Oct 26 2010

Is This The Sound That Omar Khadr Heard?

Published by at 11:38 am under politics

Right after he rendered his guilty plea? I’d like to think so.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

21 responses so far

21 Responses to “Is This The Sound That Omar Khadr Heard?”

  1. Balteron 26 Oct 2010 at 11:23 pm

    The loser is evidently no one but yourself. Shameful post

  2. Balteron 27 Oct 2010 at 11:58 am

    Let me rephrase and expand upon my connection. How can anyone with a sense of fairness not be outraged by Khadr’s case. To prosecute gravely injured child soldier, then subject him to torture and hideous abuse, imprison him for a third of his life, and then try him in a “military tribunal” condemned by human rights groups the world over as assault to due process. Words, indeed, fail. And you are what you post.

  3. jnarveyon 27 Oct 2010 at 2:29 pm

    Khadr is a self-admitted adherent to Al Queda style jihadism. And he wasn’t a child soldier, at least by the United Nation’s own definition of the term. So fuck him.

    And fuck you. Go bother someone else with your bleeding heart numb-headedness.

  4. Balteron 27 Oct 2010 at 11:56 pm

    Since when did advocacy of due process and the belief that torture based confessions are an insult to the judicial process make one a bleeding heart? Don’t you portray yourself as an advocate of human rights fighting a battle against forces of darkness? Romeo Dallaire who knows a bit about war calls Khadr a child soldier. You evoke the UN why not also Amnesty International or the Canadian Supreme Court or a myriad of bodies that have all expressed outrage at the monstrous treatment of Khadr and the abridgments of his rights by way of a justice mocking tribunal. Its not clear to me that you’ve even followed the case

  5. jnarveyon 28 Oct 2010 at 7:09 am

    “Since when did advocacy of due process and the belief that torture based confessions are an insult to the judicial process make one a bleeding heart?”

    They don’t. But I’ve never argued against these things.

    I merely point out what everyone should know about this case: Khadr is no hero. He’s no martyr. He’s a jihadist who would like to see us Indfidels drown in our own blood. Fortunately for us, he was captured on the battlefield. Unfortunately, he’s likely to be walking the streets of Canada by Christmas.

  6. Balteron 28 Oct 2010 at 12:30 pm

    If you’re against coerced confession and torture-opposed to the invention of categories “enemy combatants” designed to skillfully avoid the geneva conventions and like minded international protocol then why call the critics of Khadr’s treatment “bleeding hearts”? You say that you’ve never argued against “these things” is belied by your response to this case. That’s troubling.

    Omar Khadr is in your view a jihiadist who would like to drown us in our own blood but he is in the eyes of many a young child placed by his family in the battlefield at 15, then nearly killed, abused and tortured, then subjected to a sham process. Thats the opinion of our Supreme Court and thats the opinion of a cross section of legal and human rights groups.

    Your own callow response flies in the face of any claim to be for human rights or for due process. That’s shameful

  7. jnarveyon 28 Oct 2010 at 12:44 pm

    We used to call “enemy combatants” who didn’t wear uniforms spies. And we used to shoot them dead.

    That’s due process.

  8. Balteron 28 Oct 2010 at 3:17 pm

    “We” used to and still do practice all kinds of forms of kindred barbarity. There’s an intuitive moral objection to Omar Khadr’s treatment that been voiced by , among others, Amnesty International, Romeo Dallaire (powerful interview today on the current) and even a former prison guard of his from Guantanamo Bay who regretting what he was involved with has now spoken out. We know practices of torture widely meted out sometime to men who simply found themselves picked up by this or that warlord and were not even fighting. One such man was completely exonerated only after he was sadistically beaten during a “coercive” round question leading to his death. These practices have by now been widely documented.

    The moral case compels us to act but so does the legal one. The Geneva Conventions arise out of a desire to overcome and address what’s permissible during war. Canada and the United States claim to follow them. That’s why our Supreme Court has castigated our government for inaction regarding Khadr case which many has argued puts our government in a position of facilitating torture and abuse through its awareness. You’ve made no case at all and show little interest in the details. As I’ve mentioned this disinterest is striking for someone who professes to care about human rights and so called civilized values.

    Again, what you say here, is, very very revealing.

  9. jnarveyon 28 Oct 2010 at 4:14 pm

    “The Geneva Conventions arise out of a desire to overcome and address what’s permissible during war.”

    That’s precisely what I’ve been saying. What Khadr did isn’t permissible. Our soldiers would have been within their rights to execute him as a spy. That they didn’t is a sign of mercy, not legality.

    The “child soldier” defense doesn’t work, since he wasn’t a child soldier according to the Geneva Conventions: http://unambig.com/was-omar-khadr-even-a-child-soldier/

    You keep citing Dallaire. His comments aren’t relevant for the reasons cited above.

