home

Guantanamo Juvenile Charged With Murder, Faces Military Tribunal

Omar Khadr was a 15 year old Canadian, captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. You can read the details here.

The Pentagon today officially charged him with murder.

Khadr is accused of throwing a grenade that killed U.S. Delta soldier Sgt. Christopher Speer during a firefight in Afghanistan July 27, 2002.

He was 15 at the time and was held for three months in Afghanistan before being transferred to Guantanamo Bay, where he remains today. In addition to the charge of murder, Khadr will also stand trial on attempted murder, providing material support for terrorism, conspiracy and spying.

Omar should not be tried by military tribunal. As Human Rights Watch said,

More...

International standards recognize that children under the age of 18 are a particularly vulnerable group, and are entitled to special care and protection because they are still developing physically, mentally and emotionally. These standards include certain key principles, including the use of detention only as a measure of last resort, the separation of children from adults, the right of children to maintain contact with their families, and the right to a prompt determination of their case.

In addition, treaties binding on the United States recognize the special situation of children who have been recruited or used in armed conflict, and their rights to prompt demobilization, and rehabilitation and reintegration assistance.

In cases where children are believed to have committed war crimes, they can be formally charged and should be provided with counsel and tried in accordance with international standards of juvenile justice.

Here's more on Omar's capture and his dysfunctional family life, including details about how a bullet blinded him in one eye during the gunfight.

As Jeanne D'Arc of the now defunct Body and Soul blog said at the time,

Omar Khadr is as much a victim of these people as a member of the family. He's eighteen years old. When he was captured in Afghanistan, he was fifteen -- a child turned into a soldier by parents from hell. And our government's response to this victim of child abuse was to abuse him further.

More on the Khadr family is here.

And yes, there are reports he was tortured. In 2005, The Toronto Star reported,

In February, 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.

In 2006, Rolling Stone had this feature article, The Unending Torture of Omar Khadr.

Omar should be sent back to Canada for rehabilitation. Or trial by the juvenile justice system. He should not be facing murder trial by tribunal in Guantanamo.

< Obama's Foreign Policy Speech | Rioting at a Private Prison >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    hmmmmmmmmmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 04:19:37 PM EST
    by that logic, the vc were all guilty of war crimes. yet, i don't recall them being tried by military tribunal upon capture. they were treated (sometimes poorly) as POW's. just because the taliban don't wear fancy uniforms, doesn't make them any less an organized fighting force, with a chain of command.

    the kid is a prisoner of war, under the geneva conventions. this is why our people are at such grave risk, if they're captured. of course, our CIC doesn't bother to mention this.

    Beheading (none / 0) (#45)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 08:26:34 AM EST
    ...the kid is a prisoner of war, under the geneva conventions. this is why our people are at such grave risk, if they're captured...

    Our people are at grave risk if they are captured because the folks that capture them want to behead them.  Period.

    Parent

    Uniforms are not the issue (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 04:39:20 PM EST
    Omar's age is the primary issue, making his trial by military tribunal abhorrent.

    Other issues are whether he was tortured.  

    He's also not speaking to his American lawyers, won't participate in the proceedings and his Canadian lawyers have had a difficult time getting approval to visit him at Guantanamo.

    It seems like he will be tried as if in abstentia.

    This just isn't right.

    He was old enough to throw a hand grenade. (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 05:47:38 PM EST
    It's hard to believe (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by glanton on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 08:27:49 PM EST
    That anyone would defend trying him for Murder.  All this does is distort the meaning of the word almost beyond recognition.  

    No wonder so many people are tempted to equate what happened at Virginia Tech to what is happening in Iraq.

    Attacking an occupying soldier is not an act of terrorism. And it most certainly is not attempted murder.  

    Hold them as POW's when you capture them.  Don't try and pretend that the killed American soldier was just some guy minding his own business who got senselessly murdered.

    The man was a gurellia (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 07:48:32 AM EST
    Attacking an occupying soldier is not an act of terrorism. And it most certainly is not attempted murder.

    Glanton, as Col. Potter would say, "Horse hockey."

    In the past gurellias were quickly tried and executed.

    We're just too damn slow.

    Parent

    Cute (none / 0) (#47)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 08:53:17 AM EST
    But still not showing how it has anything to do with murder.  You think just because you call it that, makes it that way?

    Again, to attack an occupying soldier has naught to do with murder, it doesn't matter whether you're wearing a uniform or not.  

    There is such a thing as making reality out to be what you want it to be, only because you have the upper hand.  Clearly the American government can do that with this guy.  

    There is a difference between being able declare something, though, and being right.  Too bad you join this government in refusing to see the difference.  

    Remember all the flack you gave people for calling the VA Tech incident terrorism, Cho a terrorist, etc?  Remember I agreed with that.  Because words mean something.

    Parent

    History (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 09:00:48 AM EST
    I am sure ppj knows that if you name someone correctly then it is easy to lynch them, quite popular in fact.

    Skip the courts, just get some rope and find a tree, right ppj?

    Parent

    Another smear from squeaky (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 09:41:40 AM EST
    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    I see that you are following your very own guidlines.

    Parent

    glanton (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 09:39:18 AM EST
    Hate to pop your bubble, but when we become incapable of defending ourselves you will find that a bunch of Americans will be hung, etc.

    And I think it is beyond discussion that he was a gurellia.

    Save your sympathy for the soldier that was killed. He deserves it. His killer does not.

    Parent

    Did you read my comment? (none / 0) (#52)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:07:47 AM EST
    It had nothing to do with America defending itself.    

    It had to do with language.  What the term murder means.  And then what happens in a War contex.  And how those contexts are starkly different.  

    People killing one another on a battlefield doesn't meet what the term does.

    He did not sneak up on the soldier while on leave and shoot him and take his wallet.  Nor did he kill the soldier after finding out he;d been diddling his wife.  Nor did he lose his marbles and shoot the soldier, and some thirty other people, on a university campus.

    Strop being a propagandist.  Think instead.  It can be refreshing.

    Parent

    Glanton (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 12:53:58 PM EST
    The charge is murder:

    The definition of murder:

    To kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice

    Now, what you are claiming is:

    Again, to attack an occupying soldier has naught to do with murder, it doesn't matter whether you're wearing a uniform or not.  

    There is a difference between being able declare something, though, and being right.  Too bad you join this government in refusing to see the difference.

    What difference?

    Are you claiming that this gurellia had the right to attack because the murdered US soldier was "occupying?"

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#54)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 01:07:50 PM EST
    You want to make oppositional voices look as though they support the killing of soldiers.  This is contemptible.

    You speak of murder in terms of killing unlawfully and with malice.  I ask you, what do such terms have to do with the context of War?

    What I am saying is that when you participate in a War, then you're going to get shot at and attacked during that War.  Ergo, you might well get killed, just as surely as you are likely to kill.  This is just a simple fact.  It has nothing to do with Law.  And it da&#ed sure aint murder to do so.

    Look, to say that a soldier during War getting killed by a grenade is murder makes no sense.  I am frankly surprised that even the Bush Administration has come to push such a ludicrous line of thinking.  

    Have we really gotten to the point now that we're saying when American troops land in your country and start bombing and shooting, that if you fire back then you're a murderer?  Even Polk didn't go so far in his racist screeds against the Mexican militias.  

    What you are embracing strips War of all meaning, and strips Murder of all meaning as well.  

    But it makes for good propaganda, don't it?

    Parent

    I haven't gotten enough info on this case (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 01:16:02 PM EST
    to form an overall opinion yet, but g-man,
    when American troops land in your country and start bombing and shooting, that if you fire back then you're a murderer?
    what if it's not "your" country?

    I'm not debating (at this point), whether or not it was "his" country, just that if it wasn't "his" country, and he faught against and killed American troops, how do you call him? As a mercenary?

    Parent

    sarcasmo (none / 0) (#56)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 01:38:26 PM EST
    That's a good question and not easy to answer.  "Mercenary" is infinitely better than Murderer, but may not entirely cut it unless he was getting paid.

    But while you and others seem willing to guide your final analysis of this issue after more facts about this guy's nationality come in, I am not at all concerned with that question.  Because whether he was motivated by: 1)Country; 2)Ideology; or 3)Simple Money

    He was participating in a War, not committing murder. And the dead American soldier?  He is a casualty of War, not a murder victim.

    Sarcasmo, we as a nation have over the last six years made the term "terrorism" such a catchall that we now have people on this very website, ideological allies of mine no less, seduced into calling the VA Tech massacre a terrorist act.  

    Our President has also been for some time designating anyone who shoots at an American soldier in our ME campaigns a terrorist.  And there has been a movement in the media to follow suit, though thankfully it has been slow and patchy.  

    Now we have another shift, one that even my cynical arse would never have forseen.  We are actually conflating an act of War with a Murder. I ask you, are we trending to a point where we will soon be calling all Americans KIA murder victims?

         

    Parent

    Interesting question g-man (none / 0) (#58)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 02:47:44 PM EST
    Murder as a war crime is unprecedented - not that that should mean much as "war crimes" are a very recent construct, have been tried in very few cases, are definitionally extremely vague and continue to evolve.

    That said, with what little I know, I can't say I completely support the charge of murder, nor can I completely dismiss it - as his non-citizenship of the country he was fighting in, that he was not fighting for a legally recognized gvt (I don't think AQ was legally recognized as the gvt of Afghanistan, I could be wrong), etc., etc., muddies the waters.

