The youngest person detained at Gitmo has had his legal proceedings commence. He is getting his day in court although it is not the court that his lawyer would have preferred. He is a Canadian born citizen and stands accused of committing terrorist acts and of killing an American Special Forces soldier.
Points of debate:
Is it proper to try a Canadian citizen at Guantanamo in front of a military commission. Khadr’s attorney petitioned the US Supreme Court for a civilian trial. It was denied.
Khadr was 15 years old at the time of the firefight. Should his young age play a factor? The Canadian government has been silent on this issue. Canadian Amnesty International, not so much.
While at Guantanamo, Khadr was interrogated by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. The Canadian Supreme Court eventually ruled unanimously that the interrogations violated Khadr’s rights. The government of Canada has requested assurances that US prosecutors not use the information. No assurance has been given and what evidence is admissable will be determined by the judge.
Anything else.
The only issue that I have a clear opinion on is #2. I believe that at 15, he should be held liable for his actions. If he had murdered someone on US soil, there’s a very good chance that he’d be tried as an adult. I don’t know if Canada would do the same. If not, perhaps that’s some excuse for his behavior but in the end, I have no problem with trying him as an adult.
He was a child. A 15 year old is not an adult. Anymore than a 16 or 17 year old. Hell in most countries youth is a mitigating factor at the time of sentencing.
Nothing illustrates the travesty that is the Gitmo process than the fact it has taken 8 years to bring a 15 year old to trial. And only three persons convicted.
His age should be mitigating factor at sentencing but he should still get a trial.
The reason courts bar information from unconstitutional interrogations is to prevent them from happening in the future. I don’t see much of a chance of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service participating in interrogations of captured terrorists, so barring this evidence would serve no purpose but to keep germane information away from the trial.
My understanding is that the evidence against Khadr is extremely weak; there is basically no evidence that he is the one who threw the grenade that killed this American soldier as he was surrounded by many other fighters. And there is also the fact that he is (was) a child soldier, sent by his family to fight Americans in Afghanistan while he was still a young teenager. Frankly, the attitude of the Canadian government, which has repeatedly refused to repatriate him despite being asked to do so by the American government, and despite the concerns that he was mistreated in Guantanamo, is the most appalling thing about this.
I don’t know if he can get a fair trial in front of this military commission. I guess we’ll see. But the way this has been going on until now is shameful.
I think Canada should repatriate him but not for the obvious reasons.
I have no doubt that Omar comes from a family with some very intimate connections to Osama Bin Laden. So why not use that? Let him go “free”, discreetly record his every movement and hope he places a call to Uncle Osama. Send in JTF2 to do the capturing/killing.
We have a golden opportunity to turn this whole situation into a major coup for Canada in the anti-terrorism fight. But we’re letting it slide because we’re scared of someone who may or may not have thrown a grenade when he was 15.
I’m answering whether they have jurisdiction to try (any) Canadian citizen, the answer is hmmmm. The commissions can only try “unprivileged enemy belligerents” (1- engaged in hostilities, 2- supported hostilities, or 3 - is a member of al Qaeda, whether or not engaged or supported hostilities). I would say with his actions there’s probably enough to try this person.
But, the commission can only try for war crimes. By definition, war crimes are basically normal crimes committed during an “armed conflict.” The commissions/executive/legislative definition of an armed conflict is much broader than the traditional scope. It also covers a broader time period (not at 9/11; but likely starting with the 1996 Cole bombing).
However, both Presidents, Congress since 2001, the Supreme Court, NATO, and the UN (kinda sorta) seem to think the War against Al Qaeda (or a war against a transnational organization) can be an “armed conflict.” Thus, for all intents and purposes, it is. In Khadr’s case, the general facts (having a shootout against the military) more closely resemble a traditional armed conflict. I don’t know of Khadr’s exact role in it, though.
So it’s a proper forum. Until the Supreme Court says it’s not. The Supreme Court has said previous military commissions were lacking in due process and the procedures were unconstitutional, but trying alien combatants in military commissions per se is not.
I think it should. I’m surprised Obama is actually going forward with this instead of just forcing Canada to take him (well, force behind the scenes and have Canada publicly “ask” for him). However, the MCA 2009 does not limit or state a belligerent must be an adult. International law would state you shouldn’t try a child (the goal is rehabilitation). I’m not sure if the US is bound by that, though.
I think he should be held accountable, and not prosecuting child soldiers in the long run may do more harm than good (from the perspective of the adult manipulating the child into doing these things; ie, “I’ll use kids to do the dirty work, because kids won’t get punished”). But I don’t think sitting in Gitmo being interrogated was the right way to go about it. I’d also like to see the enlisting of kids under 17 to be soldiers/terrorists be a crime in and of itself. Those guys are the real criminals.
Nothing really to add here, but the main purpose of that ruling was to determine whether Canada should take Khadr back. They ruled no, but added his rights had been violated. ie, we know you did bad things, but you know, you can keep him.
4 convictions. One pled guilty last month. Obama finally popped his cherry.
One reason the process is so slow is because it’s brand new. You have to draft the law. You have to sign it into law. You have to write out all the rules and regulations to add the minutia details to the law. You have to withstand every new and different jurisdictional matter being litigated up to the Supreme Court before the merits of the actual crime are even discussed (Is defendant even an enemy belligerent?..Was the crime, if any, committed during an armed conflict? ect. ect.).
So that probably actually just answers your question. But is it a travesty or just the judicial process playing out as intended.
I’d also add that this kid can’t use time served toward any prison sentence he may receive. The MCA 2009 forbids it. Ouch.
