Oh yeah, this should go a long way to repair our image in the world.
After working for a year to redeem the international reputation of military commissions, Obama administration officials are alarmed by the first case to go to trial under revamped rules: the prosecution of a former child soldier whom an American interrogator implicitly threatened with gang rape.
The defendant, Omar Khadr, was 15 when he was captured in Afghanistan and accused of throwing a grenade that killed an American soldier. Senior officials say his trial is undermining their broader effort to showcase reforms that they say have made military commissions fair and just.
“Optically, this has been a terrible case to begin the commissions with,” said Matthew Waxman, who was the Pentagon’s top detainee affairs official during the Bush administration. “There is a great deal of international skepticism and hostility toward military commissions, and this is a very tough case with which to push back against that skepticism and hostility.”
Senior officials at the White House, the Justice Department and the Pentagon have agreed privately that it would be better to reach a plea bargain in the Khadr case so that a less problematic one would be the inaugural trial, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former officials. But the administration has not pushed to do so because officials fear, for legal and political reasons, that it would be seen as improper interference.
[…]
Chief [negative image] among them are persistent questions about the propriety of prosecuting a child soldier. Moreover, in a blow to establishing an image of openness, the Pentagon sought to ban journalists who wrote about publicly known information that it decreed should be treated as secret. […] And prosecutors disqualified an officer from the jury because he said he agreed with President Obama that Guantánamo had compromised America’s values and international reputation.
#12 “Once again…why aren’t all the WWII vets furious over the shinto shrines built near Pearl Harbor? Japanese atrocities make any Islamic attacks seem pale by comparison.”
Pearl Harbor is not a memorial it’s a … well it’s a harbor.
Maybe you are talking about USS Arizona memorial. I assure you there are no Shinto shrines near that.
#5 Huge nit. You have your facts wrong. The top several floors are going to be a mosque and since they don’t actually have the cash it may end up getting public financing. Those are the facts as presented in the media. There is also the probability that part of the money may be put up by foreign governments. They have flatly refused to state that they would decline such money.
The lot selected was not in use so buying it for a building project was reasonable. Claiming it would patch up bad feelings seems to have misread public reaction to the extreme.
Now feel free to express an opinion.
None of which has much to do with the article posted. He killed one man and maimed another. There are witnesses to the event. The question is what to do about it.
Possible extenuating circumstance: He claims his father forced him to join the Taliban and he was a minor when the killing occurred none of which actually fixes anything.
# 25 Cap’nKangaroo said, “…the equivalent of threatening him with gang rape.”
No, Cap. Threatening him with gang rape would have been to have a bunch of tattooed Marines with throbbing erections telling him to bend over the table. They merely reminded him if what CAN happen to young, pretty boys in prison. What? You think there is no rape in Afghan prisons? Or Chinese prisons? Or Canadian prisons? The kid knew what he was facing, they merely played on those fears.
You are quacking up the wrong duck, Cap.
If we ever lose primary control of this absurd Kangaroo Court we are creating and the tables gets turned, heaven help our troops..
-what a crock of political sh*t.
That this case was delayed a month “because the lawyer got sick” means only that this Kangaroo Court will be hopping all over the news to help mask the now very obvious death spiral the economy is in while the “ritual” carpet bombing of “election mud” gets spammed all over creation for the mid term elections.
It would be prudent for the incumbents that the “its the economy, stupid” meme does not take front stage this cycle.
So you get an “ex” 15yr old on trial for “terror” -talk about selling copy. It’s all part of the script. -and you know how the media and Politicos just love to “create controversy” with what I call “the innocent children” meme. the timing of all this is just too obvious and too “perfect”
all that aside… as #1 mentioned, wtf is with this new “Optically / Optics” meme being spewed from these talking heads the last year or so? I interpret “Bad Optics” as “uh oh, they’re starting to see through the illusion – time for a new holomeme”.
The court is fixed, so wtf is the purpose other than to serve as political capital & distraction.
I say forget the kid, -lets put some of the GovCorp asshats that tanked the economy on trial. -with good ‘ol public lynching for those found guilty. Now that, would be entertainment and Justice.
-s
Turn Off Your TV
Omar Khadr is a terrorist, not a child soldier. The reason the Canadian government hasn’t gotten him extradited to stand trial here is because Canadians don’t want to waste our tax dollars prosecuting him. He should rot in prison forever.
Oh okay, I get it. Every German, Italian, and Jap that fought in, or supported, their country during, and all of the children of those people, should have been shot. Whoo, glad that was cleared up. We’re only 55 years late, and if we start today I bet we can finish the job in 7 years.