    Parent

    It will be interesting then (none / 0) (#59)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 02:57:12 PM EST
    to see where you come down after getting more info.

    Parent
    Murder as war crime (none / 0) (#63)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 03:24:32 PM EST
    I have to disagree with you here. Most definitely murder of civilians is considered a war crime. This is uncontroversial. The question in this case is whether the murder of a solder can be a war crime. History tells us that is uncontroversially a war crime, too.

    Remember that a "war crime" is defined as any violation of the laws of war.

    In 1935, Italian General Pietro Badoglio used mustard gas on soldiers and civilians in contravention of the 1925 Geneva Protocol.

    In 1939, the German invaders executed wounded soldiers and other POWs in contravention of the 1907 Hague Convention.

    In 1940, British soldiers were captured and executed by the SS in contravention of the 1907 Hague Convention.

    Throughout WWII, the Germans, the British, and the Americans conducted unrestricted submarine warfare, in contravention of a series of treaties. (Note, however, that this British and American war crime went unpunished.)

    These are just a few solder-on-soldier war crimes. (I have left out any purely soldier-on-POW crimes because POWs get special protection not afforded to regular combatants.) Clearly, it's possible for a soldier-on-soldier action to be a war crime.

    Whether it's using a prohibited weapon on enemy combatants (like mustard gas) or using prohibited strategies on enemy combatants (like unrestricted submarine warfare), soldier-on-soldier confrontations must still conform to the laws of war. Violations of those laws are war crimes and murders.

    It's possible that the present case comes under the "using prohibited strategies on enemy combatants" category. The prohibited strategy I have in mind is hiding in a civilian populace. However, as has been mentioned a few times in this thread, we need more information to determine what realy is going on here.

    Parent

    He threw the grenade (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 03:32:02 PM EST
    During a firefight! That much "information" is already determined.  People were shooting at each other during battle and some people got killed, who would ever have thunk it?

    Gabe, I find it very frustrating, all this talk of War Crimes and Murder in the context of this case.  It's just staggering to me that they have the balls to charge him with murder and that they're appraently going to get away with it encountering not even a whiff of resistance.  Even this thread is technically about his age.

    Not a single example you give, above, comes anywhere close to a thrown grenade during a firefight.  Not even close.  

    Parent

    Murder, Manslaughter, or none of the above (none / 0) (#69)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 03:48:47 PM EST
    glanton, I didn't say I found the murder charge appropriate. Just that it's not some new-fangled thing for war crimes to be murders of soldiers.

    I'm actually curious to see what legal definition of "murder" is being applied. Murder generally means conduct which, at a minimum, rises to the level of malice (that is, "extreme indifference to human life").

    But the U.S. generally recognizes that "heat of passion" situations do not meet that level. In fact, under common law, mutual combat which results in death only rises to the level of manslaughter.

    How U.S. criminal law and common law apply to wartime situations is unclear.

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#72)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 04:02:03 PM EST
    you didn't embrace the murder charge.  The frustration isn't directed at your research efforts, which have been illuminating in their own right.  It is rather directed at the whole situation.

    I just don't see how the government can credibly apply Murder, Manslaughter, "crime of passion," or any other kinds of civil laws to what has happened here.  

    There is no way the throwing of that grenade can reasonably be called a crime; raher, and unfortunately, it was and is what happens in war.  That's why, for example, some of us view War as a last resort.  Rather than a first.

    Tell me how this doesn't leap head first down the slippery slope of declaring all American Soldiers KIA as murder victims?  Or wounded soldiers as victims of assault and battery?  

    A government initiates military action but disclaims that the resultant deaths had anything whatever to do with said initiation.  Talk about the Pretense of Clean Hands!!!

    Parent

    Trials (none / 0) (#74)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 04:14:43 PM EST
    There is no way the throwing of that grenade can reasonably be called a crime; raher, and unfortunately, it was and is what happens in war.

    Lets assume for a minute that Khadr was part of a regularly constituted army and that he and his unit conducted themselves entirely within the rules of war. (Let's also assume that no special rules apply for an attack on a medic.)

    In this hypothetical, if he were to be captured, he would be entitled to all the protections of POW status. This includes protection from being tried for doing things like killing our soldiers. You'd be entirely correct in saying "this is what happens in war."

    However, what about a hypothetical where Khadr was not part of a regularly constituted army unit? What if he was not conducting himself within the rules of war?

    In this second hypothetical, if he were to be captured, he would not be entitled to POW status. He would be subject to trial as an unlawful combatant. (See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld if you're one of those who thinks there's no such thing.)

    My next question: what do we charge him with?

    Parent

    Unlawful Combatant (none / 0) (#75)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 04:23:09 PM EST
    Is a term I have problems with, I admit.  If this disqualifies me in your mind to have this discussion with you, because I disagree with the Law, then so be it.

    My problem with it comes from the fact that it attempts to tidy up something that is innately messy and chaotic.  Like occupying a foreign country.  Especially a foreing country with no credible military force per se, the fighting comes from everywhere all at once.  

    I would have us hold ourselves to the highest possible ethical standards.  Which would mean, instead of looking for loopholes, treating those captured on the battlefield as humanely as possible and recognizing the fact that they are in fact Prisoners of War whatever else some lawyers may want to call it.

     

    Parent

    That's not what I meant (none / 0) (#68)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 03:46:32 PM EST
    although it doesn't matter much.

    I meant this war crimes charge of, simply, murder - ie., that a, I don't know, mercenary/civilian combatant/whatever, murdered a soldier on the field of battle (I don't know how to define it any better) and not a war crimes charge that encompasses murder, like genocide - is unprecedented, or at least that's what my googling has led me to believe.

    Parent

    glanton (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 06:14:09 PM EST
    All you have to do is make a sympathetic statement about the dead soldier every now and then instead of claiming he wasn't murdered and maybe I would believe you.

    What you are really saying is that gurellias should be accorded the same rights as real soldiers.

    That is nuts. For starters... Gurellias are not in an identifiable uniform, allowing them freely mingle with the local populace, allowing them to get close for an attack, and preventing return fire in case we hit an "actual" civilian.

    I could go on, but won't because I doubt you will ever see the difference.

    And yes, sooner or later you have to decide if you are with, or against, the troops.

    Parent

    "All I have to do" (none / 0) (#95)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:00:56 PM EST
    American politicians are making War.  This is something we can all agree on.  And American soldiers are fighting War, that's another "sky is blue" observation.

    The third is, a certain consequence of the first two is that American soldiers are going to get killed.  This is why some of us, Jim, see War as a last resort.  As opposed to a First.

    To respond with "Oh my God he was murdered" is beyond silly.  I wouldn't even have thought the Bush Administration capable of such loopy rhetoric.  I wouldn't have thought it of you, either.  Looks like I miscalculated on both fronts.

    Parent

    I wrote (none / 0) (#96)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:02:57 PM EST
    This is why some of us, Jim, see War as a last resort.  As opposed to a First.

    But in reality it is of course one huge factor among many explaining why we see War as a last Resort.

    Parent

    Naomi Klein in "Fascist America, in 10 easy (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by conchita on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 09:51:56 PM EST
    steps" from the Guardian today lists Step 2 as:

    2. Create a gulag

    Once you have got everyone scared, the next step is to create a prison system outside the rule of law (as Bush put it, he wanted the American detention centre at Guantánamo Bay to be situated in legal "outer space") - where torture takes place.

    At first, the people who are sent there are seen by citizens as outsiders: troublemakers, spies, "enemies of the people" or "criminals". Initially, citizens tend to support the secret prison system; it makes them feel safer and they do not identify with the prisoners. But soon enough, civil society leaders - opposition members, labour activists, clergy and journalists - are arrested and sent there as well.

    This process took place in fascist shifts or anti-democracy crackdowns ranging from Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s to the Latin American coups of the 1970s and beyond. It is standard practice for closing down an open society or crushing a pro-democracy uprising.

    With its jails in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, of course, Guantánamo in Cuba, where detainees are abused, and kept indefinitely without trial and without access to the due process of the law, America certainly has its gulag now. Bush and his allies in Congress recently announced they would issue no information about the secret CIA "black site" prisons throughout the world, which are used to incarcerate people who have been seized off the street.

    Gulags in history tend to metastasise, becoming ever larger and more secretive, ever more deadly and formalised. We know from first-hand accounts, photographs, videos and government documents that people, innocent and guilty, have been tortured in the US-run prisons we are aware of and those we can't investigate adequately.

    But Americans still assume this system and detainee abuses involve only scary brown people with whom they don't generally identify. It was brave of the conservative pundit William Safire to quote the anti-Nazi pastor Martin Niemöller, who had been seized as a political prisoner: "First they came for the Jews." Most Americans don't understand yet that the destruction of the rule of law at Guantánamo set a dangerous precedent for them, too.

