"Kill me, Kill me."

[irislavender2000]

I aim to please.

Thing is I'm not the judge or jury so it doesn't really matter does it? I didn't think OJ was innocent either even before his trial. I kind of suspect that a Canadian captured by American forces in Afghanistan in a battle with Al Qaeda forces wasn't just out sight seeing. As for not accepting the 'mountain of abuse and torture' actually I'm perfectly willing to accept actual evidence. As I said "the other accusations they would need looked into and I don't doubt that abuse frequently happens in prisons but at the same time someone claiming something doesn't automatically make it true." So I'm not sure why you've decided I would automatically dismiss allegations of abuse... I don't... I just think that they need to be investigated before automatically being assumed to be true. Weren't you just complaining about the assumption of innocence or does that only apply to non-prison staff? My cynical side says that 1. The prison has come under the spotlight for it's abuse of prisoners which suggests at very least such claims need to be thoroughly considered but also 2. If I was prisoner and was about to undergo trial or was simply under the public eye I or at least my lawyers would likely claim I suffered abuse.


This 'kid' grew up in Canada that's hardly a country with a highly charged religious situation or a war. He travelled to Afghanistan. I take your point that kids can't totally be held responsible for the actions but still I think arguing that a 15 year old has no responsibility for his actions is laughable. If it turns out he was being brainwashed from year dot I would agree but we don't know that from any of the reports. What I do know is that a lot of young people that get involved with terrorist organisations, say like those involved in blowing up the tube in London, are not from families that forced propaganda down their throats since they were conceived. Such people are seemingly often enough from nice families with moderate beliefs that it makes assuming they've been brainwashed not warranted. I'm also not so quick to assume that just because someone is 15 they have no sense of what they are doing. Also, the good thing about my opinions is that they aren't enough to determine US law so even though I think that this particular 15 year old is not an innocent little 'kid' it doesn't effect how he is treated one jot.

[Shambolicioussssss]

That's odd I thought I did have a problem with it hence why I said in the first reply...



To make it clear I do think it's appalling that he's been held for six years without a trial. However, I'm not really clued up on the American legal system and since he's been charged I would have assumed he has been awaiting a hearing? I agree six years is ridiculous but as I say I would hope/assume that when he is sentenced they would take the years he has served into consideration and if he was found innocent and was indeed innocent (again OJ was found innocent) then I think it's a terrible miscarriage of justice. One that he would deserve due compensation for... but though I doubt any amount of compensation could give back 6 years of your life. With that being said the whole situation could have been avoided quite easily by him simply not travelling to Afghanistan and not taking part in a battle with American forces... when you do such things you're already putting yourself in a terrible situation which can't really end well. If it turned out he was doing aid work again my opinion would vastly change but I strongly suspect he wasn't.

Oh as for Northern Ireland I've met plenty of 15 year old 'childs' who I would think deserve to be tried as adults. That said I don't think anyone should be held for 6 years without trial. I hope I've made that clear now. I do however also recognise that at least he is getting a trial which is rather unlikely if the situation was reversed.


He hasn't alleged as far as I am aware to have been subjected to waterboarding. However, as far as interrogation techniques go I'll admit that I'm unsure as to my position. On the one hand I find many of the techniques brutal and dehumanising and on the other I do believe that useful information is extracted from interrogations. I thank God I'm not the one in the position to have to decide what interrogation procedures are suitable and I also would believe that a whole rake of commissions and independent assessments need to be done in order to decide on what techniques are suitable. I still doubt however that any comfortable interrogation is really going to have much effect. When considering arguments for this issue I think the need is to consider ethics and practicalities side by side and that too often people go all for one and not for the other. This may seem admirable in the case of leaning purely towards ethics but when those advocating certain ethics have never been involved with wars or interrogations then I think there is certainly a case for rose tinted glasses. Likewise however hardened military officials deciding what is suitable makes me decidely uneasy. It' tricky and I don't pretend to have an answer. In an ideal world I would rule out all uncomfortable interrogation procedures but then we don't live in an ideal world.


I've been at a university in the UK which is probably one of if not the most active campus for anti-War protests. As such I've come across such an extreme amount of kneejerk arguments and poorly thought out double standards that it tends to make one actually read and look through stories before jumping to the inevitable conclusion that America is bad and it's opponents are innocent victims. As pointed out in my original responses to Verx what he suggested this video is of is actually contradicted by the articles and videos HE linked to. I'm mainly discussing those articles and this particular video. I'm not suggesting that in the face of other evidence my opinion wouldn't change. It would.

[DanielMenist]

Just out of curiousity Verx you're 16 right? Do you think of yourself as a child?

[NolanM]

This coming from someone from Belfast I find laughable. If England took kids away for 6 years without charge during the troubles would you have been ok about that?

The Bear.

