Bring Omar Khadr home and set him free! Part 2

M. Spector wrote:

Even if you could prove (which you can't) that Khadr's mother turned him into a child soldier, ...

http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/08/14/canada-court-wants-gitmo-detainees-re...

"Khadr is now 22, and his lawyer said he would be willing to face prosecution in Canada and undergo a transition period away from his relatives, who have previous ties to al-Qaida.... His father was an alleged al-Qaida militant and financier who was killed by Pakistani forces in 2003. A brother, Abdullah Khadr, is being held in Canada on a U.S. extradition warrant, accused of supplying weapons to al-Qaida. Another brother has acknowledged the family stayed with Osama bin Laden." (Bolding added).

Let me make this perfectly clear: I didn't post this to "prove" that Omar's family turned him into a child soldier. In this instance, I am posting this to show that the actions of his family have been counterproductive to repatriating and freeing Omar. Even Omar himself requested (probably under the advice of his lawyer - I realize the "political" implications of this motion) he undergo a transition period away from his relatives.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/73758.html

"'It is true that the United States is primarily responsible for Mr. Khadr's mistreatment,' Justices John Maxwell Evans and Karen Sharlow wrote. 'However, the purpose of the sleep deprivation mistreatment was to induce Mr. Khadr to talk, and Canadian officials knew that when they interviewed Mr. Khadr to obtain information for intelligence purposes.'

'There can be no doubt that their conduct amounted to knowing participation in Mr. Khadr's mistreatment.'" (Bolding added).

As far as I am concerned, Bush, Cheney (and others) and Harper and his ministers responsible should themselves be hauled before a War Crimes Tribunal. They are the ones who are demonstratively guilty of criminal wrongdoing.

http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/08/25/canada-to-appeal-ruling-on-guantanamo...

"Denis Edney, Khadr's lawyer, said he's not surprised by the appeal."

"They have fought us every step of the way. We are used to this mean-spirited approach of this government," Edney said. "They have shown no interest in Omar Khadr from day one."

"Khadr's lawyers contend Canada was complicit in what they say was Khadr's torture and maintain Harper is obliged under international law to demand the prisoner's return."

"Canadian officials questioned Khadr at Guantanamo and shared the results of their interrogations with the U.S."

thorin_bane wrote:

I hope harper gets sued by kadr, this is a miscarriage of justice.

It could happen:

http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/08/27/young-afghan-freed-from-guantanamo-to...

Harper will visit the U.S. on September 21, 2009. Too bad the Supreme Court isn't going to hear Harper's appeal before then. Wouldn't it be poetic justice if the Supreme Court upheld the federal Appeals Court ruling ordering Harper to request Omar Khadr's repatriation before September 21 so that when Harper met Obama, he would have to make that request?

There is hope that this could still happen from the American side. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/74260.html

"Jawad's jourmey home began in October, when a U.S. military judge in Guantanamo ruled that Afghan police had threatened to kill both Jawad and his family during his interrogation if he didn't confess to throwing a grenade that injured two reservists from California and their Afghan interpreter. Those threats constituted torture, Army Col. Stephen Henley said, ruling that the confession therefore wasn't admissible as evidence.

On July 30, U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle in Washington cited that ruling in ordering Jawad's release, saying that without the confession, there was no evidence to link Jawad to the grenade attack."

We now have a precedent for Omar's case and the case of all detainees whose "confessions" were wrought by torture.  If the judge in charge reviews Omar's case and if Omar submitted a confession (not publicly known) and if the "confession" was wrought by torture (it is public knowledge that Omar was tortured), then it is possible that Omar's case could be dismissed like Mohammed Jawad's. If the U.S. judge renders this decision before September 21, Then Harper will have the pleasure of hearing of Omar's release and repatriation on Harper's arrival in D.C.

M. Spector, if you're interested in Bush, Cheney, the CIA, Harper, CSIS, the State Department, the Justice Department and the relevant GTMO authorities being held accountable and punished (retributive justice) for the wrongs/harm done to Omar, here is the most likely form this will take:

http://wire.anti-war.com/2009/08/27/young-afghan-freed-from-guantanamo-t...

To bring criminal proceedings would be much harder, take longer and chances of success less likely:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090903/wl_mcclatchy/3305386

The case of Abdul Wali's death and David Passaro's involvement as well as the plight of other Bagram, Abu Ghraib and GTMO detainees is covered in the documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side". "The dark side" is a reference by Dick Cheney to the U.S. government's use of, and condoning the use of, torture.

