« Cheery Thought for the Day | Main | It's all Command and Control Centers »
February 11, 2005
Torturing Kids
At first, you might be outraged but not surprised by the treatement Omar Khadr received at the Guantánamo Gulag. Unfortunately, this has become business as usual in many U.S.-run detention centers around the world:
The memo, containing the latest accusations of humiliating treatment of a detainee in Guantánamo Bay, included a description of an interrogation that started sometime after midnight in March 2003.Khadr claims that military police officers handcuffed his hands and feet behind him in an interrogation booth at Camp Delta, then turned him into a ''human mop'' after he urinated on himself.
''Military police poured pine oil on the floor and [Khadr] and then, with petitioner lying on his stomach . . . dragged petitioner back and forth through the mixture of urine and pine oil on the floor,'' Washington attorneys Muneer Ahmad and Richard Wilson said in their memo, dated Dec. 30, 2004.
``Later, petitioner was put back in his cell, without being allowed a shower or change of clothes. He was not given a change of clothes for two days.''
And the non-denial denials are routine enough too:
''We have an ongoing investigation into abuse allegations at Guantánamo,'' said Southern Command spokesman Raul Duany. ``It will be premature to comment on specific incidents without having the results and recommendations of the ongoing investigation.''
But here's the kicker. Omer Khadr, a Canadian, was just 15 when he was captured in Afghanistan. Fifteen. He's now eighteen. He's still there. We've locked up a fifteen year old, thrown away the key, and we're torturing him in the meantime.
Omar Khadr, 18, a Canadian who was captured by U.S. troops in Afghanistan at age 15, outlined the abuse complaints through a memo that his civilian U.S. lawyers were allowed to make public for the first time Wednesday.
Omar's family does have Al Qaeda links, most notoriously his father Ahmed Said Khadr who was was killed in Pakistan. Omar was picked up in a battlefield in Afghanistan. There are some allegations that he tossed a grenade that killed a U.S. medic but no charges have been brought. In fact, his lawyers are demanding that he be tried. Let's just assume it's all true. That he was a child-soldier from an Al-Qaeda family. That just makes him a victim under any understanding of international law, common sense or compassion. A fifteen year old is not a fully competent adult. That's why they can't enter into legally binding contracts. You can't sue them in court if they promise to do some work for you but don't. That's why if an adult has sex with a fifteen year old, it's called statutory rape. Minors do have responsibilities and can be held accountable for their actions, but it always has to be done in a manner that provides their age.
Not that it's okay to hold adults indefinitely without due process, a trial, access to lawyers... But what could possibly be the idea behind holding a kid so young? And torturing him to boot? (By the way, if his family indeed sent him to Afghanistan to fight at that age, I wouldn't mind it if they were tried for child abuse.)
Posted by zeynep at February 11, 2005 08:43 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.underthesamesun.org/mt-tb.cgi/397
Comments
yet more, I have seen several names among the killed "soldiers" sent to iraq having an age of only nineteen. This is ofcourse not illegal to any law so their parents, which one must assume initially approved of the decision to invade other sovereign countries, cannot be tried for child abuse. However, after seen some clips and read some stories of these "soldiers" I doubt they can be considered to have a normal emotional-intellectual relationship to their environment and themself as well. Immature? In a sense I also like to say so too.
Posted by: Jim at February 12, 2005 08:01 AM
Just so we're all clear, throwing a grenade and killing a U.S. soldier was a PERFECTLY LEGAL thing to do. Afghanistan was INVADED ILLEGALLY by U.S. troops, and responding to that invasion in self-defense was perfectly legal under international law, all this nonsense about "illegal battlefield combatants" notwithstanding.
Posted by: Eli Stephens at February 12, 2005 10:40 AM
I think that in any case (UN resolution or NO resolutioon), when attacked/invaded by an army, the opposite group (be it an army or not an army) must have all the right to defend themselves by attacking the invaders.
Posted by: RC at February 12, 2005 02:39 PM
I feel realli realli sorri for Omar he should not be kept like this at all!!!
this is forcing and not letting him go when he needs to!!!
he didnt even get educated well!!!
and lost half of his youth age!!!
which is realli realli mean!!
and unfair
thats all i would like to say
byeeee
and if there is a way to talk to Omar plzz email meee!!
Posted by: navjit at January 17, 2006 09:34 PM