    By the way, the establishment of military tribunals that deny prisoners due process tends to come early on in a fascist shift. Mussolini and Stalin set up such tribunals. On April 24 1934, the Nazis, too, set up the People's Court, which also bypassed the judicial system: prisoners were held indefinitely, often in isolation, and tortured, without being charged with offences, and were subjected to show trials. Eventually, the Special Courts became a parallel system that put pressure on the regular courts to abandon the rule of law in favour of Nazi ideology when making decisions.



    link to Klein's article (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by conchita on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 09:57:30 PM EST
    International Treatment of Child Soldiers (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 03:05:19 PM EST
    Thus far, my examination of this issue has focused on the way in which the laws of war generally treats combatants. Because I hadn't had an opportunity to think about it or study it before now, I set aside the issue of separate treatment of juvenile soldiers. I've now had a chance to examine the state of the law in that area; because so many have wondered, here is what I found:

    First, before we start, let's be completely clear up front that this fellow--fighting and captured at sixteen years of age--was a child. It doesn't matter that he may have been regarded as an adult in Afghanistan or in inumerable other countries and cultures. The simple fact is, he's in our power now and we regard sixteen year-olds as children.

    This conclusion is supported, at a minimum, by customary international law and possibly by treaty as well (more on the treatment of treaties below).

    Second, I called him a "child soldier" in the title to this comment because, whether or not he is eligible for POW status, he was fighting in a war. Unless treaties or conventions exempt children from treatment under the usual laws of war, he will have the same burdens and protections placed on him as other war participants.

    As I wrote upthread, the most common of these are the Geneva Conventions. Of significant importance in the last five years is the Rome Statute (even though the U.S. isn't a party).

    With those preliminary matters out of the way, I started looking around to see what international laws specifically applied to children. At the top of the list is the 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child ("CRC") (PDF). The CRC doesn't apply directly to the issue of war, but it does lay out how children are to be treated in many circumstances. (Incidentally, it defines "child" as anyone under the age of eighteen.)

    Article 37 is most important for our discussion. It has several parts. First, it prohibits "torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
    punishment," capital punishment, and life imprisonment for child offenders. Second, it places limits on the imprisonment or detention of children:

    The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.

    It also provides that child prisoners be separated from adults, that they have access to lawyers, and that they have the right to challenge the legality of their imprisonment.

    These prohibitions provide some idea of the treatment of children prisoners. Note, however, that it does not rule out trials for children. It just requires that they be fair and otherwise in accord with international human rights standards.

    Though it never directly mentions war prisoners, Article 37 seems to be directly on point. There is one significant problem: the United States is not a party to the CRC. We signed it but never ratified it. (Somalia is the one other holdout, though this doesn't really mean much; Somalia hasn't had a government since 1990.)

    It's possible that some will argue that the treatment of children codified in the CRC has actually passed into the ambit of customary international law. That argument faces two significant problems in the context of child soldiers.

    First, customary international law is recognized as the widespread practice of states, believing that their conduct is required by law. There are two key elements to customary internationa law: (1) widespread practice; and (2) belief that they are obligated to behave that way. Unfortunately, it is doubtful that there is a widespread practice of treating children in accordance with the prohibitions in Article 37. Moreover, the very language of the CRC makes it clear that the parties joining the agreement that they believed they were doing something new, not codifying generally accepted practices.

    Second, in the grand scheme of things, customary international law is trumped by actually signed treaties and conventions. It is analogous to the way that our government can overrule common law by the use of statutes or amendments. The U.S. is an actual party to the Geneva Conventions which regulate warfare. Therefore, those conventions will take precedence over customary international law; In other words, even if it were the case that the protections in Article 37 were customary international law, it is far from clear that the U.S. would be bound to follow it.

    Because of my work with International Justice Mission, I knew that child soldiers were an important issue for the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The Special Court was formed by agreement between the government of Sierra Leone and the UN following the end of the civil war in that country.

    After much debate and discussion, it was decided that child soldiers between the ages of 15 and 18 would be subject to trials at the Special Court. However, imprisonment was ruled out as a punishment. Instead, "alternative programs" were to be utilized in sentencing. Rehabilitation was a major goal of these alternative programs, but I have no information on whether this arrangement was carried out in good faith.

    From the above, it is not plainly illegal to subject child soldiers to trial. However, it's possible that children are due special protections even in the course of their trials.

    Because of that possibility, I also poked around to find out what I could about the treatment of children in trials. I found the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for Juvenile Justice 1985 ("Beijing Rules"). Though the Beijing Rules are not binding, they provide a good idea of how juveniles are to be treated by court systems.

    Of most importance to me was the emphasis on the future well-being of the child. Though it explicitly disclaims favoring rehabilitation over what it calls "just deserts," I think there is a clear preference for rehabilitative punishments (excuse the near-oxymoron). Note also that the Beijing Rules also prohibit capital punishment, but not imprisonment.

    Finally, all the above is not an attempt to say that the current system is good or bad. My point was only to look and see what rules exist which apply to this situation. Obviously, child advocates are free to point out that the current system is a bad one.

    Gabe (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 06:20:01 PM EST
    If he was not considered a child by the Taliban when he committed the acts, how does that transfer to us?

    And, if it does,,,Teenagers are tried as adults all the time.

    As for Sierra Leone, rehab might be an option when the person is:

    a. not a radical pledged to jihad.

    b. in a situation in which the war is over.

    Thanks for your thoughts

    Parent

    Good thinking, Jim! (none / 0) (#87)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 06:24:02 PM EST
    Let the Taliban guide your moral choices. What a natural fit.

    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 06:43:56 PM EST
    How typical of you to try and mistate something.

    The fact that the Taliban may regard him as an adult has no moral content.

    The question was, why does that change when we capture him?

    Parent

    As I noted. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 06:46:26 PM EST
    It's a natural fit for you, Jim.

    Do you have a problem with it?

    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 08:27:23 PM EST
    Actually edger it is a demonstration of your, and squeaky's, comment guideline.

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.



    Parent
    Why does it change? (none / 0) (#100)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 10:02:17 AM EST
    The question was, why does that change when we capture him?

    It changes because as you know, we are thank God far different from the Taliban in any number of ways, and their designations represent zero compunction on our parts.

    You stated that we try minors as adults all the time.  I would say that while you are of course right, this too is a big problem, not a precedent for reasonable people to expand upon.

    FWIW  

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#1)
    by eric on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 03:37:46 PM EST
    Waid a second, it's illegal to kill people during a war?  Throwing a grenade on a battlefield sounds like something that is pretty much your average run-of-the-mill warfare.  Plus he's just a kid.  But even if he wasn't... what's up here?

    Basic LOIAC (none / 0) (#2)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 03:42:48 PM EST
    Waid a second, it's illegal to kill people during a war?  

    It is if you don't wear a uniform, answer to a chain of command, carry your arms openly, and conduct your operations in accordance with the laws of war.

    Parent

    So the American revolutionaries were terrorists (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by lilybart on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 04:13:44 PM EST
    Really? Then we were not fighting a war since the others were not in uniform either.

    If it was not a war, then why isn't his action considered self-defense?

    Parent

    Regulars vs. Irregulars (none / 0) (#5)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 04:28:49 PM EST
    lilybart,

    American revolutionaries generally wore uniforms. Militiamen, later called "regulars" after the formation of the Continental Army wore uniforms, answered to a chain of command, carried their arms openly, and otherwise conducted themselves within the conventions of war at the time.

    The exception to this were the "irregulars" or partisan warfighters. Though they had a chain of command, they often didn't wear uniforms and worked behind the front lines. They were subject to summary execution when caught rather than prisoner or parole status. The British complained fiercly about partisan fighters because they violated all the conventions of war at the time.

    Partisan fighters were also used by the North and South during the Civil War. The Lieber Code--one of the earliest codifications of the Laws of War--was instituted by President Lincoln to deal with the issue (and many others).

    It dealt with irregulars in two ways. First, guerillas, defined as a "self-constituted set of men unintegrated with an organized army which did not take prisoners," were war criminals and subject to summary execution. However, partisans, defined as "a corp of soldiers who tries to injure his enemy by attacking the enemies lines of supply and communication remote from the battle lines," were not. The key distinction between the two was that partisans were soldiers, usually in uniform and answerable to the chain of command; guerillas were not.

    Parent

    I understand that, but (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by eric on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 05:46:39 PM EST
    But don't you have the right to protect yourself if a foreign army invades your country?  I don't think that I would like to be tried as a murderer if I killed an invader of my country.  Do I need to join the army to shoot back?

    Parent
    Very good point eric..... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 05:54:31 PM EST
    If a Taliban regiment was storming up my block, my first thought wouldn't be "where's my uniform?", I'd start making Molotov's.  I'd consider it my patriotic duty...and simple survival.  Certainly not a crime...no matter what the law books say.

    Parent
    Levee en mass is protected. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 06:00:00 PM EST
    First, as SUO has already pointed out, the kids country wasn't invaded. He went to a warzone (though probably because his parents forced him) and took up arms. So this is not a case of self-defense.

    However, kdog brings up a good point. What if the Taliban is invading Los Angeles? Do I have to join up with the Army before I defend my home? The answer, under the laws of war is definitively NO.

    As I wrote here , the GenCon (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Article 4(a)(6) notees that "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist" are protected under the laws of war. Upon capture, they are to be treated as POWs just like other regular military.

    The common term for such an uprising is levee en mass.

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#15)
    by eric on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 06:09:06 PM EST
    Thank you for the explanation.

    One point, however.  I do not think that he traveled to Afganistan to fight in any war.  It is my understanding that his father was of Afghani descent and they were living in Afghanistan before the invasion.  It is possible that, for all intents and purposes, he considered Afghanistan to be his country.  It surely was his home.