Conspiracy Coverup Runs Through Three Canadian Administrations Over Khadrs. What Else is Your Govermnent Lying to You About?

http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/09/04/canada-supreme-court-to-hear-gitmo-ca...

"[Omar] Khadr, the son of an Egyptian-born father and Palestinian-born mother, is now 22, ... His father, Ahmed Said Khadr, was an alleged al-Qaida militant and financier, killed by Pakistani forces in 2003... The father was arrested in Pakistan in 1995 after a bombing of the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad, but was released after former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien appealed to Pakistan to give him due process. Canada was embarrassed when he later emerged as a senior al-Qaida figure."

M. Spector wrote:

As for "he later emerged as a senior al-Qaida figure", that's never been proven.

Repeating these unsubstantiated accusations against Omar Khadr's father does nothing to help his cause.

Regarding your first point:

Whether he was al-Qaida or not is of indifference to me. The fact is that he was in a Pakistani jail with allegations of being involved in the blowing up of the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad. What it tells me (all politics aside) is what shitty parents Omar had and it only increases my sympathy all the more for him.

As for your second point, actually it does help Omar's case. Here's why:

In law, when it comes to cases dealing with alleged criminal acts, the defendant can be found not guilty if it can be established that the defendant lacked free will/was in some way coerced.

In the Mohammed Jawad case, the judge looked at the confession, determined it was wrought through the use of torture - that it was not a free and voluntary confession, determined that the prosecution's case was thus fatally flawed, threw the case out, set Mohammed free and repatriated him to Afghanistan.

Just like the Jawad case, Omar's case presents two opportunities to declare him not guilty:

If he produced a confession and that confession was wrought through torture (we know he was tortured), then he will be determined to be not guilty.

In the eyes of the law, backed up by forensic experts, minors are deemed to lack full mental cognizance and competence. They are deemed to be unable to make fully informed decisions, and therefore lack complete free will. This is why a minor cannot enter a legally binding contract, but must have the consent and/or assistance (depending on age) of a parent or legal guardian. If the judge does not use the forced confession grounds, then the judge can resort to the legal status of a minor grounds to find Omar not guilty, dismiss the case, set him free and return him to Canada

All statements by Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada about wanting more juveniles tried in adult court aside, if a minor is to be tried in adult court, the presiding judge has to answer two very strict conditions: 1) Did the minor fully understand the (criminal, wrongful) nature of the act? Did the minor fully understand the consequences (harm) of the act? 2) Did the minor display full mental competence surrounding the commission of the act; did the minor display evidence of premeditation or preplanning?

If the answer to any of these questions is "No", then the judge will not try a minor in adult court but remand the case to juvenile court or make an alternate recommendation.

How did Omar Khadr start out living in Toronto, fly to Pakistan, train in a jehadist camp, go to Afghanistan, participate in combat buring the openning stages of the Afghan war, become a detainee and end up in GTMO? Did he buy a plane ticket and fly himself to Pakistan? Did he enter himself into a legal contract that enrolled him into the jihadist camp? Did he willingly and joyfully go to Afghanistan to participate in combat? I say, "No"

To Harper and the official Conservative Party line however, the answer to these questions is "Yes". Harper and the U.S. Justice Department are trying to deny that Omar Khadr was a CHILD (soldier). They are also trying to deny that Omar and all the other detainees are persons and have (human) rights. In the eyes of the law, this is pernicious. Harper's stance is pernicious, contradictory, indefensible, ludicrous and obscene.

Omar Khadr's and the majority of the detainees' cases cannot remain in legal limbo indefinitely. Eventually the Justice department will come to its senses. From what I've read, for 97% of the detainees, there is no case against them. By all standards of reasonable grounds, the detainees will be freed. Hopefully sooner, than later.

