I posted this earlier this morning at OTB and it has generated some interest. Given the Canadian angle and Kate’s absence, I hereby submit it to sda readers.
The trial of Omar Khadr, the 19-year-old Canadian accused of murdering SFC Christopher Speer, is finally moving forward at Guant�namo Bay.
Pentagon Moves To Try 19-Year-Old (Miami Herald)
The Bush administration moved closer Thursday to putting a Canadian teenager on trial at Guant�namo Bay, Cuba, assigning a Marine colonel to run his war-crimes court even as civilian judges have mostly stalled the process. The Pentagon named Col. Robert Chester, 51, a Marine since 1976, as presiding officer of the military commission for Omar Khadr, 19, who was captured in Afghanistan.
The Toronto-born teen is accused of multiple war crimes, including taking part in a July 27, 2002, firefight near Khost, Afghanistan, in which five Americans were wounded while attacking an alleged al Qaeda compound.
U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer, a Special Forces medic from New Mexico, died of his wounds 11 days later, in Germany. Another American lost an eye in the attack, and could be called as a witness.
The irony is that this case is controversial because the United States military is providing less due process than would be the case in an ordinary murder trial, yet far more due process than normally accorded unprivileged belligerents in a combat zone. Khadr should have been given a summary trial in Afghanistan and, if judged guilty, executed there. Taking him to Cuba and allowing this to drag on for years has made him a sympathetic figure.
Elsewhere:
-
CBC News has an excellent backgrounder on Sadr and his father, Ahmed Said Khadr, a senior al Qaeda leader who was killed in a raid in Pakistan in 2003.
CTV provides a good overview of the issues in this particular case.
Michelle Malkin has been covering this one for several months.
There’s substantial discussion in the comments at OTB about the nature of unprivileged belligerents and the moral issues surrounding this case.
free ticket for Mama Khadr if she goes on trial with him.
Why is this kid even on trial for war crimes. It’s not a war crime to fight back. .. Apparently holding differing views and standing up for them is a war crime. There are rules in war . You don’t execute every member of the opposing army. The romans tried that and it didn’t work then either. A real prisioner of war camp ok i can live with that but executed for fighting back. It’s not like the kid mass murdered innocent women and childern. he fired back. that’s it. It’s a WAR against terrorism. people get killed in wars. that’s basically the point.
“There are rules in war”
And if you break them, you can be punished for it.
The US isn’t executing every member of the “opposing army.”
I don’t personally know all the facts (or alleged facts) of Khadr’s case. But if he pretended to surrender, then threw a grenade (he didn’t “shoot back” as you say) he should be executed for it.
Was he in a recognizable uniform? That’s one of the basic rules to war. Protects innocent civilians, but I guess Omar didn’t really care about that.
I’m confused. Sorry about that. What does “MSM” stand for? Maybe I’m a little thick.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/khadr/
By charging someone with War Crimes. Isn’t it a de facto recogntion that it was someone involded in the war (ie a soldier) and obviouly not a civilian. it was a 3 hour firefight if that’s not indication enough that it’s not a civilan i don’t know what is .
yes you get punished for breaking the rules of war. But your punishment should decided by a War Crimes tribunal. not a pesudo-legal court system. the holding at Gitmo is entirely illegal so what are the chance this kid gets a fair trial.
The US wants it both ways. They want to be able to charge people with war crimes but not recognize them as soldiers. it doesn’t work that way. or at least it shouldn’t
MSM = Mainstream Media
Took me awhile too. There should be an acronym dictionary for these things.
Djfreg,
The problem is, that these firefights often take place in areas rife with civilians, and usually on purpose. It allows the enemy a chance to escape into the civilian crowds. Being in a 3-hour firefight meant the US discovered he wasn’t a civilian. Why should any small army wear uniforms when they are considered a civilian until they decide to shoot?
They are recognizing them as unlawful combatants; basically soldiers that are breaking the laws of war and not fighting as soldiers should. So because they do not meet the proper definition of a soldier, there are not treated as such. They cannot be tried as a civilian because, like you said, they are obviously not civilians, so they are treated like soldiers that break the rules of war. If they were in uniform, bearing their arms openly, they would be treated differently once captured, as they should. That is how someone with “different views” fights for them honourably. It’s a bit complicated, but makes sense.
Thanks,Mike D. It takes a while of old farts like me to get a handle on some of this stuff.
the geneva convention also states though.
“Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. ”
Articel 4 states
Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
DJFREQY:
You freakin’ bleeding heard liberal moonie. Do you not realize that that pathetic excuse of a Canadian, Khadr would slit your throat in a heartbeat if given a chance.
Why don’t you peace loving screwballs go over to Iraq and spread your message of brotherly love to those insurgents? Oops, I forgot some have and now they may literally get their heads served to them on a platter.
View it from the other side. If a Canadian Forces member was captured in Afghanistan, put on trial for killing an Afghani soldier/citizen/anyone with the threat of execution, we would all be up in arms. The only thing that is different in this case is that this person is classified as an enemy. Civilized countries do not kill their prisoners of war, no matter how much we hate what they stand for.
Armed response to a military unit whose mission is to kill you in a war, and the killing of helpless civilians is two very different things, yet in this case they are being treated in the same manner.
If it is wrong for the enemy to do it, it is also wrong for us to support the exact same act to them.
