again ... the initial investigation done indicated that khadr DID NOT throw the grenade ... rather he was already incapacitated ... if anything - this soldier likely died from friendly fire as like many others ...
they took this kid and put him in guantanamo and in order to save face from torturing and holding a child ini prison for 9 years ... they break him and bring him out and make him admit to things he hadn't admitted to in 8 years in that hell hole ... to be dressed down by widows ... so, that the US gov't can feel it was right to hold this kid for all this time WITHOUT TRIAL ...
if any of us were put under that kind of conditions ... we'd admit to killing jesus himself ...
Meanwhile, this dude is an American hero in tea bagger eyes, soon to be a congressman.
Can't for the life of me understand why they don't like us. I guess the hate are freedom.....
Tea Party backing candidate who allegedly shot unarmed Iraqis 60 times
By Eric W. Dolan
Tuesday, October 26th, 2010 -- 11:37 am
A Tea Party-backed candidate who allegedly murdered two unarmed Iraqis could win a seat in the House of Representatives, The Guardian reports.
Thirty-nine-year-old Ilario Pantano, who is running for North Carolina's 7th congressional district as a Republican, was charged with the premeditated murder of two Iraqi civilians in 2005 while serving as a second lieutenant with the US Marines.
khadr's 8-year sentence was always part of the plea ...
this kid is basically gonna serve 17 years, been tortured and psychologically broken for basically having a shitty dad, being in the wrong place around the wrong people, and having a canadian gov't that sold him down the river ...
someone explain to me how THE US INVADING ARMY can try someone who is fighting an invasion!?? ... every single army officer should be charged in the same corrupt court ...
another indication of how morally fucked up the US is ... :evil:
Canadians divided about returning Khadr to Canada: poll
Mike DeSouza, Postmedia News
Monday, Nov. 1, 2010
OTTAWA — Canadians are split on the Harper government’s decision announced Monday to honour an agreement allowing confessed killer Omar Khadr to return to Canada, according to results of a poll conducted exclusively for Postmedia News and Global National.
The Ipsos Reid survey found that 49% of the population did not want the Toronto-born Khadr, who confessed to the 2002 killing of a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan, to serve any part of his sentence in Canada.
But Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said the government would actually allow Khadr, who was 15 years old at the time of the crimes, to be repatriated.
“The U.S. government has accepted that Omar Khadr return to Canada and we will implement the agreement reached between Mr. Khadr and the United States,” Mr. Cannon said in the House of Commons in response to questions from Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe.
The decision follows years of court battles in which Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government refused to repatriate Khadr, maintaining that he was facing charges of “serious crimes.”
According to the poll’s findings, only 25% believe Khadr should serve all of his sentence in Canada, while 26% believe he should serve some of it in the country. It adds up to 51% who believe he should be repatriated.
A majority of Canadians in Atlantic Canada (61%), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (59%) as well as in Quebec (57%) said they want him to return to Canada, while a majority of Albertans (58%), British Columbians (54%) and Ontarians (52%) said they do not believe Khadr should serve any part of his sentence in the country.
John Wright, senior vice-president at Ipsos Reid, said he couldn’t explain the regional breakdowns, but believes the numbers suggest Canadians are closely following developments in this story and do not have a favourable opinion of Khadr, who recently pleaded guilty to the crimes, after initially maintaining his innocence.
More than two-thirds of respondents in the survey or 69% said that “Khadr probably is guilty and this plea bargain is too generous, and that the Canadian government was right not to have offered him any assistance up to this point.”
Only 31% said that he should have been offered more government assistance because he was probably “not guilty and was forced into this plea bargain as his only option to be released someday after serving his sentence.”
Mr. Wright added that the numbers show that the government’s approach to the file has been consistent with a strong opposition to Khadr’s repatriation in Conservative-held ridings.
“From a political standpoint, they have managed the file according to the public opinion that has been displayed to date,” Mr. Wright said. “The public is simply not accepting of Mr. Khadr’s immediate return to this country, and that gives the government some leverage in this matter.”
Mr. Cannon’s announcement also follows revelations of discussions between U.S. and Canadian officials about Khadr’s release into Canadian custody in a year through a diplomatic note sent by the federal government to the U.S. government.
The note indicated that the Canadian government was “inclined to favourably consider” Khadr’s transfer to the country. But when questioned about the note, Mr. Cannon said in the Commons that this did not mean his government participated in negotiations on sentencing.
“The government of Canada was not part of the plea negotiations,” Cannon said in response to a question from Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh. “In fact, the chief prosecutor of the tribunal, Navy Capt. John Murphy, when asked about whether Canada was part of this deal, Capt. Murphy said that the agreement was between the U.S. government and the defence.”
The opposition parties have all been calling for Khadr’s repatriation, noting that he was a child soldier at the time of the crimes.
“You know, whether I like the guy or not, that is not the issue,” Dosanjh told reporters. “Canadians have rights under the charter of rights, under our Constitution. You could be the most vile person on this Earth, [but] if you are a Canadian citizen, you have certain rights and one of those rights is to be able to come back to this country, either after serving some sentence or before serving the sentence. You are after all, a Canadian. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. And that is what this government has failed to understand.”
The poll surveyed 1,046 adult Canadians online between Oct. 29 and Nov 1. A sample of this size generally has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
so the fact that khadr was tortured holds no water with canadians?? wonder if theyd be fine with their kid being tortured to confess.
well ... i'd say it's split ... we have our fair share of people who subscribe to media biases ... the main problem tho is that we are currently represented by a right-wing gov't that really could give to shits to anyone not white ...
for the first time we lost a vote at the UN to be part of the security council ... and it was simply because, canadians (since our election of this right wing gov't) has lost almost all of its credibilty on the international stage ... our handling of omar khadr is a prime example ... having said that - this approach is completely in line with the political base that supports conservatives here ...
so the fact that khadr was tortured holds no water with canadians?? wonder if theyd be fine with their kid being tortured to confess.
well ... i'd say it's split ... we have our fair share of people who subscribe to media biases ... the main problem tho is that we are currently represented by a right-wing gov't that really could give to shits to anyone not white ...
for the first time we lost a vote at the UN to be part of the security council ... and it was simply because, canadians (since our election of this right wing gov't) has lost almost all of its credibilty on the international stage ... our handling of omar khadr is a prime example ... having said that - this approach is completely in line with the political base that supports conservatives here ...
Well just maybe people can imagine their son/duaghter serving in the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan more than can imagine their son/daughter being a terrorist. Anyhow he was not fighting for a country, he was involved with terrorist organizations. As for this government not helping him because he is not white, thats a bullshit statement, just ask that fellow in Montana who is a Canadian on death row, he's pretty damn white, the prince pot is white, and the list can go on. The statement that represents the truth is that this government feels that if you leave this country and commit a crime, then you will be punished according to the the country where the crime was commited.
Actually The Harper government is going to allow his transfer back to Canada after 1 year in which he will probably be paroled fairly quickly after that.
What were the liberals doing to free him when they were in power? And they obviously were not very succesful.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Well just maybe people can imagine their son/duaghter serving in the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan more than can imagine their son/daughter being a terrorist. Anyhow he was not fighting for a country, he was involved with terrorist organizations. As for this government not helping him because he is not white, thats a bullshit statement, just ask that fellow in Montana who is a Canadian on death row, he's pretty damn white, the prince pot is white, and the list can go on. The statement that represents the truth is that this government feels that if you leave this country and commit a crime, then you will be punished according to the the country where the crime was commited.
