Guantanamo judge drops charges against 15 year old

[MorbidKate]

I judged the facts as you presented them in the original post, Kate, and the opinion that I expressed was on the rather general point of what to do with a civilian who takes it upon themselves to attack a uniformed soldier. Weren't you eliciting opinions by posting the article on this forum?

When you say research the issue on google, do you mean consider something like this:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/khadr/

Quality people, I'm sure.

OMG! Cipher finally posted a link!!

I appreciate the fact you firmly believe in guilt by association and that anyone who kills an American in battle, legitimately or not should be tortured & executed for murder. As Rotku said, I somehow doubt you'd support this if it were applied to captured Americans in a future conflict, which is the point of my posts.

Nobody is arguing that the Khadr family doesn't have extremist views but all Armies have extremists within them so that by itself isn't the issue. Those views are also protected under law. It's what you do with those views that matter and so far the US government hasn't been able to find the evidence to prove guilt. Six years later it's still just accusations.

So, again. This thread is about a 15 year old kid (two psychiatric assessments have concluded the teenager has a serious mental disorder) who was wounded in battle and classified not as a terrorist (Illegal enemy combatant) but simply as an enemy combatant which Military Tribunals do not have jurisdiction over. Of note, In February 2005 his U.S. lawyer told reporters the teenager had been used as a human mop to clean urine on the floor and had been beaten, threatened with rape and tied up for hours in painful positions at Guantanamo Bay. Nice.

What does the US gain by torturing captives for years on end? What does it lose? I dare say the cost is much much higher than any gains. After all, it's pretty hard to play the moral card on the world stage when you're acting just like the enemy you're fighting.

Oh, and mentioning how captive US soldiers are treated doesn't matter because they are clearly classified as terrorists and should/will be treated as such upon capture. This thread is about the hornet's nest the US has kicked over by trying anyone who kills an American as a murderer.

Kate

[ç i p h é r]

I appreciate the fact you firmly believe in guilt by association and that anyone who kills an American in battle, legitimately or not should be tortured & executed for murder. As Rotku said, I somehow doubt you'd support this if it were applied to captured Americans in a future conflict, which is the point of my posts.

I think you're confusing my views with someone else's, so let me summarize again. What I am saying is that it can be reasonably argued that a civilian who kills a uniformed soldier should be tried in civil court for committing murder. Alara's line of reasoning in this regard mirrors my own. I also think that it can be reasonably argued that this individual should be held as a POW until the end of the conflict. It really depends on what this person was doing there and what his intentions were.

In this kids case, his family background only compounds his problems. To quote an old adage, "show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are." If you really think that these people are just harmless extremists, then I honestly think you're kidding yourself.

You might find this 60 minutes interview rather eye opening, if you haven't seen it before (links to some videos - sit back and enjoy):

Interview Part 1
Interview Part 2

So, again. This thread is about a 15 year old kid (two psychiatric assessments have concluded the teenager has a serious mental disorder) who was wounded in battle and classified not as a terrorist (Illegal enemy combatant) but simply as an enemy combatant which Military Tribunals do not have jurisdiction over. Of note, In February 2005 his U.S. lawyer told reporters the teenager had been used as a human mop to clean urine on the floor and had been beaten, threatened with rape and tied up for hours in painful positions at Guantanamo Bay. Nice.

1. If he's mentally ill, aren't you then making the argument that his actions should be judged in a civil court? Though to be honest, I think all these extremists have some form of mental disorder to do what they do.
2. Do you have any evidence to prove his accusations are true, or are you now doing exactly what you accuse this administration of doing: Assigning guilt on suspicion alone?

What does the US gain by torturing captives for years on end? What does it lose? I dare say the cost is much much higher than any gains. After all, it's pretty hard to play the moral card on the world stage when you're acting just like the enemy you're fighting.

It will always depend on what's at stake. But who's being tortured for years on end? Are you speaking of rendition again?

Former CIA director George Tenet was on an interview circuit not long ago, and in one of his interviews he was asked if the CIA was torturing people. He failed to give a YES or NO answer, but what he said was that they were operating within the parameters of the law. Presumption: Yes but it's all legal, whatever that means. He could certainly be lying, but he did go on to say that if Americans are not comfortable with the measures they take, they simply need to "tell them what they are comfortable with". Seems perfectly fair, if they are willing to be held to the letter of the law.

[MorbidKate]

I think you're confusing my views with someone else's, so let me summarize again. What I am saying is that it can be reasonably argued that a civilian who kills a uniformed soldier should be tried in civil court for committing murder. Alara's line of reasoning in this regard mirrors my own. I also think that it can be reasonably argued that this individual should be held as a POW until the end of the conflict. It really depends on what this person was doing there and what his intentions were.

