He Better Serve His Full Sentence

So only shortly after admitting that he did throw the grenade that killed Sgt Speer, Omar Khadr said he's sorry to the sergeant's widow.

“I am really, really sorry for the pain I have caused you and your family,” said Mr. Khadr, now a hulking 24-year-old who bears little resemblance to the fresh-faced 15-year-old he was the day he admits he threw a grenade that killed Sergeant Christopher Speer, a special forces medic.

He deserved every bit of the condemnation that Tabitha Speers gave him:

“You will forever be a murderer in my eyes. It doesn’t matter what you say,” widow Tabitha Speer said, fighting to keep her composure in a hushed Guantanamo Bay courtroom.

“I’ve heard over and over how he’s the victim, he’s the child,” she said, glaring at Mr. Khadr. “He made a choice. My children had no choice. … [They] didn’t deserve to have their father taken by someone unworthy like you.”

That said. I hope for her sake that she is able to forgive Khadr with time. Letting herself be consumed with anger will do no more damage to him. The truly disturbing part of the story is the strategy of his legal team

His Canadian legal team will likely claim he is entitled to immediate release once he returns to Canada, based on the nine years he will have already spent in U.S. custody and that fact that he was only 15 years old when he committed the crimes.

If he is sucessful Mrs. Speer's healing process will be even more difficult.

No Sympathy for Khadr

"Don't look at me - anyone could have thrown that grenade." That's the line Omar Khadr's defence took at his trial today. Given that there's video evidence of Khadr assembling an improvised explosive device, eye witness accounts that he threw a grenade killing an American soldier and he himself confessed to throwing the grenade and being a terrorist, I've got a pretty good idea of how this trial might turn out.

The drama surrounding the trial including Khadr's lawyer's collapse today and Khadr's age at the time of the murder are red herrings. What matters are the substantive arguments that have been made so far. The Washington Post reports:

Because conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense contends that the other fighter's presence makes it impossible to know who threw the grenade.

To counter that doubt, the prosecution plans to introduce Mr. Khadr's interrogation statements indicating that he threw the grenade. The defense contends those statements were taken under abusive conditions and are unreliable.

The government also introduced a videotape showing Mr. Khadr assembling roadside bombs among joking and bantering al Qaeda militants.

These are the arguments that matter and I'm hoping the trial resumes soon so that Khadr can face justice.

A False Controversy

Today the Globe and Mail asks the question, 'Were Afghans Brave Enough?' as they reported claims that Taliban intimidation may call the result of Afghanistan's election into question:

Millions of Afghans braved Taliban threats to cast their ballot in a crucial presidential election Thursday as doubts surged over whether the turnout was enough to deliver a credible result.

The answer already seems clear. Yes, Afghans were brave enough. The reasons come directly from the article itself:

United Nations, American, Canadian and Afghan officials praised the election as a success, with Washington expressing cautious optimism that Afghans would respect the result.

The optimism is well founded considering that:

The violence fell well short of what was initially threatened by Taliban commanders who had vowed to deploy dozens of suicide bombers on voting day, promising death and dismemberment to anyone who dared vote.

While the threats may have been effective at intimidating some voters to stay home, John Manley's analysis seems apt:

John Manley, Canada's former foreign minister, monitored the election as part of a delegation from the National Democratic Institute. He saluted the bravery of Afghan voters. “If somebody told me I would have my right index finger cut off if I voted, it would certainly impact me. These are courageous people,” he said of those Afghans who cast a ballot. . .

Mr. Manley said in the coming days, everyone needed to take a step back: “You can't necessarily say this election needs to be perfect. It clearly won't be perfect, but the question we need to answer is, does it overall reflect the will of the Afghan people.”

There doesn't appear to be any reason to think that the result won't be accepted. The Taliban will not be able to orchestrate a popular uprising because the people they disenfranchised will be highly unlikely to join with them regardless of the result. Mainstream media should be careful about casting unnecessary doubt on the result.

Welcome Helicopters

Our troops in Afghanistan are getting much deserved support with the arrival of new helicopters.

CTV reports: "the new air wing fleet includes six Chinooks, newly retrofitted with heavy machine guns to counter Taliban attacks, and eight hefty, even more heavily-armed, Griffons to act as backup. It is believed to be Canada's biggest air force presence in a combat zone since the end of the Second World War."

The support will certainly be welcomed by Canadian Soldiers who have seen more than half of their fallen comrades killed by roadside bombs. Hopefully this will save lives, boost morale, and help accomplish the mission!

It's Worth Staying in Afghanistan

I didn't write about it last week and I should have. The Conservatives' announcement that they will pull all troops out of Afghanistan by 2011 is a bloody shame. A Toronto Star Headline highlights the bitter irony well: Afghan war worth fighting . . . but only until 2011. Thomas Walkom is right when he says, "Logically, this position makes no sense. If this is a war worth fighting, we should stay until the job is done. If it is not, then we should exit as quickly as possible."

