Comments on: From 2002 to 2010: Canada Must End Complicity in Torture http://prism-magazine.com/2010/02/from-2002-to-2010-canada-must-end-complicity-in-torture/ News and Views That Matter Sat, 04 Feb 2012 20:29:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: gerrym http://prism-magazine.com/2010/02/from-2002-to-2010-canada-must-end-complicity-in-torture/comment-page-1/#comment-4019 gerrym Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:51:41 +0000 http://prism-magazine.com/?p=638#comment-4019 Regrettably like the Somalia case in 1993, it is unlikely that we will ever really know what happened in Afghanistan. The only way one could foresee this happening would be if the government documents were released to Wikileaks by some insider who has access to them. That is unlikely and we know that the compliant corporatist media in Canada has no interest in uncovering the seamy details of what went on there on the ground either. Furthermore as the Somalia affair and the Mulroney inquiries clearly demonstrate the political elite in Canada have no stomach for washing their dirty linen in public. Regrettably like the Somalia case in 1993, it is unlikely that we will ever really know what happened in Afghanistan. The only way one could foresee this happening would be if the government documents were released to Wikileaks by some insider who has access to them. That is unlikely and we know that the compliant corporatist media in Canada has no interest in uncovering the seamy details of what went on there on the ground either. Furthermore as the Somalia affair and the Mulroney inquiries clearly demonstrate the political elite in Canada have no stomach for washing their dirty linen in public.

]]> By: Diane1976 http://prism-magazine.com/2010/02/from-2002-to-2010-canada-must-end-complicity-in-torture/comment-page-1/#comment-346 Diane1976 Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:00:38 +0000 http://prism-magazine.com/?p=638#comment-346 I wonder what would happen to someone like Khadr if he were captured, as a fifteen year old insurgent, in Afghanistan today. I think his treatment would be very different. The US has supported a UNICEF program for the rehabiliation and reintegration of minors among Afghan insurgents. US officials have also negotiated releases of prisoners with tribal leaders. Chances are, somebody like Khadr, being a Canadian citizen, would be turned over to Canadians for rehabilitation and reintegration. The American government does, in fact, uphold the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, re minors involved in armed conflict, in other cases. It just chose not to do so for Khadr back in 2002, even though it did do so for other minors even then. Khadr was captured only months after 9/11. The American government probably expected the Afghan war to be short lived. It took the view that all those who fought the US military in Afghanistan were terrorists requiring punishment. Khadr participated in what escalated into the first big battle of the Afghan war. He must have been among the first captured on a battlefield there. Perhaps the US envisioned trying all such persons as war criminals and murderers who would have to pay for the deaths of their soldiers. Of course, Khadr was of interest for interrorgation because of his connection, via his father, to high levels of Al Qaeda and heads of other Afghan factions. But, the greater interest seemed to be in making him an example of some sort. It seems as though the whole situation has evolved, but Khadr is caught in a time warp because of his on-going trial and the hype about it, and the millions of people insisting he must pay for the death of the soldier who was killed during the battle he was in, either because he was personally responsible, or because he was with whoever was. Since then, surely tens of thousands of insurgents have participated in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There do not seem to be many being tried as war criminals. Nobody appears to be demanding "justice" for the death of thousands of US and allied soldiers killed by insurgents. While it is possible to understand the Americans' original approach on the Khadr case because of the post 9/11 atmosphere and situation, it is very difficult to comprehend the continuing insistence on proceeding with charges of war crimes, based solely on not what he personally did, which were normal acts of war, but on his status as being part of an unlawful group (as would be all Afghan insurgents, and presumably most Iraqi insurgents too). The only reason for proceeding with Khadr's war crimes charges would appear to be to satisfy all those clamouring for "justice" on behalf of the soldier, in spite of the fact that thousands of other soldiers have also died in these two wars since then. Maybe Khadr's role is to be a stand-in for all the thousands of insurgents who killed thousands of soldiers. ??? I wonder what would happen to someone like Khadr if he were captured, as a fifteen year old insurgent, in Afghanistan today. I think his treatment would be very different. The US has supported a UNICEF program for the rehabiliation and reintegration of minors among Afghan insurgents. US officials have also negotiated releases of prisoners with tribal leaders. Chances are, somebody like Khadr, being a Canadian citizen, would be turned over to Canadians for rehabilitation and reintegration. The American government does, in fact, uphold the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, re minors involved in armed conflict, in other cases. It just chose not to do so for Khadr back in 2002, even though it did do so for other minors even then.

Khadr was captured only months after 9/11. The American government probably expected the Afghan war to be short lived. It took the view that all those who fought the US military in Afghanistan were terrorists requiring punishment. Khadr participated in what escalated into the first big battle of the Afghan war. He must have been among the first captured on a battlefield there. Perhaps the US envisioned trying all such persons as war criminals and murderers who would have to pay for the deaths of their soldiers.

Of course, Khadr was of interest for interrorgation because of his connection, via his father, to high levels of Al Qaeda and heads of other Afghan factions. But, the greater interest seemed to be in making him an example of some sort.

It seems as though the whole situation has evolved, but Khadr is caught in a time warp because of his on-going trial and the hype about it, and the millions of people insisting he must pay for the death of the soldier who was killed during the battle he was in, either because he was personally responsible, or because he was with whoever was.

Since then, surely tens of thousands of insurgents have participated in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There do not seem to be many being tried as war criminals. Nobody appears to be demanding "justice" for the death of thousands of US and allied soldiers killed by insurgents.

While it is possible to understand the Americans' original approach on the Khadr case because of the post 9/11 atmosphere and situation, it is very difficult to comprehend the continuing insistence on proceeding with charges of war crimes, based solely on not what he personally did, which were normal acts of war, but on his status as being part of an unlawful group (as would be all Afghan insurgents, and presumably most Iraqi insurgents too). The only reason for proceeding with Khadr's war crimes charges would appear to be to satisfy all those clamouring for "justice" on behalf of the soldier, in spite of the fact that thousands of other soldiers have also died in these two wars since then. Maybe Khadr's role is to be a stand-in for all the thousands of insurgents who killed thousands of soldiers. ???

]]>