Glenn Beck: Close Guantanamo Bay?

[Dr. Shane]

Glenn Beck: Close Guantanamo Bay?

Is this just a joke? I heard this today and am kind of confused.

[Amelia]

That is only the partial video. Go here if you want to see the full video

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7507991.stm

There is a full transcript here

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/6003

Quote:

Canadian Detainee at Guantanamo Shown Crying in Video

By Alexandre Deslongchamps

July 17, 2008

Bloomberg.com

July 15 (Bloomberg) -- Videotape of a Canadian teenager being questioned at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the first public footage of such interrogations, shows him crying, complaining about his health and pleading for help.

The prisoner, Omar Khadr, now 21, is shown speaking with Canadian intelligence officials in an eight-minute excerpt of the video released today by his lawyer. Khadr was 15 when he was captured in Afghanistan in 2002 and is accused of throwing a hand grenade that killed a U.S. soldier in the Asian country, according to the U.S. Defense Department in Washington.

The video renewed calls from opposition parties to have Khadr repatriated to Canada and may reignite debate in the U.S. over anti-terrorism practices such as overseas detentions. Canada's governing Conservatives have resisted calls to pressure the U.S. to release him, saying the case has yet to make its way through courts there.

The interrogation by Canadian officials took place over four days in February 2003, according to Khadr's lawyer, Nathan Whitling. At one point, after the officials leave the room, Khadr sobs and repeatedly says what sounds like ``kill me.'' Abderrahman Beggar, a professor of Arabic at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario, said Khadr may have been repeating ``ya ummi,'' standard Arabic for ``mother.''

``He clearly is a child soldier -- he was 13 when he was sent to a training camp and it's important for him to get back,'' Bob Rae, the main opposition Liberal Party's foreign affairs critic, said today from Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. ``Canada's position is extremely vulnerable.''

`Legal Process'

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper rejected that idea on July 10, saying, ``There is a legal process in the United States. He can make his arguments in that process.''

A Liberal Party government earlier this decade authorized the questioning of Canadian detainees at Guantanamo and sent the interrogators. Since losing power in 2006, after the events in the video took place, the party has lobbied for Khadr to be returned to Canada.

Khadr's father, Ahmed Said Khadr, was accused of financing al-Qaeda before Pakistani forces killed him in October 2003. The younger Khadr is accused of receiving training in the use of rocket-propelled grenades, rifles, pistols and explosives and also killing two Afghan militia force members in 2002.

`Premature, Speculative'

``Discussions regarding Mr. Khadr's repatriation are premature and speculative as the process and appeals process have not yet been exhausted,'' said Eugenie Cormier-Lassonde, a spokeswoman for the Foreign Affairs Department in Ottawa. ``Mr. Khadr faces serious charges. These include murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, material support for terrorism and spying, all in violation of the laws of war.''

The release of the interrogation video comes after a Federal Court ruled June 25 that Khadr's defense team could make them public. Whitling later released the full 7.5-hour interrogation video on five DVDs in Edmonton, Alberta.

``The tapes do not show a dangerous terrorist, but instead a frightened, wounded Canadian boy pleading for help from Canadian officials,'' Whitling said at a press conference broadcast by CTV.

Khadr complains to the officials in the video that he wasn't getting proper medical attention for what appears to be an injury to his shoulder even after requesting help, lifting his shirt to reveal a wound. It's unclear from the video whether the injury was sustained in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan Conflict

Canada has about 2,500 troops stationed in Afghanistan and Harper has made that mission the cornerstone of efforts to boost the country's clout in world affairs. He won support from Canada's legislature this year to extend the mission for two years past a February 2009 deadline, on the condition of NATO arranging for more troops and equipment.

On the tape, an interrogator is heard asking Khadr: ``You want to go back to Canada? Well, there's not anything I can do about that. I want to stay with you in Cuba. Can you help me with that? Weather's nice, there's no snow.''