Exactly, al-Qaida is a bogey man used to justify the continuation of the Afghan war. Ahmed Said Khadr was probably a gladio of the ISI on the CIA payroll. Just like Baitullah Mesudh, leader of the Pakistani Taliban - employed by the ISI, payed by the CIA to assassinate Benazir Bhutto, then himself assassinated when he became either a threat or his 'usefulness' to the CIA ran out. In 1995, the Chretien administration was probably forced to give due process to Ahmed Khadr by the U.S. government under pressure from the Pentagon. It also explains why Ma Khadr, after her return to Canada, has been able run around loose as a goose; it would have been very easy to detain her for security reasons and/or to question her to get more information on Ahmed's contacts and about the organization he might have belonged to. Few Canadians would have questioned this or raised concerns at the time. The reason why she was not detained is because the Pentagon, the U.S. government, and the Canadian government (informed by the U.S. administration) knew all about the Khadrs. The Khadrs weren't free. They were just given a long leash.

M. Spector wrote:

The fact that his father was arrested in Pakistan (and released when somebody decided to give him "due process") proves Omar had shitty parents? How judgmental!

For the benefit of all those who read this thread, could you again please explain why Ahmed Khadr was arrested in Pakistan?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/article674585.ece

M. Spector wrote:

And how naive, to assume that the general public shares your sympathy;

"What it tells me (all politics aside) is what shitty parents Omar had and it only increases my sympathy for him." Where in my comment do I include anyone other than myself? I make no claims of assuming that the general public shares my sympathy. My opinion: "It also explains why Ma Khadr, after her return to Canada, has been able to run around loose as a goose; it would have been very easy to detain her for security reasons and/or to question her to get more information on Ahmed's contacts and about the organization he might have belonged to. Few Canadians would have questioned this or raised concerns at the time.", contradicts any such claim.

M. Spector wrote:

[b]Your problem is you assume Khadr threw that grenade; I don't believe he did, based on all the evidence I have seen.

Frmrsldr August 15, 2009 - 5:44 am

Frmrsldr wrote:

7. Satelite photographs and testimony given by the U.S. Marine who shot him, put the allegation that Khadr was the grenade thrower into serious doubt. Even if he had thrown the grenade, the fact that he was a child soldier would have cleared him of guilt ....

M. Spector wrote:

Thanks for the legal tips. But as I have noted previously Omar Khadr's defence is not "my parents made me do it", but "I didn't do it".

If you are making an empirical (material based) claim, then yes, his parents were not standing behind him in that fort. They did not put a grenade in his hand, cock his arm back, fling his arm forward and thus "make" him throw the grenade. If however, you are making a legal or just based claim when it comes to the guilt or innocence of a minor, the statements "My parents made me do it" and "I didn't do it" are the same in that both make the claim the the minor lacked free will/external conditions determined (operative word) the actions and thereby the grounds for innocence are established.

M. Spector wrote:

Why he was in Afghanistan in the first place is [b]irrelevant[/b]. It could have happened to any other kid. In fact, it did happen to Jawad. And his defence had nothing to do with claiming status as a child soldier.

Although there are similarities between the Jawad and Omar cases, there are also differences. Omar's father was Egyptian. Omar's mother is Palestinian. Omar is Canadian. During 2001, Omar's parents chose to travel to and within Pakistan and Afghanistan. Jawad was born and lived all his life in Afghanistan. Jawad's parents were born and lived all their lives in Afghanistan. For the Jawads, there was no element of choice where they lived. Ahmed Khadr determined that Omar should receive weapons training in a jihadist camp. Mohammed Jawad lived at home. His parents made no such decision to send him to a jihadist training camp. Jawad was a child, but not a child soldier. The circumstance surrounding Jawad's detainment was that he was in Kabul to buy supplies for his family. Someone threw a grenade that injured 2 U.S. soldiers and an Afghan interpretor. The Afghan police arbitrarily arrested everyone who had the misfortune of being in that particular place at that particular time. Jawad was detained purely on the basis of accidental 'happenstance'. Omar was in a military fort in the midst of a battle. The soldiers assaulted the fort and shot Khadr because they were taking hostile fire. Unlike Jawad, Omar was a child soldier and it was no accident that he was in that fort. However, these circumstances are irrelevant in the eyes of the law - unlike in public opinion. It is the law that will determine the judge's ruling in Omar's case. Not public opinion. Like the Jawad case, if Omar made a confession and it is determined that confession was the result of torture, then the case will be thrown out and Khadr will be declared innocent. The claims that Omar was a child, lacked free will and cannot be held legally responsible for his actions or that he actually or in fact, did not throw the grenade, are also acceptable arguments in the eyes of the law.

