Forty years in prison: this was the sentence that was pronounced by the jury panel for being a child soldier. While shocking, it was no surprise to those who closely followed the Omar Khadr saga at Guantanamo bay. How fair could this jury be given that it included a Navy captain, a Marine colonel who was wounded in a firefight in Iraq, an Army lieutenant-colonel who served more than a year at an unnamed detention center, a Navy commander, an Army lieutenant-colonel who once served as a military policeman, a Navy lieutenant-commander who is a submarine officer and an Army major in military intelligence.
This is how the American military commission at Guantanamo Bay decided to put an end to one of the most embarrassing human rights cases and all that goes along with it in terms of abuse, neglect and vendetta. The United States, with the tacit approval of Canada, supposedly two democratic countries and champions of human rights, not only decided to set up a military tribunal to judge a child soldier who was only 15 years old at the time of his capture, but they also kept him in a military camp for over eight years during which he was harshly interrogated and abused.
Last week, after claiming his innocence for the last eight years, Omar Khadr, seeing he had no hope of being cleared by this sham process, decided to plead guilty to the charges of murder, terrorism and spying in exchange for an additional eight-year prison term. He has to spend one of these years at a maximum-security facility at Guantanamo before he can seek repatriation to Canada to serve the remainder of his sentence.
"Everything about Omar Khadr's ordeal at Guantanamo Bay over the past eight years has been a fiasco" said Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty General Canada. How did all of this could have happened in the civilized Western world?
To start with, the creation of Guantanamo camp was wrong. The transfer of prisoners who were captured in Afghanistan shouldn't have taken place. Since its inception in 2002, 770 prisoners have been detained at this notorious camp. As of today 192 prisoners still remain locked up. Nearly 580 have been released over the past few years. More than 530 of those were released during the rule of the previous administration. In 2008, during his presidential campaign, President Obama described Guantanamo as a "sad chapter in American history". He promised that if he became the next president of the Unites States he would immediately close down this camp. Here we are, almost two years after he took office, the camp remains open and it is unclear whether it will ever close.
Recently, a high ranking US colonel stated in an affidavit that top US officials had known for long time that the majority of the detainees initially shipped off to Guantanamo were in fact innocent. In other words, the detainees had been kept there for reasons of political expedience.
David Hicks, who recently published his personal memoir entitled " Guantanamo: My Journey", is an Australian who spent over six years in Guantanamo before he decided to plead guilty. As a result, he was allowed to return home to serve the remainder of his sentence. Hicks's legal team attributed his acceptance of the plea bargain to his "desperation for release from Guantanamo". It looks like history is repeating itself with a twist: Mr. Hicks was an adult when he was captured while Khadr was only 15 years of age to whom international law governing child soldiers' treatment should have applied.
In Canada, the past and present governments refused to help repatriate Omar Khadr back to Canada. It seems that it was too dangerous, for electoral reasons, to show any interest in the case. Without his consent, Omar Khadr became a political game where political parties could score points.
But the ostrich policy that was so far adopted by successive Canadian governments is no longer feasible. This case is now coming to haunt the current government and to tarnish its legacy forever.
Navy Captain John Murphy, the military prosecutor presiding over Khadr's trial said immediately after sentencing "I hope it sends a message to terrorists". I am afraid this sham trial has already sent the wrong type of message, that of injustice, arrogance and double standards.
As per Geneva conventions.
If Mr. Khadr is classified as a common criminal, he can be tried and sentenced for his crimes.
Regardless, Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict specifically allows for military recruitment of combatants 15 years and older.
The laws ( to which U.S. is a signatory) allows lawful recruitment of soldiers 15 and older certainly allows detention of such soldiers as per Geneva and Hague conventions.
This is an incorrect.
Mr. Khadr, is serving time for attacking and killing of an American soldier---- NOT "for being a child
solider" per se.
