chest, after the youth was seen to be holding a pistol and facing the troops.[25][33] These claims all directly contradict OC-1's version of events as the only eyewitness. OC-1 did agree however, that something was lying in the dust near Khadr's end of the alley, although he couldn't remember if it were a pistol or grenade.[32]


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

"Ten minutes later, DUSTOFF 36 and Wings 11, a pair of UH-60s, were deployed as well as AH-64 Apaches Widowmaker 23 and Widowmaker 26 as escort. Arriving at the scene, the Apaches strafed the compound with cannon and rocket fire, while the medical helicopters remained 12 miles (19 km) from the ongoing firefight.[29] The helicopters finally landed at 1028 to load the wounded aboard DUSTOFF 36, while Brian Basham switched helicopters to take a wounded prisoner aboard WINGS 11, leaving Cpt. Michael Stone, CWO Ezekial Coffman, Spc. Jose Peru and Sgt. Frank Caudill aboard DUSTOFF 36,[42] as a pair of F-18 Hornets dropped Mark 82 bombs on the houses.[25][29]
At this point,[32] a five-vehicle convoy of ground reinforcements arrived including a rifle squad from the 82nd Airborne, bringing the number of troops to approximately a hundred." 
F-18 Hornets,cannon and rocket fire and 100 troops to fight 4 adults and a 15 year old.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Typical of Americans - you know, the land of the military that has $5,000 toilet seats. The US spends more money on the military than all other nations combined, but has the worst ratio when it comes to cost put out per kill. I bet they spend $20-30 Million per kill, I think you could hire some Mafia to kill far more people for that kind of cash...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> *Ottawa must seek Khadr's return, court rules*
> 
> *Federal Court of Appeal upholds ruling ordering government to ask that Khadr be sent home from U.S. military prison*
> 
> ...


via Globe & Mail


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Too bad they can't have a noose ready for his "return"...


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

Khadr and his wonderful family should be given free one-way tickets to whatever third-world armpit spawned them. You'd think that they would greet this news with joy, since they obviously hate North America so much.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Clinton went to North Korea to help those two journalists get home. Think Mulroney or Cretchien would ever do anything like that for you and me? Not a chance.


ISTR that Canada *did* send some people down to assist Brenda Martin, but that this was only after a) general shame and public pressure and b) seemed very half-hearted to me.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

If he's so homesick we should ship the rest of his family down to keep him company.

Laterz


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Agreed. There are some true colours showing through here that are anything but pretty...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Nice to see so many in favor of child imprisonment on questionable charges and other abuse.


I don't think it was the case at all. He participated in an act of murder, since he was not a soldier and was not in an army, but rather, allied himself with other terrorists.

The real question is not of Khadr himself, but why has the Government done nothing when it comes to charging the parents for child abuse, since it is the parents that shipped him off to join the Taliban - the same parents that use the CBC to spout off their hatreds of various institutions that we have, like freedom, liberty, women's rights, and the like - all of which they abhor. It is by their very actions that they repuduated any sense of humanity, decency and common sense, and sent their child off to fight in some senseless war for a group of terrorists that believe that women should be degraded and raped at will, that they should be subject to honour killings and turtures at the whim of their husbands - who own them, and that musicians and artisans should be slain as idolators.

It's time to get to the grist of the problem, and it is the parents that should serve some hard time for their criminal acts and the abuse heaped upon their child, and then they can be deported to their Taliban-paradise, where I am sure the mother will last two days in that environment...


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## markceltic (Jun 4, 2005)

Wikipedia,when one starts quoting that thing of which ANYONE can edit, I think I'll pass.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> After the shooting was over, they found him,


Where did they find him, in his backyard in Canada playing, or at school in Canada? No - he was in a war zone in Afghanistan as a part of the Taliban, and hence, is fair game, as an active participant in the war.

The other point is, did he "runaway" to join the Taliban circus freaks, or did his parents ship him there? This is important because if the parents sent him there, then they are guilty of child abuse.