    Parent

    Indeed. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 06:17:07 PM EST
    As you say, some factual issues need to be worked out here, pronto.

    Parent
    His "country" (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 08:07:12 PM EST
    I wasn't able to find any info on how long he was in Afghanistan, etc., but I did find out that he and his whole family are, legally anyway, Canadian citizens.

    Parent
    He sounds like a Coalition of the Willing (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 07:00:04 PM EST
    Didn't our side get one Willing Canadian too?

    Parent
    Tracy (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 07:44:17 AM EST
    Depends on what side he is willing for.

    He picked the wrong side.

    Parent

    eric (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 05:49:40 PM EST
    You had better hope for as good a treatment as we have given these guys.

    BTW - Protecting yourself by throwing a hand grenade?

    Gesh.

    Parent

    uh (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jen M on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 06:18:15 PM EST
    yeah

    soldiers do it. They don't like being shot at, and a grenade makes a great way to get the other guys to stop. Why did they invent the things if not to get rid of the other guys shooting at you.

    Opening bank vaults?
    fireworks?
    lighting up cigarettes?

    If the US were occupied would you cooperate? Would you going to demonize those who don't? You seem to expect that of others.

    Parent

    Jen M (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 07:28:41 PM EST
    There is no moral equivalency between the US and Afghanistan.

    So, why do you attempt to justify this man's actions  with the tired old, "what if...?"

    The fact is that Afghanistan was under the control of the Taliban, such lovely people that they killed women for committing adultry.. They gave safe harbor to al-Qaiada and OBL...

    Would you have let them be??

    Parent

    we don't hold (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Jen M on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 07:41:47 PM EST
    the moral high ground anymore

    Parent
    Law (none / 0) (#28)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 07:49:07 PM EST
    Fortunately the operation of law doesn't rely on moral high ground to operate.

    Militarytracy facetiously asks what law of war I've been writing about around here. The law of war is fairly well defined. Its foundation lies in international notions of law (jus cogens) and many treaties and conventions. The most notable are the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions. Various international tribunals set precedent for trials, including the Nuremberg Tribunals, and the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia. Finally, though it hasn't convicted anyone yet, the ICC and its Rome Statute give a good idea of the current state of international law of war.

    With respect to the specific issue of juvenile war criminals, I'd have to take a look and see how well defined the area is. I'll be in class until late tonight, but if I find time, I'll look and see if I can find some laws that would apply.

    Parent

    I was responding to Jim (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Jen M on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 08:01:02 PM EST
    re: afghanistan is not as human or as moral as we are, not addressing the law.

    What is the legal ramnification of a person resisting an occupying force. Is that an international war crime against humanity?

    Parent

    "Active hostilities" is the key (none / 0) (#33)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 08:29:25 PM EST
    A person who commits "active hostilities" loses the protection of the GenCon (IV) relative to the Treatment of Civilians. At that point, they may qualify for protection under GenCon (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. That's why I focused on whether this kid was part of the regular armed forces or whether he could fullfil the cummulative conditions required of irregulars. Some others posited that he may be part of a levee en mass, but that's not the case for a variety of reasons. Anyway, if he does fullfil one of the criteria, then he's a POW. If he doesn't he doesn't have protection under GenCon (III).

    At that point there is disagreement over how to treat him. Some argue that he get's POW treatment anyway. The Supreme Court, the Bush Administration (and every administration before it and most other countries in the world) argue that he's an unlawful combatant and therefore subject to military tribunal for the acts which make his combatancy unlawful and any unlawful acts he made while engaged in active hostilities. See here  comment #13 for a more in depth discussion (also #23, #48, and #51, although the whole discussion was a good one).

    The analysis so far treats him as if he were an adult. I don't know if there are separate rules for juvenile participants in war, but I will find out either tonight when I get out of class or tomorrow morning.

    Parent

    A little bit about terminology (none / 0) (#34)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 08:48:39 PM EST
    You wrote "international war crime against humanity" which manages to hit the general idea, but isn't quite correct.

    War crimes are simply violations of the Laws of War (what many call the Laws of International Armed Conflict or LOIAC). Serious examples include the murder and ill treatment of POWs, ill treatment or deportation to slave labor of civilian populations, the plunder of public or private property, and the wanton destruction of villages, cities, or other civilian places not justified by military necessity.  

    The murder of American troops while disguised as a civilian comes within this category. The fact that he isn't a POW (assuming he cannot fulfill the cumulative criteria) means he can be tried. The specific crimes he can be tried for are any acts of combatancy he committed.

    Crimes against humanity are generally defined as "any of the following when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack with knowledge of the attack:" (and I'm stealing this from the Rome Statute which we haven't signed or ratified, but which provides a good idea of what would be a crime against humanity even under laws to which we are a party and certainly under customary international law)
          (a)     Murder;
          (b)     Extermination;
          (c)     Enslavement;
          (d)     Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
          (e)     Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
          (f)     Torture;
          (g)     Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; (Though, per the rule, it must actually be widespread and systematic, not just against a single woman.)
          (h)     Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
          (i)     Enforced disappearance of persons;
          (j)     The crime of apartheid;
          (k)     Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

    Crimes against peace are a bit more difficult to define. There is widespread international debate over what constitutes a crime against the peace. I mentioned that issue here.

    Essentially, a crime against peace is defined as "the planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing..." Unfortunately, there is no agreement over what "war of aggression" means.

    Parent

    Jen M (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 07:26:11 AM EST
    If you believe that you have my sympathy.

    Parent
    I have news for you, PPJ (none / 0) (#39)
    by Al on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 12:57:13 AM EST
    This may come as a surprise, but the Karzai government that we are sustaining in Afghanistan actually enforces and protects Sharia law. (Reference)  Yes, that's what our soldiers are fighting to protect. Go figure.

    Parent
    Al (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 07:41:22 AM EST
    My point was, as you know, that the Taliban was an evil bunch of monsters who did what I said, and we went into Afghanistan to disperse them and al-Qaiada.

    We're still there to do the above, not protect any government in particular.

    And while I am totally against Shari law, as long as we keep it out of where it hasn't been for the last 700-800 years or so, I'm not for invading/supporting  any country unless we find them to be terrorist enablers or building nukes while threatening its neighbors.

    Parent

    nowonnmai (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 07:42:25 AM EST
    You speaking to me?

    Parent
    The kid's country was not invaded. (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 05:53:40 PM EST
    You wouldn't be tried as a murderer if your country wins.

    Parent
    ROFLAO (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 06:06:24 PM EST
    and conduct your operations in accordance with the laws of war, American Forces are now doing illegal things in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Hillarious!

    Parent
    How about some of that there (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 06:08:09 PM EST
    white phosphorous when we did the shake and bake on Fallujah?  You have utterly and completely lost your mind friend ;)

    Parent
    What about it? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 08:36:49 AM EST

    Willy Peter has been used for decades.  Whats the issue?

    Parent
    I can't help it if you have no existing (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 09:40:40 AM EST
    conscience or your process of feeling natural shame is broken. I just feel badly for everyone in your life that has to put up with you.

    Parent
    Shame (none / 0) (#62)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 03:20:47 PM EST
    Can you explian why the use of one legal weapon should engender more shame or less shame than any other legal weapon?  

    Shame would be letting any of our folk be killed or injured for failure to use the most effective legal weapon.

    Parent

    You can think you are lawyering me (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 03:31:36 PM EST
    into the dirt all day long but nothing will ever make what happened in Fallujah to innocents okay and I'm sure in time someone will be held accountable for it.  The military was ashamed and frightened when what they did was discovered.  They did try to lie about it and cover it up at first.  If it is so important to you that you find all possible legalities to condone it, knock yourself out.  It is your soul that gets to wither and die, not mine.  Cheers to days further down this road and more investigations into everything that happened in Iraq when there was no oversight!

    Parent
    Your point (none / 0) (#71)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 03:54:22 PM EST

    Is your point appears to be the weapon was used on the wrong target, or it was the wrong weapon for that particular target.  Thats a bit different than being an inherently shameful weapon.

    BTW, would you consider an attack helicopter more or less shameful than a tank?

    Parent

    You are funny. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 06:15:35 PM EST
    And your point is? I invite you to keep reasoning that out Militarytracy.

    I don't think you'll be as happy with itas you seem to be now. Your argument is the standard hypocrisy ad hominem (hypocrites are simply wrong aside from the merits of their argument). Let's see where it leads us in a little hypothetical:

    American troops violate the laws of war. Taliban troops violate the laws of war.

    Should we: (1) subject captured Taliban to the laws of war? or (2) do whatever the hell we like with them?

    I cannot imagine that you think we should do whatever we like with them. And yet you're rolling all over the floor. Very puzzling.

    Parent

    What? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 06:54:24 PM EST
    Which laws of war are we talking about (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 06:56:45 PM EST
    the real ones or the ones that BushCo makes up?

    Parent
    Tracy - You have been lawyered (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 07:30:43 PM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    Americans have become sad low lives (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 06:11:28 PM EST
    haven't we?  We have to do something like this to us some justice!

    Tracu (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 07:32:23 PM EST
    Could you clarify the comment??

