The Khadr Thread

[Glorified Ape]

the most horrible crimes against humanity since the nazis

I'd say Rwanda, Sudan, Bosnia, Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge (to name a few) were a bit worse than 9/11.

 

[S McKee]

A jumper with 22 years experience.   You can't expect to make an omlette without breaking a few eggs.   I have no doubtly upset the beehive but the thing is, is that most of us have not experienced hardship the likes of the "greatest generation" our parents and grandparents.   Therefore they have no idea of what the world is like past Scarbough.   heck I've only been to Bosnia and what I came with from that tour was that we are seriously blessed to live where we do.   We have it VERY easy.   No one in this country has a clue as to the real hardships out there.   We are facing a potential cultural cleansing and not many people seem to care as long as Will and Grace is on next week.

Yeah I'm getting soft in my old age, too many hardlandings. But seriously your right, the vast majority of Canadians have absolutely know idea what the world is like outside the big " CBC, Charter of Rights, I'm ok your ok, we're better than the Americans." bubble we live in. If you want a real good idea what the Arab nations think of the West check out the Middle East Media Research Institute web site at http://www.memri.org/index.html
J.

 

[big bad john]

Might I suggest we take this topic down a notch or two emotionally.  It is a very emotional issue.  That is not a bad thing.  But I see no one here defending the prisoners.  We just seem to have different ideas on how to proceed.

I would suggest that the Forum Moderators keep a close watch on this topic.  That everyone, myself included take a deep breath before posting anything.  

I would also like to apologize if I have offended anyone.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Hey I'm cool as a cucumber.  8)

 

[Tpr.Orange]

i think the part that gets me the most peeved about this is
"One of Canada's children."


I hate the fact that Canadians can be linked in any ways shape or form to this type of terrorism. Call me what you will but i still have the image of the good, and wholesome Canada.

 

[Britney Spears]

But I see no one here defending the prisoners

I am. 5 Brits were wisked away and locked up for 3 years, without access to legal counsel, a chance to face their accusers, or even to know what crimes they were being detained for.Even the Administration, by simply releasing them without any kind of follow-up, is tacitly admitting that they were completely innocent. I'm the only one who has a problem with that?

Gentlemen, I give you <a href=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6631668/>this</a>, and I quote:

Could a â Å“little old lady in Switzerlandâ ? who sent a check to an orphanage in Afghanistan be taken into custody if unbeknownst to her some of her donation was passed to al-Qaida terrorists? asked U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green.

â Å“She could,â ? replied Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle. â Å“Someone's intention is clearly not a factor that would disable detention.â ? It would be up to a newly established military review panel to decide whether to believe her and release her.

This sure does't make ME feel any safer.

Yes, I read Infanteer's post about getting our wires crossed, but I don't see what basis any argument for torture has when there is no way of even proving the guilt of any of the prisoners.

We do live by principles in this country, and you all presumably signed up to defend those principles, not just to shoot ragheads.





Now, having said that, it doesn't seem to me that the allegations of "torture" have much basis in fact. I quote from <a href=http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041203/REPOSITORY/412030359/1013/NEWS03>this source</a>

Leon asked if U.S. courts could review detentions based on evidence from torture conducted by U.S. personnel.

Boyle said torture was against U.S. policy and any allegations of it would be "forwarded through command channels for military discipline."

He added, "I don't think anything remotely like torture has occurred at Guantanamo," but noted that some U.S. soldiers there had been disciplined for misconduct, including a female interrogator who removed her blouse during questioning.

The International Committee of the Red Cross said Tuesday it has given the Bush administration a confidential report critical of U.S. treatment of Guantanamo detainees. The New York Timesreported the Red Cross described the psychological and physical coercion used at Guantanamo as "tantamount to torture."

;D ;D ;D

 

[Slim]

Might I suggest we take this topic down a notch or two emotionally.  It is a very emotional issue.  That is not a bad thing.  

AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Boy that felt good!

