Not a "terror suspect"
Michael Melia of the Associated Press reports today that:
A U.S. military tribunal convening Monday at Guantanamo will hear challenges from attorneys for a Canadian terror suspect accused of killing an American soldier when he was 15 -- an age they say should disqualify him from trial.Lawyers for Toronto-born Omar Khadr, who is now 21, argue in a motion on the hearings' agenda that the judge would be the first in Western history to preside over a trial for war crimes allegedly committed by a child. ...
Khadr is accused of hurling the grenade that killed Army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer, a Special Forces commando, during a July 2002 firefight at an al-Qaida compound in Afghanistan.
Set aside the whole question of Khadr's age here. Just consider that he is, in the above reports and elsewhere, being referred to as a "terror suspect." And just what act of "terrorism" is he accused of committing? He threw a grenade during a firefight.
This is not complicated. Throwing a grenade at an opposing soldier during a firefight is not "terrorism." That's war.
(Lying troll prophylactic: Spare me the feigned outrage of pretending that this simple tautology is somehow a celebration or defense of Khadr. Nor do you or could you possibly really believe that this self-evident statement is in any way disrespectful of Khadr's victim, the late Sgt. Speer. He was a soldier and he died in battle. Pretending that he wasn't and that he didn't -- pretending, as this tribunal is doing, that he was not a soldier at all, but merely a victim of violent crime -- strikes me as immensely disrespectful.)
Khadr is accused of fighting against American soldiers in battle. That would make him the enemy. It would make him a Bad Guy. But it would not, by any stretch, make him a terrorist. That's not what "terrorist" means, nor is it something that "terrorist" can be twisted into meaning. Omar Khadr is not a terror suspect. He is either a prisoner of war or else he falls into the dubious category of "unlawful enemy combatant," but the tribunal is not accusing him of committing an act of terrorism so let's stop calling him a "terror suspect."
This distinction matters. A grenade in a marketplace is terrorism. A grenade in a firefight is combat. To assert that throwing a grenade during battle is criminal is to assert that all war is a war crime and every soldier is a criminal. I cannot see any way of eliminating that distinction for the enemy without also eliminating it for ourselves and for our allies. That is not something we want to do.
And yet we're already beginning to do just that. This post -- like every post that even hints at the existence of any such rules or distinctions or criteria -- will inevitably produce the complaint that I am arguing that America must fight "with one hand tied behind our back." That phrase -- "I refuse to fight with one hand tied behind my back!" -- is apparently taken from Page 1 of The Nihilist's Rulebook. (Nihilists, of course, shouldn't have a rulebook, but that's another distinction they're proud not to understand.)
He's charged with "war crimes including murder, conspiracy, and providing material support to terrorism". Being a member of al-Qaida (which he was, and even his own lawyers aren't contesting that) gives him a reasonable chance of qualifying for conspiracy and material support charges unrelated to the grenade-throwing. "Murder" is trickier, but the fact that he was an out-of-uniform combatant not representing a legitimate national force might (in my EXTREMELY limited understanding of war law) give that charge legs as well.
Posted by: Raka | Feb 04, 2008 at 09:44 AM
He is either a prisoner of war or else he falls into the dubious category of "unlawful enemy combatant,"
That very point has been a matter of some significant contention in Khadr's case. But the dubiousness of the category (and I agree that both the definition and the implications of "unlawful combatants" need scrutiny and clarification on an international level) doesn't render it meaningless. When civilians out-of-uniform fight soldiers, it increases the danger for all civilians. I worry less about America tying a hypothetical hand behind its own back and more about guerrillas making every civilian into a potential target.
Posted by: Raka | Feb 04, 2008 at 09:56 AM
On the other hand:
Nice date-dropping, Jeffy. Very relevant to the matter at hand. If I knock over a liquor store tonight, I'm sure the court will believe that I must be held accountable for my actions in the Booze Barn after 9/11, but I doubt they'll phrase it that way.Posted by: Raka | Feb 04, 2008 at 10:04 AM
"...but the fact that he was an out-of-uniform combatant not representing a legitimate national force....'
Nope - the laws which the U.S. now so casually disregards do not allow for such exceptions.
At least not in terms of him being a prisoner of war, a legal status the U.S. used to respect.
And pretty much by definition (and the point of the original post), being in combat provides a get out of jail free card for all the killers (or 'murderers,' if you are on the losing side) on the battlefield.
Interestingly, German does not distinguish well between 'murderer' and 'killer' - German lacks the more technically neutral term 'killer.' There was a legal case a few years ago regarding a new citation describing Germany's slowly growing involvement in the business of war, where an anti-war activist cited an anti-war author from the 1920s (Kurt Tucholsky) who wrote 'soldiers are murderers.' (And yes, the author was charged then too.)
As is the usual case here, a weasely compromise was found - the Bundeswehr soldier that felt insulted at being called a murderer, who brought the case, could sue if the quote referred to the Bundeswehr, but it was not possible to sue anyone making the statement in a general or in a historical way.
As an additional note - the proposed president for the German Consitutional Court was rejected recently, in part because he could imagine situations where torture could be at least applicable for the greater good. Knowing all about the greater good, he was rejected by a broad spectrum of the German political system.
Posted by: not_scottbot | Feb 04, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Two thoughts:
This is not complicated. Throwing a grenade at an opposing soldier during a firefight is not "terrorism." That's war.
Around 1981, two Israeli college students visited my high-school social studies class to talk about their country and culture. At one point, they made the blanket statement that "The Palestinians are terrorists."
This post -- like every post that even hints at the existence of any such rules or distinctions or criteria -- will inevitably produce the complaint that I am arguing that America must fight "with one hand tied behind our back."
That's really part of the Vietnam mythology, totemized in the second Rambo movie. When Bush 41 invoked that phrase at the start of the first Iraq war, I felt like yelling at the TV set. According to the mythology, the generals wanted to fight an all-out war and "cowardly" liberal politicians were hamstringing them. I had understood that the truth was the opposite - the generals and other military experts warned against fighting another land war in Asia, but the Democratic politicians and policymakers were deluded by the Domino Theory and were sensitive to the charge that they had "lost" China to communism.
That phrase -- "I refuse to fight with one hand tied behind my back!" -- is apparently taken from Page 1 of The Nihilist's Rulebook.
Fred, would you explain how that phrase is nihilistic?
