Widow Testifies at a Military Court

[ShadowHM]

I am stunned.

The widow of the soldier who was killed by Omar Khadr during a firefight in Afghanistan was permitted to give a 'victim impact' statement in the military court that is trying Omar.

WTF! I understand, in a very limited way, why victim impact statements have some place in the civil court system. But this is a military court. The man was a soldier! Part of the deal is that he lays his life on the line as part of his military duty.

Just how do his widow's feelings matter in terms of this court? Why would she be permitted/asked to testify at all?

Link here

[kandrathe]

I am stunned.

The widow of the soldier who was killed by Omar Khadr during a firefight in Afghanistan was permitted to give a 'victim impact' statement in the military court that is trying Omar.

WTF! I understand, in a very limited way, why victim impact statements have some place in the civil court system. But this is a military court. The man was a soldier! Part of the deal is that he lays his life on the line as part of his military duty.

Just how do his widow's feelings matter in terms of this court? Why would she be permitted/asked to testify at all?

Link here

From what I've read about the case, there is very little evidence that Khadr is the person who tossed the grenade. It was dumb luck that the kid even survived. Of course, it doesn't help his case that he pled guilty to all the charges.

I'm not sure why Canada hasn't just deported them all. It is obvious the family used Canada as a safe haven from which to further their Jihad. The biggest condemnation against the boy is his family's long association with Al Queda. He was just a dumb kid following along in the family business of insurgency. However, if released, he surely would be radicalized now.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Why would she be permitted/asked to testify at all?

Because the rot of emotion over logic has spread that far. Perception over substance. Form over function. Call it what you will.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Hi,

Why would she be permitted/asked to testify at all?

Because the rot of emotion over logic has spread that far. Perception over substance. Form over function. Call it what you will.

--Pete

Here in the US, we've given vision to what was formerly blind justice. Canada has spent about $1.3 million to keep him in Gitmo. The best injustice money can buy. The trial is merely for show.

[DeeBye]

I feel bad for this kid. He should have been playing Xbox with his high school buddies instead of being locked up all these years. It's crazy what a few bad choices can do to you.

[ShadowHM]

I feel bad for this kid. He should have been playing Xbox with his high school buddies instead of being locked up all these years. It's crazy what a few bad choices can do to you.

I feel bad for him too. I don't think he had much to do with the choices that brought him to Gitmo. He was only 15 when he was in the midst of a firefight wherein he threw a grenade. There was no way his choices brought him there.

Our government let this farce go on by choosing to not ask to have him face our own court system. I doubt that growing up at Gitmo did much to change the attitudes his family indoctrinated in him as they brought him to that firefight.

It is a mess from start to finish. And it ain't over yet.

However, I am glad to know that is isn't just me that thinks that a 'victim impact' statement by a soldier's widow was inappropriate.

[kandrathe]

I feel bad for this kid. He should have been playing Xbox with his high school buddies instead of being locked up all these years. It's crazy what a few bad choices can do to you.

I feel bad for him too. I don't think he had much to do with the choices that brought him to Gitmo. He was only 15 when he was in the midst of a firefight wherein he threw a grenade. There was no way his choices brought him there.

Our government let this farce go on by choosing to not ask to have him face our own court system. I doubt that growing up at Gitmo did much to change the attitudes his family indoctrinated in him as they brought him to that firefight.

It is a mess from start to finish. And it ain't over yet.

However, I am glad to know that is isn't just me that thinks that a 'victim impact' statement by a soldier's widow was inappropriate.

Yeah, it's very sad for all the children forced into war. I think about Africa too. For all we know, some uncle had him hold the grenade, pulled the pin and told him not to let go until it was over. His child like behavior, and his severe treatment at Gitmo make the story, very, very sad.

[Occhidiangela]

I feel bad for him too. I don't think he had much to do with the choices that brought him to Gitmo. He was only 15 when he was in the midst of a firefight wherein he threw a grenade.

I am not buying this line, particularly "he didn't have much to do with the choices" line.

His age is no excuse. None. Zero. He was on the battlefield, he participated.

He wanted to play with the big boys, he gets to pay the big boy price. Or, he got conscripted to play with the big boys, and he paid the big boy price. That's a very old story, older than you or me by a lot.