Actually The Harper government is going to allow his transfer back to Canada after 1 year in which he will probably be paroled fairly quickly after that.
What were the liberals doing to free him when they were in power? And they obviously were not very succesful.
firstly ... i don't see how you can say he was part of a terrorist organization ... who was he terrorizing in afghanistan?? ... the US invaded a sovereign country ... it's as simple as that ... and again - the evidence does not point to him throwing that grenade ... and again ... he was 15 years old at the time ... i can't believe anyone thinks its ok to torture 15 year olds or anyone for that matter ...
what about brenda martin!?? ... for some reason she got help in mexico ... but that is not the point ... every western national that was in guantanamo got sent back to their own country ... every single one except one ... the 15 year old kid from canada ... where he was left to rot ... why is that?
Well just maybe people can imagine their son/duaghter serving in the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan more than can imagine their son/daughter being a terrorist. Anyhow he was not fighting for a country, he was involved with terrorist organizations. As for this government not helping him because he is not white, thats a bullshit statement, just ask that fellow in Montana who is a Canadian on death row, he's pretty damn white, the prince pot is white, and the list can go on. The statement that represents the truth is that this government feels that if you leave this country and commit a crime, then you will be punished according to the the country where the crime was commited.
Actually The Harper government is going to allow his transfer back to Canada after 1 year in which he will probably be paroled fairly quickly after that.
What were the liberals doing to free him when they were in power? And they obviously were not very succesful.
firstly ... i don't see how you can say he was part of a terrorist organization ... who was he terrorizing in afghanistan?? ... the US invaded a sovereign country ... it's as simple as that ... and again - the evidence does not point to him throwing that grenade ... and again ... he was 15 years old at the time ... i can't believe anyone thinks its ok to torture 15 year olds or anyone for that matter ...
what about brenda martin!?? ... for some reason she got help in mexico ... but that is not the point ... every western national that was in guantanamo got sent back to their own country ... every single one except one ... the 15 year old kid from canada ... where he was left to rot ... why is that?
The who was he fighting for?
To accuse the Prime Minister of doing something based on race is incredibly ignorant.
I never said it was OK to torture anyone.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
To accuse the Prime Minister of doing something based on race is incredibly ignorant.
I never said it was OK to torture anyone.
uhhh ... who was the invading army here?
well ... that is your opinion ... but look at the long form census debacle ... they claimed that they were receiving a thousand calls a day complaining about the long form census ... when the media sought the facts through freedom of information - guess what, it was a flat out lie ... and why do you think they want to scrap the long form census!? ... its because funding is based on stats can results for various groups and who are the people most unlikely to fill out the census? ... immigrant non english speaking folks ... mostly non-whites ... the party is rooted in a racism that is evident only if one chooses to see things for what they are ...
sorry - the comment about torture was not meant for you ... it was more a response to the article you posted about the feelings canadians have on khadr ... i just think its troubling that people take this confession as some kind of absolute as to what happened ... they basically tortured him to get a confession and everyone seems to be ok with that ...
To accuse the Prime Minister of doing something based on race is incredibly ignorant.
I never said it was OK to torture anyone.
uhhh ... who was the invading army here?
well ... that is your opinion ... but look at the long form census debacle ... they claimed that they were receiving a thousand calls a day complaining about the long form census ... when the media sought the facts through freedom of information - guess what, it was a flat out lie ... and why do you think they want to scrap the long form census!? ... its because funding is based on stats can results for various groups and who are the people most unlikely to fill out the census? ... immigrant non english speaking folks ... mostly non-whites ... the party is rooted in a racism that is evident only if one chooses to see things for what they are ...
sorry - the comment about torture was not meant for you ... it was more a response to the article you posted about the feelings canadians have on khadr ... i just think its troubling that people take this confession as some kind of absolute as to what happened ... they basically tortured him to get a confession and everyone seems to be ok with that ...
The invading army was actually NATO, this is a NATO mission in which we are heavily involved.
Like I said maybe the feelings they have are for their son/daughters who are serving in the Canadian Forces or in my case a friend who's daughter has done 2 tours in Afghanistan, so my thoughts are with our forces no terrorist or in his case suspected.
I really don't care about debating the long form census vs the short form census, it's a non issue for me and one I could care a less about.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
The invading army was actually NATO, this is a NATO mission in which we are heavily involved.
Like I said maybe the feelings they have are for their son/daughters who are serving in the Canadian Forces or in my case a friend who's daughter has done 2 tours in Afghanistan, so my thoughts are with our forces no terrorist or in his case suspected.
I really don't care about debating the long form census vs the short form census, it's a non issue for me and one I could care a less about.
exactly ... so, how is he a terrorist? ... was omar khadr in afghanistan terrorizing people before the nato mission? ...
soo ... the fact that hundreds of innocent civilians have died at the hands of nato is secondary to knowing people in our armed forces?
well ... its not surprising its a non-issue to you ... like most things ... if people don't think it affects them - it's not really important ...
soo ... the fact that hundreds of innocent civilians have died at the hands of nato is secondary to knowing people in our armed forces?
Ya, this is problematic logic. Should we only empathize with those whom we know personally, regardless of fallibility? Not much hope for peace with that attitude.
Read about this earlier this morning and it makes me sick how underhanded the US government can be at times. The soldier who intially found Khadr alive admitted to shooting him twice IN THE BACK. The kid wasn't even paying attention to what the soldiers were doing because he was essentially already incapacitated from the shrapnel that was lodged in his eyes from the initial US aggression.
The Railroading of Omar Khadr
By Becky Akers
View all 15 articles by Becky Akers
Published 11/03/10
This time, it's not just liberty's lovers excoriating Our Rulers: their persecution of so-called "child-soldier" Omar Khadr has infuriated many international elites, albeit for the wrong reasons.
Omar Khadr is a Canadian citizen whose family travelled back and forth between there, Afghanistan and Pakistan throughout his boyhood. Omar's late father may actually be among the world's very few genuine terrorists, as opposed to those the Feds manufacture to substantiate their silly war: he was a friend and financier to Osama himself.
In 2002, Mr. Khadr agreed when an associate asked if Omar could travel with him as a translator. Tragically, this adventure put Omar in the wrong place -- a "compound with . . . a mud wall surrounding a homestead with buildings and animal pens" outside a small Afghan village -- at the wrong time: just as American troops attacked. Their excuse? The handful of men -- sorry, militants -- the Americans had spied inside with their AK-47s in view refused "our boys'" order to surrender.
The ensuing battle turned Omar the Translator into Omar the Terrorist whom the Feds allege to have murdered -- not simply killed -- an American sergeant. Reports disagree about exactly what happened during that skirmish eight years ago, but no one disputes that "our boys" initiated things.
What are we doing in Afghanistan? Why are we invading this sovereign country, let alone its citizens' farms? What gives Americans wearing funny hats and bulky clothes the right to pester villagers on their own turf, let alone disarm them? Oh, of course: might makes right. Well, guys, listen up: you're already in the wrong here. You were wrong the day you headed to the recruiter's office and signed up to kill people; you're still wrong no matter how many Afghanis shoot back when you trespass.
Eventually, at least 100 American troops surrounded the farm while F-18 Hornets flew to their rescue and "dropped two 500-pound bombs" on the place. Yet "our" butchers still failed to massacre everyone inside: 15-year-old Omar and a badly wounded man survived the lop-sided battle.
