The Khadr Thread

[Fishbone Jones]

That 'Kumbaya' stage you're referring to is my firm adherence to the concept of the rule of law, and the values and principles upon which our country is founded and which makes the flag worth wearing on my left shoulder. It's not some naive idea of a world where unicorns shit rainbows and where the children of the third world happily dance on streets cobbled with candy.

You take any kid who's been brought up in a family like that that has decided to make him believe the same things, and he will. You think he's any different, psychologically, from the Madrassa kids who get taken apart by 25mm or a mortar strike when they're spotted planting an IED? Or a kid in Africa who is kidnapped, given an AK and forced into combat after systemic ideological brainwashing? We merely look on them with pity, wishing circumstances had allowed them to be raised differently. This isn't a human being who's made some conscious decision to be evil despite knowing better; it's a kid who was brought up to know 'evil' in a different way from you and I, and whose conceptions of such can be fixed. In any case, he is a Canadian citizen by right of birth, just like you or I. He is a human being, and entitled to be treated as such. It is incumbent upon our government to see that since the U.S. has not justly represented his legal interests that we seek to do so inasmuch as is possible.

The funny thing about 'terrorist, traitor, and killer' is that those are all legal constructs that are enumerated under our laws, and indeed the laws of the U.S.- and not the ones that America created and then retroactively applied to his case in an ex post facto perversion of justice. He was 'tried' under law that didn't come into existence until 2006 for actions he was alleged to have done in 2002. I challenge you to find me a jurisdiction in any free society where that kind of thing happens. The Guantanamo military commissions are a quasi-judicial system that would have done the Cheka proud. They certainly are not in any way consistent with the values that the free world defends.

Khadr was 15 when he was taken in. That makes him either a young offender or a child soldier. America decided it was *inconvenient* to treat him and other detainees in a manner consistent with international law, and so out of pure expediency created a variety of legal fictions that have allowed them to more conveniently sweep this shame under the rug.

It has been a constant disappointment for me in the 10 years of the 'war on terror' to see otherwise principled persons so easily cast our principles and ethics aside out of expediency. I'm far more afraid of what it means for our society to abandon these principles than I am of what some terrorist piece of shit can do to our people, property, or infrastructure. Those are all much more easily rebuilt.

Sorry. You're just not convincing me.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So when Khadr gets home and starts preaching terrorism or gets himself involved in that crowd again, it's all just because he's been brainwashed? I don't buy it.

Better yet, I'm sure Brihard will take him in and keep an eye on him for us.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

Better yet, I'm sure Brihard will take him in and keep an eye on him for us.

That brings up a good question, what will happen to him after he gets here and he serves his sentence?

 

[HavokFour]

That brings up a good question, what will happen to him after he gets here and he serves his sentence?

A very long, hard life with a reputation he will carry to his grave.

 

[brihard]

A very long, hard life with a reputation he will carry to his grave.

Indeed- he will never enjoy a normal life, and I'm fine with that- he'll never be a normal person.

Having worked with young offenders myself, however (yes, including two convicted of first degree murder, and others with a variety of quite serious crimes) I do not write all of them off by default. I challenge anyone here to tell me with conviction that a kid growing up his whole life in a household with very firm, radical beliefs will not take those same beliefs upon themselves, and will not be likely (exacerbated by the ardour of youth) to act upon them when pushed in that direction? That's the whole reason we have a distinct criminal justice system for youth; because they are *not* presumed (and in this case it's crystal clear he hasn't) to have had all the necessary opportunity to learn the same moral lessons that we have as adults. He quite simply never had the opportunity to learn the civic virtues that we take for granted, nor to learn and to actually buy into what we would deem acceptable definitions of right and wrong. He is most certainly paying the penalty for that which he was led to do.

I will maintain that I do not believe his confession to have been made uncoerced and in good faith- false confessions are a frequently noted occurance, and the psychological coercion in his case greatly exceeds that which any criminal suspect in Canada or the U.S. will face. The odds that he actually killed Speer seem quite slim to me. And in any case, if you accept that what happened in Guantanmo was due process (I do not), you must accept the findings of the court and the subsequent decisions at the state level that include brining him back here. You don't get to simply say 'He's a terrorist piece of shit' and allow both nations to smugly write him off under a system of justice that is largely fictitious, then ball your fists and stomp your feet when a diplomatic process that is at least as legitimate results in his repatriation.

Better yet, I'm sure Brihard will take him in and keep an eye on him for us.

An irrelevant tangent that serves nicely as a cheap substitute for actual discourse.