And again your opinions on what should happen differs greatly from the actual facts of the matter. The US military classified him as a "Enemy Combatant" upon capture which by definition makes him a soldier, not a terrorist and certainly not a civilian, not that it matters in terms of the torture, abuse and suspension of all human rights at Gitmo or the secret prison system setup in Eastern Europe. The US Supreme Court decided that the original tribunal system was unconstitutional and illegal and ruled that military tribunals only have jurisdiction over "Illegal Enemy Combatants" aka Terrorists. That is why the case was dismissed.

Also, because the Bush Admin redefined "torture" and redefined what a captive was to sidestep the Geneva Conventions there are no POWs because then they'd actually have rights and protections against torture. Therefore, your points about POWs are moot. I'm sure everyone in US custody would dearly love to be called POWs

In this kids case, his family background only compounds his problems. To quote an old adage, "show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are." If you really think that these people are just harmless extremists, then I honestly think you're kidding yourself.

Hmm, please quote where I suggested his family was harmless. I simply said no evidence has been presented in more than 6 years to prove them guilty. Besides, association is not a crime by itself even if you wish it so. Please stick to the matter at hand.

You might find this 60 minutes interview rather eye opening, if you haven't seen it before (links to some videos - sit back and enjoy):

Interview Part 1
Interview Part 2

Seen it before. Please explain to me how a story on terrorist recruitment in England of British Muslims has anything to do with this thread? Did you actually watch the videos you posted? Kadr was captured during an open battle in Afghanistan and is classified as a enemy combatant. Had he committed a terrorist act I'd fully agree to he being tried as such... but that's not the case.

1. If he's mentally ill, aren't you then making the argument that his actions should be judged in a civil court? Though to be honest, I think all these extremists have some form of mental disorder to do what they do.

It's uncertain if the mental disorder was pre-existing or if it was the result of repeated torture. As for your suggestion that they all have mental disorders I suggest to look into just how easy it is to radicalize someone.

2. Do you have any evidence to prove his accusations are true, or are you now doing exactly what you accuse this administration of doing: Assigning guilt on suspicion alone?

Yeah, there's no torture going on at Gitmo or anywhere else.

Considering the scale of the torture and abuse his claims are very creditable and more importantly, haven't been denied either. It may take a few more years but I bet you anything there's piles of tapes and photos somewhere documenting a lot of "sessions" that will eventually move into the public domain. Rumors of the torture at Abu Ghraib was downplayed and denied until 60 Minutes got their hands on the photos.

Former CIA director George Tenet was on an interview circuit not long ago, and in one of his interviews he was asked if the CIA was torturing people. He failed to give a YES or NO answer, but what he said was that they were operating within the parameters of the law. Presumption: Yes but it's all legal, whatever that means. He could certainly be lying, but he did go on to say that if Americans are not comfortable with the measures they take, they simply need to "tell them what they are comfortable with". Seems perfectly fair, if they are willing to be held to the letter of the law.

Yeah, I saw George Tenet make the TV rounds and he got rightfully roasted a lot for it by all sides. Torture does happen and we all know it... on a select and VERY small scale, as I said before... but it's the friggin scale of the torture and abuse that's out of control and it's the blowback from that which will cost us down the line.

And here's something I bet you didn't know about Tenet

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LTjuqYP7O3s

Anyway, it usually takes less than 72 hours to break someone to the point where they'll tell you anything you want to hear so how on earth could torturing thousands of people for 5+ YEARS produce actionable intelligence to make such extreme measures justified in any way?

Kate

[Nekulor]

I feel the boy should be tried, convicted (if guilty, which it seems he is from the news story on the front page) and executed for his crimes.

My God you have some pretty scary beliefs. Do you actually re-read what you write?

I don't give exceptions. The boy attacked US military, and killed a soldier, who probably has a wife and children here in the states. Death is a fitting punishment. I don't care how old he is, he should have known it was wrong to do it, and he must be punished. He should be given a fair trial and then sentenced appropriately.

Yes, I do re-read what I write. I don't believe in wishy-washy political ethics. If you commit a heinous crime, you deserve a punishment equivalent. If you are not a soldier of another nation, you should not be on the battlefield fighting for that group and killing soldiers of the opposing side. Our soldiers don't run down the street randomly gunning people down, at least all but a very small (1%) minority. I'll try and find the stats for civilian deaths by US fire, but they seem to be hard to get from objective sources (I'm not taking the "conservative" estimates from groups like AI. I certainly don't trust their objectivity). I found a link to one survey group on wikipedia, claiming that the current death total for the entire war (all deaths in Iraq for three years are in this figure, this is a 1 year old statistic) is about 601,027. About 90-95% of this are estimated to be from violence, including internal Iraqi on Iraqi violence from the militias, insurgent deaths, and outside militant deaths.

