Omar Khadr was 15 when arrested
Can’t you imagine conversations like this in the WH?
“What do you mean they’ll get fair trials?”
“No problem. We’ll just classify them so they can’t get one. Of course that means we screw ourselves with the whole classification maze we set up if the judges rule against us.”
“They wouldn’t dare!”
Today: “Ah, if we only knew what we were doing…”
Judges at Guantanamo Throw Out 2 Cases
Military judges dismissed charges Monday against a Guantanamo detainee accused of chauffeuring Osama bin Laden and another who allegedly killed a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan, throwing up roadblocks to the Bush administration’s attempt to try terror suspects in military courts.
In back-to-back arraignments for Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Yemen and Canadian Omar Khadr the U.S. military’s cases against the alleged al-Qaida figures dissolved because, the two judges said, the government had failed to establish jurisdiction.
They were the only two of the roughly 380 prisoners at Guantanamo charged with crimes, and the rulings stand to complicate efforts by the United States to try other suspected al-Qaida and Taliban figures in military courts.
Hamdan’s military judge, Navy Capt. Keith Allred, said the detainee is “not subject to this commission” under legislation passed by Congress and signed by President Bush last year. Hamdan is accused of chauffeuring bin Laden’s and being the al-Qaida chief’s bodyguard.
The judges agreed that there was one problem they could not resolve _ the new legislation says only “unlawful enemy combatants” can be tried by the military trials, known as commissions. But Khadr and Hamdan had previously been identified by military panels only as enemy combatants, lacking the critical “unlawful” designation.
Here’s just one foreign press take on this.
“The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy; the best weapon of a democracy is openness.” Edvard Teller
For a political party that wraps themselves in the flag, the Republicans seem to have no fear of losing our hard-fought-for freedoms.
Looking to the south, from Canada.. I see this as a personal afront to the whole of North America..
I just hope my government doesn’t start playing along…
“The Republicans” have been usurped. I don’t know what the hell Bush is, but he’s no Republican.
“Navy Capt. Keith Allred, said the detainee is “not subject to this commission” under legislation passed by Congress and signed by President Bush last year.”
What a guy that Bush is: Defender of human rights; working to protect the most vulnerable of our human society.
They’ll just have to get those two dudes next time they kill an American soldier in Afghanistan.
RBG
“If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
— James Madison
Without more information about each detainee, and that’s not likely to be forthcoming, it’s difficult to judge (no pun intended) the legality of holding the suspected terrorists (goodbye Bill of Rights?). But what if every one of them is a terrorist? I don’t necessarily agree with the govt. on holding them without legal recourse, but I don’t believe they’re all there without some good reason. If they’re terrorists, they get what they deserve. If not, then they’re way out of luck. Tough call.
#5, Ron D., nice quote.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Benjamin Franklin
6. – BubbaRay,
If they’re terrorists, they get what they deserve.
I don’t think there’s much question about Khadr being part of Al Qaeda. His father was a close friend of bin Laden and accused of a bomb plot and raising funds. He was known by al-Qaeda as al-Kanadi (the Canadian) and he was killed by Pakistanis in 2003.
On the other other hand, this particular Khadr was fifteen and fighting as a soldier when ‘arrested’ (or whatever ‘captured’ is being called these days). He’s accused of killing a Medic, although if that’s true, one wonders why he wasn’t initially charged as an ‘unlawful enemy combatant’, whatever that actually means.
No doubt they’ll change their minds and charge him with it now, find him guilty and execute him. Why not? He’s most likely guilty, they have the guns and they can do whatever they wish to do under the New American System of Justice, neh?
In all of Canada, I don’t think fifteen is considered old enough to vote, drink, smoke, join the army or make any adult decision. He should have stayed home in school but I guess he was following in his father’s and his family’s footsteps.
#8, Fred Flint, yes, fifteen is on the young side. But when one is taught to hate America and the western world since in diapers, then shown how to commit murder at the age of fifteen, I would suggest one be tried as a terrorist and as an adult. If only they would educate their kids to grow up as something other than religious fanatics and terrorists, situations would not be the way they are now. Am I out of line, here?
What Bushco, Inc. fails to realize, is that the United States is a nation of laws, and not men.
Now, it’s coming back to haunt them.
Well, Capt. Alfred can kiss his career goodbye. Fairness and rule of law are all textbook terms, not legal actualities.
9. BubbaRay,
“Am I out of line, here?”
Hell no! His whole family, including his mother, act like hard core fanatics and if I’d been on the scene when he capped a Medic, I don’t think I would have bothered with the “prisoner” thing. I’m amazed he’s still alive.
I suppose people were under orders to take prisoners for interrogation and due to his family connections, this guy might have been a real prize – if he talked.
Then again, if I grew up like he did, I was a stupid fifteen year old and I blamed Americans for killing my father, I might have done the same things he did and ended up in the same situation. Still, it feels like we’re punishing someone for the sins of his father and I’m ambivalent about those kinds of situations.
When push comes to shove, I agree he should be in jail for safety’s sake but I’m not sure if he should be held as a terrorist and a murderer or simply held as a POW. I guess that’s what the trial will be all about…
Easy way out. Kill everyone at Gitmo.
#13 – MikeN – Maybe that’s what Hunter Thompson was talking about:
We have become a monster in the eyes of the whole world – a nation of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully… Get out of our way, or we’ll kill you.
– Hunter S. Thompson
But here’s a weirdly appropriate old WWII quote from that honest old conservative Winston Churchill, if gonzo writers aren’t your speed:
“The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him judgment by his peers for an indefinite period, is in the highest degree odious, and is the foundation of all totalitarian regimes, whether Nazi or Communist… Nothing can be more abhorrent to democracy than to imprison a person or keep him in prison because he is unpopular. This is really the test of civilisation.”
