nice Albert!

Perhaps the ISO folks have a sense of humour? That'd be nice. They're so serious about everything else. Their standards sure are pricey... 130 Swiss Francs for only part of one. blech.

42 was the answer I gave during a audit by the ISO organization. Apparently it was accepted as an answer.

So, what I am gathering here is that any time the Americans get into a confrontation with someone in Afghanistan, the someone either: escapes, is killed or brought to gitmo. I know the Canadians in Afghanistan recently got into trouble (at least in the media) for handing over prisoners to Afghani police, because they knew they were going to torture them. Do Americans also hand over prisoners to local authorities? Or does everyone "lucky" enough to survive get a trip half way around the planet to Cuba?

Does anyone know if there were any other survivors along with Khadr? or did everyone else in the house die? If there were survivors, did they also end up in gitmo and because they are most likely Afghani and not Canadian, remain un-noticed by western or pososibly all media?

If the Americans typically don"t take prisoners, what might the death toll be? Why do I feel like they don't keep track?

I never seem to have any answers, just questions, other than, you know 42. Sorry about that.

uh... what Albert said. The US doesn't typically take prisoners. What prisoners they took, well... it only makes "sense" to send them somewhere under US control that isn't technically US soil so that they can get away with all kinds of awful things they couldn't otherwise ordinarily get away with... like waterboarding.

And I totally agree with you two, Jesse and Jess. The fact that he's Canadian shouldn't make a hill of beans of difference in my sympathies, and it really doesn't. Every child soldier has a heart-rending story to tell, and is a horrible example of the terrors of warfare, regardless of their nation of origin. BUT it matters a whole lot when it comes to issues of diplomacy. If Khadr, a CHILD SOLDIER, isn't treated with any deference by our ALLIES, the US government, what chance does an adult have? There's already a large amount of hand-wringing going on (as there was when his nationality was first discovered) that the treatment of this Canadian-born child [victim of warfare and coercion etc.] bore too much resemblance to the treatment (also in contravention to the Geneva Convention) of the other adult Afghan-born, willing soldiers that were taken prisoner. Our two nations have treaties of extradition and fair treatment (if I remember correctly) for citizens caught committing crimes against the other nation (think along the lines of car accidents or drug possession), and neither ought to be resorting to torture. BUT the US has, in recent years, gone away from this, and a lot of it stems from the same time period as Khadr's capture. (For practicality's sake, where it matters to you and me and the kid down the street: if you're in the states and you end up under suspicion of a crime, the cops do not have to read you your Miranda rights. In fact, you don't have any rights, because you are not a citizen of their country. Habeas corpus doesn't even come into effect the same way.)

That he was taken prisoner at all might be a combination of misguided justice and pity. Pity in the sense that whatever soldiers found him didn't have the nerve to kill a child, and misguided justice in the sense that they thought they might be able to either extract information or make an example of him. ... which I don't think worked out so well in either case. What would a 15 year old know about the inner workings of the Afghan military movement? And what kind of news of Guantanamo Bay ever made its way back to the Afghan people? The fact that he speaks English, however, was likely a driving factor in his imprisonment.

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.