Posted on 01/11/2006 4:52:24 PM PST by aculeus
To US prosecutors they are "the worst of the worst" in terrorist circles. To their defenders they are an "easy target", falsely accused by an over eager US anti-terrorist establishment.
By the list of allegations made against them by US civilian and military prosecutors, the Khadr family - mother, father, grandmother, four sons and a daughter - may just be the world's first family of terrorism.
They are all Canadian citizens. Having lived in Canada, Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan, every member of the family has been accused of having at least some link to al-Qaeda and Afghan extremists.
One son was scheduled to appear in front of a US military tribunal at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba yesterday for his preliminary hearing. Another son is in custody in Toronto. He is scheduled to appear in court today, wanted on a US extradition warrant.
Omar Khadr, 19, is only the fifth detainee at the US military's Guantanamo Bay prison camp to be formally charged and appear in front of the military judges.
According to US authorities, in July 2002, at the age of just 15, he tossed a grenade and killed a US soldier in Afghanistan. The soldier was checking the wreckage of a house that had been destroyed by a missile when Omar allegedly jumped up and threw the grenade.
He was shot three times and subsequently became the youngest Guantanamo prisoner.
The oldest of the Khadr boys, Abdullah Khadr, is accused by the US Attorney in Boston of buying weapons on behalf of al-Qaeda: rocket launchers, mines and AK-47 rifles. He sits in a Toronto jail cell and has been denied bail while he awaits his extradition hearing.
The father, Ahmed Said Khadr, was reputedly a top member of al-Qaeda and one of its top fund-raisers.
He was killed by a US missile fired by a helicopter in Afghanistan. The US military described the attack as "wiping out at least six high-ranking al-Qaeda and Taliban members".
Another of Omar's brothers, Abdurahman, spent time in Guantanamo, but was released. After spending yet more time in Afghanistan, where it was reported he worked for the CIA,he returned to Canada.
The fourth brother, Abdul Karim, was injured and left partially paralysed in the same attack that killed his father.
Even the sister, Zaynab, has been accused by US authorities of helping to run an al-Qaeda training camp in the 1990s, Canadian media reports say.
Her laptop was seized by Canadian authorities last year when she returned to Canada. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police claimed it contained "training and recruiting material for terrorists".
But the Khadr family lawyer, Dennis Edney, notes that while the list of charges is damning, that is all it is: a list of charges.
"I have yet to see a single scintilla of evidence on any of these charges," Mr Edney said.
US authorities contacted for this story - at the Defence Department, Justice Department and State Department - have so far refused to provide any evidence publicly of any of the allegations against the Khadrs. They have also refused to comment beyond reiterating the charges.
Mr Edney is a passionate defender of the Khadrs. "I for one believe they are innocent," he stated.
He also condemned the American system of military tribunals that Omar Khadr faces as "contrary to American and international law".
"I've been representing [the Khadrs] for years and the Americans haven't shown me anything to show that any of these [allegations] are true," he said. "They are being prosecuted based on guilt by association."
But even Mr Edney recognises that the Khadrs have not helped their own cause.
When Zaynab appeared on Canadian television in 2004, she defended her family's actions, in particular those of Omar: "I mean, it's a war. They're shooting at him. Why can't he shoot at you? If you killed three, why can't he kill one? Why doesn't nobody say you killed three of his friends? Why does everybody say you killed an American soldier? Big deal."
The mother also told CBC television that she would rather have her sons "die a martyr" than die "gay and on drugs" on the streets of Toronto. Hers and her daughter's remarks were widely interpreted as support for al-Qaeda and terrorism.
A US civil court has already issued a default judgement against Omar and his father's estate for US$10 million ($13.3 million). The suit was filed by Sergeant Layne Morris - who was injured in the skirmish in Afghanistan - and by the widow of Sergeant Christopher Speer, whom Omar is accused of killing.
But Mr Edney argues that the default judgement is invalid because no one in the family, nor Mr Edney, was ever properly notified of the case.
But the Khadr family lawyer, Dennis Edney, notes that while the list of charges is damning, that is all it is: a list of charges.
"I have yet to see a single scintilla of evidence on any of these charges," Mr Edney said.
US authorities contacted for this story - at the Defence Department, Justice Department and State Department - have so far refused to provide any evidence publicly of any of the allegations against the Khadrs. They have also refused to comment beyond reiterating the charges.
Mr Edney is a passionate defender of the Khadrs. "I for one believe they are innocent," he stated.
He also condemned the American system of military tribunals that Omar Khadr faces as "contrary to American and international law".
"I've been representing [the Khadrs] for years and the Americans haven't shown me anything to show that any of these [allegations] are true," he said. "They are being prosecuted based on guilt by association."
But even Mr Edney recognises that the Khadrs have not helped their own cause.
When Zaynab appeared on Canadian television in 2004, she defended her family's actions, in particular those of Omar: "I mean, it's a war. They're shooting at him. Why can't he shoot at you? If you killed three, why can't he kill one? Why doesn't nobody say you killed three of his friends? Why does everybody say you killed an American soldier? Big deal."
The mother also told CBC television that she would rather have her sons "die a martyr" than die "gay and on drugs" on the streets of Toronto. Hers and her daughter's remarks were widely interpreted as support for al-Qaeda and terrorism.
A US civil court has already issued a default judgement against Omar and his father's estate for US$10 million ($13.3 million). The suit was filed by Sergeant Layne Morris - who was injured in the skirmish in Afghanistan - and by the widow of Sergeant Christopher Speer, whom Omar is accused of killing.
But Mr Edney argues that the default judgement is invalid because no one in the family, nor Mr Edney, was ever properly notified of the case.