I, personally, am against torturing anyone...However, if this "torture" is just method of harsh interrogation (and I have had worse done to me before they stopped doing that training) then I believe that it is justified. There is a time/date stamp on how much info can be gotten from a detainee after capture and the lower the rank, the shorter the time (generally about 24 hours). A sense of shock and bewilderment must be maintained in order to keep the detainee off mental balance and make the job of interrogation that much easier.

During my Int interrogation training I have witnessed, first had, the methods of U,S, intelligence officers as they conducted interrogations during an ex...they are very good and proficient at what they do...Believe me you don't need the north American equivalent Chinese water torture to make people break down...

Slim

 

[Britney Spears]

I might add that I think there is a reasonable compromise between a full fledged western style trial with all the trimmings, which is evidently inappropriate for this situation, and just locking people up and throwing away the key. Perhaps a modified military tribune, or a supervised trial in the state where they were captured( Afghanistan presumably). But IANAL, so I won't go into too much more detail.

 

[DFW2T]

Yes I know the saying goes, "Much Ado About Nothing" and unlike that Shakespearean play the Iraqi prisoner abuse is no comedy but it does involve politics of a sort.   It IS something.   For good and ill it will remain an issue.   On the one hand right thinking Americans will abhor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day My Lai massacre.

I heard some Arabs are asking for an apology. I humbly offer mine here.

I am sorry that the last seven times the Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1 ? Kuwait, etc.)

I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11.

I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Arabs.

I am sorry that Arabs have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships.

I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth.

I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their 'religious' schools.

I am sorry that Yasir Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and high jacked the Palestinian "cause."

I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians.

I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporters of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA.

I am sorry that our own left wing elite and our media can't understand any of this.

I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food for oilâ ? money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered.

I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon their death.

I am sorry that those same bombers are seeking 72 virgins ? They can't seem to find one here on Earth.

I am sorry that the homicide bombers think babies are a legitimate target.

I am sorry that our troops died to free more Arabs.

I am sorry they stopped the gang rape rooms and the filling of mass graves with dissidents.

I am sorry they show so much restraint when their brothers in arms are killed.

I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group.

I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state.

I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen Daisy Cutters on Fallujah.

I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site."

I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church - one of OUR Holy Sites.

I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings,etc.

I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa.

I am sorry the French are ? French.

America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those responsible because that's what we do.   We hang out our dirty laundry for all the world to see.   We move on.   That's why we are hated so much.   We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.

Deep down inside when most Americans saw this reported in the news we were like... so what?   We lost hundreds and made fun at a few prisoners.   Sure it was wrong?   Sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners.   Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated?   Come on.   Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujans.

If you want an apology from this North American your gonna have a long wait. You have a better chance of finding those 72 virgins.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I am. 5 Brits were wisked away and locked up for 3 years, without access to legal counsel, a chance to face their accusers, or even to know what crimes they were being detained for.Even the Administration, by simply releasing them without any kind of follow-up, is tacitly admitting that they were completely innocent. I'm the only one who has a problem with that?

It depends on the circumstances under which they were detained.  Any lawful combatant taken prisoner may be detained as PoW for the duration of hostilities.  There is no trial and there should be no trial unless a PoW violates the laws of war or of his own armed forces; hence, there are no accusers to be faced and no right of access to legal counsel.  A PoW is simply detained.  A PoW should be repatriated as soon as practical after hostilities cease; a PoW may be paroled sooner at the discretion of the detaining power and if the prisoner accepts parole; a paroled PoW subsequently taken under arms against the paroling power may be treated as an unlawful combatant.

At a minimum, it stands to reason that any combatant - lawful or not - may be detained for the duration of hostilities at the discretion of the detaining power.  If the combatant is simply detained, there are no trials and no visits by lawyers are required.  Anyone who wishes to participate in some sort of open-ended crusade against the US may theoretically be detained for the duration of his natural life.  Until the holy warriors are victorious over the US, or whatever amounts to the highest political command authority of the holy warriors meets the terms of surrender dictated by the US, all of the holy warriors taken prisoner may remain in detention.

I don't know under what circumstances the 5 Brits were taken prisoner.  But, if they were taken in arms, they could still be in detention today if it pleased the US to retain them.  I haven't heard that Al Qaeda or any similar organization has offered terms of surrender, or that the US has accepted any such terms.

