Comments on: Last call For injustice

By: Olivebeard

Olivebeard — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 18:27:46 +0000

Let me clarify quickly: by "hang 'im", I meant whatever maximum the courts have on the table. I think there's a giant gray area between "fix them" and "kill 'em all" called "diplomacy". Al-Anbar and post-World War Two Japan are great examples where destroying the right things and rebuilding/fixing the others worked INCREDIBLY well. So back to this child soldiers issue: Not knowing much about the conflicts in Sierra Leone and Uganda, I would suggest that there are two major differences between li'l Omar and these children. 1) These children do not, generally, come from a long blood line of violent extremism (my understanding is that they're forced into service, either by fear, need or both) 2) They're not living in Canada as Canadian citizens when they're off fighting these conflicts. Given these two discrepancies, I think it's absolutely reasonable to believe that the child soldiers of Sierra Leone stand a chance of leading a productive, happy life in a post/No-war environment, while Omar should still be tried as a "combatant". Omar, on the other hand, has nothing. Those of his family who aren't dead probably want to kill him for betraying a cause. He has no education, is half blind (probably soon to be fully blind, if the guards reports are to be believed) and has a travel dossier that includes the wrong side of the cages at Guantanamo. What's he going to do? Who's going to hire him? How is he ever going to lead a normal life in Western society? The best case scenario for child soldiers in Uganda/Sierra Leone is that they get treatment for their PTSD and they go on to become perfectly productive members of a stable society (whether a stabalized Uganda/Sierra Leone, or through adoption/fostering). The best case scenario for Omar is that he becomes a perfectly benign drain on public resources. That's his BEST CASE scenario. A far cry from a Ugandan/Leonese child soldier. Perhaps, in support of some humanistic ideology, protecting him becomes important. However, I don't think we're exactly pissing on lady liberty to say that, even if this kid wasn't involved in killing a medic, he was going to be involved with killing someone eventually; it's 50/50 whether or not he'll be involved in killing anyone ever again. Also, this "kill or be killed" ideology is utter bullshit–you can wave a white flag. We prosecute American soldier ALL THE TIME who do not follow proper rules of engagement (ROE)–if this kid threw down his weapons, threw his arms in the air and yelled "I surrender", then WE WOULD be trying these soldiers for murder; if the kid is still holding his rifle/grenade/pistol, it doesn't matter if he's shot in the back, the front, or square in the butt cheek. It's an absolute insult to suggest that every single soldier in a unit values "stickin with their buddies" in the face human rights violations. We convicted the marines who fired indiscriminantly; on a much larger scale, we have constantly reprimanded, demoted and discharged soldiers for a variety of ROE infractions (Hell, my brother worked with a soldier who lost rank for feeding a dog to a lion in a Baghdad zoo, purely because someone claimed it was their pet…bearing in mind that, culturally, the Baghdad Iraqis HATE dogs). The battle on the ground has significantly more dignity and compassion than the battle in the political offices; it might be good to remember that while we're coming up with baseless, friendly-fire cover-up conspiracies. This kid was not on the wrong side of a firefight, he was on the wrong side of violent ideology. As a Canadian citizen, ideology was the only thing that made this invading force "foreign" to him. FINALLY, let's remember that all this good stuff about Omar–and the bad stuff about his prosecutors/Bush administration–IS COMING FROM HIS DEFENSE TEAM! Shit, in light of the evidence, they're gonna need to paint this kid as a puppy bred with a saint if they're going to hope for any leniency. I wouldn't be suprised if they dug up testimony from the last schoolteacher he had! Their only hope of not giving this kid life imprisonment is to change it from a legal issue into a moral issue–defending a "child". Which leaves us here. Arguing not about ROE, Geneva conventions or even forensic evidence, but instead arguing whether a "child" should be prosecuted.

By: Eva

Eva — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:33:44 +0000

I'd also be curious to know what you think about the rehabilitation of child soldiers who fought in Sierra Leone or northern Uganda? They are generally acknowledged to have committed far, far more heinous crimes than throwing a grenade over a wall (whcih is, in effect, the only concrete charge against Omar Khadr). Many of them were forced to torture/rape/kill their own family members, to cement their loyalty to their new unit. Should they all be hanged as well? For that matter, is anyone who's been in combat really fit for civil society afterwards? You note that a "seasoned killer" doesn't belong on the streets — so perhaps all veterans should be euthanized after the battle is through? Look, that's hyperbole, obviously, but the bottom line is this: Omar Khadr participated in a firefight — a firefight initiated by an invading foreign army. I know you come from a military family — do you really believe soldiers should face murder and war crimes charges for being on the wrong side of a firefight? I'd think people whose family members could be in the same situation would be the first to defend the whole P.O.W. concept. It's not like the kid was slaughtering civilians here. To put it bluntly: if I had a grenade in my hand and nowhere to run, and a bunch of US soldiers were shooting at me, I'd probably throw it. Does that make me a war criminal?

