The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
US altered battle report to make Omar Khadr a killer
Azio
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen, was arrested by American troops in Afghanistan at age 15 in 2002, where he allegedly threw a grenade that killed a soldier. He has been held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps since, and is the youngest prisoner to be held at Guantanamo. The Canadian government has refused to attempt to extract him from the Americans' illegal detainment despite the fact that he was a child soldier at the time and has not been given a proper opportunity to represent himself legally or argue his innocence.
Turns out that he didn't actually throw that grenade; the Pentagon recently released reports that, although present in the firefight that killed Sgt Christopher Speer, there was no evidence that he had thrown the grenade. In fact, military officials had initially claimed in a report dated July 28, 2002 (the day after the battle) that the man who threw the grenade had been killed, and then Khadr, who was on his knees, was shot twice in the back before being captured by the Americans. A "revised" battle report, which was published months later but also dated July 28, 2002, said that the grenade thrower had not been killed but was "engaged".
Come on, "Colonel W"?! I wonder what excuse the Tories will come up with to not have to deal with him this time.
Turns out that he didn't actually throw that grenade; the Pentagon recently released reports that, although present in the firefight that killed Sgt Christopher Speer, there was no evidence that he had thrown the grenade. In fact, military officials had initially claimed in a report dated July 28, 2002 (the day after the battle) that the man who threw the grenade had been killed, and then Khadr, who was on his knees, was shot twice in the back before being captured by the Americans. A "revised" battle report, which was published months later but also dated July 28, 2002, said that the grenade thrower had not been killed but was "engaged".
The Globe and Mail wrote:GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba — A U.S. military commander altered a report on a firefight in Afghanistan to cast blame for the death of a Delta Force commando on a Canadian youth who was captured after the shooting stopped, a defence lawyer said Thursday.
The lawyer, Navy Lieutenant-Commander William Kuebler, made the allegation at a pretrial hearing as he argued for access to the officer, identified only as “Col. W,” as well as details about interrogations that he said might help clear his client of war-crimes charges.
The U.S. military has charged Omar Khadr with murder for throwing a grenade that killed Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer during a U.S. military raid on July 27, 2002, on an al-Qaeda compound in eastern Afghanistan. Mr. Khadr's case is on track to be the first to go to trial under a military tribunal system at this U.S. Navy base in southeast Cuba.
The military commander's official report the day after the raid originally said the assailant who threw the grenade was killed, which would rule out Mr. Khadr as the suspect. But the report was revised months later, under the same date, to say a U.S. fighter had only “engaged” the assailant, according to Cdr. Kuebler, who said the later version was presented to him by prosecutors as an “updated” document.
Cmdr. Kuebler told reporters after the hearing that it appears “the government manufactured evidence to make it look like Omar was guilty.”
Prosecutors did not contest Cmdr. Kuebler's account in court and did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Mr. Khadr, who was captured when he was 15, is among roughly 80 detainees the Pentagon plans to prosecute at Guantanamo. So far, roughly a dozen of the 275 men held at Guantanamo have been charged with war crimes.
Cmdr. Kuebler said the trial will likely hinge on statements that Mr. Khadr made to interrogators when he was held at a military prison at Bagram air base in Afghanistan. The lawyer asked to be provided with the names of the interrogators as well as what techniques they used.
His interrogators included members of a unit implicated in the December 2002 beating deaths of two Afghan detainees, named Dilawar and Habibullah, Cmdr. Kuebler said.
Mr. Kuebler showed the judge a photograph of Mr. Khadr after his capture, with two gaping exit wounds in his chest from gunshots to his back, and said he would have been particularly vulnerable to coercion when he arrived at Bagram.
“We're not talking about an adult of able physical and mental condition,” he said.
The lead prosecutor, Marine Corps Maj. Jeffrey Groharing, said defence lawyers have not demonstrated that speaking with individual interrogators would benefit their case. He said the government already has provided typewritten summaries of the Bagram interrogations.