Posted by: Tonio | Feb 04, 2008 at 10:06 AM
I suppose the phrase could be nihilistic if you take it to the logical conclusion that refusing to act in a way which would ultimately result in one's own destruction (along with one's enemy) would be "fighting with one hand tied behind my back". IE, fighting properly two handed requires the use of weapons like the atomic hand grenades developed (but not used) during the Korean Police Action. (the blast radius was considerably larger than the range of the average soldier's throwing arm. You'd kill the "bad guys", but you'd probably take out a fair number of "good guys" too.) (and which may or may not have ever existed - that remains a matter of debate)
Speaking of hand grenades, however, how is throwing a hand grenade at US Special Forces soldiers invading your home a "war crime"? I mean, forgetting the whole issue of terrorism, do we now define any action which results in the death of American soldiers a "war crime"? Is it just because he wasn't a member of a formal army when the incident occurred? I'm thinking there are formal definitions of the term, and in mis-using it we render those definitions meaningless.
Posted by: mike timonin | Feb 04, 2008 at 10:28 AM
(Nihilists, of course, shouldn't have a rulebook, but that's another distinction they're proud not to understand.)
Nihilist: "His girlfriend gave up her toe!"
Other Nihilist: "She thought we'd be getting a million dollars!"
3rd Nihilist: "It's not fair!"
Walter: "Fair? Who's the fucking nihilist here? What are you, a bunch of crybabies?"
Sorry. Felt the need to quote The Big Lebowski there...
Posted by: Geds | Feb 04, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Raka: "...but the fact that he was an out-of-uniform combatant not representing a legitimate national force....'
So, unless I'm really misreading what you're saying... no. The laws (which we aren't following nearly as well as we should) do very specifically provide such exceptions (and the specifics of those exceptions are summarized in that article and detailed in the GC documents themselves). Khadr was not a POW once a competent tribunal said he wasn't.not_scottbot: Nope - the laws which the U.S. now so casually disregards do not allow for such exceptions
From the wiki article on "unlawful combatant", w/citations to the 3rd and 4rth Geneva Conventions:
And pretty much by definition (and the point of the original post), being in combat provides a get out of jail free card for all the killers (or 'murderers,' if you are on the losing side) on the battlefield.
Not according to the Geneva Convention. Again, those rules aren't set up to protect victorious soldiers. They're set up to protect civilians from jumpy soldiers who are tired of being attacked by people dressed as civilians and might be getting hasty with the trigger.
The real fuzziness with "unlawful combatant" comes from places like Afghanistan, where it's not very clear whether armed al-Qaida encampments qualify as "militias or volunteer corps...including those of organized resistance movements" in a way that fits the letter and/or spirit of Article 4 of GCIII. But that's a legitimate point of contention that shouldn't be considered self-evident by laymen lacking the full details of each case.
Posted by: Raka | Feb 04, 2008 at 10:35 AM
I suppose the phrase could be nihilistic if you take it to the logical conclusion that refusing to act in a way which would ultimately result in one's own destruction (along with one's enemy) would be "fighting with one hand tied behind my back".
Thanks for the input. I had assumed that nihilism was an extreme variety of cynical hopelessness, a distrust of anyone or anything to the point of "kill or be killed," a pursuit of mindless pleasures literally because one doesn't expect to have a future.
Posted by: Tonio | Feb 04, 2008 at 10:54 AM
'Khadr was not a POW once a competent tribunal said he wasn't.'
Interesting point, since I'm sure he was treated as a POW till that point. Though I must add there is absolutely no factual reason to believe that, as a reading of a few more articles might point out.
However, let us continue to read -
'Article 22
Prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land and affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness. Except in particular cases which are justified by the interest of the prisoners themselves, they shall not be interned in penitentiaries.'
Luckily, America isn't holding any POWs in places like Abu Ghraib - otherwise, it would be a breach.
'Article 23
No prisoner of war may at any time be sent to, or detained in areas where he may be exposed to the fire of the combat zone, nor may his presence be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.'
Luckily, Abu Ghraib or Bagram don't hold any POWs, otherwise it would be a breach. Though in fairness, when large numbers of the populace of an invaded country oppose the presence of the occupying foreign soldiers, arguably nowhere in that country is safe. Which may well explain how Guantánamo was picked as a POW camp location.
Continuing from Article 23 -
'Detaining Powers shall give the Powers concerned, through the intermediary of the Protecting Powers, all useful information regarding the geographical location of prisoner of war camps.'
Luckily, America isn't holding any POWs in secret jails, otherwise it would be a breach. Though then Guantánamo seems to fail the requirements of this article.
'Article 25
Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health.'
Luckily, America isn't holding any POWs in places like Bagram or Abu Ghraib, without heat or air conditioning, for example, otherwise it would be a breach.
'Article 118
Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.'
Luckily, not only doesn't America actually hold any POWs, the war against a noun is expected to last a lifetime.
Posted by: not_scottbot | Feb 04, 2008 at 11:31 AM
re: "One hand tied behind our back"
It never ceases to amaze me that most of the same people who say we should take the gloves off and "get tough" on "terrorists" are also the loudest espousers of inherent American exceptionalism, which would seem to logically suggest that we SHOULD be able to beat them with one hand tied behind our back (metaphorically speaking).
The other observation about this is consistent with my seeking out wisdom through pop culture: we recognize that Batman is the hero and the Joker is the villain because Batman plays by rules and the Joker doesn't. Those rules may not always agree with the rules of society or else Batman would be a cop, but the rules are there and they're the only thing that makes him the Good Guy. Take away the rules and you might as well be the Joker. Strangely, pointing this out in a discussion where someone suggests that we should be taking a Batman approach to the War on Terror rather than a Superman approach seems to generate mumblings along the lines of, "Well, you know what I mean."
Posted by: Edward Liu | Feb 04, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Edward, your concept of "rules" for the four-color characters is a good one but misses the central difference between the heroes and the villains. I see it as about principles and not necessarily about rules or tactics.
Batman sometimes works outside the letter of the law, sometimes using emotional or physical intimidation. Superman feels obligated to obey the law and objects to Batman's tactics. But both of them. But they agree that it's wrong to kill as a moral principle. Here is Superman from Kingdom Come (paraphrased): "More than anyone else in the world, when you strip away everything else from Batman, you're left with a person who doesn't want to see anyone die." Interestingly, it was Superman who once took life and went through emotional torment afterward, doubting his commitment to human life.
