Military TribunalsFollow

Let me start by saying that I'm not claiming to be an expert, nor particularly well-informed about this issue. I don't have much background knowledge on it, nor have I done any research.

With that out of the way, this story caught my eye.

If my understanding is correct, Omar Khadr was captured in Afghanistan 8 years ago after a battle with US troops. He is charged with the killing of a US sergeant by grenade. It's unclear to me what evidence is currently being used to link him to that grenade. Prosecutors say that he is on video helping to prepare roadside bombs.

But there's a lot that makes me very uncomfortable with this trial. Well, to be fair, there's a lot that makes me uncomfortable with military tribunals to begin with. The seven year gap between when Khadr was captured, and the date which he was officially charged (in 2009) is astounding to me. Khadr has apparently offered up some statements, albeit after being threatened with death via gang prison rape, something which I'd have thought would have invalidated them, but has been allowed by the judge. Top that all off with the Pentagon attempting to suppress public information, and I'm more than a little wary of the whole thing. Plea bargains were offered to Khadr, but the implication is that they may have come from a desire to keep the trial from public light. He has rejected them, claiming that they are an attempt to cover up a "sham trial" at any rate.

Talk in the linked article seems to mostly revolve around how this is a bad "P.R. move" for military tribunals. I'm disappointed with the way things are being worded. The trial appears to be more to me than just a public relations black eye...it seems like an outright injustice on more than a few levels. Apparently the administration has expressed a desire to intervene, but fears the political ramifications of doing so. The legality of such a move is in question, anyway:



It seems to me like we're figuring this all out as we go, while people rot away in prison. Khadr may very well be guilty, but I'm taking no pride in the way we're handling the whole thing.

The seven year gap between when Khadr was captured, and the date which he was officially charged (in 2009) is astounding to me.

The astounding part is that he even got to the show trial phase.



Talk in the linked article seems to mostly revolve around how this is a bad "P.R. move" for military tribunals. I'm disappointed with the way things are being worded. The trial appears to be more to me than just a public relations black eye...it seems like an outright injustice on more than a few levels.

What are you, 14? It's impossible to asses what would be "just" in this circumstance. The ROE in theater would have justified putting a 5.56 mm wedge of hot lead through his skull. Since that didn't happen, though, now "just" is....what, exactly? Since you're completely, 100% removed from any consequence here, I'm going to guess that "just" is to err as much as possible towards giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt and every legal protection. This is a noble idea when applied to real circumstances that effect you, it's a trite platitude when it's applied in the abstract.


It seems to me like we're figuring this all out as we go, while people rot away in prison. Khadr may very well be guilty, but I'm taking no pride in the way we're handling the whole thing.

Offer a realistically better alternative, then. *Realistically*, mind you. If you want a transparent process, then keep in mind it'll be transparent to the operators who decide to kill or capture in the field. If it's obvious to them that the process results in what they feel is disproportionately sympathetic treatment of prisoners, they will just kill people when they feel any doubt. Although this would solve your problem, as well, wouldn't it? There wouldn't be a news story about a dead 15 year old who killed someone with a grenade and was killed shortly after, and if there were you wouldn't have this moral response to it, would you?

Think about why that is.

And normal people too!

Hah!