Cmdr. Kuebler bristled at the prosecutor's decision to withhold information it does not consider relevant to the case.
“What does he know about our case … and what might help us prepare for trial?” he asked.
The judge, Army Col. Peter Brownback, scolded both sides for not co-operating more closely on evidence-related issues that could delay the trial, currently scheduled for May. He said he would rule on most of the defence motions by late Friday.
Judge Brownback also ordered prosecutors to provide the defence with official correspondence regarding the case between the U.S. and Canadian governments.
Also Thursday, a separate military tribunal arraigned a Saudi detainee, Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Haza al-Darbi, who is accused of plotting in 2001-2002 to attack a ship in the Strait of Hormuz or off the coast of Yemen as a member of al-Qaida. He did not enter a plea to charges that include supporting terrorism.
Come on, "Colonel W"?! I wonder what excuse the Tories will come up with to not have to deal with him this time.
Azio on
0
Posts
Yeah, the US were wrong in altering battle reports to put this guy in prison. But that doesn't make him innocent. In this case, it only seems to make him guilty of something else.
Honestly, this is just going to keep on happening. Heck, this might not even be Bush's fault, the lie seems like a military only endeavor, all Bush can be accused of is not paying attention.
And there's a difference between being a Taliban fighter who you're trying to extract info from and a taliban fighter who killed a US soldier. The second one looks better for the press, the first one is the real reason most likely.
But no, let's not let silly things like "logic", "ethics", "legal precedent", "international treaties", and "rule of law" get in the way of an aggressor state's desire to prosecute those it deems evildoers.
This. Khadr is the victim here, he's the child soldier. He should've been immediately repatriated to Canada and sent to proper rehabilitative programs, rather than being held in Gitmo.
Not that I don't believe you but, link?
The international consensus is that 18 is the age when one is an adult. Any younger and they are a child soldier. If I recall correctly, the current trials for war crimes in Sierra Leone (or perhaps Ivory Coast, I might be wrong) have refused to prosecute anyone who was under 18, viewing them instead as victims.
But as reservists will they not be called into combat if the shit hits the fan? I'll ask my buds, but I honestly have no clue about reserve combat things. Too preoccupied with learning about the regs :P
Anyway, is Khadr even considered a soldier per se? Calling him a terrorist would be a rather nice way around pesky laws, because he would then be an illegal combatant with no protection under international conventions? Also, viewing them only as victims is something I disagree with. a 15 year old has control over their actions and should be able to decide for themselves. 15 year olds forced into combat are different though.
If he was brought in by his father, then he has a pretty good case which will be argued in court. Sierra Leon isn't analogous - al-Qaeda didn't rove the countryside force 12-year-olds into their armies so far as I know.
And yes, obviously if evidence against him was falsified, that's inexcusable and hopefully "Colonel W." will be tried for it. And Gitmo is generally reprehensible. But I don't believe age alone excuses the kid. It's a mitigating circumstance, not a reason not to prosecute at all.
You can join the Reserves with parental permission at age 16, and you can also join the Canadian Rangers at age 16 with parental permission. But you will never be deployed outside of the country until you turn 18, under any circumstances. Further, the Reserves themselves will only ever be mobilized if war is declared by Parliament, which hasn't happened in quite some time. If Reservists wish to serve with regular forces in combat or peace-keeping missions, they have to first volunteer, and then go through extensive pre-screening and work-up training before they are ever allowed in theatre. I have a friend who joined the Reserves at 16, and he has been to Afghanistan now - but he had to wait until he was over 18 before they would deploy him. And then he had to wait for a couple of troop rotations before he was actually chosen to go.
Huh I thought that maybe if everything completely and utterly hits the fan, as in Russia invades from the north and America from the south "Call up every troop" thing happens that 16 year old reservists might be called up. My mistake. My buddy put in his request too, but he is a combat engineer so he might cycle in a lot sooner.
Also, the kid qualifies as a child soldier. Prosecuting a child soldier = not cool.
