Thursday, October 28, 2010

Khadr and Hypocrisy. . . . .

I find the trial and sentencing hearing of Omar Khadr outrageous. Not only was Khadr a child soldier but he was simply fighting a foreign occupier. Even if you believe the invasion of Afghanistan completely legitimate I can't imagine how one defends putting on trial those who believed that they were defending the country against foreign occupiers. I makes no sense unless you are a total pacifist and believe that all those engaged in war should be put on trial.

I am particularly flabbergasted that they would allow people to make so-called "victim impact statements" in the sentencing portion of the trial. With no disrespect to the widow of the man Khadr supposedly killed, is this not the height of hypocrisy? The US soldiers killed at least one hundred thousand civilians in Iraq (perhaps many hundreds of thousands) and thousands in Afghanistan in the past 10 years. Civilians! The man that Khadr has been accused of killing was a soldier. The victors really do write the history, otherwise we would see tens of thousands of US soldiers on trial for killing civilians (surely a much worse crime than what Khadr is said to have done) and we would be hearing literally millions of 'victim impact statements' from Afghanis and Iraqis for their beloved family members who were guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

For all the right-wingers out there who are ready to accuse me of 'taliban sympathies,' forget it. This is just basic stuff. If you are going to go to war against people you say are terrible, then you can't go around killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and put child soldiers on trial and then try to pretend that you are better than they. The people who have put a child soldier on trial should be put on trial. And Harper should be put on trial for making no attempt to stop it. In the words of the great Walt Kelly (who was turning the words of Captain Oliver Perry)- "We have met the enemy and he is us."

4 comments:

CanadianSense said...

Khadr was not a soldier. Khadr was two week short of 16 years old.

He was not born in Afghanistan or has asked to be returned to Afghanistan.

You might find planting laying mines, throwing grenades in a foreign country as a legit form of protest.

Most people won't agree. Khadr could have left the compound with the women and children but chose to join the other men in their pursuit of jihad.

You don't have to accept his confession or testimony as proof.

You can also dismiss the evidence of the effort by those who provided him medical aid that ultimately saved his life.

Afghanistan is a feudal country trapped in the 13th century that will not be transformed after 11 years of international aid. Are you concerned with Iran-Pakistan foreign influence in region or just Western democracies?

As a "progressive" do you blame his harsh life for his actions and justify his actions as illegal combatant from a foreign country because of your distaste of the U.N. sanctioned mission led by our allies?

Does your logic apply to molesters, rapists who have had similar

kirbycairo said...

Once again CS your logic is flawed and the victor is writing history.

Many of the men who fought for the Colonies in the American Revolution weren't "soldiers." Ethan Allen wasn't a "soldier." The American Proxy forces in Central America (commonly called the "Contras") weren't "soldiers." Soldier is a label of convenience applied by those who want to spin a war. The English in the 18th century called George Washington a terrorist. And if a foreign power invaded the US how many average and armed US citizens do you thing would walk around saying "Well we can't fight because we are not registered soldiers. None and you know it. Yet all of them would considers themselves legitimate fighters.

It has nothing to with 'progressive." It is real-politik and the hypocrisy of war. The first victim of war is the truth and the US just keep victimizing it.

I personally don't think killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq is simply "Ok" because their killers were "legitimate" soldiers.

All reason and rational argument says you lose CS.

CanadianSense said...

The Americans born and living in the colonies fighting the British Empire,loyalists, Canadians, Mohawk were from Afghanistan?

I must have missed that history book. Did France help those local farmers in the states take up guns against their rivals?

Your team raises the word "child" regularly and his environment to invoke an emotional defense for the act of terrorism by a teenager that was given an opportunity to leave the compound.

The left have turn a blind eye to the human right abuses of the resistance when it represents their ideology. (Full stop)

It is inconsistent to suggest a "child soldier" on either spectrum is innocent of his actions when by definition he was not a soldier or a child.

I hold him in the same contempt as I would a 16 year old Christian fundamentalist bombing mosques, churches, schools, federal building in order to change the government or terrorize the local population or a teen age gang banger.

kirbycairo said...

What in the world are you talking about. The lesson you missed in school seems to have been logic. We are talking about the notion of "legitimacy" not nationality. If you believe that Khadr can be put on trial because of his "legitimacy" then the comparison must be made to other so-called "illegitimate" soldiers. The millions of so-called 'irregulars' who have fought for just and unjust causes over the years - this is the issue. And unless you are prepared to put members of the French resistance on trial - then you are inconsistent, period. Or, another great recent example, is the thousands of Blackwater soliders (mercenaries) hired by the US in Iraq specifically because they would not be subject to US military rules. Are you actively advocating for all of them to be put on trial as "non-combatants?"

As for the child soldier issue, international agreements are quite clear and the US is simply in the wrong. The agreements do not distinguish between so called "recruits" and those who are forced to comply. Read the agreements. The international agreements on child soldiers are specifically designed to recognize that the vast majority of child soldiers are in fact irregulars and not old enough to make the decisions of an adult in the same situation.

Again you have displayed CanadianNon-sense very admirably.