Well, while we’re picking nits, I’ve got a big one here: most of the legal wrangling these many years has been about whether we’re going to do that, not how.
The limited wrangling over how has, AFAIK, been limited to whether or not the government can have them tried by military tribunals, which (and this, admittedly, is my opinion) would hardly be a “trial” at all.
Ran out of editing time:
Anyway, there was no possible way for him to have been an enlisted member of the Afghan armed forces, because, as I pointed out, Afghanistan did not have a standing army.
Calling him an “illegal combatant” because he didn’t have epaulettes on his uniform is like saying that New Guinean tribesmen resisting occupation are illegal combatants because they don’t have a flag.
Actually, that’s probably not required. regardless of whether or not Afganistan had a standing army, he was not wearing a uniform to distinguish himself from civilians, in as much as I can determine. That, in fact, is the major distinguishing factor.
(1) The word “Soldier” isn’t in the Geneva Convention as far as I can find.
(2) A person can be a soldier and not qualify for protection under the Geneva convention. Irregular forces are certainly comprised of soldiers, but since they lack a uniform, the aren’t covered by the convention.
(3) There is no requirement for a uniform in any definition in any dictionary that I am aware of. A soldier is simply a person who fights as part of an army.
Article 5 of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of POWS:
Can we agree that such doubt exists?
For reference, here’s section 2 of Article 4 of the same Convention:
The Boy was captured with a group of enemy combatants that were enganged in a firefight with U.S. soldiers. This is an act against our allies working for the enemy.
Now I’m all for getting this guy (no longer a kid at 21) a trial and fair hearing. Now if he is found innocent and that he was merely in the wrong place at the wrong time… well then he should try to get what he can to make up for this.
As for their citizenship… you are correct… but it leaves an awful taste in my mouth that even though the elder Khadrs took the following oath when becoming citizens:
They aided those who would destroy this “morally corrupt” nation thus breaking that oath. Now Omar was born here so I guess the oath doesn’t apply.
But regardless his citizenship doesn’t give him a pass on this.
RNATB,
It seems to me that (b) and (d) are the conditions that Khadr doesn’t meet. Of course, as a non uniformed enemy engaged in combat in a war zone, we could always have treated him in full accordance with the Geneva Convention. I’m not sure that many people here will agree with that type of result, but it’s the inevitable result of the SCOUS’s recent despicable ruling in Boumediene v. Bush.
Yes, I know.
Well, no.
AFAIK, the jihadists we see and fight in Afganistan are not and never have met points b or c, probably not d, and not always a. I don’t see any doubt about it. They disobey all the voluntary restrictions and therefore not eligable for the protctions those restrictions grant. I can’t specifically speak for his particular case ( I wasn’t there, naturally), but we don’t treat recognizable soldiers/combatants/whatevers in this manner. Soldiers, even Nazis or saddam’s Republican Guard or other various bastards, have always been treated with respect.
(I could list counter-examples, but these have historically been pissed-off soldiers taking revenge on individuals with truly horrific crimes to their “credit”, or soldiers who disobeyed orders. We’re not perfect, but we do have a tradition of battlefield honor.)
Frankly, he’s lucky he was not shot on the spot, which we could have done. Whether or not he personally threw a grenade, it seems clear that he was assisting unmarked guerrillas engaged in a violent insurrection.
I’m sure you could make a case for (b), but what evidence do you have that his unit/grouping/whatever didn’t follow the laws and customs of war?
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for this guy, 15 years old when he was imprisoned or not - he was doing something he shouldn’t have done, somewhere he shouldn’t have been, and now he’s having consequences. In my opinion, the real enemies here are the egregious American Patriot Acts. The consequences of his actions shouldn’t be indefinite imprisonment without a trial. The worst domestic criminal doing the worst crimes you can think of still got a fair and expedient trial.
So I take it the reports he threw a hand grenade at US Soldiers is false? Can you cite that?
Can you please cite the torture you speak of?
I would say your Op’s title is completely misleading as instead **Canada stood by the very questionable long term imprisonment of a teen enemy combatant ** would probably be far more truthful.
So once we get past the twisting of the news story to its most negative value, we are still left with a case that appears shameful to the US and Canada.
The problem is not the treatment of this one person, but the entire Guantanamo detention system that the US shamefully has put into place and fought to keep.
The US appears to be guilty of violating the Geneva Convention. My sympathy for this so called child is no more than any other, and in many case, more innocent detainees.