I honestly don't care if you think my beliefs are scary, Valnir. I respect your position on the issue, but they are my beliefs and if I feel that way, what justification do you have to tell me I am inherently wrong in my thinking? That it is wrong to kill a 15 year old in any case? Au contraire, if you knowingly commit the crime, justice should be served. I don't care if the kid is 10 or 12, if they commit a murder, and know murder is wrong, then, though it is a waste, the death penalty must be kept as an option. This boy has a likelihood of repeating similar crimes anyway if he's released, seeing as he already killed US soldiers. The world needs less of people like him.

You mistake callous, uncaring beliefs for what my beliefs really are: emotionally detached. I see things in plain black and white. I don't care about the grey areas on issues like this, because it is an issue of justice. My only concern here is to see justice served. An eye for an eye, a life for a life.

[mxlm]

You mistake callous, uncaring beliefs for what my beliefs really are: emotionally detached. I see things in plain black and white. I don't care about the grey areas on issues like this, because it is an issue of justice. My only concern here is to see justice served. An eye for an eye, a life for a life.

Honest question: what does being Christian mean to you?

[MorbidKate]

I don't give exceptions. The boy attacked US military, and killed a soldier, who probably has a wife and children here in the states. Death is a fitting punishment. I don't care how old he is, he should have known it was wrong to do it, and he must be punished. He should be given a fair trial and then sentenced appropriately.

So you have no trouble with any US military who kills someone in battle to be tried and convicted of murder either then? To paint with such a wide brush is a slippery slope indeed. Those convicted of terrorism deserve what they get but to suggest that anyone who raises a weapon and kills an American in an open, pitched battle be tried and executed is disturbing. It's also a key reason why the Geneva Conventions were created in the first place. To prevent massacres like you suggest.

Our soldiers don't run down the street randomly gunning people down, at least all but a very small (1%) minority. I'll try and find the stats for civilian deaths by US fire, but they seem to be hard to get from objective sources

Interesting, I got a Google hit straight away:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/b ... 1181251579

Scroll down to the bottom and work yourself up. Remember that those killed also have family and relatives and human nature suggests that this causes many to join the fight. And before you say anything about the numbers, remember that there wouldn't be any suicide bombers if the US never invaded. Regardless, it gives a pretty good summary of the number of civilians killed by coalition forces.

I see things in plain black and white.

If only life were like that

Kate

[Nekulor]

Kate, I did quote the statistic for total war deaths, you must have searched under something different than I did when you got that site, because I didn't have that site when I searched.

I am suggesting people involved in terrorist or insurgent style attacks be put on trial and dealt with by our courts and tribunals. Soldiers in pitched battles would not be subject to such. It sounded to me like the boy was acting as an insurgent, not in a pitched military maneuver.

To Mxlm:
I will forgive the people and pray for them. Doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't die for their crimes though. Its ultimately out of my hands, but god never told us to take everything an enemy would direct against us. Those who act in defense are justified, not evil. Iraq wasn't really in defense, but that is debatable now... in any case, I don't see our soldiers bombing markets in c4-strapped vehicles. Thus, I see retaliation as a justified method of defense against the enemy at this stage. Sometimes even the peaceful must go to war.

A little off topic, but I think this sums the war's main issue up well:
Though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War

[ç i p h é r]

Seen it before. Please explain to me how a story on terrorist recruitment in England of British Muslims has anything to do with this thread?

I was offering evidence to you that these extremists you seem so unconcerned about are far from harmless. They operate and recruit openly within Western societies. They get financial support from doctors and other professionals, people you'd generally think are above this sort of behavior, SPECIFICALLY FOR JIHAD. If you recall your history, Christian crusaders circa 1200 did much the same thing. They asked for and received donations from nobility SPECIFICALLY FOR CRUSADES.

The point is that you, and many people in America and beyond, STILL underestimate these folks despite everything we know. You're right, just being an extremist isn't evidence of a crime, but you KNOW these guys are connected to radical Islamic groups somehow just like you KNOW the CIA is torturing suspected terrorists. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Yeah, there's no torture going on at Gitmo or anywhere else.

Considering the scale of the torture and abuse his claims are very creditable and more importantly, haven't been denied either. It may take a few more years but I bet you anything there's piles of tapes and photos somewhere documenting a lot of "sessions" that will eventually move into the public domain. Rumors of the torture at Abu Ghraib was downplayed and denied until 60 Minutes got their hands on the photos.

But can anyone PROVE any of it? This is exactly how the Bush administration has justified ALL the things you are condemning, including the detention of Mr Khadr, who by direct association and by his own actions, is VERY LIKELY a terrorist. How in the world do you reconcile that?

