Talk:Omar Khadr

Partial revert

Today, the day of Omar's appearance before the Supreme Court, there has been a minor editwar over whether to include the percentage of Canadians who support his return to Canada or the (lower) percentage of Canadians who support him being prosecuted in a Canadian trial. I have opted to keep the former in the lede ,and moved the latter percentage to Canadian response to Omar Khadr as it seems tertiary as all motions are towards bringing him into the country; regardless of whether he is put on trial or not. This number seems more intellectually honest, than reducing the number by 20% to simply say it's the number who support bringing him back to Canada for a trial. It's comparing apples and oranges, otherwise. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if there where I should add this note, but why is an old photo of Khadr being displayed with such prominence? He's a 23-year-old man, now, and there is a well-circulated public image circulating of him on Canadian media sources. There is an intentional vibe within this article that is supportive of Khadr (generally speaking), and the old photo of Khadr as a fifteen-year-old clearly plays into this vibe to garner some sort of sympathy. Update the photo or don't use a photo at all. If one cannot see this obvious problem, consider using old photos of other infamous/prominent folks of when they were children. It's inaccurate and doesn't give the audience a sense of who the person currently is. Cheers to the bleeding hearts in here, I know you mean well. - random news junkie 02/05/10

Generally when the notability of a subject is when they were a child, we use the image of them at the time they were notable. Consider the case of Mary Ann Vecchio; which should be more prominent, the photo of her as a 14-year old runaway, or the later photos of her as a 40-year old minimum wage employee thirty years after her notability? In addition, the later photos of Khadr appear to be copyrighted by the Toronto Star so we can't really use them when we have so many free-use images, and he's still a living person. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 09:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make a lot of sense in this case. Khadr's notability isn't lessened right now. His photo should be updated to reflect what he looks like now, and his current appearance is clearly less likely to invoke the sympathies that Khadr apologists are clearly trying to bring about. This story is still ongoing. It's understandable if the recent image of him isn't public property, but let's stop the dishonesty that somehow the image of him when he was 15 is somehow more appropriate and not explicitly done to garner sympathy for him.

Khadr is only notable now because of what he did then. It's like saying we should have a photograph of an aged Stephen Truscott instead of him as a child at the time he was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment. His "current appearance" (what, that he has a beard?) has no bearing on the details of the case - which is that of a 15-year old who threw a grenade that killed a Special Forces soldier. But the point is moot, as the image you want to include is copyright by the Toronto Star - who seems to print a very large TORONTO STAR over the image as a watermark every time they use it...so I'm guessing they're of the mindset to pursue legal action against those who misuse it. As it doesn't fit the narrow definitions of Fair Use, the article must go without it. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I see your concerns (is it "random news junkie"?), please sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ), but I agree with Sherurcij's reasoning and support the original photo. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Intro too long template

User:Sherurcij: removing the two temples I placed on this page was uncalled for as they were only posted recently. Per WP:LEAD an intro should be no longer than four paragraphs the intro to this article is double that--there is not room for discussion on this it should be changed. This article is un-encyclopedic in the unnecessary details it mentions which contribute nothing to the article. Supertouch (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

When placing such hatnotes which say "Refer to the talkpage for the discussion", it is imperative that they have been mentioned on the talkpage. I'm not saying your complaints aren't legitimate, just that they need to be on the talkpage - you can't add hatnotes with no arena for dispute. Per the lead, I tend to agree it is too long; information needs to be condensed or moved. Per your interpretation of what merits "contributing something", I'd have to point at every biography on the project - take George W. Bush for the usual example; does it add anything to an encyclopaedia to mention "Bush was a keen rugby union player"? No, but as long as Bush was a 'good' guy, people support including it...if he were a 'bad' guy, people oppose including it claiming it whitewashes the fact the subject was a terrible human being and the fact he played rugby was irrelevant. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 06:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court of Canada ruling

This section does not seem to take into account the fact that this week the Canadian Supreme Court overturned an earlier court's ruling that stated that the government is in some way legally obligated to seek Mr Khadr's repatriation to Canada. Mardiste (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Believe we should add that information to the article. RomaC (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, glad to see somebody did it. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

First, the link the the decision is dead and should be replaced. Canlii is an accepted free online source for Canadian jurisprudence and the dead link should be replaced with this one, and should be properly cited: http://www.canlii.com/en/ca/scc/doc/2010/2010scc3/2010scc3.html [2010] 1 S.C.R. 44

Second, it would be inappropriate to describe the supreme court decision as "overturning" the FCA decision. The government's appeal was allowed in part. In summary, the lower courts found that Khadr's rights had been constitutionally violated AND that the government had a legal obligation to demand his repatriation to Canada. The Supreme Court agreed his constitutional rights had been violated, but left it to the government to determine the appropriate remedy. The key finding is that Khadr's rights were constitutionally violated, and this finding was upheld at all levels. The fact that the SCC wouldn't order a specific remedy is not highly relevant to the constitutional question, and the fact that the government has made no attempt to remedy the constitutional breach identified is a subsequent political question and not related to the judgment. It should be discussed, but in the appropriate place -Gavin (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dead reference

The heavily cited reference "Jeff Tietz (2006-08-10). "The Unending Torture of Omar Khadr". Rolling Stone." appears to be simply redirecting to the rolling stone homepage. Freikorp (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

unexplained explained edits

Another contributor made what seem to me to be poorly explained edits.

• In this edit they removed Category:Canadian extrajudicial prisoners of the United States. This category is one of several dozen that have been in use for years. I don't remember any recent challenges to these categories. Now maybe there is a valid reason for its excision -- but I am very concerned that the contributor in question hasn't offered any explanation.

• In this edit they removed Category:Canadian Islamists, again, with no explanation.

I hope the contributor who excised these categories will explain themselves. Geo Swan (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You personal think these two categories belong into the article? IQinn (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am in absolutely no doubt that Omar Khadr belongs in Category:Canadian extrajudicial prisoners of the United States. Other good faith contributors first created Category:Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States, and some other related categories. Other good faith contributors later re-organized Category:Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States into categories for each nationality. You are completely free to think that categories like Category:NationX extrajudicial prisoners of the United States are not a good idea. You are completely free to think that there is some reason why Omar Khadr should not be a member of Category:Canadian extrajudicial prisoners of the United States. But I really don't think you are complying with your obligation to participate in the wikipedia in a collegial manner to simply remove Category:Canadian extrajudicial prisoners of the United States without explanation.
• WRT to Category:Canadian Islamists -- I am not so sure if Omar Khadr belongs in this category. I didn't create this category either. And I haven't added any articles to it. "Islamists" is not a clearly defined term. Since you brought it up, it might be a term too subjective to be useful as the name of a category. If we were discussing this category, in general, I would ask whether individuals should only be included in it if we could document that they self-described themselves as "Islamists", as adults. But, I would not simply remove a category, without explanation, because I recognize I don't own the articles I work on. I recognize that a category might seem out of place, but, those who placed it might offer convincing arguments as to why it belonged, if I tried to voice my concerns to them. Alternately, they might recognize the validity of some of my concerns, and agree to changing the name of the category, giving it a tighter focus, or some other compromise that left both of us happy.

  When good faith collegial contributors engage in a real, respectful discussion, they sometimes reach compromises that leave both sides thinking that the compromise is an improvement.

  If you decide to voice your concerns about Category:Canadian Islamists, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, I'll go on record with my own concerns. Geo Swan (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Omar_Khadr has been charged with war crimes and is therefore not in extrajudicial detention. Extrajudicial detention is also not well defined. The article extrajudicial detention was written from user Geo Swan and does not provide any source nor can i find reliable secondary sources that could give us direction how to use this term.

• Correct me if you think i am wrong. Nobody can think of a good argument why Omar Khadr should be labeled with the Category:Canadian Islamists. Nor can i so that the removal of this category should be seen as a good idea. IQinn (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Omar Khadr has spent something like eight years in Guantanamo. For the first three years he was held there, without charge. He was charged late in the fall of 2005. And then the SCOTUS ruled that the executive branch lacked the constitutional authority to set up military commissions. So he spent about 10 months of his first 50 months under charge. At that point I would argue he belonged in both the extrajudicial detention category and in the persons charged category. I do not think he should be dropped from the person's charged category because the charges had gone away. After the passage of the Military Commissions Act he was charged, a second time. I do not think he should be dropped from the extrajudicial detention category every time he is charged. In June 2007 the Presiding Officer of his Commission ruled the Office of Military Commissions lacked jurisdiction to charge Khadr, since Khadr was only an "enemy combatant", and the Military Commissions Act only authorized charging "illegal enemy combatants". Just as we should continue to recognize that OJ Simpson was a murder suspect, just as Omar Khadr's years of extrajudicial detention should be acknowledged, and just as the war crimes he was charged with should be acknowledged, even when those charges have been dropped. Geo Swan (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• As said the term "extrajudicial detention" is not well defined nor well supported by sources. The article extrajudicial detention was written by User:Geo Swan and does not provide any source nor can i find reliable secondary sources that could give us direction how to use this term. The article extrajudicial detention does not mention "enemy combatant" nor "illegal enemy combatants". No problem to make things absolute clear but the use of "extrajudicial detention" does not make things clear and is not well supported by the sources. IQinn (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

2) You personal think that the category "People indicted for war crimes" does not belong into the article? IQinn (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Initially, I had doubts as to whether Khadr belonged in this category, and was considering saying so. But first I did some google searches, and decided inclding Khadr in this category was defensible. That is why I didn't challenge it. Geo Swan (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Correct me if i am wrong. You think the category apply but you complained because i did not personally explain to you why i added a category to one of the articles in the field you work. I am sorry but that reminds me a bit on WP:Ownership. IQinn (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, you are wrong. You are dreadfully wrong to keep inappropriately accusing good faith contributors of WP:Ownership simply because they don't agree with you. I didn't start Category:Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States or most of the Category:NationX extrajudicial prisoners of the United States. Almost all the work of creating those categories, and of populating them, was done by other good faith contributors.
  • Please understand that all contributors have an obligation to offer a good faith explanation in response to good faith concerns. Even Jimbo Wales is under this obligation. I am under this obligation, and so are you. I feel strongly you should not continue your routine practice if blowing off good faith contributors' policy-based good faith concerns through accusations of "ownership", "filibustering" or "gaming ths system". Geo Swan (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I think you got a bit off topic this part concerns the category "People indicted for war crimes" and i repeat nobody needs any prior approval from you when editing the article and nobody needs to give you explanation for their edits specially when you do not can raise valid arguments against these edits as here. "People indicted for war crimes" fully applies to the article and it was a good idea that i added this category. Please more careful you have repeatedly shows extensive signs of WP:Ownership and you should listen to the community and stop this disruptive behavior. IQinn (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
      • No good faith contributor has an obligation get anyone else's prior approval for good faith edits. IMO Good faith contributors are well advised to seek input, in advance, when they recognize that the edits they are considering are tricky, are controversial, or would require much more effort to undo as they require to do. Good faith contributors recognize that they have to explain themselves, as you did not do in this edit or this edit. Good faith contributors recognize that they do have an obligation to offer a good faith explanation when other good faith contributors raise good faith questions and concerns. What can happen when good faith contributors make the effort to offer other good faith contributors good faith answers? Sometimes someone changes their mind. Sometimes, while drafting an answer, someone will realize their questioner has a valid point, and they will instead own up to being convinced. Sometimes it is the questioner, who realizes the fuller answer satisfies all their concerns. And sometimes both parties will agree to a compromise that they both agree is superior to the original wording. None of this happens when contributors instead state or imply those who have questions or concerns about their edits of acting in bad faith.
      • WRT your request that I be more careful. No one has stated Khadr shouldn't be included in a category for those charged or indicted. I explicitly said in several of my comments that he should be included in a category for those charged or indicted, even during the periods when the charges have been dropped. Perhaps you are the one who needs to be more careful?
      • WRT my ownership of this article. I did start this article, five and a half years ago. Since then it has had 2000 edits. I just did a rough check of those 2000 edits and I would guess I made less than 5 percent of those edits. So, why the accusation of ownership? Geo Swan (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Your comment shows that you still do not have read or do not understand WP:Ownership as it has absolutely nothing to do with the number of edits someone does to an article. Please read the policy and act accordingly. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Geo Swan is fully within his rights to ask for an explanation of a change to the article which does not seem obviously correct, as are you and I. That is not equivalent to asserting 'ownership', and suggesting it is degrades the good faith between editors on this article. Nothing in what I have read above suggests that Geo Swan expects to be consulted in advance about article changes and it is not helpful to accuse him of doing that. --Saforrest (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

third paragraph

"In 2009, it was revealed that the government had spent over $1.3 million to ensure Khadr remained in Guantanamo" which government? Canada's? America's? sentence is unclear and ref #14 is dead --dannycas (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Without checking this specific passage in the article I can tell you that the cost of maintaining the remaining Guantanamo captives has topped over a million dollars each. Recent articles have reported that the cost of base expansions to house, feed and entertain the guards and interrogators was over $500 million. Camp five and camp six cost about $50 million each. IIRC the food served to the captives is budgeted at $100 per day. Possibly feeding the 6,000 guards and interrogators is budgeted out at a comparable amount. Yes -- the amount of personnel at the base tripled when the camp was opened. Most US prisons have a prisoner to guard ratio of ten to one or twenty to one. In Guantanamo it is the other way around. When President Bush wanted to supply the General in Iraq with a "surge" of additional troops he was able to scrape together no more than three brigades. The 6,000 GIs guarding and interrogating the captives at Guantanamo would have constituted a fourth brigade. So, what does your basic GI get paid? $30K per year? If twenty GIs guarded and interrogated Khadr, for seven years, what does that add up to? Add on top the presumably greater salaries of his prosecutors. It wouldn't surprise me if the US government hadn't spent tens of millions on Khadr alone. Geo Swan (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

heavily biased introduction

The introduction is very accusative against Canadian government, and fail to underline :

1. the link between Khadr's familly and Al Kaida : the father being a riend and financial support of Bin Ladden.
2. the fact Omar was voluntarly in this place
3. the fact (picture) he was involve in explosive manipulation,
4. he was not "acting under coercion", a part of the definition of Child soldiers.

The introduction say a lot about Guantanamo / Canada. It should talk both about his acquaintance with Al Kaida's rhetoric, and physical support to military preparations, and later capture, Guantanamo experience, and legal debate over his status. Yug (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Responding to your arguments point-by-point:

1. The deep connections between the Khadr family and Al-Qaeda are explained quite fully in the Khadr family article which is the very first link in the article. I see no point in summarizing them yet again in the introduction here.
2. What evidence do you have that Khadr was voluntarily in that place, either in Afghanistan or in the compound? It's not obvious to me that any of us have sufficient information to produce a verifiable summary of just how much free will Khadr could exert at that point (and that age).
3. The article directly mentions the video in which Khadr appears manufacturing the explosives. It's not obvious to me why this detail needs mention in the introduction more than, say, his torture allegations which are also not mentioned there.
4. This is essentially a repeat of your point #2.

To your last point, what can we really say about his acquaintance with Al-Qaeda's rhetoric and military role? Obviously he was exposed to their ideology given what his family was, but I'm sure a lot of that happened in private conversations which have not been recorded. The nature of his military role is also hotly debated and I'm not sure how much we can objectively say about that, beyond what's on the videotape.

I appreciate the point which I think you were hinting at that his Canadian birth is fundamentally not terribly relevant to the question of his guilt, but it is of huge importance in the legal implications of his detention and the attention paid to this story. --Saforrest (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Canadian citizenship (3/4 → ≤1/4 ): In the same argumentative way than your point 1, the Canadian citizenship and legal consequences are well explain in the article, I don't understand why it occupy 3/4 of the introduction. It should occupy just 1/4.

Ideology, Accusation & Importance (0/4 → 1/4): In the other side (Accusation), which is currently state but almost not explain, I do think that his family ideology, the importance of his family -which may explain why the US want to keep him-, his own ideological involvement, and accusations against him should occupy 1/4.

Childsoldier & legal status (few → 1/4): This point is for me more important than the citizenship. His status as child soldier, and the strangeness of the case should occupy from 2 lines to → 1/4 (shorter simply because simpler to explain than the citizenship story).

Again: 3/4 on the Canadian citizenship and passivity is... an heavy biases. This is not acceptable on wikipedia. Yug (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that calling Omar Khadr a "war criminal" is a violation of Neutral Point of View, given his youth and the fact that he was not observed doing anything belligerent. Even the U.S. military witness who initially said that Khadr had been making bombs later admitted that he could not identify the person in the picture for sure. We also have the testimony of a doctor that he was shackled with his arms over his head for hours. Any 'plea bargain' is not necessarily an admission of guilt. --Monado (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree and changed it to neutral.

Omar Ahmed Khadr (Arabic: عمر أحمد خضر; born September 19, 1986) is a Canadian and former child soldier convicted of war crimes under the United States Military Commissions Act of 2009, including murder in violation of the law of war and providing material support for terrorism.

-- DragonGirl2012 (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how calling someone who was "convicted of war crimes" a "war crimina" is somehow a violation of a neutral point of view. This seems to either be splitting hairs, or a weird POV that's in denial about a war crime convict being a 'war criminal' --Львівське (говорити) 03:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to: "convicted of war crimes under the United States Military Commissions Act of 2009, including murder in violation of the law of war and providing material support for terrorism. That's what it is. He was convicted in an controversial venue under controversial circumstances and under a controversial law. That says it all without the controversial label. Let the facts speak for themselves without labels.

Nobody seems to be in denial here. "war crime convict being a 'war criminal' Splitting hairs? I do not think so. If you believe there is not much of a different in the old and new version why can you not accept the suggested version that i and maybe other think is a bit more NPOV? DragonGirl2012 (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Emphasizing this alleged 'controversy' seems to be a POV push here. Like you said, let the facts speak for themselves. --Львівське (говорити) 14:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I just thought it read awkwardly. It is splitting hairs though, "he's not a war criminal, he's just convicted of war crimes!"--Львівське (говорити) 14:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone convicted of war crimes could be falsely convicted, especially as people who are tortured, stressed, and interrogated for years can become unsure of what is really true and incorporate interrogators' suggestions into their memories. As this is an article about a living person, it is better to err on the side of stating facts. I for one find "war criminal" to be loaded language. Let's leave it as "convicted." If, as you say, the descriptions are equivalent, you should be satisfied that accuracy has been maintained. --Monado (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Shall we change all articles about those convicted at Nuremburg then to show that they aren't war criminals, but simply convicted of the crimes. Adolph Eichmann's article as well. --24.202.1.112 (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

explanation

I reverted the edit with the edit summary: "This was removed as unsourced, but this has been widely reported (ex. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67B01720100812). I just don't know how to put that in."

I believe the contributor who made this edit has misread the Reuters article. The Reuters article did not say Omar Khadr was a "self-confessed al Qaeda terrorist". The Reuters article says Khadr's Prosecutors allege Khadr confessed to being a terrorist.