But both of these heroes care about life as a moral principle. The Joker and Luthor have no such concern, but for different reasons (psychosis in the first, power in the second).
Posted by: Tonio | Feb 04, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Raka: He's charged with "war crimes including murder, conspiracy, and providing material support to terrorism". Being a member of al-Qaida (which he was, and even his own lawyers aren't contesting that) gives him a reasonable chance of qualifying for conspiracy and material support charges unrelated to the grenade-throwing.
Yeah, because a 15 year old boy has provided "material support to terrorism" such that he needs to be locked up for six years in a prison camp for "conspiracy and material support" crimes he committed before his 16th birthday.
His lawyers say, by the way, that in order to get this boy to talk, the Americans withheld medical treatment for his injuries. This 15 year old boy, Raka.
I know that the US still clings to its right to execute people for crimes committed under the age of 18, because Americans are, as is well known, such vile and disgusting people that many of them really do deserve to die before their 18th birthday (this is sarcasm, folks) but in my country, Raka, it is legally recognized that a child under the age of 16 who has committed a crime - any crime - is in need of help and support, not punishment.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Feb 04, 2008 at 12:37 PM
not_scottbot: I'm not a lawyer, but even I can see glaring logical and legal flaws in your arguments. On a more personal level, it irks me when someone ignores a factual rebuttal to switch points.
Tell me that my rebuttal is wrong, or poorly supported, or irrelevant, or whatever-- great. But when you ignore the rebuttal and go on a sarcastic tangent about a point I already granted (that the US doesn't fully honor the Geneva Conventions), I start to suspect that your discourse is not in good faith. I hope that I'm mistaken. Moving on...Interesting point, since I'm sure he was treated as a POW till that point
I'm assuming sarcasm here. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. I don't know (lack of research on my part, not a claim that it's "unknowable"), and it wouldn't surprise me either way. But I don't see its relevance to Fred's point or my attempt at a counterpoint. For what it's worth, a potential-POW receives the rights and protections of a POW as far as treatment and limitations on legal proceedings, but is not considered a full POW for purposes such as disclosure. This is relevant to some of your later points.
Prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land and affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness. Except in particular cases which are justified by the interest of the prisoners themselves, they shall not be interned in penitentiaries.
There was nothing inherently unhealthful or unhygienic about Abu Ghraib. The particulars of prisoner treatment there are something else entirely, but that's not really an Article 22 matter. The "penitentiary" clause means that POWs should not be interned with general criminal prison populations, and they were not.
No prisoner of war may at any time be sent to, or detained in areas where he may be exposed to the fire of the combat zone, nor may his presence be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
"Combat zone" is rather clearly defined elsewhere, and Abu Ghraib unambiguously does not qualify. If you're trying to make a serious point about US violations, you've failed. If you're just trying to snarkily express the fact that every US (and US-associated) installation in Iraq is subject to attack by terrorists / patriots / insurgents... well, yeah. Yeah, they are. And that sucks, I agree.
'Detaining Powers shall give the Powers concerned, through the intermediary of the Protecting Powers, all useful information regarding the geographical location of prisoner of war camps.'
This only applies if our secret prisons hold POWs with recognized "Powers" we can report to. If they are not POWs, then we may or may not be obliged by various extradition (and whatnot) treaties to inform any government that claims them as citizens, but Article 23 does not apply. Granted, the secrecy of those prisons makes it something of a challenge to verify that its residents are legitimately not POWs; this is a very serious issue, among many serious issues regarding these monuments of international shame. I don't understand why you say "Guantánamo seems to fail the requirements of this article"-- it's location is rather well-publicized.
Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health.
Your first slam-dunk! Yes, our torture of people who hadn't yet had their POW status officially determined is a clear violation of the GC, and torturing even legitimate unlawful combatants is trying to cover an awful lot of obscenity with a mighty flimsy fig leaf. I'm still not clear what this has to do with Fred's point or my response, but I'll agree that this was legally and morally unconscionable, and our response was entirely inadequate.
Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
Again, this only applies to actual POWs. There is no "Power" officially capable of signing any peace treaties with us. Which means that the period and manner of their detention is not covered by the Geneva Conventions, but falls under applicable foreign treaties and domestic statutes. This is not necessarily a weakness or a problem. It means that non-Americans need to clamor for better oversight and adherence to their treaties, and Americans need to clamor for some clear domestic statutes. And everybody has to stop bending over for short-term expediency and actually enforce some consequences when it's all ignored.
Posted by: Raka | Feb 04, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Jesurgislac: Yeah, because a 15 year old boy has provided "material support to terrorism" such that he needs to be locked up for six years in a prison camp for "conspiracy and material support" crimes he committed before his 16th birthday.
I agree-- with your sarcasm (and his lawyers), not with your literal quote here. The kid needed therapy and gentle, professional deprogramming; this many years later, he needs to be let go whether or not we've gotten around to that. I'm not sure if there's a legal justification for that opinion, but if there isn't, we need to get on it. I should've clarified my stance about that before focusing on my points of contention.
I was responding to Fred's points about the criminality of his actions if we (as Fred says) "set aside the whole question of Khadr's age here". And as far as that goes, I stand by my arguments.
Posted by: Raka | Feb 04, 2008 at 01:02 PM
In America's war against a noun, a few other nouns happen to get scrambled - seems to have to do something with the omelette of war theory. You know, nouns like children.
Obviously, anyone pointing out that children are not fit subjects for America's tribunals is anti-American, and likely to start objecting to how America uses other nouns, like torture, to defend itself against anyone who commits evil.
Luckily, 'relativism' is another weapon in America's arsenal.
Posted by: not_scottbot | Feb 04, 2008 at 01:05 PM
Jesurgislac: Americans are, as is well known, such vile and disgusting people that many of them really do deserve to die before their 18th birthday
That's not entirely true. We have a strong moral opposition to executing any Americans until they have left the womb. Then it's open season.
I wonder if a pregnant fetus would blow up pro-Lifer heads the same way that verbal paradoxes make cheap scifi computers explode. It has all rights and no rights at the same time! Does not compute! Does not compute!
Posted by: Raka | Feb 04, 2008 at 01:08 PM
Holding a child responsible for war crimes is absurd. Debates about the dubious legal situation of adult prisoners are well and good, but holding a fifteen year old borders on the inhumane.