> a war for (*&%^&^*% sake. If a soldier was shooting at me and I had a grenade at hand I know I would have thrown it at them. So if he did anything maybe it was self defense?


Maybe if he had just stayed at home, that is, Canada, and went to school and studied, you know, like all of the other kids - then this wouldn't be an issue. The only thing that saved him was the effete manners of the modern soldier; because if this was areal war fought by real men, he would have had a bullet inserted into his head, just like all of the Hitler Youth that ended up the same way.



> t recall any of them ever saying anything against Canada or Canadian people:


They were ripe when interviewed on the CBC - they basically want a fundamentalist Taliban state in Canada, where women have no rights...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Evan, for *****'s sake, *he was a child!* He was 14 years old when his father brought him into that world, and that conflict. He did not "run away to join" the Taliban. What 14-year old do you know who can "run away" half-way 'round the world and somehow find himself amongst the terrorists? _Please!_

*He was a child. He was not "fair game".*

If you bother to inform yourself about his life, you will see that he was a good student, enjoyed many aspects of Canadian life, but was taken by his family to live and continue studies in Pakistan. The circumstances of their Canadian citizenship, etc., are irrelevant. This child was obviously a good son to his parents, and followed their teachings and guidance, leading to a terribly result. 

The only thing that matters here is that this boy was a minor, was accused with scant and suspicious evidence of a crime, and has spent years locked up in an illegal prison in violation of every written law in existence and common human decency.

That the posters in this thread continue to post, essentially, that he deserves what he got, is pretty damn disgusting.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

cubamark said:


> that the posters in this thread continue to post, essentially, that he deserves what he got, is pretty damn disgusting.


+1.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

in one...


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> If you bother to inform yourself about his life, you will see that he was a good student, enjoyed many aspects of Canadian life, but was taken by his family to live and continue studies in Pakistan. The circumstances of their Canadian citizenship, etc., are irrelevant. This child was obviously a good son to his parents, and followed their teachings and guidance, leading to a terribly result.


And I thought that was entirely my point! What I was saying is that if he had "run away" - and yes, kids do run away to do things, and not just fake running away around the corner, but fleeing entirely to somewhere else - then he deserved what he got. And if he didn't run away - then he was sent there by his parents, so why has our system completely failed to punish the parents who forced him to join the Taliban? Our system regularly removes children from unfit parents, so why was the failure so collosal this time?



> The only thing that matters here is that this boy was a minor, was accused with scant and suspicious evidence of a crime, and has spent years locked up in an illegal prison in violation of every written law in existence and common human decency.


He needs to accomplish no crime, since his crime was entirely about having joined and consorted with the Taliban, and who entered into a war zone as a soldier of that outlawed organization. He deserves a punishment much greater than that of being able to live a life of ease and luxury in the tropics; and so do his disgusting parents.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

EvanPitts said:


> ...his crime was entirely about having joined and consorted with the Taliban, and who entered into a war zone as a soldier of that outlawed organization. He deserves a punishment much greater than that of being able to live a life of ease and luxury in the tropics; and so do his disgusting parents.


Again, for the (purposefully, apparently) misinformed, _Khadr's father is dead_ - killed by the Pakistani army in October 2003.

Second, to help clarify things:

*Al-Qaeda Terrorist:*









*Child*


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

...and it gets worse. The Conservatives seem determined to make Canada even more ineffectual on the world stage...



> There's a change in language taking place in documents and correspondence put out by Canada's foreign service.
> 
> Though it may be imperceptible to some, political hounds have noticed an unsettling transformation in language underway since the minority Conservatives took power in 2006.
> 
> ...