These poor people, the Khadr's. We have killed and confined completely innocent, peaceful people who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
When Zaynab appeared on Canadian television in 2004, she defended her family's actions, in particular those of Omar: "I mean, it's a war. They're shooting at him. Why can't he shoot at you? If you killed three, why can't he kill one? Why doesn't nobody say you killed three of his friends? Why does everybody say you killed an American soldier? Big deal."
It is a big deal, Zaynab. I hope you get what's coming to you.
And junior? Oh. His injuries aren't indictative of anything at all. And the rest? Well. There's just no proof. See?
Do they own a queeran? Do they use it for anything other than TP, Birdcage liner, or soaking Bacon Grease?
If not, they are terrorists, or the domestic supporters of terrorists. Either way they are complicit in the wholesale slaughter of the rest of mankind.
ABC CBS NBC CNN its all the SAME, Propaganda.
Might as well call them all AmeriJazerra.
Show them how much Psychological Gravitas Hugh Bris has. Vote with your remote! Shut down the Alphabet channels. *"aka the
He's Got A Plan
Zippo Hero
....you killed an American soldier? Big deal."
No further comment.
From reports I have read the other Americans there stepped over the body of their friend and saved the young Canadians sorry life.
Wake up Canada. This is intolerable.
While it is very unlikely that this statement applies to the Khadr family, it is undoubtedly true with regard to others.
Or haven't you heard about the Chinese folks we have at Gitmo? The ones we've cleared but still detain?
No, I haven't, and I'm not particularly worried about them, either. This is not a perfect world.
You're accusing the USA of deliberately holding innocent citizens of another world power?
Got support?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/23/AR2005082301362_pf.html
The basic point is simple. The fact that someone was - or is - detained doesn't mean they are 'terrorists.' I used to live in a country where the citizens would be concerned about their government holding people in shackles without any proof they had done anything wrong. I miss it.
God Bless the USA.
There's so little real irony about, I appreciate it when I see it.
L
Oh for the perfect country we once had. You know, the country founded by George Washington who, when he learned of Benedict Arnold's treachery, issued an order to his generals: Arrest him and hang him.
Or the country whose WWII soldiers gunned-down surrended SS guards at death camps.
I used to belong to a site not populated by people who emphasize honest mistakes made in this war.
Yep, I'm sure you've got it right: We just swept a couple of fellows up off the streets of Shanghai and spirited them off to Gitmo. They weren't found in a the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm sure that's what happened, right? If that isn't the case, then please, as another poster requested, post the REAL story.
I see what this is all about now. I think we should just do the right thing and send them back to China, where they will doubtlessly be killed by the Chinese government. It really would be nice if you put a little context to your story.
While I tend to have a soft spot for contrarianism, it seems to me that there's a qualitative difference between holding them for no reason at all and holding them because nobody can be found to take them in. Where shall we release them to?
So, some Pakistani entrepreneurial type tells us, "we've got some Chinese AQ types, and we pay them some money and take the guys into custody. Then - this is the pertinent part, so pay attention - we CLEAR them. We determine that they WERE NOT "enemy combatants."
We may not have a place to send them. But WE took them from where they were, and dropped them in Cuba. Don't you think we ought to do something other than keep them shackled with the terrorists?
They WERE, apparently, at the wrong place at the wrong time - they were in a place where they could be handed off to us by Pak bounty hunters. But a free country doesn't detain people indefinitely after they've been cleared just for being in the 'wrong place at the wrong time.'
Sure. But why keep them in a terrorist detention facility in shackles?
The initial mistake was an honest mistake. We've known for quite some time that they are not 'the enemy.'
We didn't get them in China. So it wouldn't be sending them "back."
I'm open to alternatives. Would we feel better if they were in an INS detention facility rather than Gitmo? If so, why? If not, what then? Got a spare bedroom you can contribute, or shall we reserve a suite at the Waldorf?
What country are they citizens of? Are they Pakistani's? Are the Afghani's? No, they're Chinese and the Chinese will kill them according to your buddies at Amnesty International. We have tried to get other countries to take them to no avail. I don't know what the answer is, but it isn't quite as nefarious a situation as you made it sound.
Not nefarious. Hmmmm. Flying some guys halfway around the world based on the word of some Pashtun bounty hunter and locking them up for years, even after we figure out they aren't our enemies, and then keeping them in the EXACT SAME confinement and conditions as those who are our enemies, just because we haven't been able to come up with anything else. Not nefarious at all. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
Maybe, since we took them out of Pakistan, against their will, and locked them up without justification, we have some obligation to move mountains to do what we can to address their situation. Kinda the decent thing to do.
Of course I would. Why? You don't think being at some processing facility is better than being chained to the floor at Gitmo? We hold all kinds of folks who are in immigration limbo. We don't shackle them in maximum security offshore detention facilities.
Well, wait a minute - is the objection to them being held, period, or is it merely to the particular conditions they're experiencing? How about if we remove the shackles and leave them at Gitmo?
I suspect you knew that is my position. This one is not hard. No one, not even the amusingly screen-named "Trust But Verify", can make any argument for holding these guys at Gitmo. The SOLE argument for holding them AT ALL is 'we screwed up and now we don't know what to do.'
The article you cite is five months old.
I kinda think the govt has since moved these people to a less harsh situation.
Why do I think that? Because WaPo seems to have dropped the matter and there is no noticable drumbeat of outrage from the usual sources.
Just as its honest mistakes are viewed as atrocities, corrective behavior by this Admin is usually ignored.
You think this because the WaPo hasn't reported otherwise, but don't think any conservative news outlet would report it if it was done. Sure.
If you want articles less than 5 months old, they are all over the place.
I'll applaud corrective action by the Administration on this issue when it isn't pure supposition.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/12/federal-judge-rules-chinese-gitmo.php
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.