USA Put Canadian Child Soldier on Trial

[Frank Drebin]

Youngest Guantanamo inmate, Canadian Omar Khadr, tried

A former child combatant has gone on trial at Guantanamo Bay, the first detainee to face military justice under President Barack Obama.

Canadian citizen Omar Khadr, now 23, is accused of throwing a grenade that killed a US soldier during a gun battle in Afghanistan in 2002, when he was 15.

He alleges that he was tortured into confessing to the murder.

A UN envoy, Radhika Coomaraswamy, said the trial would set a dangerous precedent for child soldiers worldwide.

However, the judge said the prosecution must show that Mr Khadr had had intent to commit a crime, and he told jurors they could consider his age in making their decision.

Mr Obama had promised to close the controversial detention facility by January this year.

Mr Khadr's trial will shine further light on both the camp and Mr Obama's failure to close it, the BBC's Kim Ghattas reports from Washington.
'Clear standards'

Military officers in the jury pool indicated that they saw no problem with trying Mr Khadr.

"Does anyone believe that juveniles should not be prosecuted for violent offences?" Prosecutor Jeff Groharing asked them.

"Does anyone feel the accused should be held to a different standard because he was 15 years old at the time of the alleged offences?"

None said they held those beliefs.

The judge, Col Patrick Parrish, said the jury could consider the age of the defendant - now a tall, broad-shouldered and bushy-bearded man - at the time of his alleged crime.

"It's certainly something you may consider in deciding whether the government has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt," he said.

Opening arguments are due to begin on Wednesday in a trial expected to last about three weeks.

Ms Coomaraswamy, special envoy for children in armed conflict, said no child had been prosecuted for a war crime since World War II.

"Juvenile justice standards are clear: children should not be tried before military tribunals," she said.

'Sad, pathetic chapter'

Prosecutors describe Mr Khadr as an al-Qaeda militant, who killed Sgt Christopher Speer when a US special forces unit raided one of the group's compounds in eastern Afghanistan.

Mr Khadr was shot twice in the back during the firefight and was flown to Guantanamo shortly after.

But the defence say Mr Khadr was himself a victim, forced into war by a family with close ties to al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.

The US says his father, Ahmed Said Khadr, was an al-Qaeda financier before he was killed in a gun battle in Pakistan in 2003.

The judge ruled earlier that the confessions Mr Khadr allegedly made while in custody could feature in the trial.

Lt Col Jon Jackson, lawyer for the accused, had argued that they were obtained through "degrading treatment", including indirect threats of rape and death.

On Tuesday, Lt Col Jackson attacked Mr Obama for allowing both Guantanamo to remain open and the tribunal to go ahead.

"President Obama has decided to write the next sad, pathetic chapter in the book of military commissions," he said.

"So forever Obama's military commissions will be remembered for starting with a case against a child soldier."

The charges include murder, conspiracy and support of terrorism. Mr Khadr has refused an offer of 30 years in jail in exchange for a guilty plea. A conviction carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Canada has declined to intervene in Mr Khadr's trial, despite federal court rulings in Ottawa that his rights were violated when Canadian agents interrogated him at Guantanamo Bay.

the alleged torture of the detainee and legitimacy of the court aside, should it be possible to try child soldiers for war crimes?

 

[Patroklos]

Yes. As the judge said, the age of the combatant should be taken into account when determining intent.

15 isn't much of a child soldier. The ones in Africa were in the 8-10 range, a HUGE difference.

 

[Truronian]

I don't really understand why throwing a grenade at enemy soldiers is classed as a war-crime.

 

[Ayn Rand]

I don't really understand why throwing a grenade at enemy soldiers is classed as a war-crime.

Good question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

Do they mean a crime committed in war, or an actual war crime?

 

[Patroklos]

He was not a legal combatant. Civilians are not allowed to engage belligerent parties, ostenibly to allow belligerent parties to ignore civilians. Which is of course the very reason insurgents exploit that line.

In order for him to have been considered a legal combatant he would have had to be recognized as a regular (and there are requirements to meet this) of some participating belligerent power, of which none exists to do so. For that reason most insurgents are going to be criminals by nature or even if they are following the rules (which can be done, belligerents can officially sposor insurgent groups) by tactics used.

Thats why militias are not illegal combatants automatically, such as whatever that one was Saddam had in Iraq.

 

[Icekommander]

I don't really understand why throwing a grenade at enemy soldiers is classed as a war-crime.

This. What did the spec ops team not expect them to fight back when they raided their compund or what?

@ Patroklos: Wierd. Is the Taliban not considered at Belligerent power?

 

[Patroklos]

That is irrelevant. Thats like blaming a police officer for being shot because he entered a drug den. Those inside have no legal right to resist.

 

[Ayn Rand]

He was not a legal combatant. Civilians are not allowed to engage belligerent parties, ostenibly to allow belligerent parties to ignore civilians. Which is of course the very reason insurgents exploit that line.

In order for him to have been considered a legal combatant he would have had to be recognized as a regular (and there are requirements to meet this) of some participating belligerent power, of which none exists to do so. For that reason most insurgents are going to be criminals by nature or even if they are following the rules (which can be done, belligerents can officially sposor insurgent groups) by tactics used.