Taking humanitarian out of international law, changing the words


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
I don't see how changing words will make any difference, since this country is reluctant to try and punish anyone for any crimes, and has long been soft on such things as Nazi war criminals, or criminals from Somalia, Sri Lanka, and other nations, of which Canada is a safe haven.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Obviously none of you have been in a war zone neither have I but my dad was in the jungles of Angola back in the late 60's and a AK47 is deadly whether it's being handled by a 15 or 30 year old, my dad has never told me how many people he killed but he has told me that there were allot of UNITA units that were mainly kids and he had orders to shoot to kill no matter who was holding the gun. Matter of fact is the Kid was caught in a firefight where an American was killed he should not be let go until he can prove his innocence, and what is left of his family over here in Canada shooting off they're big mouths and supporting the Taliban is not helping his cause.

Laterz


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

'Tis a sad case all round, but there is more to this than a kid thrust into a war zone. The Canadian government is acting on information that no one in this thread has access to, nor understands.

Perhaps there is good reason for them not wanting him back in Canada?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

K_OS, your complete and total ignorance of this case is showing. 

You also seem not to understand the concept of "child soldier" - at least one treaty to which Canada is a signatory to protect these very children.

Read through this thread from the beginning, and then maybe we can talk.

M


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

K_OS said:


> Obviously none of you have been in a war zone neither have I but my dad was in the jungles of Angola back in the late 60's and a AK47 is deadly whether it's being handled by a 15 or 30 year old, my dad has never told me how many people he killed but he has told me that there were allot of UNITA units that were mainly kids and he had orders to shoot to kill no matter who was holding the gun. Matter of fact is the Kid was caught in a firefight where an American was killed he should not be let go until he can prove his innocence, and what is left of his family over here in Canada shooting off they're big mouths and supporting the Taliban is not helping his cause.


+1

The family mouthing off and expressing their contempt and hatred of Canada and Canadian society certainly undermines any kind of case. The fact is that the family shipped this kid over to put him into a Taliban run madrasas, from which he became a criminal by joining the Taliban, then becoming a criminal when he chucked a grenade at a medic. That family needs some real psychologcal help...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> *CBC News Alerts *
> 
> _Tuesday, December 15, 2009_
> 
> ...


So Obama is finally making good on his pledge to shut down Guantánamo, eh? Now if he'd only vacate the premises completely and return the Bay to Cuba...


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> So Obama is finally making good on his pledge to shut down Guantánamo, eh? Now if he'd only vacate the premises completely and return the Bay to Cuba...


Why stop there, Why not give the whole Caribbean back to the Carib Indians.

But then it might be too late, They are almost all gone now, Except in a few small pockets.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*George W. Bush 'knew Guantánamo prisoners were innocent'*





> George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld covered up that hundreds of innocent men were sent to the Guantánamo Bay prison camp because they feared that releasing them would harm the push for war in Iraq and the broader War on Terror, according to a new document obtained by The Times.
> 
> The accusations were made by Lawrence Wilkerson, a top aide to Colin Powell, the former Republican Secretary of State, in a signed declaration to support a lawsuit filed by a Guantánamo detainee. It is the first time that such allegations have been made by a senior member of the Bush Administration.
> 
> Colonel Wilkerson, who was General Powell’s chief of staff when he ran the State Department, was most critical of Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld. He claimed that the former Vice-President and Defence Secretary knew that the majority of the initial 742 detainees sent to Guantánamo in 2002 were innocent but believed that it was “politically impossible to release them”.


(TimesOnline)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I guess it will be decided in court. Right now it's just the statement of one man with a potential bone to pick,


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I guess it will be decided in court. Right now it's just the statement of one man with a potential bone to pick,


Yep, there has to be some documents or written evidence linked back to these bastards.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... I believe he killed a medic which would constitute a war crime for an American soldier as well? ..."

Holding fire for medical staff, evacuation of wounded, etc is a courtesy, that is _sometimes_ offered by the enemy (any side, including "ours"). However, there is nothing in international law, treaties or conventions of war, etc that says you cannot shoot at those nice, big, white crosses (or, as medivac helicopter pilots refer to them as, "targets"), and medical personnel or medivac units are routinely under fire in warfare. It most certainly doesn't come even close to a war crime, in any man's army or any international court, such that they exist.