I regard this as an important distinction. Repeating the Prosecutions allegations, as if it were an established fact, is a serious lapse from WP:NPOV. Geo Swan (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The quote, reported by many news organizations, is "I am a terrorist, trained by Al Qaeda", attributed to Omar Khadr by Prosecutor Jeff Groharing. The Calgary Herald, for example, reports it as:

"I am a terrorist trained by al-Qaida — those are Omar Khadr's own words," Groharing told the seven U.S. military officers on the jury. "Those words were confirmed by his acts." (see: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/terrorist+Canadian+Omar+Khadr+allegedly+told+interrogators/3390566/story.html)

I am not aware of any direct evidence that Khadr said these words, but given that Groharing attributed this statement to Khadr in court (where, presumably, Gorharing could be punished for perjury), I find the account reliable. And given that, a "self-confessed Al Qaeda terrorist" is an accurate description.99.237.122.105 (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just how far do we take that? Surely not every utterance by a lawyer in court should be seen as reliable. For that matter I don't know if a lawyer engaged merely in representing a client in court is liable for perjury in the same way a witness on the stand is.

Anyway, I understand that a confession by Khadr does exist made while he was in American custody, which has been referenced repeatedly by prosecutors. I'm not familiar with the exact text but I assume he must be confessing to something which amounts to terrorism on al-Qaeda's behalf.

However, the issue with this confession is not whether it exists but whether it was obtained through torture, which leads to various questions about its legitimacy and truth.

Presenting quotations or summaries from this confession without any caveat (i.e. that Khadr's defence alleges that the confession itself is illegitimate) would be quite misleading. --Saforrest (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Groharing, like many of the other Guantanamo prosecutors, routinely makes assertions that are demonstrably untrue. Morris Davis, for instance, claimed Khadr should be grateful, because American medics "stepped over Speer's dying body, in order to treat Khadr's wounds". The statements from all the GIs present on the scene at the time are quite clear. As anyone might have expected, the medics treated Speer first.
• It is verifiable the prosecutors made these assertions. So they belong in the article -- properly attributed. They should not, however, be repeated as established facts that do not require attributions. Geo Swan (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that most people reading the first sentence, that Khadr was convicted of "war crimes and terrorism", would assume the charges against him were what most people would normally think of as war crimes, i.e. violations of the international laws of war, and what most people would normally think of as some act of terrorism, i.e. targeting civilians, which is also a war crime under international law. But this is not evident from the charges and has been a matter of major controversy among legal experts, even Guantanamo military judges, for years. It would be appropriate to add a statement that these charges were controversial among legal experts. This statement could be followed by links to eight references illustrating the controversy, and both sides to the extent I could find both sides, as follows:

1. the formal charges at the DOD web site - Omar Khadr. This includes the charges plus all the trial documents. http://www.defense.gov/news/commissionsKhadr.html

2. An article by Lt Col (ret.) David Frakt. This explains the legal controversy about the charges and why there is one, including history, and decisions by military judges. Frakt made a presentation to Congress on this issue. The issue is about whether the charges constitute war crimes (including terrorism) under international law, and if not, under what law are they war crimes? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-frakt/new-manual-for-military-c_b_557720.html

3. A paper by John Dehn, a law professor at West Point. His article discusses another case, arguing that the Guantanamo war crimes charges are actually charges under US common law, that the Military Commissions have jurisdiction, but he leaves the question of applying this domestic law in a foreign country to a future article. http://jicj.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/1/63.full

4. A paper by David Glazier, a former military officer and a law professor. His paper deals with each charge, arguing that none are violations of international law of war (war crimes) and he addresses the US common law issue also. He argues that the commissions did not have jurisdiction. Glazier notes that there was the option of trying Khadr in civilian court, assuming jurisdiction in a foreign country. (Glazier doesn't address the age issue, but perhaps a civilian court would not have ignored the "Child Soldier" law, which the military judge said was superseded by the Military Commissions Act.) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1669946

5. Glazier was part of Congressional panel of law professors. Khadr was essentially charged with "war crimes" for fighting the US military while not being a uniformed soldier, in a foreign country where he resided for many years. This could come back to haunt the US because, for example, CIA drone operators don't wear uniforms either. http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2010/04/30/law-prof-david-glazier-cia-drone-pilots-could-be-tried-for-%E2%80%98war-crimes%E2%80%99/

6. The US "war crimes" charge of fighting without a uniform is, at least, hypocritical. The US sometimes partners with non-uniformed fighters. It supported people like Khadr's father when they fought the Russians in Afghanistan. It's original ally, the Northern Alliance, didn't wear uniforms initially. American soldiers even disguised their uniforms to blend in with Northern Alliance fighters. http://www.pegc.us/archive/Journals/parks_4_Chi_J_Intl_L_493.pdf

7. The pre-trial agreement Khadr signed as his confession from the DOD web site. http://www.defense.gov/news/Khadr%20Convening%20Authority%20Pretrial%20Agreement%20AE%20341%2013%20Oct%202010%20(redacted).pdf

8. A document also signed by Khadr, as part of his confession, outlining the charges with additional information. http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2010/10/26/10/stip.source.prod_affiliate.56.pdf

Another alternative would be a separate section on significant legal controversies surrounding this trial which would include the above issue of war crimes charges based on status, as well as issues already addressed to a considerable extent such as the ignoring of the "Child Soldier" law, and US and Canadian Supreme court decisions on the illegality of the system including issues like the use of illegally obtained evidence, which could be transferred. Diane1976 (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Khadr did violate the international laws of war.

Wearing uniforms is only a part of it. What's technically required is that they distinguish themselves from the non-combatants, which Al-Qaeda has not done, and not tried to do. When non-uniformed 15 year-olds act as combatants they put every other non-uniformed 15 year-old in the area at greater risk of being mistakenly identified as a combatant. It's a serious war crime that becomes evident whenever an innocent civilian is mistakenly killed. That should never have been tolerated, let alone condoned, by the people who claim to care about human rights.

Conversely, CIA drones look just like USAF drones. There is no greater risk that a CIA drone over Pakistan will be confused with a civilian aircraft. It's an interesting legal argument but nothing more consequential than that. For that matter, it's a legal argument that's been decided similarly by two administrations.

The same goes for blending in with Northern Alliance fighters. If U.S. soldiers went into combat while blending in with 15 year-old civilians then that would be a different story.

The "Child Soldier" law was not ignored. It just doesn't excuse Khadr's actions. The legality of the evidence was considered, and allowed by the judge.

Frakt and Glazier are critics of the process who lost this round. Frakt is a GTMO lawyer, which makes his position one-sided by necessity. I don't mind listing them as critics on the losing side as long as we don't make them out to be anything other than that. In fact, I've said before that such people should never be forgotten.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

-My point was that when people read that a person confessed to "war crimes and terrorism", they would assume those words mean what they usually mean. Whether or not people know that "war crimes" mean violations of the international laws of war, such as grave breaches of Geneva, or the crimes codified in the Rome Statue, they do know that in vast majority of cases they involve intentional attacks on civilians or attacks on combatants who are out of commission due to wounds or imprisonment. And "terrorism" also means involvement in an intentional attack on civilians, in or outside a war context. This is not what Khadr was charged with, and not what he confessed to. There is no reference to international law of war in the MCA or the charges or the confession. There are references to "law of war" and a hint from the Military Commissions Manual that this doesn't have to mean international law of war, implying it means some US common law of war, or maybe ordinary US domestic law.

That's why I say that, at the very least, there should be a reference to the actual charges and confession, and to the fact that these are based on definitions that have been controversial among legal experts. Those legal experts do not only include defence lawyers and law professors. They include military judges at Gtmo. In effect, Khadr is charged with fighting the US military in Afghanistan while being deemed to lack POW status under Geneva. This is defined as a "war crime" and "terrorism" by US definitions only.

The Frakt article illustrates how these definitions evolved, regardless of his personal role and opinion. The Dehn and Glazier papers show different interpretations of what laws are, or should be, involved, and what court should have jurisdiction. None suggest Khadr shouldn't have been prosecuted at all and they don't deal with the "child soldier" issue. The issue of whether or not the US is objective or hypocritical in its definition of war crimes and terrorism is relevant because international law evolves based on the practices of nations, and the US can expect others may follow its precedents, for better or worse.

You don't provide any explanation for claiming that Khadr violated international law of war (no reference to any law, treaty, or specified crime, such as a grave breach of Geneva or the list in the Rome Statue).

Your reference to the lack of a uniform, etc. refers to factors that may justify denying a person the special benefits of "prisoner of war" status under Geneva once he is captured. Khadr "confessed" to the US interpretation that he wasn't entitled to that status. You, like the US government, don't cite where this is defined as a war crime under Geneva, Rome Statue or other international law or treaty.

Khadr did not "blend in with civilian 15 year olds" when he was confronted as a potential "hostile" by the US military. According to the Prosecution's own words, he strapped on an ammunition vest and declared he would die fighting. (US Defense Department - Omar Khadr - trial documents). He wasn't charged with relevant war crime under internatinal law either (perfidy). He didn't "blend in" to access secret military info either, btw. He stood in public places and observed vehicles (so-called spying).

The "Child Soldier" law certainly was ignored when Khadr was captured, as were the Geneva Conventions based on Bush's determinations, including the minimum rights accorded by the Supreme Court subsequently, and other rights determined by Congress later with the passing of two versions of the Military Commissions Act. When the "child soldier law" issue finally came up before the Military Judge in Khadr's case, it was years after Khadr was captured. He acknowledged the implications of the law, as policy, but he said, at that point, it was superseded by the MCA, because it makes no mention of any age as a barrier to prosecution, also passed years after Khadr's capture. (US Defense Department - Omar Khadr) Diane1976 (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ughhhh you terrorist apologists are making this so unnecessarily difficult...ughhh...--Львівське (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Diane,

I fully agree that the charges should be specified. I'll try to clarify them in this weekend. Readers can judge for themselves. I've said below that people have been too quick to call people "war criminals." I've also seen it applied to Lynndie England.

Nevertheless, the secondary sources we use do say Khadr committed a war crime. Treaties do say "willful killing" is a grave breach. Forex, his lawyer's claim that "Omar Khadr was a lawful target but he didn't have the right to fight back" is misleading. He was a lawful target because he was a terrorist. He didn't have the right to fight back because terrorists don't have the right to fight under the laws of war.

I can sort-of understand your point that this isn't the typical bus-bombing of civilians that we'd associate with terrorism. But he committed them while fighting for al Qaeda, which is a terrorist organization. But, we'll let put it in the article and let readers judge for themselves.

The Bush administration never "ignored" the Geneva Conventions. They just read them differently. The Court of Appeals agreed with their interpretation. When the Supreme Court overturned it, three of the Justices eight (at the time) also agreed. Had it been one more then the appeals ruling would have stood, and Bush would have prevailed. (I'm just pointing out that many people agreed it was a reasonable interpretation.)

It wasn't a complete loss either. The Supreme Court only gave the detainees Common Article 3. They also got habeas later, but that's only in GTMO.

I haven't read all the papers you've linked to in their entirety. They seem to be relying on desperate technical points. Regardless whether there's any validity to them or not, this issue has been in the courts for years. It looks to me that the process has run its course.

They didn't ignore the child soldier issue either. I'm not aware of any treaty that the U.S. agreed to which says he absolutely can't stand trial. (He can't fight, but that's his and his father's fault.) The judge ruled that he was old enough to stand trial, and I'm sure he'd know of the law.

It says in the article that some had complained that he was locked up with the adults. The age limits were actually set by Army regulations dated prior to the war.

It wasn't only a lack of a uniform that makes him unable to be a POW. I doubt that a uniform would have made a difference in his case. He has to be fighting for, and responsible to, a country (Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not legally recognized as such), or a cause that recognizes the laws of war. Note that the Supreme Court agreed with the Bush administration on that.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I should have commented better on the applicability of the Frakt, Dehn, and Glazier papers. They seem obscure. Do you have more widely accepted sources that comment on those?

Not to say they're fringe characters, but I wonder if their views were sufficiently notable for this case.

Nor does this mean I'm opposed to such a section.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

--Randy, Thanks for responding. The charges are on the US Defense Department web site - Omar Khadr. The web site also shows the "pre-trial agreement", the agreement to a plea bargain, and the diplomatic notes between US and Canada. The pre-trial agreement refers to an attachment and the only place I could find it, the actual confession, was referenced to an official document by an article in the Miami Herald. I think that's the whole thing. http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2010/10/26/10/stip.source.prod_affiliate.56.pdf

Re Lyndie England, and other low level persons charged for prisoner abuse, I suspect they were scapegoats. See US Senate Armed Services Committee report on detainee treatment saying incidents of prisoner abuse were not the work of "a few bad apples". http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/Detainee%20Report%20Final_April%2022%202009.pdf

Re "willful killing". Check out the Rome Statute which lists international war crimes including grave breaches of Geneva. It refers to "willful killing" of protected persons. http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm You can see who protected persons in a war are in the Geneva Conventions, and they do not include soldiers in a war. Protected persons among armed forces include medical officers and chaplains. The soldier who was killed was a medic, but he was acting as a soldier, not a medic, when he was killed. He was not performing medical duties. He was with an armed party checking out the bombed compound to see if all 5 insurgents were dead. See the witness report of a soldier who was there, OC-1. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/OC-1_CITF_witness_report. See also the charges. No mention of killing a medical officer performing medical duties.

There is no mention of violations of international law of war in the charges or the confession, or the Military Commission Act. The Manual hints that "violation of laws of war" might mean some American law. If you say Khadr violated international law, I think you should cite a reference to international law and the crime. Good source is above Rome Statute or Geneva itself or some other treaty but I think most are codified in Rome Statute which set up the International Criminal Court.

International laws of war do not hold combatants in a war responsible for all the actions of the group or government they are with, only their own actions. (Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol 75) Commanders and political leaders are responsible for actions of their troops, though (Nuremberg).

When you use the term "terrorist" I think that's ok if you are talking about a person who attacked civilians, but otherwise it's subjective. When people like Khadr, including his father, fought the Russian military, they were heros. They turned into terrorists when they fought Americans, whether they personally committed terrorism or not. Similarly a "child soldier" became a "war criminal" when he fought Americans. International law doesn't make that kind of distinction based on opinions about causes. Apparently American law does, but, be sure, that Khadr is charged with "war crimes" under newly made up American law, perhaps based on old American law, not international law, and his "war crimes" are not recognized under international law.

Yes, I agree with you, the decision by the Supreme Court that Bush's interpretation of international law was wrong was not unanimous and you are right that the issue is controversial among judges.

It's true, as you say, that Gtmo prisoners, because they are foreigners, like Khadr who is a Canadian, only really have three rights, habeas and the two rights under Geneva, a fair trial and humane treatment. That, in itself, is a controversy, treating people in a separate justice system based on nationality. See the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html

It's true that the case ran it's course after 2 years of interrogations and 5 years in the military commission, ending in a plea deal. It's not really over yet. The next drama will be when Khadr requests transfer to Canada in one year. They said they would look "favourably" on the request, but whether it's accepted could depend on if there's a change of government. And what happens to him after could too. The multi-million dollar civil law suit against the Canadian government for participating in a violation of his rights, as declared by the Supreme Court, will come into the picture too, I'm sure.

Frankly, I think that 15 year old Khadr trailing around after his parents in Pakistan and Afghanistan, with his grade one education in Canada plus seven years of "home schooling" and madrassas in Pakistan, might not actually know the existing laws of war, let alone the ones to be invented by the Bush Administration years after the fact in accordance with centuries old American case law, or whatever it was. I don't know either. I think what he knew was what his father and the men around him said, that Afghanistan had fought off the Russians and now it was time to fight off the Americans who, according to them, were at war with Islam (their version of the "clash of civilizations" theory which is also believed by numerous people on "our side"). The law in the case has been debated by lawyers, law professors and even military judges for years.

You're right that fighters like Khadr, by international consensus, not that it's written anywhere, don't have a legal right to fight, although they are often widely supported in their causes, and sometimes not, but that's a political issue. Think of resistance fighters in WWII, or think of the Viet Cong whose cause may not have been admired but they weren't charged with "war crimes" just for fighting. This is why international law says little about them. And they are deemed to be vulnerable to domestic law, whatever domestic laws may be applicable. That would mean a normal trial in a normal court with normal rules and rights of the accused. It does not make them "war criminals" to be tried by a military tribunal which does not follow normal rules which is clearly evident by the acceptance of illegally obtained evidence (See Canadian Supreme Court decision on the illegal process). http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2010/2010scc3/2010scc3.html

Well, Frakt, Dehn and Glazier are the best I could do so far to find history of the legal aspects plus opinions on both sides. They are military law experts. Frakt is a military lawyer. Glazier is a former military officer and law professor. They both appeared before Congress. Dehn is also a law professor.

I think a Controversial Issues section, as in other Wikipedia articles, would be appropriate, showing both sides. Some think Khadr should have been subjected to the 40 year sentence of the Military Commission and some think even prosecuting him was wrong. Surely the case was controversial both politically and legally. That's the main reason, after 8 years, it ended in a plea deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diane1976 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The Geneva Conventions say murder. It doesn't specify exceptions. That other treaties (some of which we will never ratify) have condensed that definition doesn't change anything. Soldiers are not legal targets for civilians to shoot at. It's a serious issue when it extends the war.

The sources say Khadr violated international law. Although the sources may well be incompetent, the charge is "murder in violation of the laws of war." That's based on international law.

The conspiracy charge was also used at Nuremberg. Khadr was a member of a terrorist organization, and bears some responsibility for actions he was knowledgable of, even if he didn't have a direct role in all of them. Nevertheless, I will agree it's worth exploring.

The "few bad apples" comment was misinterpreted and overplayed. Briefly, when it comes to the the original Abu Graib photos, those really were a few bad apples. What happened that day was, in fact, the night shift doing things their officers had not approved. (I know they say otherwise, but not about what happened on that day -- most of them admitted to that.) Lynndie England was there that night in violation of the rules only because she wanted to be with her boyfriend. Those prisoners weren't even going to be interrogated; they had been moved to that section of the prison after they'd been in a riot. The Army CID was already investigating this incident before it became famous. In the process they found other excesses, and failures to follow procedures (hence your link to the Senate report). Your link only shows that the investigation found more problems, but they were never the types of things that could lead higher than they did.

Actually, it is written somewhere that they don't have a right to fight. It makes a difference in whether or not they may be considered a POW when captured.

The resistance fighters in WWII were indeed considered unlawful combatants, which means that for them fighting was illegal. Like them or not, nobody questioned Germany's right to execute them after the briefest of tribunals.

In Vietnam, after some high level negotiations, the Viet Cong were considered to be fighting for North Vietnam. Those captured in uniform during regular military operations were treated as legitimate POWs. Those not in uniform could be executed. I don't doubt that the same rules could have applied in the Soviet Afghan war (which is not to say that the Soviets felt they needed to care).

