The American military needed a "neutral" place to put all prisoners of their "war".

So yes to circumvent Geneva convention issues and to allow for a holding area technically on American soil without running into human rights issue (it is not part of any state so technically no DA to get on your ass for torture) they send all afghanis to Gutanomo.

I forgot that he was 15 at the time.....

Your second question is what interests me most. I hate it when news covers the deaths of "peacekeepers" or "protesters" or other non-native causalities like they are somehow of more interest, more newsworthy, or more tragic than all the Afghani, Palestinian, or whoever causalities. I resent that I am supposed to identify/sympathize more with a person because they happen to share my nationality, despite the fact that, as Jesse put it, I haven't met these people any more than I've met the other fatalities.

It seems based on an idea of nationalism that just doesn't strike a chord with me. I appreciate many many things about being Canadian, and I feel lucky to have been born here, but this is an objective assessment about political organization, legal equality, free health care, and a ridiculously high standard of living (globally speaking), not an emotional appeal to my pride or a sense of entitlement. If the things I appreciate about being Canadian are just a stroke of luck based on history and birth (birth-luck, not birth-right), shouldn't I be interested in everyone's right to those same things, not just the people who have been equally lucky?

And... while I'm up here on this soapbox, I'm not at all convinced that the way to ensure some of those freedoms are available to the people of other countries is to be just the most recent of a long string of "liberators." Historically speaking, western interference in other regions has usually resulted in a much less "free"/"enlightened" culture for those regions, despite our best intentions (religious or political). I have faith in the ability of all cultures to figure things out for themselves and I believe that they'd get there faster without our "help."

Of course, what Afghanistan is really about is suppressing the organization of a Saudi Arabian man who was protesting the US-backed and deeply unpopular leader of his own country. A leader western powers want because he sells us oil. The humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan existed for a long time before the planes.

None of this is a new opinion, of course, but it bears repeating.

I am curious to know if anyone has any idea about Jesse's third question. Or is Guantanamo the default destination for all captured Afghanis?

Thanks for responding. I thought maybe I was missing something obvious, but it seems you know similar things to what I do.

-Why does it seem to me like this guy needs some compassion instead of a kick in the junk as it seems he is getting. Honestly, if someone started shooting at my house and I had a way of defending myself, I'd do my best to stop them from, you know, killing me.

-Why does it matter that he was Canadian? I know its nice to think we take care of our own, but I don't know this guy, never met him, most likely never will. So he happens to have Canadian citizenship.... so what? Shouldn't our compassion or at least, rules about child soldiers and the like extend to everyone?

-Why was he special enough to be taken to Guantanamo? Are 15 yr old kids the mastermind behind Al Qaeda's most inner workings? or was he just an easy mark to get info out of? Just a kid, He'll crack easily perhaps? Was it because he was from a well to do Canadian family that they couldn't just leave him in an afghani prison? Maybe he is really 007...

-I'm not necessarily expecting answers here. perhaps some illumination. discussion maybe.

on another note, if someone attacked Israel on the Sabbath would they be allowed to fight back? or would that be considered work?

The humanitarian argument is that Omar Khadr also happened to be 15 at the time. And there are supposed to be all kinds of rules about dealing with child soldiers who are often forced into their roles in the war by fear or threats of violence against their family etc. Not to mention coercion and brainwashing with propaganda etc. that I'm not sure even those of us in our early 20's are immune to. Here's a good article on children as soldiers by UNICEF; it's from 1996, but has a decent synopsis of the main concept.


What makes Khadr different in the non-child-warrior sense is that unlike the rest of the Afghan fighters (civilian and army/militia/mercenary/whatever), he was taken prisoner. Not only was he taken prisoner, but he was put in Guantanamo Bay, which has its own pile of amazingly convoluted and awful associations, not to mention the fact that they've contravened the Geneva convention numerous times and have decided to submit Khadr's confessions that were made under duress and torture.


uh, also don't forget that he's also a Canadian citizen.

Well from a military point of view he ain't a professional soldier. So he would be tried as a non-combatant, mercenary or a terrorist I think, not to up on my military law.

Plus terrorist (and mercenaries) are not afforded the rights professional soldiers are under the Geneva convention. Bend the rules alot and you can get away with almost anything.

Terrorism is supposed to be politically motivated violence against civilians; by that definition, Khadr should not be tried as a terrorist, as he threw a grenade at a soldier in a country at war. He is being tried as a terrorist because that soldier was part of an occupying force supposedly "fighting terrorism." To oppose the war on terror, by George Bush's logic (2001 statement: "if you're not with us, you're against us"), must mean support for terrorism, right?

Google RAWA for examples of how you can oppose both the Taliban and the US-led war in Afganistan. Also interesting is the Wikipedia page on "You're either with us, or against us." I particularly like the condemnation of this logic in Disney's Beauty and the Beast, of all places.

quick question, (Kinda)

How is Omar Khadr any different from any of the other soldiers that have thrown a grenade (allegedly) during a war? Is he special somehow? or are now trying anyone who has ever killed someone during a war? Or just the people not on our side? Does not being on our side automatically make someone a terrorist?

sorta got away from me there. sorry. just trying to figure some things out. Any insight would be appreciated.

Yet another reason why it's a bad idea to live in Calgary: the fLames.

Here's a fun video... about not-Calgary. Corb Lund pretending to be a Nashvillian for an Oilers website promo ad.