Your arbitrary distinction based on age, for reasons that mystify me, is an irrelevancy to his role in the business of slaughter: war.

No sympathy.

For Dee Bye: your post was an odd bit of foolishness.
"I feel bad for this kid. He should have been playing Xbox with his high school buddies instead of being locked up all these years."

See above, he was locked up for his participation in the business of slaughter. Maybe he'd have been better off playing video games, but the sad fact is, his own actions took him elsewhere than a video game console.

Our lives are the choices we make.

Whether or not this is a matter for a trial (of any sort) is a separate issue, wherein my sentiments are aligned roughly with Pete's.

[DeeBye]

For Dee Bye: your post was an odd bit of foolishness.
"I feel bad for this kid. He should have been playing Xbox with his high school buddies instead of being locked up all these years."

See above, he was locked up for his participation in the business of slaughter. Maybe he'd have been better off playing video games, but the sad fact is, his own actions took him elsewhere than a video game console.

I'm quite aware that his own actions led him to throw that grenade.

All I was implying was that a 15 year old kid does not belong in a warzone or in a military prison. I wish he had a more normal childhood and was throwing virtual grenades at his Xbox pals while his mom was yelling at him to "Stop playing that damn atari game and come upstairs and eat your dinner!" instead of being in the middle of a real firefight.

I wish he had never started making those choices that led him down the path to radical extremism and grenade chuckism, but he did and now he is in jail. So, I feel bad for him.

[ShadowHM]

I feel bad for him too. I don't think he had much to do with the choices that brought him to Gitmo. He was only 15 when he was in the midst of a firefight wherein he threw a grenade.

I am not buying this line, particularly "he didn't have much to do with the choices" line.

His age is no excuse. None. Zero. He was on the battlefield, he participated.

He wanted to play with the big boys, he gets to pay the big boy price. Or, he got conscripted to play with the big boys, and he paid the big boy price. That's a very old story, older than you or me by a lot.

Your arbitrary distinction based on age, for reasons that mystify me, is an irrelevancy to his role in the business of slaughter: war.

No sympathy.

I understand that from your viewpoint, he made his choice when he arranged to be born into that gawdawful family. However, most of the rest of us believe that minors have limited moral responsibility and no legal responsibility for their actions. Their parents do. That doesn't help anyone in a war zone, but it does, in my mind, temper my judgement of their actions.

It is an old story. Euripides (c. 485-406 B.C.), Phrixus, fragment 970: "The gods visit the sins of the fathers upon the children." In this case, the father has already paid the final price.

The young man who got thrust into the fire fight still deserves my sympathy. I doubt that many of us would acquit ourselves better, were we required to walk in his shoes.

[LavCat]

I feel bad for him too. I don't think he had much to do with the choices that brought him to Gitmo. He was only 15 when he was in the midst of a firefight wherein he threw a grenade.

I am not buying this line, particularly "he didn't have much to do with the choices" line.

His age is no excuse. None. Zero. He was on the battlefield, he participated.

He wanted to play with the big boys, he gets to pay the big boy price. Or, he got conscripted to play with the big boys, and he paid the big boy price. That's a very old story, older than you or me by a lot.

Your arbitrary distinction based on age, for reasons that mystify me, is an irrelevancy to his role in the business of slaughter: war.

No sympathy.

I understand that from your viewpoint, he made his choice when he arranged to be born into that gawdawful family. However, most of the rest of us believe that minors have limited moral responsibility and no legal responsibility for their actions. Their parents do. That doesn't help anyone in a war zone, but it does, in my mind, temper my judgement of their actions.

It is an old story. Euripides (c. 485-406 B.C.), Phrixus, fragment 970: "The gods visit the sins of the fathers upon the children." In this case, the father has already paid the final price.

The young man who got thrust into the fire fight still deserves my sympathy. I doubt that many of us would acquit ourselves better, were we required to walk in his shoes.

Last week my boss mentioned that one of her relatives (a young boy) and a friend hid in a tree and shot and killed an English officer. The boys were, of course, shot. And are family heros.

[Nystul]

I understand that from your viewpoint, he made his choice when he arranged to be born into that gawdawful family. However, most of the rest of us believe that minors have limited moral responsibility and no legal responsibility for their actions. Their parents do.

