Omar Khadr's Interrogation Videos

[Asher]

Originally posted by Felch


I believe the term soccer fans use is "Own goal."

I'd heard it was the father's influence. I've done research and determined the whole family is ****ed up.

Apparently the Khadr is quite feminine which is what concerns his mother most...he beaded her clothes and was so feminine his family made him wear a Burka so as to not raise suspicions...

[Asher]

It gets better.

The unconscious Khadr was airlifted to receive medical attention at Bagram, where interrogations began immediately after he gained consciousness approximately a week after his arrival, although he remained stretcher-bound for several weeks.[43] Fellow detainee Rhuhel Ahmed later issued a statement alleging that Khadr had been denied forms of surgery to punish him for not cooperating with military forces.[48] Later attempts to acquire darkened sunglasses to protect his failing eyesight were denied for "state security" reasons.[49]

On 30 August 2002, Canadian officials sent a diplomatic query to the United States requesting consular access to their citizen being held at Bagram. The request was denied ten days later, with a statement that Canada would be notified only if Canadian citizens were transferred to Guantánamo Bay.[50] Around this time he was visited by the Red Cross.[51][52]

Khadr states that he was refused pain medication for his wounds, that he had his hands tied above a door frame for hours, had cold water thrown on him, had a bag placed over his head and was threatened with military dogs, was flatulated upon, forced to carry 5-gallon pails of water to aggravate his shoulder wound. Unallowed to use washrooms, he was forced to urinate on himself.[43][50] His chief interrogator was Joshua Claus, who later pleaded guilty to abusing detainees to extract confessions following the in-custody death of wrongly-accused Dilawar that same year.[53]
Moazzam Begg
Moazzam Begg

A letter from the Canadian embassy was sent on September 13, stating that "various laws of Canada and the United States" required special treatment of Khadr due to his age, and requesting that the United States not transfer Khadr to Guantanamo.[54]

Khadr was interrogated again on September 17, and stated that he helped the militants because he had been told the United States was fighting a war against Islam.[55] When asked if he knew of a $1500 bounty being offered for each American soldier killed in Afghanistan, he responded that he had heard the story, but didn't know who was offering the reward. When asked how that made him feel at the time, the 15-year old stated "I wanted to kill a lot of American[s] to get lots of money".[55] Defence attorney Nathan Whitling later argued that it was "hardly convincing for the U.S. to suggest that in the midst of this battle, and after the entire site had been flattened by 500-pound bombs and everyone else in the compound killed, Omar was lying under the rubble thinking about how to earn himself $1,500."[55]

Khadr spent three months recuperating at Bagram. During that time he was often singled out for extensive labour by American soldiers who "made him work like a horse", referring to him as "Buckshot" and calling him a murderer. They claimed that he had thrown a grenade at a passing convoy delivering medical supplies.[56] He shared a cell with Moazzam Begg and ten others. He became conversational with guard Damien Corsetti, who was also one of his interrogators, and often spoke about basketball.[13]

He was transferred to Guantanamo along with Richard Belmar, Jamal Kiyemba and other captives on October 28, 2002, although Canadian officials were not notified as promised.[56][57] Shackled and fitted with surgical masks, painted-over goggles and ear protectors to ensure sensory deprivation, he recalled being kicked when he tried to stretch his legs.[13][43]

For most of 2003, Khadr had a cell next to British detainee Ruhal Ahmed and the two often discussed their favourite Hollywood films, including Braveheart, Die Hard and Harry Potter.[13] Ahmed later recalled that while some interrogations would see Khadr return to his cell smiling and discussing what movies he had been shown, other times he would return crying and huddle in the corner with his blanket over his head.[13]

In the early spring of 2003, Khadr was told "Your life is in my hands" by a military interrogator, who spat on him, tore out some of his hair and threatened to send him to a country that would torture him more thoroughly, making specific reference to an Egyptian Askri raqm tisa ("Soldier Number Nine") who enjoyed raping prisoners. The interrogation ended with Khadr being told he would spend the rest of his life in Guantanamo.[14] A few weeks later, an interrogator giving his name as Izmarai spoke to Khadr in Pashto, threatening to send him to a "new prison" at Bagram Airbase where "they like small boys".[14]

In all, Khadr has been reported to have been kept in solitary confinement for long periods of time; to have been denied adequate medical treatment; to have been subjected to short shackling, and left bound, in uncomfortable stress positions until he soiled himself.[64][65][66] Khadr's lawyers allege that his interrogators "dragged [him] back and forth in a mixture of his urine and pine oil" and did not provide a change of clothes for two days in March.[67]

At the end of March 2003, Omar was upgraded to "Level Four" security, and transferred to solitary confinement in a windowless and empty cell for the month of April.