Khadr pleads to be permitted to return to Canada, and accuses the Canadian interviewer of not caring about what happens to him. ``That's not true -- people do care about you,'' the interrogator says.

`Other Tapes'

``There are other tapes like this out there'' because ``the U.S. military videotaped all the interrogations by foreign interrogators'' at Guantanamo Bay, said Jameel Jaffer, a director of national security programs at the American Civil Liberties Union in New York. A document obtained by the ACLU in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit shows such videotaping was U.S. policy, he said.

Other documents obtained in the ACLU's lawsuit for information about the treatment of detainees shows ``interrogators went much further than they did'' in the Khadr tape to get information, he said.

Wayne Marston, human rights critic for the New Democratic Party, said Canadians will ``be offended'' by the Khadr video.

``Every other combatant from a Commonwealth country has been sent home,'' he said, referring to former Guantanamo detainees from the U.K. and Australia. The Canadian government ``should be asking for him to come home.''

[olger]

I heard part of it and wasn't sure what Glenn was trying to convey.

[Dr. Shane]

I didn't see any abuse in the video. I did see a broken kid that even when released is going to need help adapting back to society.

[carolaa]

Yup. He was one of those "worst of the worst." So bad they needed to hold him for 5 years.

[there buster]

Quote:

Yup. He was one of those "worst of the worst." So bad they needed to hold him for 5 years.

He threw a hand grenade and killed a soldier.

I've seen dozens of teenage boys like him.

No doubt he thought himself a big man when he threw the grenade. Now he wants to plead he was a little boy.

Choices have consequences. Some woman's son is dead because of this guy. That soldier has been dead for 5 years, and will remain that way, unable to make tearful videos and cry abuse.

He'll be dead 5 years from now. No lawyers or video crews will be pleading his case. No politicians will take up his cause. He died setting others free.

Now this kid wants to disavow his deeds. Would that he could. If he ever gets out, it will be sooner than the soldier he killed is resurrected.

There will be plenty to lament over this kid. I'll mourn for the one he killed.

[carolaa]

He threw a hand grenade and killed a soldier.

I've seen dozens of teenage boys like him.

No doubt he thought himself a big man when he threw the grenade. Now he wants to plead he was a little boy.

We have no idea what that boy was thinking. It's not like he was leading a teen gang of ruffians. He was the only kid in the group. Most boys would have wanted to be like the men. Whether he felt that way or not, we don't know.

On the other hand, there are children being "recruited" as soldiers all over the world. They are forced to do it against their will. They are victims. Maybe it was a situation like that.

Besides, there isn't any proof that the kid threw the grenade, and at least one eye witness doubts he did it.

[there buster]

Quote:

there isn't any proof that the kid threw the grenade

Ah, yes, proof. Well, this isn't a criminal case. It was war. Soldiers are generally too busy trying to survive to gather evidence and take testimony. That's why the rules of war apply, and not criminal law.

Quote:

It's not like he was leading a teen gang of ruffians. He was the only kid in the group.

Ruffians? Of course not. Grenade-throwing, machine gun toting, non-uniformed fighters, but not ruffians. No doubt they were quite genteel.

And a witness 'doubts' he did it. Doubts are not evidence.

[lazarus]

Does Omar Khadr have any rights?

Evidence indicates that U.S. authorities have, during the past four years and 11 months, violated essentially all Omar Khadr�s fundamental rights, namely his rights to: liberty, iii due process, iv freedom from torture, v freedom from arbitrary imprisonment, vi freedom from prosecution for ex post facto crimes and the right to equality before the law and equal access to the protection of the law. vii Many of these violations are themselves crimes. Mr. Khadr�s entitlement to these rights flows from his status as: a) a Canadian citizen protected by Canadian law, including the Charter; a child at the time of capture protected by the Convention on the Rights of the Child; c) a prisoner of war protected by the Third Geneva Convention; and d) a human being protected by the Convention against Torture and other Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment, the Criminal Code of Canada, the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Neither the Presidential edicts of November 13, 2001 and February 2, 2002, or the designation as an enemy combatant by the Combat Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), created in July 2004 viii to avoid a review of prisoners� detention by U.S. courts, or the Military Commission Act (MCA), passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2006, ix over 4 years after Omar Khadr was taken prisoner, are competent to deny the legal rights that have been violated during his imprisonment. All notions that Omar Khadr is a legal non-person without rights are dangerous, untenable nonsense.