We are better than them, we should all act like it.
I thought we’d already received confirmation from the US that he will not be executed.
Candace: Yes, the US has said they will not seek the death penalty.
Several others: Khadr is a member of al Qaeda operating in a foreign land not wearing the uniform of his country or otherwise “having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.” He is a terrorist, not a soldier.
the kid has been indoctrinated and hates us and all we stand for, the very largesse his mother and family live off of in Tranna. Go figure. Sorry there is absolutely no sympathy here.
The young Mr Khadr should never have been taken prisoner in the first place…….an ‘unfortunate battlefield casualty’ would have been far more appropriate.
“The young Mr Khadr should never have been taken prisoner in the first place…….an ‘unfortunate battlefield casualty’ would have been far more appropriate.”
Who hasn’t been keeping up with this story? Anyone like to enlighten the unenlightened about this unsavoury family? They are/were friends of Osama Bin Laden and the whole family should be shipped back instead of freeloading off Cdn taxpayers.
Cdns have become a bunch of sickening, slobbering socialists without an ounce of common sense: lazy intellect, overdeveloped and immature social conscience, and seeing the world thru a haze of blue smoke.
To see the future of Canada, read The Policeman’s Blog, the English version of a socialist state gone mad.
Also, when he comes back from holidays, keep an eye on The Religion Policeman if you want to be enlightened about the Khadr family and their ilk.
Sometimes I feel like a 77-yr old Alice in Wonderland living in this once-upon-a-time sane country (BT – before Trudeau).
The story so far.
Mama Khadr and her screaching daughters- think Anne McClennan in triplicate,brought back their another of their sons – a 15 year old ,wounded on the other side of the lines.( Papa Khadar was a direct disciple of Osama) to Toronto for repairs, courtesy of the health system with no bounds.
they live off the largess of the taxpayer and constantly with their bank of taxpayer paid lawyers demand service , attention and money. all the while complaining about the system.and of course all the skewering the western culture that allows them here.
The MSM avoids it like a plague. except for Pravda (CBC) who found it fitting to run a pictured byline on this most disgusting family on the Remembrance day webpage.
Meanwhile , back in Trona, Mama Khadr leaves her subsidized housing complex ready to make her rounds, Tamils to the left of her , Sudanize warlords to the right she sets out on her daily rounds…….
gellen: Seeing as how you reposted my words before talking about ‘enlightening the unenlightened’, is it possible you see a connection?
On the offchance that you missed the point, I was stating that Mr Khadr should not have been taken ALIVE in the first place.
To all the sweethearts out there bleeding profusely from their hearts all over this simple issue, the fact remains the “accused Khadr” is already receiving more than is due an armed enemy combatant in a war zone….even the Geneva convention states that military combatants taken out of uniform ( this kid wore civvies and no registered uniform of the belligerents in this conflict so therefore was an outlaw irregular or spy) they could have summarily executed him…..personally I think the US is being too soft in treating enemy war captured like they were US citizens being tried under civilian courts during peace time. The only trials we need are for the Saddam Baath regimes officers who engaged in war crimes, civil atrocities and genocide….the rest should be dealt with as enemy combatants in a war zone through military martial justice.
It would have been better all around had they just put this punk against the wall as an outlaw irregular after he was captured….war is ugly but not as ugly as drawn out trials where Martyrs are made of mad men.
Who gets to decide who’s a terrorist. Look at Iraq. The “insurgents” are soldiers continuing a battle against an invading force. Don’t think for a miniute that if canada was invaded that there wouldn’t be a resistance. if you’re invaded by a massively superiour army fighting a “traditional” war isn’t an option.
and texas canuk
Liberal
# Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
yeah that pretty well describes me.
and i think gays should be allowed to marry too….. oh the scandal!!!!
“…personally I think the US is being too soft in treating enemy war captured like they were US citizens being tried under civilian courts during peace time”
Being treated like citizen!!!! some of the people in Gitmo are Citizens , Canadains, Europeans, even americans being held without charges, access to lawyers or basic human rights. that’s not being treated like citizens
djfreak:
WE do; civilized people in and from a civilized society.
Now forget all that moral and social relativism they taught you in that Sociology 101 class at community college.
djfreq : Who gets to decide who’s a terrorist. Look at Iraq. The “insurgents” are soldiers continuing a battle against an invading force. Don’t think for a miniute that if canada was invaded that there wouldn’t be a resistance. if you’re invaded by a massively superiour army fighting a “traditional” war isn’t an option.
Omar Khadr traveled to Afghanistan with al Qaeda; he’s not a native fighting an outside oppressor. Furthermore, while there is a legitimate resistance in Iraq, there really wasn’t in Afghanistan. The Taliban were incredibly repressive and the relief at their ouster was virutally universal. Saddam was likewise opposed by most Iraqis but he at least had a strong support base within the Sunni minority.
Don’t forget that the Liber Jean Chretien was instrumental in having his father released from Pakistani custody years ago, and that the Liberal government under Paul Martin couldn’t do enough to have the family brought back to Canada. That includes the other two sons who were involved in Al-Qaeda activities againtst the US and Canada.
The Liberals will do anything to get the ethnic vote, even offer support to self-avowed terrorists.
Canadian soldiers are dying in Afghanistan and the Liberals are supporting the people who support the terrorists.