There's another aspect of this that Fred didn't address: a fifteen-year-old in combat falls under the international legal definition of 'child soldier', which opens a whole other can of worms. The US is party to several treaties and international agreements which affirm our disapprobation of the practice of recruiting minors to combat roles, and which confirm our national belief that even children used in support roles of a military effort are being mistreated by the offending country. The 'support roles' thing is important (not just because of the potential charges that could be brought against the boy because of his support of the so-called terrorism): it means that even children who are not in uniform and/or not supporting an action officially sanctioned by a state government can be considered 'minors forced into combat' under the legal definitions in the 'child soldier' treaties. And under those treaties, a case that can be made that the US in fact has a burden to provide 'assistance for... physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration' to children harmed by use in combat situations by the country that we conquered and took over the role of government for during 2003-5. Somehow I doubt Guantanamo qualifies as 'psychological recovery and social reintegration'. There are also a few child labor treaties which apply here: if the boy actually gave long-term material support to the other side, then he could be considered a minor and a laborer under anti-child-labor treaties.
Child soldier laws are interesting, because they are a military and human rights convergence to which 'don't do it or we'll encourage them to do it to us' arguments don't really apply. (Such tit-for-tat works for things like torture or calling people unlawful combatants instead of just soldiers: we shouldn't torture people, because it gives our enemies a measure of practical or moral justification for doing it to us.) Arguments like that don't work for child soldier cases: we categorically don't use child soldiers, so mistreating other nation's children won't foreseeably incite mistreatment of our own children; we have no real tit-for-tat stake in how we act w/r/t child soldier laws. This doesn't, of course, mean that we're not morally wrong for holding children for war crimes. And it doesn't mean that it we're not incurring practical harms by doing so: we lose standing in the international community, and we lose moral capital in international forums. But BushCo. has always been shortsighted about the need for abstracts like moral capital.
Now, if this case were tried by a legitimate court, I find it hard to believe that any judge in the Union would fail to find that the boy wasn't culpable for his own actions both under the standing laws of war, and under the US's obligation to honor treaties on child labor and the protection of child soldiers. This being a military tribunal, God only knows what will happen.
Posted by: Anna | Feb 04, 2008 at 01:23 PM
Edward Liu: we recognize that Batman is the hero and the Joker is the villain because Batman plays by rules and the Joker doesn't
Well, some of us do. There is a depressingly large segment of the population who recognize what Batman does as heroic because they know that Batman is the hero. See also the Punisher, Jack Bauer, et al.
Bad guys do bad things (axiomatic). We are America, and we are the good guys (axiomatic). Ergo, whatever America does is not bad (or, in cases when that's too dissonant, it just didn't happen at all). More or less a pre-adolescent stage of psychosocial development.
Posted by: Raka | Feb 04, 2008 at 01:29 PM
I wonder if a pregnant fetus would blow up pro-Lifer heads the same way that verbal paradoxes make cheap scifi computers explode.
Can you come up with a paradox that contrasts the religious right's pro-life stance with its support of the death penalty?
Posted by: Tonio | Feb 04, 2008 at 01:30 PM
Raka, I think you missed Fred's point: the boy isn't being charged with "providing material support" - he's being charged with throwing a grenade at a soldier in a firefight. To call that an act of terrorism, or to call it murder, is straightforwardly to call any soldier who has killed in combat a murderer.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Feb 04, 2008 at 01:31 PM
Jesurgislac: Raka, I think you missed Fred's point: the boy isn't being charged with "providing material support" - he's being charged with throwing a grenade at a soldier in a firefight.
Well, that sort of is what Fred says. But it's not entirely accurate. "Khadr is charged with killing a U.S. army medic in Afghanistan. He also faces charges of attempted murder, conspiracy, spying and providing material support for terrorism." The "material support" includes things like assembling explosives, something they have videotape evidence of. So it's not all about that one grenade.
Even if it were, being in a firefight does not automatically mean you are a soldier. I quote and link to what exactly defines a "legal combatant", and Khadr is not clearly one of them. There's an argument to be made there, but a great deal of international legal precedent is against him. Those definitions of who can and can't fight are ridiculous in a way, as any rules governing the senseless slaughter of war must be. But they exist to protect civilian populations, and they do work much better than nothing at all. You can make a moral argument that what he did isn't murder any more than the airstrike that leveled his compound was, and I'll agree. But legally, it is and (in my opinion) should be very different.
Posted by: Raka | Feb 04, 2008 at 01:53 PM
'(lack of research on my part, not a claim that it's "unknowable")' -
Oh, it's unknowable. Far too many federal judges have attempted to find out in a number of other cases, tapes have been erased, national security is involved, secret laws, divine right of the executive. And no, I am not being sarcastic.
'For what it's worth, a potential-POW receives the rights and protections of a POW as far as treatment and limitations on legal proceedings, but is not considered a full POW for purposes such as disclosure.'
I am not even going to bother past this point - you seem to have read the same text I did (I followed your link), and you claimed that a tribunal determines the status of a POW - and only then does a POW become something else. Now you turn around, and claim there is something like a 'full POW.'
You know, you can read about 3/5 human beings in the Constitution too - but it was wrong then, and remains wrong today.
The same is true about how America now reserve the right to decide who gets treated according to America's treaty obligations and who doesn't.
Since I haven't read anything beyond that quote, don't bother wasting any more time trying to convince anyone other than yourself that someone involved in combat, taken prisoner on the field of battle, is anything but a POW.
Posted by: not_scottbot | Feb 04, 2008 at 01:56 PM
I think you missed Fred's point: the boy isn't being charged with "providing material support"
However, it's fascinating the way no one seems to think that even the charge leveled makes any sense even if you take it as a given that the boy was actually doing what he was charged with. The fact that the charge doesn't add up to the crime just makes the whole thing more surreal and less defensible.
a fifteen-year-old in combat falls under the international legal definition of 'child soldier', which opens a whole other can of worms
Fascinating point. Sadly, it really just seems like another in a long line of crimes for which the people responsible for this whole clusterfuck should but never will be held accountable for.
Child soldier laws are interesting, because they are a military and human rights convergence to which 'don't do it or we'll encourage them to do it to us' arguments don't really apply.
It's also one of those few convergences that doesn't need a tit for tat disincentive to make sure they get enforced. Forcing children to fight whether by physical intimidation or psychological indoctrination is an abhorrent activity.