    You also wrote: “many has argued puts our government in a position of facilitating torture and abuse”

    Because many have argued a point does not make it correct. There is no credible evidence that Khadr was tortured, unless you happen to be in possession of classified documents proving otherwise: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/08/20/khadr-torture020.html

    So, yes. I don’t weep for Khadr. I disagree with your interpretation, which would essentially provide any 15 year old with a psycho father – here or in Afghanistan – with a license to kill innocents.

  10. Balteron 28 Oct 2010 at 4:38 pm

    There is absolutely credible evidence that “coercive” techniques were used on Khadr that can be defined, according to the Geneva Conventions, as torture. We now have the testimony of prisoners and prison guards the instructions outlined by policy makers regarding Guantanamo. The allegation that Khadr about specific incidents of torture match the practices we know occurred throughout Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. CBC ran a detailed documentary on these issues speaking to everyone from prison guards to military folks. The picture that emerges is damning.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za5uNU7aEg4

    Your point here betrays logic. A fifteen years old is shot during combat, abused and tortured, then subjected to system of “trial” denounced by our Supreme Court and a plethora of human rights bodies. A “trial” system that other western countries have not let proceed in cases where their citizens have been in Guatanamo Bay. A “trial” system which ruled that evidence obtained by way of coercion is perfectally valid. You present a false and illogical choice between being A-Okay with this or giving a 15 years old a chance to kill. Wrong. Weird. The implication of your position is that a foreign country has the right to torture into coercion teenage citizens of Canada while subjecting them to justice mocking rigged so called “trials”. However deplorable Khadr maybe, you move spits at long fought for values of due process and fairness.

  11. Balteron 28 Oct 2010 at 4:59 pm

    Allegations of severe abuse tantamount to the international definition of torture regarding Omar Khadr include consistent sleep deprivation and a technique referred to as “Palestinian hangings” in which a hooded Khadr was chained by his wrist and arms and left hanging. These practices match what was documented to be taking place in Begram and Guantanamo Bay. More so we have witness testomony. Then there’s Joshua Claus who interrogated Khadr. Here’s what he said regarding the threat of rape

    “I told him a fictitious story we had invented when we were there,” Interrogator #1 said. It was something “three or four” interrogators at Bagram came up with after learning that Afghans were “terrified of getting raped and general homosexuality, things of that nature.” The story went like this:

    Interrogator #1 would tell the detainee, “I know you’re lying about something.” And so, for an instruction about the consequences of lying, Khadr learned that lying “not so seriously” wouldn’t land him in a place like “Cuba” – meaning, presumably, Guantánamo Bay – but in an American prison instead. And this one time, a “poor little 20-year-old kid” sent from Afghanistan ended up in an American prison for lying to an American. “A bunch of big black guys and big Nazis noticed the little Afghan didn’t speak their language, and prayed five times a day – he’s Muslim,” Interrogator #1 said. Although the fictitious inmates were criminals, “they’re still patriotic,” and the guards “can’t be everywhere at once.”

    “So this one unfortunate time, he’s in the shower by himself, and these four big black guys show up – and it’s terrible something would happen – but they caught him in the shower and raped him. And it’s terrible that these things happen, the kid got hurt and ended up dying,” Interrogator #1 said. “It’s all a fictitious story.”

    How can you place any faith in a “tribunal” system which mocks every conceivable standard regarding the Geneva Conventions and democratically fought and earned rights to due process. And if you were to discover or reading through the documents the fact that Khadr was subjected to this abuse would you change your mind about his case? The question here is how badly you respect the values that we as a society claim to uphold.

  12. Balteron 28 Oct 2010 at 5:40 pm

    Last point the rhetorical attempt to place Khadr- fifteen year old transported by his militant father to a battlefield- on a beyond worldly terrain, depicting him as mass murder prone psycho, is wrongheaded. Rehabilitation programs exist for all kinds of people including those who have both experienced and committed acts of barbaric violence in civil wars and other conflicts. The Canadian government had plenty of options from pushing for a trial that would meet international standards to rehabilitating Khadr and bringing him back. They chose instead to stick their finger up at the Supreme Court while being fully aware of the grave allegations of torture and the bullshit “tribunal process”.

    By now every human rights groups, a plethora of legal rights groups, and every opposition political party supports my position. The idea that they are all in your opinion akin to crazed enablers of terrorism is exactly the kind of extremist language that cheapens democratric debate.

  13. jnarveyon 28 Oct 2010 at 7:43 pm

    You wrote: “By now every human rights groups, a plethora of legal rights groups, and every opposition political party supports my position.”

    You’re wrong.

    Enjoy living in your fantasy world, dickhead.