    Parent
    The Taliban were the invaders (none / 0) (#26)
    by diogenes on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 07:35:43 PM EST
    In fact, didn't the Taliban, led by one Osama Bin Laden (a Saudi Arabian), take over Afghanistan?  Didn't the people dance in the streets when the Americans won?  Aren't the problems that we haven't wiped the Taliban out, not that the people of Afghanistan have a nostalgic desire to be ruled by them again?
    In much of history, guerilla fighters were simply executed and/or buried in gulags forever with no press/red cross access EVER, as Gabriel Major has documented.  The treatment at GITMO is actually an advance in the world's approach to such matters.  If Saddam had been transported to GITMO, he'd still be alive today.  
    A military tribunal has discretion in sentencing and even in a reduced charge (if convicted) for this fifteen year old.  Let the trial happen first.

    How enlightened we are (none / 0) (#57)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 01:49:59 PM EST
    We've progressed to torture and secret military tribunals at Gitmo.

    As a citizen of the country that once upheld the ideal of inherent human rights, the right to face one's accusers, presumption of innocence, and the equality of all before the law, have you no shame making such an argument?

    Parent

    Alien (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 06:04:01 PM EST
    These rights were never affored people who are not citizens committing crimes outside the US.

    Where do you get these things?

    Parent

    Sweet friggin' Jesus, Jim! (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 06:14:19 PM EST
    He was only 15. He's not Cheney fer chrissakes.

    It's a nightmare, I know, but you're a grown man, aren't you? Deal with it.

    Parent
    Edger (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 07:26:58 AM EST
    So? He was old enough to throw a hand grenade.

    Grow up, edger. Not a cultures allow, or expect, that a child's childhood will extend until the are 25.

    Even here we try teens as adults in some cases.

    Parent

    I'm talking about actions (none / 0) (#88)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 06:33:20 PM EST
    the US is undertaking, and the effects those actions are having on itself, not about the "rights" of foreigners.

    Why don't you let diogenes answer for himself? He might be more up to it than you are.

    Parent

    Alien (none / 0) (#136)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 07:29:02 AM EST
    If you don't want an answer, don't ask the question.

    And my answering ceryainly doesn't prevent anyone else from answering.

    Your problem is that the answer was correct. That's what you don't like.

    Parent

    Ah, jimakaPPJ, (none / 0) (#137)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 02:55:14 PM EST
    always promoting turning the world's greatest democracy into a dictatorship that has secret military trials, no habeas corpus, and a corrupt plutocracy untouchable by law. I hope someone's at least paying you well for your services, pathetic as they are.

    Diogenes said:

    In much of history, guerilla fighters were simply executed and/or buried in gulags forever with no press/red cross access EVER, as Gabriel Major has documented.  The treatment at GITMO is actually an advance in the world's approach to such matters.

    I'd like to think that the role of the US in the world is not to drop to such a sad standard but to lift the rest of the world up to our at least professed standards. America claims to offer moral leadership to the world. I say she needs to live up to her claims.

    Parent

    Alien... yes, I think you are (none / 0) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 12:20:22 PM EST
    I understand you would "like to think." That is an admirable goal.

    Let me know when you figure out how to actually accomplish getting the rest of the world to adopt our constitution and criminal justice system.

    Where will you start? Palaestine?? Iran? I guess you won't start at all since you are against us trying to get Iraq to do that very thing you claim to want.

    One more time.... The rights of a US citizen, or someone legally inside the US, do not extend to people who have committed crimes outside the US.

    Parent

    Your mistake (none / 0) (#139)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 04:15:38 PM EST
    is thinking it's a matter of "getting the rest of the world to adopt our constitution and criminal justice system." What makes you think doing something like that would be remotely possible or even a good idea?

    It would be great if cultures that don't value  human rights, equality before the law, government that's accountable to the people, etc. suddenly started adopting them. But they're not going to do it at the point of a gun the way Bush seems to expect them to do. The only way it might happen is as part of a long-term process of incorporating democratic ideas into their own ways of doing things because they see value in them. Long-term cultural engagement with the ME is a much more realistic approach toward promoting an indigenous development of democratic institutions. It was the long-term cultural exchanges that brought down the Soviet Union, after all, not the arms race, as Gorbachev himself said.

    Where will you start? Palaestine?? Iran?

    Short answer: I'd start at home, through leading by example.

    Aggressive congressional oversight of the executive branch is a good start. Trying to keep the president from acting like an unaccountable dictator is a good start. Restricting his actions with legislation passed by the people's representatives elected in the last election as an expression of the popular will is a good start. That's how "our constitution and criminal justice system" work. That's leading by example.

    The treatment at GITMO is actually an advance in the world's approach to such matters.

    Not for how America used to view such things as torture it isn't. No way.

    Parent

    His (none / 0) (#140)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 04:45:23 PM EST
    mistake is intentional.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 05:01:52 PM EST
    I know from reading what he has to say here that giving jim a serious answer is probably a waste of time. But who knows - maybe he'll have a moment of enlightenment one day.

    Indulge me. It's part of my lifetime-cynic recovery plan.

    Parent

    Hah! (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 05:06:17 PM EST
    OK. Beat yourself to death. But enjoy it! ;-)

    Parent
    Let the trial happen first. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 03:28:21 PM EST
    Euphemism for "Let the kangaroo court happen first."

    Parent
    Gabe (none / 0) (#35)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 09:09:53 PM EST
    Sounds like our leaders fall into the (k) category.

    Unfortunately, there is no agreement over what "war of aggression" means.

    I think we now have a working definition.

    Heh. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 09:14:58 PM EST
    I thought you might like that one, Che.

    Parent
    Finally, (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 03:12:01 PM EST
    the above is not an attempt to say that the current system is good or bad.

    What is your opinion?

    Do you even have one, Gabe? n/t (none / 0) (#67)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 03:36:02 PM EST
    My opinion (none / 0) (#70)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 03:51:43 PM EST
    I have no problem with either the Beijing Rules or the CRC. Try the kid. If found guilty, emphasis on rehabilitation. No capital punishment or life imprisonment.

    Parent
    Try him in a real court of criminal justice? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 04:13:49 PM EST
    Openly and fairly with all the rights extended to anyone properly charged? With a real defense team assigned to him?

    Or in one of those kangaroo MCA tribunals?

    Parent
    CSRBs and military trials (none / 0) (#78)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 04:43:08 PM EST
    I fully support the use of CSRBs and military tribunals, so long as they conduct their operations in accordance with their mandates.

    I have been seriously irritated over the last few years by the appearance that, though the CSRBs were approved for use by the Supreme Court, the military may not have taken every precaution to follow to the letter that approval.

    The military failed to recognize that it won the Hamdi case (probably because the media claimed that it had lost). Hamdi gave the military everything it needed to lawfully detain enemy combatants. That it may have still resisted is simple stupidity. I fully supported that part of O'Connor's opinion that points out that, though the CSRBs could operate, the federal courts would retain jurisdiction to make sure the CSRBs are fair (it's likely, however, that such jurisdiction was limited by the MCA 2006).

    Thus far, it appears that the military is operating the military trials in accordance with Hamdan and the MCA 2006. Whether that will continue to be the case is an open question.

    Parent

    Thus far, (none / 0) (#80)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 05:03:35 PM EST
    it appears that the military is operating the military trials in accordance with Hamdan and the MCA 2006.

    Yes, that's the problem, isn't it?

    Whether that will continue to be the case is an open question.

    Not for most people. Only for a few.

    Parent

    Domestic criminal justice systems (none / 0) (#79)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 04:46:24 PM EST
    Additionally, for those reasons that glanton has identified throught this thread, I oppose the use of criminal law to be applied to war combatants. Such a thing would make every soldier who pulled a trigger a potential murderer.

    Parent
    War? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 05:05:23 PM EST
    What war?

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#82)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 05:50:27 PM EST
    I oppose the use of manipulative branding such as "war combatant" being applied to alleged criminals. Such a thing could result in labelling an alleged criminal, even a minor, a psychotic amoral killer on the level of Cheney. Or on the level of Bush.

    You wouldn't agree with such immorality, would you Gabe? What would Jesus think?

    Parent
    ::Sigh:: (none / 0) (#91)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 07:18:33 PM EST
    In my discussions here with Peaches and SUO and glanton and others I've enjoyed the good-faith exchange of ideas. It briefly led me to forget that not all commenters here are interested in such bonafide exchanges. Thank you for reminding me. Your "what war?" comment was particularly instructive.

    Parent
    My "What war?" question (none / 0) (#92)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 07:22:46 PM EST
    was an honest question asking for your answer, Gabe.  Not for your evasions.

    Parent
    To simplify things for you (none / 0) (#93)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 07:27:04 PM EST
    you can just answer that one.

    You can defer the question that followed it, which you also ignored, to another time, when you've had time to think about it.

    Parent
    And btw, Gabe (none / 0) (#97)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:14:10 PM EST
    The insinuation that I am not engaging you in good faith here is something that I expected to run up against considering the direction I had intended my questioning to take, which purposely led up to asking "What war"?

    I expected it because in asking "What war" I have questioned the root and  base premise of what has been sold branded as a "war on terror", the root and base premise of all of the foreign policy of the Bush Administration. The "sacred cow", if you will.

    Without a "war" as justification the labelling of people as "war" or "enemy" combatants loses all meaning. Without that labelling the MCA loses all meaning. Without that labelling CRSB's and  Military Tribunals lose all meaning, except insofar as they are unjust and immoral and probably illegal railroading of people who, at most, should be charged with criminal offenses, and tried in the criminal justice system.

