Stumble This | You should also watch “9 Year Old Goes Insane On A Dune Buggy!” |
terror suspect,interrogation,crying 16 year old Canadian Terror Suspect Interrogated at Gitmo
Comments 
who voted for this video
NetRunner
- Farhad2000
- Zifnab
- NicoleBee
- kulpims
- Crosswords
- xgabex
- FishBulb
- NordlichReiter
- thinker247
- dag
- kronosposeidon
- doogle
- MrConrads
- nibiyabi
- pho3n1x
- gargoyle
- eric3579
- mintbbb
- lavoll
- notarobot
- JesseoftheNorth
- BoneyD
16 Year Old Canadian Terror Suspect Interrogated At Gitmo Related Videos
 16 Year Old flatpicker Sierra Hull | 9 Year Old Goes Insane On A Dune Buggy! |  Six Year Old Conny Sings 'Somewhere Over The Rainbow' ... |
Recently Updated Playlists
Friends O' the Sift
Top New Videos by Vote
Subscribe
Top 15 Sifters of All Time
Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week
VideoSift Links
...
When he told Canadians that he had been tortured into giving false confessions by the Americans, the Canadian authorities called him a liar, causing him to cry. He later recalled that he had "tried to cooperate so that they would take me back to Canada".
...
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.
...
In the spring of 2008, a series of visits by Canadian Foreign Affairs officials led Karim Amégan and Suneeta Millington to report that Khadr was "salvageable" if allowed to return to society, but that keeping him in the prison would risk radicalising him.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr
If you want info out of me, dont torture me.
Its simple, you and me have a hand to hand fight, whoever wins said fight: Vae Victis.
But then again I'm old fashioned and I'll keep my word, but I will not lose that fight. IE: They would have to kill me before they take my rights away.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Guantanamo-Interrogation-of-Omar-Khadr
What do you do with someone this deeply troubled and dangerous when they are barely past being a kid?
Is the answer:
A) indefinite imprisonment,
B) interrogation,
C) intimidation,
D) torture,
or
E) "radicalizing" him?
Regardless activities prior to his capture, this kid, at 14 and 15 years old, was very likely a victim of circumstances. I wonder how many secrets an early adolescent would really be trusted with out of the Afghan War or how relevant any such information might be after 6 years...
^bcglorf
What do you do with someone this deeply troubled and dangerous when they are barely past being a kid?
Is the answer:
A) indefinite imprisonment,
B) interrogation,
C) intimidation,
D) torture,
or
E) "radicalizing" him?
Regardless activities prior to his capture, this kid, at 14 and 15 years old, was very likely a victim of circumstances. I wonder how many secrets an early adolescent would really be trusted with out of the Afghan War or how relevant any such information might be after 6 years...
I'm honestly asking because I really don't know. I agree he is most likely a victim of circumstance as his father was an Al-Qaida supporter killed earlier in fighting in Afghanistan. The trouble is at his age he had embraced the fundamentalist goals put before him, and is fully indoctrinated by them. Can you really re-integrated somebody who's been through that back into society? How do you balance giving someone a second chance against the safety of the general public? Murders are routinely locked away for life, especially if we think they will re-offend. But we don't usually do that with 15 year olds. Of course, neither do we often have 15 year-old jihadists.
It was a messy business even before American treatment of prisoners was in question thanks to the Bush-Cheney nightmare.
What do you think would have happened if the militia Khadr was in had captured an American or even a Canadian soldier?
How long do you think until they'd have chopped his head off and put the tape on the internet? Three months? Six?
I think he's being treated rather humanely considering the circumstances he was apprehended. At least he's got a full belly and something attached to his jugular.
This is about what kind of people we want to be.
Do we stick to our principles when the going gets tough, or do we ditch them the minute we bump heads with people without any principles?
The Republicans are right to call this an existential threat, they're just wrong about what the existential threat really is.
If the only way to win is to stop obeying the Constitution, the Geneva conventions, and just sheer human decency -- we've already lost.
Of course not.
Sometimes... no matter how much you want something, it won't materialize. You can't reason with everyone for the simple reason that not everyone shares the same intellectual drive.
Go tell some priapic Sudanese Kalashnikov wielding maniac that he should treat his enemy with respect because some gentlemen met in Switzerland and laid down some ground rules. He'll laugh in your face, and with good reason!
If you partake in a gentleman's duel and you're well aware that your opponent has a nasty habit of shooting people in the back, would you still begin your ten paces with assurance?
Only a fool would insist on being a gentleman when dealing with swine.
^If you're being mugged and you really, really don't like it and concentrate on channeling that emotion to the mugger, do think think he'll just turn around and hand back your wallet?
You are, perhaps intentionally, not getting the point, as well as putting words in my mouth.
The alternative to torture is not to "hope he'll be nice from now on", but to use other interrogation methods, which many experts say is more productive than torture.
To borrow your analogy, say you get mugged. The mugger gets away, but the next day you decide to go chasing after the guy. To do this, you capture his family, imprison them and torture them over the course of years in order to get information that might lead you to the capture of the mugger. You make sure there are reports about your doing this on TV on a regular basis, so that the mugger knows what you're doing to his family...
Which one of you would you call a terrorist now?
If I change the mugger into a car bomber, does that make what the hypothetical "you" did justified, or are they both people who should be locked up?
Isn't what makes a person a terrorist defined by what they do, and not who his friends are?
My apologies if you feel I did not get your point, NetRunner. Bottom line is that no matter how much you'd like other people to respect your "code of honour", you'll ending looking like a fool if time after time you get stabbed in the back. It's decidedly not enjoyable, but sometimes when you're dealing with dirt you've got to take off your white gloves and get your hands dirty. Not everyone lives by the pen.
Back to this particular case. Fifteen old Khadr, born and bred in Canada, definitely had the mental capacity to understand that his father was a Muslim extremist and he was certainly conscious of his decision to go to Afghanistan and wage a so-called "holy war". He was not abducted and seemed to rather enjoy laying down landmines. We're not talking about harmless teenage pranks. He fully intended to murder people.
You can't be serious saying those words considering Abu Graibh, Gitmo, Bagram airbase and shit loads of information contrary to that.