Three cheers fuer Liebensraum!
pedro, everything you say reinforces the general consensus that you should be ignored.
Father, you’re a moron. When people kill other people, they stand trial. If you’ve never heard of the Nuremberg Trials, thats where we indeed convicted and executed Germans for war crimes.
Geez Father–Lord knows I love being a contrarian but lets keep reality somewhere on the horizon?
Yes: “Every German, Italian, and Jap that fought in, or supported, their country during, and all of the children of those people, WHO THEREAFTER THROW A GRENADE AT US SOLDIERS, should be shot.”
Does make me recall the time I was at the USS Arizona Memorial and during the Park Rangers presentation an oriental looking older man, but not old enough to have served, asked to his similar group of men: “How many of them did he say we killed?” I thought about creating an international incident and then chuckled about how clueless the old fart was. Then I went to the Monkey Bar and wished I could have been there in its heyday.
The whole argument comes down to “Do we hold every person fighting the US Army as a Terrorist?”
As it has been pointed out, here we have a minor fighting what many in that country consider to be an occupying army. The individual in question did not attack civilians, he attacked a soldier of what he considers to be an occupying army in his country.
The excuse is being used that he was not part of an organized army, therefore he is a terrorist. Well, under that criteria, EVERY member of a US militia is a terrorist, because he is not part of an organized army, yet he is armed and ready to fight.
Before we go any farther, maybe we need a better definition of terrorist. It is really difficult to apply that term to someone that, in their own country, attacks members of an Army from another country that is occupying their land.
As a ex-member of the military, if I were put in a position of having to fight ‘children soldiers’, I would treat them just like adults during combat. But once they are captured, those ‘children soldiers’ really need to be treated and judged by a very different set of standards than those applied to adults.
And as far as the mosque debate goes. Unless there is a law passed that bans Islamic centers and mosques of any type within an XX mile radius, I have to agree with the President that it is bad form, but not illegal in any way. As long as people are not breaking a law, we have no right to impose rules that are not backed by laws. Muslims should know better, and insist that the mosque be moved elsewhere in New York, but unless there is a law against it, they should be allowed to proceed. If they intend to be assholes about it, they will pay the price in other ways, such as future restrictions and general disdain for them in New York and elsewhere.
# 44 Awake “here we have a minor fighting what many in that country consider to be an occupying army.”
Let’s also remember that he is in the minority in his country. The vast majority of the Afghan people do not want the Taliban in charge of their lives. Therefore, we see a youth (NOT a child) fighting against an “occupying army” but also against the duly elected government of his homeland.
By the way, I disagree with your description of the NATO forces as an “occupying army.” Maybe I’m wrong but I believe that term is used for invaders who take over the day to day management of the territory. You can debate the reasons we entered the country but you have to admit we did everything we could to get the government back into the hands of the people as quickly as possible. We are now there at the invitation of the democratically elected government.
I was working in Afgh during the Taliban administration, during the NATO action and afterward. I was in Kabul during the first general election. I still have numerous friends amongst the Afghans. And a couple of enemies. (But that’s another story.) So, based on my experience I can say the majority of Afghans do NOT want us to leave just yet. They fear the resurgence of the Taliban. And the young man you are defending was fighting FOR the Taliban, a generally reviled group who want to impose a religious-based, totalitarian form of governance.
“Oh yeah, this should go a long way to repair our image in the world.”
now you’re catching on. The administration doesn’t want to REPAIR our image they want to send it into a nosedive
#46,
The vast majority of the Afghan people do not want the Taliban in charge of their lives. Therefore, we see a youth (NOT a child) fighting against an “occupying army” but also against the duly elected government of his homeland.
The Taliban WERE the legal government in Afghanistan. Whether they had a majority of people supporting them is irrelevant. A government is allowed to defend itself against invaders.
BTW, if you insist on the majority of people determine who the government is, I guess that makes all those Israelis terrorists since the Arabs outnumber them.
# 48 Mr. Fusion said, “The Taliban WERE the legal government in Afghanistan.”
I can’t really argue that point except to say they were not in control of the entire nation as remnants of the “rightful” government (as the Northern Alliance) still governed a little over 10% of the country. The Northern Alliance still provided for it’s citizens, still maintained a military force, still printed money that had some value, still forged international alliances. In fact, there were only two or three nations that recognized the Taliban regime. The rest of the world did not. So to call them the legitimate government is debatable. They were merely a group of zealots who attempted a takeover in the post-Soviet confusion and, in their 5 or 6 years of power never managed to take over the entire nation nor gain international acceptance.