Not only should we not encourage it, we should weep whenever we hear of a soldier forced to kill a young boy who is leveling an AK-47 across a smoke filled room. And we should question everything we hold dear when that child is charged with war crimes and no public outcry is raised.
Posted by: Geds | Feb 04, 2008 at 02:02 PM
I've noticed that whenever someone criticizes American abuses such as at Gitmo or Abu Ghirab, conservatives usually respond with, "So you're saying that we're no better than the terrorists?" Is this a deliberate attempt to deflect the criticism, or are they honestly so sensitive about America that they can't accept legitimate criticism?
Posted by: Tonio | Feb 04, 2008 at 02:14 PM
not_scottbot: you seem to have read the same text I did (I followed your link), and you claimed that a tribunal determines the status of a POW - and only then does a POW become something else. Now you turn around, and claim there is something like a 'full POW.
A tribunal determines the status of a detainee. They decide whether the detainee is a POW or an unlawful combatant. Until that determination is made, a detainee must be treated as a POW. That treatment applies to the duration and conditions of a detainee's incarceration, but does NOT obligate the imprisoning nation to officially consider the detainee as a POW for purposes of (among other things) disclosure of POW identities and conditions, prisoner exchanges, etc. There are many more specifics, but that's the gist.
Now you turn around, and claim...
Hey, I may have phrased my initial summary poorly, but you did read the source material. I don't know how much credit I can get for your misunderstanding. Detainee != POW != unlawful combatant (those are colloquial terms, NOT the universal terms of art). There is some overlap, and an individual may very well move from one status to another, but they are legally distinct statuses.
don't bother wasting any more time trying to convince anyone other than yourself that someone involved in combat, taken prisoner on the field of battle, is anything but a POW
Gee, the full body of international military law and I are duly chastened. Because it and I happen to agree that "someone involved in combat, taken prisoner on the field of battle" may or may not be a POW. You're welcome to make moral arguments against this, but legally you're entirely unsupported.
Personally, I would like to see international law changed to ensure that unlawful combatants get the same guarantees of treatment and third-party oversight as proper POWs. But I do not want them to have legal permission to function as soldiers, because that makes civilians into targets. You can disagree with this assertion as well, but my buddy "all of recorded history" just might chime in against you.
You know, you can read about 3/5 human beings in the Constitution too - but it was wrong then, and remains wrong today.
Okay, are you acknowledging that my interpretation of the law is correct, and claiming that it is an unjust law? Or is this just a total non-sequitur? If it's the first, I'd like to hear your reasoning and your suggested alterations. If it's the second, then I'd like to say that Stalin was a very bad man, but bushy mustaches make eating soup difficult.
If you could stop with the shrill hyperbole and juvenile "I'm not playing anymore an' it's all your fault" haranguing, you might find time to make some accurate criticisms of the US handling of this case (and all other "unlawful detainee" cases). For instance, only after a court ruling did we even bother with pro forma committees to determine the status of a detainee, and even now they aren't empowered to make determinations as they ought under article 5 of GCIII. Instead, they can only make recommendations, and even then only within the not-quite-Geneva definitions of "combatant" as defined by the administration.
That's just one of many violations of international law and treaty that this administration has made in this particular case and its general pursuit of "the war on terror". But neither that, nor the many valid and fascinating moral and ethical arguments that surround this topic, have anything to do with whether or not Mr. Khadr can legally be charged with terrorism, or reasonably referred to as a terrorist. Which is all I was talking about before you inexplicably accused me of supporting the Confederacy.
Posted by: Raka | Feb 04, 2008 at 02:42 PM
Is this a deliberate attempt to deflect the criticism, or are they honestly so sensitive about America that they can't accept legitimate criticism?
Oooh! Let me field this one!
I'm working on a theory about group dynamics and people who buy in to certain systems. It's one of those things that I've noticed that if you strip away the superficial differences, there's really very little difference between a strongly evangelically religious person, an uber-nationalist, and, say, that guy who's just a little bit too in to his favorite sports team.
There are some people who, and I believe this is the case due to perfectly defensible evolutionary mechanics, have to find something around which to base their entire life that is "bigger" than themselves. In doing so, they identify with the group and take any victory for the group as a personal victory and any attack against the group as a personal attack against themselves. So, in a very real sense, when you say something bad about a nation, you are saying something bad about the uber-patriot.
This, meanwhile, is probably why there is a strong correlation between members of the Republican party and members of fundigelical Christian churches. Fundamentalist Christianity strongly encourages its people to surrender their will to "Christ" and become "like Christ." And I put that in quotes because "Christ" generally means "the group's definition of a collection of good qualities."
Also, and I'm not entirely how this works or if I'm just imagining a correlation based on extremely limited and statistically insignificant evidence, but I've run in to a lot of (specifically fundigelical) Christians who seem susceptible to falling for pyramid schemes (or "multi-level marketing," as it's euphemistically referred for un-scariness to the uninitiated). It's one of those things, though, using Amway as the classical model. Amway salespeople, from what I've heard, were constantly working from behind monetarily, but always believed that Amway products were the best solution in any situation and if they could just convince enough people they'd eventually be welcomed to the promised land of fabulous wealth. They constantly tried to sell to friends and neighbors or turn said friends and neighbors in to salesmen reporting to them. Meanwhile, I've seen videos of Amway sales rallies, and they look like nothing so much as revival meetings.
It's an indoctrination in to a 100% groupthink mentality, whereby anybody who is a part is in the right and anyone who is outside (or seems to be outside) is wrong and an enemy. It cannot accept any attack, because an attack that is not parried may well plant a seed of doubt that can force the faithful to question whatever it is the group says.
It's also why these particular movements have approximately six ways of dealing with dissention. First, a shunning of or even attacks against those who disagree/have left. Second, outright brainwashing. Third, continual promises of future gains if you just hang in their until you get it right (i.e. blame the victim mentality). Fourth, promises of rewards/punishments for which there is no proof (i.e. Heaven/Hell). Fifth, mythologizing or changing the group's history. Sixth, not telling the whole truth to the newest acolytes, but gradually revealing the story as they become successively more bought in to the system.
The thing is, most people will throw good money after bad, especially if their entire world is wrapped up in whatever it is they're throwing money at. Cults take advantage of this particular glitch in human reasoning. As the person keeps buying in to the idea, the possibility of learning enough to have the entire house of cards come crashing down increases, so the defense from outsiders becomes more aggressive and volatile.