None of this is to be confused with what is proper or legal when it's civilians and not military personnel (regular or irregular) that are involved, but as far as military personnel go (even if they are medics, or civilians helping military personnel) it's pretty much surrender or get fired upon, unless we feel charitable today.

It's neither more nor less serious as far as his allegedly shooting a medic versus other military personnel goes, although certainly the prosecuting side would not hide that aspect from their claims against him, since it's bound to be seen as more heinous in the minds of ordinary citizens whose support the prosecution is courting.

By the way, there is a well established tactical and strategic advantage to allowing the enemy to collect their wounded, provided the outcome of the battle is not in jeopardy or is still unknown, and it's been known for thousands of years, but is more important in 20th and 21st century battles because we can save so many wounded today versus previous eras.

A dead soldier costs the enemy nothing in resources; a wounded soldier is costly and weakens the enemy's ability to sustain his war effort.

People who are engaged in caring for wounded cannot be engaged in delivering food, fuel, manufacturing material, other civilian or military roles (whether combat or logistic), or otherwise sustaining the war effort.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Anyone following the Khadr "trial" at Gitmo?

Hard to do if you exclusively read the Toronto Star...

*Toronto Star barred from Gitmo*


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*UNICEF chief condemns trial of Guantanamo Bay detainee*



> UNICEF chief Anthony Lake warned Thursday that the prosecution of a young Canadian Guantanamo Bay detainee could set a “dangerous international precedent” for children forced into armed conflicts.
> 
> “The recruitment and use of children in hostilities is a war crime, and those who are responsible — the adult recruiters — should be prosecuted,” said Lake in a statement.
> 
> ...


(Daily Times)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

:yawn: Sorry, but this whole thing has just gone on too long and is no longer of any interest to most people.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> :yawn: Sorry, but this whole thing has just gone on too long and is no longer of any interest to most people.


SINC, you and I have our differences, but I generally respect your opinion. You are clearly a man of some integrity and principle. But I have to say this response seriously erodes my respect for you. Care to reconsider?

The position that children should not be recruited as soldiers is almost trivially easy to defend from ethical and historical perspectives, but has been a common theme throughout human history. How can you suggest that such an archetypical war-crime is "no longer of any interest"?!? If ever the heart of a journalist - seeking to bring the story of injustice from whatever corner of the world to the common man - beat within your chest, you should be outraged at the coverage of the trial of a child-soldier, regardless of the ideological support for either side.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The story is so long and drawn out and over exposed that I am simply stating that public opinion is waning on this issue. It has nothing to do with what I think bryanc. As I stated, and sadly so, most people are just tired of hearing it and wish it would go away. At no point did I say I agree with that, I simply see it happening before my very eyes. Are you seeing the public reaction differently? If so, please elaborate. I'm all ears.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

It's interesting how we infantilize our young adults the longer we ourselves continue to live. This would make a great study.

When us humans averaged a life span of a mere 40-50 years, it wasn't uncommon to have young adults Khadr's age already be married with children and work in a trade or be in the military.

But today, a 15yr old is a baby barely out of diapers. LOL

How many 16 and 17 year olds lied about their age and volunteered to fight in WWII? Quite a number.

Today;s 15 year olds are a lot smarter and more informed than we'd like to think.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

kps, excellent post. Couldn't agree more on your point about infantilism.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

SINC said:


> The story is so long and drawn out and over exposed that I am simply stating that public opinion is waning on this issue.


True -- but that's a rather sad commentary on the public that they can't follow an issue -- any issue -- if it "takes too long."

I wonder what Nelson Mandela would make of that.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Max said:


> kps, excellent post. Couldn't agree more on your point about infantilism.