If my professional career path should lead me into one of the various agencies whom would concern themselves with such things, then I would uncomplainingly execute that part of my duties if it came to that. Like I said- due process and rule of law. To snidely suggest I 'take him in' is as nonsensical as levying such arguments in any case of any criminal offender. I am perfectly willing to see Khadr back in our country and even my community. I do not fear him in any way, in part because of the scrutiny he will be under. While I do not *desire* to see him returned for his own sake, I accept that as a larger matter of principle it is necessary for Canada to do what is right in both a legal and a moral sense. Bringing him back to the country is swallowing our pride and finally accepting accountability for something we ought to have concerned ourselves with to a much greater degree long ago. I am of the mindset that accountability still matters.

As I have said from the outset- better if the American soldier in question had been luckier in his shot placement, but he wasn't, and the kid - which he was at the time - survived. At that point decent nations have things that they must do in order to preserve moral legitimacy. The American government chose to take some ugly shortcuts of expediency that leave their commitment to principle in doubt. I do not wish to see our own country following blindly down that path. I don't give have a damn if my opinion on the matter is popular, as I have a firm conviction that is is ethically correct.

 

[aesop081]

ethically correct.

I'm sorry but it is ethically correct when viewed by you.

What is ethical for one may not be for the other, thats the funny thing about ethics. Letting the kid rot where he is now is ethically correct to me.

Please do not assume you have the moral high ground here. You may be legally correct but, ethically, is another matter.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

None of what you're espousing holds anything but your own personal biases and opinions. Simply, as my own do for me.

He does not deserve a normal life, simply because he is not a normal person. He is a traitor, he is a terrorist and he is a murderer.

I do get to consider him a 'terrorist piece of shit' simply because that is my opinion and in this country, so long as I don't cause harm, I am entitled to that opinion. He can sue me if he feels otherwise, which would be ironic because in his twisted culture, I wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of even getting to court.

Again, you are not going to change my opinion, and you are entitled to yours, which I can ignore. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[krustyrl]

As I have said from the outset- better if the American soldier in question had been luckier in his shot placement, but he wasn't, and the kid - which he was at the time - survived.

    :

The "kid" also committed an act of terrorism, he knew what he was doing and he also knew the objective he needed to obtain.  Young'uns have fought alongside others in every type of armed combat through the ages, nothing new here.

To put it in a 21st Century statement....."you f*ck with the bull - you may get the horn"  When it now suits him, he wants to plead "Canadian" to his favour.  As cold hearted (..or un-ethical) as it may seem....I say FUGM.!    :2c:   

Just sayin' .........

 

[medicineman]

Being that the US soldier he's accused of killing was a medic, and until the end of next week, so am I still, he doesn't get my vote...maybe let him come back but make him live up in Cambridge Bay or Resolute.  If he really wants to be a Canadian, let him guard a Canadian flag on Hans Island...

MM

 

[Container]

I dont want to get really into this since Im apparently posting too much, but there is an important point that Brihard needs to expand on-

You keep mentioning the coercive nature of the confession. People make duress and coercion arguments on statements to say that they didnt in fact do the action they admitted to. Your repeated mentioning of Khadr's statement implies that you dont believe his confession. Even though it supports the version of events reported by the others at his trial- what about his confession are you objecting to? I understand that the method of obtaining it has colored your opinion and thats fine- but in the SUBSTANCE of his confession what do you feel is coerced or a lie? This is important because if you disagree that he was a combatant or a terrorist at all of course you dont mind his being here.

As a side point- I dont believe that he will have a hard time here in Canada. He will be accepted into the community that supports his actions and will be monitored by authorities. Possibly living on a large settlement from the government. Watch and see- but there are communities that will ensure that he has a normal a life as any other extremist in Canada.

Personally Im tired of the "its the way they were brought up" argument. Its a nonstarter with me- thats a reason to increase people deployed in peacekeeping missions and hiring more social workers. It is not an argument for the "already" poisoned. They should be punished and held to the grind stone like anyone who breaks societies rules- we'll try and stop creating them but the dragons we already have need to be slayed as such. Metaphorically speaking.

 

[brihard]

Again, you are not going to change my opinion, and you are entitled to yours, which I can ignore. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

That's fair. We'll leave it at that.

Young'uns have fought alongside others in every type of armed combat through the ages, nothing new here.

To 'put in a 21st century statement', as you put it- he was a child soldier, brought up to believe in a maniacal form of ideology. As I have said, and will continue to say, there is a reason why child combatants are treated differently once captured.  Kids are extremely easily warped to believe all kinds of things. Someone who committed such acts as a child can be help accountable without being written off as a human being. There's no shortage of child soldiers who've done a complete turnaround. It seems our compassion disappears when a child soldier fights against *us* in an unconventional conflict. Curious, that.