It's also why you have interesting phenomenon like the religious zealot who converts to a new religion and becomes even more insufferable (*ahem* St. Paul *ahem*). There's also things like the recovering alcoholic who begins to find signs of alcoholism in everyone around them. They haven't actually begun to recover from the disease of alcoholism, they've simply bought in to a new belief system as a hedge against the disease.
It's a logical glitch in the human mind leftover from the days when the family or tribal unit was literally the only thing keeping disaster at bay combined with the need for something "larger" to define the scope of life. We all do it on some level, but some are far less capable of functioning autonomously than others.
Posted by: Geds | Feb 04, 2008 at 02:47 PM
Actually, I've read comments by several comics fans (and some writers) to the effect that the ethical thing for Batman to do is murder the Joker because he'll save so many more lives that way.
Likewise, the opening of Moore's "Killing Joke"--in which Batman tries to talk the Joker off the ledge so to speak ("You know how this ends. One of us will kill the other. We don't have to do it that way.")—got angry letters in one fanzine I read at the time because Everybody Knows Batman is a seething vessel of fury who would never, ever, ever show that sort of compassion to a villain.
Posted by: Fraser | Feb 04, 2008 at 02:57 PM
I don't know whether the rules covering POWs properly cover this guy or not.
But with regards to the "uniformed" thing. I've always kind of felt that we use this rule not as a principle, but more as an excuse. A "gotcha" clause, if you will. "You weren't in uniform!" we cry. "We gotcha now!" The same tends to be true with regards to whether the foe is fighting for an acknowledged army. "Hah! We refuse to acknowledge your army! Gotcha!"
Isn't the *purpose* of this rule just to provide some means of dividing *known* enemies, who declare their enmity and then fight, from *unknown* enemies who lurk amongst civilian populations?
It seems to me that if an armed force declares its existence, proclaims war upon you, and fights military engagements against you, the *spirit* of the POW requirements certainly has been satisfied. Even if their army is too low budget to have a uniform.
Posted by: Patrick | Feb 04, 2008 at 03:15 PM
How does one define terrorism? If it's the intentional targeting of civilians, that would mean that both sides in World War II were guilty of terrorism. That may be true from a moral standpoint, but I'm talking about a political and tactical distinction and not necessarily a moral one. Many terrorist groups seem focused on violence for its own sake, choosing targets with no strategic importance other than the promotion of fear. Their stated political objectives are often ludicrously extreme as to seem either insincere or irrational.
Posted by: Tonio | Feb 04, 2008 at 03:20 PM
Geds, thanks for the background. Those "six ways of dealing with dissention" sound as if they were drawn from studies of cults.
There's also things like the recovering alcoholic who begins to find signs of alcoholism in everyone around them. They haven't actually begun to recover from the disease of alcoholism, they've simply bought in to a new belief system as a hedge against the disease.
Bush and Addiction
“It starts with the notion that there is a higher power that will help people change their thinking.
“It’s very important for everybody to understand that there is a commonality, that we all have to deal with the same problems in different ways,” Bush said. “First is to recognize that there is a higher power. At least that helped in my life—it helped me quit drinking.”
Posted by: Tonio | Feb 04, 2008 at 03:38 PM
Geds, thanks for the background. Those "six ways of dealing with dissention" sound as if they were drawn from studies of cults.
Bear in mind, it's just a theory.
Also, the examples were primarily drawn from looking at cults. One of the interesting things I've realized of late is that cults are basically regular belief systems. They've just been twisted and helpfully sped up in an attempt to circumvent the usual centuries-long process of developing a fully formed canon and tradition. So I tend to look at cults as a fast-forwarded process of indoctrination.
However, the first and fifth work just fine for nationalism, the third works quite well for pyramid schemes and the fourth is rather common in religion...
Posted by: Geds | Feb 04, 2008 at 03:56 PM
Geds, that sounds interesting. If you publish anywhere (blogs included), I'd love to see it.
It reminds me of the idea (which probably has a source, though hell if I can find it) that an extremist for cause A will have more ideological and behavioral resemblance to an extremist for any given cause X than they would to a moderate for cause A.
Zompist had a fun exploration of a specific set of examples: Christian right, progressive left.
Posted by: Raka | Feb 04, 2008 at 03:59 PM
Also, Tonio:
The Bush link is right on. An interesting thing about Bush is that he's a evangelical darling in spite of the fact that we don't actually ever hear about him going to church. Clinton was, of course, the antichrist, but we all knew he went to church because it made it in to the news every once in a while. In seven years I don't recall seeing "George W. Bush" and "church" put together in a sentence with a "went for services at" inserted in the middle.
Which invites the interesting possibility that he actually found the religion of A.A.'s generic Higher Power and has simply been spinning it/letting it get spun for political capital.
Posted by: Geds | Feb 04, 2008 at 04:05 PM
If you publish anywhere (blogs included), I'd love to see it.
I maintain a blog in which I ramble about history and religion. The link is my name.
I'm rather fond of the ongoing series I call The Mythology Project and I have a different series I call Fascism Fundamentals I keep thinking I should get around to actually doing something about.
I also had a series over at Right Behind I forgot to write the last couple of entries to. Maybe I should do that one of these days.
Other than that, I've kind of sucked at actually getting published. It's one of those ongoing frustrations of life, I guess.
Also, your link in that last post was quite amusing to contemplate.
Posted by: Geds | Feb 04, 2008 at 04:22 PM
It reminds me of the idea (which probably has a source, though hell if I can find it) that an extremist for cause A will have more ideological and behavioral resemblance to an extremist for any given cause X than they would to a moderate for cause A.
I've been saying for years that the most extreme members of any social group are also the most vocal ones. (If they had been exposed to different cultural influences growing up, would PETA members be flinging New York Strip steaks at vegetarian celebrities, and would James Dobson and Pat Robertson be gay Wiccans casting spells on Christians?) I had assumed that extremists in all groups shared not just personality traits but also certain insecurities.