 

[S McKee]

DFW2T great post, I agree. I'm assuming from your post your an American, if so, my hat's off to you and your countrymen, thank God for the USA. J

 

[DFW2T]

Jumper,
  Actually I'm an ex CDN soldier working for an American company doing PSD work here in Iraq.  But thanks...wish there were more Canadians here!

 

[P Kaye]

I'm not sure how the process works for enemy combatants capture during combat... but what I have read in the media leads me to believe that they are held by the military.
I might suggest that it is a bad idea to allow POWs to be held by soldiers who are in any way linked to the combat.  Understandably, soldiers who have a role in fighting will be in a combat mindset, and will be emotionally embroilled in feelings of anger towards the enemy.  This, I suspect, could be the source of some of the alleged abuses that we have seen reported.  Combat soldiers develop a hatred for their enemy, and when they have an enemy held captive, it may be very difficult to resist the temptation to commit abuses.
Perhaps a policy should be put in place where POWs are IMMEDIATELY transferred to the supervision of specialists who are not directly involved in combat.  Perhaps these should be civilian lawyers and political scientists, with a small dedicated armed squad for security.  The combat soldiers could be kept completely away from the POWs.
Perhaps this would be difficult to acheive, logistically.  And of course there is always going to be a delay between the time the combat soldiers apprehend the POW and the time when they could actually be transferred out.
Does anybody know for certain how the process actually works in practice?

 

[Horse_Soldier]

I'm not sure how the process works for enemy combatants capture during combat... but what I have read in the media leads me to believe that they are held by the military.
I might suggest that it is a bad idea to allow POWs to be held by soldiers who are in any way linked to the combat.   Understandably, soldiers who have a role in fighting will be in a combat mindset, and will be emotionally embroilled in feelings of anger towards the enemy.   This, I suspect, could be the source of some of the alleged abuses that we have seen reported.   Combat soldiers develop a hatred for their enemy, and when they have an enemy held captive, it may be very difficult to resist the temptation to commit abuses.
Perhaps a policy should be put in place where POWs are IMMEDIATELY transferred to the supervision of specialists who are not directly involved in combat.   Perhaps these should be civilian lawyers and political scientists, with a small dedicated armed squad for security.   The combat soldiers could be kept completely away from the POWs.
Perhaps this would be difficult to acheive, logistically.   And of course there is always going to be a delay between the time the combat soldiers apprehend the POW and the time when they could actually be transferred out.
Does anybody know for certain how the process actually works in practice?

I'll point out one thing that immediately strikes me with respect to your argument - the Abu Gharaib (and alledged Guantanamo) abuses were not committed by combat soldiers but by rear-area types, and in the case of what is alleged in Guantanamo, includes civilians.    To say that combat soldiers develop a hatred for the enemy also rings very false.   I've had many members of my family fight in WW2 (on both sides) and the one thing I never, ever heard from them was hatred for the enemy.   I would posit that hatred is the last thing you want a combat soldier to feel because it will cause him to commit stupid mistakes.   Combat soldiers are not ravening lunatics whose only aim is to kill - at least not in our (western) armies.   Once the fight is out of the enemy, the social inhibitions against violence that were suppressed under fire, come back.   POW abuse by front line troops has historically been rare enough to make it an exception - and many of those exceptions were committed by ideologically (political or religious) conditioned troops where the normal inhibitions to committing violence on unarmed people have been suppressed (the SS are an example).

I also fail to see where civilian lawyers and political scientists would be involved in guarding prisoners - the thing one is supposed to do with POWs is hold them until the end of hostilities so they can no longer fight.   For that all you need is a secure compound and enough rifles/machine guns on the perimeter to deter escape attempts.

POWs captured by front-line troops are handed over to whomever has the POW pick-up role ASAP and their first stop is the formation POW cage run by MPs.   From there, they are transported to POW camps by whatever means are available.

 

[muskrat89]

Perhaps these should be civilian lawyers and political scientists, with a small dedicated armed squad for security.