On April 9 2008, a box of Khadr's documents was seized, ostensibly because items like a Lord of the Rings screenplay were prohibited, and the legal documents taken were returned a few days later. He was also ordered to cease playing dominoes or chess with his attorneys.[87]

[Felch]

None of this really matters. The United States is entitled to detain a hostile fighter as long as hostilities persist. No nation at war has ever been expected to release prisoners simply because they didn't successfully kill anybody. Anybody who insists otherwise is out of their mind.

As far as his accusations of torture, I don't really care. He isn't entitled to the protection that P.O.W. status confers. Practically no one we have been fighting have met the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention, "a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a 'fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance' and bear arms openly."* He got tortured, that sucks, he should get over it. By all rights, he could have been summarily executed.

In terms of his father forcing him to do it, I'm also not sympathetic. If he really didn't want to fight the US, he could have snuck away and surrendered. We're not butchers, and we're certainly not going to mistreat a Canadian who asks for asylum. Instead, he stuck with his family.

*Wikipedia article on prisoners of war.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Felch
None of this really matters. The United States is entitled to detain a hostile fighter as long as hostilities persist.

I don't give a **** what you think you're entitled to. Canada is entitled to demand repatriation of its citizen also, as other countries have done.

As far as his accusations of torture, I don't really care.

You've made that clear, thanks.

Sometimes, people are just too primal.

If he really didn't want to fight the US, he could have snuck away and surrendered. We're not butchers

Oh, yeah, that'd be brilliant. Walk right up to enlisted US gung-ho forces that "don't care" if people are tortured and say "hey, my dad's a higher up at Al Qaeda. I wanna go home now!"

You can't be that stupid, Felch? Really... He would've been tortured and imprisoned even if he just surrendered. All it'd take is for them to accuse him of masterminding something without evidence, and voila...6+ years without a trial and counting.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Felch
He got tortured, that sucks, he should get over it. By all rights, he could have been summarily executed

Originally posted by Felch
We're not butchers, and we're certainly not going to mistreat a Canadian who asks for asylum. Instead, he stuck with his family.

[Asher]

I'm glad someone else noticed that too.

The bloodlust by some Americans is just too strong for reason. It's why their foreign policy is an epic failure, also...

[Felch]

Wait, I said we're not butchers, and I said that we have the right to summarily execute him. That's not contradictory at all, UNLESS WE SUMMARILY EXECUTED HIM. Which we did not. Note the difference between the circumstances - we're entitled to kill spies and other unlawful combatants, however, we are not going to harm a Canadian who seeks asylum. It's actually a pretty big leap for you guys to try to compare those circumstances.

Don't disregard the importance of following the laws of war. They exist to protect civilian populations. When fighters try to blend in with civilians, you wind up with much more collateral damage than when they wear uniforms and obey the other laws of war.

Canada is entitled to demand repatriation of its citizen also, as other countries have done.

Canada is entitled to demand repatriation as long as it likes. But being able to demand something doesn't mean it'll happen. The fact is that Khadr bore arms against the United States of America. He was involved in an organization which continues to fight America. We're not required to repatriate him. If we do, it's only because we wish to be friendly with Canada.

As far as US forces mistreating people who peaceably surrender, well, I can't think of any cases off the top of my head. I think you grossly underestimate the professionalism and discipline of our military. It's likely that he would have been interrogated, sure. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do if the information he has can save people's lives. However, I'm sure he wouldn't have been mistreated. In fact, if his information was valuable, he'd likely be generously rewarded.

[Asher]

As far as US forces mistreating people who peaceably surrender, well, I can't think of any cases off the top of my head. I think you grossly underestimate the professionalism and discipline of our military.

I think you overestimate it.



The vast majority of these people are enlisted teenagers/young adults from redneck or otherwise troubled backgrounds. **** happens.