I'll continue on Frakt, Dehn, and Glazier in the section at the bottom.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture

The main picture's caption is misleading. That's not a Koran he's holding; it's a fan made out of some kind of hay which is very common in that part of the world. I have corrected this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.237.103 (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Invalid Picture

In the "Second tribunal" section there is no picture, but a picture filename and caption. Could someone find that picture and to see if it can be used on Omar Khadr's page. Otherwise it is pointless having the picture name and caption with no picture. Adamdaley (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Why has the invalid picture and caption been put back when I took it out? The caption is saying "he is laying landmines". It does not contribute to the article in anyway or form. If someone can find the picture in question and add it to the page, even verify it can be used on Wikipedia. Feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Guilty Plea

It needs to be covered and very clearly without any doubts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.116 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 2010 October 25

The convention for talk pages is that new comments should be added to the bottom. User:196.12.203.116 didn't do this.

I agree his plea should be covered clearly. And to the extent WP:RS express doubts as to whether he was really guilty, the article should clearly reflect those doubts. Geo Swan (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Kangaroo court event?

I realize it is awkward to address and have not looked at other Wikipedia articles (such as on trials of journalists in China or Stalin's Russia) but Iam thinking that our BLP policy might necessitate our including the unusual nature of this court venue and the options before Khadr when he confessed since some RSs and his own lawyer say it was a sham confession. I think we can say he confessed but that the context of the confession,as reported in Reliable Sources, likely should be included. The New York Times has a reasonable article I think [1]. The whole thing seems pretty sordid and Orwellian and I find it very hard to edit this BLP but feel somehow obligated to try. I definitely don't think we should,as some Editors are already doing, call him a Terrorist and Murderer as if that is an undisputed fact. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It was very much a Kangaroo Court. The evidence for this is chock-a-block, and you don't have to look any farther then the article itself and it's attendant references and links. Here's the short of it:

1) The Americans completely ignored the UN's recommendation that the Kadar be treated as a child soldier.

2) The Americans virtually ignored that their own supreme court had ruled that the military tribunal systems violate the Geneva Convention. After their supreme court struck down the military tribunals, instead of dismantling the detention system and moving the legal proceedings to a real justice system, like they should have done, they just passed a new law to enable a new round of military tribunals.

3) The United States made up the concept they called "Unlawful Combatants" out of whole cloth. It clearly does not exist in international law. They used this fiction to detain Khadar. If they had decided he was a soldier and detained him as a Prisoner Of War, they would have been bound by the provisions of international law which protect POWs. If they had decided that he was not a soldier but a civilian, and then detained him as a civilian in a war zone, they would have been bound by those provisions of international law that apply to civilians. Instead, they deliberately ignored international law, decided (incredibly) that Khadar was neither a soldier nor a civilian, conveniently ignored their obligations under international law and ILLEGALLY detained Khadar, indefinitely, without charging him for many years. This alone invalidates ANY of the American's so-called "legal" proceeding that came after. If I kidnapped someone and then claimed I had judicial authority over them, they'd lock me up.... but when George W. Bush does it, somehow nobody wants to arrest the bastard and charge the US with war crimes.

Oh, and to all you neocon conservitard idiots who are going to say "US Law blah blah blah" Hey stupid: Us Law applies in the US; Not in Ahfghanistan or Pakistan. The US had NO authority to detain Omar Khadar as they did. None. Zero. Zippo. Zilch. Comprende? Just because the US government claims something is so, that doesn't make it so. 216.197.170.5 (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If the article led you to believe these things then the article is biased. Please explain what in the article led you to feel this way.

1) The UN has no authority in this case. That representative was asking the U.S. to bend the rules in order to appease its critics. That's a useless exercise, given that its one-sided critics will just find more things to complain about.

2) You misunderstand the Supreme Court decisions. The U.S. cared more about the Geneva Conventions than any of its critics. What they didn't do is try to give detainees more rights than they deserved under the laws of war. Sometimes the Supreme Court disagreed on where those rights began and ended, and the government respected the Court's decisions when that happened. No "kangaroo court" acts that way. This is clear when you consider the fact that the administration's position held in the appeals court, and could have held in the Supreme Court, too, if only one additional Justice had ruled for it. And even though they did lose, GTMO is still legally allowed to be open under the restrictions the Court demanded.

3) Contrary to the propaganda, the term "unlawful combatant" is older than this war. The concept goes back to the beginning of the laws of war. Common articles 2 and 3 deal with what wars are covered. It is completely impossible to respect the Geneva Conventions, or human rights in general, without outlawing those combatants who fail to respect it.

This brings me back to your point #2: The Supreme Court agreed with the Bush administration on that part. They only disagreed on some technicalities. Congress went back and adjusted the rules for the military commissions. The Supreme Court disagreed with some elements of that, Congress made more adjustments to ensure that this one is legal.

As for your closing point, it is wrong in several ways. You apparently don't understand the "neocon" position either. U.S. civilian law doesn't apply. Military law does. It is GTMO's critics who wanted U.S. civilian law to apply.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"he pleaded guilty" versus "his admission of guilt"

I'm not sure if we were right to switch from "he pleaded guilty" to "his admission of guilt". Many in the media are questioning whether he only pleaded guilty because he could have been imprisoned indefinitely by the military if he didn't. As long as there is question about whether he actually is guilty, I think that the first phrase is more accurate because it does not make any assumptions about his guilt and it only says what actually happened in the tribunal. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This is just speculation, though. From an encyclopedic standpoint, should we not stick to the facts and not pander to what his defenders are saying after the fact? If there is enough evidence from scholars or notable figures regarding this fact it should go in the page body, but the intro should be to the point.--Львівське (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Artic.gnome about this aspect. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

He pled guilty, but the two are basically the same thing at law. There is no difference.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's just two ways of saying the same thing. I typed it to avoid redundancy, as the article is now filled with "plea agreement" and "pleaded guilty". Technically, pled guilty is the legal way of saying it. It's all the same in the end though.--Львівське (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

They aren't the same thing, that's my point. Saying that he admitted guilt means that he really is guilty. Saying that he pleaded guilty means that he chose that action in court, either because he really is guilty or because he was being strategic. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• I know we shouldn't use the talk page as a forum to discussing his case. See my comment as offering additional reason why we should not rely on those WP:RS that take the stipulation of fact at face, and ignore those WP:RS that express doubts. If you look at his "stipulation of fact" -- his confession -- you will see it contains demonstrably false statements. Early in the document you will see he signed that he received "excellent medical care while in U.S. custody". However some of his guards have already testified that he was forced to undergo long days of interrogation when it looked like his survival was touch and go. Further, those guards have testified that even though he had terribly painful wounds all pain medication was withheld, when he was under interrogation. Geo Swan (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't soft-pedal this. It is a very strong admission of guilt under oath.

He would be guilty of perjury if it wasn't true. His lawyers are duty-bound to prevent him from perjuring himself.

I don't know how much his withholding of pain medication could be trusted. But if guards say they've seen this happen then it ought to go into the article, particularly if they were otherwise trustworthy. Right now, it only says that he's making this claim. The Amnesty reference is probably just repeating his version of the story.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A plea bargin is just that: a bargin. People admit to things on legal advice that it is the best deal that can be obtained. And if the client does not know or has several versions of the 'facts', it is not perjury to admit someone else's version, it is just necessary and real politick - sorry for giving a bit of an analysis with this, but felt it needed to understand what may be the circumstances. The article should simply represent both the significance of the admission and the shortcomings and problems with it therefore. Represent all sides of it and no 'soft pedalling' of anything. Just objective as possible. -Fremte (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right that some people will read their wishful thinking into it, but realpolitik or not, a lawyer can never allow a client to testify to a falsehood.

It most definitely is perjury if it's not true.

I wouldn't have any problems with a section on notable people who've expressed their support for him, and may now discount his confession. I don't think such people should ever be forgotten anyway.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: I know that a lot of people would still like to imagine that he may not have killed Sgt. Speer, but who is it that thinks he didn't plant the mines? We may need to tread carefully on how we list these people. Khadr is a war criminal, plain and simple.

I wonder how many of his supporters had also claimed to oppose landmines at one point.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, enough. He did it, so deal with it. He admitted his guilt under oath. He pled guilty to the acts as alleged. The positions I have seen to the contrary appear to be nothing more than unsupported speculation. If that comes out later from the reputable source, and not some opinion piece, then link it and add to the article. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Where does the "under oath" come from? Are oaths routinely administered to defendants? In a military tribunal? Any sources for that? This would be extremely unusual on this side of the ocean... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Under oath, extremely usual on this side of the ocean, and this includes a military tribunal. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Stephan doesn't realize Khadr plead guilty. Once that happens, he can go under oath.

As the CBC says:

When the trial resumed on Oct. 25, Khadr withdrew his previous pleas. He was placed under oath so that the military judge, Col. Patrick Parrish, could question him. Asked if he killed Speer in 2002, Khadr answered "yes."

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I think we need to merge this page in. User:Fram had changed it to redirect to this page per WP:BIO1E. I agree with his assessment but given there was lot of activity on that article that grew over a few years so a more, I think it's probably better propose a merge instead. Unless anyone here apposes, I recommend that it be merged carefully. Any objections? --ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 18:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand. Merge what? with what? and where? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

ok I see it is being suggested thatChristopher Speer be merged into this BLP. At first blush I am opposed because there has been ongoing activities related to Speer in the sense of Speer's widow's civil suit, which is not limited to Omar khadr according to the current BLP on Speer, and is, in fact, targeting Omar's father. That suit in itself seems to have some notable attributes, as the presiding judge said the 94 million dollars he awarded Speer's widow likely marks the first time terrorist acts have resulted in civil liabilities. As well, there seems to be some confusion as to whether Speer was acting as a medic at the time of his death; sometimes he's referred to as a medic, other times as a Delta Forces special ops. out of Fort Bragg, and of course he could maybe have been wearing both hats at the same time,I imagine. At this point I think Speer is notable enough to have his own BLP. I see there is also something about him not wearing his helmet when he was killed which I think is also notable,perhaps. His BLP definitely needs a lot of attention though. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the merger.

• In addition to the reasons offered by Mr.Grantevans2, Speer saved two children. If that is all he did, the saving children would be a blp1e. But multiple blp1e add up to blp2e or blp3e.
• The Omar Khadr is already too long. Geo Swan (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Remember that this is on WP:BIO1E. If Christopher Speer is only notable for one event, it has to overcome quite a bit of scrutiny to have it's own article. --ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 17:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. How many events is Khadr notable for? A lot of stuff flows from the 1 event and the same thing applies with Speer, it seems to me, not to mention he is a bona-fide American war hero with the saving of the 2 Afghan children [2] being especially notable. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

-Sgt. Speer deserves his own article because he was a heroic person as mentioned, for saving the Afghan children. He's also the only soldier whose death resulted in a prosecution, out of 5000 who were also killed by insurgents (unprivileged belligerents) in the Afghan and Iraq wars, or any other American wars in sovereign foreign countries, such as Vietnam, as far as I know. I think that makes him of special interest too.

Khadr deserves his own article because his case is historic, the only "unprivileged belligerent" (fighter with an irregular armed group) charged with the war crime of killing a US soldier in a foreign war with a grenade or other lawful weapon, as far as I know. I don't recall any other "unprivileged belligerents" (irregular fighters) in Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam (Viet Cong) or any others being so charged. He's also the first person in 60 years to be charged with "war crimes" as a minor. The Prosecution came up with a couple of relevant examples from WWII, a person who shot a British POW and a person who worked in the NAZI death camps. Neither received sentences as long as Khadr will end up serving.

To me, separate articles, with cross references, make sense, and I think most people with strong feelings on either side of the case would prefer it that way, if that's considered relevant. Diane1976 (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No consensus or further discussion x 8 months. Time to remove merger tag. --S. Rich (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"Not an American" Effect on Khadr's Trials

I wonder whether there should be a section specifying the differences between Khadr's due process rights and evidentiary rules at his trial as compared to what they would be if he had been born in Buffalo instead of in Toronto. I think it is possible for the average Reader to read the BLP and not realize that Khadr's judicial experiences and rights have been different from what they would be if he were an American. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a lot of "what ifs". If he was American he would be charged with treason and he'd get the chair or a true life sentence. What if.--Львівське (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The only salient point is what differences/distinctions exist between the types of trial and due process he would be entitled to except for a happenstance of birth and how notable those distinctions are in the context of this Subject's life/BLP. I'd say they are critically notable distictions which have been brought out by many reliable sources over the past 8 years. To Lvivske's comment, I am not suggesting that the results of a trial would be better or worse under either venue. Nobody can predict what is going to happen in any trial, especially an American trial (think O.J. or conversely the Innocence Project). But if Khadr truly was as mature and premeditated in his actions and as disquallified by reason(as opposed to edict) from any of the protections that our(USA) soldiers enjoy on the battlefield, as Prosecutors alledge, then maybe he should get a stiffer sentence, like the chair. But,that's not for us to speculate about, I don't think. I do however think it is incumbent upon Editors here to write a comprehensive BLP, which would,I believe, make clear mention of how American law provides for this man to have been prosecuted and defended in a way that is notably different from how he would have been prosecuted and defended if he was an American citizen. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this detail should go in the body under an appropriate section? --Львівське (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned this up. You begin running far afield in this article when you discuss the differing legal venues for individuals captured outside of the US in the War on Terror. The Commission process, for one, is administrative, and falls under Military Jurisdiction. It utilizes an entirely different standard of proof for a variety of reasons, the most important being that evidence is admitted so long as as it has a reasonable indicia of reliability. The reader can hit the link in the article if he or she wants to learn more, as this is fully explained.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

ok. It seems pretty good to me at this time. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for Objectivity

This article (this subject, if you will) is quite provocative emotionally. Reading through it, many statements are worded (some more subtle than others) to give an emotional bias toward Omar Khadr. While his story is certainly tragic no matter how one looks at it, taken as a whole it appears to me to be straying from objectively informative and into the realm of sensational. Most of the issues seem to stem from a parroting of the sensationalistic editorial articles, and not from the content itself.

1. "and was formally recognized as a child soldier by the United Nations child soldier program in 2010"

The source cited here says nothing to support that. A more valuable citation would be a link to the document itself: http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/omar-khadr-letter.pdf, that Radhika Coomaraswamy penned. He uses the term "child soldier" repeatedly, but never classifies Omar Khadr as such.

Moreover, International Law states:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm#art38 -> 3. States Parties shall refrain from recruiting any person who has not attained the age of fifteen years into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, States Parties shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.

So it would appear that the recruitment of children between 15-18 years of age is sanctioned by this law, regardless of the validity of the claim of "formal recognition".

2. In 2009, it was revealed that the Canadian government had spent over $1.3 million to ensure Khadr remained in Guantanamo.

The wording here is misleading in two distinct parts:

it was revealed implies that this information had been concealed or kept secret, and there is no evidence of this. It was simply reported by the media after a request was made for the information in the House of Commons.

and

to ensure Khadr remained in Guantanamo implies that this money was spent actively and with the specific intent to support the continuation of the confinement of the individual. These were legal charges, incurred as a result of responding to cases brought against Canada by Mr. Khadr's attorneys.

Taken together, the statements seem to paint a picture that portrays a clandestine effort by the Canadian government to fund the incarceration, regardless of the absurdity of that possibility.

Ref 17: The Globe and Mail sourceref requires a membership (perhaps it did not when it was added). http://www.theglobeandmail.com/subscribe.jsp?art=1344823

Ref 18: http://www.thestar.com/specialsections/article/718051

3. A 2009 review determined that the Canadian Cabinet had failed Khadr, <- Assertion that the Canadian Cabinet (which is not the subject of the source cited) failed in the absolute

by refusing to acknowledge <- SIRC's wording: "failed to take into account"

repeated claims of being abused. <- SIRC's wording: In a meeting with SIRC, CSIS reiterated that it was not aware of any specific allegations of torture on Khadr’s behalf prior to arriving at Guantanamo Bay, adding that no serious allegations of mistreatment or abuse had been made public at that time.

This, as some of the above, simply regurgitates the editorial slant of the publications rather than posting and citing facts. The report itself is simply SIRC's review of CSIS's handling of the matter. It highlights the successes and failures of CISC, and does not take many facets of the overall issue into account dependent upon whether or not they fall under CISC's purview.

The editorial references:

Ref 19: http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/667089

Ref 20: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20090127/csis_watchdog_090127/

The actual report: http://www.sirc-csars.gc.ca/opbapb/2008-05/index-eng.html

And, in another statement a little further down the page cited by Ref 19:

Canadian intelligence authorities had initially determined in a post-interrogation report that Khadr had little knowledge of his father's alleged activities, since "he was out playing or simply not interested".

The above assertion is both misleading and a fabrication. The report () shows that this was a statement that Mr. Khadr made during the interrogation. The wiki article quoted above asserts that this was both fact and common knowledge. This invalidates the claim of a contradiction that follows.

4. Khadr pled guilty to the murder of Christopher Speer, and on October 29, 2010, despite the prosecution psychiatrist testifying that he showed no signs of remorse

The above isn't misleading, per se, but it does seem to be somewhat confusing in the wording. I do not see how these two statements can be combined as they currently are in an objective manner.

That is just the first section, article in its' entirety contains many more. All of the above, in one way shape or form, qualify as original research. I also find it troubling that, in light of the availability of the original documents and reports on the events and aftermath, editorial opinions are chosen over simply referencing the valid data.

Archon888 (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Minor corrections in spelling/grammar Archon888 (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My, my what fancy words you use Archon. I have done enough research to know that there is no way a US court of law would have agreed to sentence a jihadist, murderer, terrorist to 8 years in prison if they thought he was really all those things. Especially since it was obvious they fixed the evidence enough so his finding of "guilty" was practically assured. I also know that the military judge who did follow US law and gave Khadr's defense the legal rights it deserved was hastily replaced with the one he got now. There was no way Khadr was not going to found guilty by this court and get the 40 years, at least. So, tell me, why did they agree to 8 years for this dangerous, dangerous person who had done such terrible things to Americans and will be free to do them again at the age of 32? 204.40.1.132 (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Good observations Archon. I'd like to assist you in editing these obviously out of line remarks that have been inserted into the article, but do we have consensus? I just don't want to get into an edit war with any apologists.--Львівське (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I also think the artice shoud be more objective. The term apologists(used above) can also apply to "government Apologists", but these labels are usually false when it comes to EDitors here and always non-constructive. Can you imagine how this BLP would be different if it were a 15 year old non-soldier American caught on the battlefield by Iranian soldiers in Iraq after having a 500 lb. bomb dropped on the building he was in and then maybe throwing a grenade that noone saw him throw which killed an Iranian soldier who was not wearing a helmet and then threatened with gang rape by a bunch of big Muslims before "confessing" and then spirited away to an Iranian jail and held without a trial for 8 years and the being tried by the Iranian Military? I find it hard to even imagine what this BLP would look like, but I am sure it woud be more sympathetic towards the prisoner and give less assumed legitimacy toward the captors and captors' court. We have an obligation towards NPOV, not pro-western pov, when there are Reliable Sources presenting both sides of the story, as there are in this case. I think the BLP slants much more towards a pro-western pov than it should. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Archon's Point 1 - Child Soldier Protocol

The letter from the UN representative of the Secretary General for children and armed conflict says, "In every sense Omar represents the classic child soldier narrative; recruited by unscrupulous groups...." Could be used as the direct reference, but is linked in the article currently referenced.

