A US pre-trial hearing for a Canadian child soldier (sorry, make that child “enemy combatant”) who’s been held in Guantanamo for six years will go ahead after all — just one day before Barack Obama becomes President.
Omar Khadr is currently scheduled to appear in one of Guantanamo’s much-maligned military commissions on January 19 (Martin Luther King Day, for those keeping track), the day before Obama — who has pledged to close the prison camp at Gitmo — takes office.
Said Khadr’s Pentagon-assigned lawyer, Lt.-Cmdr. Bill Kuebler:
These people are so desperate to get the train moving in some form or fashion that they’re going to start this case on Martin Luther King Day and continue through the inauguration day…
It shows desperation and you can almost interpret it as a thumb in the eye of the incoming Obama camp.
Khadr was just 15 years old when he was captured after a firefight in Afghanistan, and has been imprisoned ever since, waiting to face charges of “war crimes” and “murder”, based on allegations that he threw a hand grenade (in said firefight) that killed a US soldier.
(Incidentally, the soldiers that captured Khadr initially found him unarmed and wounded, and shot him in the back. They only took him into custody when he survived the bullets — but they have yet to face charges of attempted murder. In fact, they’ll be among the chief witnesses for the prosecution.)
Why are child soldiers from Sierra Leone or Uganda viewed as victims, but Omar Khadr is instead treated as a war criminal?
The Khadr family is extremely controversial up here in Canada.
Omar’s father (who was killed in Afghanistan) was a well-known fundraiser for Al Qaeda, said to know Osama Bin Laden personally, while the mother has frequently been in the news in recent years, complaining about the Canadian government’s inadequacies while publicly supporting Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
But all of that — far from making me believe Omar is getting what he deserves, as some do — only makes me feel the injustice of his case more strongly.
This is a boy who was sent to Afghanistan by his parents for terrorist training before he’d hit puberty — truly a case of child abuse if ever I’ve heard one.
And yet, instead of trying to protect or rehabilitate him (and even the staff at Gitmo believe he is a perfect candidate for rehab), the Canadian and US governments have responded by stripping him of his rights, torturing him, and putting him on trial for “murder”, a bizarre charge to level at someone in a war zone where (as his captors made clear when they tried to finish him off) it was kill or be killed.
Why are child soldiers from Sierra Leone or Uganda viewed as victims, but Omar Khadr is instead treated as a war criminal?
And why are US prosecutors so intent on seeing his case through, even as a new President arrives who’s made it clear he wants no part of the mockery made of justice in the last 8 years?
The answers to both questions are the same: as with Abu Ghraib, third-party rendition, and everything else, too many high-level US administrators have become so intent on “winning” the War on Terror, that they’ve lost all sight of what they are supposed to be fighting to protect.
Namely: liberty, democracy and justice.
Barack Obama’s inauguration day really can’t come soon enough.
Unfortunately for Omar Khadr, it may come one day too late.
Photo by art makes me smile (Creative Commons)
About the Author
More By This Author
- Sunshine Guaranteed - Or Your Money Back (8 comments)
- New Paid Travel Writing Opportunities from BootsnAll (2 comments)
- You Don't Need a Mumbai Slum Tour to See Wealth Disparity at Work (2 comments)
Related Posts
6 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
Hi, and thanks for your comment! You're completely right that Obama won't be able to single-handedly bring about world peace, etc, etc – I am aware of that – but in this instance, given the documented reports of his advisors working on detailed plans to close down Guantanamo, I think it's fair to say that he could be in a position to "save" Omar Khadr from a conviction for war crimes in a tribunal of questionable legality. That's a concrete, specific thing that Obama can — and I believe, will — accomplish.