Anyway, it usually takes less than 72 hours to break someone to the point where they'll tell you anything you want to hear so how on earth could torturing thousands of people for 5+ YEARS produce actionable intelligence to make such extreme measures justified in any way?

I have no idea. I don't torture people. What incident are you speaking of exactly? And are you suggesting that you know more than the folks in the intelligence business about the quality of the information they gather, whether by torture or otherwise?

[Rotku]

Iraq wasn't really in defense, but that is debatable now... in any case, I don't see our soldiers bombing markets in c4-strapped vehicles.

No, you just see them bombing public buildings with high tech jet fighters

[mxlm]

And are you suggesting that you know more than the folks in the intelligence business about the quality of the information they gather, whether by torture or otherwise?

The 'folks in the intelligence business' have almost uniformly declared that torture's a really dumb idea.

Experiences in Vietnam, Algeria, and elsewhere confirm this.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the intel community is making policy decisions, which is odd.

[Nekulor]

I say leave the policy decisions to those on the ground. The politicians can sort it out after we win.

[Mulu]

Yes, I do re-read what I write. I don't believe in wishy-washy political ethics. If you commit a heinous crime, you deserve a punishment equivalent.

Consistently ethicists consider war crimes and crimes against humanity to be the most heinous of crimes. The Bush administration has committed such crimes, specifically indefinite detention, rendition for torture, torture itself, disappearing, use of chemical weapons (white phosphorous) and wars of aggression. What punishment do you think Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all others involved deserve?

As for proof of torture at Gitmo, Janis Karpinski, a brigadier general who was assigned to Iraq in July 2003 to oversee 17 prison facilities, including Abu Ghraib, has testified regarding how General Geoffrey Miller transferred the interrogation techniques he had instituted at the US prison at Guantánamo Bay to Abu Ghraib. In other words, the torture started at Gitmo.

As an equally abhorrent aside, Karpinski also testified that a large number of American female soldiers in Iraq were assaulted or raped by male soldiers in the women's latrines, and an alarming number committed suicide. The cause of death is falsified in the official records, as per orders by command. "Because the women were in fear of getting up in the darkness [to go to the latrine], they were not drinking liquids after 3 or 4 in the afternoon," Karpinski said. "In the 100 degree heat, they were dying of dehydration in their sleep. Rather than making everyone aware - it was shocking - they told the surgeon not to brief on the details, and don't say specifically that they were women."

I've picked up on the mass rape of US female soldiers story from several different sources now, and it seems confirmed. It is also ongoing, and being protected if not encouraged by command (probably in an effort to rid the forces of women, something many in the military are still against).

Oh, and having a military that makes policy is formally known as a military dictatorship.

[Nekulor]

I'm not saying give the military power to make ALL policy, just let them run the wars with the president and joint chiefs as overseers. It makes no sense to have a president issuing direct or even somewhat indirect combat orders.

[ç i p h é r]

MXLM:

I was just skeptical of the claim about people being tortured for 5 years for bad intel. It presumes an underlying ignorance among the folks gathering the intel; that they don't even know how to do their job.

But regarding your point, if it's as you say that the intelligence community believes there are more effective ways of gathering intel than through the use of torture, what difference does a policy allowing torture really make? Unless you actually think people are being TOLD or FORCED to torture prisoners en masse, wouldn't such a policy really only apply to select cases where a) there's reason to suspect the prisoner has information b) nothing else has worked and c) information is desperately needed?

So I don't understand the uproar over torture or the accusatory statements about torturing people for years on end. It just doesn't add up. Is there any actual evidence of this occurring?

Mulu:

If certain techniques were being used at GITMO that were then also applied at Abu Graib, wouldn't the implication be that those techniques proved effective? And what were those techniques specifically? Any details given? Are we talking about pulling out fingernails and all the sort of gruesome things we see in movies, or are we talking about something else entirely?

The rape of female soldiers is nothing new, unfortunately, nor is it limited to the military, but that's another issue.

[Mulu]

If certain techniques were being used at GITMO that were then also applied at Abu Graib, wouldn't the implication be that those techniques proved effective?

Right, we only repeat things that work. Given that most detainees have no useful intel, but are tortured anyway, my inference would be that the persons responsible for these techniques becoming policy (Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, etc.) and the persons who implemented that policy (torturers) are sadistic bastards who are without honor, but I suppose it's all a matter of perspective.

And what were those techniques specifically?

Unmuzzled dogs, freezing, genital mutilation, severe beatings, feigned executions, starving, sodomy and other sexual assault, amputation/destruction of limbs, destruction of organs, extraction of eyes, and of course the usual pain postures, sexual/religious humiliation, etc. Well, that's off the top of my head, having read about this stuff alot. I'm sure I'm missing some.