Trial of Omar Khadr

From Briarpatch:

The shaming of one Canadian has shamed all Canadians.”

-Liberal MP Paul Szabo, apologizing in the House of Commons for the RCMP’s treatment of lobbyist and arms dealer Karlheinz Schreiber. (Schreiber’s pants had fallen down while RCMP officers led him, in handcuffs, to a waiting cruiser after his testimony before the Commons Ethics Committee.)

 

You’re 15 years old, in the company of hardened militants who are associates of your father. A foreign army has invaded the country and unleashed a massive bombing campaign. Soldiers come knocking one morning and demand entry. The men around you refuse and a firefight ensues, culminating in the occupying air force bombarding the compound you’re in, killing everyone but you and one other person.

What happens next is disputed. As the soldiers enter the bombed-out compound a grenade is thrown and explodes near one of them. He later dies of his wounds. Based on witness reports, the thrower could have been one of three people: you, the man lying beside you, or a U.S. soldier outside the compound wall.

The man beside you is shot by an advancing soldier as he reaches for an AK-47 lying beside him. Cowering in the corner, you, in turn, are shot twice in the back. As shock sets in, you plead with the soldiers to kill you, to finish the job.

You are Omar Khadr. Your ordeal has barely begun.

Read the article here

At The Star today:

Lawyers for Guantanamo prisoner Omar Khadr have lost their bid to have his charges dismissed due to unlawful political influence.

The military judge presiding over the Canadian’s case ruled yesterday that senior Pentagon official Brig.-Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann did not improperly influence military prosecutors concerning Khadr’s case.

Hartmann’s conduct as a legal adviser for Guantanamo’s war crimes trials has come under intense scrutiny this year and two military judges presiding over cases of other detainees had already excluded him from the proceedings.

Read the rest here

“Der Spiegel” on Obama

Gerhard Spörl thinks Obama will be Number 44, but doesn’t sound completely impressed:

It was a ton to absorb — and what a stupendous ride through world history: the story of his own family, the Berlin Airlift, terrorists, poorly secured nuclear material, the polar caps, World War II, America’s errors, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, freedom. It’s amazing one could even pack such a potpourri of issues into sentences and then succeed in squeezing them all into the space of a speech that lasted less than 30 minutes.

So what still sticks? That Barack Obama is a passionate politician who is fixated on and takes very seriously his desire for a bit of uptopia and a better world. That he is an impressive speaker who knows how to casually draw his audience into his image of the world — one who doesn’t have any need to resort to the kind of cheap effects that tend to prompt the uproarious applause of an audience. That he is a typical American — an idealist in the true spirit of the American success story who is now very casually making his claim to become something akin to the president of the world.

He also could have said: We are a world power, the only one that exists on this planet at the moment, and I am going to act as if that were the case. But you’re also allowed to participate in the attempt to try to save the world — at least a bit of it.

[…]

George W. Bush is yesterday, the Texas version of the arrogant world power. Obama is all about today: the “everybody really just wants to be brothers and save the world” utopia. As for us, we who sometimes admire and sometimes curse this somewhat anemic, pragmatic democracy, we will have to quickly get used to Barack Obama, the new leader of a lofty democracy that loves those big nice words — words that warm our hearts and alarm our minds.  

Let’s allow ourselves to be warmed today, by this man at the Victory Column. Then we’ll take a further look.

Then there’s this from Gregor Peter Schmitz:

Obama’s advisors had long feared that his speech would play off as too “European” back home in the US. So it was peppered with phrases that could easily have been uttered by current US President George W. Bush. The aim was singular: to present the Europeans with a clear picture of the new challenges of the 20th century.

Obama spoke about terrorists who studied at university in Hamburg. About poorly secured nuclear material in Russia that could fall into the wrong hands and be used in Paris. About poverty in Somalia that could breed the terror of tomorrow.

It certain that in this part of the speech, Obama makes allowances for issues he knows play well with the Europeans. He dreams of a world without nuclear weapons. He is establishing a new tenor on the issue of climate change, which the current US administration continued to deny even existed until only recently. “Let us resolve that all nations, including my own, will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere,” he said. The line drew the greatest applause of any other sentence he delivered in his speech.

But then he also spoke of the demands people in Europe had been expecting in his speech: 

  • More European aid in Afghanistan. “America can not do this alone,” he said. “The Afghan people need our troops and your troops.”  
  • Additional European support in Iraq: “The whole world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close.”  
  • Greater European participation in the war on terror — which won’t end under a President Obama, either. “If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York.”  

But what, precisely, is that supposed to mean? How many troops in Afghanistan? What kind of support for Iraq? And what will his new strategy against terrorists entail?

So far Obama has provided scarce details — and he has generated criticism in the US for not being more forthcoming with his ideas. For days now, his advisors have been warning that Obama is still just a presidential candidate and not the president. As such, he can only speak generally about his vision, and he can’t make any concrete policy proposals. But perhaps he also went too far in announcing that this was going to be a “keynote speech on trans-Atlantic” relations.

A Canadian Military Mom

Gina Whitfield reviews a mother’s story:

A Mother’s Road to Kandahar, by Andria Hill-Lehr (Pottersfield Press, 2008; $15.95)

When you think of Mother’s Day, the traditional gifts come to mind, like cheesy greeting cards, flowers and chocolates. This year, it is safe to assume that Andria Hill-Lehr would like you to skip the sweets and, instead, buy your mother a copy of her new book, detailing her own struggle as an outspoken peace activist whose son, Garrow, recently served as a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan.

A Mother’s Road to Kandahar presents Hill-Lehr’s complicated and emotional experience of being a military mom who is critical of Canada’s role in Afghanistan, with her child who is voluntarily participating in the mission.

Public criticism of the military’s agenda or of the politicians’ barking the orders is rarely heard from the mouths of soldiers’ families. There are exceptions, of course, like the notorious American mother Cindy Sheehan who started a protest across from Bush’s Texas ranch after her son was killed in Iraq. Here in Canada, however, we have heard little opposition from the families of the soldiers who are fighting in Afghanistan. Hill-Lehr’s book, then, represents something of a landmark in opening this topic up for discussion.   more here