Some of the hundred troops secured the farm after this glorious victory, while others covered them by tossing grenades. Those reconnoitering the devastation discovered the wounded man "moving" -- writhing? -- near an AK-47, so one of them finished him off.
Shrapnel had hit Omar's eyes during the fight and permanently blinded the left one. The troops found him "sitting up facing away from [them] leaning against brush." One shot him twice in the back.
That's according to the shooter himself. The Pentagon suppressed this admission until 2008, when it "inadvertently released" it. No wonder Our Rulers "covered [the report] up": it contradicts the less-damning "official" account in which Omar "pack a pistol in the rubble of a suspected al Qaeda compound" and hurls a grenade despite the shrapnel in his eyes. That's why they shot him -- in the chest, mind you, not the back.
Despite the "friendly" grenades falling around the troops, the Feds insist the one that killed Sgt. Christopher Speer at this point came from Omar. If so, he's a boy of remarkable resources, as wearers of contact lenses can attest. When an errant speck finds it way between plastic and eye, the excruciating pain pretty much disables the victim: you can think of nothing else, not even self-defense or survival. Imagine the agony should shrapnel sharp enough to blind you embed itself. Now imagine you're also 15 and have just survived Armageddon. Are you up for lobbing grenades?
But even if Omar did throw it, since when is self-defense a crime? OK, let's rephrase that since the anti-Second Amendment wackos have indeed made it so. Since when is firing back at attacking armies a crime? As the New York Times notes, "Usually in war, battlefield killing is not prosecuted. But the United States contended that Mr. Khadr lacked battlefield immunity because he wore no uniform, among other requirements of the laws of war." Yo, kiddies: if you're ever caught in the Amerikan Empire's crossfire, cadge a uniform before defending yourselves.
And so the same sociopaths who dismiss waterboarding as a "dunk in water," who contend that torture is perfectly Constitutional if the intent is to elicit information rather than to punish, who pretend that 9/11 resulted because Moslems "hate our freedoms" rather than as predictable payback for a century of meddling in other countries' business -- these same sociopaths accused Omar of murder. Then they imprisoned him at Guantanamo Bay.
Meanwhile, they withheld medical treatment (after initial triage and surgery) as well as sunglasses to protect his injured eyes, refused him all contact with his family except for a couple of phone calls, "locked [him] in solitary confinement for more than two years with no relief from the overhead fluorescent lights," short-shackled his hands and feet to the floor for hours, beat him, ridiculed him, threatened him with dogs, with gang-rape, and with transfer to nations where torture is a blood-sport.
Like Gitmo's other inmates, Omar endured years there before the Feds bothered charging him. That directly violates the Constitution: its Sixth Amendment orders government to give "the accused" -- all accused, without regard to their politically invented and convenient status of "enemy combatant" -- a "speedy and public trial." Ah, the Feds might protest with a crafty smile, but the phrase "the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed" indicates that the Sixth pertains solely to citizens. If so, then the amendment also implies that the government may arrest and imprison only on American soil.
Beginning in 2004, Our Rulers embarked on a series of military tribunals, legal memos, and motions to convict Omar, to justify their abuse of him without the hassles of that "speedy and public trial." Ever notice that the more illegal, unconscionable, and inhumane police states become, the greater their appetite for legality, rules, and procedures? But our poor, prevaricating politicians hit snag after snag, including the universal outcry against the military tribunals as patent charades.
Then, in 2010, "after working for a year to redeem the international reputation of military commissions, Obama administration officials [were] alarmed by the first case to go to trial under revamped rules: the prosecution of a former child soldier whom an American interrogator implicitly threatened with gang rape." Yeah, that does tend to undermine a kangaroo court's credibility. And so Our Rulers indulged in "a complex flurry of negotiations" to save face, not justice. Last week, we saw the fruits of their corruption when Omar, who has steadfastly maintained his innocence, agreed to the Feds' lies against him.
The government suborned him as it has so many other defendants with a plea deal: "Look, we both know we're lying, that you're innocent of what we allege, but save us the trouble of ‘proving' you guilty, and we'll steal fewer years from your life." In this case, no more than an additional 8 years beyond the 8 Omar has already languished in Gitmo, rather than the rest of his life.
Thus did the Feds finally succeed in coercing Omar to lie. He pled guilty "to committing murder in violation of the law of war, attempted murder in violation of the law of war, providing material support to terrorism, conspiracy, and spying." (Spying? When he's been incarcerated since he was 15? What exactly are they smoking over there at the Pentagon?) Dennis Edney is a Canadian lawyer representing Omar; he said his client has "‘not much choice' but to plead guilty to avoid a trial because, he claimed, the proceeding at [Gitmo] would be ‘unfair.' ‘That's not my comment; it's the comment of former military prosecutors,' he said in reference to two who resigned from the military commission prosecution office in recent years." Not surprisingly, Mr. Edney added, "There is no justice here."
Instead, there's a boy horrifically wounded while defending himself from invaders whom the Feds have imprisoned sans a conviction for eight years despite the Constitution's insistence on habeas corpus. They've tortured him the while, again despite the Constitution. He finally caves to the government's bribery and confesses to "crimes" that aren't and that he almost surely didn't commit. Can the Feds possibly add to their mockery here of all that's just and decent?
Yes! No evil is too difficult for our subhuman Feds! After Omar's "confession," they wasted more of our taxes on the travesty of a "sentencing hearing": "in all military commissions" the Department of Unlimited War to Extend the Amerikan Empire—sorry, Defense explained, "a panel of military officers known as ‘members" determines the sentence," -- now there's a model of objectivity-- "regardless of whether the plea was guilty or not guilty." . . .the defense and prosecution will each . . . present evidence and argument to the members to aid them in determining a sentence."
As if to prove the world's suspicions of this sham, Our Rulers' "evidence" included the widow of the sergeant Omar supposedly slew and a "forensic psychiatrist" (sic for "witch doctor") who read Omar's mind and assured the "members" that Omar must remain in prison because he seethes with plots against the West. Ahem: can we blame him?
The Widow Speer provided the heart-wrenching spectacle Americans now accept in lieu of justice from courts dispensing "fairness." She described the "harrowing" horror of telling her daughter, then not even four years old, of her father's death. She read letters from the girl and her 8-year-old brother that discuss growing up without their dad. The lady herself praised her husband as a "good man." And she regurgitated the "official" story on Omar despite the conflicting testimony a notoriously deceitful Pentagon stifled and the likelihood of "friendly fire" as her husband's killer: she denounced Omar as a "murderer" and someone "so unworthy" to have ended Sgt. Speer's life.
Some will say she's entitled because she's lost her husband. But the widow also has $102 million at stake: several years ago, she and the American soldier who claims he shot Omar in the chest filed a lawsuit against Omar's father, the late financier (apparently, the American genius for making money never sleeps, even among the grieving). Need I add they won? And so "the [Khadr] family's assets, which are of unknown value, have been frozen by the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control [yes, our taxes actually fund such a monstrosity as part of the Treasury Department]." While awaiting the thaw, those hoping to get rich quick toe the line though an innocent man rots in prison.
Mrs. Speer also made much of Omar's "choice," by which she meant he could have left the farm at the beginning of the skirmish, as did several women and children. But can't we say the same of her husband? Sgt. Speer enlisted 9 years before his death, when he was 19; he had plenty of time to reconsider his utterly immoral, inherently dangerous career. Ditto for Mrs. Speer, who could have pleaded against his re-enlisting. And if she "supported" his wickedness, well, widowhood is part of what she's advocating, not only for herself but for all the women whose husbands died that day.
