Guantanamo judge drops charges against 15 year old

MorbidKate · Post by **MorbidKate** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:28 pm

For now...

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/06/0 ... ml?ref=rss

Guantanamo judge drops charges against Khadr

Monday, June 4, 2007 | 4:35 PM ET
CBC News

An American military judge abruptly dropped all charges on Monday against Omar Khadr, although it's unlikely to mean freedom for the only Canadian at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

The 20-year-old from the Toronto area, who had been facing charges of murder and terrorism, appeared before a military commission in Guantanamo, where he was expected to be arraigned.

Instead, the judge, army Col. Peter Brownback, dismissed the charges for technical reasons.

"We're very happy about it," Khadr's sister, Zaynab, told CBC News in Toronto. "We're surprised."

Under the Military Commissions Act that was revised and passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2006, military commissions only have jurisdiction to try "unlawful enemy combatants." However, Khadr was classified by a military panel in 2004 as only an "enemy combatant" — which is what led the judge to dismiss the charges on Monday.

CBC News's Bill Gillespie, reporting from Guantanamo, said Khadr's classification as an enemy combatant means he was fighting on the battlefield, but not necessarily acting unlawfully.

Khadr was 15 when he was captured in Afghanistan in 2002 and imprisoned in Guantanamo. He was accused of throwing a grenade that killed American medic Sgt. First Class Christopher J. Speer.

The U.S. Defence Department said Monday that there would be an appeal of the judge's decision within 72 hours. Khadr will either be re-arraigned or will have his status reviewed by a military tribunal, the Pentagon said.

"There are more questions than answers at this point," Cmdr. J.D. Gordon, a spokesman for the Pentagon, told CBC News.

Gordon said Khadr will not be returning to Canada any time soon, but Khadr's sister said she is still holding out hope her brother will be released.

"I don't know what to expect, I'm just hoping better news comes along soon," she said. "I hope my brother can come home."

She said she hasn't been allowed to speak to her brother since March, but knows he's coping with injuries to his eyes and knees, as well as mental anguish from being imprisoned for so long, at such a young age. Khadr was shot during his arrest.

"I'm hoping he's hanging in there," Zaynab said. "I know his health isn't very good."

When Khadr appeared in court on Monday, he seemed defiant at first, Gillespie reported, noting that Khadr refused to stand when the judge entered the court. However, after the ruling was handed down, Khadr appeared more chatty and relaxed.

Khadr was wearing a prison uniform and sporting a full, bushy beard. Gillespie noted he looked much older than he did when he last appeared before the commission more than a year ago, wearing a Roots sweatshirt, his beard neatly trimmed.

Time for Ottawa to intervene: Amnesty

Alex Neve, the secretary general of Amnesty International Canada, said the Canadian government should act swiftly, and demand the U.S. return Khadr to Canada. Neve said Khadr could be tried under the Canadian court system, provided there was appropriate evidence to justify charges.

"It's certainly vital that the Canadian government intervene forcefully now," he told CBC News. "It's been a very dismal reaction to date from the Canadian government on this case."

Neve also pointed out that Ottawa can no longer justify inaction by arguing that the case is before a U.S. court and can't be meddled with.

"They should be intervening directly with U.S. officials because it is now back in the hands of the U.S. government to decide what to do with this case," Neve said.

Canada's Foreign Affairs Department would not comment on Khadr's case on Monday, but said it is reviewing the situation.

Ruling could jeopardize Guantanamo trial system

Col. Dwight Sullivan, the chief of U.S. defence lawyers at Guantanamo, said Monday's ruling could jeopardize the revised military commission system set up by Congress and U.S. President George W. Bush.

The revisions came after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2006 that the previous Guantanamo trial system was illegal.

None of the roughly 380 detainees at Guantanamo have been classified as "unlawful" enemy combatants.

"The experience of the military commission system demonstrates that it's a failure," Sullivan told CBC News. "Rather than trying to revive these charges, it seems time for the United States to take a new look and find a new way to deal with these cases."