You quoted the "Convention on the Rights of the Child" (CRC) but the relevant law is the "Optional Protocol to the CRC on the involvement of children in armed conflict (Child Soldier Protocol). Canada, Afghanistan and the United States are all signatories. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc-conflict.htm

It applies to persons under 18, recruited into any kind of armed force or armed group (see Article 4) in any kind of armed conflict. State parties are required to treat such persons who were recruited contrary to the Protocol, and who fall under their jurisdiction, as Khadr did when captured, according to Articles 6 and 7 (rehabilitation and social reintegration).

Khadr's prosecution wasn't specifically prohibited but it was exceptional based on normal international practice and his situation as a minor in armed conflict wasn't exceptional. Under the MCA, the whole case was based on his status as an "unprivileged belligerant", a person fighting in a war while being attached to an unlawful armed group which is the type of group highly likely to unlawfully recruit minors. Diane1976 (talk) 07:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Does Any of This Belong in Khadr's BLP?

Michael Welner, the Psychiatrist who evaluated Khadr for the Prosecution, made a posting yesterday at the New Engish Review[3] wherein he, refering to himself in the 3rd. person, claims to have been involved in a consulting role to the Prosecutors going back to April and that he "consulted to government prosecutors on numerous issues, and the case witnessed a number of pivotal achievements that led to its eventual resolution.....The earlier involvement of Dr. Welner resulted in the first decision of a military court to compel an examination by a prosecution mental health expert in a disputed confession matter.....The information Dr. Welner yielded ultimately had a major impact at the suppression hearing, and the August 2010 opinion by Judge Col. Patrick Parrish in which he refused to suppress Khadr’s statements (see attached)." I am not even sure any of this belongs in Khadr's BLP nor where it might go if it does. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Pakistani" Canadian

Some Editors keep reinserted the Pakistani or Egyption designation in the first sentence of the BLP. I am relying on the US Dept. of Defence list [4] which only refers to Khadr as Canadian. Is there any Reliable Source available that is backing up this idea that Khadr is Pakistani, or a consensus that he should be identified as one (if so on what basis) and if not, I think it should be removed again and that it not be reinserted. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs. His father was born in Egypt, which mades him an Egyptian-Canadian. But Omar Khadr was born in Canada.

We could say he was of Egyptian descent, and perhaps whatever his monther is, but that's about it.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed Pakistani and somebody put it back in, so I took it out again. The family moved Khadr around to different places all his life, but there is no indication he somehow attained multiple citizenships through these moves that I know of. If people are interested in his descent, the parents are cross referenced and are shown to have been originally from Egypt. In Canada some people argue that Canada should remove his citizenship which, as far as I know, would leave him stateless, even if it were possible, so I think it's misleading to refer to him as if he had dual citizenship unless somebody can explain how he did. Diane1976 (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I didnt see this talk discussion before, I undid my edit--Львівське (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

specific conviction? which charges?

The article is a little unclear about exactly what he was convicted of. The intro and side panel say he was convicted of war crimes and terrorism, but the references don't seem to substantiate that (unless I missed it - please assume good faith). It also says he pled guilty to murder, but doesn't say if he pled guilty to war crimes or terrorism charges. Thanks. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. The sources usually say five charges, but only detail murder and setting mines.

Here is a list of Khadr's 2007 charges. I assume they're still the same. I wish we had a secondary source that said it better.

I'm not sure how many of these are technically "war crimes." Murder certainly is one. Setting the mines was likely a war crime, but I'd feel better if reporters would give a clear explanation. They've been too quick to use the phrase in the past.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW: Note from that link that Khadr was also involved in a battle in which two Afghan Militia Force members were killed, and several others were wounded.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

He was a non-uniformed nonbelligerent, and then a murderer, so those are 2 off the top of my head.--Львівське (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Here we go: "Khadr pleaded guilty to his war crimes of murder, attempted murder, supporting terrorism, spying and conspiracy Monday in exchange for a reported eight-year sentence, with the last seven to be served in Canada."Details of Khadr's crimes emerge in Gitmo court. Please insert this information into the article wherever you consider it appropriate. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a sentence after the first two in the article indicating the result of the plea bargain (an 8 year sentence, possibly to be partially served in Canada), referencing the pre-trial agreement, the charges and the diplomatic notes exchanged between US and Canada stating their positions on the arrangement. Diane1976 (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hope that's ok. I wrote about the legal controversy concerning the charges, I think in the wrong place, under the section titled "Explanation" following the section titled "Heavily Biassed Introduction".

The article covers the two main controversies over the Khadr case, his age, and his treatment at Gtmo. But I don't see anything about the significant legal controversy over the charges themselves, i.e. whether the Military Commissions Act has invented after-the-fact "war crimes" or whether they have a basis in international law of war, or, if not, what law of war, that existed at the time of Khadr's actions. The only reference to international law in Khadr's charges, or the details, is the determination by the US that Khadr wasn't entitled to POW status under Geneva, but, that means he could be denied certain benefits, not that all his actions in the war were "grave breaches" listed in the Conventions, i.e. war crimes.

For example, "murder" isn't a war crime if the person killed was acting as a soldier at the time, no matter what the status of the combatant who killed him. Killing a civilian is a war crime, or killing a soldier under some conditions, not specified as such in the charges, could be. Another example, the use of land mines has been banned in a treaty by some countries, but not the United States. The charges refer repeatedly to Khadr's actions being directed at the military, not civilians. It's unusual to label acts of war against a military operating in a foreign country war crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diane1976 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I was going to detail the charges in the article this weekend, but got bogged down. I'll get to it, if no one else does.

Khadr wasn't acting as a lawful soldier when he killed Sgt. Spear, and that's the difference. The GCs don't recognize a difference between unlawful killings. It's not only that he could be "denied certain benefits." He could have been executed for it.

At this point, all you have is minor legal opinion. Officially, it was in the charges, and a court hasn't struck it down yet.

I still think Frakt, Dehn, and Glazier hold minor opinions, but I don't mind if you put the section in there. I might bicker if it got too much space in the lede, unless we get more notable authorities who support it. In any case, it'll make more sense than some of what's in there now.

FWIW: David J. R. Frakt is already in Wikipedia.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In the first sentence I replaced "war crimes and terrorism" with "five charges under the US MCA including "murder in violation of the law of war" and "providing material support for terrorism" with a reference to the charge sheet that lists and describes them all. This seems more specific. (Could add them all but seems long and those are the main ones.)

I think the controversy about these charges is covered quite a bit in a general way in the linked articles (Military Commissions and Military Commissions Act). Agree re lede. If I add something it might be a sentence elsewhere.

[Fighters like Khadr (and all other insurgents who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq) lack "combatant immunity" under domestic law, unlike soldiers, and may be charged for any of their actions in the war that are contrary to a domestic law, under the applicable domestic law and, to many, that would mean in a normal domestic court. But their actions aren't necessarily war crimes under international law. GC Common Article 3 gives them a right to a fair trial meeting normal standards. He gave up the right to appeal it as part of the plea deal, so there wont be any review by a court.

Diane1976 (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diane1976 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It does not at all mean a domestic civilian court. When the Supreme Court ruled against military commissions in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, they were specifically comparing the commissions to the ordinary military court process. None of the Justices said it should be a civilian court.

Explicitly citing the charges is always better, as long as the term "war crimes" is still prominently displayed.

As articles go, we can't have one standard for war crimes charges for this article while other articles are more loose. The U.S. is constantly accused of war crimes. I gave up on the U.S. war crimes article when it had become muddied with the cheap accusations, including those from groups that tacitly support war crimes that others do. (The sad thing is, this diluted the actual war crimes.)

I understand that this conviction won't be appealed. But there will be more convictions for other detainees, and some of them will be appealed. (FWIW: The Nurenberg trials had forbidden any appeals.) The war isn't over yet. I think we could eventually see how the phrase "war crime" stands up on appeal for some of the others. As it is, we know that military judges have allowed the charges. That makes it official.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Relating to identifying Maher Arar

I'm working on Robert Fuller (FBI), and found out that a section there had been basically copied here. The section contains four dead links, so I rewrote it with other sources. I'm going to do the same here, but wanted to preserve the section I'm taking out here. The last sentence doesn't seem relevant to Khadr. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

On October 7, FBI agent Robert Fuller showed Khadr a black-and-white photograph of Maher Arar, a Canadian who had been detained at a New York airport following a family vacation, and demanded to know if he recognised him. Khadr initially stated that he did not recognise Arar, but when further pressured by Fuller, confessed he had seen him at a Kabul safehouse run by Abu Musab al-Suri or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leading to Arar's rendition to Syria the following day, where he was tortured extensively before being returned to Canada and suing the government. Arar was alleged to have been in the country when Khadr would have been 6–12 years old, and to have attended Khalden training camp which had no ties to al-Suri or al-Zarqawi.

Are you actually removing text? A good reference doesn't become invalid simply because the link is dead. Otherwise, a lot of items with AP references would become invalid after a month or two.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What's up with this?

Just poking around a little here shows many issues with the quality of this article. How can the plead charges and sentence not be in the info box? How can there be no mention of Obama's suspension of all military tribunals in 2009? I'm sure there's more. Who's interested in cleaning this up?

And in general, how can this article have no substantial discussion in the last year? Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Little has changed since the sentence, and so there's less interest, and hence, less editing.

Khadr probably lost some support when he confessed to the obvious. Likewise, his critics were upset when he got so little prison time. It's a sad case all around.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

See talk

"see talk" ? -- PBS (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

unnecessary rewrites of templates -- to be avoided...

This edit reformatted a {{cite}} template. Some contributors like to place all the fields in a template on a single, very long line. Others, like myself, find it much easier to read and edit the text when each field is a line of its own.

I try to resist the temptation to rewrite the templates to conform to my preferred style. I think we should all resist this temptation. Reformatting the templates doesn't change how the article is rendered. But it strongly erodes the value of the the history mechanism, for later readers, who want to use it to show how the text has been changed. If an article is edited, to reformat the templates, and then a few small genuine edits are made, a diff will give the surface appearance that the article was massively changed.

I changed the article to put the template back. I will leave others templates alone, when I don't like their style, and change them as little as possible, when I add a missing field. I request those who don't like my style of templates to do likewise.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It may make the template easier to read (debatable, but you clearly think so), but it also makes the edited text more unlike the saved text, and hence difficult to read. This becomes more and more of a problem as the number of citation in an article increase. I suggest that if you like, your cite template parameters in a list, and don't like short citations (which I think are superior), then consider using a list of defined references.

According the the section linked in the last paragraph there is a tool that can automate this process User:PleaseStand/References segregator, I have not used it so I don't know how well it works. -- PBS (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Does it make the text more readable? I presume you mean for contributors reading the text in an editor? I accept that you, and others who prefer one line cite templates, find it so. Please accept that I find the complete opposite.

FWIW your description of one-line templates as "short" references is odd. Your one-line references contain all the original fields, correct? So they aren't really "shorter", agreed? I wasn't familiar with List-defined_references. The first requires editing whole articles -- not editing by subsection. The second is interesting. But I haven't seen a single article that uses {{reflist}} with a "ref=" parameter, or uses a <references> </references> pair. I suspect that if I started to use this form It would routinely be reverted, by well-meaning contributors.

I think the point I made -- that changing the references in an article from the style one dislikes, to the style one prefers, very strongly erodes the utility of using the history mechanisim to compare versions of an article -- is important. I can't count how many times I have returned to an article, done some diffs that suggested massive changes, only to find after wasting a non-trivial amount of time, that the changes to the text, to how the article rendered, were trivial, and that the appearance of massive change was due to someone choosing to change all the references to their favored style. Geo Swan (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Labeling

No need for that as per WP:LABEL and WP:NPOV. The text is clear about it: "He was convicted of five charges under the United States Military Commissions Act of 2009 including murder in violation of the law of war and providing material support for terrorism...". Please have a look at these policies. ProtecterMan (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Calling a war crminal a war criminal is pretty neutral and straight forward. Calling a 25 year old a "child soldier" and "juvinile" is a misleading statement.--Львівське (говорити) 15:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please understand that the Guantanamo military commissions are controversial and that we have to keep it neutral. The text explains it and it is up to the reader to judge. There is no need for this label. For the rest, it is just a fact that he is a child soldier and one of the juveniles in Guantanamo and his age now does not change these facts. I think it is quite an uncontroversial fact represented in the sources. ProtecterMan (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you find the facts controversial? Or why you, who is obviously versed in Wikipedia policy, had to create a new account just to censor this? He is by fact a war criminal, and he is no longer a child nor a soldier.--Львівське (говорити) 18:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think i have explained that. To much critic and controversy about the Guantanamo military commissions. For the child soldier we change it to "ex-child soldier" or "former child soldier" as some of the sources do. Other sources leave this out as it is clear that he is not fighting anymore after his arrest at age 15. Here are some sources.

• Child Soldier for Al Qaeda Is Sentenced for War Crimes New York Times
• Ex-child soldier Khadr sentenced to eight years
• Military jury deliberates on fate of ex-child soldier
• Ex-child soldier jailed As well as "former child soldier" in the text of the article.

Now i think we should change it to "former child soldier". Shall we do this? ProtecterMan (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that will work in the interim but I'd like to get some more people to chime in on this to be honest in the interest of consensus.--Львівське (говорити) 23:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment would be possible. ProtecterMan (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As much as I don't like "child soldier," there are enough otherwise sane references calling him one that I can see it going in.

He is definitely a war criminal. We have refs for that, too. He confessed. I don't understand the opposition.

Do we have quotes from any of his supporters claiming he wasn't a war criminal? It won't change my position on him being called that, unless it's a really good authority, but it would be good to put into the article.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

On the critics, the Guantanamo Commissions were originally based on the Nuremberg trials. The Supreme Court ruled that it didn't meet some post-WWII obligations, and so it was fixed to provide even more rights for the defendants. Khadr is a war criminal under U.S. law that takes international human rights law into account as the U.S. Supreme Court interprets it.

The Nuremberg trials had their critics as well (including Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, who thought it a "lynching party"). If conviction at Nuremberg is enough to call people "war criminals" then these commissions are enough for this, even if Khadr hadn't confessed.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Would 'war criminal and former child soldier' not be both neutral and verified, and an accurate descriptor? I'm unsure about the juvy part, like the child soldier mention, it's in the past and problem belongs in the body somewhere.--Львівське (говорити) 03:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Lede

Two versions being contested so I'm bringing it to talk. I think the current version is misleading, as he is neither a child soldier (re: he was, but is no longer) and he is not a juvenile. My change was meant to indicate that he has since been convicted for war crimes, making him a war criminal.

• " is a Canadian child soldier and one of the juveniles held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. "
• "is a Canadian war criminal currently held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. "

thoughs?--Львівське (говорити) 15:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point of adding the "war criminal" label to a sentence that already says he was convicted of law of war violations. It's like saying somebody is a thief who was convicted of robbery. His actions were not described in US government trial documentation as war crimes or violations of the international law of war, and don't correspond to what people have always thought of as war crimes. He was guilty of something that traditionally is sometimes condemned and sometimes praised, depending on whose side the person was on in the war, and, as in this case, they can be on either side, or switch sides. That is not criminalized under the international laws of war for that very reason. It falls outside them and whatever country has such a person in its control can do as it wishes under its own laws and according to its own values. Labels and legalities aside, the truth is that he was a 15 year old who fought in a war because of what he was taught by the people by and among whom he was raised. I think the body of the article reflects the truth quite well. Diane1976 (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"He was guilty of something that traditionally is [...] sometimes praised" Are you for real? And what's up with these single use accounts?--Львівське (говорити) 03:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not praiseworthy at all. Kids are supposed to stay out of combat. What Khadr did was give every soldier another reason to not hesitate when shooting kids who are in the line of fire. If anyone cares about kids getting killed in war (most people who claim to care don't), Khadr's crimes must be taken very seriously.

Besides that, he's a Canadian citizen. He didn't have a legal right to fight for the insurgents. It's too bad he couldn't have renounced his citizenship.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I just realized I should have spent more time on the general issue of Khadr being an unlawful combatant. In a way, this case reminds me of Johnson v. Eisentrager. By that, I mean it's about an unlawful combatant fighting a war when he's a citizen of another country (I don't mean the part that went to SCOTUS concerning his access to a civilian court).

While movies like Red Dawn do make it look laudable for kids to fight an invading army, that's not real life, and the Taliban (aside from its terrorist nature) was not a bunch of citizens defending a sovereign country. He'd be an unlawful combatant, and a war criminal, even if he was 18 years old.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• • For clarification, I meant that Khadr was found guilty of being an unlawful combatant, an issue long debated generally, because of different situations in which such people are involved in wars, and it came up off and on throughout this case, in relation to both national and international law, in combination with, or aside from, the "child soldier" issue. (I wasn't referring to him being "guilty" of being a child soldier.)

• • Re the unlawful combatant issue: I would recommend linking the term "unprivileged belligerent" which means the same as "unlawful combatant", where it first appears in the Legal Trials section, to the article on "Unlawful Combatants". The internal debate over Khadr's status is covered in Legal Trials although it leaves off with the decision that his status should be determined by the Commission itself in the trial process. I'm not sure when that happened, but the end result is shown in the "stipulation of facts" (confession). It starts by establishing that he didn't meet the criteria for Prisoner of War status under Geneva (making him an unprivileged belligerent or unlawful combatant, who was not immune from prosecution under domestic law) and, as an alien unprivileged belligerent he was subject to the Military Commissions Act and his actions in the war were various violations of it.