Posted by: Tonio | Feb 04, 2008 at 04:28 PM
Tonio, re: definition of terrorism:
Although definitions of terrorism often emphasize intent to terrorize as a main component (as the UN consensus definition of terrorism puts it, "the direct targets of violence are not the main targets"), I think there's an unstated assumption that acts of terrorism take place outside the sphere of war. War is a declared state in which acts of violence committed by the states involved in the war are recognized by all involved parties, as well as neutral state actors, to be a part of war (and to fall under the laws thereof when it comes to post-facto prosecution, not the criminal laws normally in effect). Wartime violence might be considered terrorism if the state of war were not in effect, but I think that there's an assumption that you can't commit terrorist actions against a state you're at war with. My favorite summation is one an academic proposed to the UN about 15 years ago: terrorism is the "peacetime equivalent of a war crime." Of course, that's elegantly loose and not legally codified anywhere, but there you go.
If anyone's wondering, the current US legal definition of terrorism in the US Federal Criminal Code (which does not apply to acts committed in a state of war) is:
"…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and… (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States… [or]… (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…"
Posted by: Anna | Feb 04, 2008 at 04:31 PM
"The thing is, most people will throw good money after bad, especially if their entire world is wrapped up in whatever it is they're throwing money at. Cults take advantage of this particular glitch in human reasoning. As the person keeps buying in to the idea, the possibility of learning enough to have the entire house of cards come crashing down increases, so the defense from outsiders becomes more aggressive and volatile." -- Geds
I loved this post, Geds. It's very intelligent and insightful. For a very interesting analysis of the phenomenon described in the paragraph I cited, check out "When Prophecy Fails," by Festinger, Riecken, and Schachter. It describes a cult formed in the early 60's around a woman claiming that Jesus would send spaceships to Earth and rescue true believers by taking them to the planet Clarion (shades of the Rapture!). When the prophecy failed, it was fascinating how strongly the cult members refused to admit that their belief was disproved.
Posted by: Jeff Weskamp | Feb 04, 2008 at 05:16 PM
Now, if this case were tried by a legitimate court, I find it hard to believe that any judge in the Union would fail to find that the boy wasn't culpable for his own actions both under the standing laws of war, and under the US's obligation to honor treaties on child labor and the protection of child soldiers.
Anna, I hate to say it, but I'd wager that you'd be wrong here. We have a bad history in this country of sending underage boys and girls -- mostly boys -- to prison for crimes committed while they were juveniles.
Posted by: pat greene | Feb 04, 2008 at 05:44 PM
Well, that sort of is what Fred says. But it's not entirely accurate. "Khadr is charged with killing a U.S. army medic in Afghanistan. He also faces charges of attempted murder, conspiracy, spying and providing material support for terrorism." The "material support" includes things like assembling explosives, something they have videotape evidence of. So it's not all about that one grenade.
And those other charges, against a 15 year old boy, are patently too absurd for sensible consideration. A 15-year-old boy is to be found guilty of assembling explosives, because this constitutes "material support for terrorism"? I really try not to use unsafe-for-work language on blogs to avoid problems for people who read them at work, but I've now retyped a sentence five times saying what I think of you for bringing this up, and each time because I can't do it without the use of more eloquent and meaningful language. A boy charged with conspiracy? Spying? Attempted murder? What is their evidence - more grenade throwing at soldiers, or evidence obtained under torture? What is this, Nazi Germany?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Feb 04, 2008 at 06:04 PM
Terrific discussion, Geds! And thanks for directing us to your blog.
I'd add another point about specifically fundamentalist versions of Christianity. If you are going to try to get your ethics from the description of how the ancient Hebrews behaved, you've got a problem. The ancient Hebrews, by their own account, engaged in genocide, torture, including torture of innocent animals (horses hocked for no better reason than that they had belonged to the enemy), rape, mutilation, and a bunch of other things. If you take as given that anything listed as something "the Lord" told them to do was right, the only way to distinguish between the bad guys and the good guys was that the good guys were getting their orders from The Lord. That's it.
So, if you start from there, or with a mindset that allows that sort of thinking (it's OK if you're on the right side), then you've got the mentality that Raka so succinctly summed up, "Bad guys do bad things (axiomatic). We are America, and we are the good guys (axiomatic). Ergo, whatever America does is not bad (or, in cases when that's too dissonant, it just didn't happen at all)." I saw one particularly noteworthy example of that mindset during the "Reunion on the Mall" in Washington, D.C., when the WWII memorial was unveiled. There were many seminars and panels of WWII vets from various services and involved in various activities, and one was a panel of the officers who had interrogated the German high command after the war and prosecuted the war crimes. Someone asked what the panel thought about the use of torture as currently used in Iraq, and someone in the back yelled out, "We're not the bad guys!", presumably thinking that constituted an answer--or a reason the question was out of line.
BTW, it's hard to get a good picture of the WWII memorial--most show it from the air--but
this one gives something of an idea of what it looks like--very like Franco's tomb--and (as has been observed by art critics) strangely close to styles of architecture typical of European fascist states.
Posted by: Dash | Feb 04, 2008 at 06:13 PM
I am so not surprised that the this administration is holding a kid hostage in Gitmo. Bush has always been into
trying kids as adults, except his kids of course.
One thing that disappoints me about this election is that candidates are not talking about what is going to happen
to Gitmo and all the people detained there. Nor do they talk about our lost civil liberties. I want to hear the candidates views
on these topics. I would think other Americans would to or do they not care about civil liberties.
Posted by: Lee Ratner | Feb 04, 2008 at 07:11 PM
I agree with everything that Dash said except for this last bit:
BTW, it's hard to get a good picture of the WWII memorial--most show it from the air--but
this one gives something of an idea of what it looks like--very like Franco's tomb--and (as has been observed by art critics) strangely close to styles of architecture typical of European fascist states.
That seems kind of dishonest. The fascist empires of Europe did not come up with those architectural motifs and trying to draw a comparison between them on the basis of art is so galling as to almost be satirical or facetious in some way. If an argument like that was used then it would open the doorway to making all sorts of "curious" observations.
Posted by: Drak Pope | Feb 04, 2008 at 07:21 PM
I agree with everything that Dash said except for this last bit:
BTW, it's hard to get a good picture of the WWII memorial--most show it from the air--but
this one gives something of an idea of what it looks like--very like Franco's tomb--and (as has been observed by art critics) strangely close to styles of architecture typical of European fascist states.
That seems kind of dishonest. The fascist empires of Europe did not come up with those architectural motifs and trying to draw a comparison between them on the basis of art is so galling as to almost be satirical or facetious in some way. If an argument like that was used then it would open the doorway to making all sorts of "curious" observations based on only minor superficial similarities, which I'm already tired of from listening to the American right-wing.
Posted by: Drak Pope | Feb 04, 2008 at 07:22 PM
Damnit.
