Yes, that really was the only option.
*Who, in their right mind, would want to share space with Lord Black… 
So, should black have been tried in Canada instead of the US?
I don’t see a difference.
Canadians don’t seem too all bent up about Black, who was forced to give up his citizenship for accepting a British honour. As far as I’m concerned, a member of a family, well known al qaeda supporters, enemies of our country, have de facto renounced their citizenship.
In both cases, I expect the US justice system to deal as fairly as any country with a situation that really has no precedant.
-
Black wasn’t a minor.
-
The charges against Black were based on actual laws, as opposed to just making shit up about “unlawful combatants.”
-
Black was tried before an actual jury in a legitimate court, not a kangaroo military tribunal.
He’s a senior citizen. We make allowances for them too.
Well it seems to have been unlawful application of laws in the case of Black hasn’t it. Khadr killed an American. He didn’t steal. He terminated a human life. Could have been yours if you had volunteered to serve your country. Anyway, if you intend to not defend Black because he was born in Canada and defend Khadr simply because he was, your objection rings hollow to me.
We have military tribunals that try Canadian citizens as well in Canada you know.
You can’t tell the difference between a military justice system and what’s going on in Guantanamo?
Even if tried in Canada, Kadr would not be subject to the military justice system:
If you aren’t intending to be taken seriously, you’re in the wrong forum.
That is true. My point is simply that Canada does try bona fide Canadian citizens via military tribunals albeit subject to enlistment in the military. What if Khadr was American?
Okay, a little bit of subtle humour. Its about a serious as your justification for one Canadian born citizen being tried in the US while the other isn’t justified. I do think that Khadr’s age is a mitigating factor, but not for purposes of determining jurisdiction. And given this whole situation arises from a military conflict without end, I say that the US is justified in holding him indefinitely until the war against al Qaida is over. That isn’t practical, and if some resolution to his future is possible, A US military court is the best avenue to address the problem.
Okay, I’ve now read an account of the fight in which Sergeant 1st Class Christopher J. Speer was killed.
I can’t tell what part of Khadr’s actions is imagined to be against the laws and customs of war.
Speer died after the complex in which Khadr and his companions were located had been bombed and strafed by F-18 Hornets, AH-64 Apaches, and A-10 Warthogs, and there had been shooting and grenade-throwing by fighters on the ground, on both sides. There can’t possibly have been the slightest doubt by anyone on either side that this was a battle. Speer was a soldier who sustained mortal wounds on a battlefield; if Khadr is the one who killed him, I don’t see how what he did was morally or legally any different from what anyone else on the scene, including Speer himself, was doing.
He wasn’t wearing a uniform. This makes him an unlawful combatant and strips him of the right to defend himself when under attack.
Seriously… How is it right/ fair/ morally defensible to prosecute kids who fight (forgetting anything else) against a ARMED MILITARY FORCE in a war zone?
Are there any members of Blackwater being prosecuted for killing UNARMED CIVILLIANS in an area “we” are supposed to be LIBERATING?
Get real people.
Are you joking? A uniform? Americans and American allies have fought without uniforms plenty of times. You’re saying that all of them were war criminals?
Yes. American soldiers and private contractors have been prosecuted for killing civilians.
I’d like some examples of American soldiers pretending not to be soldiers whilst killing enemy soldiers. I can’t think of a scenario in which the American soldier doing such a thing would not be guilty of a crime.
Spark240, you’re absolutely right in your thinking. And many people would agree with you. Thus, he should be held as a POW until the end of hostilities and cannot be charged with any lawful acts he did before capture. Defending yourself, or attacking the enemy, are both lawful acts for an enemy to take.
The problem arises with a reading of the Geneva Conventions regarding who can be POW’s. It doesn’t apply to everyone. You have to be in the “right type of war” (Article 2), and you have to be the “right type of person” (Article 4).
Khadr probably fails Article 4, as Gorsnak points out, but also, and more importantly his group was not militarily organized, or they did not carry arms openly, or lastly, you’d show they lacked respect for the laws and customs of war*.
Also, he probably fails Article 2. The Geneva Conventions, except Art. 3, only applies in a Country vs. Country conflict; this is why there are no unlawful enemy combatants in Iraq, just Afghanistan; Al Qaeda vs. US fails Article 2.
If one does not fulfill either Article 2 or 4, then Khadr cannot be a POW and thus cannot gain combatant immunity and can thus be charged with his pre-detainment acts (murder, material support, ect). That’s why he’s before the military commissions today.
That’s the US stance, anyways. Europe, who’s LOAC laws are more mature, say a captured person is either a civilian or POW. No unlawful combatant. If Khadr was a POW he would have immunity for throwing the grenade, and if he were tried at all it would have to be in a courts martial (which is a little different than the military commissions). If he was a civilian we would presume he was free to go and could only intern (not detain) as a measure of last resort. But their interpretations are not binding on the US. The US, obviously would not treat him as a civilian, but the commissions, especially the first Bush one, were not close to providing the same rights one gets in a courts martial as required for POW’s.
I’m only commenting on whether he can even be charged, and not whether those charges have merit.
*Apparently they have footage of Khadr planting roadside bombs. Either they are also charging him with this, or used it to show why he failed Article 4.
Also, just wanted to note, you don’t have to wear a uniform if you are apart of a structured military organization (ie, the US Army, the Republican Guard, ect). It only applies to “rebel” type groups (think minutemen).
He would likely be tried in the US federal courts. Or rather, he could not be tried in the military commissions because they are limited to alien unprivileged belligerents.
Is that a fact?
Would you mind showing me to the specific law that says that a person not in uniform can’t defend themselves from attack?
That sound you hear isn’t an F-18 making a low pass overhead. 
I would agree with you that our government has acted shamefully in this matter.
Is that what Omar Khadr did? The accounts I read told of him throwing grenades at American soldiers who came to arrest someone else, and that the Americans did not fire first. Can he legitimately claim to be defending himself under those circumstances? I can’t claim to be defending myself if the police come to arrest someone in my house, and I respond by shooting them, can I?
The issue of his age, and the level of coercion the adults around him might have used, is certainly up for debate, but there’s no doubt he was not “under attack” when he threw the first grenade. If he has any hope of escaping a sentence, it does not rest on the “I was just defending myself” argument.
I don’t believe Khadr has ever been accused of throwing the first grenade (or firing the first shot, or whatever). A bunch of American troops and some Afghan militia went to search a house where a satellite phone called had just been made. The occupants told them to sod off. The Americans insisted, and the occupants opened fire with rifles and grenades, killing a couple of the militia and injuring some Americans. The building was then subjected to various aerial strafing and bombing attacks. A group including Speer then entered the building, and unfortunately for them it turned out Khadr and one other man had survived the bombing. One of the two lobbed the grenade that killed Speer. Both of them were shot, but Khadr survived.
I don’t see how you can analogize this to police making an arrest. Obviously the militants would dispute that the Americans had the authority to make arrests. Regardless, by the time the grenade that killed Speer was thrown the issue of who started the shooting was hardly relevant.
It is absolutely relevant, if someone wants to make the argument that Khadr was just an ordinary citizen defending himself, and not a soldier pretending to be a citizen.
As it turns out, Khadr was NOT just an innocent citizen, and was actually a soldier pretending to be one. We have video of him training with other soldiers, making bombs. There is no doubt he was a soldier posing as a civilian. The only question is whether mitigating factors should be considered in his defense, such as his age.