    I realize how uncomfortable it can be to have base premises of a belief system questioned, but to insinuate that I am not engaging you in good faith unless I first accept your base premise is in itself refusing to enage with good faith.

    There is no war, Gabe. No one is attacking your country. Not yet, anyway. That may change if Bush and Cheney and the Neocons keep on they way they have been.

    There have been and continue to be attacks, many on innocent civilians, many on people fighting back in those countries, ordered by the Bush Administration in countries that have never attacked the US, and those attacks have been and continue to be sold branded as the "war on terror"  in attempts to legitimize immoral and criminal behavior.

    The Bush/Cheney regime has been very successfully in selling that concept to many people, but less and less people buy into it, while more and more see through it, everyday.

    There is no war, Gabe. Except for the minds of people.

    They have sold you a bill of goods, Gabe. If there is anyone not engaging in good faith, it is Bush and Cheney, et al, and complicit media urging you to support them.

    My fight is with them. Not with you.

    Parent

    edger (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 09:57:21 AM EST
    No war?

    Well, there are those UN resolutions things.... pay no attention, eh??

    No war?

    If we leave Iraq, who wins??

    Can you spell terrorist? Baath party members? Iran?

    The last hundred years has proven time and again that sooner you engage an enemy who has sworn to take over the world, the less costly the task is.

    It is a shame that you, and people like you, know no history.

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#103)
    by Edger on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 10:25:47 AM EST
    I wasn't talking to you. You're off the hook - because nobody, including me, expects you to get it.

    Parent
    If we leave Iraq, who wins?? (none / 0) (#130)
    by Edger on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 03:23:19 PM EST
    You do. You just don't realize it.

    Parent
    The problem is (none / 0) (#101)
    by Edger on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 10:21:46 AM EST
    Very well said, Gabe (none / 0) (#77)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 04:38:14 PM EST


    Gabe (none / 0) (#98)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 09:49:55 AM EST
    I have been thinking about your agreement with unlawful combatancy status, especially w/ regards to your claim that it is a vehicle for protecting civillian populations.  It is a compelling argument.  I have some quibbles, though.  

    1)You write:

    International law should continue to incentivise activity which protects civilian lives.

    While I (like most people, I'd imagine) agree with this in principle, I also seriously doubt, amidst all the current confusion that is Middle East conflict, whether there is any way to "incentivize" in a way that will actually impact the many contingents who are fighting to the death, against Americans, against each other.  

    If you don't buy the argument that the Death penalty deters murder in America (I do not), then how much stranger is it to think that what some suits in New York decide is going to impact the actions of this kid in Afghanistan?  While your reasoning is noble, I just don't find it very applicable given the dynamics of the situation.  

    and 2)By extension, according to the formula put forth by the Bush Administration--a formula you are defending--who exactly are we fighting, either in iraq or Afghanistan, that is lawful?  I mean, the conflict is for the most part being waged on tribal bases; that Americans are fighting ideologically driven clusters of individuals, not armies.  

    Some would say the answer is, nobody who opposes American forces on the ground in Iraq or Afganistan is doing so lawfully.  Which brings me back to the slippery slope question: how far are we from applying the unlawful combatancy status to the declaration that every American solider KIA is actually a murder victim?  

    And cannot we all agree that this idea scandalizes not only common sense but also the very meaning of War?

    You asked at one point, What do I think we should charge him with?  He did after fight against American soldiers and kill at least one of them before being captured.  

    My gutless answer is I do not know what we should charge him with.  I still, of course, feel very strongly that he should be held and treated as a POW.  Maybe, as you say, especially given his age, he can be rehabilitated to envision a life not driven by killings and bombs.  

    But if we must charge him with something, I think we need come together as a people and Laugh at the idea that the charge would be Murder.  There must be something else, a designation that would better take into account the fact that, for God's sake, he threw a grenade during a firefight.  The American soldier he killed could just as easily have killed him.  They were trying to kill each other.  That was the point.  That is what War is, and why I am outraged at what I consider to be this administration's very cavalier approach to it.

    Maybe you were onto something with regards to crimes of passion.  I don't know.  This whole thing has been making me very sad for a long time now.    

    Sorry for the sheer length of this post.  But there is one more thing.  If your University subscribes to South Central Review, I strongly reccomend that you get ahold of the recent volume, 24.1.  There is an essay in there by a Law Professor at Texas Tech, a truly gifted writer named Michael Hatfield.  

    "Legitimacy, Identity, Violence And The Law," pp. 131-150.  Even if your library doesn't subscribe to it I bet you could get it sent to you electronically.  Anyway, I'd be interested to know your opinion of his work.


    glanton, (none / 0) (#104)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 11:27:06 AM EST
    I'm glad you're still thinking about this. After reading your comments yesterday, I was too. You ask several questions; I tried to answer them all in one post, but it got so long it was just out of control. So I'll start with one and come back to the others when I have time (I am supposed to be studying for finals, after all).

    You ask:

    who exactly are we fighting, either in iraq or Afghanistan, that is lawful?

    This is an important question because it points to the very nature of the conflict we are presently engaged in. It can be answered by clearly defining the various groups we are fighting. (Call it the glantonian method?)

    Short answer:
    Who might be protected? Taliban fighters.
    Who is not protected? Al Qaeda and other insurgent groups.
    Who is definitely protected? Iraqi Republican Guard.

    Long answer:
    The Taliban occupies an interesting position in international law. Before the war, it controlled roughly 90% of Afghanistan, but it was recognized by only a handful of states as a legitimate government. Now, that alone is not enough to deprive Taliban fighters of POW status. As I mentioned, Article 4 of GenCon III applies even if a detaining power refuses to recognize the government of a country.

    The question for Taliban fighters is not whether they work for a legitimate government, but whether they meet the cumulative criteria for protected status. Upthread I discussed how they probably don't because they don't wear a uniform or have a fixed emblem. It's also likely they aren't responsible to a chain of command, either.

    Some have sought to excuse the lack of uniform, saying that "the Taliban do not wear a uniform in the traditional Western sense." (R. Cryer, "The Fine Art of Friendship: Jus in Bello in Afghanistan.")Therefore, these folks argue, that particular cumulative criteria should be relaxed or waived. But that is extremely misleading; the Taliban cannot be said to wear a uniform in any sense.

    In any case, the GenCon III provides a remedy. Article 5 states:

    Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

    I strongly suspect that the existence of Article 5 led to the CSRBs. Though Justice O'Connor in Hamdi doesn't mention Article 5, I cannot imagine it was far from her mind. It certainly would have been on the minds of Justices Ginsburg and Souter, who wrote separately to champion the applicability of the Geneva Convention.

    In this way, combatancy status for Taliban fighters can be determined in a case-by-case manner.

    Al Queda fighters have none of the legal ambiguity of the Taliban. They most certainly fail to meet the same requirement of a uniform and fixed distinctive emblem. But even if they had such or that requirement were waived, they show utter disregard for the laws of war. Roadside bombing, the targeting of civilians, and suicide bombing are all violations of the laws of war.

    Utter contempt for the requirement that a party to hostilities conform their conduct to the laws of war places that party outside of their protection. Whatever doubt we have about Taliban fighters, there is no question about the legal status of Al Qaeda terrorists.

    Fortunately for Al Qaeda terrorists, we've decided to examine them on a case-by-case basis, too. Each also gets a CSRB to determine his status, even though such is not required by the Geneva Conventions.

    This analysis applies equally to other insurgent groups operating in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Iraqi Republican Guard members have the most obvious status in the present conflict. They fulfil all the cumulative criteria. Without question they are entitled to POW status if they are captured.

    At this late stage (2007), it's almost beside the point to mention them. All the guardsmen captured have been released or turned over to the Iraqi government (in the case of alleged criminal activity). That was in accord with the GenCon III which requires that POWs be released at the end of hostilities. When we stopped fighting Iraq, hostilities ended and all POWs who were part of the Iraqi forces were required to be turned over.

    Whew! That was a long one. I picked that one because it was easiest to answer. I'll come back later for some of your other points, especially the issue of whether the GenCon treatment of combatants actually helps civilians. Also, I can't get to that article until I'm back on campus. I'll be sure to take a peek when I'm able.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#105)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 11:46:23 AM EST
    for taking time to write about this during hectic exam time.

    When you come back, I do have one remaining question about the answer you just gave.  It seems to me that there have to be gaggles of combatants, perhaps even the majorities of them, in both countries who do not fit into any of the three categories you just named.  I wonder for example about "regular" people in Iraq who take up arms in the Sunni/Shiite bloodwar, and wind up killing our men and women in the process, almost as collatoral damage as it were. They have no official status or uniform, right?  So, Are they all to be designated like Al Queida?  

    (The youth presently driving this thread may well be a different example of one we cannot cleanly place into one of the categories you mention, though more information is definitely needed in that regard).  

    Parent

    Great job guys. (none / 0) (#106)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 12:03:02 PM EST
    Why wouldn't you put this kid in the AQ category?

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 12:15:08 PM EST
    Maybe in the final analysis a reasonable person would be forced to conclude that he does belong there.  But as of yet there is no evidence to make such a powerful equation, at least for me.  

