• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Khadr Thread

Britney Spears said:
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.

This is why the situation is so ambiguous; Jihadis and their decendents are not and will not conform to the definitions developed to write the Laws of War. Historical analogies are a bit frightening. The Jihadis resemble the religious or ideological SS troops who do wantonly kill prisoners.

Perhaps one of the reasons there is little transparency in the process is suspects are being picked up through the use of intelligence means, and if these means were reveled in a court room or simply by providing the defense with material evidence, then important assets would be lost or neutralized. The other reason is soldiers are not police, and if my section was to flush out some Jihadis and capture them, we would not have the training, time or inclination to gather forensic evidence other than the most obvious things like abandoned firearms. (even then, we are not wearing gloves or carrying evidence bags). I am sure new forms will be developed to deal with these situations, just as the police are discovering ways to fight Internet crime.
 
Although this was sent to me as a joke, it does hold some relevance in a discussion such as this and our dealings with the Liberal Left:

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20016

Dear Concerned Citizen:

Thank you for your recent letter roundly criticizing our treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.   Our administration takes these matters seriously, and your opinion was heard loud and clear here in Washington. You'll be pleased to learn that thanks to the concerns of citizens like you, we are creating a new division of the Terrorist Retraining Program, to be called the "Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers" program, or LARK for short.

In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to place one   terrorist under your personal care.Your personal detainee has been selected and scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence next Monday.

Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of admonishment.   It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant caretakers.   We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommended in your letter.

Although Ahmed is sociopathic and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his "attitudinal problem" will help him overcome these character flaws.   Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences. He will bite you, given the chance.   We understand that you plan to offer counseling and home schooling.   Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers.   We suggest you do not ask him to demonstrate these skills at your next yoga group.

He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.   Ahmed will not wish to interact with your wife or daughters (except sexually) since he views females as a subhuman form of property.   This is a particularly sensitive subject for him, and he has been known to show violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the dress code that he will undoubtedly recommend as appropriate attire.   I'm sure your wife and daughters will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the bhurka over time.   Just remind them that it is all part of "respecting his culture and his religious beliefs" - wasn't that how you put it?

Thanks again for your letter.   We truly appreciate it when folks like you, who know so much, keep us informed of   the proper way to do our job.   You take good care of Ahmed - and remember...we'll be watching.   Good luck!

Cordially...Your Buddy,
Don Rumsfeld

GW
 
a_majoor said:
Perhaps one of the reasons there is little transparency in the process is suspects are being picked up through the use of intelligence means, and if these means were reveled in a court room or simply by providing the defense with material evidence, then important assets would be lost or neutralized. The other reason is soldiers are not police, and if my section was to flush out some Jihadis and capture them, we would not have the training, time or inclination to gather forensic evidence other than the most obvious things like abandoned firearms. (even then, we are not wearing gloves or carrying evidence bags). I am sure new forms will be developed to deal with these situations, just as the police are discovering ways to fight Internet crime.

Absolutely, and that is why a civilian court would be inadequate for most of the situations. I am all for a more lenient standard when it comes to evidence and what not.

e.g. In your example, If you as the officer commanding, together with 2 troops on the scene, were willing to testify against the detainee, and the details of his arrest were made public( in sofar as OPSEC would allow , naturally), I think it would be a good enough case to satisfy public curiosity. It could even be done in writing, although I suspect the hardships of a week in Cuba won't put too much strain on your busy schedule.

I don't think such proceedings will neccesarily stand up in a civilian courtroom, but a guesture of good faith is better than nothing.
 
RN PRN said:
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.

Yes excellent add on.

I think we are forgetting that these people are at a military instilation not a federal prision and therefore in my opinion should only be afforded the rights of POWs.  Not that of American citizens.  If (when) a Canadian citizen were to be caught in Iran do think he would be tried according to Canadian Law or Iranian law? 

Just cause the combatants don't dress like they are in the army is no reason to treat them any different then other POWs who do.

 
I think the whole prison abuse topic is a bit of a dead horse but i'm quite certian more went on than a little sleep deprivation or panties worn on prisoners heads. 

I would argue that prisoners died while in custody but someone would easily fire back prisoners die in our prisons all the time.