Far from it really - makes you wonder when even the military, which has every incentive to paint him as a willing combatant while building its case against him, has admitted that he only ended up in Afghanistan because his father brought him along.
If they have actual evidence that he murdered a US citizen, then prosecute him in court. If he was a fighter that killed a US soldier during a war, then make him a POW. Gitmo is totally unjustified, and totally disregards basic human rights and democratic methods.
Plus, of course, he was a child soldier, which should render all this moot anyway. But he was a terrorist, so I guess it doesn't apply.
The child soldier problem is a tad more complicated than just the "Are kids rational/moral actors?" question.
There are some books I'd love to recommend, if you're interested.
I'll shoot both, and deal with the emotions when I get home. That way, even though I'll feel bad later, at least I have a later, cos sure as shit that child soldier isn't going to care about me.
As for the fact they are keeping him, I don't have enough information to judge whether it is legit or not.
Nice catch before he deleted it, I was going to respond in the same manner.
Must have been a forum burp, hence my repost. Phobos, any sources you can recommend would be good.
I don't really consider it a "catch." It's a very common misconception about child soldiers, actually- people immediately think back to their own childhood when the situations are not analogous.
That does assume that the child, growing up, has had access to someone providing them with a solid moral upbringing and not feeding them a particular dogma or ideology all that time. Or in African nations skipping that and conscripting the kids to fight, and those that refuse being shot.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Could you elaborate? I understand that for instance, that he was undoubtedly forced into this life by his father, but there comes a point at which free will comes into play and you can't force someone to fuck around with landmines (as is alleged).
Well, let's try to put it in a frame of reference we could understand. If a distant, outside force invaded the United States, and your father said, "Son, we have to go fight with the resistance" would you say, "No, I would consider myself to be an unlawful combatant and I do not want to murder anyone."
That's ignoring cultural, familial and societal pressure to obey one's parents. Even without the parents, if you're drafted, you're drafted. There's no Canada for an Afghan teenager to go to. You very much can force someone, either through implied or direct coercion, or a wider social coercion. (Fear of being labeled a "coward", for instance)
Ultimately, using anyone 15 or younger in warfare is a war crime. They're victims of the wider institutions governing their lives. 15 is an arbitrary break point, yes, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
EDIT: It's not as if the kid wasn't raised with a moral compass or anything like that. It's that his choices were framed in such a way that fighting American forces was the "correct" decision on that moral compass. As we've seen throughout history, it's not difficult for an institution to do this, but it is very difficult for even adults to resist, much less children.
The problem is, EVERYONE fighting on the other side in this conflict has had a dogma or ideology fed to them for their whole life, which is part of the tragedy. That's why the difference between a 15 year old ("child") and an 18 year old ("adult") is academic in this context. Child soldiers are a fucking disgusting tragedy, but I honestly think at the age of 15 you're moving from the "child soldier" tragedy to the bog standard "soldier" tragedy. I'm not saying it isn't terrible, I'm saying that since we're clearly making people responsible for their actions at some point (in this case, 18), 15 isn't hugely unreasonable. There's so much horrible shit going on this war anyway though. Case in point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Omar_Khadr_getting_battlefield_first_aid.jpg
Try him and be done with it. If he was stupid enough to follow his father into service with a terrorist organization that was an enemy of canada and it's allies then he deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law. If the US can't prove that he was engaged in terrorist acivities then he should be released to his native canada.
Yeah, it's definitely an arbitrary line. But it's the line international law, custom and usage has drawn.
EDIT: Huh, I was wrong- 18 is the more common cut off. In any event, Omar should be tried (of course), but he's more deserving of a rehabilitation program than a long prison sentence, in my opinion.
I wish I could- but I can't find my bibliography to a paper I wrote on the subject a couple years ago, and my degenerative memory disease (i.e., booze) means I can't remember a damn thing. I'll keep looking.
One thing is that, according to wikipedia, Osama and his dad met when fighting for us. I'm not sure how pertinent that is, but it is interesting.