When I hear this crap, I always think of Michelangelo's amassing _Pieta_ done at the tender age of 24. I wish I was as talented and dedicated at that age, instead of chasing women, drinking and.....


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> It has nothing to do with what I think bryanc. As I stated, and sadly so, most people are just tired of hearing it and wish it would go away. At no point did I say I agree with that


Sorry, I misinterpreted your (correct) observation with agreement on your part (the :yawn: emoticon led me to think this was your opinion). But don't you agree that the fact that the legal strategy of "drag it out in court so long the public tires of it and it becomes a non-issue" is so successful is a major problem, and one that the Fourth Estate should be helping combat?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc, without question, the legal process is a master at dragging out cases to the nth degree. It should be brought to closure sooner than later, but I doubt any pressure brought to bear by the press will have the desired effect. It will require the will of the government to produce any resolution.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Latest news on the Omar Khadr case....*



> Alleged ex-teen terrorist Omar Khadr on Monday denounced his coming war-crimes trial as a sham, saying he'd been offered a secret plea deal for release after five years. Instead, he said, he would act as his own attorney at trial and offer no defense.
> ``I'm representing myself and I'm boycotting,'' said Khadr, 23, who has grown from an adolescent captured nearly dead in Afghanistan into manhood in U.S. military custody.
> (....)
> "[He has] spurned U.S. government offers of a secret plea deal that would have him admit to war crimes in exchange for a 30-year sentence of which he would serve only five. Khadr said he rebuffed the deal because pleading guilty would ``give an excuse to the government for torturing me and abusing me as a child.'"
> ...


(Miami Herald)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*...and the Harper government continues to try to get out of its obligations to a Canadian citizen...*

*Khadr lawyer likely to seek contempt ruling against Ottawa*



> Omar Khadr’s lawyer was poised to seek a contempt-of-court ruling against the federal government for failing to meet a deadline Monday to produce remedies for violations of the accused terrorist’s rights.
> 
> Lawyer Nathan Whitling made the comment after Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced the government is heading to the Federal Court of Appeal to seek a stay, and to appeal Justice Russel Zinn’s order to produce a list of remedies by Monday for violations of Khadr’s charter rights found by the Supreme Court of Canada six months ago.
> (....)
> ...


(National Post)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Apart from all of the other things seriously wrong with Khadr's continued imprisonment, sketchy evidence and lack of respect for international conventions on child soldiers, does anyone seriously expect him to get a fair trial when the jury is a bunch of U.S. military officers? Really?*

*U.S. vs. Omar Khadr: Gitmo trial set to start*



> The first war-crimes trial of the Obama administration is slated to start this week as Canada's Omar Khadr fights a desperate battle to stave off a possible life behind bars.
> 
> Just 15 when taken into custody for the crimes of which he stands accused, the now 23-year-old Khadr finds himself in the cross-hairs of the American War on Terror.
> 
> The start of the trial itself with the seating of a jury comprising military officers may still be days away.


(MetroNews)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Khadr Lawyer Collapses as Historic War Crimes Trial Gets Underway*



> To hold a young teenager responsible for the actions his father ordered him to do seems even more bizarre. In a video the government played today in court, a young Omar Khadr, looking pre-pubescent without any facial hair, is seen laughing and sitting among two adult men, who appear to be making explosives. Omar Khadr may have been helping them, though his role is unclear from the video. But is the child in the video really the face that President Obama wants to present as the first war criminal he tries in his "war on terror"?
> 
> After the first day of testimony for the government, I'm left wondering who really is the criminal here. Sargeant Major D described how he entered the compound, armed with an N-4 and a Glock-9mm. The compound had just been shot up by U.S. Apache helicopters and bombarded by two 500-pound bombs. After sensing a grenade and small arms fire coming from an alleyway, Major D ran to the alley and shot a man with an AK-47 and a grenade in the head and killed him. *Omar Khadr, however, was seated on the ground, unarmed, in a dust-covered light-blue tunic, his back to the Major D. Khadr was not holding or aiming a gun at the Sargeant, or threatening him in any way. Yet Sargeant Major D shot him twice in the back.* He then walked over and thumped him in the eye, to see if he was still alive. Surprisingly, he was.
> 
> ...