I'm sure the abuse in the prison wasn't some death camp type set up but lets not wave our hands and pass it off as some of the boys just getting a little out of hand.

Honestly,  can have a single thread here about the geneeva convention or  prisoners of war or abuse or the airborne regiment without someone mentioning somalia?  That word is the frankinstein of dead horses.
 
Agree with alot of what you said ghost.

But  I think Somlia may be the litmist test of abuse scandels and that is why it is always mentioned.
 
Agreed Ghost.

The list of "apologies", while perhaps midly entertaining, is only really serving as an amusing way to vent.  Nothing constructive is coming out of that...
 
And what you plan on solving the worlds problems on public form?

it is an opinion post based on the article i mentioned.  Used to stimulate conversation be it good or bad.
 
>>it is an opinion post based on the article i mentioned.  Used to stimulate conversation be it good or bad.

Fair enough.  Clearly we can't "solve all the world's problems" here, but if we can provide good, informed, insightful debate and try to minimize ranting and venting, the credibility of this forum will continue to grow.

I would love to think that Generals, and perhaps even the Minister of National Defense will visit this site and read the columns... if they did I would hope that they would find the posts to be generally intelligent and insightful, and give them things to think about.


 
P Kaye said:
Fair enough.  Clearly we can't "solve all the world's problems" here, but if we can provide good, informed, insightful debate and try to minimize ranting and venting, the credibility of this forum will continue to grow.

I would love to think that Generals, and perhaps even the Minister of National Defense will visit this site and read the columns... if they did I would hope that they would find the posts to be generally intelligent and insightful, and give them things to think about.

I have found the posts intelligent and insightful, having said that, this is a pretty emotional topic for most patriots. And dammit sometimes you just gotta vent. J

 
If your air smelt like fresh pine trees and poutine and good beer i think you would transfer to my trade S_Baker   ;)



Agreed, i'm not too sure the circumstances.   When something like this happens there always seems to be two extreames. In the prison case it often seemed to be

a. the monster american soldiers were pulling the teeth out of these poor innocent until proven guilty prisoners and tourturing them for sick entertainment and,
b. there was no wrong doing here, just some troops getting out of hand. it happens all the time it's no big deal.

More often than not the truth is in the middle. (Which I would say for practically every topic discussed here. Saying its fun to kill people, somalia, what we should do to deserters, how to win the war in iraq, when is it okay to swear)

As a military professional and an Army Officer I hate to second guess someones decision while they were in harms way.   It is important to analyze ones decisions but unless you were there it is difficult to criticize.
Agreed though I think that just because my feet wern't on the ground that I can't form my own opinion from what i see and hear in the media from reporters, military spoksmen and the soldiers that were there.   I think the key is to analyze and not criticize.   Passing judgement according to the first article/news flash you see is no good.

I'm a little biased (or maybe touchy/emotional?) when it comes to the somalia topic.    
Aside from kids going on about how we need the airborne regiment back(Yet they have no idea what a paratrooper does) , i personally find that many people bring up somalia as a sort of "Ya well you guys aren't so perfect either!".  
It's a mistake that people (who often seem to be near oblivious to the facts, yourself excluded) always always bring up thinking it's like check mate in a game of chess.
It bugs me the same way when people constantly put down the professionalisim dedication and sacrifice of the american soldiers by refering to the prison abuse issue or case of the soldier shooting the 'guy playing dead' again as a sort of "check mate" when it's clearly not. To me it's almost as silly as holding germanies actions in WW2 against their soldiers in the present.


would love to think that Generals, and perhaps even the Minister of National Defense will visit this site and read the columns...

Of course they do. They are the ones that make up the goofy names and ask stupid questions just to get us going    ;D

EDIT: re-reading my post S_Baker, it might seem like I am directing my comments towards you. I appologize if thats how I sounded as it was not my intent.   I should have been more specific. I think there's a huge difference betweensoldiers and civilians  educated on the subject discussing the issue professionally and someone who just brings it up as an attack.   I think you made a great comparison of lack of leadership found in both incidents.
 
Wizard of OZ said:
Just cause the combatants don't dress like they are in the army is no reason to treat them any different then other POWs who do.

