Talk:Omar Khadr

Photos

Since it seems to be "common" this week for people to just start deleting photos claiming the article is littered, I'd appreciate having a formal conversation first about which, if any, photos should be cut out. From my point of view, I would assume it is one of the "childhood" photos that should be cut; but which? Him with his mother helps keep a fact in caption and out of prose, as does him as a young child. Him at the zoo is at a notable Toronto location, so that leaves the image of his mother and siblings; should it be the obvious choice to cut? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't deleted any pictures, but I'll say that I always thought some of the non-Khadr photos were out of place for an encyclopedia.

I'd get rid of every photo that doesn't have Khadr with the exception of the two photos of demonstrators. They're Khadr-related. Offbeat demonstrators are always fun to look at anyway.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, if you want offbeat, check the Commons gallery; they get way sketchier. I think the photographs of the firefight are obviously notable, even if OK isn't explicitly in each image. Here's a question, could we combine the two images of Davis and Borch into a single image to save some space/eyesore? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it could be that significant an improvement to be worth your time.

If you like the pictures that much, then leave them. They seem excessive to me but they don't ruin my day.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As you know, I support articles of this sort, but I think some of the pictures are altogether excessive--and I'm surprised it remains a GA with them present. for example, I would remove all but one of the childhood pictures--thee is nothing particularly notable about his childhood, nor is this a place to put in pictures to illustrate the zoo. As for the later ones, I cannot see how the formal portrait of Cirino is particularly relevant. As for the generic Guantanamo pictures not showing him, its not obvious to me they belong in every relevant article, tho in a major developed one like this they make sense. DGG (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The pictures are clear propaganda, we're supposed to get the idea that this is a tiny child (see pics of him visiting zoo, etc.) and the big bad military men (see pics of military man in full uniform) came and took him from his mother's arms as he was barely even weaned. A couple of the pictures further down the page show him at the age of the incident which makes him notable, one of these should be the headline image - either "handling explosives" ("preparing explosive devices" appears more accurate) or "appears on video". Definitely not a GA. 91.108.152.139 (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW AKA

This document says Omar Khadr is also known as Akhbar Farhad, Akhbar Farnad, and Ahmed Muhammed Khali.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, those names seem to have slipped through the cracks. I'll try to poke around this week and find out the story behind when he is alleged to have used the names and such. I think a prior discussion suggested "Khali" was a misreading of a handwritten "Khadr" - and agian, the first two suggest different soldiers reading the same handwritten notation - but still, that's a discrepency not related to his actual name, so I'd be curious to see why/when he usd "Akhbar" or "Muhammad" in his names. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 00:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is that he may have been misidentified in the beginning, while unconscious, and then every legal document needed to list those AKAs.

That seems like a stretch. There isn't much else that makes sense to me. It is interesting, though.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason why he has those names is because the majority of practicing Muslims have some variation of the many names of Allah embedded in their own name. They are rarely used informally, but with regards to a birth certificate, they are there. Besides, what does it matter what his entire name is?

"Khali" isn't even a name, it's clearly a misreading of "Khadr", and the same story with "Farhad" and "Farnad", but it still leaves the question of where "Akbar Farhad" originated, which is not on his birth certificate, nor is any variation of "Muhammad", the names aren't known to his family, nor is it seemingly explained by any of the public evidence. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Broken links

Some of the links to the reference sources get out-of-date in a period of time. I don't know what to do about it. I've been thinking about replacing them with links at InternetArchive, but unfortunately you can't find those missing articles there either.

