Kangaroo Court Engaged – All Ahead Full Mr. Khadr

“Perhaps we should add “threat of gang-rape” to all of our security forces manual of how to interrogate prisoners.”
Nah, let’s add “baking them muffins”, “mud wraps”, and “deep-tissue massages” to the interrogators list of tactics instead. Seriously, though, what it is that you’d do to get through to these BATTLEFIELD COMBATANTS (not civilians who are assumed to be civil) in order to get them to cooperate? What do you think would actually work for you in an interrogation room with these guys?

Let’s also acknowledge the fact here that the interrogators themselves weren’t the ones threatening to gang rape the kid. (Khadr was probably getting enough threats of that inside the prison from his own people). Yes, the interrogators were using the fact that that’s what happens in prisons as a way to scare the kid into cooperating, but so what – it’s what practically everyone in the justice department uses, too to achieve the same ends in your “civilized” society, regardless of whether you see it written down on some piece of paper or not. Of course, the PC Police would never allow that to be written down on paper, but the PC police haven’t infiltrating everything yet and thanks to that we actually have some deterrents in our society left to provide these criminals with SOME fear of consequences.

While you like to use this as part of your “more evidence why all military people are monsters” case, like it or not the fear of ANY violence in prison (or group home, or youth detention center, or …) is the exact same fear that civilian police forces, parole officers, parents, and even adults and kids use amongst themselves to scare anyone straight.

For MOST kids, (and even most adults), the threat of any prison violence is more than a strong enough deterrent but for some reason on a battle-hardened, brainwashed kid it doesn’t phase him. So again, exactly how would you get him to talk?

LikeLike

Nothing to say as in no information to provide?

Highly unlikely. It may be, however, that he’s already told them everything he knows.

LikeLike

The police in Western countries seem to do just fine without resorting to level of acts perpetrated against Omar Khadr.
Based on what, exactly? What you read? And what do you know of “effective and proven non-threatening interrogation techniques?” Good data is based on good disclosure – do you honestly think what’s truly effective in law enforcement and intimidation actually gets put on paper?

If you’ve spent any time with law enforcement you’ll know that the police in Western countries use the exact same types of verbal intimidation that’s mentioned in your post, and the reason they use it is because it works (that’s why they keep using it). On the record there’s all the policies, mission statements, and protocols in place to ease the consciences of the bleedhearts and keep the PR people happy, but off the record there’s what actually gets done in order to deter crime which neither the cops nor the criminals would EVER go on the record with, so I wouldn’t be putting a whole lot of faith in whatever research you want to be citing here.

Plus, you’re also comparing civilian to military here which ignores the fact that because of the type of perpetrator you’re dealing with, the intensity of that verbal intimidation increases.

To be effective, it must present the perpetrator with at least SOME undesirable consequence to their actions in order to gain leverage with. To a “typical” fifteen year old, this consequence might be a scolding from the parents. To one who’s been in trouble with the law and spent time in Juvenile Detention, however, it would be ineffective – more likely scoffed at or even welcome compared to what they know will likely happen to them once they get (back) inside Detention.

Now to a 15-year old who is fine with firing automatic weapons and lobbing grenades at noncombatants, I don’t imagine the “tell us what you know or you won’t get any dessert” line is really going to work on him.

So again I ask you – what would you do? Your “Geneva Convention” response says nothing specific, and besides Khadr wasn’t threatened with or given any physical harm from his jailers based on what you’ve posted, so I don’t see how he’s actually been “tortured”. That’s no more torture than me telling a 15-year old girl that if she’s not mindful when she travels, the movie “Taken” could happen to her, or getting a 15-year old boy who I caught smoking marijuana to watch “Intervention” and some disgusting images of some junkie shooting up.

Kinda says a lot, don’t you think, about our standards no?
Sure. It says that people like you and I have no place in law enforcement because we have no real clue how to deal with people who have far lower standards or morals than we do. It says that you’d likely run a police station or jail like a day spa and I’d likely run it like a motivational seminar(!), neither of which would do anything for prosecuting or preventing crime. Just because our standards may be higher, it doesn’t mean when they’re presented to people of “lower” standards that those people are going to automatically or effectively raise theirs to our levels. (Isn’t that a criticism of US imperialism?)

I appreciate that you’re the voice of a higher morality here, but again I disagree with your vilification, and I think we have a long, long way to go (evolve) before these types of intimidation are no longer needed. I also appreciate, though, that these discussions around situations like Khadr’s are a start.

However, this is already a step too far, he was a child when this happened and has no place in a military prison or military court.
Yes. In any other situation we treat children under 16 as victims, not perpetrators of a crime. As it was a battlefield incident I think the investigation should originate with the military, but beyond that I don’t think he should be in Guantanamo – he should be back in Canada where it should be determined whether he can lead a normal life there.

LikeLike

Agreed. Although I believe this provides for a glaring loophole that is already being exploited in gang neighborhoods here at home, I think this is one issue that we can’t apply a double-standard to. A child is a child is a child when it comes to these soldiers, in my opinion.

LikeLike

How much “win” we can extract from those locations is really dependent on your definition of win. The wars in question need to be winnable [yet] Iraq and Afghanistan are prime examples of essentially unwinnable wars.

A clear definition of a “win” – how helpful that would be! :)

From my perspective, a “win” is three things:
1) Securing our resources and commercial interests.
2) Keeping our terrorist enemies from growing unfettered.
3) Securing women and children’s legal rights and safety in those nations.

I believe we can achieve all three in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and I believe we can do so ultimately without our own forces there.

LikeLike