<p>Wow, even if you take “the American version” as true, you still don’t think he should be detained? Or yes detained, as long as he was treated like a domestic criminal?</p>
<p>If you can morally equate our actions (saving the life of the person responsible for this carnage, then detaining him so he’s unable to commit further acts of war) with the actions of this jihadist, then there isn’t any common ground for a discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Treat him like a suspect. Convict or acquit him. There, justice served.</p>
<p>In today’s society, and especially as we progress towards the future, it should matter less in what jurisdiction the crime was committed. He is suspected of a crime. Justice and morality are universal. If we believe OUR laws and OUR culture to superior to everybody else’s, that is, we believe it to be the most progressive emblem of rule of law, justice and democracy there ever was, then we should apply OUR laws and OUR culture to everything and everyone.</p>
<p>Apply it to this boy.</p>
<p>Nationality and jurisdiction are mere technicalities, and sovereignty is a superficial element that was created in a pre-globalised society because of past disagreements over what constituted Justice. But if OUR justice system and OUR system of morality and democracy is the most superior system in the world, and we have the power to effect it everywhere, then why should the moral question WE ask depend on whether it was a domestic act or an international act? </p>
<p>The moral question is still the same: did the boy commit injustice, or did he not? if he did, what was the extent of the immorality and injustice committed?</p>
<p>There is ONE moral question. </p>
<p>The morality of the act does not change based on the criminal’s nationality. A bomb that kills an American soldier in the US is just as wrong and immoral as a bomb that kills an American soldier in Afghanistan – that is, if the evidence is indeed correct.</p>
<p>Or do you have reason to believe that our form of justice is inferior? Is that why you are so reluctant to try him?</p>
<p>Can you think of any time in history in any country when enemy combatants were given access to all the benefits and rights accorded to the citizens?</p>
<p>This standard of yours is idealistic, and it would be a wonderful world if every country had this modern vision.</p>
<p>As is, we’re fighting people who would to take us all back to the Middle Ages, and I think our goal should be to win and not to handicap our troops at every turn in the interest of this standard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So wait … we’re handicapping our troops by bringing a suspect to trial? </p>
<p>I don’t really see the detriment.</p>
<p>In fact the more we wait the more the prosecution loses the chance to successfully use witnesses for the case. (If the case has any water whatsoever…) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the United States is the Great Arbiter of Justice in the world, and if it has the most superior system of justice, then every citizen in the world falls under its jurisdiction, and the nationality of the accused has no bearing on the question of justice.</p>
<p>A standardised and consistent rule of law is not merely an ideal: it is a necessity. The point of implementing justice here is to inspire confidence in our international rule of law and to create order, and the benefit of a universal justice system encourages constructive actions and discourages destructive ones.</p>
<p>Does it inspire overseas confidence in the American rule of law if there is no consistency to how we apply justice? Ultimately it backfires on us. Why then are still surprised at resistance to our governance? It is not a matter of the suspect’s benefits and rights – that is a byproduct of implementing justice.</p>
<p>Remember a suspect’s rights are not primarily meant to benefit the suspect. It is meant to benefit justice, encourage competency in the effecting authorities, and create confidence in the rule of law. If a suspect receives “benefits” in our quest to create order in the occupied territories, then so be it.</p>
<p>Hard Knocks- I did not say don’t detain him. I just said that what he is said to have done does not constitute a “war crime”, as suggested in post#9. By all means, detain him, let the Red Cross monitor his detention, and call him what he is- a prisoner of war- from Canada!</p>
<p>It is to OUR benefit that we apply our superior standard of justice and truth to everyone and everywhere, otherwise we end up with an undermined rule of law for no reason. Why should we cripple ourselves by intentionally using inferior tools to judge the matter of a person accused of an antisocial act that has harmed society? </p>
<p>The fact of whether the suspect may be an enemy combatant or not is only pertinent when other authorities are only interested in the outcome, and if the combatant is still in a territory where we are prevented from efficiently carrying out justice without undermining troops. But the suspect is safely within custody in friendly territory. Clearly, his suspected “organisation” has made no attempts to get him back. If he was part of a larger organisation that has “waged war,” then the destructive act he is accused of can be evaluated in the context of his group. If Myanmar declared war on us and it so happens that we managed to fly back some of the captured back with the next troop rotation, the tools which we use to evaluate morality and truth should not change. The label of “combatant” is only pertinent because it saves us from being obligated to try POWs speedily in enemy territory. But once they are in our territory, and if we are meant to implement our superior form of rule of law upon everyone and everywhere, then there should no reason why we should refrain from applying the same standard as we would apply to any person governed by our superior laws, superior justice and superior ways. </p>
<p>The success of the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia (before the intervention of Ethiopia) was not just because of force of arms, but because they offered one thing the warlords could not: a rule of law and system of justice. While the warlords spent their ill-gotten gains augmenting their armies, the ICU maintained a military for the purpose of effecting not only justice but schools, hospitals, and all of the things that come with positive society-building. It is no surprise that the people suddenly flocked to their side. Neighbouring were concerned about the entry of an Islamic government of course, and sought to disband in its infancy … but with the entry of Ethiopia has vanished the hope for any sort of stable rule of law for Somalia whatsoever.</p>
<p>Now, we aren’t into Sharia law, but perhaps we can take a page from the ICU book – occupation without a dedicated effort to implement justice and rule of law is bound to fail. Those who promote rule of law will quickly find allies, but the American occupation doesn’t even seem to be trying to implement any form of justice system in the occupied territories. Where are the American police serving overseas?</p>