Diane1976 (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike Silver

Why does "Mike Silver" re-direct here? Does this need to be removed before an article for UK folk guitarist Mike Silver could be created? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing prevents you from editing the redirect page to put a WP:HATNOTE to the former redirect target, followed by the text of your proposed article. The need to delete a redirect when an article is created normally only arises if you have text which already exists under some other name (such as a WP:AFC submission or a user sandbox) and need {{db-move}} to "liberate" a title so that you can move an existing page there. And no, I have no idea why "Mike Silver" points here. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at the history and it seems that Mike Silver and Layne Morris were both circular-redirects, their names were bluelinks in the ==Capture== section of this article even as redirects pointing right back here. There used to be individual articles for these people as part of the group of US soldiers attacking the house in this incident (there is enough material for a Morris article as he is involved in the civil suit against Khadr's dead father and has appeared on a National Geographic special and on 60 Minutes, as well as speaking out for years... Silver seems less likely a topic). I also see that a search engine finds "Mike Silver" (UK musician) as the most probable match for what is a rather common name. Perhaps the name should be a WP:DISAMBIGUATION page if any of these people get articles here? If not, the main entry should, as you suggest, be the musician. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Partial revert

Today, the day of Omar's appearance before the Supreme Court, there has been a minor editwar over whether to include the percentage of Canadians who support his return to Canada or the (lower) percentage of Canadians who support him being prosecuted in a Canadian trial. I have opted to keep the former in the lede ,and moved the latter percentage to Canadian response to Omar Khadr as it seems tertiary as all motions are towards bringing him into the country; regardless of whether he is put on trial or not. This number seems more intellectually honest, than reducing the number by 20% to simply say it's the number who support bringing him back to Canada for a trial. It's comparing apples and oranges, otherwise. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if there where I should add this note, but why is an old photo of Khadr being displayed with such prominence? He's a 23-year-old man, now, and there is a well-circulated public image circulating of him on Canadian media sources. There is an intentional vibe within this article that is supportive of Khadr (generally speaking), and the old photo of Khadr as a fifteen-year-old clearly plays into this vibe to garner some sort of sympathy. Update the photo or don't use a photo at all. If one cannot see this obvious problem, consider using old photos of other infamous/prominent folks of when they were children. It's inaccurate and doesn't give the audience a sense of who the person currently is. Cheers to the bleeding hearts in here, I know you mean well. - random news junkie 02/05/10

Generally when the notability of a subject is when they were a child, we use the image of them at the time they were notable. Consider the case of Mary Ann Vecchio; which should be more prominent, the photo of her as a 14-year old runaway, or the later photos of her as a 40-year old minimum wage employee thirty years after her notability? In addition, the later photos of Khadr appear to be copyrighted by the Toronto Star so we can't really use them when we have so many free-use images, and he's still a living person. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 09:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make a lot of sense in this case. Khadr's notability isn't lessened right now. His photo should be updated to reflect what he looks like now, and his current appearance is clearly less likely to invoke the sympathies that Khadr apologists are clearly trying to bring about. This story is still ongoing. It's understandable if the recent image of him isn't public property, but let's stop the dishonesty that somehow the image of him when he was 15 is somehow more appropriate and not explicitly done to garner sympathy for him.

Khadr is only notable now because of what he did then. It's like saying we should have a photograph of an aged Stephen Truscott instead of him as a child at the time he was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment. His "current appearance" (what, that he has a beard?) has no bearing on the details of the case - which is that of a 15-year old who threw a grenade that killed a Special Forces soldier. But the point is moot, as the image you want to include is copyright by the Toronto Star - who seems to print a very large TORONTO STAR over the image as a watermark every time they use it...so I'm guessing they're of the mindset to pursue legal action against those who misuse it. As it doesn't fit the narrow definitions of Fair Use, the article must go without it. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I see your concerns (is it "random news junkie"?), please sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ), but I agree with Sherurcij's reasoning and support the original photo. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Intro too long template

User:Sherurcij: removing the two temples I placed on this page was uncalled for as they were only posted recently. Per WP:LEAD an intro should be no longer than four paragraphs the intro to this article is double that--there is not room for discussion on this it should be changed. This article is un-encyclopedic in the unnecessary details it mentions which contribute nothing to the article. Supertouch (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

When placing such hatnotes which say "Refer to the talkpage for the discussion", it is imperative that they have been mentioned on the talkpage. I'm not saying your complaints aren't legitimate, just that they need to be on the talkpage - you can't add hatnotes with no arena for dispute. Per the lead, I tend to agree it is too long; information needs to be condensed or moved. Per your interpretation of what merits "contributing something", I'd have to point at every biography on the project - take George W. Bush for the usual example; does it add anything to an encyclopaedia to mention "Bush was a keen rugby union player"? No, but as long as Bush was a 'good' guy, people support including it...if he were a 'bad' guy, people oppose including it claiming it whitewashes the fact the subject was a terrible human being and the fact he played rugby was irrelevant. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 06:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court of Canada ruling

This section does not seem to take into account the fact that this week the Canadian Supreme Court overturned an earlier court's ruling that stated that the government is in some way legally obligated to seek Mr Khadr's repatriation to Canada. Mardiste (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Believe we should add that information to the article. RomaC (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, glad to see somebody did it. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

First, the link the the decision is dead and should be replaced. Canlii is an accepted free online source for Canadian jurisprudence and the dead link should be replaced with this one, and should be properly cited: http://www.canlii.com/en/ca/scc/doc/2010/2010scc3/2010scc3.html [2010] 1 S.C.R. 44

Second, it would be inappropriate to describe the supreme court decision as "overturning" the FCA decision. The government's appeal was allowed in part. In summary, the lower courts found that Khadr's rights had been constitutionally violated AND that the government had a legal obligation to demand his repatriation to Canada. The Supreme Court agreed his constitutional rights had been violated, but left it to the government to determine the appropriate remedy. The key finding is that Khadr's rights were constitutionally violated, and this finding was upheld at all levels. The fact that the SCC wouldn't order a specific remedy is not highly relevant to the constitutional question, and the fact that the government has made no attempt to remedy the constitutional breach identified is a subsequent political question and not related to the judgment. It should be discussed, but in the appropriate place -Gavin (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dead reference

The heavily cited reference "Jeff Tietz (2006-08-10). "The Unending Torture of Omar Khadr". Rolling Stone." appears to be simply redirecting to the rolling stone homepage. Freikorp (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

unexplained explained edits

Another contributor made what seem to me to be poorly explained edits.

• In this edit they removed Category:Canadian extrajudicial prisoners of the United States. This category is one of several dozen that have been in use for years. I don't remember any recent challenges to these categories. Now maybe there is a valid reason for its excision -- but I am very concerned that the contributor in question hasn't offered any explanation.

• In this edit they removed Category:Canadian Islamists, again, with no explanation.

I hope the contributor who excised these categories will explain themselves. Geo Swan (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You personal think these two categories belong into the article? IQinn (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am in absolutely no doubt that Omar Khadr belongs in Category:Canadian extrajudicial prisoners of the United States. Other good faith contributors first created Category:Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States, and some other related categories. Other good faith contributors later re-organized Category:Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States into categories for each nationality. You are completely free to think that categories like Category:NationX extrajudicial prisoners of the United States are not a good idea. You are completely free to think that there is some reason why Omar Khadr should not be a member of Category:Canadian extrajudicial prisoners of the United States. But I really don't think you are complying with your obligation to participate in the wikipedia in a collegial manner to simply remove Category:Canadian extrajudicial prisoners of the United States without explanation.
• WRT to Category:Canadian Islamists -- I am not so sure if Omar Khadr belongs in this category. I didn't create this category either. And I haven't added any articles to it. "Islamists" is not a clearly defined term. Since you brought it up, it might be a term too subjective to be useful as the name of a category. If we were discussing this category, in general, I would ask whether individuals should only be included in it if we could document that they self-described themselves as "Islamists", as adults. But, I would not simply remove a category, without explanation, because I recognize I don't own the articles I work on. I recognize that a category might seem out of place, but, those who placed it might offer convincing arguments as to why it belonged, if I tried to voice my concerns to them. Alternately, they might recognize the validity of some of my concerns, and agree to changing the name of the category, giving it a tighter focus, or some other compromise that left both of us happy.

  When good faith collegial contributors engage in a real, respectful discussion, they sometimes reach compromises that leave both sides thinking that the compromise is an improvement.

  If you decide to voice your concerns about Category:Canadian Islamists, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, I'll go on record with my own concerns. Geo Swan (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Omar_Khadr has been charged with war crimes and is therefore not in extrajudicial detention. Extrajudicial detention is also not well defined. The article extrajudicial detention was written from user Geo Swan and does not provide any source nor can i find reliable secondary sources that could give us direction how to use this term.

• Correct me if you think i am wrong. Nobody can think of a good argument why Omar Khadr should be labeled with the Category:Canadian Islamists. Nor can i so that the removal of this category should be seen as a good idea. IQinn (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Omar Khadr has spent something like eight years in Guantanamo. For the first three years he was held there, without charge. He was charged late in the fall of 2005. And then the SCOTUS ruled that the executive branch lacked the constitutional authority to set up military commissions. So he spent about 10 months of his first 50 months under charge. At that point I would argue he belonged in both the extrajudicial detention category and in the persons charged category. I do not think he should be dropped from the person's charged category because the charges had gone away. After the passage of the Military Commissions Act he was charged, a second time. I do not think he should be dropped from the extrajudicial detention category every time he is charged. In June 2007 the Presiding Officer of his Commission ruled the Office of Military Commissions lacked jurisdiction to charge Khadr, since Khadr was only an "enemy combatant", and the Military Commissions Act only authorized charging "illegal enemy combatants". Just as we should continue to recognize that OJ Simpson was a murder suspect, just as Omar Khadr's years of extrajudicial detention should be acknowledged, and just as the war crimes he was charged with should be acknowledged, even when those charges have been dropped. Geo Swan (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• As said the term "extrajudicial detention" is not well defined nor well supported by sources. The article extrajudicial detention was written by User:Geo Swan and does not provide any source nor can i find reliable secondary sources that could give us direction how to use this term. The article extrajudicial detention does not mention "enemy combatant" nor "illegal enemy combatants". No problem to make things absolute clear but the use of "extrajudicial detention" does not make things clear and is not well supported by the sources. IQinn (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

2) You personal think that the category "People indicted for war crimes" does not belong into the article? IQinn (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Initially, I had doubts as to whether Khadr belonged in this category, and was considering saying so. But first I did some google searches, and decided inclding Khadr in this category was defensible. That is why I didn't challenge it. Geo Swan (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Correct me if i am wrong. You think the category apply but you complained because i did not personally explain to you why i added a category to one of the articles in the field you work. I am sorry but that reminds me a bit on WP:Ownership. IQinn (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, you are wrong. You are dreadfully wrong to keep inappropriately accusing good faith contributors of WP:Ownership simply because they don't agree with you. I didn't start Category:Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States or most of the Category:NationX extrajudicial prisoners of the United States. Almost all the work of creating those categories, and of populating them, was done by other good faith contributors.
  • Please understand that all contributors have an obligation to offer a good faith explanation in response to good faith concerns. Even Jimbo Wales is under this obligation. I am under this obligation, and so are you. I feel strongly you should not continue your routine practice if blowing off good faith contributors' policy-based good faith concerns through accusations of "ownership", "filibustering" or "gaming ths system". Geo Swan (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I think you got a bit off topic this part concerns the category "People indicted for war crimes" and i repeat nobody needs any prior approval from you when editing the article and nobody needs to give you explanation for their edits specially when you do not can raise valid arguments against these edits as here. "People indicted for war crimes" fully applies to the article and it was a good idea that i added this category. Please more careful you have repeatedly shows extensive signs of WP:Ownership and you should listen to the community and stop this disruptive behavior. IQinn (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
      • No good faith contributor has an obligation get anyone else's prior approval for good faith edits. IMO Good faith contributors are well advised to seek input, in advance, when they recognize that the edits they are considering are tricky, are controversial, or would require much more effort to undo as they require to do. Good faith contributors recognize that they have to explain themselves, as you did not do in this edit or this edit. Good faith contributors recognize that they do have an obligation to offer a good faith explanation when other good faith contributors raise good faith questions and concerns. What can happen when good faith contributors make the effort to offer other good faith contributors good faith answers? Sometimes someone changes their mind. Sometimes, while drafting an answer, someone will realize their questioner has a valid point, and they will instead own up to being convinced. Sometimes it is the questioner, who realizes the fuller answer satisfies all their concerns. And sometimes both parties will agree to a compromise that they both agree is superior to the original wording. None of this happens when contributors instead state or imply those who have questions or concerns about their edits of acting in bad faith.
      • WRT your request that I be more careful. No one has stated Khadr shouldn't be included in a category for those charged or indicted. I explicitly said in several of my comments that he should be included in a category for those charged or indicted, even during the periods when the charges have been dropped. Perhaps you are the one who needs to be more careful?
      • WRT my ownership of this article. I did start this article, five and a half years ago. Since then it has had 2000 edits. I just did a rough check of those 2000 edits and I would guess I made less than 5 percent of those edits. So, why the accusation of ownership? Geo Swan (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Your comment shows that you still do not have read or do not understand WP:Ownership as it has absolutely nothing to do with the number of edits someone does to an article. Please read the policy and act accordingly. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Geo Swan is fully within his rights to ask for an explanation of a change to the article which does not seem obviously correct, as are you and I. That is not equivalent to asserting 'ownership', and suggesting it is degrades the good faith between editors on this article. Nothing in what I have read above suggests that Geo Swan expects to be consulted in advance about article changes and it is not helpful to accuse him of doing that. --Saforrest (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

third paragraph

"In 2009, it was revealed that the government had spent over $1.3 million to ensure Khadr remained in Guantanamo" which government? Canada's? America's? sentence is unclear and ref #14 is dead --dannycas (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Without checking this specific passage in the article I can tell you that the cost of maintaining the remaining Guantanamo captives has topped over a million dollars each. Recent articles have reported that the cost of base expansions to house, feed and entertain the guards and interrogators was over $500 million. Camp five and camp six cost about $50 million each. IIRC the food served to the captives is budgeted at $100 per day. Possibly feeding the 6,000 guards and interrogators is budgeted out at a comparable amount. Yes -- the amount of personnel at the base tripled when the camp was opened. Most US prisons have a prisoner to guard ratio of ten to one or twenty to one. In Guantanamo it is the other way around. When President Bush wanted to supply the General in Iraq with a "surge" of additional troops he was able to scrape together no more than three brigades. The 6,000 GIs guarding and interrogating the captives at Guantanamo would have constituted a fourth brigade. So, what does your basic GI get paid? $30K per year? If twenty GIs guarded and interrogated Khadr, for seven years, what does that add up to? Add on top the presumably greater salaries of his prosecutors. It wouldn't surprise me if the US government hadn't spent tens of millions on Khadr alone. Geo Swan (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

heavily biased introduction

The introduction is very accusative against Canadian government, and fail to underline :

1. the link between Khadr's familly and Al Kaida : the father being a riend and financial support of Bin Ladden.
2. the fact Omar was voluntarly in this place
3. the fact (picture) he was involve in explosive manipulation,
4. he was not "acting under coercion", a part of the definition of Child soldiers.

The introduction say a lot about Guantanamo / Canada. It should talk both about his acquaintance with Al Kaida's rhetoric, and physical support to military preparations, and later capture, Guantanamo experience, and legal debate over his status. Yug (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Responding to your arguments point-by-point:

1. The deep connections between the Khadr family and Al-Qaeda are explained quite fully in the Khadr family article which is the very first link in the article. I see no point in summarizing them yet again in the introduction here.
2. What evidence do you have that Khadr was voluntarily in that place, either in Afghanistan or in the compound? It's not obvious to me that any of us have sufficient information to produce a verifiable summary of just how much free will Khadr could exert at that point (and that age).
3. The article directly mentions the video in which Khadr appears manufacturing the explosives. It's not obvious to me why this detail needs mention in the introduction more than, say, his torture allegations which are also not mentioned there.
4. This is essentially a repeat of your point #2.

To your last point, what can we really say about his acquaintance with Al-Qaeda's rhetoric and military role? Obviously he was exposed to their ideology given what his family was, but I'm sure a lot of that happened in private conversations which have not been recorded. The nature of his military role is also hotly debated and I'm not sure how much we can objectively say about that, beyond what's on the videotape.

I appreciate the point which I think you were hinting at that his Canadian birth is fundamentally not terribly relevant to the question of his guilt, but it is of huge importance in the legal implications of his detention and the attention paid to this story. --Saforrest (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Canadian citizenship (3/4 → ≤1/4 ): In the same argumentative way than your point 1, the Canadian citizenship and legal consequences are well explain in the article, I don't understand why it occupy 3/4 of the introduction. It should occupy just 1/4.

Ideology, Accusation & Importance (0/4 → 1/4): In the other side (Accusation), which is currently state but almost not explain, I do think that his family ideology, the importance of his family -which may explain why the US want to keep him-, his own ideological involvement, and accusations against him should occupy 1/4.

Childsoldier & legal status (few → 1/4): This point is for me more important than the citizenship. His status as child soldier, and the strangeness of the case should occupy from 2 lines to → 1/4 (shorter simply because simpler to explain than the citizenship story).

Again: 3/4 on the Canadian citizenship and passivity is... an heavy biases. This is not acceptable on wikipedia. Yug (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that calling Omar Khadr a "war criminal" is a violation of Neutral Point of View, given his youth and the fact that he was not observed doing anything belligerent. Even the U.S. military witness who initially said that Khadr had been making bombs later admitted that he could not identify the person in the picture for sure. We also have the testimony of a doctor that he was shackled with his arms over his head for hours. Any 'plea bargain' is not necessarily an admission of guilt. --Monado (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree and changed it to neutral.

Omar Ahmed Khadr (Arabic: عمر أحمد خضر; born September 19, 1986) is a Canadian and former child soldier convicted of war crimes under the United States Military Commissions Act of 2009, including murder in violation of the law of war and providing material support for terrorism.

-- DragonGirl2012 (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how calling someone who was "convicted of war crimes" a "war crimina" is somehow a violation of a neutral point of view. This seems to either be splitting hairs, or a weird POV that's in denial about a war crime convict being a 'war criminal' --Львівське (говорити) 03:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to: "convicted of war crimes under the United States Military Commissions Act of 2009, including murder in violation of the law of war and providing material support for terrorism. That's what it is. He was convicted in an controversial venue under controversial circumstances and under a controversial law. That says it all without the controversial label. Let the facts speak for themselves without labels.

Nobody seems to be in denial here. "war crime convict being a 'war criminal' Splitting hairs? I do not think so. If you believe there is not much of a different in the old and new version why can you not accept the suggested version that i and maybe other think is a bit more NPOV? DragonGirl2012 (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Emphasizing this alleged 'controversy' seems to be a POV push here. Like you said, let the facts speak for themselves. --Львівське (говорити) 14:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I just thought it read awkwardly. It is splitting hairs though, "he's not a war criminal, he's just convicted of war crimes!"--Львівське (говорити) 14:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone convicted of war crimes could be falsely convicted, especially as people who are tortured, stressed, and interrogated for years can become unsure of what is really true and incorporate interrogators' suggestions into their memories. As this is an article about a living person, it is better to err on the side of stating facts. I for one find "war criminal" to be loaded language. Let's leave it as "convicted." If, as you say, the descriptions are equivalent, you should be satisfied that accuracy has been maintained. --Monado (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Shall we change all articles about those convicted at Nuremburg then to show that they aren't war criminals, but simply convicted of the crimes. Adolph Eichmann's article as well. --24.202.1.112 (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

explanation

I reverted the edit with the edit summary: "This was removed as unsourced, but this has been widely reported (ex. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67B01720100812). I just don't know how to put that in."

I believe the contributor who made this edit has misread the Reuters article. The Reuters article did not say Omar Khadr was a "self-confessed al Qaeda terrorist". The Reuters article says Khadr's Prosecutors allege Khadr confessed to being a terrorist.

I regard this as an important distinction. Repeating the Prosecutions allegations, as if it were an established fact, is a serious lapse from WP:NPOV. Geo Swan (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The quote, reported by many news organizations, is "I am a terrorist, trained by Al Qaeda", attributed to Omar Khadr by Prosecutor Jeff Groharing. The Calgary Herald, for example, reports it as:

"I am a terrorist trained by al-Qaida — those are Omar Khadr's own words," Groharing told the seven U.S. military officers on the jury. "Those words were confirmed by his acts." (see: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/terrorist+Canadian+Omar+Khadr+allegedly+told+interrogators/3390566/story.html)

I am not aware of any direct evidence that Khadr said these words, but given that Groharing attributed this statement to Khadr in court (where, presumably, Gorharing could be punished for perjury), I find the account reliable. And given that, a "self-confessed Al Qaeda terrorist" is an accurate description.99.237.122.105 (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just how far do we take that? Surely not every utterance by a lawyer in court should be seen as reliable. For that matter I don't know if a lawyer engaged merely in representing a client in court is liable for perjury in the same way a witness on the stand is.