[Cade]

No I wouldn't. As I think I've said several times now that I think 6 years is a ridiculous amount of time to wait without trial. I also think people need to try reading the actual articles before commenting... the 'kid' has been charged! It says so in all of the articles linked at the top of the page! If I had control of the system I'd say everyone should face trial within a few months of being charged. Sadly I'm not in charge.

As for my background let's put things in perspective Belfast even at the height of the troubles was not like Afghanistan... Holywood may say otherwise but I think you'd have to go back to 1916 to find a situation comparable happening in Ireland. Afghanisatan is more comparable in my eyes to something like Vietnam than the troubles in Northern Ireland. And that's not to downplay the severity of the troubles I've had several relatives shot, petrol bombed and beaten during them and while I've escaped any serious issues myself I've had the inevitable run in with sectarian violence on several occasions... it's just being realistic.

Regardless of whether it is or isn't comparable it's true that nothing justifies someone being held for 6 years without trial but to be honest I think if this kid had faced trial immediately he'd be found guilty and sentenced to a much longer sentence. Maybe I am jumping the gun but I continue to doubt that a 15 year old Canadian captured in Afghanistan during a battle with Al Qaeda was likely to have been out touring the region on a leisure holiday. Evidence to the contrary of my assumptions would change my opinion however I can't see any from the few articles.

To clarify again my main point in this thread was that the video wasn't that shocking... not that people should be held for 6 years without trial. Again I don't think people should be held 6 years without trial.

[doodlesnicker]

You all seem to be assuming that this 'kid' was languishing in an American prison after being arrested by the police. But he was pulled from an active fire-fight with US Marines on another continent in the middle of a terrorist camp. If he had been in uniform, he would have been classified as a Prisoner-of-War, and as such, be exempt from civilian trials and held (without charge or without lawyers) until the end of the conflict (i.e., he'd still be in Guantanamo, but without any hearing or trial even on the horizon).

Because he was not in uniform, he cannot be classed as a POW (this has a specific definition in the the fourth Geneva accord). None-the-less, he has been provided with all the rights of a POW under that convention, except the rights to oversight by the Red Cross/Red Crescent, the availability of mail privileges, and the availability of educational materials and training. He has been provided with food, shelter, clothing, medical treatment, access to religious counselors, and religious practice that has met or exceeded the requirements of Geneva accords. He has also been protected by the specific accords (up until this point) that prohibit a POW from being turned over to the civilian court system. That makes a nice Catch-22 - he can't be tried in civilian courts or we are violating the conventions designed to protect soldiers, but he isn't really a soldier, but he needs some type of hearing to determine he isn't a soldier, but he also needs a hearing that shows that he is a combatant. His status as an armed combatant but not-quite-a-POW is why he's been held for six years without a trial.

And guess what? If your army advances on a position and meets another army that is shooting at you, any combatants you round up as POWs are NOT "assumed innocent until proven guilty".

Mr. P, I can understand why you would abhore this situation, but I think you are taking offense at CKava unnecessarily - for the most part he agrees with your position. I also agree that any allegations of torture should be investigated thoroughly. However, on the face of it, I tend to question the allegations of torture when the same guy who takes off his shirt to show torture marks (that the Canadian in the room says aren't there) tells his interrogators that he is missing his eyes and his feet. My first thought was that the guy had been dragged through such an ordeal that perhaps he had lost his mind. But then the conversation with the Canadian representative indicated that the young man was fully coherent, cooperative, and had his wits about him just the day before.

I am not saying that things at Guantanamo are 'peachy', but I do agree with CKava that more investigation is warranted before assuming the worst.

[snowberry23]

Well stated Capt Ann. Very nice suofftopiction of a really sticky issue.

[UpThere]

There could be an argument that due to his age and upbringing he should not be fully held accountable for his actions. I'm assuming he didn't get to the Middle East under his own steam. A certain amount of brainwashing got him there in the first place, children have always been exploited in this way.
The Hitler Youth are supposed to have fought harder than most regular soldiers in the last days of the Third Reich, kids can be made to believe much more than adults, should this be taken into account?

[eleni]

You dare not assume the worst of US authorities, but you happily assume the worst of this boy? A lot of adults have been released and returned to their country of origin, but this boy hasn't, presumably because he is being charged with murder, so he has, thus far, been held for 6 years on a hunch. The Catch 22 could have been easily fixed by a competent administration, instead they let a teenager languish in a prison camp, whilst they are busy dropping charges against their own war criminals.

[destructivedes]

What gave you the impression that he was actually caught whilst fighting American troops? I might have read wrong but he is only suspected of throwing a grenade, he wasn't actually caught doing it. It might be that the troops saw a youth throwing a grenade and later found Omar.

As for treatment, they had shot him in the back while in custody, the shrapnel had hit his shoulder. They made him stack boxs and knock them, deprived him of sleep and threatned him with rape. Not exactly the greatest treatment. I'm not well informed with reagrds to law so I can't answer the whole POW issue but this is what the Red Cross says:

"Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law."