By: Eva

Eva — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:23:36 +0000

Jacob: He's accused of killing a medic, yes — by throwing a grenade from inside a walled compound. Hardly a targeted assault. No one saw him throw the grenade. In fact, there are arguments that the medic was actually killed by friendly fire (can't find a link for that now, sorry, but I've been following this case for years) and there was also another Afghan still alive inside the compound when the Americans finally stormed it. They shot him in the head, and Khadr in the back. Khadr lived — and, conveniently, was deemed to be the source of the grenade that killed the medic. Does that seriously warrant execution in your book? If so, do you believe the soldiers who shot an unarmed wounded man in the head and an unarmed wounded boy in the back should be executed, too? The Canadian government is actually working on a rehabilitation plan that does NOT involve him going back to his family. (Khadr himself says he wants nothing to do with them.) He has a grandmother, I think, who has zero extremist ties, and he'd be under a sort of house arrest there — he'd go back to school (hasn't been educated since the age of 11), talk to therapists, check in with parole-type officials, etc, etc. See if you can find the video that was released from when he first was (finally) allowed to see Canadian officials. He can hardly stop bawling throughout — not exactly a "seasoned killer". If you think this kid should be executed, you must figure everyone who's ever been affiliated with Al Qaeda and the Taliban should be executed, no? Victory by genocide? Of course, that level of slaughter would only serve to radicalize thousands more, continuing the cycle… I really see no way forward besides "rehabilitation", as skeptical as I know many people are about the term. What else can we do? It's either fix them, or kill 'em all.

By: Olivebeard

Olivebeard — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:05:07 +0000

Wow, I've never heard of this case before either. But here's my thought Hang 'im. Now, I feel I'm a pretty cosmopolitan guy when it comes to views on war, extradition, imprisonment; however, I'm pretty conservative on this concept of "rehabilitation". If this was some dumb kid who got caught up in a fervor of ideology and ended up in over his head, leniency might be a reasonable solution. This would be in part because such an example would have the kid returning to a non-terrorist family structure upon release. But c'mon! His dad was killed in a shootout at the Pakistani border (the same shootout his YOUNGER brother was killed). Everyone in his family has documented involvement with a militant, extremist religious ideology, from training to execution. What's he going to go home to (assuming he'd ever go home)? The link provided on Guantanamo's "assessment" of his recidivism came from the guards; these guys' only qualifications–bless their hearts–are a high school diploma and basic training. Oh, he's a nice polite kid? So are sociopaths…and serial killers. Doesn't exactly mean he has the support structure necessary to return to any semblance of a normal life upon release. Here's the other thing: he's not being accused of killing a "soldier", he's being accused of killing a medic. According to Geneva conventions (conventions we, admittedly, ignore on a regular basis), killing a medic with clearly shown insignia is a war crime–because medics are there to save lives. Ever watch "Saving Private Ryan"? The medic has a white helmet and a red cross, and is able to sit in the middle of a battlefield (Omaha Beach, nonetheless) treating the wounded because only a f&#king monster would shoot at him. Yeah, he got a bad roll of the dice as far as life and family go–and it's a pity that it's a break that has cost him his freedom, health and–eventually–life. But I think they're moving forward with the trial because an extremist liberal agenda might send a trained and seasoned killer back into the ranks, not because Bush has some beef with Obama.

By: Eva

Eva — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:22:54 +0000

Hi, and thanks for your comment! You're completely right that Obama won't be able to single-handedly bring about world peace, etc, etc – I am aware of that – but in this instance, given the documented reports of his advisors working on detailed plans to close down Guantanamo, I think it's fair to say that he could be in a position to "save" Omar Khadr from a conviction for war crimes in a tribunal of questionable legality. That's a concrete, specific thing that Obama can — and I believe, will — accomplish.

By: boilerbugle

boilerbugle — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 22:22:14 +0000

Not being a regular news follower, (i get most of my news from my college's free daily) I'd never heard of this story, and it saddens me to think of how ridiculous my country is becoming about "terrorists" I'm not a military expert, and have no idea what the answer to the war is. I want to comment, however, about Barack Obama, and your apparent beliefs that hes the end all to war and injustice. I voted for him because he was inspiring and different and I think the Democrats deserve a shot at it. But honestly, I don't believe Obama will be able to bring peace like you, and a big chunk of the world, think he will. He's not a king, and once he assumes office, will probably spend a lot of time fighting with congress and the pentagon and God knows who else to get things done. Its not as simple as sitting in the white house and saying, "close the Guantanamo bay prison" Approach with caution and prepare to be disappointed because once he assumes office he won't get to make speeches and talk about change, he has to do it. And that's a whole lot harder than making a speech at Grant Park.