↵ -
Wow, I've never heard of this case before either. But here's my thought Hang 'im. Now, I feel I'm a pretty cosmopolitan guy when it comes to views on war, extradition, imprisonment; however, I'm pretty conservative on this concept of "rehabilitation". If this was some dumb kid who got caught up in a fervor of ideology and ended up in over his head, leniency might be a reasonable solution. This would be in part because such an example would have the kid returning to a non-terrorist family structure upon release. But c'mon! His dad was killed in a shootout at the Pakistani border (the same shootout his YOUNGER brother was killed). Everyone in his family has documented involvement with a militant, extremist religious ideology, from training to execution. What's he going to go home to (assuming he'd ever go home)? The link provided on Guantanamo's "assessment" of his recidivism came from the guards; these guys' only qualifications–bless their hearts–are a high school diploma and basic training. Oh, he's a nice polite kid? So are sociopaths…and serial killers. Doesn't exactly mean he has the support structure necessary to return to any semblance of a normal life upon release. Here's the other thing: he's not being accused of killing a "soldier", he's being accused of killing a medic. According to Geneva conventions (conventions we, admittedly, ignore on a regular basis), killing a medic with clearly shown insignia is a war crime–because medics are there to save lives. Ever watch "Saving Private Ryan"? The medic has a white helmet and a red cross, and is able to sit in the middle of a battlefield (Omaha Beach, nonetheless) treating the wounded because only a f&#king monster would shoot at him. Yeah, he got a bad roll of the dice as far as life and family go–and it's a pity that it's a break that has cost him his freedom, health and–eventually–life. But I think they're moving forward with the trial because an extremist liberal agenda might send a trained and seasoned killer back into the ranks, not because Bush has some beef with Obama.
↵ -
Jacob: He's accused of killing a medic, yes — by throwing a grenade from inside a walled compound. Hardly a targeted assault. No one saw him throw the grenade. In fact, there are arguments that the medic was actually killed by friendly fire (can't find a link for that now, sorry, but I've been following this case for years) and there was also another Afghan still alive inside the compound when the Americans finally stormed it. They shot him in the head, and Khadr in the back. Khadr lived — and, conveniently, was deemed to be the source of the grenade that killed the medic. Does that seriously warrant execution in your book? If so, do you believe the soldiers who shot an unarmed wounded man in the head and an unarmed wounded boy in the back should be executed, too? The Canadian government is actually working on a rehabilitation plan that does NOT involve him going back to his family. (Khadr himself says he wants nothing to do with them.) He has a grandmother, I think, who has zero extremist ties, and he'd be under a sort of house arrest there — he'd go back to school (hasn't been educated since the age of 11), talk to therapists, check in with parole-type officials, etc, etc. See if you can find the video that was released from when he first was (finally) allowed to see Canadian officials. He can hardly stop bawling throughout — not exactly a "seasoned killer". If you think this kid should be executed, you must figure everyone who's ever been affiliated with Al Qaeda and the Taliban should be executed, no? Victory by genocide? Of course, that level of slaughter would only serve to radicalize thousands more, continuing the cycle… I really see no way forward besides "rehabilitation", as skeptical as I know many people are about the term. What else can we do? It's either fix them, or kill 'em all.
↵ -
I'd also be curious to know what you think about the rehabilitation of child soldiers who fought in Sierra Leone or northern Uganda? They are generally acknowledged to have committed far, far more heinous crimes than throwing a grenade over a wall (whcih is, in effect, the only concrete charge against Omar Khadr). Many of them were forced to torture/rape/kill their own family members, to cement their loyalty to their new unit. Should they all be hanged as well? For that matter, is anyone who's been in combat really fit for civil society afterwards? You note that a "seasoned killer" doesn't belong on the streets — so perhaps all veterans should be euthanized after the battle is through? Look, that's hyperbole, obviously, but the bottom line is this: Omar Khadr participated in a firefight — a firefight initiated by an invading foreign army. I know you come from a military family — do you really believe soldiers should face murder and war crimes charges for being on the wrong side of a firefight? I'd think people whose family members could be in the same situation would be the first to defend the whole P.O.W. concept. It's not like the kid was slaughtering civilians here. To put it bluntly: if I had a grenade in my hand and nowhere to run, and a bunch of US soldiers were shooting at me, I'd probably throw it. Does that make me a war criminal?