    You know, the AQ status carries so much hotbutton connotation--and rightfully so given the atrocity those ba*#tards committed against American civillians--that I think we have to be very careful associating people with them.  Because that amounts to a death sentence in the eyes of very many of us, regardless of our political views.  

    AQ=terrorist in the public mind, not people fighting a war.  One thing that annoys me about this Administration is that they have sought to conflate the two.  What have they achieved in the long run by doing so?  Have they taught/edified the public in any way, inspired/persuaded us to believe in what they are doing?  The answer there would appear to be a resounding NO, even for many who would call themselves dyed in the wool conservatives.  

    When AQ operatives slammed planes into our buildings they killed innocent civillians and there was no declared war of any kind.  This is not comparable to what the kid has done, throwing a grenade during a firefight.  

    IMHO.  

    Parent

    Khadr (none / 0) (#110)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 12:33:25 PM EST
    I originally thought he was fighting for the Taliban (I'm not sure why I assumed this), but after checking out his Wikipedia entry, it appears he was affiliated with AQ.

    There's no mention of Taliban affiliation at all and it is apparently uncontradicted that he lived in bin Laden's compound. Khadr's father was apparently one of bin Laden's go-to guys.

    Parent

    No. (none / 0) (#112)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 12:37:27 PM EST
    Those engaged in sectarian violence in Iraq and not targeting the U.S. are simply criminals not war criminals. There is no indication that we're capturing that sort and keeping them. Unless they're coming after our guys, the Iraqi government retains jurisdiction over them.

    Parent
    Okay (none / 0) (#113)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 12:39:58 PM EST
    glanton no. 2 (none / 0) (#117)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 01:06:39 PM EST
    The really big issue in your comment is whether the combatancy rules actually help civilians. You write:

    While I (like most people, I'd imagine) agree with this in principle, I also seriously doubt, amidst all the current confusion that is Middle East conflict, whether there is any way to "incentivize" in a way that will actually impact the many contingents who are fighting to the death, against Americans, against each other.

    The international law of war is known by many names. I prefer the "Laws of International Armed Conflict" (LOIAC) because it's easy to abbreviate and is more specific. I've used the generic phrase "Law of War" around here because it sounds less technical. However, the most en vogue name is "International Humanitarian Law."

    We call the laws of war "Humanitarian Law" because they are designed to facilitate a balance between two opposing ideas: military necessity and humanitarian concerns. In 1868, the St. Petersburg Declaration (an early law of war) declared its purpose to secure "the technical limits at which the necessities of war ought to yield to the requirements of humanity." All that followed, the Hague Conventions, the GenCons, and a bajillion UN Conventions sought the same thing.

    Assuming that war is bad, but sometimes necessary, international law developed a heirarchy of interests. It placed civilian lives in a particularly protected position. The idea was to impose restrictions on combatants so that civilians wouldn't be unnecessarily killed. Examples of this kind of restriction on belligerants are prohibitions on bombing of strictly civilian areas or poisoning of water supplies.

    Essentially, international law created a system whereby combatants would be allowed to kill each other, but were required to leave everyone else alone as much as possible. This created another problem, however. In order to leave civilians alone, combatants would have to be able to tell the difference between a civilian and an enemy.

    That led, eventually, to the cumulative conditions I've been prattling on about. They are designed so that combatants will be able to identify their enemies because they carry arms openly, wear a uniform with a fixed distinctive emblem, obey a chain of command (so that they can be ordered to surrender when their commanding officers do), and otherwise obey the laws of war.

    The problem is that some people will always have no regard whatsoever for civilian lives. They'll do things like put bomb factories underneath schools, or dress like civilians, or put guns in the temple (!!!). As much as possible we should deter that kind of activity. But that's not all.

    glanton, you write that you're skeptical of the deterrent effect, especially in a conflict like the one in which we are presently engaged. Well, maybe. But recall that this is probably not the last war we will ever fight. We want to avoid as many My Lais as possible. That means deterring armies everywhere from trying things the AQ way.

    Even more important, however, is the idea that such gross violations of humanitarian law shouldn't merely be deterred. When we find that they have occurred, we should punish the violators. I'm sorry. It should be as simple as saying "GUNS IN THE TEMPLE!" to make it apparent that some things are so base and depraved that they must be punished.

    You're probably thinking that merely omitting a uniform doesn't rise to the level of violation as guns in the temple. I disagree.

    We rightly decry cases where U.S. troops kill civilians. What do you think will happen if in every war we ever fight in the future, the enemy dresses like civilians and lives like civilians? A whole lotta people are gonna die. That should be avoided if possible.

    [I didn't really want to learn the Rule against Perpetuties anway.]

    Parent

    Response (none / 0) (#119)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 01:27:40 PM EST
    You're probably thinking that merely omitting a uniform doesn't rise to the level of violation as guns in the temple. I disagree.

    Actually, I agree with you there. I have never been anything but horrified at the tactics these people use, blending in with civillians, taking them out in the process.  

    And I can swing with punishing the offenders.  I continue to maintain however that even, indeed especially, our punishments must reflect what we aspire to as a nation.  Part of which is to be  a bastion of freedom and justice.  Even in War, even when doling out punishments, we do our very best to be humane, and to correct mistakes for all to see when we make them.  We do not aspire as a nation to deploy words and legal terminology as mere loopholes for getting away with things that offend reason, or for disingenuously framing issues.  Which is what I fear using the term "Murder" in this case does.  

    I could even be persuaded, perhaps with minimal effort, that the proper punishment for such an offense as putting guns in the temple is in many cases the death penalty.  But in the case of a minor, however, I would stop well short of that.  

    One other thing, Gabe.  Significant numbers of the population in the particular War we are fighting don't want us there, and want to kill our soldiers for being there.  This much we know.  But they don't belong to an army, they don't have superiors, they don't have uniforms.  Call it the k-dog scenario with which you expressed some sympathy upthread.  

    Now, correct me, but it seems like if we appraoch these cases by strictly and universally applying what we are saying about Guns in the Temple, then we say in effect:  Any resistance to our presence here is an egregious War Crime.  The only way to be legal is to get out of our way and do as we say.  

    Which is the very definition of hubris, as far as I'm concerned.  

    Parent

    Reply: (none / 0) (#121)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 01:50:47 PM EST
    The only way to be legal is to get out of our way and do as we say.

    Well, let's be clear. Taking up arms and opposing us or the Iraqi government in any capacity in Iraq is not legal. The question is what law should apply?

    We've already identified some clear-cut cases:

    Purely sectarian, intra-Iraq violence: let the Iraqi judicial system cover it.
    Purely and unquestionably military violence (Iraqi Republican Guard): LOIAC, primarily GenCon III controls.
    Unquestionable violation of LOIAC (AQ): LOIAC controls.

    The question is what law to apply when cases are less clear:

    Mixed sectarian and insurgent violence in Iraq?
    Terrorist activity outside of the warzone (Padilla and the London bombers)?

    Also, somewhere in this post you mentioned that murder shouldn't be the right charge because it was in combat where both sides were trying to kill each other. While true on a macro level, that is not true in this case: Sgt. Christopher Speer, the man Khadr killed, was a medic who was ambushed.

    Parent

    I'm going from memory (none / 0) (#122)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 01:56:16 PM EST
    but I believe the story as I heard it was that the fighting was over and Sgt. Speer, a medic, was running around trying to get medical help to the wounded.

    Parent
    this is from answers.com:
    Most press accounts of the skirmish say that Khadr killed a "medic", implying that he had attacked a noncombatant after giving his surrender, but although Sgt. Christopher Speer had been trained as a medic, he was actually leading the squad combing the compound after they believed all occupants had been killed.

    Khadr leapt from hiding and threw a grenade, which injured Sgt. Speer and lead to his subsequent death, and injured 3 other members of the squad.[1]



    Parent
    The Toronto Paper (none / 0) (#125)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 02:13:42 PM EST
    to which Jerlayn links, these are the first two paragraphs:

    The Pentagon charged Canadian Omar Khadr with murder today, starting a process that will put the former Toronto resident on trial in Guantanamo Bay for war crimes.

    Khadr is accused of throwing a grenade that killed U.S. Delta Force soldier Sgt. Christopher Speer during a firefight in Afghanistan July 27, 2002

    No mention of a surrender there, no mention of an ambush.  I'd like to know what really happened....

    Parent

    From Wiki (none / 0) (#126)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 02:24:20 PM EST
    [edit] Capture
    On July 27, 2002, 14- or 15-year-old Khadr was in a compound near Khost that was surrounded by US special forces. According to the US version of events, the Americans called on those in the compound to surrender. When they refused, a firefight ensued. Sergeant Layne Morris was injured early in the skirmish. The Americans called in a bombardment.

    Most press accounts of the skirmish say that Khadr killed a "medic", implying that he had attacked a noncombatant after giving his surrender, but although Sgt. Christopher Speer had been trained as a medic, he was actually leading the squad combing the compound after they believed all occupants had been killed.

    Khadr leapt from hiding and threw a grenade, which injured Sgt. Speer and led to his death, and injured three other members of the squad.[1] Omar was shot three times, and left nearly blind in one eye. He was subsequently treated and his life was saved by U.S. medics.

    My emph.