Thats why militias are not illegal combatants automatically, such as whatever that one was Saddam had in Iraq.

Agreed - he's obviously a criminal and should be put on trial. The problem is that the article seems to imply that he will be put on trial for a "war crime" which is a term usually reserved for genocide and crimes against humanity.

It also says that he confessed to murder, which is a criminal offence. Can you shed any light on what the charge is and whether it is criminal law or a war crime? If the latter, do you know why it's classed as a war crime as opposed to a murder?

 

[Frank Drebin]

He was not a legal combatant.

a child soldier, by definition, can not be part a legal army.

 

[Icekommander]

I'm not blaming a police officer. I'm saying that he should have expected it. Now while your analogy is correct in the way stuff actually works, it seems highly nonsensical to me. The Taliban is a fully functional power that is quite belligerent, and I don't see why they shouldn't be classified as such. Because while we can pretend that its a police officer entering a drug den, from my understanding its more like, well a special ops team raiding an enemy camp during warfare.

 

[emzie]

I really don't understand why Harper refused to have him tried in Canada.

 

[Patroklos]

a child soldier, by definition, can not be part a legal army.

That depends entirely on the legal army in question. I am sure there are plenty of armies in the world that let 15 year olds join. They are not trying him for being a child soldier, but for being an illegal combatant engaged with a legal belligerent (any acts regarding combat thus being illegal). His age is irrelevant, minors can commit crimes.

His age makes the claim dubious, most countries do in fact allow minors to be tried as adults when circumstances make it clear the gravity of the crime was apparent.

It also says that he confessed to murder, which is a criminal offence. Can you shed any light on what the charge is and whether it is criminal law or a war crime? If the latter, do you know why it's classed as a war crime as opposed to a murder?

His war crime was fighting with an illegitimate organization with no legal authority to be fighting a legal belligerent. That is a warcrime. Anything he did in that capacity is a war crime. In his capacity as an illegal combatant and thus with no authority to kill under the rules of war means if he did kill then it was murder.

It goes both ways. Soldiers are not supposed to be killing civilians, civilians are not supposed to be killing soldiers. If either one wants to claim the protections of either class, they have to play by the rules of that class.

 

[Truronian]

It all seems immensely OTT. Sending a fifteen year old to prison for 40 years because they threw a grenade at people that were (from their POV) attacking their house.

 

[Ayn Rand]

It all seems immensely OTT. Sending a fifteen year old to prison for 40 years because they threw a grenade at people that were (from their POV) attacking their house.

So it's okay if we all join foreign terrorist organisations and commit treason against our countries, and murder as well?


@Patroklos, thanks for the explanation.

 

[Frank Drebin]

whether you murder for the taliban or the us army really is only different in the political goals those organizations have.

 

[Patroklos]

I don't think he is saying that. If you are a child and impressed into service at a young age by your family can you really be blamed for defending yourself? Do you really understand what is happeneing.

He committed a crime either way, his age is a mitigating factor as to whether we intend to imprison him over it. However, 15 is not much a child soldier, and we hold 15 year olds to adult standards all the time because 15 year old are not clueless and actions like murder are clear in their consequences.

whether you murder for the taliban or the us army really is only different in the political goals those organizations have.

If you muder in the US Army you face the exact same charges this guy is facing.

Your comment is woefully ignorant of the reality of the law of war, and why they are the way they are.

 

[Frank Drebin]

i understand that there are various international laws trying to channel killing people into a kind of easily comprehensible and straighforward order to minimize civilian deaths.

the laws of war do, on the other hand make murder of enemy soldiers legal.
war IS the ultimate breach of any social contract.

now all i was saying is that on a personal level (not from a legal standpoint) joining the us army or the taliban is indeed doing the very same thing, just for different political goals

 

[Patroklos]

i understand that there are various international laws trying to channel killing people into a kind of easily comprehensible and straighforward order to minimize civilian deaths.

the laws of war do, on the other hand make murder of enemy soldiers legal.
war IS the ultimate breach of any social contract.

Cool

now all i was saying is that on a personal level (not from a legal standpoint) joining the us army or the taliban is indeed doing the very same thing, just for different political goals

Hardly. When I joined up I wasn't obliged to dedicate my life to any particular diety, nor is it understood that I will be taking part in any targeted market bombings, nor was it understood I could strap bombs to mentally handicaped people and blow them up in busy intersections. I also where spiffy uniforms 24/7 so nobody confuses me with a local shop owner, as opposed to say dressing up as a local shop owner with the intent of being identified as him.

There is a whole lot of differnece there.

 

[Truronian]

Yeah, what Patroklos said. It just seems to me it could have been handled better.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Hardly. When I joined up I wasn't obliged to dedicate my life to any particular diety, nor is it understood that I will be taking part in any targeted market bombings, nor was it understood I could strap bombs to mentally handicaped people and blow them up in busy intersections. I also where spiffy uniforms 24/7 so nobody confuses me with a local shop owner, as opposed to say dressing up as a local shop owner with the intent of being identified as him.

There is a whole lot of differnece there.

details.