A ridiculous end to a ridiculous "trial"

[Hamlet]

@snowboarder bo

so let me get this straight: If an invading force from belligerencia airdrops into las vegas, and i kill one of them, i’m guilty of murder?

Wolverinesssssssss!!!

[elucidator]

@Monty

Catch me up here. What mercenary soldiers are you referring to?

…In the early morning of July 27, 2002, a team composed of 19th Special Forces Group, the 505th Infantry Regiment and a “militia”, composed of approximately twenty Afghan fighters loyal to mercenary warlord Pacha Khan Zadran and led by Zadran’s brother Kamal…

Reinforcements from the 3rd Platoon of Bravo Company, 1st Battalion 505th Infantry Regiment arrived under the command of Captain Christopher W. Cirino, bringing the total number of Americans and Afghan militia to about fifty. Two of Zadran’s militiamen were sent into the compound to speak with the inhabitants…

And so forth.

(Omar Khadr - Wikipedia, as referenced by the OP)

[Kinthalis]

That’s another thing, this is beyond whether or not it’s murder to attack an occupying force (and it isn’t IMHO), he was BEING ATTACKED. He seriously has no right to defend himself?? Is that what some of you are saying?

[Hamlet]

@elucidator

Cute.

You should see my dimples. Shirley Temple woulda killed for them.

@elucidator

Not all that abstract, your mom may have mentioned it when your were knee-high. That you cannot condemn others for failing to follow rules that you, yourself, play fast and loose with. Nor can you use the failure of others to follow said rules to toss them aside. The rules are the rules, or they are not.

My mom also taught me that someone else breaking the rules doesn’t mean they don’t apply.

@elucidator

Suppose we had evidence that he threw his grenade at the mercenary soldiers?

I’m not going to do this. I have absolutely no problem if you think that there isn’t a factual basis for the charge. That’s just fine and dandy. The testimony of the military, the confession, the videotape, and the guilty plea are all enough to satisfy me that there is a factual basis for the charges. If you want to point out contradictions in the testimony, speculate as to Khadr’s motive, or even raise potential issues, by all means have at it.

[Mapache]

@Kinthalis

The whole uniform BS is yet another highly polished turd.

What the hell do uniforms matter? Did the Iraqis trying to surrender get to see the uniforms of the US soldiers who shot them from a few miles away in their helicopter gunship?

Do predator drones have “uniforms”?

What happens if s US base gets attacked and some soldier’s don’t have time to put on a uniform and go out to fight in their plaid shorts? Can they be treated as “Enemy combatants”?

Does anyone know or have an opinion on what should happen to Delta operators, who often wear civilian clothes when on missions? (http://www.eteamz.com/Deltaforcenjwrestling/)

[elucidator]

@Hamlet

…My mom also taught me that someone else breaking the rules doesn’t mean they don’t apply…

Was that by way of contradiction, or was it an “amen!”?

…I’m not going to do this. I have absolutely no problem if you think that there isn’t a factual basis for the charge. That’s just fine and dandy. The testimony of the military, the confession, the videotape, and the guilty plea are all enough to satisfy me that there is a factual basis for the charges. If you want to point out contradictions in the testimony, speculate as to Khadr’s motive, or even raise potential issues, by all means have at it.

By “factual basis” do you mean that there is reason enough to consider that the charges may be true, or that the charges have been proved? The latter conclusion requires more leaps of faith than the Holy Kangaroo of Antioch.

But rest assured, I will, by all means, have at it. I am, of course, grateful for your generosity and forbearance.

[Hamlet]

@elucidator

Was that by way of contradiction, or was it an “amen!”?

I’m not sure myself. To make myself clearer, I do no think the fact that the US has, on occasion, violated the Geneva Conventions means that they should not still be considered the law. Or, at the very least, a good starting point for discussions about these issues.

@luci

By “factual basis” do you mean that there is reason enough to consider that the charges may be true, or that the charges have been proved? The latter conclusion requires more leaps of faith than the Holy Kangaroo of Antioch.

To use an example in our system, if someone wants to plead guilty to a charge, the judge has to find that there is a “factual basis” for the charge. Not that it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, or that, if it went to trial that it would be proven, but rather that there are enough facts presented to justify the charge. I think there is clearly a factual basis for the charges against Khadr. But not having been there, not having seen or heard the testimony or actually followed it closely all that much in truth, I couldn’t say it’s been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to me.