He suggested using the U.S. federal court system would be a preferable alternative.

Khadr is one of only three Guantanamo prisoners who faced charges under the new system.

David Hicks pleaded guilty in March to providing material support to al-Qaeda. He was released from Guantanamo and is serving out his nine-month sentence in his native Australia.

Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Yemen is currently having his case heard in Guantanamo. Hamdan, charged with conspiring to harm U.S. citizens, has admitted to being a driver for al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden but denied taking part in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against the United States.

The prisoners who haven't been charged are being held at the U.S. naval prison on suspicion of having links to the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

---

Here's a 15 year old kid that fought the US on the battlefield after Afghanistan was invaded by military force and he's a murderer and a terrorist?? What the US is totally ignoring is the blowback against its own captured troops not just in Afghanistan or Iraq but more importantly, in future conflicts. The US has set precedent that any of its captured forces could be denied any rights whatsoever and be tried and executed as murderers and terrorists themselves... without a moral leg to stand on.

Kate

NickD · Post by **NickD** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:45 pm

Well... he did kill a man... one would think he could be held as a prisoner of war until the war was over...

NESchampion · Post by **NESchampion** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:55 pm

NickD wrote:Well... he did kill a man... one would think he could be held as a prisoner of war until the war was over...

Is it can be reeleese tiem now plees?

MorbidKate · Post by **MorbidKate** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:01 pm

NickD wrote:Well... he did kill a man... one would think he could be held as a prisoner of war until the war was over...

But you see, he and others aren't "Prisoners of War" because that would mean they have certain rights and protections against such silly things as torture and abuse. With the Bush Admin re-defining the term "Torture" to get away with... well, torture and calling captives "enemy combantants" or nowadays "insurgents" instead of prisoners even though the expression "The War on Terror" is part of the mantra, they no longer have any basic rights at all. They just disappear. Five years and counting for thousands of them.

Kate

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:35 pm

But there is a difference between a uniformed soldier that's fighting for a recognized, state sanctioned army and someone - or group of someones - who just hop onto the battlefield with grenades in hand or TNT strapped to their chests. The absence of any uniform makes it impossible to identify them as a soldier on the battlefield. They don't follow any rules of engagement. They are not signatories to any conventions of war. They are not part of any structured military unit. So why do you find it objectionable to classify these folks differently?

This is not some innocent guy getting caught up in a program like rendition. "Enemy Combatant" sounds accurate enough and it was decided by a military PANEL, not the Bush Administration, according to the article.

Do you REALLY want him running loose in Canada?

Stormseeker · Post by **Stormseeker** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:57 pm

I agree with cipher here. What if a bunch of rednecks just invaded canada after mingling in with the population? Would they be considered prisoners of war? insurgents? terrorist ?, or just criminals?
The way you put it drug runners from mexico that are in the usa illegaly could be called pow's. Since there is a war on drugs.

sgould72 · Post by **sgould72** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:34 am

Call 'em whatever the fsk you want. The label is irrelevant. The point is that it is immoral, not to mention extremely hypocritical, for us to be locking people up indefinately with no charges being filed let alone giving them a day in court.

MorbidKate · Post by **MorbidKate** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:44 am

ç i p h é r wrote:But there is a difference between a uniformed soldier that's fighting for a recognized, state sanctioned army and someone - or group of someones - who just hop onto the battlefield with grenades in hand or TNT strapped to their chests. The absence of any uniform makes it impossible to identify them as a soldier on the battlefield. They don't follow any rules of engagement. They are not signatories to any conventions of war. They are not part of any structured military unit. So why do you find it objectionable to classify these folks differently?

You know, I recall that the British Army felt the very same way about those upstart "terrorists" in the Colonies back in the early days of the revolution.

Guerrilla warfare, no common uniforms, etc... Damn cowards would fire from the treelines and not come out to fight in formation. Certainly not professional soldiers like the British and many were not treated well after capture as a result.