Posted by: Drak Pope | Feb 04, 2008 at 07:22 PM
Purposefully avoiding a certain architectural form tends to produce serious ugliness. See the Oregon State Capitol Building, which was designed not to look too "fascist."
The "styles of architecture typical of European fascist states" were nothing more than the styles that provided the maximum impact with the minimum creative innovation. Typical of most public architecture.
Posted by: Lauren | Feb 04, 2008 at 07:39 PM
Fred: Set aside the whole question of Khadr's age here.
Jesurgislac [to Raka]: ...those other charges, against a 15 year old boy, are patently too absurd for sensible consideration....I really try not to use unsafe-for-work language on blogs to avoid problems for people who read them at work, but I've now retyped a sentence five times saying what I think of you for bringing this up...
Jesu, I didn't know you harbored such animosity towards those of us with good reading comprehension. The topic, as framed by our gracious host, quite specifically set aside the issue of age. The issue at hand is whether a generic individual who performed the actions that Mr. Khadr performed could be reasonably be charged as he has been. I say yes, everyone else says no. Mr. Khadr's age is what we like to call a "mitigating circumstance", which makes his actual treatment unforgivably cruel and stupid. Everyone, even cold robotic bastards like me, agrees with that.
A boy charged with conspiracy? Spying? Attempted murder? What is their evidence...
From his Summary of Evidence Memo:
...more grenade throwing at soldiers...
Y'know, I could read this and infer from your contextual scorn and derision that you do not value soldiers' lives, and in fact think that anyone anywhere should feel entitled to take potshots at any uniforms. It wouldn't be any more out of line than the some of the outrageous hatefulness that you've attributed to me in the past. Since I lack the malice or duplicitousness to play those games, I presume that this is your way of agreeing with the prevailing opinion here that says his grenade-throwing was legitimate and sanctioned wartime activity. This opinion appears to run counter to the Geneva Convention. If you believe the Geneva Convention is wrong in this particular, I'd like to hear why. If you believe the Geneva Convention actually legitimizes him as a combatant, I'd like to hear that as well. If not, I'd like us to drop that rare point where the US actually is adhering to the GC and focus on the depressingly large selection of cases (even in the treatment of this specific individual) where we are not.
...or evidence obtained under torture?
No. Not here. We mistreated him, but neither he nor his lawyers are challenging the facts of the charges nor the means by which we gathered them. In a way, that's worse. We had what we wanted from him. But we tortured him anyway, in a despicable ongoing low-grade soul-grinding way, out of what appears to be nothing more than the momentum of institutionalized inhumanity. And here, since we're not referring to the hypothetical legal accuracy of the charges applied to impersonal actions, it is fair to mention his age. No ticking bomb scenario. No reasonable chance he had high-level data. We tortured a child, because torturing is what we do, and the child was there.
So yes, I have a heart, and that heart is wounded when I hear more of the unending ways in which we can be mindlessly hurt one another. I do wish you'd stop presuming that I'm a monster just because I don't mention it every time I'm disagreeing with you on a tangential topic.
Posted by: Raka | Feb 04, 2008 at 07:47 PM
Geds: it's fascinating the way no one seems to think that even the charge leveled makes any sense even if you take it as a given that the boy was actually doing what he was charged with.
I do, if and only if we disregard his age. I understand that it's not always worth parsing my word-avalanches to get at the two sentences of substance, but I appear to be the sole defender of the accuracy of the charges. Except, of course, for the fact that we're trying to make them stick in an adult criminal sense to a boy. A boy who has already suffered more than he should've before his guilt was even established.
But yeah, I'm the sole slacktivite who thinks the the charges are appropriate for the actions and circumstances, if not the subject. So there is one.
Posted by: Raka | Feb 04, 2008 at 07:53 PM
The issue at hand is whether a generic individual who performed the actions that Mr. Khadr performed could be reasonably be charged as he has been.
And the answer - he threw a grenade during a firefight - is no: if this is terrorism, the soldiers who attacked Omar Khadr were also terrorists and also ought to be up on the same charges.
Mr. Khadr's age is what we like to call a "mitigating circumstance", which makes his actual treatment unforgivably cruel and stupid.
No: it would be stupid to charge anyone with terrorism for those actions, regardless of his age. Treating anyone as the US has treated Omar Khadr is unforgivably cruel and stupid: Omar Khadr's age just makes the US's unforgivable cruelty and stupidity even worse. For the other Guantanamo Bay detainees, the lower-level soldiers who dealt with them can tell themselves they were only following orders, they were told by people who ought to know that these men were "the worst of the worst" as Dick Cheney claimed. But Omar Khadr was a 15-year-old boy when he was first imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. The soldiers who abused him and tortured him knew they were not torturing and abusing some high-level al-Qaeda or Taliban conspirator: they knew they were dealing with a child.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Feb 04, 2008 at 07:57 PM
From his Summary of Evidence Memo:
Are you seriously linking to the memos presented by the US government to itself at the Combatant Status Review Boards to justify their continued detention of their extra-judicial prisoners as evidence against Omar Khadr - or indeed anyone else?
No. Not here.
And your conviction that the charges against Omar Khadr were not based on "evidence" obtained by torture is based on... what, exactly? Aside from his throwing a grenade at an enemy soldier during a firefight, which no one I know of is denying he did, but which was not an act of terrorism.
Y'know, I could read this and infer from your contextual scorn and derision that you do not value soldiers' lives, and in fact think that anyone anywhere should feel entitled to take potshots at any uniforms. It wouldn't be any more out of line than the some of the outrageous hatefulness that you've attributed to me in the past. Since I lack the malice or duplicitousness to play those games, I presume that this is your way of agreeing with the prevailing opinion here that says his grenade-throwing was legitimate and sanctioned wartime activity. This opinion appears to run counter to the Geneva Convention.
Really? Please cite the clause of the Geneva Convention where it says that 15-year-old soldiers who throw grenades at enemy soldiers are actually terrorists. Or whatever clause of the Geneva Convention you think protects American soldiers from being attacked by soldiers. Or whatever the hell you think you're talking about. I know of no clause in the Geneva Convention that says grenades are not part of legitimate and sanctioned wartime activity. Indeed, I believe grenades are in use by American forces: are you arguing that the US, by its use of grenades, is outside the protection of the Geneva Convention?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Feb 04, 2008 at 08:12 PM