April 5, 2006
WORTHY CANADIAN TEENAGER TO FRY
Canadian teenager faces US 'war on terror' tribunal (AFP, 4/5/06)
A Canadian-born teenager accused of planting bombs for Al-Qaeda and killing a US soldier in Afghanistan faced a US military tribunal in Guantanamo as defense lawyers raised fresh concerns about the fairness of the proceedings.Let's all write our own headlines. How 'bout: Murdering Terrorist Treated With Kid Gloves, Receives More Process Than Due. Posted by David Cohen at April 5, 2006 5:58 PMOmar Ahmed Khadr was captured in Afghanistan by US forces in July 2002, when he was 15, and his lawyers say he is too young to be charged with war crimes.
Khadr, now 19, appeared for a pre-trial hearing before one of the special "war on terror" tribunals set up by President George W. Bush's administration to try inmates held in Guantanamo.
Only 10 of some 490 inmates held at the prison at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been charged in the more than four years since the camp was opened.
Khadr, whose lawyer alleges he has been tortured and abused at Guantanamo, is accused of killing a US medic during a battle with American troops near Khost in Afghanistan.
Well, he's 19 now. That's a fryable age.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at April 5, 2006 7:21 PMcanadian teen found dead in cell, missing all major organs.
Posted by: toe at April 5, 2006 7:29 PM"Barbaric Americans Brutalize Teen Jihadist"
Posted by: Jayson at April 5, 2006 7:48 PMLet's get this party started right, even if we havn't gotten it started early.
Please get a grip. If it so happens that a war criminal, such as a member of a criminal organization such as al-Qaeda, (Strike one!) or one who has fought not in uniform on with an eqivalent identification (Strike two!),or one who has harmed a protected person, such as a medic, (He's outta here!) is captured alive, then he or she is entitled to a preliminary hearing to determine war criminal status, and then to a trail before a war crimes tribunal. Article III review, beyond inquiry whether these steps have been followed, is unavailable.
It is not clear that this could not have been done by the intrinsic war powers of the unitary executive. That issue is not presernted, however, since all three branches of government have participated in setting up this procedure.
Now, why the Sam Hill did they pick a juvvie for the first case? Let's hope the following guess pans out: try the guy, find that he is a war criminal, then exercise clemency because of his age. Scratch up one more stunning brilliancy for Chimpy McHitler.
Lou: Could have been shot out of hand on the battlefield.
Posted by: David Cohen at April 5, 2006 11:04 PMIf it's the same scumbag, his family is quite notorious in Canada. It's a whole family of Jihadis who have citizenship and sit on the welfare in Canada while their menfolk fight in Afghanistan.
Dunno if it's the same guy, I think it is and I can't be bothered goofling it. Anyway, shoot him in the head and dump his body in a ditch for the dogs. Then do the other 490. Oh right, but have like, a trial first or something.
How's this as an idea for emptying Guantanamo? We take the worst of them, give them military trials and the military penalty. Message: we are serious about terror. For the rest, we publicly offer a parole of honor: if they swear (on a Koran of course) they are innocent and will never take up arms against the United States, or were guilty but repent and will never again take up arms against the US, then we let them go. Message: we are merciful. Of course, we keep tabs on the paroled, and if we ever catch any violating his parole of honor, it's straight to a military trial.
Propaganda coup or dumb idea?
Posted by: PapayaSF at April 6, 2006 12:42 AMAllah obliges the faithful to lie to kaffurs, especially when making an oath.
Posted by: Gideon at April 6, 2006 3:49 AMMr. Cohen;
I think Mr. Gots' point was precisely that he wasn't shot out of hand, and therefore he gets the legal process. I.e., given that he was in fact captured alive, the summary execution option has expired.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at April 6, 2006 6:05 AMAOG: Assuming he was captured in civilian clothes without any markings identifying him as a combatant, my understanding is that the Geneva Conventions don't apply and we're free to do anything we want with him. That we don't says more about us than about the Law of War. Frankly, I don't mind that we're giving him process, but it drives me nuts for AFP to run the story under the headline Canadian teenager faces US 'war on terror' tribunal.
Posted by: David Cohen at April 6, 2006 7:57 AMmake a video tape of him renouncing islam and blaspheming the prophet, then let him go.
Posted by: toe at April 6, 2006 10:30 AMNicely put Lou but clemency only in 10 or 20 years. I can't understand why we're taking so many prisoners. With jihadists, the merciful thing to do is to dispatch them in the combat situation and they need to know that's they way the game is played, teenager or otherwise. They long for it.
Posted by: Genecis at April 6, 2006 11:26 AMDavid: Not quite. Prisoners are actually protected persons, once they are captured. This is so whether or not they are suspected war criminals or POW's. If the enemy is fighting unlawfully, out of uniform, hiding behind protected persons and places, feigning surrender--that sort of thing--ROE's that look like "Kill 'em all. let God sort 'em out," may become necessary.
As practicalmatter one's own troops are going to figure these rules out on their own very quickly.
After capture, suspected war criminals may be segregated, placed in close confinement, but they still are not to be abused.
Capital punishment, per the customary usages of war, is not abuse, but justice. This is all LoW 101.
Posted by: Lou Gots at April 6, 2006 8:51 PM