<p>It is handicapping the troops to expect a special police force to swoop in on any “crime scene” aka battlefield to collect evidence, interview witnesses and family members, investigate paper trails. This is not possible during wartime.</p>
<p>Let me distinguish between terrorists who are embedded in our society, conducting business and covert operations and terrorists caught on the battlefield (as is the case with jihadist in the video). Terrorists caught by police actions at home can be tried. Terrorists caught on the battlefield can be detained – the battlefield is not a neat, tidy environment that mimics the real world. </p>
<p>Again, we are handicapping the troops by holding them to such a high bureaucratic standard. I’ve heard that many times they travel under fire, but refuse to return fire (and defend themselves) because for every bullet fired, they must fill out reams of paperwork upon their return to base. </p>
<p>Frankly, I’m concerned about our survival. Whether we inspire love and respect in the hearts of everyone else in the world is a worthy goal, but not as paramount.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>LOL. Not true.</p>
<p>This is a big story here in Toronto, and has been for several years. People have different opinions, and there is a lot of pressure on the Prime Minister to urge Bush to release him into Canada’s custody. Regardless of whether or not this 15 year old boy can be legitimately considered a terrorist, the fact remains that he has been held for six years, with no resolution in sight. The foreign affairs official who visited him and was involved in the CSIS interrogations, was told that Khadr had been subjected to sleep deprivation, better known as the “frequent flyer program” prior to these interrogation meetings. He had not been allowed to sleep more than three hours at a time for 21 days. There have been varying reports about whether or not he threw the grenade that killed a U.S. soldier. Yes, he was rescued, and yes, he was treated, but this was after he was shot twice. As I said, I don’t know if he’s guilty, but it’s been six years. How much longer is it necessary to wait to determine when he’ll be tried?</p>
<p>More likely the NCO must fill out a battle report. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, detained, and held until it’s convenient to move them.</p>
<p>This boy is already in friendly territory. The troops won’t be inconvenienced if the boy is presented and tried. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s possibly why we’re unable to make any effective arrests. </p>
<p>CSI work is only required to collect evidence for murder if the act was covert – the perpetrator disappears, etc. </p>
<p>And detainment without the military having some form of evidence (beyond mere suspicion) that “person at site == instigator” is dangerous, and leads to the undermining of the rule of law we are trying to establish. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I cannot imagine that investigation ultimately leads to the capture of more insurgents – that is, if the suspicion is true. </p>
<p>The boy is accused. Present the evidence and try him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“It is better to be feared than loved.” – Machiavelli </p>
<p>But fear and respect cannot even be inspired if there is no consistency to the application of the rule of law. I’m sure you must know the Fable of the Wind, Sun and the Traveller’s Cloak. Rule of law encourages support for the occupation … since rule of law is supposed to be the ultimate goal anyway. Rule of law is not a luxury, it is a necessity, and removes the incentives for resistance…</p>
<p>How much longer–until he is no longer a threat. That might be a few years.</p>
<p>And who is to determine that?</p>
<p>Why don’t we do the same internally? We should make mass detainments of youths (the most “dangerous” period of life) until they are no longer a threat.</p>
<p>The social benefit of Justice doesn’t change depending on which individual you apply it on. Ultimately it is not individuals who benefit from rule of law – it is society. The fact that we don’t establish the same social contract everywhere is why we continue to find increased resistance to our presence.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>galoisien, I can appreciate your sincerity, but really, I thought the reason they don’t like us and want us dead is because we don’t practice their social contract, as in we’re not Muslim.</p>
<p>That’s why the faction leaders hate us, not why the factions find support…</p>
<p>The fight is as much political as it is religious – note how the mujahadeens fought each other following the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. Often not over religious doctrine, but just who was to control the city. Just look at the name of the ultimate victor the Taliban – “students”. They enjoyed the popular support that lead to the ousting of all other mujahadeen groups from Kabul because unlike the other groups, they set out to implement a rule of law and had a theory (no matter how “crackpot”) behind it. </p>
<p>You find that extremism does not reign in Muslim countries with real rule of law. (The Saudi monarchy is not an example of rule of law, as Locke himself would have analysed.) </p>
<p>If you follow Iraqi blogs (some of them written by school-aged adolescents), you will find that that most of the resentment is not due to anything related to religion, but due to perceived insensitivity and inaction. Differences in religion help facilitate an existing alienation. I can’t link to them here, unfortunately…</p>
<p>The treatment of these prisoners will do our country more harm in the long run than they would do if released, even if they do return to their factions. They would just be a few more armed people who hate us among thousands. I have never bought this idea that they are neither POWs nor criminals, but some vague other category that lets us treat them however we want. It’s so un-American that it amazes me that so many Americans accept it.</p>
<p>Hunt, you are looking at this through western values. To the radicals fairness and the rule of law are just weaknesses to be exploited. Read some of the stories on the current trial of the “liquid” bombers that were caught before they could execute their plans. They are using the legal system to great advantage. Our laws were made for robbers and common murderers, not for organized death squads.</p>
<p>I like Western values, and especially Judeo-Christian ones. I’m not ready to give them up.</p>
<p>Agree with Hunt. Let’s practice and uphold our values–I believe they define us.</p>
<p>Captured enemy combatants are typically held until the war is over. This is what’s been done by every side in every war (except for those sides that just kill those they capture). Captured enemy combatants aren’t each individually given a trial and to attempt to do so wouldn’t be possible. Imagine giving trials to each of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of captured enemy while the action was still taking place. Why are people surprised that he’s still being held?</p>