We already know Khadr was treated inhumanely on many occasions, I don't even know why you're pretending like every US soldier -- especially those treating what they believe to be a "terrist" -- is professional about how they do their job.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Asher

As far as US forces mistreating people who peaceably surrender, well, I can't think of any cases off the top of my head. I think you grossly underestimate the professionalism and discipline of our military.

I think you overestimate it.

The vast majority of these people are enlisted teenagers/young adults from redneck or otherwise troubled backgrounds. **** happens.

**** does happen. Unlike you, I live in the US, and know quite a few people in the military. Some were people I went to high school with, who were ****-ups. But they changed a lot since enlisting. The same people who were screwing around in school are on top of their game right now. By and large, the military is disciplined and professional. The folks at Abu Graib were misled by senior officers and intelligence into mistreating those prisoners. It was wrong, but I think you're painting with an overly broad brush.

We already know Khadr was treated inhumanely on many occasions,

We also already know Khadr didn't peaceably surrender, so what's your point?

I don't even know why you're pretending like every US soldier -- especially those treating what they believe to be a "terrist" -- is professional about how they do their job.

I didn't say every soldier is perfect. What I said was that you underestimate them. You've proven me right on that account.

Just to be clear, you really don't know what you're talking about. You read all these sensational news accounts of torture and apply it to everybody. The thing is, the news is in the business of getting you to pay attention to them. So they highlight all the bad stuff, all the stuff that helps generate ad revenue. And you wind up with a distorted view of the American military.

[Asher]

We also already know Khadr didn't peaceably surrender, so what's your point?

At what point was he given the opportunity?

His house was ****ing bombed with 2 500-lbs bombs.

Just to be clear, you really don't know what you're talking about.

Thanks, but you don't know what you're talking about. You're condoning torture of children, and that's all I need to know.

[Patroklos]

We already know Khadr was treated inhumanely on many occasions,

No we don't, and you have yet to provide anything even remotely proving that we have.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos


No we don't, and you have yet to provide anything even remotely proving that we have.

We've been over this.

He's made lots of claims of inhumane treatment that the US military has not refuted even when given the opportunity to. We also know his Chief Interrogator has also pleaded guilty to abusing the detainees.

We're never going to have "smoking gun" proof of it because the military doesn't work that way. But given all of the evidence, and just a LITTLE BIT of common sense, it's obvious what was going on.

I bet you'd also flat out deny Abu Gharib happened if it weren't for the photos too. That's just how you roll.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Asher
At what point was he given the opportunity?

His house was ****ing bombed with 2 500-lbs bombs.

His fault for backing the wrong horse.

As far as his chance to surrender, he was captured in 2002. That gave him a couple months at least to surrender.

Thanks, but you don't know what you're talking about. You're condoning torture of children, and that's all I need to know.

When did I condone torture? I said that I didn't care in this instance, but that's hardly "condoning torture of children." In any event, I do know what I'm talking about, when what I'm talking about is the professionalism of America's military.

Good job trying to bend everything I say. Problem is that at the end of the day you're siding with a piece of **** extremist. As long as you're siding with him and his "rights," you'll never be right.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Felch
His fault for backing the wrong horse.

As far as his chance to surrender, he was captured in 2002. That gave him a couple months at least to surrender.

UNBELIEVABLE.

When did I condone torture?

Gee, I dunno.

As far as his accusations of torture, I don't really care.

CONDONE: (v) condone (excuse, overlook, or make allowances for; be lenient with) "excuse someone's behavior"; "She condoned her husband's occasional infidelities"

and also:

He got tortured, that sucks, he should get over it. By all rights, he could have been summarily executed

Good job trying to bend everything I say.

Dude, I'm not bending a damn thing. You're saying things and pretending like they don't mean what they do mean.

Problem is that at the end of the day you're siding with a piece of **** extremist. As long as you're siding with him and his "rights," you'll never be right.

You're the one condoning torture of a child and indefinite imprisonment.

He's not even been found guilty of anything. He was in a house that came under attack by American forces, was bombed by American jets, then assaulted by American soldiers and has been in jail for six years and counting without a trial. His US captors don't even think he's a threat and think the stay is doing more harm than good for him. The Canadian interrogators don't think he's an extremist either. Again, you seem to be painting this kid as one of the pilots on 9/11 but the reality is he's a kid in an impossible situation.

[Arrian]

When did I condone torture? I said that I didn't care in this instance, but that's hardly "condoning torture of children."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

-Arrian