↵ -
Let me clarify quickly: by "hang 'im", I meant whatever maximum the courts have on the table. I think there's a giant gray area between "fix them" and "kill 'em all" called "diplomacy". Al-Anbar and post-World War Two Japan are great examples where destroying the right things and rebuilding/fixing the others worked INCREDIBLY well. So back to this child soldiers issue: Not knowing much about the conflicts in Sierra Leone and Uganda, I would suggest that there are two major differences between li'l Omar and these children. 1) These children do not, generally, come from a long blood line of violent extremism (my understanding is that they're forced into service, either by fear, need or both) 2) They're not living in Canada as Canadian citizens when they're off fighting these conflicts. Given these two discrepancies, I think it's absolutely reasonable to believe that the child soldiers of Sierra Leone stand a chance of leading a productive, happy life in a post/No-war environment, while Omar should still be tried as a "combatant". Omar, on the other hand, has nothing. Those of his family who aren't dead probably want to kill him for betraying a cause. He has no education, is half blind (probably soon to be fully blind, if the guards reports are to be believed) and has a travel dossier that includes the wrong side of the cages at Guantanamo. What's he going to do? Who's going to hire him? How is he ever going to lead a normal life in Western society? The best case scenario for child soldiers in Uganda/Sierra Leone is that they get treatment for their PTSD and they go on to become perfectly productive members of a stable society (whether a stabalized Uganda/Sierra Leone, or through adoption/fostering). The best case scenario for Omar is that he becomes a perfectly benign drain on public resources. That's his BEST CASE scenario. A far cry from a Ugandan/Leonese child soldier. Perhaps, in support of some humanistic ideology, protecting him becomes important. However, I don't think we're exactly pissing on lady liberty to say that, even if this kid wasn't involved in killing a medic, he was going to be involved with killing someone eventually; it's 50/50 whether or not he'll be involved in killing anyone ever again. Also, this "kill or be killed" ideology is utter bullshit–you can wave a white flag. We prosecute American soldier ALL THE TIME who do not follow proper rules of engagement (ROE)–if this kid threw down his weapons, threw his arms in the air and yelled "I surrender", then WE WOULD be trying these soldiers for murder; if the kid is still holding his rifle/grenade/pistol, it doesn't matter if he's shot in the back, the front, or square in the butt cheek. It's an absolute insult to suggest that every single soldier in a unit values "stickin with their buddies" in the face human rights violations. We convicted the marines who fired indiscriminantly; on a much larger scale, we have constantly reprimanded, demoted and discharged soldiers for a variety of ROE infractions (Hell, my brother worked with a soldier who lost rank for feeding a dog to a lion in a Baghdad zoo, purely because someone claimed it was their pet…bearing in mind that, culturally, the Baghdad Iraqis HATE dogs). The battle on the ground has significantly more dignity and compassion than the battle in the political offices; it might be good to remember that while we're coming up with baseless, friendly-fire cover-up conspiracies. This kid was not on the wrong side of a firefight, he was on the wrong side of violent ideology. As a Canadian citizen, ideology was the only thing that made this invading force "foreign" to him. FINALLY, let's remember that all this good stuff about Omar–and the bad stuff about his prosecutors/Bush administration–IS COMING FROM HIS DEFENSE TEAM! Shit, in light of the evidence, they're gonna need to paint this kid as a puppy bred with a saint if they're going to hope for any leniency. I wouldn't be suprised if they dug up testimony from the last schoolteacher he had! Their only hope of not giving this kid life imprisonment is to change it from a legal issue into a moral issue–defending a "child". Which leaves us here. Arguing not about ROE, Geneva conventions or even forensic evidence, but instead arguing whether a "child" should be prosecuted.
↵