(Full story at the Huffington Post)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

An interesting - and juridically regrettable - outcome. Omar Khadr pleaded guilty to five counts, avoiding a trial, and fast-tracking the possibility of coming to Canada (unless Harper finds a way to weasel out of it).



> Khadr's Canadian lawyer, Dennis Edney, said Khadr will serve no more than eight years in prison as part of the plea deal and then be subject to parole board conditions upon his release.
> 
> Edney, in a phone interview with the CBC from Guantanamo Bay, labelled the plea deal "a piece of paper" and said his client "would have confessed to anything, including the killing of John F. Kennedy, just to get out of this hellhole."
> 
> ...




(CBC)


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

He was never going to get a fair trial. the sad thing is when he eventually gets out he'll most likely be an absolute ball of rage.

And you couldn't blame him with how he was treated.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> He was never going to get a fair trial. the sad thing is when he eventually gets out he'll most likely be an absolute ball of rage.
> 
> And you couldn't blame him with how he was treated.


Maybe he should have thought about what the consequences might be when he was making IEDs. 

When I was 15 I knew the difference between right and wrong and that blowin' up people wasn't going to lead me to a bed of roses. I fought with my Dad over plenty less than being convinced it was a good idea to kill people... even though he was a "child" soldier he was far from innocent and a "babe in the woods" the way you and others keep trying to portray him.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

i-rui said:


> He was never going to get a fair trial. the sad thing is when he eventually gets out he'll most likely be an absolute ball of rage.
> 
> And you couldn't blame him with how he was treated.


Fair trial? He's a terrorist, and a confessed murderer. There was never any question whatsoever as to his guilt. A fair trial would be him getting shot when he was captured. That he even GOT a trial is proof that his supporters are lunatics.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

bsenka said:


> A fair trial would be him getting shot when he was captured.


He was shot when he was captured. Twice. In the back. A child.

...continue to be amazed at the mentality of some people...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> When I was 15 I knew the difference between right and wrong and that blowin' up people wasn't going to lead me to a bed of roses. I fought with my Dad over plenty less than being convinced it was a good idea to kill people... even though he was a "child" soldier he was far from innocent and a "babe in the woods" the way you and others keep trying to portray him.


yes when he was in Afghanistan he should have just jumped on the greyhound back to Toronto, because it would have been that simple.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

CubaMark said:


> He was shot when he was captured. Twice. In the back. A child.
> 
> ...continue to be amazed at the mentality of some people...


A criminal. A terrorist. A murderer.

...continue to be amazed at the mentality of some people...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

bsenka said:


> A criminal. A terrorist. A murderer.


That's a real narrow world view.

how do you think many civilians in Afghanistan view US soldiers? Probably just like that.

I'm not even going to argue that point because it isn't black and white, but what IS black and white is the law, and that every civilized country views minors who commit crime as different than adults. Every civilized country also recognizes individual rights, and that you can't torture a confession out of someone.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

i-rui said:


> ...that every civilized country views minors who commit crime as different than adults.


There's a huge difference between a child who doesn't know the consequences of their actions, and a teenager who knowingly attacks another. If he'd killed someone in the US or Canada, he'd almost certainly be tried and sentenced as an adult.

Let him rot in Gitmo.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

i-rui said:


> That's a real narrow world view.
> 
> how do you think many civilians in Afghanistan view US soldiers? Probably just like that.
> 
> I'm not even going to argue that point because it isn't black and white, but what IS black and white is the law, and that every civilized country views minors who commit crime as different than adults. Every civilized country also recognizes individual rights, and that you can't torture a confession out of someone.