I guess this thread will have to go on hiatus. Khadr’s attorney collapsed in court yesterday due to a condition related to his recent gall bladder surgery. It is expected to continue in 30 days.
I find this subject alternately so outrageous and so dispiriting that I haven’t followed very closely in a long time, so please forgive my ignorance.
Is the theory still that Guantanamo detainees are “enemy combatants”? That’s why they weren’t given prompt civilian trials, with rights and everything?
So then how can killing an enemy (American) soldier be considered any crime at all? Is not the entire logic of international military justice rooted in the difference between battlefield killings and war crimes?
Yes, pretty much. The detainees in Gitmo basically fall into three types of people; two of which are enemy combatants. Enemy combatants who are charged and awaiting trial for violating the laws and customs of war, OR enemy combatants who have not been charged but who we are preventively detaining. The third group are not enemy combatants (anymore at least), they are detained there because they are not welcome in America, but no other country will take them. They are waiting for a home to go to.
However, America says there are lawful or unlawful enemy combatants (see below). The only ones that can be tried in the military commissions, are unlawful enemy combatants (now unprivileged enemy belligerents).
It’s not necessarily why they weren’t given prompt civilian trials, though. Policy dictated that; no law says that’s the way it has to be done.
Because the way in which they killed the American soldier was against the laws and customs of war. Clear examples would be dressing up in a red cross uniform and then killing/ feigning as a civilian and then killing/ect. You can kill American soldiers, but there are some limitations on the means or method you employ. And it works both ways, it’s legal to kill the Taliban/Al Qaeda, but nuking a town to kill one enemy (and thousands of civlians) would be an illegal act (even though killing that enemy is legal).
The key is the detainees are unlawful or now, unprivileged enemy combatants/belligerents. If you’re unlawful, the act of killing itself can be a crime. Whereas a lawful enemy combatant/belligerent cannot be charged with killing an enemy soldier he killed before capture because they have combatant immunity. Combatant immunity is the carrot that persuades you to follow the laws and customs of war (the stick). If you don’t follow the laws, you don’t get that combatant immunity.
It’s entirely more detailed and complicated than that, but that’s the quick n easy of it. I hope it answered your questions.
Khadr may have been born in Canada, but he’s not really a Canadian.
From what I understand, he spent his childhood moving back and forth between Canada and Pakistan. His mother also wished to raise her family outside of Canada due to her animus for western social influences. Khadr was enrolled in a school in Peshawar.
In 1992, Khadr’s father was severely injured while in Logar, Afghanistan; the Khadr family moved back to Toronto so he could take advantage of free medical services under Canada’s universal healthcare regime, and then they again went back to Pakistan.
This guy was never REALLY a Canadian in his heart of hearts, and I really resent hearing him being described as “Canadian”. His “Canadianness” only stems from the fact that his manipulating parents decided to give birth to him on Canadian soil. His father took advantage of our healthcare system through his son’s nationality, and they now pull the “Canadian” aspect of this case around them like a flag of convenience whenever it suits them.
He was an enemy soldier, just as much of one as any German child under the age of 16 who strapped on a rifle as part of a Volksstrum unit. I once had a conversation with a gentleman who had fought in Germany with the US Army during the invasion of that country. He recalled that yes, he had shot such children on a couple of occasions, as it was very much a matter of “him or me”. Just because a weapon is wielded by a child doesn’t make it any less dangerous.
However, at the end of a war, all enemy soldiers are usually repatriated; seldom are there any trials in these cases, although there have been trials in the cases of commanding officers.
What to do with Khadr? Release him. Under no circumstances should he remain in custody, or suffer any kind of further penalty lest he be made some sort of martyr. And under no circumstances release him because he is “Canadian”, because, quite frankly, he’s not, despite the what the Liberal media both in and out of Canada would have you believe.
And to ensure he’s not, strip him now of his Canadian citizenship and any of its trappings. He’s spent more time out of this country than in it, anyway.
This is really a pointless game, eh? How bout I declare that YOU were never really a Canadian in your heart of hearts. Should you now go and sit in the corner with Lord Conrad Black of Crossharbour? Or tell me to frig off?
It’s kind of hard to argue for Khadr when he’s spent more time outside of Canada than in it, and spent them doing things totally against what this country traditionally stands for.
So yes, you may indeed “frig off”. And have a nice day while you’re doing it, eh?
A young child barely into puberty for gods sake, is treated like a hardened terrorist. He needed counseling not a commission.
[/QUOTE]
Well then we would have nothing to talk about. The kid begged to be killed by American medics and if it weren’t for Delta Force soldiers over ruling another officer, they would have killed him to put him out of his misery. Instead they medivaced him.
Still think they should have released him soon after being caught ?
It seems to me the two issues are his age and questionable evidence with regard to who threw the grenade.
I don’t have a decided opinion on the age issue, but even if he didn’t throw the grenade, he was an accomplice to murder.
He is a Canadian citizen and should have been repatriated ages ago. If he has committed a crime, let him be tried in a civilian Canadian court.
The Canadian government’s apathetic stance towards its own citizens so long as they’re not white has been one of the shameful things it has done this decade. It’s appalling that they idly stand by while a Canadian is tried by a court that allows confessions obtained under torture to stand as evidence.
He’s a Canadian citizen and so the government of Canada should be insisting his rights be respected.
He may have spent a lot of his childhood in Pakistan. He may be a total asshole. His family certainly seem to be comprised of a great many scum-sucking religious nuts who don’t appreciate how lucky they are to live here. The fact remains our government’s not done its job here. He is a Canadian citizen being tried in a kangaroo court.
And it’s not a partisan matter; both Liberal and Conservative governments have been pretending not to notice this.