Thanks, "usual" policy is to just leave them be - or remove the URLs and leave the names of the articles, similar to offline sources. But I'd love to find a compromise that doesn't mean linking to "illegal" mirror sites -- I'll dig around and see what I can find. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Is is really illegal? I would have never thought is was illegal. Thanks for letting me know! Ahnode (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, when somebody hosts a copy of a CNN, Toronto Star or similar article on their own website or forums, it's useful for us to use the information in it -- but we can't then link to that copy, because it infringes on the media outlet's copyright -- they like to make money by making people pay $10 to view their archives, and we can't really be a part of helping people "get around that"...at least not officially ;) I think a case could at least be made for including those links on the talk page though. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

List of broken links

• Ref #45 - FOX News, U.S. Troops Discover Weapons Cache in Afghanistan, July 29, 2002
  • http://www.suite-101.com/discussion.cfm/investing/68672/673309 Mirror of article, do NOT add to OK's text - as it is a copyright violation and only included here to let readers scour it for information. (remove the - between suite and 101 in url) Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
• Ref #52 - Amnesty International, Case File 14: Omar Khadr Replaced it with a new one. --Ahnode (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
• Ref #70 - ".K. v. Bush, 377 F. Supp. 2d 102; 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13758 at 3," No link specified. I've found two possible sources, first document from the Eminent Jurists Panel and another one from University of Toronto, Faculty of Law. Both aren't the specific document, but provide some information on it. Shall we link to them or not? Cause otherwise it doesn't ring a bell. --Ahnode (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how that reference got in, but the "Welcome to Israel" bit is easily sourced to Rolling Stone, who in turn got it from s:Affidavit of Omar Ahmed Khadr; point 34. So we can just change its reference point to the affidavit. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Child Soldier and UN Law

Since Khadr was 15 at the time of the offence isn't he considered a child soldier? And if so doesn't the UN say that child soldiers are not to be held responsible for war crimes? This needs to be looked into to add to the page. RiseAgainst01 (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

He cannot be a child soldier unless he was a soldier. Unlawful combatants aren't soldiers. He's more like a gang member.

Technically, the age for real child soldiers is under 15 anyway.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You're misreading the law technically, state parties shall not allow children under 15 to join their armed forces, but older children are still child soldiers and to be treated as such if captured -- regardless of whether they were attached to a state party, or a militia force such as the Revolutionary United Front. Most child soldiers who have been internationally recognised as child soldiers were member of militias, militant groups and uprisings, not state parties. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's go with that then. These treaties still don't excuse a 15 year-old for his crimes.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What crimes, since when was Afghanistan part of the US and subject to US law? Killing invading soldiers is hardly a crime. 76.99.24.228 (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a crime if he's a lawful combatant defending his country. Khadr wasn't doing that.

Khadr is a Canadian, and the Taliban wasn't a country anyway.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So is "Taliban", the defacto rulers of Afghanistan, or Afghanistan a US state or territory and thus subject to US law? 76.99.24.228 (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Lawful, by US law? Declared "unlawful" by a former US leader? Since when is US law relevant outside the US? 76.99.24.228 (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The Taliban were never recognized by the U.S. or the U.N. as Afghanistan's legitimate government. According to the Taliban article, they "gained diplomatic recognition from only three states: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates."

So, I suppose your POV might be understandable if you're from one of those three countries. Otherwise, perhaps you should have petitioned your government to make that recognition back in the '90s. (It would have been interesting, as that wouldn't have been a popular thing to do back then.)

Or, you could have asked the Taliban to respect the laws of war. (That's not a popular thing to do now either, sadly.)

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate here, and I don't mean to take a side, but wouldn't the extension of this imply that it is unlawful for anyone to take up arms in defense of their country if the international community doesn't recognize it? In that case, if China invaded Taiwan (which the majority of the world does not recognize as having sovereignty over its territory), the Taiwanese would have no right to shoot Chinese soldiers, and the US would be wrong to support the Taiwanese. The soldiers of the Confederacy would have had no right to take up arms for their side (whether or not they had the legal right, you suggest that they had no right at all). During the Revolution, before any nation recognized the US as a state, would the British have had the right (legal and moral) to try anyone who fought for independence? The legal view of this should not be hypocritical. --Nucleusboy (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Taliban was not a state. But Afghanistan was. Afghanistan did sign the Geneva Conventions. And so wouldn't ordinary Afghans have been entitled to fight back against invaders -- even if they were misguided to do so? And, if they carried their weapons openly, and didn't commit war crimes, wouldn't they have been lawful combatants?