Actually that is the exact case. Under the Geneva convention a member is only afforded the protection of the conventions if he/ she is recognisable from the general population by a garb or identifier. As these people were not in a uniform of any sort they are not protected by it. It would be the same way for a member of the SF or a spy who is caught behind enemy lines in Civi Dress. They are ukered.
 
Maybe it's just me, but I'm finding that everytime these Islamic Jihad sympathizers open their mouths its a pack of lies intended to penetrate the thin skulls of liberal's and weaken the western world's (the Great Satan) resolve to end this unholy war the only way possible. Only by bringing democracy to these oppressed nations and freeing the minds and bodies of these people will we ever experience peace.
That goes for all nations that use tyranny, oppression and fear to rule, China, North Korea, Iran, and Sudan. The States is on the right path but need more support from the international community. If the UN really cared about world peace and human rights than the US wouldn't be going this alone.
As for the Khadr's they should all be sent back to the cesspool they spawned from and stop trying to con the Canadian people with their lies. They've admitted to committing the crime so do the time.



 
RN PRN said:
Actually that is the exact case. Under the Geneva convention a member is only afforded the protection of the conventions if he/ she is recognisable from the general population by a garb or identifier. As these people were not in a uniform of any sort they are not protected by it. It would be the same way for a member of the SF or a spy who is caught behind enemy lines in Civi Dress. They are ukered.

If you really want to get technical, people who fight disguised as civillians, fight from churches, mosques, hospitals, schools; target innocent civillians or use them as shields fall under a different category:

Criminal.

Historically, the way these people have been dealt with from ancient times to today is they are dragged into the middle of the street and shot (or stabbed if you go back far enough). The fact Uncle Sam sees fit to house these people in any sort of accomodations, feed and cloth them, give them access to US Army Imans, play a selection of C&W music for them to hear 24/7, and generally be prepared to do so for the remainder of their natural lives seems to indicate the Americans are way ahead of the curve, with the occasional throwbacks showing up in the guard house to spoil things.
 
play a selection of C&W music for them to hear 24/7,

And you say there's no torture?!


In all seriousness, some of the detainees were not captured during fighting, disguised as civillians or otherwise. Many were, in fact, simply snatched off the street in Pakistan or various African countries.  (Source <a href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1387829,00.html>here</a> and <a href=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6865216/>here</a>.)
 
I don't think democracy can be put in place by anyone else other then the people that live there regardless of how long it takes.  Otherwise the legitimacy will be in question.
 
Rick_Donald said:
Maybe it's just me, but I'm finding that everytime these Islamic Jihad sympathizers open their mouths its a pack of lies intended to penetrate the thin skulls of liberal's and weaken the western world's (the Great Satan) resolve to end this unholy war the only way possible. Only by bringing democracy to these oppressed nations and freeing the minds and bodies of these people will we ever experience peace.
That goes for all nations that use tyranny, oppression and fear to rule, China, North Korea, Iran, and Sudan. The States is on the right path but need more support from the international community. If the UN really cared about world peace and human rights than the US wouldn't be going this alone.
As for the Khadr's they should all be sent back to the cesspool they spawned from and stop trying to con the Canadian people with their lies. They've admitted to committing the crime so do the time.


I could not have said it better myself.

They use our own societies rules against us while adhere to none.  When you show up to fight and the bell goes i think some of the gloves have to come off or it will never be a fair fight.  This is not to say that we should not abide by the rules of our won society but maybe when fighting those that don't we should play by their rules. 

a_majoor i think we finally agree on something, they should be treated as criminals and punished under their laws.

RN PRN  yea they may be ukered but if we treated every one in that manner than we would either have a lot more enemies or a lot fewer.  I think when we go to war we treat every combatant as a forgien solider it is what makes Civilized nations another step ahead of some back ward state.  But i see your point.
 
A_Majoor,

I stand corrected. I do not believe they would give any of our troops any quarter irregardless if the area, Afghan or Iraq.
As for the Khdar family, there is the door. We do not have the same beliefs as you, nor do we tolerate the kind of biggotism that you are so flagrantly displaying.

BYE! or Flush and swirl!
 
As for the Khdar family, there is the door. We do not have the same beliefs as you, nor do we tolerate the kind of biggotism that you are so flagrantly displaying.