“I guess that makes all those Israelis terrorists since the Arabs outnumber them.”
Again, you’re rightish but not close to completely right. The UN – i.e. most of the rest of the world – voted in 1947 to divide Palestine and create a Jewish state. Many Arab states did not agree with the partitioning and, when Israel declared it’s independence in ’48 the fighting began. Israel has successfully defended it’s status many times since then. So, the land is Israeli by international agreement and the government is freely elected by it’s citizens. Hard to justify calling them terrorists unless you side with one the very few nations that deny their right to exist.
How many laws (intentional, civil, military) are broken when an interrogator threatens a prisoner with rape?
Quite a few, I assume.
Has even one of this prisoners interrogators been charged or even investigated?
That’s a scandal, a shame on America and a propoganda coup for the terrorists.
Furthermore, it puts American POW and hostages at a higher risk of abuse.
>> BillBC said, on August 29th, 2010 at 7:36 am
>> Nik. I think they have every legal right to build a mosque there. A moral right? No. I just objected to your weaselly attempt to call it a community center with a prayer room. I
I sometimes swim at the “Y” which has a chapel in it. I think most Ys have a chapel, don’t they?
Does this mean that every YMCA is really a church?
(Most airports have prayer rooms in them, too. Are they also churches?)
As for this community center in New York — I don’t care. This is New York’s business and the rest of America should shut up.
>> Animby – just phoning it in said, on August 30th, 2010 at 3:03 am
>> Let’s also remember that he is in the minority in his country. The vast majority of the Afghan people do not want the Taliban in charge of their lives.
Are you talking then or now?
Back then, I heard again-and-again from Afghanis who told me the Taliban where much better than the stunningly evil war lords they replaced. (considering how brutal the Taliban where, that’s saying something!)
So, I was incredibly discourages when the Bush administration replaced the Taliban with the same rat bastard war lords.
#53 Greg Allen. You phrase your question as in the old joke, “Have you stopped beating your wife.” There is no fair reply.
I meant what I said. I lived and worked in Afghanistan for nearly 7 years before and after the NATO action. Out of the thousands of people I’ve met during that time, literally only half a dozen or so (sometimes my Pashto and Dari language skills might have been wanting) said they wanted the Taliban in power. Yes, there are a bunch who’ve said things like, at least the electricity was dependable under the Taliban. (And Mussolini made the trains run on time.) I heard similar things in Kosovo and Bosnia. Sadly, warfare usually disrupts infrastructure and it take years to rebuild.
>> Animby – just phoning it in said, on August 30th, 2010 at 10:34 am
>> #53 Greg Allen.
>> You phrase your question as in the old joke, “Have you stopped beating your wife.” There is no fair reply.
I honestly have no idea what “trick question” you are talking about. I just asked if you where talking about then or now? Since you where in-country, I should also ask “north or south” because I assume the sentiment would be very different.
My perspective is different yet — I was living in Pakistan among about a million Afghan refugees. So, I heard a lot from them.
Here is what I usually heard, “The Taliban are brutal but not nearly as bad as who they replaced.”
So, if I just asked, “Do you like the Taliban?” most people would say “no.”
But, if you asked a real-world question like, “Between the Taliban, the war lords or the Soviets, who was the best?” The Afghanis I knew would say the Taliban.
But now, after a decade of US occupation, the question would have to be different. That’s why I asked you, “then or now?”
>> pedro said, on August 30th, 2010 at 10:14 am
>> #53 What a coincidence, I’m incredibly discouraged by your false naivete.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I don’t think I’m naive about Afghanistan.
How about you? Do you have any idea how horrible a guy like Abdul Dostum was? Or do you just naively assume the war lords the US put back in power are a bunch of boy scouts?
Awake, you would be right if the charges against him were merely for throwing a grenade. It would then still be justifiable to hold him as a POW of course.
>> MikeN said, on August 30th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
>> Awake, you would be right if the charges against him were merely for throwing a grenade. It would then still be justifiable to hold him as a POW of course.
POW status would have been OK. Or a criminal under US jurisdiction. Or an intentional war criminal.
Most of us liberals didn’t care which legal system the detainees came under == we just wanted them under _SOME_ system.
But the Bush and the conservatives wanted the detainees to be under _no_ system — just jailed forever with no habeas corpus, no trial, no lawyers, no rules of evidence… no nothing.