M. Spector wrote:

In fact, characterizing him as a [b]child soldier[/b] would only be an admission [b]that he was capable, by training and opportunity, of doing the very act he was accused of.[/b] Why would anyone wanting to defend him, or Khadr, want to admit that?

M. Spector, my friend, when a dog injures or kills someone - who is held responsible; the dog or its owner? The owner, because the owner has free will and the dog does not. The owner trained and abused the dog to make it viscious and make it attack. A child is like a "dog" in that a child - in the same sense as a dog - lacks free will. If a child has been put through military indoctrination, it is because of conscious choices made by adults and not the result of any conscious (intentional) choice made by the child. To conclude with this analogy, Omar's parents treated him the way some people treat their dogs. What Omar's parents did to him was just as reprehensible as all the U.S. administration and GTMO officials involved in his case did to him.

M. Spector wrote:

in actual fact, the hatred expressed towards Khadr by the general public and the Conservatives almost always involves blaming him for [b]allegedly[/b] following in his father's [b]alleged[/b] footsteps.

This opinion (of the general public and the Conservatives) is an argument that Omar Khadr acted with free will. My argument is that because Omar was a child at the time he lacked free will:

Frmrsldr wrote:

In law, when it comes to dealing with alleged criminal acts, the defendant can be found not guilty if it can be established that the defendant lacked free will/was in some way coerced.

Which argument do you think is going to have more traction with the Canadian public: That Omar was a child when he was first detained and tortured, or bringing up with strangers the subject (unasked) of his parents and then attempting to convince people of Khadr's innocence by making it conditional upon the innocence of his parents? I think it would be politic (wise) not to bring up the subject of Khadr's parents but the fact that he was a child when making the case for Omar among the Canadian public.

Fidel wrote:

 I think Omar could even be a double agent himself at Gitmo.

Yes, because what's weird is that when you look at the charges arraigned against him; among the charges of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, etc., - there is the charge of espionage.

M. Spector]</p> <p>[quote=Frmrsldr wrote:

I think it would be politic (wise) not to bring up the subject of Khadr's parents but the fact that he was a child when making the case for Omar among the Canadian public.

M. Spector wrote:

This is what I have been saying all along. It's the [b]enemies[/b] of Omar Khadr who try to use his parents to prove he is unworthy of compassion or justice.

We are on the same page then. I reproach the parents for abusing and neglecting Omar for sending and allowing him (as a child) to be indoctrinated into a soldier. By choosing to put Omar, a defenseless minor, into harm's way, his parents share part of the blame for the harm that has since befallen him.

M. Spector wrote:

You, however, have been insisting that the focus should be on his [b]alleged[/b] status as a child [b]soldier[/b], which places his parents front and centre in the discussion.

Only partly. His parents were responsible for sending and allowing him to be sent to a jihadi ("warrior of God") training camp. Those who indoctrinated him also share a burden of the responsibility for what they did and what later happened to Omar.

M. Spector wrote:

Either you have suddenly had an epiphany and made a 180° turn, or you are very confused. I suspect the latter.

No, none of the above. My arguments have been logically consistent since the beginning. Do you still support the "U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Protocol on the Child Soldier."? If you are still confused, keep asking me questions. I am more than happy to answer them.

M. Spector wrote:

BTW, do you consider that all children who receive training in how to use a weapon are thereby made into "child soldiers"

Let's look at the logical structure of this argument:

Premise 1: All persons who have been put through weapons handling indoctrination with the intent of pressing them into a war or conflict are soldiers.

Premise 2: All children are persons.

Premise 3/Conclusion: All persons who are children and who have been put through weapons handling indoctrination with the intent of pressing them into a war or conflict are child soldiers.

Thus my answer is a categorical "Yes".

M. Spector wrote:

If you lived in Afghanistan in 2001 wouldn't you want your teenage son to know how to use a weapon? I know I would. I guess that makes me a "criminal" in your eyes, just like Omar's mother.

I am a soldier. I know what being indoctrinated to handle weapons and to see the enemy as less than a human being and to hate to the point where killing anyone identified as "the enemy" is done without compuction. I would not wish to put my, your or anyone's children through this.

Let's look at your argument under a slightly different light: The United States is a gun culture with a prolific amount of firearms in its society. Adults have the Constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms. It's a dangerous place out there and we need to protect our children. The best way to protect children is to extend the right to bear arms not just to adults, but to our children. We need to arm our children and indoctrinate them on how to handle these weapons.