http://www.nightslantern.ca/law/omarkhadr13june07.htm

[there buster]

Quote:

All notions that Omar Khadr is a legal non-person without rights are dangerous, untenable nonsense.

Having slain the straw man. . .yawn . . .

He is at best a prisoner of war. . . a status he does not merit, since he violated the law of war by not being a uniformed combatant.

Having not been in uniform, he could have been shot as a spy, according to the rules he violated, yet now seeks refuge in.

He has a right to life, which puts him way ahead of the unborn children of most of the advanced countries.

But he is not a citizen of the U.S., and so does not automatically receive the rights of a U.S. citizen.

I wonder about the rights of the 3000 who died in the World Trade center . . . or Daniel Pearl . . . or the soldier this guy killed. But they can't make appealing videos. Odd, how the advocates of so-called 'social justice' demonstrate so little interest in justice.

[carolaa]

It's not like he was leading a teen gang of ruffians. He was the only kid in the group.

Ruffians? Of course not. Grenade-throwing, machine gun toting, non-uniformed fighters, but not ruffians. No doubt they were quite genteel.

And a witness 'doubts' he did it. Doubts are not evidence.

[there buster]

Quote:

My point was that he was not leading a group of fellow teenagers. He was the only kid in the group, following what the others told him to do.

"I was only following orders."

Interesting defense.

[carolaa]

I don't think justice and mercy are mutually exclusive.

[carolaa]

Quote:

My point was that he was not leading a group of fellow teenagers. He was the only kid in the group, following what the others told him to do.

"I was only following orders."

Interesting defense.

C'mon, he was a kid!

[there buster]

Quote:

I don't think justice and mercy are mutually exclusive.

No one said they were. But neither are they identical.

C.S. Lewis wrote, "Mercy, separated from justice, becomes unmerciful."

Quote:

he was a kid

Actions have consequences. He was 15. IN many cultures, he might well have been married at that age or soon after. In the British Navy in the 18th and 19th centuries, many 15yo's were Ensigns, and combat veterans. IN the American Civil War, many teenagers fought, drummer boys as young as 11 or 12. In WWII, 15yo's fought in the German home guard.

He threw a hand grenade, and he knew what it would do.

If he had held on to it, we wouldn't be talking about this, because it would have killed him-- no matter what his age. He knew that. He chose to throw it, and kill someone else. Bad choice, bad consequences. Tragic. Sin is a tragedy, and its consequences are tragic.

Reconciliation would be the ideal, but he and his attorneys are not asking for that.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

If he had held on to it, we wouldn't be talking about this, because it would have killed him-- no matter what his age.

When I was in basic training we had to go out to the grenade range and throw live grenades. The range is set up with a concrete pit about two feet lower than the ground around it with a four foot wall on the front. One pulls the pin on the grenade, throws it over the four-foot wall (down range) and then hits the ground behind the wall in the pit. Well one trainee pulled the pin and then dropped the grenade in the pit. Every trainee is accompanied in the pit by his or her drill sergeant. In that case the drill sergeant picked up the grenade and threw it over the wall before it went off. But that poor trainee did so many push-ups he must have pushed that base clear to China and back.

[olger]

:)

[Neil D]

Quote:

Actions have consequences.

Hmmmmm......Something could be said here...but we will stay away from the personal.

Quote:

Actions have consequences. He was 15. IN many cultures, he might well have been married at that age or soon after. In the British Navy in the 18th and 19th centuries, many 15yo's were Ensigns, and combat veterans. IN the American Civil War, many teenagers fought, drummer boys as young as 11 or 12. In WWII, 15yo's fought in the German home guard.