@luci

But rest assured, I will, by all means, have at it. I am, of course, grateful for your generosity and forbearance.

You are welcome my friend. If you need any other help, just let me know. I’m here for you.

[elucidator]

I haven’t the slightest doubt of that, and am always assured and heartened to have you standing beside me. Rather than behind me.

[Hamlet]

@elucidator

I haven’t the slightest doubt of that, and am always assured and heartened to have you standing beside me. Rather than behind me.

The coyote whistles, constantly “dropped” pencils, and requests to bend over and get them convinced me it would be for the best to not stand in front of you.

[Kobal2]

@Captain_Amazing

So your theory is that anyone, even a private citizen, from anywhere in the world, has the right to go to any country being invaded and fight the invaders,[…]

Sure, why not ? If you feel strongly enough for a war anywhere in the world to fly in and join the party, what difference is there between you and the locals ? The invader doesn’t get to say who’ll get to shoot at him :p.
And it’s not like this war is exceptional in that respect. During WW2, Brits and Irish civilians cozied up with the French & Dutch resistance movements, Russian partisans attacked the Germans even outside of Russia, etc… During the Spanish Civil War (which wasn’t even an invasion !), civilians from all over Europe flew in to fight Franco, in poetic but utterly disorganized fashion. They didn’t wear uniforms, either.

You may disagree or revile that kid’s cause or the reasons he did what he did, but I don’t think the principle itself is that abhorrent, or unusual.

… and escape any sort of prosecution by the invaders if he’s captured?

Any sort ? No. But they should be prosecuted just the same as any captured soldier, which I believe means at worst we get to keep them captive (with decent food, sanitation and comfort standards, no torture and no humiliation) until the war’s over, and not a day more. We don’t want our soldiers to be tried for murder, so we don’t pin it on theirs. We don’t want our soldiers tortured, so we don’t torture theirs. Seems sensible enough to me.

You may argue that Al Qaeda doesn’t follow the same rules, but that’s besides the point. We have promised to follow them. Signed and everything. Those are our rules, and they are good rules. Us abiding by these rules has zero negative impact on military goals, or the war in general. Us not following the rules has multiple negative impacts, chief among which are: bolstering the enemy’s numbers and resolve, eroding our ethical pedestal, and providing *them *with the excuse that “Westerners don’t follow the rules either, so why should we ?”.

[Uzi]

@elucidator

Please, please tell me that you’re not going down this road. That those who question or protest our government’s actions are traitors and working for the enemy.

Omar is a Canadian. Is he a traitor to Canada?
C 46, part C in particular
Seems like he is. So, when the hell are we going to charge him for it?

[elucidator]

We? You have a mouse in your pocket, eating back bacon and swilling bad beer?

[Kobal2]

We are royalty, peasant.

[Hamlet]

@Kobal2

… But they should be prosecuted just the same as any captured soldier, which I believe means at worst we get to keep them captive (with decent food, sanitation and comfort standards, no torture and no humiliation) until the war’s over, and not a day more. We don’t want our soldiers to be tried for murder, so we don’t pin it on theirs. We don’t want our soldiers tortured, so we don’t torture theirs. Seems sensible enough to me.

Here’s my problem. The “war” we’re in won’t end for what? a decade? two decades? Ever? And there is no central command hierarchy or government to turn the soldier back over after the cessation of hostilities to assure the prisoner won’t return to the “battlefield”. With that in mind, it seems your argument could be used to argue for the power to detain someone well, basically forever.

I’m not too comfortable with that. Which is why I would rather have a military tribunal to actually try these cases than letting people sit and rot in Guantanamo forever. I know it’s not how we treat POWs, but, to my mind, it’s better to give them some kind of due process than keep them locked up forever.

[Uzi]

We, as in those of us who live in Canada: his ‘fellow’ Canadians. Who would you think I meant? Please, I know it is tough, but try to pay attention.

[Mapache]

Since nobody answered, I’ll ask again: what about Deltas and Seals and whatever other snake eaters I don´t know about, who often go on missions in civilian clothes (or wet suits, with no identification)? Are they considered ¨unlawful combatants¨ and do they deserved to be prosecuted for murder if they kill someone?