Just as tainted a witness is the "forensic psychiatrist." Dr. Michael Welner despises Moslems, according to an article he published in 2005: he compared them to a drug addict "living next door" while condemning their "Islamo-chaos." As if his own bias weren't sufficiently rabid, Welner's statement against Omar relied heavily on the opinions of a Danish psychologist. Nicolai Sennels believes that being "raised in a Muslim environment -- with Muslim parents and traditions -- includes the risk of developing certain antisocial patterns" and that "the Muslim concept of honor transforms especially their men into fragile glass-like personalities that need to protect themselves by scaring their surroundings with their aggressive attitude." For the Feds to pay this bigot to babble about Omar is akin to soliciting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's assessment of Anne Frank.
Yet Welner apparently convinced Omar's jury of military officers that he's "highly dangerous." On November 1, they sentenced him to 40 more years in prison (his plea-deal reduces that to 8).
Look closely, and alongside Omar as a victim of the Feds' atrocities you'll see our battered, bloodied, dying Constitution.
omar khadr may just be another person to some people but in reality he is symbolic of the fact that in order to have justice in this world - you must practice it ... and it highlights how much of a joke freedom really is ... it's a freedom that is based on the injustices of others ...
Despite the "friendly" grenades falling around the troops, the Feds insist the one that killed Sgt. Christopher Speer at this point came from Omar. If so, he's a boy of remarkable resources, as wearers of contact lenses can attest. When an errant speck finds it way between plastic and eye, the excruciating pain pretty much disables the victim: you can think of nothing else, not even self-defense or survival. Imagine the agony should shrapnel sharp enough to blind you embed itself. Now imagine you're also 15 and have just survived Armageddon. Are you up for lobbing grenades?
I'm not happy about how this kid is/was treated, but he was associated with Osama Bin Laden. I don't think he should be in prison, but these articles get ridiculous in some places. This whole ^^^ paragraph is just asinine.
But even if Omar did throw it, since when is self-defense a crime? OK, let's rephrase that since the anti-Second Amendment wackos have indeed made it so. Since when is firing back at attacking armies a crime? As the New York Times notes, "Usually in war, battlefield killing is not prosecuted. But the United States contended that Mr. Khadr lacked battlefield immunity because he wore no uniform, among other requirements of the laws of war." Yo, kiddies: if you're ever caught in the Amerikan Empire's crossfire, cadge a uniform before defending yourselves.
I could be wrong, but from what I understand, the people in this village were given the opportunity to surrender. I believe they attacked first. Associates of Bin Laden with a cache of weapons? Hmmm, defending themselves against the evil US who came to track down the fucker who runs Al-Quada and recently killed over 2,700 people in america on 9/11...hmmm
Meanwhile, they withheld medical treatment (after initial triage and surgery) as well as sunglasses to protect his injured eyes, refused him all contact with his family except for a couple of phone calls, "locked [him] in solitary confinement for more than two years with no relief from the overhead fluorescent lights," short-shackled his hands and feet to the floor for hours, beat him, ridiculed him, threatened him with dogs, with gang-rape, and with transfer to nations where torture is a blood-sport.
I just DESPISE journalists like this ^^^^, who sensationalize everything. For godsake she says, "REFUSE HIM ALL CONTACT WITH HIS FAMILY except for a couple of phone calls".
Why not just say that he was only allowed a few phone calls in such and such a time period? She loses credit immediatley with me for this type of wording.
Yes, what's going on with this kid is wrong, but this sensationlist writing is just silly.
it's an op-ed piece ... that's how they typically are written ...
in any case ... if you think afghanistan was all about hunting for osama bin laden ... i think you've bought into the war machine, the neocons are selling ... by this logic, saudi arabia and pakistan should have been attacked at the same time ...
and i don't see how she sensationalized the fact they held a kid in guantanamo, tortured him and held him without charge for so long by mentioning he had very little contact with his family ... i mean ... is she supposed to write ... **omar khadr spent most of his youth in guantanamo - it was not pleasant** ... !?? ... everything she wrote are facts ...
i think canada should go about the repatriation of khadr the way the US went about the hunt for bin laden. demand his return, give him up or well invade.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
it's an op-ed piece ... that's how they typically are written ...
in any case ... if you think afghanistan was all about hunting for osama bin laden ... i think you've bought into the war machine, the neocons are selling ... by this logic, saudi arabia and pakistan should have been attacked at the same time ...
and i don't see how she sensationalized the fact they held a kid in guantanamo, tortured him and held him without charge for so long by mentioning he had very little contact with his family ... i mean ... is she supposed to write ... **omar khadr spent most of his youth in guantanamo - it was not pleasant** ... !?? ... everything she wrote are facts ...
I see what you're saying, but what I mean is the wording. There is no need to say that he had "NO CONTACT WITH HIS FAMILY, except...blah blah blah"... I just like it more direct, not dancing around.. She sarted out the sentence being misleading.
I havent bought into the war machine. I know its fucked up, but they started in Afghanistan because thats where they thought Bin Laden was initially, and this kid was running around with his associates. I assume the villagers had a good idea why troops were wandering around there -- ie looking for the guy who had a lot to do with 9/11.
i think canada should go about the repatriation of khadr the way the US went about the hunt for bin laden. demand his return, give him up or well invade.
i think canada should go about the repatriation of khadr the way the US went about the hunt for bin laden. demand his return, give him up or well invade.
You can only skate so far before the ice melts. I think their invasion would stall by the time they got to Columbus.
I see what you're saying, but what I mean is the wording. There is no need to say that he had "NO CONTACT WITH HIS FAMILY, except...blah blah blah"... I just like it more direct, not dancing around.. She sarted out the sentence being misleading.
I havent bought into the war machine. I know its fucked up, but they started in Afghanistan because thats where they thought Bin Laden was initially, and this kid was running around with his associates. I assume the villagers had a good idea why troops were wandering around there -- ie looking for the guy who had a lot to do with 9/11.
sorry ... i just don't see how her sentence is misleading ... "refused him all contact with his family except for a couple of phone calls" ... i definitely consider it extremely biased but that's the point of the article ... i think subjegating this topic into politically correct and non-offending measures would ultimately make it pointless ...
people need to realize what this kid went through and what is truly behind this "confession"
afghanistan started nothing ... just because they think bin laden is in afghanistan - it gives the US or NATO the right to bomb the living shit out of it!?? ... i'm not saying afghanistan is some peacenik nation by any stretch but can anyone honestly say that the resulting consequences justified anything ... for crying out loud - al qaeda is actually 1,000 times stronger now than before ...
I see what you're saying, but what I mean is the wording. There is no need to say that he had "NO CONTACT WITH HIS FAMILY, except...blah blah blah"... I just like it more direct, not dancing around.. She sarted out the sentence being misleading.