This is just radically anti=American.
Pedro,
OH, you where talking about the NY community center.
Here is my basic premise: just having a prayer room doesn’t make a facility a church or mosque.
Wikipedia has a fairly long article on this center. Here’s what is proposed:
“Besides the Muslim prayer space, the Initiative’s plan includes a 500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare services, art exhibitions, bookstore, culinary school, and a food court serving halal dishes.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51
Sure seems like a YMCA-like facility to me.
(BTW, as a freedom-loving American, I wouldn’t care if was just a mosque. As a non-New Yorker I don’t think it’s any of my business. Nor is it yours. )
>> pedro said, on August 30th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
>> Your point of view regarding Afghanistan after Animby’s reply is just another attempt to try and rationalize all your thought process on the subject.
“rationalize my thought process”?!? what the hell?
Here is what I think — the war lords the US re-installed into power are horrible people as bad or worse than that Taliban. In fact, it was a widespread repulsion to these war lords that led to the Taliban taking over.
So, it was stunningly stupid policy for the Bush administration to put them back in power. (but, tragically, pretty typical for them.)
>> Your rationale leads to nowhere. Were the Afghans better off if left alone and destroy themselves?
If the US leaves and the war lords or Taliban take the country back then, yes, it would have been better if the US had left them alone.
Only time will tell if Bush’s ill-conceived invasion bungled occupation will be salvageable by Obama.
BTW, Where the Taliban destroying the country worse than the war lords or the Soviets? By the time the Taliban took over, there wasn’t much left to destroy.
Animby,
I meant to ask you — what was your role over there? NGO? Dipmomatic? Military? Covert? Religious?
I’m not asking you as ammunition for debate — I’m just curious. I value your perspective even if I disagree with you (which I’m not sure I do.)
Greg #63 – I’ve said my piece here so will not rejoin the argument but will answer your question. As a doctor, my work has always been medical, educational and aid related. I’m afraid my stature and complexion would rule out covert work and those who know me well would laugh at the idea of my being a diplomat.
I began my tours of duty in Northern Alliance territory based out of Faizabad with frequent visits to Kabul. After the Nato action I was moved to Kabul permanently and traveled widely. During my 7 years, I was employed by one US-based NGO, The UN (WHO) and the US (USAID).
In the initial stages of the Nato action, we were pulled out and I was sent to Quetta which turned out to be too dangerous (our residence was bombed) and we were removed to Islamabad. Many of us were anxious to get back to the northern areas but there was no way in due to the combat. So six of us (and two guides) went in on horseback through the Khyber Pass – not a picnic!
By the way, yes, I know exactly what a monster Dostum was.
POW status largely does not have a trial, rules of evidence, etc.
MikeN: I don’t think he can be a POW. Geneva Convention concerns soldiers, ie uniform wearing combatants. I’m not certain.
@Maricopa
You are correct. Under the UN’s Geneva convention, these detainees are NOT soldiers – therefore they cannot enjoy the protections the Geneva treaty extends to POWs.
The Geneva treaty was written this way on purpose, in order to protect the civilian populations in war-torn regions. ONLY if the combatants are identifiable as soldiers by wearing insignia, following a chain of command, etc., will they get the POW status and protection. It is meant to discourage combatants from hiding among the civilians and thus using them as a human shield. The whole aim of the Geneva convention is to deny groups that use the same tactics as the Taliban any and all legal protection.
There is also (under Geneva convention) a provision for dealing with ‘hostile civilians’ in a war-torn region. It gives the army which controls the region the right to remove them from the region/country and hold them in detention camps (feeding them, clothing them, but that is about it) until peace had been restored to the region.
I don’t think I like that, but regardless, it is the international law. Really – I was quite surprised when I read it (it’s available on UN’s site).
About Omar Khadr: not being a soldier, he cannot be a ‘child soldier’. BUT, had he qualified for a ‘soldier’ status, he would STILL not qualify as ‘Child soldier’. According to the UN and international law, only 14 years of age and younger qualifies as ‘child soldier’.
Again, I don’t like that, but that is the international law.
Also, Omar Khadr was born and raised (mostly) in Canada – he cannot be considered in any sense of the word as ‘fighting to protect his homeland’…
Personally, I think our society failed him when we failed to protect him from his parents: and radicalizing their children while they are young (regardless of the religion/philosophy) is child abuse! But that is one public debate we are not likely to get!
# 67 Xanthippa : Good post. And not just because you confirmed what I thought.