[elucidator]

I hadn’t noticed your location was Canada. My apologies and heartfelt condolences.

[straight_man]

@Hamlet

You may it seem like Al Qaeda and the Taliban are poor put upon little groups that want to play by the Rules, but they’re excluded. That’s simply not true. If they want the protections of the Rules, they have to play by the Rules. I know it’s not at all a nice, touchy feely kumbaya moment, but it’s reality.

The very reason that there exists a status POW is to try and bring more rules to war. POW wasn’t the default position, it was a step forward to try and protect soldiers and armies who complied with the rules. And the reason POW’s were given extra protections was because there was a centralized command structure that would be responsible for the actions of the soldiers and they would obey the rules.

With Al Qaeda and the Taliban, we dont’ have that.

I completely agree with you that the Geneva Conventions and the rest of the rules are poor fits for the current war against terrorism. The question is what to do with them instead.

The solution, to me, isn’t to simply detain them until the end of hostilities. Nor is it to summarily execute them. Nor is it release them if they promise to not do it again. Something must be done.

Military tribunals and trials that accord with due process are a solution I support. It’s by no means perfect, and requires a great deal of foresight and fairness. But it’s better than the other options.

@Hamlet

So the issue, to me, becomes whether we should be allowed to detain them forever. I’m not a fan of that outcome, so I find the idea of military tribunals (always assuming they are afforded due process) to be much more palatable.

In principle, I would at least be sympathetic to your argument —military tribunals could be much better than locking people up and throwing away the key. You should note, though, that the other people in this thread are challenging (and with good reason!) one of your premises: that due process was followed. It plainly wasn’t — and the most important difference between the military tribunal and civilian court has not been the protection of military secrets, but the willful overlooking of his treatment and the circumstances of his confession.

That said, I think there is the deeper question of what gives the United States the right to effectively expand its jurisdiction to another country. In a war, fighting is considered acceptable as the act of a soldier; in an insurgency, the target of the insurgency might simply treat rebellion as a crime. But this was neither, really —or at the very least, the United States was not the target of the insurgency — so it reduces the law to a weapon of the victor over the vanquished. Add to that the hypocrisy of the whole thing —surely waterboarding is a more detestable crime than not wearing a uniform? For that matter, what about American allies and Delta Force being out of uniform? —and the whole case is just gross. Worse still, none of this was necessary; had the US repatriated Khadr to Canada immediately, he could have been tried for treason by a country that clearly had jurisdiction, he would have probably been treated properly, and he would almost certainly be out on parole today. Problem solved.

@Uzi

We, as in those of us who live in Canada: his ‘fellow’ Canadians. Who would you think I meant? Please, I know it is tough, but try to pay attention.

The proper answer to your question is, “We probably would have charged him, given the chance, but it would be pointless, now that he has been detained and abused for eight years and denied Charter-demanded help by his own government.”

@Bricker

Right now? Nope, not a thing.

If there’s some claim of improper methods used in connection with the confession, let’s hear 'em. But I certainly don’t start out assuming a confession is suspect.

a) There were. Remember all the threats and sleep deprivation stuff? It’s not news.
b) It’s not just improper methods. Pleading guilty is also the only rational thing to do in a system that was specifically designed to convict without any thought of fairness.

ETA: Okay, I’m overstating item b). The point is, why would Khadr think he would get a fair trial? And if he didn’t think he would, what choice would there be but to take a plea bargain?

@brainstall

So not being held criminally accountable for the heinous acts one commits as a child soldier is ok as long as its African child soldiers against other Africans, but when its a 15 year old in Afghanistan against an American Marine, suddenly it’s a whole different ball game?

That problem has been bothering me a lot. The children in the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda do much worse things than Khadr ever did, but we don’t seem to find their reconciliation with society tasteless. But hey, it really isn’t news that an African life is worth less than a Western life, I guess.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@elucidator

I hadn’t noticed your location was Canada. My apologies and heartfelt condolences.

Bite me.

And I mean that in a most polite way.

[Kobal2]

@Hamlet

Here’s my problem. The “war” we’re in won’t end for what? a decade? two decades? Ever? And there is no central command hierarchy or government to turn the soldier back over after the cessation of hostilities to assure the prisoner won’t return to the “battlefield”.

By definition, if hostilities have ceased there’s no battlefield to return to.