As if making babies is enough to make a man out of a boy....Come on, Ichy, you know that ain't right, and neither do those cultures insist on people marrying at that age unless their NEEDS are great.

We send our solders over there to fight for justice and truth and the ability to have freedoms. Justice precludes that ALL of the evidence of this boy needs to be brought out to evaluate what is to be done with him. That mean a trial. Granted, he may need to die...but if he is one of those who was forced into the army, do we kill him anyway? I know, the widow of the soldier and his kids may not like that....but what good will this young soldier's death serve? Seems to me that there is too much death in any war...

[there buster]

Your post demonstrates that you haven't been paying attention, Neil.

The young man in question is an enemy combatant. As such, he is being detained (the Treaty of Westphalia was cited) until the cessation of hostilities. There are no charges that he is guilty of a war crime, so there is no need for a trial. No one has proposed executing him.

That's it. End of story. We didn't release German soldiers until WWII was over. Didn't release Japanese soldiers. That's how the Treaty of Westphalia and the rules of war work. They didn't get trials to see if they were properly detained--it's ludicrous. Soldiers are not CSI units. They don't collect evidence. So speaking of a trial, unless it would be for a violation of the rules of war, is meaningless. The guy fought, was caught, detained. When the war is over he'll be let go--unless the gov't determines that it's to our advantage to release him sooner.

[Neil D]

Your post demonstrates that you haven't been paying attention, Neil.

The young man in question is an enemy combatant. As such, he is being detained (the Treaty of Westphalia was cited) until the cessation of hostilities. There are no charges that he is guilty of a war crime, so there is no need for a trial. No one has proposed executing him.

That's it. End of story. We didn't release German soldiers until WWII was over. Didn't release Japanese soldiers. That's how the Treaty of Westphalia and the rules of war work. They didn't get trials to see if they were properly detained--it's ludicrous. Soldiers are not CSI units. They don't collect evidence. So speaking of a trial, unless it would be for a violation of the rules of war, is meaningless. The guy fought, was caught, detained. When the war is over he'll be let go--unless the gov't determines that it's to our advantage to release him sooner.

Except there is some questions as to definitions and where that Treaty applys...The Treaty was set up for countrys, and solders....Terrorists, by definition, is NOT a soldier...Enemy combatants are not necessarily soldeirs..So, the question regarding that boy, is still in question...

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

there is some questions as to definitions and where that Treaty applys...

Which means all rules are off. We are in unchartered territory. Previous treaties don't apply. Liberals tend to want to treat terrorists like criminals. However since they are brought in by soldiers and not police that is not realistic. Soldiers are not making arrests and collecting evidence. They are not reading the terrorists their rights. So it really is like nothing we have been in before.

[Neil D]

Which means all rules are off. We are in unchartered territory. Previous treaties don't apply.

So, if you make a citizen's arrest, 'all rules are off"???

Baloney....this is cheap/conservative/chaotic talk.... not only is what you are saying illogical, but it is unproductive and counter productive to the situation that we are currently in.

[there buster]

Quote:

Except there is some questions as to definitions and where that Treaty applys...The Treaty was set up for countrys, and solders....Terrorists, by definition, is NOT a soldier...Enemy combatants are not necessarily soldeirs..So, the question regarding that boy, is still in question...

Only for those who refuse to acknowledge that 2+2=4. They don't like the necessary conclusions, so they raise nebulous and disingenuous 'doubts.'

Let's see, now. . . kid threw a hand grenade. . . was he a combatant? or was he just being a kid? Hard to say. So many kids throw hand grenades these days.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

f you make a citizen's arrest, 'all rules are off"???

I think we have a precedent for that. It is not unchartered territory.

[carolaa]

Oh, cool. So those people who are trying to arrest Bush could actually hold him indefinitely. Now if they could just get past those secret service guys.....