You see, history is full of repetition. Many fighting the US in Afghanistan and Iraq are doing so because someone is paying them (Warlords, Clerics, etc) and if they are fighting on what's deemed to be a battlefield then they are certainly soldiers by definition. To be clear, I'm not talking about suicide bombers or attacks on civilians in markets. This story is about a kid fighting on the field of battle and how he and others are being tried for murder after being captured.

This is not some innocent guy getting caught up in a program like rendition. "Enemy Combatant" sounds accurate enough and it was decided by a military PANEL, not the Bush Administration, according to the article.

You should note that military commissions only have jurisdiction to try "unlawful enemy combatants." and that NONE of the 380 "detainees" at Gitmo are catagorized as such. The blowback from this is the very real possiblity that US soldiers captured somewhere down the line will be tried and executed as murderers. Imagine the uproar and call to arms should that happen and now you might better understand that what the US is doing today is creating it's future enemy. Insurgents couldn't market the cause any better if they tried.

Kate

Stormseeker · Post by **Stormseeker** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:54 am

The label is important. *points up to cipher's post*. And "immoral" is a point of view. If they have evidence that he threw the grenade then he can stay till hell freezes over. I will argue against being hypocritical, after all we are just keeping them in jail with three square meals, not beheading them and thowing the video all over the web.

Stormseeker · Post by **Stormseeker** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:57 am

All hell i can compare this conflict to just about any other in the world history if i draw the faintist of lines and spread in some bs.

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:18 am

Well, he threw a grenade at a sergeant during a battle in Afghanistan. Sure sounds like a soldier to me. This is not some guy who blew up a fruit stand. Not all of our fighters wear uniforms either, you know.

He and the rest should have been held as POWs, simple as that, in full accordance with the Geneva Conventions. It doesn't matter if they are or are not signatories, *we* are. Therefore, *we* are bound to it. Bush tried to make some new rules and they backfired. What a mess this man has been.

You guys do realize the rules of war predate this country, right? The Geneva Conventions are based very strongly on traditional rules of war, with some new ones thrown in due to the horrifying experiences of the world wars. They aren't trivial, they are the sum wisdom of centuries of warfare. Being civilized means you play by the rules, not only because you should, but because it's the best tactic in the long run. PR and allies win wars too.

Veilan · Post by **Veilan** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:31 am

Once more, helpless frustration and fear of an amorphous enemy dictates policy rather than sensibility, reason, civility and that non too common common sense.

What else is new?

Stormseeker · Post by **Stormseeker** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:42 am

*looks to see folks still fighting in afghanistan* well it aint over yet so weither you call him a pow, criminal, or boy scout...you don't release the enemy till the fight is finished.
And that is where the problem is aint it?

Jeppan · Post by **Jeppan** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:09 am

Stormseeker wrote:*looks to see folks still fighting in afghanistan* well it aint over yet so weither you call him a pow, criminal, or boy scout...you don't release the enemy till the fight is finished.
And that is where the problem is aint it?

The problem is that the US is holding prisoners in Guantanamo for unspecified time and with unspecified charges. To add to this you torture a lot of those sods. America is setting precedents that is going to hurt everyone for a long time to come. Those of you who voted for Bush the second time should really be ashamed for not using that shrivled thing bouncing around in your skull.

Franz K would be proud. Not even he could come up with something this gruesome.

MorbidKate · Post by **MorbidKate** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:42 pm

Stormseeker wrote:*looks to see folks still fighting in afghanistan* well it aint over yet so weither you call him a pow, criminal, or boy scout...you don't release the enemy till the fight is finished.
And that is where the problem is aint it?

Again, the 15 year old (now 20) is being charged with MURDER and could be executed for his "crime". To apply this standard to anyone fighting on the field of battle would mean ANYONE who actually killed an enemy soldier on either side could also be charged with murder.

For the Bush Admin to attempt an end-run around the Geneva Conventions in order to torture and abuse any and all captives with no right of visitation by lawyer or Red Cross (Red Crescent in this case) is not only disgusting and embarrassing, it's ultimately putting its forces in far greater danger should they be captured in a future conflict.

Kate