I havent bought into the war machine. I know its fucked up, but they started in Afghanistan because thats where they thought Bin Laden was initially, and this kid was running around with his associates. I assume the villagers had a good idea why troops were wandering around there -- ie looking for the guy who had a lot to do with 9/11.
sorry ... i just don't see how her sentence is misleading ... "refused him all contact with his family except for a couple of phone calls" ... i definitely consider it extremely biased but that's the point of the article ... i think subjegating this topic into politically correct and non-offending measures would ultimately make it pointless ...
people need to realize what this kid went through and what is truly behind this "confession"
afghanistan started nothing ... just because they think bin laden is in afghanistan - it gives the US or NATO the right to bomb the living shit out of it!?? ... i'm not saying afghanistan is some peacenik nation by any stretch but can anyone honestly say that the resulting consequences justified anything ... for crying out loud - al qaeda is actually 1,000 times stronger now than before ...
I'm just saying she could've chosen to simply say "He was only allowed a few phone calles to his family." but its silly arguing these little things. Personally, I just detest this womans type of writing.
Didnt bin laden take responsibility for 9/11, and Afghanistan was given the chance to give him up? They started nothing, but sure as hell didnt help diffuse the situation.
How is al-qaeda 1,000 times stronger?!
I think they might get stronger down the road... as one thing that does concern me is the ridiculous way that the U.S. has handled things like this Kahdr case, guantanamo, and Iraq. The U.S. govt is sure to be inspiring a whole new generation of people with hate for them.
i think canada should go about the repatriation of khadr the way the US went about the hunt for bin laden. demand his return, give him up or well invade.
haha, Canada invade Cuba!?
\
no.. invade the US. cuba has no dog in this fight. and while im at it get the fuck out of cuba washington.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
khadr's 8-year sentence was always part of the plea ...
this kid is basically gonna serve 17 years, been tortured and psychologically broken for basically having a shitty dad, being in the wrong place around the wrong people, and having a canadian gov't that sold him down the river ...
someone explain to me how THE US INVADING ARMY can try someone who is fighting an invasion!?? ... every single army officer should be charged in the same corrupt court ...
another indication of how morally fucked up the US is ... :evil:
I'm just saying she could've chosen to simply say "He was only allowed a few phone calles to his family." but its silly arguing these little things. Personally, I just detest this womans type of writing.
Didnt bin laden take responsibility for 9/11, and Afghanistan was given the chance to give him up? They started nothing, but sure as hell didnt help diffuse the situation.
How is al-qaeda 1,000 times stronger?!
I think they might get stronger down the road... as one thing that does concern me is the ridiculous way that the U.S. has handled things like this Kahdr case, guantanamo, and Iraq. The U.S. govt is sure to be inspiring a whole new generation of people with hate for them.
again ... it's an op-ed piece ... they are all written like that ...
bin laden!? ... the ex-CIA guy who apparently is on dialysis that a gazillion dollar military and intelligence budget can't seem to find!?? ... and this is what people need to understand ... justice is a two-way street ... the US has been harbouring terrorists (and i'm not talking about the CIA) for years ... there's the guy who bombed a plane in Cuba or somewhere and he has refuge in the States - so, is it fair now to launch an assault on US soil and kill innocent civilians?
al qaeda is 1,000 times stronger because most people never heard of them but with each transgression from afghanistan to iraq to iran to israel even ... recruitment is at an all time high ... you guys are fighting terrorists/freedom fighters on all fronts ... do you not realize that you aren't actually fighting a military of any kind anywhere ... how is the largest military in the world invovled in two quagmires without actually being up against a formal military!? ... its because the hate on america is at an all-time high ... you can thank bush/cheney/rummy for that ...
again ... it's an op-ed piece ... they are all written like that ...
When you obviously sensationalize things, it makes me wonder what else in your "op-ed" piece is also an exaggeration.
Bottom line though, without knowing the full scope of what happened, this appears to have been handled terribly. It's tough because if you do nothing and let the boy go free, what's the likelyhood that he doesn't attack US forces in the future?
That said, I think you should take that risk and start taking the higher road instead of blaming everything on "war is hell", especially when you did take the war to these kids.
When you obviously sensationalize things, it makes me wonder what else in your "op-ed" piece is also an exaggeration.
Bottom line though, without knowing the full scope of what happened, this appears to have been handled terribly. It's tough because if you do nothing and let the boy go free, what's the likelyhood that he doesn't attack US forces in the future?
That said, I think you should take that risk and start taking the higher road instead of blaming everything on "war is hell", especially when you did take the war to these kids.
i think ultimately whether it's an op-ed or something from the news media - it will be up to us to decipher what is the relevant information ... i think in this particular case, i side with the writer because this should cause outrage and yet there is none ... if you are supposed to be a country that is based on a just society - you cannot treat omar khadr like he has ... you just can't ...
the problems arose for the pentagon when omar khadr survived ... he survived the shrapnel and the two bullets fired into his back ... if he dies - no one would know who omar khadr was ... upon surviving - he got lost ... the two other major factors leading up to this is that omar was a child when he was sent to gitmo and that the canadian gov't abandoned him ... and in a way, the media attention he has been getting at home sealed his fate ... they HAD to make an example of him ... hence this grandstanding trial that basically threw justice out the window ... they HAD to save face ... and they knew that the american public could easily be manipulated in this PR disaster ...
like i wrote in the iranian woman thread ... its sad how the same people who are outraged at the torture of an iranian woman are ok with the torture of a 15 year old kid ...
Comments
they took this kid and put him in guantanamo and in order to save face from torturing and holding a child ini prison for 9 years ... they break him and bring him out and make him admit to things he hadn't admitted to in 8 years in that hell hole ... to be dressed down by widows ... so, that the US gov't can feel it was right to hold this kid for all this time WITHOUT TRIAL ...
if any of us were put under that kind of conditions ... we'd admit to killing jesus himself ...
http://www.windsorstar.com/news/Khadr+h ... story.html
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Meanwhile, this dude is an American hero in tea bagger eyes, soon to be a congressman.
Can't for the life of me understand why they don't like us. I guess the hate are freedom.....
Tea Party backing candidate who allegedly shot unarmed Iraqis 60 times
By Eric W. Dolan
Tuesday, October 26th, 2010 -- 11:37 am
A Tea Party-backed candidate who allegedly murdered two unarmed Iraqis could win a seat in the House of Representatives, The Guardian reports.
Thirty-nine-year-old Ilario Pantano, who is running for North Carolina's 7th congressional district as a Republican, was charged with the premeditated murder of two Iraqi civilians in 2005 while serving as a second lieutenant with the US Marines.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/gop-candidate-killed-unarmed-iraqi/
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
this kid is basically gonna serve 17 years, been tortured and psychologically broken for basically having a shitty dad, being in the wrong place around the wrong people, and having a canadian gov't that sold him down the river ...
someone explain to me how THE US INVADING ARMY can try someone who is fighting an invasion!?? ... every single army officer should be charged in the same corrupt court ...
another indication of how morally fucked up the US is ... :evil:
Mike DeSouza, Postmedia News
Monday, Nov. 1, 2010
OTTAWA — Canadians are split on the Harper government’s decision announced Monday to honour an agreement allowing confessed killer Omar Khadr to return to Canada, according to results of a poll conducted exclusively for Postmedia News and Global National.
The Ipsos Reid survey found that 49% of the population did not want the Toronto-born Khadr, who confessed to the 2002 killing of a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan, to serve any part of his sentence in Canada.
But Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said the government would actually allow Khadr, who was 15 years old at the time of the crimes, to be repatriated.
“The U.S. government has accepted that Omar Khadr return to Canada and we will implement the agreement reached between Mr. Khadr and the United States,” Mr. Cannon said in the House of Commons in response to questions from Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe.