Anyway, I understand that a confession by Khadr does exist made while he was in American custody, which has been referenced repeatedly by prosecutors. I'm not familiar with the exact text but I assume he must be confessing to something which amounts to terrorism on al-Qaeda's behalf.

However, the issue with this confession is not whether it exists but whether it was obtained through torture, which leads to various questions about its legitimacy and truth.

Presenting quotations or summaries from this confession without any caveat (i.e. that Khadr's defence alleges that the confession itself is illegitimate) would be quite misleading. --Saforrest (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Groharing, like many of the other Guantanamo prosecutors, routinely makes assertions that are demonstrably untrue. Morris Davis, for instance, claimed Khadr should be grateful, because American medics "stepped over Speer's dying body, in order to treat Khadr's wounds". The statements from all the GIs present on the scene at the time are quite clear. As anyone might have expected, the medics treated Speer first.
• It is verifiable the prosecutors made these assertions. So they belong in the article -- properly attributed. They should not, however, be repeated as established facts that do not require attributions. Geo Swan (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that most people reading the first sentence, that Khadr was convicted of "war crimes and terrorism", would assume the charges against him were what most people would normally think of as war crimes, i.e. violations of the international laws of war, and what most people would normally think of as some act of terrorism, i.e. targeting civilians, which is also a war crime under international law. But this is not evident from the charges and has been a matter of major controversy among legal experts, even Guantanamo military judges, for years. It would be appropriate to add a statement that these charges were controversial among legal experts. This statement could be followed by links to eight references illustrating the controversy, and both sides to the extent I could find both sides, as follows:

1. the formal charges at the DOD web site - Omar Khadr. This includes the charges plus all the trial documents. http://www.defense.gov/news/commissionsKhadr.html

2. An article by Lt Col (ret.) David Frakt. This explains the legal controversy about the charges and why there is one, including history, and decisions by military judges. Frakt made a presentation to Congress on this issue. The issue is about whether the charges constitute war crimes (including terrorism) under international law, and if not, under what law are they war crimes? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-frakt/new-manual-for-military-c_b_557720.html

3. A paper by John Dehn, a law professor at West Point. His article discusses another case, arguing that the Guantanamo war crimes charges are actually charges under US common law, that the Military Commissions have jurisdiction, but he leaves the question of applying this domestic law in a foreign country to a future article. http://jicj.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/1/63.full

4. A paper by David Glazier, a former military officer and a law professor. His paper deals with each charge, arguing that none are violations of international law of war (war crimes) and he addresses the US common law issue also. He argues that the commissions did not have jurisdiction. Glazier notes that there was the option of trying Khadr in civilian court, assuming jurisdiction in a foreign country. (Glazier doesn't address the age issue, but perhaps a civilian court would not have ignored the "Child Soldier" law, which the military judge said was superseded by the Military Commissions Act.) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1669946

5. Glazier was part of Congressional panel of law professors. Khadr was essentially charged with "war crimes" for fighting the US military while not being a uniformed soldier, in a foreign country where he resided for many years. This could come back to haunt the US because, for example, CIA drone operators don't wear uniforms either. http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2010/04/30/law-prof-david-glazier-cia-drone-pilots-could-be-tried-for-%E2%80%98war-crimes%E2%80%99/

6. The US "war crimes" charge of fighting without a uniform is, at least, hypocritical. The US sometimes partners with non-uniformed fighters. It supported people like Khadr's father when they fought the Russians in Afghanistan. It's original ally, the Northern Alliance, didn't wear uniforms initially. American soldiers even disguised their uniforms to blend in with Northern Alliance fighters. http://www.pegc.us/archive/Journals/parks_4_Chi_J_Intl_L_493.pdf

7. The pre-trial agreement Khadr signed as his confession from the DOD web site. http://www.defense.gov/news/Khadr%20Convening%20Authority%20Pretrial%20Agreement%20AE%20341%2013%20Oct%202010%20(redacted).pdf

8. A document also signed by Khadr, as part of his confession, outlining the charges with additional information. http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2010/10/26/10/stip.source.prod_affiliate.56.pdf

Another alternative would be a separate section on significant legal controversies surrounding this trial which would include the above issue of war crimes charges based on status, as well as issues already addressed to a considerable extent such as the ignoring of the "Child Soldier" law, and US and Canadian Supreme court decisions on the illegality of the system including issues like the use of illegally obtained evidence, which could be transferred. Diane1976 (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Khadr did violate the international laws of war.

Wearing uniforms is only a part of it. What's technically required is that they distinguish themselves from the non-combatants, which Al-Qaeda has not done, and not tried to do. When non-uniformed 15 year-olds act as combatants they put every other non-uniformed 15 year-old in the area at greater risk of being mistakenly identified as a combatant. It's a serious war crime that becomes evident whenever an innocent civilian is mistakenly killed. That should never have been tolerated, let alone condoned, by the people who claim to care about human rights.

Conversely, CIA drones look just like USAF drones. There is no greater risk that a CIA drone over Pakistan will be confused with a civilian aircraft. It's an interesting legal argument but nothing more consequential than that. For that matter, it's a legal argument that's been decided similarly by two administrations.

The same goes for blending in with Northern Alliance fighters. If U.S. soldiers went into combat while blending in with 15 year-old civilians then that would be a different story.

The "Child Soldier" law was not ignored. It just doesn't excuse Khadr's actions. The legality of the evidence was considered, and allowed by the judge.

Frakt and Glazier are critics of the process who lost this round. Frakt is a GTMO lawyer, which makes his position one-sided by necessity. I don't mind listing them as critics on the losing side as long as we don't make them out to be anything other than that. In fact, I've said before that such people should never be forgotten.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

-My point was that when people read that a person confessed to "war crimes and terrorism", they would assume those words mean what they usually mean. Whether or not people know that "war crimes" mean violations of the international laws of war, such as grave breaches of Geneva, or the crimes codified in the Rome Statue, they do know that in vast majority of cases they involve intentional attacks on civilians or attacks on combatants who are out of commission due to wounds or imprisonment. And "terrorism" also means involvement in an intentional attack on civilians, in or outside a war context. This is not what Khadr was charged with, and not what he confessed to. There is no reference to international law of war in the MCA or the charges or the confession. There are references to "law of war" and a hint from the Military Commissions Manual that this doesn't have to mean international law of war, implying it means some US common law of war, or maybe ordinary US domestic law.

That's why I say that, at the very least, there should be a reference to the actual charges and confession, and to the fact that these are based on definitions that have been controversial among legal experts. Those legal experts do not only include defence lawyers and law professors. They include military judges at Gtmo. In effect, Khadr is charged with fighting the US military in Afghanistan while being deemed to lack POW status under Geneva. This is defined as a "war crime" and "terrorism" by US definitions only.

The Frakt article illustrates how these definitions evolved, regardless of his personal role and opinion. The Dehn and Glazier papers show different interpretations of what laws are, or should be, involved, and what court should have jurisdiction. None suggest Khadr shouldn't have been prosecuted at all and they don't deal with the "child soldier" issue. The issue of whether or not the US is objective or hypocritical in its definition of war crimes and terrorism is relevant because international law evolves based on the practices of nations, and the US can expect others may follow its precedents, for better or worse.

You don't provide any explanation for claiming that Khadr violated international law of war (no reference to any law, treaty, or specified crime, such as a grave breach of Geneva or the list in the Rome Statue).

Your reference to the lack of a uniform, etc. refers to factors that may justify denying a person the special benefits of "prisoner of war" status under Geneva once he is captured. Khadr "confessed" to the US interpretation that he wasn't entitled to that status. You, like the US government, don't cite where this is defined as a war crime under Geneva, Rome Statue or other international law or treaty.

Khadr did not "blend in with civilian 15 year olds" when he was confronted as a potential "hostile" by the US military. According to the Prosecution's own words, he strapped on an ammunition vest and declared he would die fighting. (US Defense Department - Omar Khadr - trial documents). He wasn't charged with relevant war crime under internatinal law either (perfidy). He didn't "blend in" to access secret military info either, btw. He stood in public places and observed vehicles (so-called spying).

The "Child Soldier" law certainly was ignored when Khadr was captured, as were the Geneva Conventions based on Bush's determinations, including the minimum rights accorded by the Supreme Court subsequently, and other rights determined by Congress later with the passing of two versions of the Military Commissions Act. When the "child soldier law" issue finally came up before the Military Judge in Khadr's case, it was years after Khadr was captured. He acknowledged the implications of the law, as policy, but he said, at that point, it was superseded by the MCA, because it makes no mention of any age as a barrier to prosecution, also passed years after Khadr's capture. (US Defense Department - Omar Khadr) Diane1976 (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ughhhh you terrorist apologists are making this so unnecessarily difficult...ughhh...--Львівське (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Diane,

I fully agree that the charges should be specified. I'll try to clarify them in this weekend. Readers can judge for themselves. I've said below that people have been too quick to call people "war criminals." I've also seen it applied to Lynndie England.

Nevertheless, the secondary sources we use do say Khadr committed a war crime. Treaties do say "willful killing" is a grave breach. Forex, his lawyer's claim that "Omar Khadr was a lawful target but he didn't have the right to fight back" is misleading. He was a lawful target because he was a terrorist. He didn't have the right to fight back because terrorists don't have the right to fight under the laws of war.

I can sort-of understand your point that this isn't the typical bus-bombing of civilians that we'd associate with terrorism. But he committed them while fighting for al Qaeda, which is a terrorist organization. But, we'll let put it in the article and let readers judge for themselves.

The Bush administration never "ignored" the Geneva Conventions. They just read them differently. The Court of Appeals agreed with their interpretation. When the Supreme Court overturned it, three of the Justices eight (at the time) also agreed. Had it been one more then the appeals ruling would have stood, and Bush would have prevailed. (I'm just pointing out that many people agreed it was a reasonable interpretation.)

It wasn't a complete loss either. The Supreme Court only gave the detainees Common Article 3. They also got habeas later, but that's only in GTMO.

I haven't read all the papers you've linked to in their entirety. They seem to be relying on desperate technical points. Regardless whether there's any validity to them or not, this issue has been in the courts for years. It looks to me that the process has run its course.

They didn't ignore the child soldier issue either. I'm not aware of any treaty that the U.S. agreed to which says he absolutely can't stand trial. (He can't fight, but that's his and his father's fault.) The judge ruled that he was old enough to stand trial, and I'm sure he'd know of the law.

It says in the article that some had complained that he was locked up with the adults. The age limits were actually set by Army regulations dated prior to the war.

It wasn't only a lack of a uniform that makes him unable to be a POW. I doubt that a uniform would have made a difference in his case. He has to be fighting for, and responsible to, a country (Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not legally recognized as such), or a cause that recognizes the laws of war. Note that the Supreme Court agreed with the Bush administration on that.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I should have commented better on the applicability of the Frakt, Dehn, and Glazier papers. They seem obscure. Do you have more widely accepted sources that comment on those?

Not to say they're fringe characters, but I wonder if their views were sufficiently notable for this case.

Nor does this mean I'm opposed to such a section.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

--Randy, Thanks for responding. The charges are on the US Defense Department web site - Omar Khadr. The web site also shows the "pre-trial agreement", the agreement to a plea bargain, and the diplomatic notes between US and Canada. The pre-trial agreement refers to an attachment and the only place I could find it, the actual confession, was referenced to an official document by an article in the Miami Herald. I think that's the whole thing. http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2010/10/26/10/stip.source.prod_affiliate.56.pdf

Re Lyndie England, and other low level persons charged for prisoner abuse, I suspect they were scapegoats. See US Senate Armed Services Committee report on detainee treatment saying incidents of prisoner abuse were not the work of "a few bad apples". http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/Detainee%20Report%20Final_April%2022%202009.pdf

Re "willful killing". Check out the Rome Statute which lists international war crimes including grave breaches of Geneva. It refers to "willful killing" of protected persons. http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm You can see who protected persons in a war are in the Geneva Conventions, and they do not include soldiers in a war. Protected persons among armed forces include medical officers and chaplains. The soldier who was killed was a medic, but he was acting as a soldier, not a medic, when he was killed. He was not performing medical duties. He was with an armed party checking out the bombed compound to see if all 5 insurgents were dead. See the witness report of a soldier who was there, OC-1. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/OC-1_CITF_witness_report. See also the charges. No mention of killing a medical officer performing medical duties.

There is no mention of violations of international law of war in the charges or the confession, or the Military Commission Act. The Manual hints that "violation of laws of war" might mean some American law. If you say Khadr violated international law, I think you should cite a reference to international law and the crime. Good source is above Rome Statute or Geneva itself or some other treaty but I think most are codified in Rome Statute which set up the International Criminal Court.

International laws of war do not hold combatants in a war responsible for all the actions of the group or government they are with, only their own actions. (Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol 75) Commanders and political leaders are responsible for actions of their troops, though (Nuremberg).

When you use the term "terrorist" I think that's ok if you are talking about a person who attacked civilians, but otherwise it's subjective. When people like Khadr, including his father, fought the Russian military, they were heros. They turned into terrorists when they fought Americans, whether they personally committed terrorism or not. Similarly a "child soldier" became a "war criminal" when he fought Americans. International law doesn't make that kind of distinction based on opinions about causes. Apparently American law does, but, be sure, that Khadr is charged with "war crimes" under newly made up American law, perhaps based on old American law, not international law, and his "war crimes" are not recognized under international law.

Yes, I agree with you, the decision by the Supreme Court that Bush's interpretation of international law was wrong was not unanimous and you are right that the issue is controversial among judges.

It's true, as you say, that Gtmo prisoners, because they are foreigners, like Khadr who is a Canadian, only really have three rights, habeas and the two rights under Geneva, a fair trial and humane treatment. That, in itself, is a controversy, treating people in a separate justice system based on nationality. See the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html

It's true that the case ran it's course after 2 years of interrogations and 5 years in the military commission, ending in a plea deal. It's not really over yet. The next drama will be when Khadr requests transfer to Canada in one year. They said they would look "favourably" on the request, but whether it's accepted could depend on if there's a change of government. And what happens to him after could too. The multi-million dollar civil law suit against the Canadian government for participating in a violation of his rights, as declared by the Supreme Court, will come into the picture too, I'm sure.

Frankly, I think that 15 year old Khadr trailing around after his parents in Pakistan and Afghanistan, with his grade one education in Canada plus seven years of "home schooling" and madrassas in Pakistan, might not actually know the existing laws of war, let alone the ones to be invented by the Bush Administration years after the fact in accordance with centuries old American case law, or whatever it was. I don't know either. I think what he knew was what his father and the men around him said, that Afghanistan had fought off the Russians and now it was time to fight off the Americans who, according to them, were at war with Islam (their version of the "clash of civilizations" theory which is also believed by numerous people on "our side"). The law in the case has been debated by lawyers, law professors and even military judges for years.

You're right that fighters like Khadr, by international consensus, not that it's written anywhere, don't have a legal right to fight, although they are often widely supported in their causes, and sometimes not, but that's a political issue. Think of resistance fighters in WWII, or think of the Viet Cong whose cause may not have been admired but they weren't charged with "war crimes" just for fighting. This is why international law says little about them. And they are deemed to be vulnerable to domestic law, whatever domestic laws may be applicable. That would mean a normal trial in a normal court with normal rules and rights of the accused. It does not make them "war criminals" to be tried by a military tribunal which does not follow normal rules which is clearly evident by the acceptance of illegally obtained evidence (See Canadian Supreme Court decision on the illegal process). http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2010/2010scc3/2010scc3.html

Well, Frakt, Dehn and Glazier are the best I could do so far to find history of the legal aspects plus opinions on both sides. They are military law experts. Frakt is a military lawyer. Glazier is a former military officer and law professor. They both appeared before Congress. Dehn is also a law professor.

I think a Controversial Issues section, as in other Wikipedia articles, would be appropriate, showing both sides. Some think Khadr should have been subjected to the 40 year sentence of the Military Commission and some think even prosecuting him was wrong. Surely the case was controversial both politically and legally. That's the main reason, after 8 years, it ended in a plea deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diane1976 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The Geneva Conventions say murder. It doesn't specify exceptions. That other treaties (some of which we will never ratify) have condensed that definition doesn't change anything. Soldiers are not legal targets for civilians to shoot at. It's a serious issue when it extends the war.

The sources say Khadr violated international law. Although the sources may well be incompetent, the charge is "murder in violation of the laws of war." That's based on international law.

The conspiracy charge was also used at Nuremberg. Khadr was a member of a terrorist organization, and bears some responsibility for actions he was knowledgable of, even if he didn't have a direct role in all of them. Nevertheless, I will agree it's worth exploring.

The "few bad apples" comment was misinterpreted and overplayed. Briefly, when it comes to the the original Abu Graib photos, those really were a few bad apples. What happened that day was, in fact, the night shift doing things their officers had not approved. (I know they say otherwise, but not about what happened on that day -- most of them admitted to that.) Lynndie England was there that night in violation of the rules only because she wanted to be with her boyfriend. Those prisoners weren't even going to be interrogated; they had been moved to that section of the prison after they'd been in a riot. The Army CID was already investigating this incident before it became famous. In the process they found other excesses, and failures to follow procedures (hence your link to the Senate report). Your link only shows that the investigation found more problems, but they were never the types of things that could lead higher than they did.

Actually, it is written somewhere that they don't have a right to fight. It makes a difference in whether or not they may be considered a POW when captured.

The resistance fighters in WWII were indeed considered unlawful combatants, which means that for them fighting was illegal. Like them or not, nobody questioned Germany's right to execute them after the briefest of tribunals.

In Vietnam, after some high level negotiations, the Viet Cong were considered to be fighting for North Vietnam. Those captured in uniform during regular military operations were treated as legitimate POWs. Those not in uniform could be executed. I don't doubt that the same rules could have applied in the Soviet Afghan war (which is not to say that the Soviets felt they needed to care).

I'll continue on Frakt, Dehn, and Glazier in the section at the bottom.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture

The main picture's caption is misleading. That's not a Koran he's holding; it's a fan made out of some kind of hay which is very common in that part of the world. I have corrected this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.237.103 (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Invalid Picture

In the "Second tribunal" section there is no picture, but a picture filename and caption. Could someone find that picture and to see if it can be used on Omar Khadr's page. Otherwise it is pointless having the picture name and caption with no picture. Adamdaley (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Why has the invalid picture and caption been put back when I took it out? The caption is saying "he is laying landmines". It does not contribute to the article in anyway or form. If someone can find the picture in question and add it to the page, even verify it can be used on Wikipedia. Feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Guilty Plea

It needs to be covered and very clearly without any doubts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.116 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 2010 October 25

The convention for talk pages is that new comments should be added to the bottom. User:196.12.203.116 didn't do this.