BYE! or Flush and swirl!



wait wait

don't forget to write so we know how your family is doing at the terror camps in Iran
 
From todays Guardian:
Revealed: Britain's role in Guantanamo abduction
Freed detainee tells of horrors in US terror camp

David Rose
Sunday February 6, 2005
The Observer

British intelligence officials played a crucial part in the secret abduction of UK citizen Martin Mubanga to Guantanamo Bay. There, he reveals today in an exclusive interview, he endured 33 months of ill-treatment and often abusive interrogation.
Documents seen by The Observer disclose that even the Pentagon's own lawyers now accept that the intelligence that consigned him to Guantanamo may have been deeply flawed. Mubanga, who was released without charge after his return to Britain on 25 January, now plans to sue the British government.

In his interview today, the first by any of the four Britons who returned from Guantanamo last month, Mubanga, 32, describes a horrifying catalogue of abuse:

· In one interrogation session, he was forced to urinate in the corner of the interview room while chained hand and foot.

· He was treated to a regime known as 'BI [basic item] loss'. This meant his thin mattress, trousers, shirts, towel, blankets, and flipflops were all taken away, leaving him naked except for boxer shorts in an empty metal box.

· Last autumn, while Pentagon lawyers were writing memos suggesting that Mubanga may not have had any involvement in terrorism at all and may not have been given a fair hearing, the Guantanamo authorities subjected him to the harshest treatment in his 33 months in Guantanamo, with three brutal assaults by the 'Instant Reaction Force' riot squad for trivial violations of the camp rules.
· Mubanga's worst moment came last March, when the first five British detainees were sent home. He had at first been told he would be joining them, but was instead confined in a block with prisoners he could not communicate with, and told he would be held there for many more years.

The disclosure that British intelligence was instrumental in consigning Mubanga to Guantanamo raises serious questions about the consistency of British policy towards the controversial US camp. In public, ministers, led by Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, negotiated for months with the Pentagon for the release of British detainees.

Mubanga's solicitor, Louise Christian, said yesterday that she planned to take legal action against the government. His arrest, detention and transfer had clearly breached British, Zambian and international law, she said. 'We are hoping to issue proceedings for the misfeasance of officials who colluded with the Americans in effectively kidnapping him and taking him to Guantanamo.'

Mubanga, a former motorcycle courier, says he went to Afghanistan at the end of 2001 to study Islam. He was never, he insists, a sympathiser with al-Qaeda, and he condemned the 9/11 attacks. 'I do not approve of the killing of innocent men, women and children,' he said.

He says he fled to Pakistan after the beginning of the war against the Taliban, but says that someone stole his passport. A dual British-Zambian national, he phoned his family from Karachi and asked them to post him his Zambian passport. He says he used this in February 2002 to go to Zambia, where he was joined by his sister and stayed with other relatives.

However, on 2 March the Sunday Times claimed Mubanga had been arrested in Afghanistan, fighting with the Taliban - presumably this referred to the man who stole or was handed his passport. Soon afterwards, he was seized by Zambian security men.

He was held in a series of guarded motels, where he was interrogated for days by a female American official and a Briton who called himself Martin and said he worked for MI6. 'Martin' produced Mubanga's British passport, together with a list of Jewish organisations in New York and a military training manual that he claimed Mubanga had handwritten. They had been found with the passport in a cave in Afghanistan, he said. Mubanga pointed out that his handwriting was nothing like that in the manual, and said he had never seen the documents before, or been to any caves.

A few days later, Mubanga was loaded on to a plane by men in balaclavas and flown to Guantanamo. For more than two years, the claims made by the MI6 man - that he had been on a mission to reconnoitre targets in New York and had travelled to Zambia on false documents - were the main grounds for his detention.

Last October, this was confirmed by a Guantanamo Combatant Status Review Tribunal, a panel of military officers. Later, however, this decision was reviewed by a US military lawyer, who found it deeply flawed. His report shows that Mubanga had asked to call members of his family in his defence, saying they prove that he had not travelled to Zambia on false documents for a terrorist mission, but to visit relatives on his own passport.

Last night a Foreign Office spokesman said he could not comment on the activities of British intelligence or security agencies. He said Mubanga's 'transfer to Guantanamo Bay is a matter for the Zambian and American authorities'.

Mod edit: took out the avertising stuff,
Bruce


 
Back
Top