What's this I hear? Am I to believe believe my eyes? M. Spector is making a Yanqui pro gun right wing libertarian fascist argument?

As Mr. Spock from "Star Trek" would say, "Fascinating".

Mohammed (Jawad's) parents are Afghans who are too poor to move much farther than the threshold of their home. They don't have much choice on where they live. They did not arm their son and indoctrinate him in weapons training. Omar's father was Egyptian. Omar's mother is Palestinian. Omar is Canadian. Omar's parents chose to go to war torn and conflict ridden countries (Pakistan and Afghanistan) and to put their under age son through weapons indoctrination and in harm's way - the Afghan war.

Arming children is like arming medics on the battlefield. The purpose of a medic is to save lives, not take lives. It's illegal to intentionally kill unarmed medics on the battlefield. Arming them makes them combat soldiers and will draw hostile fire to them. People who arm children in conflict and war torn countries are asking for their children to be killed. The U.S. Marine who shot Omar did not see a child. What he saw was a (possible) weapon pointed at him and the threat that implied.

Here's a scene from the movie "The Killing Stones"

Police Captain: "You just shot a child."

Charles Bronson: "The gun made him look older."

Conclusion:

In my mind, yes, arming minors and indoctrinating them on weapons handling is, morally 'criminal'.

As to legal criminality, you would have to look up the laws in the country where you live. If it's Canada or the U.S.A., such actions would fall under statutes along the lines: "Conspiracy to commit child abuse", "Child abuse", "Criminal negligence resulting in injury or death of a minor or causing a minor to inflict injury or death upon another person by placing a lethal weapon under the control of a minor."

Sorry, double post.

Slumberjack wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

 .....when a dog injures or kills someone - who is held responsible; the dog or its owner? The owner, because the owner has free will and the dog does not. The owner trained and abused the dog to make it viscious and make it attack. A child is like a "dog" in that a child - in the same sense as a dog - lacks free will.

This analogy is offensive in the context of Omar Khadr.  Couldn't you have come up with something else to relay the point?  Being taught to stand up to imperialism doesn't make a person less of a human being, nor does it necessarily call into question parenting choices, unless of course undue weight is given over to the mantra of the oppressors and its media spokespersons, in that they should have instead imparted the virtue of bowing down to their tormentors.

When you look at the history of animal cruelty laws and child labor and child abuse laws in Western Europe and North America, you will discover that animal cruelty laws came first. It shows the prority of both our values as well as the values of the Khadr parents.

Slumberjack wrote:

Well, this doesn't make any sense either.  What does the belated introduction of labour and child abuse laws in western society have to do with the Khadrs.  Does your value system suggest the bowing of ones head in the presence of militarily superior western overlords who demand obedience?  Is that what you suggest the Khadrs should have done to bring themselves more in line with your values?

M. Spector flails and flounders around between arguing that Omar's parents are only alleged to have abused and neglegted Omar by allowing him to be indoctrinated into a child soldier and his gung ho rah rah stance on indoctrinating children on weapons handling (thereby making them child soldiers) because it is a "wise" way to "defend" them.

He also flails and flounders around as to whether the Khadr adults were visitors or were living in AfPak. He also suggests that Afghanistan was their "home" that they were "defending".

Waging agressive war is illegal according to the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Charter and other international laws.

The U.S., NATO countries and ISAF countries are waging illegal war in Afghanistan. To participate in an illegal war is wrong. Omar's father was Egyptian, his mother is Palestinian-Canadian. They are NOT Afghans "defending" their "homes" and their country. If it is wrong for the U.S., NATO and ISAF to wage aggressive war in Afghanistan, it is wrong for other foreign mercenaries like al-Qaeda and the Khadr adults to wage illegal and aggressive war.

At the end of WW II, the nazi government used the Hitler Jugend as child soldiers to defend the Reich. And don't give me that relativistic morality "the ends justify the means" crap about the nazi government's advocacy of child soldiers in Germany and advocating the use of child soldiers in Afghanistan to suggest that the two cases are different. If it is wrong to abuse children (by indoctrinating them into child soldiers) it makes no difference when, where or whom they are abused by. To abuse children is wrong, period.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't "cut" both ways. As M. Spector once said to me, "You can't suck and blow at the same time".