While it is healthy to have difference of opinions, we can only arrive at rational solutions using facts, not misleading rhetoric.
When one says "we can only arrive at rational solutions using facts" they generally define rationality as whatever it is they believe, and those who are irrational are the opposition. (Read: The Liberal State by Catherine Mackinnon).
I also noticed on one of your other comments that you are rather skeptical of reasoning derived from emotion. There is nothing wrong using emotion to arrive at a course of action/opinion. You're only assuming that there is and you think this is self-evident. It is not. Accusing someone of being emotional has long been used by those wishing to discredit their opponents because there's stigma attached to it. However, without emotion we would not have human rights. Human rights were born out of empathy for others. (Read: Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry).
Arar writes "Forty years in prison: this was the sentence that was pronounced by the jury panel for being a child soldier."
Apart from the fact that there is no proof that the boy killed the American soldier, it should also be noted that Arar was commenting on his identity, not his actions. He was a child combatant, and the jury panel refused to recognize this. You cannot separate his identity as a child soldier from the actions of the jury.
You're using classical liberal definitions of rationality. Philosophy has moved passed that.
Absolutely.
Your argument and also the one by the author of the article is a prime example of "Appeal to Emotion" fallacy: "Feel-good" emotions are associated with X. Therefore, X is true.
This fallacy is based on manipulation of feeling in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. Even though facts which are ignored say otherwise.
A person who accepts an argument as true because they feel good about it or the way it was phrased has fallen prey to the fallacy.
Children who are coerced into killing whole African villages: access to rehabilitative social workers and foster homes.
Children who are coerced into fighting Americans: 40 years in prison.
When we were kids one of our parents used to often say that we should not worry, that we would always be fine if we could be brave & strong & always of good cheer 'cause everything happens for a reason and every thing has a purpose.
So glad to see that you are now doing fine and have a become a Human Rights Advocate.
With best wishes to you & your family.
Nice to see you on Huff.
We are one of those horrified by the handling of this case and the treatment of this kid.
Khem... Mr. Khdar is not an Arab. Consider researching prior to posting,
it was a gross travesty of justice . . .
Not to mention some discussion of radical religious indoctrination Mr. Khad has been subjected due to his father's involvement in Al Qaeda terrorist networks.
I beleive that would make the discussion a lot more credible and objective.
One thing: The author of this article did not fail to do the Right thing here. And that is all that really matters.
We all know where this horrendous position and the enormous pressure put on both governments - US & Canada - came from.
If any one has failed it is moderate Jews & Israelis in the US & Canada who chose not to do the Right thing here for this kid.
And their doing the Right thing, would have made your comment (to use your words): "a lot more credible and objective"
sure there is a lot to say about his father and the family that put the child in the warzone and indoctrinated him, but really that is besides the point, really irrelevant to the laws treating the child...
the child soldiers gang pressed into serving in african rebel bands or state armies are exactly the same as this child soldier here...just because the group he was forced (as a child can only be) to associate with was a terrorist group does not make him a different kind of child soldier
And if you insist on stricktly legal interpretation. OK.
Fact-- United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Children does NOT prohibit prosecution of children-soldiers. Especially those 15 and older.
So whcih one and the author choose, the fallacious appeal to emotion or international law?
lemme guess..
Fact; UNCRC does not prohibit recruitment into military of children over 15 into armed forces.
These are facts.
Amazingly, I failed to detect any condemnation of Al Qaeda in general, and Mr. Khad's family in particular for placing this child on the front-lines in this war.
Interestingly, you do not comment on the the fact that he killed an American as " inhumane."
Where is the concern for the life family of the slain American medic and his family?
Don't they figure in your definition of r humanity?
Keep in moind that we don't know all that much about the evidence before the cour, both that pertaining to the facts of the crime and that pertaining to mitigation and extenuation.
If an American were held by Iran under charges without any access to legal representation, and "confessed" under duress, Americans would be OK with that as "justice", right?