Please tell me that was "tongue in cheek"

 

[P Kaye]

>> Please tell me that was "tongue in cheek"

Well, I didn't think that aspect through very carefully.... all I was getting at is you might want to have some kind of experts on-hand at POW prisons for interrogation purposes... to help decide what kind of information the enemy combatants might have that could be valuable, and to assess whether the information being provided is accurate.

>> Combat soldiers are not ravening lunatics whose only aim is to kill - at least not in our (western) armies

Indeed, I agree and wholeheartedly hope this is always the case.  This point is somewhat related to a (very heated) argument I had very recently on a thread about the Marine Generals comment about killing being "fun".  I was arguing that soldiers should attempt to maintain the mindset that killing is just the job they have to do... and avoid taking pleasure in it out of hatred for the enemy.  Others were arguing against me that there is nothing wrong with a soldier enjoying his job (even killing), and that it might make a soldier more effective in combat.  I can see the point they are making, but I wholeheartedly disagree with it.

 

[Britney Spears]

I don't know under what circumstances the 5 Brits were taken prisoner.  But, if they were taken in arms, they could still be in detention today if it pleased the US to retain them.  I haven't heard that Al Qaeda or any similar organization has offered terms of surrender, or that the US has accepted any such terms.

While I am not an expert on the Geneva convention, it must be quite obvious that these rules cannot readily be applied in this instance. Those rules were made for uniformed soldiers captured under the circumstances of conventional warfare. If you are captured with a mauser in your hand and wearing a Nazi uniform, then there is no doubt that you are an enemy combatant and should be detained. Obviously, Al Qaida or the Talliban are not going to surrender or negotiate a prisoner exchange, so what recourse do those who are mistakenly detained have? Do you want to tell those 5 Brits (who never had any connection with either)  that they are detained indefinetly until OBL surrenders or calls to negotiate their release? I agree with the administration in that they are not formal prisoners of war.

Now, I suspect many of the detainees had no reason to be there, but if the administration had been more transparent with their methods, and formally laid out evidence and charges against the detainees, this whole shebang would have been more palletable to the public. Ultimately, some of the detainees would have to be aquitted for lack of evidence, and hey, we made a mistake, here's a T-shirt, no serious harm done. If they continue to insist on Gestapo methods, people like me are going to get a little nervous.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

DFW2T

That was an excellent post but to bring it in line with the topic you should have appologized for the fact that their son was captured after throwing a grenade that killed Sgt 1st class Christopher J. Speer.

We appologize that you were sent rasied in the world of radical Islam and that you had to attend Bin Ladens terror training camps in Afganistan.

We are sorry that after the death of Christopher J. Speer you were saved by another army medic who saved your ass after you took three rounds.

We are sorry that your family has no remorse for your killing of a US army Medic but now want the Canadian Public on their side to get your release.

We are sorry you had to live in Canada, you could alway go back to living with Osama bin Laden if you don't like the rights and freemdoms your family has here.

i' am sorry but but i find it hard to believe these people want my sympathy.  Check the national post "Canada Liable for any Abuse" for where the appoligies of my post come from.

 

[DFW2T]

DFW2T

That was an excellent post but to bring it in line with the topic you should have appologized for the fact that their son was captured after throwing a grenade that killed Sgt 1st class Christopher J. Speer.

We appologize that you were sent rasied in the world of radical Islam and that you had to attend Bin Ladens terror training camps in Afganistan.

We are sorry that after the death of Christopher J. Speer you were saved by another army medic who saved your *** after you took three rounds.

We are sorry that your family has no remorse for your killing of a US army Medic but now want the Canadian Public on their side to get your release.

We are sorry you had to live in Canada, you could alway go back to living with Osama bin Laden if you don't like the rights and freemdoms your family has here.

i' am sorry but but i find it hard to believe these people want my sympathy.  Check the national post "Canada Liable for any Abuse" for where the appoligies of my post come from.

  Wizard,
    Touche' ....Good points...... Thanks!

DFW2T

 

[Fraser.g]

One apology you forgot was

We are sorry that your son was wounded while attacking American troops and is now paralyzed. We are also sorry that you decided to move back to Canada so that you could access the health care system because the one in your homeland was discriminatory, archaic an corrupt.