I agree his plea should be covered clearly. And to the extent WP:RS express doubts as to whether he was really guilty, the article should clearly reflect those doubts. Geo Swan (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Kangaroo court event?

I realize it is awkward to address and have not looked at other Wikipedia articles (such as on trials of journalists in China or Stalin's Russia) but Iam thinking that our BLP policy might necessitate our including the unusual nature of this court venue and the options before Khadr when he confessed since some RSs and his own lawyer say it was a sham confession. I think we can say he confessed but that the context of the confession,as reported in Reliable Sources, likely should be included. The New York Times has a reasonable article I think [5]. The whole thing seems pretty sordid and Orwellian and I find it very hard to edit this BLP but feel somehow obligated to try. I definitely don't think we should,as some Editors are already doing, call him a Terrorist and Murderer as if that is an undisputed fact. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It was very much a Kangaroo Court. The evidence for this is chock-a-block, and you don't have to look any farther then the article itself and it's attendant references and links. Here's the short of it:

1) The Americans completely ignored the UN's recommendation that the Kadar be treated as a child soldier.

2) The Americans virtually ignored that their own supreme court had ruled that the military tribunal systems violate the Geneva Convention. After their supreme court struck down the military tribunals, instead of dismantling the detention system and moving the legal proceedings to a real justice system, like they should have done, they just passed a new law to enable a new round of military tribunals.

3) The United States made up the concept they called "Unlawful Combatants" out of whole cloth. It clearly does not exist in international law. They used this fiction to detain Khadar. If they had decided he was a soldier and detained him as a Prisoner Of War, they would have been bound by the provisions of international law which protect POWs. If they had decided that he was not a soldier but a civilian, and then detained him as a civilian in a war zone, they would have been bound by those provisions of international law that apply to civilians. Instead, they deliberately ignored international law, decided (incredibly) that Khadar was neither a soldier nor a civilian, conveniently ignored their obligations under international law and ILLEGALLY detained Khadar, indefinitely, without charging him for many years. This alone invalidates ANY of the American's so-called "legal" proceeding that came after. If I kidnapped someone and then claimed I had judicial authority over them, they'd lock me up.... but when George W. Bush does it, somehow nobody wants to arrest the bastard and charge the US with war crimes.

Oh, and to all you neocon conservitard idiots who are going to say "US Law blah blah blah" Hey stupid: Us Law applies in the US; Not in Ahfghanistan or Pakistan. The US had NO authority to detain Omar Khadar as they did. None. Zero. Zippo. Zilch. Comprende? Just because the US government claims something is so, that doesn't make it so. 216.197.170.5 (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If the article led you to believe these things then the article is biased. Please explain what in the article led you to feel this way.

1) The UN has no authority in this case. That representative was asking the U.S. to bend the rules in order to appease its critics. That's a useless exercise, given that its one-sided critics will just find more things to complain about.

2) You misunderstand the Supreme Court decisions. The U.S. cared more about the Geneva Conventions than any of its critics. What they didn't do is try to give detainees more rights than they deserved under the laws of war. Sometimes the Supreme Court disagreed on where those rights began and ended, and the government respected the Court's decisions when that happened. No "kangaroo court" acts that way. This is clear when you consider the fact that the administration's position held in the appeals court, and could have held in the Supreme Court, too, if only one additional Justice had ruled for it. And even though they did lose, GTMO is still legally allowed to be open under the restrictions the Court demanded.

3) Contrary to the propaganda, the term "unlawful combatant" is older than this war. The concept goes back to the beginning of the laws of war. Common articles 2 and 3 deal with what wars are covered. It is completely impossible to respect the Geneva Conventions, or human rights in general, without outlawing those combatants who fail to respect it.

This brings me back to your point #2: The Supreme Court agreed with the Bush administration on that part. They only disagreed on some technicalities. Congress went back and adjusted the rules for the military commissions. The Supreme Court disagreed with some elements of that, Congress made more adjustments to ensure that this one is legal.

As for your closing point, it is wrong in several ways. You apparently don't understand the "neocon" position either. U.S. civilian law doesn't apply. Military law does. It is GTMO's critics who wanted U.S. civilian law to apply.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"he pleaded guilty" versus "his admission of guilt"

I'm not sure if we were right to switch from "he pleaded guilty" to "his admission of guilt". Many in the media are questioning whether he only pleaded guilty because he could have been imprisoned indefinitely by the military if he didn't. As long as there is question about whether he actually is guilty, I think that the first phrase is more accurate because it does not make any assumptions about his guilt and it only says what actually happened in the tribunal. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This is just speculation, though. From an encyclopedic standpoint, should we not stick to the facts and not pander to what his defenders are saying after the fact? If there is enough evidence from scholars or notable figures regarding this fact it should go in the page body, but the intro should be to the point.--Львівське (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Artic.gnome about this aspect. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

He pled guilty, but the two are basically the same thing at law. There is no difference.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's just two ways of saying the same thing. I typed it to avoid redundancy, as the article is now filled with "plea agreement" and "pleaded guilty". Technically, pled guilty is the legal way of saying it. It's all the same in the end though.--Львівське (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

They aren't the same thing, that's my point. Saying that he admitted guilt means that he really is guilty. Saying that he pleaded guilty means that he chose that action in court, either because he really is guilty or because he was being strategic. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• I know we shouldn't use the talk page as a forum to discussing his case. See my comment as offering additional reason why we should not rely on those WP:RS that take the stipulation of fact at face, and ignore those WP:RS that express doubts. If you look at his "stipulation of fact" -- his confession -- you will see it contains demonstrably false statements. Early in the document you will see he signed that he received "excellent medical care while in U.S. custody". However some of his guards have already testified that he was forced to undergo long days of interrogation when it looked like his survival was touch and go. Further, those guards have testified that even though he had terribly painful wounds all pain medication was withheld, when he was under interrogation. Geo Swan (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't soft-pedal this. It is a very strong admission of guilt under oath.

He would be guilty of perjury if it wasn't true. His lawyers are duty-bound to prevent him from perjuring himself.

I don't know how much his withholding of pain medication could be trusted. But if guards say they've seen this happen then it ought to go into the article, particularly if they were otherwise trustworthy. Right now, it only says that he's making this claim. The Amnesty reference is probably just repeating his version of the story.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A plea bargin is just that: a bargin. People admit to things on legal advice that it is the best deal that can be obtained. And if the client does not know or has several versions of the 'facts', it is not perjury to admit someone else's version, it is just necessary and real politick - sorry for giving a bit of an analysis with this, but felt it needed to understand what may be the circumstances. The article should simply represent both the significance of the admission and the shortcomings and problems with it therefore. Represent all sides of it and no 'soft pedalling' of anything. Just objective as possible. -Fremte (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right that some people will read their wishful thinking into it, but realpolitik or not, a lawyer can never allow a client to testify to a falsehood.

It most definitely is perjury if it's not true.

I wouldn't have any problems with a section on notable people who've expressed their support for him, and may now discount his confession. I don't think such people should ever be forgotten anyway.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: I know that a lot of people would still like to imagine that he may not have killed Sgt. Speer, but who is it that thinks he didn't plant the mines? We may need to tread carefully on how we list these people. Khadr is a war criminal, plain and simple.

I wonder how many of his supporters had also claimed to oppose landmines at one point.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, enough. He did it, so deal with it. He admitted his guilt under oath. He pled guilty to the acts as alleged. The positions I have seen to the contrary appear to be nothing more than unsupported speculation. If that comes out later from the reputable source, and not some opinion piece, then link it and add to the article. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Where does the "under oath" come from? Are oaths routinely administered to defendants? In a military tribunal? Any sources for that? This would be extremely unusual on this side of the ocean... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Under oath, extremely usual on this side of the ocean, and this includes a military tribunal. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Stephan doesn't realize Khadr plead guilty. Once that happens, he can go under oath.

As the CBC says:

When the trial resumed on Oct. 25, Khadr withdrew his previous pleas. He was placed under oath so that the military judge, Col. Patrick Parrish, could question him. Asked if he killed Speer in 2002, Khadr answered "yes."

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I think we need to merge this page in. User:Fram had changed it to redirect to this page per WP:BIO1E. I agree with his assessment but given there was lot of activity on that article that grew over a few years so a more, I think it's probably better propose a merge instead. Unless anyone here apposes, I recommend that it be merged carefully. Any objections? --ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 18:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand. Merge what? with what? and where? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

ok I see it is being suggested thatChristopher Speer be merged into this BLP. At first blush I am opposed because there has been ongoing activities related to Speer in the sense of Speer's widow's civil suit, which is not limited to Omar khadr according to the current BLP on Speer, and is, in fact, targeting Omar's father. That suit in itself seems to have some notable attributes, as the presiding judge said the 94 million dollars he awarded Speer's widow likely marks the first time terrorist acts have resulted in civil liabilities. As well, there seems to be some confusion as to whether Speer was acting as a medic at the time of his death; sometimes he's referred to as a medic, other times as a Delta Forces special ops. out of Fort Bragg, and of course he could maybe have been wearing both hats at the same time,I imagine. At this point I think Speer is notable enough to have his own BLP. I see there is also something about him not wearing his helmet when he was killed which I think is also notable,perhaps. His BLP definitely needs a lot of attention though. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the merger.

• In addition to the reasons offered by Mr.Grantevans2, Speer saved two children. If that is all he did, the saving children would be a blp1e. But multiple blp1e add up to blp2e or blp3e.
• The Omar Khadr is already too long. Geo Swan (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Remember that this is on WP:BIO1E. If Christopher Speer is only notable for one event, it has to overcome quite a bit of scrutiny to have it's own article. --ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 17:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. How many events is Khadr notable for? A lot of stuff flows from the 1 event and the same thing applies with Speer, it seems to me, not to mention he is a bona-fide American war hero with the saving of the 2 Afghan children [6] being especially notable. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

-Sgt. Speer deserves his own article because he was a heroic person as mentioned, for saving the Afghan children. He's also the only soldier whose death resulted in a prosecution, out of 5000 who were also killed by insurgents (unprivileged belligerents) in the Afghan and Iraq wars, or any other American wars in sovereign foreign countries, such as Vietnam, as far as I know. I think that makes him of special interest too.

Khadr deserves his own article because his case is historic, the only "unprivileged belligerent" (fighter with an irregular armed group) charged with the war crime of killing a US soldier in a foreign war with a grenade or other lawful weapon, as far as I know. I don't recall any other "unprivileged belligerents" (irregular fighters) in Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam (Viet Cong) or any others being so charged. He's also the first person in 60 years to be charged with "war crimes" as a minor. The Prosecution came up with a couple of relevant examples from WWII, a person who shot a British POW and a person who worked in the NAZI death camps. Neither received sentences as long as Khadr will end up serving.

To me, separate articles, with cross references, make sense, and I think most people with strong feelings on either side of the case would prefer it that way, if that's considered relevant. Diane1976 (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No consensus or further discussion x 8 months. Time to remove merger tag. --S. Rich (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"Not an American" Effect on Khadr's Trials

I wonder whether there should be a section specifying the differences between Khadr's due process rights and evidentiary rules at his trial as compared to what they would be if he had been born in Buffalo instead of in Toronto. I think it is possible for the average Reader to read the BLP and not realize that Khadr's judicial experiences and rights have been different from what they would be if he were an American. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a lot of "what ifs". If he was American he would be charged with treason and he'd get the chair or a true life sentence. What if.--Львівське (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The only salient point is what differences/distinctions exist between the types of trial and due process he would be entitled to except for a happenstance of birth and how notable those distinctions are in the context of this Subject's life/BLP. I'd say they are critically notable distictions which have been brought out by many reliable sources over the past 8 years. To Lvivske's comment, I am not suggesting that the results of a trial would be better or worse under either venue. Nobody can predict what is going to happen in any trial, especially an American trial (think O.J. or conversely the Innocence Project). But if Khadr truly was as mature and premeditated in his actions and as disquallified by reason(as opposed to edict) from any of the protections that our(USA) soldiers enjoy on the battlefield, as Prosecutors alledge, then maybe he should get a stiffer sentence, like the chair. But,that's not for us to speculate about, I don't think. I do however think it is incumbent upon Editors here to write a comprehensive BLP, which would,I believe, make clear mention of how American law provides for this man to have been prosecuted and defended in a way that is notably different from how he would have been prosecuted and defended if he was an American citizen. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this detail should go in the body under an appropriate section? --Львівське (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned this up. You begin running far afield in this article when you discuss the differing legal venues for individuals captured outside of the US in the War on Terror. The Commission process, for one, is administrative, and falls under Military Jurisdiction. It utilizes an entirely different standard of proof for a variety of reasons, the most important being that evidence is admitted so long as as it has a reasonable indicia of reliability. The reader can hit the link in the article if he or she wants to learn more, as this is fully explained.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

ok. It seems pretty good to me at this time. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for Objectivity

This article (this subject, if you will) is quite provocative emotionally. Reading through it, many statements are worded (some more subtle than others) to give an emotional bias toward Omar Khadr. While his story is certainly tragic no matter how one looks at it, taken as a whole it appears to me to be straying from objectively informative and into the realm of sensational. Most of the issues seem to stem from a parroting of the sensationalistic editorial articles, and not from the content itself.

1. "and was formally recognized as a child soldier by the United Nations child soldier program in 2010"

The source cited here says nothing to support that. A more valuable citation would be a link to the document itself: http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/omar-khadr-letter.pdf, that Radhika Coomaraswamy penned. He uses the term "child soldier" repeatedly, but never classifies Omar Khadr as such.

Moreover, International Law states:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm#art38 -> 3. States Parties shall refrain from recruiting any person who has not attained the age of fifteen years into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, States Parties shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.

So it would appear that the recruitment of children between 15-18 years of age is sanctioned by this law, regardless of the validity of the claim of "formal recognition".

2. In 2009, it was revealed that the Canadian government had spent over $1.3 million to ensure Khadr remained in Guantanamo.

The wording here is misleading in two distinct parts:

it was revealed implies that this information had been concealed or kept secret, and there is no evidence of this. It was simply reported by the media after a request was made for the information in the House of Commons.

and

to ensure Khadr remained in Guantanamo implies that this money was spent actively and with the specific intent to support the continuation of the confinement of the individual. These were legal charges, incurred as a result of responding to cases brought against Canada by Mr. Khadr's attorneys.

Taken together, the statements seem to paint a picture that portrays a clandestine effort by the Canadian government to fund the incarceration, regardless of the absurdity of that possibility.

Ref 17: The Globe and Mail sourceref requires a membership (perhaps it did not when it was added). http://www.theglobeandmail.com/subscribe.jsp?art=1344823

Ref 18: http://www.thestar.com/specialsections/article/718051

3. A 2009 review determined that the Canadian Cabinet had failed Khadr, <- Assertion that the Canadian Cabinet (which is not the subject of the source cited) failed in the absolute

by refusing to acknowledge <- SIRC's wording: "failed to take into account"

repeated claims of being abused. <- SIRC's wording: In a meeting with SIRC, CSIS reiterated that it was not aware of any specific allegations of torture on Khadr’s behalf prior to arriving at Guantanamo Bay, adding that no serious allegations of mistreatment or abuse had been made public at that time.

This, as some of the above, simply regurgitates the editorial slant of the publications rather than posting and citing facts. The report itself is simply SIRC's review of CSIS's handling of the matter. It highlights the successes and failures of CISC, and does not take many facets of the overall issue into account dependent upon whether or not they fall under CISC's purview.

The editorial references:

Ref 19: http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/667089

Ref 20: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20090127/csis_watchdog_090127/

The actual report: http://www.sirc-csars.gc.ca/opbapb/2008-05/index-eng.html

And, in another statement a little further down the page cited by Ref 19:

Canadian intelligence authorities had initially determined in a post-interrogation report that Khadr had little knowledge of his father's alleged activities, since "he was out playing or simply not interested".

The above assertion is both misleading and a fabrication. The report () shows that this was a statement that Mr. Khadr made during the interrogation. The wiki article quoted above asserts that this was both fact and common knowledge. This invalidates the claim of a contradiction that follows.

4. Khadr pled guilty to the murder of Christopher Speer, and on October 29, 2010, despite the prosecution psychiatrist testifying that he showed no signs of remorse

The above isn't misleading, per se, but it does seem to be somewhat confusing in the wording. I do not see how these two statements can be combined as they currently are in an objective manner.

That is just the first section, article in its' entirety contains many more. All of the above, in one way shape or form, qualify as original research. I also find it troubling that, in light of the availability of the original documents and reports on the events and aftermath, editorial opinions are chosen over simply referencing the valid data.

Archon888 (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Minor corrections in spelling/grammar Archon888 (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My, my what fancy words you use Archon. I have done enough research to know that there is no way a US court of law would have agreed to sentence a jihadist, murderer, terrorist to 8 years in prison if they thought he was really all those things. Especially since it was obvious they fixed the evidence enough so his finding of "guilty" was practically assured. I also know that the military judge who did follow US law and gave Khadr's defense the legal rights it deserved was hastily replaced with the one he got now. There was no way Khadr was not going to found guilty by this court and get the 40 years, at least. So, tell me, why did they agree to 8 years for this dangerous, dangerous person who had done such terrible things to Americans and will be free to do them again at the age of 32? 204.40.1.132 (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Good observations Archon. I'd like to assist you in editing these obviously out of line remarks that have been inserted into the article, but do we have consensus? I just don't want to get into an edit war with any apologists.--Львівське (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I also think the artice shoud be more objective. The term apologists(used above) can also apply to "government Apologists", but these labels are usually false when it comes to EDitors here and always non-constructive. Can you imagine how this BLP would be different if it were a 15 year old non-soldier American caught on the battlefield by Iranian soldiers in Iraq after having a 500 lb. bomb dropped on the building he was in and then maybe throwing a grenade that noone saw him throw which killed an Iranian soldier who was not wearing a helmet and then threatened with gang rape by a bunch of big Muslims before "confessing" and then spirited away to an Iranian jail and held without a trial for 8 years and the being tried by the Iranian Military? I find it hard to even imagine what this BLP would look like, but I am sure it woud be more sympathetic towards the prisoner and give less assumed legitimacy toward the captors and captors' court. We have an obligation towards NPOV, not pro-western pov, when there are Reliable Sources presenting both sides of the story, as there are in this case. I think the BLP slants much more towards a pro-western pov than it should. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Archon's Point 1 - Child Soldier Protocol

The letter from the UN representative of the Secretary General for children and armed conflict says, "In every sense Omar represents the classic child soldier narrative; recruited by unscrupulous groups...." Could be used as the direct reference, but is linked in the article currently referenced.

You quoted the "Convention on the Rights of the Child" (CRC) but the relevant law is the "Optional Protocol to the CRC on the involvement of children in armed conflict (Child Soldier Protocol). Canada, Afghanistan and the United States are all signatories. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc-conflict.htm

It applies to persons under 18, recruited into any kind of armed force or armed group (see Article 4) in any kind of armed conflict. State parties are required to treat such persons who were recruited contrary to the Protocol, and who fall under their jurisdiction, as Khadr did when captured, according to Articles 6 and 7 (rehabilitation and social reintegration).