To the rest of you- note that I'm not advocating bringing him up here and giving him a house out in Kanata. We're speaking of him returning to Canada to finish his sentence before he goes on with anything else.

You keep mentioning the coercive nature of the confession. People make duress and coercion arguments on statements to say that they didnt in fact do the action they admitted to. Your repeated mentioning of Khadr's statement implies that you dont believe his confession. Even though it supports the version of events reported by the others at his trial- what about his confession are you objecting to? I understand that the method of obtaining it has colored your opinion and thats fine- but in the SUBSTANCE of his confession what do you feel is coerced or a lie? This is important because if you disagree that he was a combatant or a terrorist at all of course you dont mind his being here.

Simply put, you put someone in a shitty enough situation for a long enough time, and let them perceive an easy way out by confessing to something that they feel they will inevitably be held culpable of anyway, and many will take it. It's a long established and heavily researched phenomenon in criminal justice, and that's even within very human criminal justice systems such as our own, never mind in a place like Guantanamo. I object to our government simply accepting the judicial product of the Guantanamo military commission in toto as if it were a real system of justice with proper due process. The entire thing is a farce; his 'confession' merely a tragic final act. No self respecting free state dares utilize a system even approaching that of Guantanamo in a civil capacity. Only the terrorist boogeyman has allowed the U.S. to do so in this instance. Again, I invite anyone to point me to laws that are applied retroactively such as they were in this instance.

 

[Container]

Im sorry, perhaps it wasnt clear- I apologize.

I'm well aware of the problems involved in confessions and interviews as well as the phenomenon you are referring to. However, people provide truthful confessions under the same circumstance, as well in others they do tell the interrogator what they think they want to hear.

In this specific instance you keep using the confession as part of your argument, which I see where you are coming from even If I dont agree entirely, but if you are saying that the confession isnt true then you of course dont feel as strongly about his staying out, as say, these other folks do. So what is the part you object to?

Seeing as you are introducing legality into the conversation you would also be aware of decisions that bring the administration of justice into disrepute. There would be two schools for your legal argument- the kangaroo court is such a travesty that they should let him walk. The other side of the "disrepute" argument would be that his treason and active fighting against out civilization- to some of us- outweighs the stupid legal process he was subjected to and the disrepute of the justice system is the fact that he would ever have the chance to walk our streets again.

I fall in the latter camp. I believe the court process and detainee process was gross and needs to be addressed. But I dont believe it gives people that were snagged a get out of jail free card. Because I TRULY believe that this is what we are looking at.

Brihard is correct though- laws are not applied retroactively like that. In Canada the only time is when the punishment is changed to be less. Then the new punishment is the one applied.

 

[krustyrl]

It seems our compassion disappears when a child soldier fights against *us* in an unconventional conflict. Curious, that.

Perhaps our compassion may come back to cause us harm such as maybe when the compassionate Immigration System allowed his parents into the country to give his family a better life ,thus...to lead us to... well, where we are now, debating this young terrorist.  His 15 mins are up.

 

[brihard]

Im sorry, perhaps it wasnt clear- I apologize.

I'm well aware of the problems involved in confessions and interviews as well as the phenomenon you are referring to. However, people provide truthful confessions under the same circumstance, as well in others they do tell the interrogator what they think they want to hear.

In this specific instance you keep using the confession as part of your argument, which I see where you are coming from even If I dont agree entirely, but if you are saying that the confession isnt true then you of course dont feel as strongly about his staying out, as say, these other folks do. So what is the part you object to?

The confession is part of it, certainly - but  view the parts of my argument as pretty much all separable; the confession is only one of several egregious travesties of justice inherent in the entire process. I focus on the confession more because that was the specific mechanism that led in the immediate sense to a conviction, but the entire process from when he arrived in Guantanamo until now has been horribly flawed. I object to him not having access to the evidence against him, to him not having been afforded constitutional protections except for those grudgingly granted only after court intercession (e.g., Hamdan v. Rumsfeld), and I'm pissed off as a Canadian that our overnment just rolled with it the entire time, and moreover had the temerity to be disappointed when our supreme court ruled that they have been delinquent in their responsibilities.

Seeing as you are introducing legality into the conversation you would also be aware of decisions that bring the administration of justice into disrepute. There would be two schools for your legal argument- the kangaroo court is such a travesty that they should let him walk. The other side of the "disrepute" argument would be that his treason and active fighting against out civilization- to some of us- outweighs the stupid legal process he was subjected to and the disrepute of the justice system is the fact that he would ever have the chance to walk our streets again.