–Winston Churchill, November, 1943 (at height of WWII)
I really don’t think anyone remotely civilized i nature would agree with you. Not even in wartime.
CBC In depth story.
To me it’s incredible that western society can’t make any kind of objective decision of how to deal with terrorists in a different way than other types of criminals.
It’s as if we are tearing apart at the seams to protect the “rights” of those who shit on our values. Cripes, if you associate with a street gang you can be charged with a criminal offense and up to 15 years in jail (depending on then state or province. Why is this family still in Canada, let alone walking free?
Sorry, broad sweeping quotes like that of James Madison (post 5) are as meaningless and vague as those found in the bible.
Not enough detail to tell, but in the normal course of criminal proceedings, they could just be recharged appropriately? ie, double jeopardy would not apply.
Anyhoo, “war” is about not making these fine distinctions. There is no war against the terrorists.
When push comes to shove, I agree he should be in jail for safety’s sake but I’m not sure if he should be held as a terrorist and a murderer or simply held as a POW.
Good one #12. That is the issue here, and the law is not clear on what to do. Instead of proposing a law to Congress and having Congress debate and pass a law, Bush decided to make up his own law.
What this kid did was murder in my eyes, and a murderer typically will be tried in his own country. I can understand not wanting to turn him over to the Afghani courts, but plucking someone out of his own country and trying him under an American court system is an extremely delicate legal matter and needs to be handled as such.
To the people who say, the kid is a terrorist and just needs to be killed. My response is if we start plucking people out of other countries and trying in them in our courts, why would other countries not start doing the same to us?
In the past, the U.S. was the world’s leader with regards to human rights. It is time we started acting like it.
#7: Not to nitpick, but a quote that important deserves correction:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. —Benjamin Franklin, 1759
#18, natefrog, Thanks for the correction. Quoting from memory is always tough.
#19: The spirit of it was certainly correct! Still an A+ for effort 😉
#18, 19, & 20
The spirit is correct.
Yet, unfortunately, the quote is not Franklin’s although usually attributed to him.
http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605
(I hope this link passes the joshua test)
The issue is whether the colonists should arm friendly Indians against unfriendly Indians. There was also a power tussle between the Governor (English) and the Assembly(Colonists) over who should pay for the guns. The more I read the history of this quote, the more I see parallels with modern times.
Mr Fusion – -thanks for the great link. I won’t quote, but paraphrase that history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes? And so with your link. Our issues don’t change that much which is why the Greeks and Romans remain relevant today on issues of law and society?
Still, the author does say the accurate quote could “well have been” by Franklin, so, without attribution to someone else, why quibble?
Such word searches “used to” more or less start and end with the Oxford English Dictionary ((the multi-volume one no one can afford)). I’ve got to learn how to set date parameters within Google searches. I’m sure thats possible?
Thanks again.
#21: Actually, that page just says people misquote the grammar, not Franklin. Wikiquote has some additional information about the quote, as well. Currently, it is generally believed by historians that the quote is correctly attributable to Franklin. . .
#23,
… there is a letter that Franklin wrote to his friend David Hume 27 September, 1760, … that it was
“not written by me, nor any part of it,” except for one small section and some of the text attributed to the Assembly when he was serving there. … In his autobiography, Franklin says that he was the publisher. It is now believed that Richard Jackson was the author, with Franklin doing some tweaking.
http://tinyurl.com/yvwkxu
Another Richard Minsky letter
There is also the second edition of 1812 where Franklin’s name is used. It was a new face page bound to the original printing. His name did not appear in the original book. Yet, as a very famous man, his name would add considerably to the value of the book.
As for the misquoting, true. But there is much more then a discussion of the grammar. The cite also explains some of the background. There is no evidence that Franklin actually wrote the saying. There is evidence that he did not.
Again, I think the saying is very apt. My disagreement comes with the sloppy attribution to Franklin. Similar is the tale of George Washington chopping down a cherry tree or Betsy Ross designing the first American flag. There is no evidence any of that happened and lots to say they didn’t do those things. If we allow history to be twisted with the little things, then the bigger things become that much easier to twist.
The poor part about using a Wiki cite is it may not always be trustworthy. Wikipedia and Wikiquote are handy and useful but not necessarily always accurate. In my cite above he makes a point of the importance of using original material in research. Too much research today is done on-line and carries the mistakes and errors forward.
BUT, regardless, there is a lot of power in that saying.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
#s 18 – 22, Cheese, I didn’t mean to stir up a storm, but at least most agree that whoever said it deserves merit. It certainly seems to apply to today’s situation. Thanks for all the links and information.
Sorry, I meant comments numbered 18 – 24.
#24: I’ll have to respectfully disagree with the interpretation of Minsky’s work. Yes, there’s some evidence the quote is wrongly attributed to Franklin. There’s also a lot of evidence that it is Franklin’s work. If you’d like, I can certainly ask some history professors here at the college I work for their opinion on the matter…
I should add that studies on the accuracy of Wikipedia are mixed. The most recent ones have indicated Wikipedia’s accuracy is no worse than standard encyclopedias. Another study indicated that people well versed in the topics they searched on Wikipedia graded the accuracy fairly high. People not well versed in their research topic graded the reliability lower.
I would tend to believe on major topics where there are plenty of knowledgeable experts on the issue that the accuracy of the article would be rather high, as many popular articles are watched quite vigilantly.