At age 5, certainly. At 15 you have to take a large share of the responsibility for your own actions. We can't treat teenagers as babies who don't have any responsibilities, only to dump them on their own at 18 and expect them to do the right thing.

[ShadowHM]

I understand that from your viewpoint, he made his choice when he arranged to be born into that gawdawful family. However, most of the rest of us believe that minors have limited moral responsibility and no legal responsibility for their actions. Their parents do.

At age 5, certainly. At 15 you have to take a large share of the responsibility for your own actions. We can't treat teenagers as babies who don't have any responsibilities, only to dump them on their own at 18 and expect them to do the right thing.

Hi Nystul

Nice sentiments. I agree. However, our culture does draw a line in the sand at age 18 for legal responsibility. We could choose another line, if you like. But that is the way it is right now.

Also, please define 'the right thing'? (Because I doubt you can find some universal definition.) And, while you are doing that task, think about the definitions of 'the right thing' that young Omar was given as he grew to age 15. Even if you think there was some chance the kid could have absorbed different precepts about right and wrong than what his family taught him along the way to that firefight, once in it, with a fierce battle ongoing and soldiers demonstrably shooting to kill him, his father and his other companions, are you really thinking he shouldn't have thrown a grenade at them?

[Thecla]

[kandrathe]

I had a friend, Juanita, who got in trouble for sleeping around. We were friends since we were civilians, and we shared a tent together. The commander said that it didn’t matter that she was my friend. She had done something wrong and had to be killed. I closed my eyes and fired the gun, but I didn’t hit her. So I fired again. The grave was right nearby. I had to bury her and cover her with dirt. The commander told me: “You did very well, even though you started to cry. You’ll have to do this again many times, and you’ll have to learn not to cry.” --Human Rights Watch interview with “Angela” Bogotá, 2 June 2002

“Seven weeks after I arrived there was combat…it was an attack on the paramilitaries. We killed about seven of them. They killed one of us. We had to drink their blood to conquer our fear. Only the scared ones had to do it. I was the most scared of all, because I was the newest and the youngest.” -- “Adriana”, a Colombian girl recruited to the opposition Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). -- She was 12 at the time of this incident.

I understand about war zone and having to defend oneself. But, I can still be sad about it. We can still try to find peace somehow.

[--Pete]

Hi,

This discussion has splintered into related but separate issues.

On the original topic of victims, their families, or their friends testifying, I think the rules of evidence should be clear. If the testimony is not pertinent to the case at hand (i.e., to the determination of guilt) then it should not be introduced. The same is true, IMO, for defense character witnesses. The trial isn't to determine how good the victim is or how bad the perpetrator. it is to determine the facts of the case, what laws where broken, and by whom. The rest is soft headed nonsense introducing emotion where logic is called for.

The topic of children forced into paramilitary organizations is a different matter. And their degree of culpability for what they do as part of those organizations is hard to determine. On the one hand, they are coerced. On the other, they did perform the actions. Is it fair to reduce their choice to death by the group leaders or death by society? No, but when did life become fair. Ultimately, the solution to this problem is to eliminate it by eliminating those that are causing it. Since they don't control any oil, that'll have to be done by some nation that actually cares.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Edited out for personal attacks.

-Bolty

[DeeBye]

I understand that from your viewpoint, he made his choice when he arranged to be born into that gawdawful family.

edited quote

Fix your damned quotes. I never said that.

edit: IRONY

[ShadowHM]

edited quote

If you really think his choices were NOT impossibly constrained by his birth, do go ahead and explain when the choices became his own. Here is a time-line to help you out with that project.

Or not. If you want your rationale for your complete lack of sympathy (as outlined more colourfully in your initial response) to stay a mystery, it is your prerogative.

P.S. Don't be blaming DeeBye for my comments. He is perfectly qualified to offend you on his own if he feels like it.

[--Pete]

Hi,

If you really think his choices were NOT impossibly constrained by his birth, do go ahead and explain when the choices became his own. Here is a time-line to help you out with that project.

Constrained, yes. Impossibly, no. Not unless everybody in his position follows his path. I'm not saying the choices were easy, but they were there. By 15, he could have rejected the constraints of his religion, his culture, and his parents. What bothers me more is the behavior of the prosecution(s).

P.S. Don't be blaming DeeBye for my comments. He is perfectly qualified to offend you on his own if he feels like it.

Indeed.

--Pete