He's a Canadian citizen whose family are known Al Qaeda operatives. He went over there specifically to engage in terrorism, to fight AGAINST the country that he and his supporters are saying is his home. He should be executed, and the rest of his family should be deported.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

bsenka said:


> He's a Canadian citizen... He should be executed, and the rest of his family should be deported.


Lovely. I admire your respect for due process, a fair trial (rather than military tribunals) and the presumption of innocence. A shining beacon of fairness and open-mindedness you are.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

bryanc said:


> Lovely. I admire your respect for due process, a fair trial (rather than military tribunals) and the presumption of innocence. A shining beacon of fairness and open-mindedness you are.


He confessed.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

bsenka said:


> He confessed.


under torture


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

bryanc said:


> under torture


He plead guilty in court.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

John Clay said:


> If he'd killed someone in the US or Canada, he'd almost certainly be tried and sentenced as an adult.


I'm pretty sure the youngest someone who can be tried as an adult for violent crime in Canada is 16. Even then no way they'd ever do as much time as Khadr has, and the prison would be paradise compared to where he's spent his time.



bsenka said:


> He plead guilty in court.


read the quote from his lawyer :



> Edney, in a phone interview with the CBC from Guantanamo Bay, labelled the plea deal "a piece of paper" and said his client "would have confessed to anything, including the killing of John F. Kennedy, just to get out of this hellhole."
> 
> "Had Omar refused, then he was faced with an unfair trial based on evidence that would be inadmissible in a real court and the potential of life in prison in Guantanamo Bay," Edney said.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

John Clay said:


> If he'd killed someone in the US or Canada, he'd almost certainly be tried and sentenced as an adult.


I'm not defending the guy, and I don't know enough to feel like I want to see him running loose in the streets, but there's a world of difference between chucking a grenade at some soldiers in combat, and killing a fellow citizen in the peaceful conditions we enjoy.

locking a 15-year-old combatant up for 'war crimes' makes about as much sense as our failure to lock up Bush and Cheney for their obvious and well-documented crimes against humanity in starting this.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

bryanc said:


> locking a 15-year-old combatant up for 'war crimes' makes about as much sense as our failure to lock up Bush and Cheney for their obvious and well-documented crimes against humanity in starting this.


I'm sure he was a just a good kid:


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I'm not defending the guy, and I don't know enough to feel like I want to see him running loose in the streets, but there's a world of difference between chucking a grenade at some soldiers in combat, and killing a fellow citizen in the peaceful conditions we enjoy.
> 
> locking a 15-year-old combatant up for 'war crimes' makes about as much sense as our failure to lock up Bush and Cheney for their obvious and well-documented crimes against humanity in starting this.


If he really tossed the grenade. The only proof is a confession obtained after years of torture in Gitmo and the promise of more of the same if he did not plead guilty.

That said he was a Canadian citizen fighting against Canadian forces. While I am reasonably sure the murder charge would have been tossed as bogus in any real US or Canadian court, I do wonder if a charge of treason would be appropriate upon his return to Canada.

And yes the entire Bush admin should be locked up for war crimes in the Middle East. BOs failure to put an end to them should land him and his cronies in the same cell.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Roméo Dallaire rages against Canada*





> ...the case of Omar Khadr, the Toronto-born man convicted of war crimes, reached its controversial conclusion at a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Formerly recognized as a child soldier – he was 15 when captured in Afghanistan in 2002 after throwing a grenade that fatally wounded a U.S. soldier – Mr. Khadr pleaded guilty to all charges as part of a plea bargain with U.S. prosecutors and received a sentence of 40 years in prison, of which he will serve only eight.
> 
> “It’s going dead against the [Geneva] Conventions we have agreed to, the conventions that call for child soldiers to be handled differently and that those who use child soldiers to be seen as conducting crimes against humanity. We have pushed that internationally. We’ve been tested with one of our own, and we have failed flagrantly,” Mr. Dallaire says, shaking with anger.


(Globe & Mail)


----------