    Parent
    From Rolling Stone (none / 0) (#127)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 02:37:48 PM EST
    When the soldiers arrived at the compound, they looked through a crack in the door and saw five men armed with assault rifles sitting inside.

    The soldiers called for the men to surrender. The men refused.

    The soldiers sent Pashto translators into the compound to negotiate.

    The men promptly slaughtered the translators.

    The American soldiers called in air support and laid siege to the compound, bombing and strafing it until it was flat and silent.

    They walked into the ruins. They had not gotten far when a wounded fighter, concealed behind a broken wall, threw a grenade, killing Special Forces Sgt. Christopher Speer.



    Parent
    The accounts (none / 0) (#128)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 02:42:26 PM EST
    You are unearthing (much appreciated) in my mind more or less corroborate the Toronto Star version.  

    Do you agree?


    Parent

    If this is what (none / 0) (#129)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 03:20:04 PM EST
    you are specifically referring to:
    No mention of a surrender there, no mention of an ambush.
    I'd say he did not surrender and he did ambush Speer and the others.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#133)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 03:54:25 PM EST
    That's it.  When you put them all together, so far anyway, that's what happened.

    Parent
    That said (none / 0) (#134)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 04:06:13 PM EST
    Unless there's moral issue I'm not aware of, or something in the GenCons or something that specifically outlaws the tactic of ambushing your enemy, I don't give it any more or less moral weight than shooting your enemy in a firefight or dropping a bomb on their head.

    So to me it's a detail, but not a particularly relevant one.

    Parent

    All right (none / 0) (#124)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 02:08:45 PM EST
    I admit I did not know it was am ambush (sarcasmo's principle of getting all the facts before staking out an unflexible position eluded me in this case, it would seem).  But in my defense the Toronto paper, to which Jeralyn's original post links, described it as taking place in a firefight.  Which account is correct makes a big difference in my mind.  I am sure there will be a lot to process over the coming weeks as this unfolds and more details come out.

    As I fervently write my essay on the Mexican War and listen to the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Soundtrack, I keep coming back because this has been a long overdue dialogue for me.

    I remain as opposed to our presence in Iraq as I was from the beginning, but pragmatism and a desire that we do things as well as possible from here deserves, to say the least, a sober seat at this table, for those who want to pull out and for those who want to stay in.

    I appreciate Jeralyn's efforts a lot.  
    This thread is an excellent example of what kinds of conversations we all need to be having.  Instead, you know, of worrying so much over Alec Baldwin and Anna Nicole Smith and the cult of the Missing White Female.  


    Parent

    glanton no. 3 (none / 0) (#120)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 01:32:16 PM EST
    Finally, I don't really have an answer for you on the slippery slope question. I don't believe that the "unlawful combatant" designations involve a slipper slope at all. At most, it's possible that the murder charge in this case involves a slippery slope. But those are two separate issues.

    With regard to unlawful combatancy, we're not being asked to make a judgment that could possibly lead to more undesirble judgments in the future. We're simply trying to categorize him:

    (1) civilian? No.
    (2) POW? No.
    (3) Unlawful combatant. Yes.

    I've outlined some of the reasons we want to be able to do this, above. But at its core, the point is that we categorize people involved in conflicts so we know how to treat them.

    As far as the murder charge goes, that may involve more of a slippery slope because it probably has precedent value. I'm still not convinced that murder is an inappropriate charge, but I'm willing to admit that the murder charge in this case will set the tone for all our military tribunals to come.

    Parent

    So you don't miss it (none / 0) (#102)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 10:23:24 AM EST
    I have a response to this downthread where things aren't so skinny.

    Fari enough (none / 0) (#108)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 12:25:44 PM EST
    Are you aware of this stuff - this is his dad:

    Ahmed Said Khadr
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search
    Ahmed Said Khadr (1945- 2 October 2003) (أحمد سعيد خضر) (sometimes called Ahmed Saeed Abdur Rehman Khadar) was an Egyptian-Canadian man living in Afghanistan, who was an al-Qaeda leader and an associate of Osama bin Laden.

    The mother, Maha Elsamnah, a Palestinian-Canadian

    Their children:
    Zaynab Khadr (born 1979), a daughter, whose wedding was attended by Osama bin Laden

    Abdullah Khadr (born 1981), a son, now returned to Canada from Pakistan, but has since been arrested by the RCMP

    Abdurahman Khadr (born 1983), a son, notable for his press interviews

    Omar Khadr (born 1986), a son, captured by American forces and currently held in Guantanamo Bay

    Abdulkareem Khadr (born 1989), a son who is a paraplegic from a shootout with Pakistani forces
    A younger daughter who is still a minor

    I was aware of some of it (none / 0) (#111)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 12:36:29 PM EST
    Wow, that really brings home the quote from Jeralyn's post, "parents from hell."  

    Maybe the most devastating thing from your post is this seemingly innocuous tidbit: "A younger daughter who is still a minor."

    Gabe asked what should we charge him with and as I said I have no idea at this point.  The deeper we get into this the more I see myself playing into one of the qualities that many Republicans seem to loathe most about American liberalism, instead of being moved by a "Kill em All" mentality, I am feeling an incredible sadness at this situation as a microcosm for what so very many children have been raised into.  

    But for the Grace of God, a Christian might say, there goes you or I, or our children?

    I wonder does Kill em All work?  Does it reach to our ideals as a nation?  Bill Bennett's Last Best Hope suggests that it does, the book elaborates on Jim's oft-repeated refrain that we won't have civil liberties to protect if we don't Kill em All.  

    I cannot buy it, sarcasmo.  I have to believe that by treating Prisoners in the Way that we would expect our Prisoners to be treated, we strike an important blow for Justice even if we know for certain that our actions are not reciprocated.  And our conviction that minors are to be handled differently, and that those who come from abusive backgrounds deserve to have those backgrounds taken into consideration.  I buy into all that stuff for better or worse, because I believe with all my heart that it makes our Nation better and yes, Stronger, when we adhere to it.

    Finally there is the designation Murder.  Which is clearly different not only from participating in a firefight, but also very very different from terrorism.  As you and I agreed on, I believe, during the VA Tech thread.  

    Parent

    btw (none / 0) (#115)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 12:53:16 PM EST
    The kid's father is now dead and I believe the minor kids live with their mother back in Canada now.

    And, yes, I did read somewhere that there are some who, not surprisingly, want to take the kids away from her.

    Parent

    Glanton (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 03:37:00 PM EST
    the book elaborates on Jim's oft-repeated refrain that we won't have civil liberties to protect if we don't Kill em All.  

    Actually that is a vast simplifiation.

    A more correct statement would be, you must kill enough of the enemy to win. Given that this group of enemies accept killing themselves as a normal military action, the result is, to a large degree, "Kill'em all."

    The difficult part is identifying who is the enemy. I am heartened to see your somewhat agreement that not being in uniform is a problem.

    Parent

    Not somewhat (none / 0) (#132)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 03:49:35 PM EST
    I am heartened to see your somewhat agreement that not being in uniform is a problem.

    I totally agree its a problem, a big terrible problem, the blending with civiliians.  Also note my comments regarding punishment, and particularly note my agreement with Jeralyn that his age and circumstance makes a huge difference to me in terms of how he should be punished.  Finally note that I understand that in taking this position I'm aware this makes me a sisy and even a traitor in the eyes of many Republicans.  But this is nothing new, I can totally live with that.  

    Anyway, what I took issue with, and still do not buy, is the designation "Murder" in this case.  

    When you look at the info sarcasmo is coming up with, as well as the Toronto Star, you can see this as an ambush, you can see it as illegal.  And that's how I'm leaning at the moment.  And certainly we all see it as a terrible thing.  But to call it murder domesticates it, for me at least, and even goes so far as to ask us to lose ourselves in the matrix of Law and of Words, and perhaps forget for a moment that this soldier died fighting in a War.  

    This whole thread though has branched into a broader renewed discussion of what it is to be an unlawful combatant, a discussion, again, that is always a good thing given what is going on.

    Parent

    Sorry, that came out kinda garbled. (none / 0) (#109)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 12:31:02 PM EST
    From memory; his dad was pretty high up in AQ, he worked directly with OBL, he raised money for at least one of OBL's training camps, he was trained at least one of those camps, his kids were also, etc...

    but on this one I have stated several times that this charge of murder as a war crime is unprecedented.

    In my previous posts today I just wanted to establish clarity on the kid (ok, young man now) and his deep and uncontradicted involvement with AQ.

    Gotcha (none / 0) (#116)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 12:54:06 PM EST
    The thing about the VT thread, and maybe you didn't post there, Gabe certainly did: several of us took serious issue with those who called it terrorism.  We held the line and said no, it is senseless mass murder, and the distinction is a lot more important than it seems at first glance.

    Thanks for your work on the AQ connection, sarcasmo.  It seems once again that we're in basic agreement but may have important, though potentially reconcilable, disagreements within the agreement.  

    Parent

    Gotcha right back (none / 0) (#118)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 01:08:38 PM EST
    Hell yes, I was very adamant that it was not terrorism, or, at the very least, not at all what anyone in our gvt or elsewhere was ever talking about when they spoke of terrorism.

    If you haven't noticed yet, my general process on most of TL's issues is get the demonstrable facts established. Once there is clarity on the facts, then I (try to, anyway) let common sense provide a conclusion from those facts.

    I'm very aware that I'm not always successful...

    Parent