Khadr's prosecution wasn't specifically prohibited but it was exceptional based on normal international practice and his situation as a minor in armed conflict wasn't exceptional. Under the MCA, the whole case was based on his status as an "unprivileged belligerant", a person fighting in a war while being attached to an unlawful armed group which is the type of group highly likely to unlawfully recruit minors. Diane1976 (talk) 07:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Does Any of This Belong in Khadr's BLP?

Michael Welner, the Psychiatrist who evaluated Khadr for the Prosecution, made a posting yesterday at the New Engish Review[7] wherein he, refering to himself in the 3rd. person, claims to have been involved in a consulting role to the Prosecutors going back to April and that he "consulted to government prosecutors on numerous issues, and the case witnessed a number of pivotal achievements that led to its eventual resolution.....The earlier involvement of Dr. Welner resulted in the first decision of a military court to compel an examination by a prosecution mental health expert in a disputed confession matter.....The information Dr. Welner yielded ultimately had a major impact at the suppression hearing, and the August 2010 opinion by Judge Col. Patrick Parrish in which he refused to suppress Khadr’s statements (see attached)." I am not even sure any of this belongs in Khadr's BLP nor where it might go if it does. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Pakistani" Canadian

Some Editors keep reinserted the Pakistani or Egyption designation in the first sentence of the BLP. I am relying on the US Dept. of Defence list [8] which only refers to Khadr as Canadian. Is there any Reliable Source available that is backing up this idea that Khadr is Pakistani, or a consensus that he should be identified as one (if so on what basis) and if not, I think it should be removed again and that it not be reinserted. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs. His father was born in Egypt, which mades him an Egyptian-Canadian. But Omar Khadr was born in Canada.

We could say he was of Egyptian descent, and perhaps whatever his monther is, but that's about it.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed Pakistani and somebody put it back in, so I took it out again. The family moved Khadr around to different places all his life, but there is no indication he somehow attained multiple citizenships through these moves that I know of. If people are interested in his descent, the parents are cross referenced and are shown to have been originally from Egypt. In Canada some people argue that Canada should remove his citizenship which, as far as I know, would leave him stateless, even if it were possible, so I think it's misleading to refer to him as if he had dual citizenship unless somebody can explain how he did. Diane1976 (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I didnt see this talk discussion before, I undid my edit--Львівське (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

specific conviction? which charges?

The article is a little unclear about exactly what he was convicted of. The intro and side panel say he was convicted of war crimes and terrorism, but the references don't seem to substantiate that (unless I missed it - please assume good faith). It also says he pled guilty to murder, but doesn't say if he pled guilty to war crimes or terrorism charges. Thanks. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. The sources usually say five charges, but only detail murder and setting mines.

Here is a list of Khadr's 2007 charges. I assume they're still the same. I wish we had a secondary source that said it better.

I'm not sure how many of these are technically "war crimes." Murder certainly is one. Setting the mines was likely a war crime, but I'd feel better if reporters would give a clear explanation. They've been too quick to use the phrase in the past.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW: Note from that link that Khadr was also involved in a battle in which two Afghan Militia Force members were killed, and several others were wounded.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

He was a non-uniformed nonbelligerent, and then a murderer, so those are 2 off the top of my head.--Львівське (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Here we go: "Khadr pleaded guilty to his war crimes of murder, attempted murder, supporting terrorism, spying and conspiracy Monday in exchange for a reported eight-year sentence, with the last seven to be served in Canada."Details of Khadr's crimes emerge in Gitmo court. Please insert this information into the article wherever you consider it appropriate. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a sentence after the first two in the article indicating the result of the plea bargain (an 8 year sentence, possibly to be partially served in Canada), referencing the pre-trial agreement, the charges and the diplomatic notes exchanged between US and Canada stating their positions on the arrangement. Diane1976 (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hope that's ok. I wrote about the legal controversy concerning the charges, I think in the wrong place, under the section titled "Explanation" following the section titled "Heavily Biassed Introduction".

The article covers the two main controversies over the Khadr case, his age, and his treatment at Gtmo. But I don't see anything about the significant legal controversy over the charges themselves, i.e. whether the Military Commissions Act has invented after-the-fact "war crimes" or whether they have a basis in international law of war, or, if not, what law of war, that existed at the time of Khadr's actions. The only reference to international law in Khadr's charges, or the details, is the determination by the US that Khadr wasn't entitled to POW status under Geneva, but, that means he could be denied certain benefits, not that all his actions in the war were "grave breaches" listed in the Conventions, i.e. war crimes.

For example, "murder" isn't a war crime if the person killed was acting as a soldier at the time, no matter what the status of the combatant who killed him. Killing a civilian is a war crime, or killing a soldier under some conditions, not specified as such in the charges, could be. Another example, the use of land mines has been banned in a treaty by some countries, but not the United States. The charges refer repeatedly to Khadr's actions being directed at the military, not civilians. It's unusual to label acts of war against a military operating in a foreign country war crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diane1976 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I was going to detail the charges in the article this weekend, but got bogged down. I'll get to it, if no one else does.

Khadr wasn't acting as a lawful soldier when he killed Sgt. Spear, and that's the difference. The GCs don't recognize a difference between unlawful killings. It's not only that he could be "denied certain benefits." He could have been executed for it.

At this point, all you have is minor legal opinion. Officially, it was in the charges, and a court hasn't struck it down yet.

I still think Frakt, Dehn, and Glazier hold minor opinions, but I don't mind if you put the section in there. I might bicker if it got too much space in the lede, unless we get more notable authorities who support it. In any case, it'll make more sense than some of what's in there now.

FWIW: David J. R. Frakt is already in Wikipedia.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In the first sentence I replaced "war crimes and terrorism" with "five charges under the US MCA including "murder in violation of the law of war" and "providing material support for terrorism" with a reference to the charge sheet that lists and describes them all. This seems more specific. (Could add them all but seems long and those are the main ones.)

I think the controversy about these charges is covered quite a bit in a general way in the linked articles (Military Commissions and Military Commissions Act). Agree re lede. If I add something it might be a sentence elsewhere.

[Fighters like Khadr (and all other insurgents who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq) lack "combatant immunity" under domestic law, unlike soldiers, and may be charged for any of their actions in the war that are contrary to a domestic law, under the applicable domestic law and, to many, that would mean in a normal domestic court. But their actions aren't necessarily war crimes under international law. GC Common Article 3 gives them a right to a fair trial meeting normal standards. He gave up the right to appeal it as part of the plea deal, so there wont be any review by a court.

Diane1976 (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diane1976 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It does not at all mean a domestic civilian court. When the Supreme Court ruled against military commissions in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, they were specifically comparing the commissions to the ordinary military court process. None of the Justices said it should be a civilian court.

Explicitly citing the charges is always better, as long as the term "war crimes" is still prominently displayed.

As articles go, we can't have one standard for war crimes charges for this article while other articles are more loose. The U.S. is constantly accused of war crimes. I gave up on the U.S. war crimes article when it had become muddied with the cheap accusations, including those from groups that tacitly support war crimes that others do. (The sad thing is, this diluted the actual war crimes.)

I understand that this conviction won't be appealed. But there will be more convictions for other detainees, and some of them will be appealed. (FWIW: The Nurenberg trials had forbidden any appeals.) The war isn't over yet. I think we could eventually see how the phrase "war crime" stands up on appeal for some of the others. As it is, we know that military judges have allowed the charges. That makes it official.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Relating to identifying Maher Arar

I'm working on Robert Fuller (FBI), and found out that a section there had been basically copied here. The section contains four dead links, so I rewrote it with other sources. I'm going to do the same here, but wanted to preserve the section I'm taking out here. The last sentence doesn't seem relevant to Khadr. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

On October 7, FBI agent Robert Fuller showed Khadr a black-and-white photograph of Maher Arar, a Canadian who had been detained at a New York airport following a family vacation, and demanded to know if he recognised him. Khadr initially stated that he did not recognise Arar, but when further pressured by Fuller, confessed he had seen him at a Kabul safehouse run by Abu Musab al-Suri or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leading to Arar's rendition to Syria the following day, where he was tortured extensively before being returned to Canada and suing the government. Arar was alleged to have been in the country when Khadr would have been 6–12 years old, and to have attended Khalden training camp which had no ties to al-Suri or al-Zarqawi.

Are you actually removing text? A good reference doesn't become invalid simply because the link is dead. Otherwise, a lot of items with AP references would become invalid after a month or two.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What's up with this?

Just poking around a little here shows many issues with the quality of this article. How can the plead charges and sentence not be in the info box? How can there be no mention of Obama's suspension of all military tribunals in 2009? I'm sure there's more. Who's interested in cleaning this up?

And in general, how can this article have no substantial discussion in the last year? Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Little has changed since the sentence, and so there's less interest, and hence, less editing.

Khadr probably lost some support when he confessed to the obvious. Likewise, his critics were upset when he got so little prison time. It's a sad case all around.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

See talk

"see talk" ? -- PBS (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

unnecessary rewrites of templates -- to be avoided...

This edit reformatted a {{cite}} template. Some contributors like to place all the fields in a template on a single, very long line. Others, like myself, find it much easier to read and edit the text when each field is a line of its own.

I try to resist the temptation to rewrite the templates to conform to my preferred style. I think we should all resist this temptation. Reformatting the templates doesn't change how the article is rendered. But it strongly erodes the value of the the history mechanism, for later readers, who want to use it to show how the text has been changed. If an article is edited, to reformat the templates, and then a few small genuine edits are made, a diff will give the surface appearance that the article was massively changed.

I changed the article to put the template back. I will leave others templates alone, when I don't like their style, and change them as little as possible, when I add a missing field. I request those who don't like my style of templates to do likewise.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It may make the template easier to read (debatable, but you clearly think so), but it also makes the edited text more unlike the saved text, and hence difficult to read. This becomes more and more of a problem as the number of citation in an article increase. I suggest that if you like, your cite template parameters in a list, and don't like short citations (which I think are superior), then consider using a list of defined references.

According the the section linked in the last paragraph there is a tool that can automate this process User:PleaseStand/References segregator, I have not used it so I don't know how well it works. -- PBS (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Does it make the text more readable? I presume you mean for contributors reading the text in an editor? I accept that you, and others who prefer one line cite templates, find it so. Please accept that I find the complete opposite.

FWIW your description of one-line templates as "short" references is odd. Your one-line references contain all the original fields, correct? So they aren't really "shorter", agreed? I wasn't familiar with List-defined_references. The first requires editing whole articles -- not editing by subsection. The second is interesting. But I haven't seen a single article that uses {{reflist}} with a "ref=" parameter, or uses a <references> </references> pair. I suspect that if I started to use this form It would routinely be reverted, by well-meaning contributors.

I think the point I made -- that changing the references in an article from the style one dislikes, to the style one prefers, very strongly erodes the utility of using the history mechanisim to compare versions of an article -- is important. I can't count how many times I have returned to an article, done some diffs that suggested massive changes, only to find after wasting a non-trivial amount of time, that the changes to the text, to how the article rendered, were trivial, and that the appearance of massive change was due to someone choosing to change all the references to their favored style. Geo Swan (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Labeling

No need for that as per WP:LABEL and WP:NPOV. The text is clear about it: "He was convicted of five charges under the United States Military Commissions Act of 2009 including murder in violation of the law of war and providing material support for terrorism...". Please have a look at these policies. ProtecterMan (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Calling a war crminal a war criminal is pretty neutral and straight forward. Calling a 25 year old a "child soldier" and "juvinile" is a misleading statement.--Львівське (говорити) 15:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please understand that the Guantanamo military commissions are controversial and that we have to keep it neutral. The text explains it and it is up to the reader to judge. There is no need for this label. For the rest, it is just a fact that he is a child soldier and one of the juveniles in Guantanamo and his age now does not change these facts. I think it is quite an uncontroversial fact represented in the sources. ProtecterMan (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you find the facts controversial? Or why you, who is obviously versed in Wikipedia policy, had to create a new account just to censor this? He is by fact a war criminal, and he is no longer a child nor a soldier.--Львівське (говорити) 18:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think i have explained that. To much critic and controversy about the Guantanamo military commissions. For the child soldier we change it to "ex-child soldier" or "former child soldier" as some of the sources do. Other sources leave this out as it is clear that he is not fighting anymore after his arrest at age 15. Here are some sources.

• Child Soldier for Al Qaeda Is Sentenced for War Crimes New York Times
• Ex-child soldier Khadr sentenced to eight years
• Military jury deliberates on fate of ex-child soldier
• Ex-child soldier jailed As well as "former child soldier" in the text of the article.

Now i think we should change it to "former child soldier". Shall we do this? ProtecterMan (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that will work in the interim but I'd like to get some more people to chime in on this to be honest in the interest of consensus.--Львівське (говорити) 23:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment would be possible. ProtecterMan (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As much as I don't like "child soldier," there are enough otherwise sane references calling him one that I can see it going in.

He is definitely a war criminal. We have refs for that, too. He confessed. I don't understand the opposition.

Do we have quotes from any of his supporters claiming he wasn't a war criminal? It won't change my position on him being called that, unless it's a really good authority, but it would be good to put into the article.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

On the critics, the Guantanamo Commissions were originally based on the Nuremberg trials. The Supreme Court ruled that it didn't meet some post-WWII obligations, and so it was fixed to provide even more rights for the defendants. Khadr is a war criminal under U.S. law that takes international human rights law into account as the U.S. Supreme Court interprets it.

The Nuremberg trials had their critics as well (including Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, who thought it a "lynching party"). If conviction at Nuremberg is enough to call people "war criminals" then these commissions are enough for this, even if Khadr hadn't confessed.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Would 'war criminal and former child soldier' not be both neutral and verified, and an accurate descriptor? I'm unsure about the juvy part, like the child soldier mention, it's in the past and problem belongs in the body somewhere.--Львівське (говорити) 03:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Lede

Two versions being contested so I'm bringing it to talk. I think the current version is misleading, as he is neither a child soldier (re: he was, but is no longer) and he is not a juvenile. My change was meant to indicate that he has since been convicted for war crimes, making him a war criminal.

• " is a Canadian child soldier and one of the juveniles held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. "
• "is a Canadian war criminal currently held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. "

thoughs?--Львівське (говорити) 15:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point of adding the "war criminal" label to a sentence that already says he was convicted of law of war violations. It's like saying somebody is a thief who was convicted of robbery. His actions were not described in US government trial documentation as war crimes or violations of the international law of war, and don't correspond to what people have always thought of as war crimes. He was guilty of something that traditionally is sometimes condemned and sometimes praised, depending on whose side the person was on in the war, and, as in this case, they can be on either side, or switch sides. That is not criminalized under the international laws of war for that very reason. It falls outside them and whatever country has such a person in its control can do as it wishes under its own laws and according to its own values. Labels and legalities aside, the truth is that he was a 15 year old who fought in a war because of what he was taught by the people by and among whom he was raised. I think the body of the article reflects the truth quite well. Diane1976 (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"He was guilty of something that traditionally is [...] sometimes praised" Are you for real? And what's up with these single use accounts?--Львівське (говорити) 03:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not praiseworthy at all. Kids are supposed to stay out of combat. What Khadr did was give every soldier another reason to not hesitate when shooting kids who are in the line of fire. If anyone cares about kids getting killed in war (most people who claim to care don't), Khadr's crimes must be taken very seriously.

Besides that, he's a Canadian citizen. He didn't have a legal right to fight for the insurgents. It's too bad he couldn't have renounced his citizenship.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I just realized I should have spent more time on the general issue of Khadr being an unlawful combatant. In a way, this case reminds me of Johnson v. Eisentrager. By that, I mean it's about an unlawful combatant fighting a war when he's a citizen of another country (I don't mean the part that went to SCOTUS concerning his access to a civilian court).

While movies like Red Dawn do make it look laudable for kids to fight an invading army, that's not real life, and the Taliban (aside from its terrorist nature) was not a bunch of citizens defending a sovereign country. He'd be an unlawful combatant, and a war criminal, even if he was 18 years old.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• • For clarification, I meant that Khadr was found guilty of being an unlawful combatant, an issue long debated generally, because of different situations in which such people are involved in wars, and it came up off and on throughout this case, in relation to both national and international law, in combination with, or aside from, the "child soldier" issue. (I wasn't referring to him being "guilty" of being a child soldier.)

• • Re the unlawful combatant issue: I would recommend linking the term "unprivileged belligerent" which means the same as "unlawful combatant", where it first appears in the Legal Trials section, to the article on "Unlawful Combatants". The internal debate over Khadr's status is covered in Legal Trials although it leaves off with the decision that his status should be determined by the Commission itself in the trial process. I'm not sure when that happened, but the end result is shown in the "stipulation of facts" (confession). It starts by establishing that he didn't meet the criteria for Prisoner of War status under Geneva (making him an unprivileged belligerent or unlawful combatant, who was not immune from prosecution under domestic law) and, as an alien unprivileged belligerent he was subject to the Military Commissions Act and his actions in the war were various violations of it.

Diane1976 (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike Silver

Why does "Mike Silver" re-direct here? Does this need to be removed before an article for UK folk guitarist Mike Silver could be created? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing prevents you from editing the redirect page to put a WP:HATNOTE to the former redirect target, followed by the text of your proposed article. The need to delete a redirect when an article is created normally only arises if you have text which already exists under some other name (such as a WP:AFC submission or a user sandbox) and need {{db-move}} to "liberate" a title so that you can move an existing page there. And no, I have no idea why "Mike Silver" points here. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at the history and it seems that Mike Silver and Layne Morris were both circular-redirects, their names were bluelinks in the ==Capture== section of this article even as redirects pointing right back here. There used to be individual articles for these people as part of the group of US soldiers attacking the house in this incident (there is enough material for a Morris article as he is involved in the civil suit against Khadr's dead father and has appeared on a National Geographic special and on 60 Minutes, as well as speaking out for years... Silver seems less likely a topic). I also see that a search engine finds "Mike Silver" (UK musician) as the most probable match for what is a rather common name. Perhaps the name should be a WP:DISAMBIGUATION page if any of these people get articles here? If not, the main entry should, as you suggest, be the musician. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Please replace photo

The photo of the "child" Khadr used as the main one for this article is misleading. Please use a more recent one.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.182.253 (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It's just ridiculous to keep that photo. Ringo Starr's, Macaulay Culkin's, Paul McCartney's, Nelson Mandela's and basically all other articles shows the most up-to-date pictures of individuals. Logically, in this article this policy does not fit some propaganda that is being pushed forward... I could update the photo myself, but certainly there are numerous lefties watching this article non-stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.187.238 (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

We simply dont have another picture - pls see here.Moxy (talk) 22

34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not type "Khadr" into Google image search and you would find a surprising number of more recent pics. But, as the previous comment indicates, left leaning so called free speech proponents are quick to whitewash anything that may take away from the "proper and correct" (read liberal and PC) POV that makes Khadr to be a victim instead of a terrorist.FlounderPants (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)