Jim
Well, they killed translators sent in to negotiate. That’s kind of against the rules right there, isn’t it?
I see.
Well, I’m sure you won’t object if I point out that you’re an arsonist and/or thief and/or message board poster, right?
Yeah, that would do it.
Actually, the 9-page RS rapport mentioned that his first hearing/trial was thrown off by the judge, because Khadr was marked status as an “enemy combattant,” and the special military tribunals were designed to deal with “unlawful enemy combattants”.
In other words, in the eyes of even the Tribunal, Khadr has the status of a Soldier recognized under the Geneva convention. (If I’m interpreting that right)
The situation as described in the article was that a Special Forces operation in 2002 spotted five armed men in a building and called for their surrender. The men refused. The SF sent out translators to negotiate. The men killed them. The SF called an airstrike on the building and leveled it. Afterwards, they walked over the ruins and found Khadr miraculously alive. Khadr threw a hand-grenada, killing two sergeants and wounding others. The SF forces shot him, catching him twice in the chest. (And that should have been the end of that)
So, as far as I see it, the lawman has recognized him as a soldier. A soldier cannot be held responsible for fighting back in normal circumstances, but he did kill two sergeants which makes him an object of hate. However, the Geneva law should apply: hold him as a captured prisoner of war until the war is over.
There being no war, merely an “interminable conflict against terrorism” (what a disgusting phrasing), throws a socket wrench into it.
As an offside - if there’s a War on Terror, does that mean terrorists are considered combatants for the other side? I mean, it’s hard to keep the Geneva convention when you’re fighting a War against perceived evil. Does uniform requirements apply when you’ve effectively declared war against people fighting back?
I can’t help but notice that all through his wailing, he never once seemed to say, “Help me…Allah!”? Does that sound like your typical fanatical Muslim to anybody else?
How could that be considered a hijack when the thread title is “Canada stands by torture of child”? The implication of that title is that the torture is the main point of the thread, not that it’s a hijack.
From here. This certainly introduces reasonable doubt into the process, which we could evaluate if there was a fair trial.
We’ve been through this already.
U.S. treatment of Khadr may have exceeded military’s own guidelines
I have acknowledged that whether or not that counts as “torture” is a question of judgment and I was hoping we could agree to disagree on which side of the line it sits on. Once we figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, then perhaps we can agree on whether any given act of abuse and humiliation counts as torture.
It is chilling to discover how many of us are tolerant of child soldiers being treated this way, apparently because we are too busy fiddling on about what counts as torture. Give him a trial. If he is guilty then convict and punish him. If there is evidence that his family is treasonous, they by all means we should give them a trial too and punish them if guilty.
On preview:
Of course I won’t object, you would be quite correct to point that out. I would wonder why you stated it that way, because it appears deliberately misleading. When I stated it the way I did I was not hoping to mislead, but to express to to readers of good faith that I wish to avoid semantic arguments about what counts as torture and what doesn’t, because at minimum I hope we can agree that he was “mistreated.”
Clearly I have failed in this endeavour. So for the sake of this argument, I will retract my use of the word “torture” and replace it with “violent, abusive, humiliating, unaccountable, extrajudicial treatment (which may have exceeded even America’s own guidelines)”. Now that I have made that concession, can we please drop the subject of what counts as torture? I’m fairly confident that that issue has been addressed elsewhere on the board.
Now, assuming you are addressing this topic in good faith: Do you think that it’s important to have a discussion of what is an appropriate way to treat people in the situation that Khadr is in? Regardless of whether his treatment would be considered “torture” under any tortured definition of the word, are you comfortable with this stuff going on in your name? I’m not.
Well…
I’m no expert on Islam, but as I understand it, just as a devoted Christian might respond not with “Help me, Lord!” but “Thy will be done,” a devoted Muslim would acknowledge he is a slave of Allah, and not call out for succor.
So I’d say that we cannot draw any particular conclusions from the lack of “Help me, Allah.” It doesn’t show anything, one way or the other.
Your clarification is appreciated… if a bit late, since the title to the freakin’ THREAD is: “Canada stands by torture of child.” I think it’s a remarkable oversight to have not realized that a thread thus titled would veer in the direction of discussing torture.
I am. The individual in question committed an act that should be a punishable as a crime. He’s not a soldier, not entitled to POW protections under the Geneva Conventions, so I’m not uncomfortable with trying him by military tribunal – assuming, of course, that such tribunal meets the due process requirements defined in Boumediene.