The decision follows years of court battles in which Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government refused to repatriate Khadr, maintaining that he was facing charges of “serious crimes.”
According to the poll’s findings, only 25% believe Khadr should serve all of his sentence in Canada, while 26% believe he should serve some of it in the country. It adds up to 51% who believe he should be repatriated.
A majority of Canadians in Atlantic Canada (61%), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (59%) as well as in Quebec (57%) said they want him to return to Canada, while a majority of Albertans (58%), British Columbians (54%) and Ontarians (52%) said they do not believe Khadr should serve any part of his sentence in the country.
John Wright, senior vice-president at Ipsos Reid, said he couldn’t explain the regional breakdowns, but believes the numbers suggest Canadians are closely following developments in this story and do not have a favourable opinion of Khadr, who recently pleaded guilty to the crimes, after initially maintaining his innocence.
More than two-thirds of respondents in the survey or 69% said that “Khadr probably is guilty and this plea bargain is too generous, and that the Canadian government was right not to have offered him any assistance up to this point.”
Only 31% said that he should have been offered more government assistance because he was probably “not guilty and was forced into this plea bargain as his only option to be released someday after serving his sentence.”
Mr. Wright added that the numbers show that the government’s approach to the file has been consistent with a strong opposition to Khadr’s repatriation in Conservative-held ridings.
“From a political standpoint, they have managed the file according to the public opinion that has been displayed to date,” Mr. Wright said. “The public is simply not accepting of Mr. Khadr’s immediate return to this country, and that gives the government some leverage in this matter.”
Mr. Cannon’s announcement also follows revelations of discussions between U.S. and Canadian officials about Khadr’s release into Canadian custody in a year through a diplomatic note sent by the federal government to the U.S. government.
The note indicated that the Canadian government was “inclined to favourably consider” Khadr’s transfer to the country. But when questioned about the note, Mr. Cannon said in the Commons that this did not mean his government participated in negotiations on sentencing.
“The government of Canada was not part of the plea negotiations,” Cannon said in response to a question from Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh. “In fact, the chief prosecutor of the tribunal, Navy Capt. John Murphy, when asked about whether Canada was part of this deal, Capt. Murphy said that the agreement was between the U.S. government and the defence.”
The opposition parties have all been calling for Khadr’s repatriation, noting that he was a child soldier at the time of the crimes.
“You know, whether I like the guy or not, that is not the issue,” Dosanjh told reporters. “Canadians have rights under the charter of rights, under our Constitution. You could be the most vile person on this Earth, [but] if you are a Canadian citizen, you have certain rights and one of those rights is to be able to come back to this country, either after serving some sentence or before serving the sentence. You are after all, a Canadian. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. And that is what this government has failed to understand.”
The poll surveyed 1,046 adult Canadians online between Oct. 29 and Nov 1. A sample of this size generally has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
well ... i'd say it's split ... we have our fair share of people who subscribe to media biases ... the main problem tho is that we are currently represented by a right-wing gov't that really could give to shits to anyone not white ...
for the first time we lost a vote at the UN to be part of the security council ... and it was simply because, canadians (since our election of this right wing gov't) has lost almost all of its credibilty on the international stage ... our handling of omar khadr is a prime example ... having said that - this approach is completely in line with the political base that supports conservatives here ...
Well just maybe people can imagine their son/duaghter serving in the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan more than can imagine their son/daughter being a terrorist. Anyhow he was not fighting for a country, he was involved with terrorist organizations. As for this government not helping him because he is not white, thats a bullshit statement, just ask that fellow in Montana who is a Canadian on death row, he's pretty damn white, the prince pot is white, and the list can go on. The statement that represents the truth is that this government feels that if you leave this country and commit a crime, then you will be punished according to the the country where the crime was commited.
Actually The Harper government is going to allow his transfer back to Canada after 1 year in which he will probably be paroled fairly quickly after that.
What were the liberals doing to free him when they were in power? And they obviously were not very succesful.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
firstly ... i don't see how you can say he was part of a terrorist organization ... who was he terrorizing in afghanistan?? ... the US invaded a sovereign country ... it's as simple as that ... and again - the evidence does not point to him throwing that grenade ... and again ... he was 15 years old at the time ... i can't believe anyone thinks its ok to torture 15 year olds or anyone for that matter ...
what about brenda martin!?? ... for some reason she got help in mexico ... but that is not the point ... every western national that was in guantanamo got sent back to their own country ... every single one except one ... the 15 year old kid from canada ... where he was left to rot ... why is that?
The who was he fighting for?
To accuse the Prime Minister of doing something based on race is incredibly ignorant.
I never said it was OK to torture anyone.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
uhhh ... who was the invading army here?
well ... that is your opinion ... but look at the long form census debacle ... they claimed that they were receiving a thousand calls a day complaining about the long form census ... when the media sought the facts through freedom of information - guess what, it was a flat out lie ... and why do you think they want to scrap the long form census!? ... its because funding is based on stats can results for various groups and who are the people most unlikely to fill out the census? ... immigrant non english speaking folks ... mostly non-whites ... the party is rooted in a racism that is evident only if one chooses to see things for what they are ...
sorry - the comment about torture was not meant for you ... it was more a response to the article you posted about the feelings canadians have on khadr ... i just think its troubling that people take this confession as some kind of absolute as to what happened ... they basically tortured him to get a confession and everyone seems to be ok with that ...
The invading army was actually NATO, this is a NATO mission in which we are heavily involved.
Like I said maybe the feelings they have are for their son/daughters who are serving in the Canadian Forces or in my case a friend who's daughter has done 2 tours in Afghanistan, so my thoughts are with our forces no terrorist or in his case suspected.
I really don't care about debating the long form census vs the short form census, it's a non issue for me and one I could care a less about.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
exactly ... so, how is he a terrorist? ... was omar khadr in afghanistan terrorizing people before the nato mission? ...
soo ... the fact that hundreds of innocent civilians have died at the hands of nato is secondary to knowing people in our armed forces?
well ... its not surprising its a non-issue to you ... like most things ... if people don't think it affects them - it's not really important ...
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1182
The Railroading of Omar Khadr
By Becky Akers
View all 15 articles by Becky Akers
Published 11/03/10
This time, it's not just liberty's lovers excoriating Our Rulers: their persecution of so-called "child-soldier" Omar Khadr has infuriated many international elites, albeit for the wrong reasons.
Omar Khadr is a Canadian citizen whose family travelled back and forth between there, Afghanistan and Pakistan throughout his boyhood. Omar's late father may actually be among the world's very few genuine terrorists, as opposed to those the Feds manufacture to substantiate their silly war: he was a friend and financier to Osama himself.
In 2002, Mr. Khadr agreed when an associate asked if Omar could travel with him as a translator. Tragically, this adventure put Omar in the wrong place -- a "compound with . . . a mud wall surrounding a homestead with buildings and animal pens" outside a small Afghan village -- at the wrong time: just as American troops attacked. Their excuse? The handful of men -- sorry, militants -- the Americans had spied inside with their AK-47s in view refused "our boys'" order to surrender.
The ensuing battle turned Omar the Translator into Omar the Terrorist whom the Feds allege to have murdered -- not simply killed -- an American sergeant. Reports disagree about exactly what happened during that skirmish eight years ago, but no one disputes that "our boys" initiated things.