It is absolutely correct that every Taliban fighter should have fully complied with the Geneva Conventions. I would fully support trying every Taliban fighter for whom there is evidence that would stand up in a real court that they committed a war crime, ordered a war crime, or covered up a war crime. But we don't normally hold soldiers responsible for war crimes committed by other soldiers, when they didn't order the war crime, or didn't cover it up. I would fully support trying every Taliban fighter who committed a war crime and every fighter in the Hezbe Islami Gulbuddin, who was involved in a war crime. But just like we don't hold every American GI for the war crimes committed by the very small handful of GIs known to have committed a war crime, can we hold Afghan fighters responsible for war crimes they didn't actually commit?

I know Omar Khadr wasn't an Afghan citizen, at least as far as we know. But he had lived there for something like half his life. Geo Swan (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how it would apply to ordinary Afghans. That's an interesting point.

But Khadr's father wasn't an ordinary Afghan. I would guess the U.S. position on that to be that Omar Khadr was fighting for Al Qaeda, and not for Afghanistan or their village. That makes it a crime.

My understanding is that SCOTUS hasn't ever ruled on whether Taliban soldiers could be POWs. I'm not completely clear on this now but I think the U.S. position (even before Hamdan) was that they would get Common Article 3 treatment, but not as POWs.

In the U.S. Civil War, the North did recognize the South, not as a country but as a "belligerent". That was a good thing, as it gives honorable generals a reason to stay honorable. There's no reason to hope the Taliban could be influenced in such a way, but Taiwan certainly would.

GCIII does make allowances for non-recognized belligerents. The ICRC clarifies it by saying, "It is also necessary that this authority, which is not recognized by the adversary, should either consider itself as representing one of the High Contracting Parties, or declare that it accepts the obligations stipulated in the Convention and wishes to apply them."

That should work fine for Taiwan.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

evidence of torture?

I transcribed a passage from Chief Prosecutor Lawrence Morris from the Terrence McKenna/Nazim Baksh documentary US v. Omar Khadr:

Terrence McKenna:	Has the United States tortured detainees here in Guantanamo?
Lawrence Morris:	No.
Terrence McKenna:	How can you say that?
Lawrence Morris:	I can say that to the best of my knowledge. I mean really, I don't want to be over-stating it, because my job is to speak as a Prosecutor. and not otherwise to get into to military policy. I can tell you with total certainty that we will not introduce evidence of torture, in any case... any evidence obtained through torture in any case.

Anyone who listens to this section him or herself will hear a very definite pregnant pause after he said, "we will not introduce evidence of torture, in any case".

Does this quote deserve coverage in this article? Geo Swan (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That looks to me more like he genuinely misspoke, and then recognized how it sounded.

Freud might find it funny, but I don't see it as a real sign that anything like torture was used. Even if it had been used, the prosecutor certainly would never have been told about it. As an officer of the military court, that would obligate him to prosecute the interrogators.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, on the one hand, Darrel Vandeveld's affidavit said he didn't believe Mohammed Jawad had been tortured. It took him a long time to come to that conclusion. The evidence that Jawad was subjected to long periods of sleep deprivation -- the "frequent flyer program" -- two months after that technique was officially proscribed, seems to be the clincher.

On the other hand Morris Davis, the third Chief Prosecutor, the one prior to Lawrence Morris, seemed well aware that captives had been subjected to extended interrogation methods. This was the trigger between the enormous policy conflict between M. Davis and Thomas Hartmann. Geo Swan (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think CBC was being a bit "tongue in cheek" including the misstatement, but I think Morris was doing a good job of looking creepy and evil, and his accidental slip-up helped solidify that. It was nice to see CBC using propaganda against somebody with a non-Arab name for once, but I think it really was just a slip of the tongue. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 00:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, while I personally strongly suspect, he accidentally revealed his true plan, the two of you don't concur, so I will drop it.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous edits from Guantanamo...

An edit was made here by a DoD IP address, User:130.22.190.5: [1]. An adjacent IP address, User:130.22.190.10 just said he was a current Guantanamo guard, so I believe these edits were also made by someone at Guantanamo.

I'd like to ask, generally, for good faith editors from the DoD to identify themselves as such.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)