  14. Balteron 28 Oct 2010 at 9:54 pm

    By standard am I wrong? Claims aren’t true just because you rudely say so. Am I wrong to say the BQ, Liberal Party, and NDP have all condemned the military tribunal process and called on Harper to heed the numerous Supreme Court rulings?

    Am I wrong about the civil liberty groups, lawyers organizations, Amnesty and a plethora of others groups. They’re making the case Im making. You, on the other hand, never rebut what I’ve written.

    You duck the issues and show no knowledge of the relevant facts. Let readers see this exchange and decide. You inhabit an ideologically tinged world where the very idea of fighting for due process may as well be a “fantasy”. Where torture and threats of rape are deemed fair tools in order to coerce confessions. Your attitude shows a passive obedience thats unwilling to defend the very ideals that make for a fair and just society.

    Really bad.

  15. Balteron 28 Oct 2010 at 9:56 pm

    “You wrote: “By now every human rights groups, a plethora of legal rights groups, and every opposition political party supports my position.”
    You’re wrong.”

    Okay then name my the relevant political parties and human rights groups in support of Khadr’s treatment who deem to military tribunal process to be fair and agree in Harpers continued dismissal of Supreme Court decisions. Be specific. I’m wrong. Prove it. Step up. My ears are open.

  16. jnarveyon 28 Oct 2010 at 10:08 pm

    You wrote: “You inhabit an ideologically tinged world where the very idea of fighting for due process may as well be a “fantasy”. Where torture and threats of rape are deemed fair tools in order to coerce confessions.”

    Your reading comprehension skills are really something awful. I’m just going to paste what I wrote before. Try actually reading it this time:

    There is no credible evidence that Khadr was tortured, unless you happen to be in possession of classified documents proving otherwise: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/08/20/khadr-torture020.html

  17. Balteron 28 Oct 2010 at 11:09 pm

    “There is no credible evidence that Khadr was tortured, unless you happen to be in possession of classified documents proving otherwise”

    Your one link takes us to s decision arrived at by the very body–the military tribunal hearings–that been condemned by human rights groups the world over. That has crafted mechanisms to get around the Geneva Conventions our Supreme Court has ruling after ruling decried the fairness of such a body. Whose reading comprehension needs improving. I’ve already stated that multiple sources from eye witness testimony of Khadr’s jailers, to documented practices of proven to have taken place at the same time often by the same wardens that Khadr alleges, to policy manuals and instructions to prison guards at Guantanamo. Here’s Dan Gardner in the Ottawa Citizen

    “After his capture, the gravely wounded 15-year-old Omar Khadr was in an environment of radical uncertainty. It was two years before he was even allowed to speak to a lawyer. Now, imagine being threatened with rape, torture, death, or mauling by vicious dogs in that environment. Then go back and re-read what the CIA wrote about the power of threats.

    Was Omar Khadr tortured? Yes. He was tortured.”

    Whereas you blindly take the word of justice mocking military tribunals I tend to put more faith in our Supreme Court, international human rights bodies, Amnesty, and lawyer guilds. Staggering how inept you are and so willing to lie down meekly a trade what are fundamental values so quickly.

  18. Balteron 29 Oct 2010 at 12:16 am

    Keep in mind that in this country we try serial murderer rapists, the one in the news, on the basis of evidence that cannot be obtained through threats of rape. We have a standard of due process for people who have committed crimes as severe as khadr who are adults. Ruling after ruling Cannada’s Courts which you evidently disregard came to these conclusions. I quote our Court:

    “The ongoing refusal of Canada to request Mr. Khadr’s repatriation to Canada offends a principle of fundamental justice and violates Mr. Khadr’s rights under s. 7 of the Charter. To mitigate the effect of that violation, Canada must present a request to the United States for Mr. Khadr’s repatriation to Canada as soon as practicable.”

    That you’re okay with the detention and “trial” process that Khadr went through demonstrates nothing more than contempt for the far ranging and broadly shared and fought for standards of justice and fairness. A willingness to trade inhumane and foul practices that dehumanize us all.

  19. Markon 29 Oct 2010 at 10:11 am

    Perhaps the most one sided debate I’ve seen on the blogosphere. Jonathan why not try to respond to the points here beyond tossing out generalities. Balter makes a compelling case. He knows his stuff.

  20. jnarveyon 29 Oct 2010 at 11:38 am

    I’ve presented my rebuttal and opposing facts which demolish Balter’s verbose tirades.

    If Balter has chosen to disregard these facts, that’s his loss.

  21. hubrislamon 30 Oct 2010 at 11:33 pm

    Johnathon:

    I propose that Omar Khadr, a true son of his al-Qaeda worshipping parents, goes to live with Balter (should that be Baiter?).
    Maybe they can work on bombs together?

    I note that not one drop of blood from this ‘bleeding heart’ went to the families of the dead and wounded true victims of this typical “We love death more than you love life.’ cult action.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply