To be a soldier fighting a war is to be forced to
kill or be killed. While the only sensible description of warfare is
organized mass murder, few would seriously argue that individual
soldiers should be prosecuted for homicide when they kill the enemy in
combat. And yet, when
Omar Khadr
walked out of an Edmonton courtroom on May 7
on bail pending appeal
of his conviction in the United States, it was just the latest twist in
his decade-long legal ordeal over accusations of war crimes—accusations
based on his having allegedly thrown a grenade at uniformed American
soldiers during a firefight in Afghanistan.
Khadr had the misfortune of being born to
parents who,
by most accounts,
were abysmal role models.
His father
was a confidant of Osama bin Laden and died in 2003 alongside Taliban
and al-Qaeda members.
His mother
has railed against the supposed wickedness of Canadian society,
explaining that she had to take her son abroad to avoid him becoming a
drug-addicted homosexual before he hit puberty. By the time 9/11
occurred, Khadr had been living in Afghanistan for five years and, on
July 27, 2002, found himself in the middle of a battle with American
troops. While the exact sequence of events is unclear, the battle ended
with the Americans bombing the house in which the 15-year old Khadr and
his companions were holed up and then sending in troops to inspect the
damage. At that point, a grenade landed at their feet and killed Sargent
Christopher Speer, an army combat medic.
After being treated for serious wounds,
Khadr was eventually taken to Guantanamo Bay where in 2010 he pled
guilty to several charges, including “murder in violation of the law of
war”—a previously unknown war crime created by the United States after
the events that led to Sgt. Speer’s death. Traditionally, soldiers
cannot be prosecuted for murder because of the “combatant’s privilege.”
But since international law only recognizes uniformed soldiers as
privileged combatants, a person in civilian clothes who kills a soldier
is liable to prosecution like a common murderer. In Khadr’s case,
however, invoking the existing rule would have meant giving him an
ordinary criminal trial, with the associated procedural and evidentiary
standards. Given the
torture regime
in place at Guantanamo Bay and the lack of evidence against him, such a
trial was unlikely to produce a conviction. So the American government
instead charged Khadr with war crimes and prosecuted him under military
law.
|
“Omar Khadr’s treatment over
the past 13 years exemplifies the arbitrary, cruel and
unjust nature of the war on terror.” |
It is difficult to know where to start with
the government’s “reasoning.” First, retroactive criminal legislation is
totally incompatible with the rule of law, and “murder in violation of
the law of war” was not a crime under US law when Sgt. Speer was killed.
Second, if Khadr was not a protected combatant then by what right did
the American troops use force against him? The government’s argument
amounts to “we can shoot him, but he can’t shoot back.” Third, there is
no evidence that Khadr actually threw the grenade that killed Speer
other than a confession that Khadr
very plausibly
claims
was tortured out of him at Guantanamo Bay (and one that he has since
retracted).
Fourth, of course, Khadr was all of 15 years old in 2002. Too young to
drink, too young to smoke, too young to vote, too young even to
drive—yet somehow old enough to be prosecuted for hitherto unheard-of
war crimes.
Omar Khadr’s treatment over the past 13
years exemplifies the arbitrary, cruel and unjust nature of the war on
terror. The killing of a uniformed soldier in battle is, objectively, no
less outrageous than any other act of murder. But, for whatever reason,
it has been the universally-accepted norm for several millennia that
killing a man in combat is not a crime. There are exceptions, but there
is nothing about Khadr’s case—never mind the lack of evidence that he
actually committed the “crime”—that cries out for applying them.
Instead, much of the case against him seems to be built on the sheer
infamy of his family, which is deservedly notorious for its anti-Western
and anti-freedom discourse, as well as his father’s personal association
with arch-terrorist Osama bin Laden. While such a claim may seem like a
straw man argument,
the case
made by Khadr’s self-appointed prosecutors is weak beyond the point of
ridicule. To Google the terms “Omar Khadr terrorist”
is to take a peek at the seedy underbelly of Canadian society, where
Khadr’s culpability is based largely on his other-ness, on Islamophobia
and on guilt by association.
Now that Khadr is a free man—of sorts—perhaps
he will have a chance to demonstrate whether he is indeed a victim of
circumstance or the caricature of evil described by his critics. In his
first public appearance
after his release,
he came across as articulate, thoughtful, and entirely unthreatening. If
Khadr manages to build a normal life for himself and becomes a
productive and peaceful member of Canadian society, it could go a long
way toward changing the minds of those who see the war on terror as a
Manichean conflict between the US and its allies who can do no wrong and
the forces of darkness who are pure evil. If Omar Khadr—the poster-child
for
Dick Cheney’s shameless lie
that Guantanamo Bay housed the “worst of the worst”—turns out not to
have horns and cloven feet, then perhaps the entire edifice of the war
on terror is rotten. And maybe—just maybe—the best way to prevent
terrorism and keep us safe is not to pursue endless war and adopt
draconian legal codes, but simply to mind our own business and engage
with foreigners not through violence but instead only through voluntary
cooperation.
|
|
From the same author |
▪
Discriminatory Discrimination Laws
(no
331 – April 15, 2015)
▪
A Requiem for Spock
(no
330 – March 15, 2015)
▪
The Good Citizenship Award
(no
329 – February 15, 2015)
▪
Onward to Victory: Why Freedom Will Win
(no
328 – January 15, 2015)
▪
The New York Police Department: Striking Against the
Public Safety?
(no
328 – January 15, 2015)
▪
More...
|
|
First written appearance of the
word 'liberty,' circa 2300 B.C. |
Le Québécois Libre
Promoting individual liberty, free markets and voluntary
cooperation since 1998.
|
|