I fall in the latter camp. I believe the court process and detainee process was gross and needs to be addressed. But I dont believe it gives people that were snagged a get out of jail free card. Because I TRULY believe that this is what we are looking at.

Funny enough, under Canada's 'bringing the administration of justice into disrepute - the 24(2) Charter argument - your side of this would fare better than under properly applied U.S. laws; whereas our exclusionary rules are tempered by reason through 24(2), in the U.S. the exclusionary rule is absolute with regards to evidence that has been gained by means that impugn constitutional rights. It's no surprise that the American administration has fought tooth and nail to resist constitutional protections over Guantanamo detainees.

'Treason' is a specific criminal offence, one that ought be proven in court. Khadr can, of course, only be accused of treason against Canada- and in such a case, 24(2) may serve the state advantageously in comparison to equivalent American jurisprudence, since certainly more benefit of the doubt is likely to be afforded to the prosecution of an al Qaeda terrorist than in most more pedestrian instances of criminality, and certain lapses in procedure might have been more easily forgiven due to the nature of the battlefield capture and the high degree of secrecy necessitated by who nabbed him- but due process must still remain present. One cannot simply damn someone as a 'traitor' and so have done with them; the Court of Star Chamber has long been abandoned as a form of prosecution.

In any case, to argue over 'bringing the administration into disrepute' one must accept a case moving into a legitimate criminal justice system such as our own. I would be very happy to see that happen- a new trial, right from the get go. There's plenty they could likely get him on, and justice would be seen to done. Simply accepting the verdict of the Guantanamo Kangaroo Court makes us morally complicit in what has happened there. There is no instance in which the fear of the administration of justice being brought into disrepute is a justifiable reason for abandoning the formal and legitimate system of justice entirely.

Brihard is correct though- laws are not applied retroactively like that. In Canada the only time is when the punishment is changed to be less. Then the new punishment is the one applied.

Thank you.

Perhaps our compassion may come back to cause us harm such as maybe when the compassionate Immigration System allowed his parents into the country to give his family a better life ,thus...to lead us to... well, where we are now, debating this young terrorist.  His 15 mins are up.

Having our own principles bite us in the ass on rare occasion is a necessary sacrifice of living in a free society.

 

[PuckChaser]

We're speaking of him returning to Canada to finish his sentence before he goes on with anything else.

Why should we foot the bill for his imprisonment? Unless we've set a precedent by bringing back every Canadian aboard who's gone to jail in the States, I say let him sit in Leavenworth to complete his sentence. If he wants to come back to Canada when he's released, that's his right as a citizen.

 

[krustyrl]

Having our own principles bite us in the *** on rare occasion is a necessary sacrifice of living in a free society.

I consider  this a "risk" vice sacrifice in this instance. These terrorists operate on causing mass destruction and death.  Huge risk to what we as Canadians believe in and expect, regarding safety. National compassion goes out the window when you are protecting family and property.
I find it rather ironic I am discussing this turkey (Khadr) today....    :turkey:

 

[tomahawk6]

Guantanamo exists to house the most dangerous AQ operatives.People who are not even wanted by their own countries for the most part.Many that have been released end up fighting us in Afghanistan once again. Holding them in Afghanistan is a joke because in no time they will escape or simply be released to return to the fight. After Nazi Germany fell our biggest problem was reversing the brain washing caused by Nazi propagandists. I met woman once who had been a squad leader in the Hitler Youth as a kid and she was still a Nazi in heart god rest her soul.The fanaticism caused by the Nazi's,communists and islamists are all similar.Take one big idea and sell it to people who have nothing to lose.They all need a boogy man.The Nazis had the jews.The communists had capitalism.Khadr may realize one day that fighting the west is a suckers bet or he will be on a plane to Yemen or Afghanistan to continue the fight.I am betting he will return to the fight.

 

[a_majoor]

If T6 is right and he heads back out to Yemen, Afghanistan or some other part of the Islamic crescent, then justice will eventually be served up in the form of a Hellfire missile streaking from the sky or a sniper reaching out and touching him and the rest of his pals.

 

[Osotogari]

If he wants to come back to Canada when he's released, that's his right as a citizen.

Here's a thought:  revoke his citizenship and those of the rest of his family as well, then deport them. 

 

[ModlrMike]

Here's a thought:  revoke his citizenship and those of the rest of his family as well, then deport them.

How many frackin times does this have to be said? He's a citizen by birth, it can't be revoked. His family on the other hand, send them back from whence they came.