What are we doing in Afghanistan? Why are we invading this sovereign country, let alone its citizens' farms? What gives Americans wearing funny hats and bulky clothes the right to pester villagers on their own turf, let alone disarm them? Oh, of course: might makes right. Well, guys, listen up: you're already in the wrong here. You were wrong the day you headed to the recruiter's office and signed up to kill people; you're still wrong no matter how many Afghanis shoot back when you trespass.
Eventually, at least 100 American troops surrounded the farm while F-18 Hornets flew to their rescue and "dropped two 500-pound bombs" on the place. Yet "our" butchers still failed to massacre everyone inside: 15-year-old Omar and a badly wounded man survived the lop-sided battle.
Some of the hundred troops secured the farm after this glorious victory, while others covered them by tossing grenades. Those reconnoitering the devastation discovered the wounded man "moving" -- writhing? -- near an AK-47, so one of them finished him off.
Shrapnel had hit Omar's eyes during the fight and permanently blinded the left one. The troops found him "sitting up facing away from [them] leaning against brush." One shot him twice in the back.
That's according to the shooter himself. The Pentagon suppressed this admission until 2008, when it "inadvertently released" it. No wonder Our Rulers "covered [the report] up": it contradicts the less-damning "official" account in which Omar "pack a pistol in the rubble of a suspected al Qaeda compound" and hurls a grenade despite the shrapnel in his eyes. That's why they shot him -- in the chest, mind you, not the back.
Despite the "friendly" grenades falling around the troops, the Feds insist the one that killed Sgt. Christopher Speer at this point came from Omar. If so, he's a boy of remarkable resources, as wearers of contact lenses can attest. When an errant speck finds it way between plastic and eye, the excruciating pain pretty much disables the victim: you can think of nothing else, not even self-defense or survival. Imagine the agony should shrapnel sharp enough to blind you embed itself. Now imagine you're also 15 and have just survived Armageddon. Are you up for lobbing grenades?
But even if Omar did throw it, since when is self-defense a crime? OK, let's rephrase that since the anti-Second Amendment wackos have indeed made it so. Since when is firing back at attacking armies a crime? As the New York Times notes, "Usually in war, battlefield killing is not prosecuted. But the United States contended that Mr. Khadr lacked battlefield immunity because he wore no uniform, among other requirements of the laws of war." Yo, kiddies: if you're ever caught in the Amerikan Empire's crossfire, cadge a uniform before defending yourselves.
And so the same sociopaths who dismiss waterboarding as a "dunk in water," who contend that torture is perfectly Constitutional if the intent is to elicit information rather than to punish, who pretend that 9/11 resulted because Moslems "hate our freedoms" rather than as predictable payback for a century of meddling in other countries' business -- these same sociopaths accused Omar of murder. Then they imprisoned him at Guantanamo Bay.
Meanwhile, they withheld medical treatment (after initial triage and surgery) as well as sunglasses to protect his injured eyes, refused him all contact with his family except for a couple of phone calls, "locked [him] in solitary confinement for more than two years with no relief from the overhead fluorescent lights," short-shackled his hands and feet to the floor for hours, beat him, ridiculed him, threatened him with dogs, with gang-rape, and with transfer to nations where torture is a blood-sport.
Like Gitmo's other inmates, Omar endured years there before the Feds bothered charging him. That directly violates the Constitution: its Sixth Amendment orders government to give "the accused" -- all accused, without regard to their politically invented and convenient status of "enemy combatant" -- a "speedy and public trial." Ah, the Feds might protest with a crafty smile, but the phrase "the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed" indicates that the Sixth pertains solely to citizens. If so, then the amendment also implies that the government may arrest and imprison only on American soil.
Beginning in 2004, Our Rulers embarked on a series of military tribunals, legal memos, and motions to convict Omar, to justify their abuse of him without the hassles of that "speedy and public trial." Ever notice that the more illegal, unconscionable, and inhumane police states become, the greater their appetite for legality, rules, and procedures? But our poor, prevaricating politicians hit snag after snag, including the universal outcry against the military tribunals as patent charades.
Then, in 2010, "after working for a year to redeem the international reputation of military commissions, Obama administration officials [were] alarmed by the first case to go to trial under revamped rules: the prosecution of a former child soldier whom an American interrogator implicitly threatened with gang rape." Yeah, that does tend to undermine a kangaroo court's credibility. And so Our Rulers indulged in "a complex flurry of negotiations" to save face, not justice. Last week, we saw the fruits of their corruption when Omar, who has steadfastly maintained his innocence, agreed to the Feds' lies against him.
The government suborned him as it has so many other defendants with a plea deal: "Look, we both know we're lying, that you're innocent of what we allege, but save us the trouble of ‘proving' you guilty, and we'll steal fewer years from your life." In this case, no more than an additional 8 years beyond the 8 Omar has already languished in Gitmo, rather than the rest of his life.
Thus did the Feds finally succeed in coercing Omar to lie. He pled guilty "to committing murder in violation of the law of war, attempted murder in violation of the law of war, providing material support to terrorism, conspiracy, and spying." (Spying? When he's been incarcerated since he was 15? What exactly are they smoking over there at the Pentagon?) Dennis Edney is a Canadian lawyer representing Omar; he said his client has "‘not much choice' but to plead guilty to avoid a trial because, he claimed, the proceeding at [Gitmo] would be ‘unfair.' ‘That's not my comment; it's the comment of former military prosecutors,' he said in reference to two who resigned from the military commission prosecution office in recent years." Not surprisingly, Mr. Edney added, "There is no justice here."
Instead, there's a boy horrifically wounded while defending himself from invaders whom the Feds have imprisoned sans a conviction for eight years despite the Constitution's insistence on habeas corpus. They've tortured him the while, again despite the Constitution. He finally caves to the government's bribery and confesses to "crimes" that aren't and that he almost surely didn't commit. Can the Feds possibly add to their mockery here of all that's just and decent?
Yes! No evil is too difficult for our subhuman Feds! After Omar's "confession," they wasted more of our taxes on the travesty of a "sentencing hearing": "in all military commissions" the Department of Unlimited War to Extend the Amerikan Empire—sorry, Defense explained, "a panel of military officers known as ‘members" determines the sentence," -- now there's a model of objectivity-- "regardless of whether the plea was guilty or not guilty." . . .the defense and prosecution will each . . . present evidence and argument to the members to aid them in determining a sentence."
As if to prove the world's suspicions of this sham, Our Rulers' "evidence" included the widow of the sergeant Omar supposedly slew and a "forensic psychiatrist" (sic for "witch doctor") who read Omar's mind and assured the "members" that Omar must remain in prison because he seethes with plots against the West. Ahem: can we blame him?
The Widow Speer provided the heart-wrenching spectacle Americans now accept in lieu of justice from courts dispensing "fairness." She described the "harrowing" horror of telling her daughter, then not even four years old, of her father's death. She read letters from the girl and her 8-year-old brother that discuss growing up without their dad. The lady herself praised her husband as a "good man." And she regurgitated the "official" story on Omar despite the conflicting testimony a notoriously deceitful Pentagon stifled and the likelihood of "friendly fire" as her husband's killer: she denounced Omar as a "murderer" and someone "so unworthy" to have ended Sgt. Speer's life.
Some will say she's entitled because she's lost her husband. But the widow also has $102 million at stake: several years ago, she and the American soldier who claims he shot Omar in the chest filed a lawsuit against Omar's father, the late financier (apparently, the American genius for making money never sleeps, even among the grieving). Need I add they won? And so "the [Khadr] family's assets, which are of unknown value, have been frozen by the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control [yes, our taxes actually fund such a monstrosity as part of the Treasury Department]." While awaiting the thaw, those hoping to get rich quick toe the line though an innocent man rots in prison.
Mrs. Speer also made much of Omar's "choice," by which she meant he could have left the farm at the beginning of the skirmish, as did several women and children. But can't we say the same of her husband? Sgt. Speer enlisted 9 years before his death, when he was 19; he had plenty of time to reconsider his utterly immoral, inherently dangerous career. Ditto for Mrs. Speer, who could have pleaded against his re-enlisting. And if she "supported" his wickedness, well, widowhood is part of what she's advocating, not only for herself but for all the women whose husbands died that day.
Just as tainted a witness is the "forensic psychiatrist." Dr. Michael Welner despises Moslems, according to an article he published in 2005: he compared them to a drug addict "living next door" while condemning their "Islamo-chaos." As if his own bias weren't sufficiently rabid, Welner's statement against Omar relied heavily on the opinions of a Danish psychologist. Nicolai Sennels believes that being "raised in a Muslim environment -- with Muslim parents and traditions -- includes the risk of developing certain antisocial patterns" and that "the Muslim concept of honor transforms especially their men into fragile glass-like personalities that need to protect themselves by scaring their surroundings with their aggressive attitude." For the Feds to pay this bigot to babble about Omar is akin to soliciting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's assessment of Anne Frank.
Yet Welner apparently convinced Omar's jury of military officers that he's "highly dangerous." On November 1, they sentenced him to 40 more years in prison (his plea-deal reduces that to 8).
Look closely, and alongside Omar as a victim of the Feds' atrocities you'll see our battered, bloodied, dying Constitution.
omar khadr may just be another person to some people but in reality he is symbolic of the fact that in order to have justice in this world - you must practice it ... and it highlights how much of a joke freedom really is ... it's a freedom that is based on the injustices of others ...
I'm not happy about how this kid is/was treated, but he was associated with Osama Bin Laden. I don't think he should be in prison, but these articles get ridiculous in some places. This whole ^^^ paragraph is just asinine.
I could be wrong, but from what I understand, the people in this village were given the opportunity to surrender. I believe they attacked first. Associates of Bin Laden with a cache of weapons? Hmmm, defending themselves against the evil US who came to track down the fucker who runs Al-Quada and recently killed over 2,700 people in america on 9/11...hmmm
I just DESPISE journalists like this ^^^^, who sensationalize everything. For godsake she says, "REFUSE HIM ALL CONTACT WITH HIS FAMILY except for a couple of phone calls".
Why not just say that he was only allowed a few phone calls in such and such a time period? She loses credit immediatley with me for this type of wording.
Yes, what's going on with this kid is wrong, but this sensationlist writing is just silly.
in any case ... if you think afghanistan was all about hunting for osama bin laden ... i think you've bought into the war machine, the neocons are selling ... by this logic, saudi arabia and pakistan should have been attacked at the same time ...
and i don't see how she sensationalized the fact they held a kid in guantanamo, tortured him and held him without charge for so long by mentioning he had very little contact with his family ... i mean ... is she supposed to write ... **omar khadr spent most of his youth in guantanamo - it was not pleasant** ... !?? ... everything she wrote are facts ...
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I see what you're saying, but what I mean is the wording. There is no need to say that he had "NO CONTACT WITH HIS FAMILY, except...blah blah blah"... I just like it more direct, not dancing around.. She sarted out the sentence being misleading.
I havent bought into the war machine. I know its fucked up, but they started in Afghanistan because thats where they thought Bin Laden was initially, and this kid was running around with his associates. I assume the villagers had a good idea why troops were wandering around there -- ie looking for the guy who had a lot to do with 9/11.
haha, Canada invade Cuba!?
sorry ... i just don't see how her sentence is misleading ... "refused him all contact with his family except for a couple of phone calls" ... i definitely consider it extremely biased but that's the point of the article ... i think subjegating this topic into politically correct and non-offending measures would ultimately make it pointless ...
people need to realize what this kid went through and what is truly behind this "confession"
afghanistan started nothing ... just because they think bin laden is in afghanistan - it gives the US or NATO the right to bomb the living shit out of it!?? ... i'm not saying afghanistan is some peacenik nation by any stretch but can anyone honestly say that the resulting consequences justified anything ... for crying out loud - al qaeda is actually 1,000 times stronger now than before ...
I'm just saying she could've chosen to simply say "He was only allowed a few phone calles to his family." but its silly arguing these little things. Personally, I just detest this womans type of writing.
Didnt bin laden take responsibility for 9/11, and Afghanistan was given the chance to give him up? They started nothing, but sure as hell didnt help diffuse the situation.
How is al-qaeda 1,000 times stronger?!
I think they might get stronger down the road... as one thing that does concern me is the ridiculous way that the U.S. has handled things like this Kahdr case, guantanamo, and Iraq. The U.S. govt is sure to be inspiring a whole new generation of people with hate for them.
no.. invade the US. cuba has no dog in this fight. and while im at it get the fuck out of cuba washington.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
^
i agree with this.
morally fucked up indeed.
again ... it's an op-ed piece ... they are all written like that ...
bin laden!? ... the ex-CIA guy who apparently is on dialysis that a gazillion dollar military and intelligence budget can't seem to find!?? ... and this is what people need to understand ... justice is a two-way street ... the US has been harbouring terrorists (and i'm not talking about the CIA) for years ... there's the guy who bombed a plane in Cuba or somewhere and he has refuge in the States - so, is it fair now to launch an assault on US soil and kill innocent civilians?
al qaeda is 1,000 times stronger because most people never heard of them but with each transgression from afghanistan to iraq to iran to israel even ... recruitment is at an all time high ... you guys are fighting terrorists/freedom fighters on all fronts ... do you not realize that you aren't actually fighting a military of any kind anywhere ... how is the largest military in the world invovled in two quagmires without actually being up against a formal military!? ... its because the hate on america is at an all-time high ... you can thank bush/cheney/rummy for that ...
When you obviously sensationalize things, it makes me wonder what else in your "op-ed" piece is also an exaggeration.
Bottom line though, without knowing the full scope of what happened, this appears to have been handled terribly. It's tough because if you do nothing and let the boy go free, what's the likelyhood that he doesn't attack US forces in the future?
That said, I think you should take that risk and start taking the higher road instead of blaming everything on "war is hell", especially when you did take the war to these kids.
i think ultimately whether it's an op-ed or something from the news media - it will be up to us to decipher what is the relevant information ... i think in this particular case, i side with the writer because this should cause outrage and yet there is none ... if you are supposed to be a country that is based on a just society - you cannot treat omar khadr like he has ... you just can't ...
the problems arose for the pentagon when omar khadr survived ... he survived the shrapnel and the two bullets fired into his back ... if he dies - no one would know who omar khadr was ... upon surviving - he got lost ... the two other major factors leading up to this is that omar was a child when he was sent to gitmo and that the canadian gov't abandoned him ... and in a way, the media attention he has been getting at home sealed his fate ... they HAD to make an example of him ... hence this grandstanding trial that basically threw justice out the window ... they HAD to save face ... and they knew that the american public could easily be manipulated in this PR disaster ...
like i wrote in the iranian woman thread ... its sad how the same people who are outraged at the torture of an iranian woman are ok with the torture of a 15 year old kid ...