Stephen Harper has spent several years rightly defending the mission. The mission was just and remains important for the people of Afghanistan and for protecting our country against Islamist terrorists. The Canadian Forces are behind the mission, we have heard constantly from the parents of soldiers who have died how they supported this mission. It really does seem to be a betrayal of the sacrifice that's happened already especially when the mission is not complete.

It's strange that Peter MacKay sounds like he could be Stephane Dion here:

"We will … be there, and the role will change," he said, "We'll emphasize the humanitarian aspect, continue with training, continue with our people there that
are both with the domestic police and maybe on the military side to build … capacity."

Some Canadian soldiers will remain in Afghanistan after 2011, MacKay said, primarily working on training and reconstruction.

"We have combat engineers that are there helping with the Dahla dam, we have people building roads and supervising some of the training exercises that go on but the emphasis will change, and that's consistent with the parliamentary resolution."

C'mon guys, you've been showing real leadership on this issue for years, now you've fallen back to some lame humanitarian aide is as good as military support. How spineless.

Let the Americans Keep Him

Omar Khadr is from the family of Osama bin Laden's biggest Canadian sympathisers. He travelled to Afghanistan to support their cause, and the Americans believe he killed one of their soldiers, Christopher Speer. Now that a video of his interrogation has been released, his lawyers want Canadians to pressure our government to bring him back to Canada and rescue him from the consequences of his actions.

I vote no. Much has been made of clips where Khadr breaksdown and crys for his mom, but more should be made of his many admissions. Such as this exchange reported by the Globe and Mail,

"How did that American end up getting so dead then? … You were there. You participated in this action," a Canadian interrogator said.

"What could I do?" Mr. Khadr replied. "What other choice did I have?"

CSIS agents believe he delivered well rehearsed testimony. Khadr's lawyers have been trying to manipulate the Canadian government ever since his arrest, when the interrogation started he said to the Canadians, "Finally, I've been requesting the Canadian government for a long time."

I don't blame Khadr for breaking down in tears when he realized that the Canadians were trying to find out the truth rather than bring him a get out of jail free card. But those tears do not make him innocent, if he killed an American service man and trained with terrorists he should face the consequences.

Canadian Diplomacy Pays Off

Back in January I wrote about John Manley's report on Afghanistan. It was brilliant in that it outlined why the mission is important, and why Canada should continue to fight the mission. One of my friends in the Military said the report should be required reading for every Canadian.

A key recommendation in the report was that Canada should give other NATO countries an ultimatum that Canada would withdrawal our troops unless an additional 1,000 fighting soldiers were committed to the Kandahar region. Looks like it's working. France is likely to commit 1,000 additional soldiers to Afghanistan next month. The Times article states:

The Ministry of Defence has made a working assumption that President Sarkozy will announce a deployment of “slightly more than 1,000 troops to the eastern region”, one said.

The deployment would deliver a significant fillip to the military operation in Afghanistan, ensuring that other countries such as Canada remain engaged. It would also provide concrete evidence that France was keen to forge a new relationship with NATO. . .

President Sarkozy is said to be still deciding whether the extra troops should be sent to the south to fight alongside the Canadians or east to the border with Pakistan. In the latter scenario, the presence of French troops would allow the US troops currently policing the border to be sent south.

This is how diplomacy works. Canada has been pulling more than its weight in Afghanistan, and it has re-earned credibility on the international stage. As a result, Canada has made a very reasonable demand of it's allies and they are responding. Now more than ever we should support the mission and help Afghanistan recover from the years of Taliban rule that have ravaged the country.

Here's to John Manley

I've gotta hand it to John Manley. Less than two weeks ago I was slamming his leader Stephan Dion for a pathetic press conference the two gave in Afghanistan. Tuesday, a panel headed by John Manley recommended that Canada extend it's mission in Afghanistan. According to the CBC, the panel found that Canada should maintain its current role in Afghanistan provided two conditions are met:

(1) The assignment of an additional battle group of about 1,000 soldiers to Kandahar by NATO and/or other allies before February 2009.

(2) That the government secure new, medium-lift helicopters and high-performance unmanned aerial vehicles for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance before
that date.

If these conditions are not met, "the government should give appropriate notice to the Afghan and allied governments of its intention to transfer responsibility for security in Kandahar . . . The hard truth is that an ISAF retreat from Afghanistan before that country's own forces can defend its security would most likely condemn the Afghan people to a new and bloody cycle of civil war and misrule — and raise new threats to global peace and security," the panel says.

"In sum, an immediate military withdrawal from Afghanistan would cause more harm than good."

I'm very impressed by the intelligence of this report, and I couldn't agree more with the conclusions. John Manley's role is even more impressive, he has willingly contradicted his own party policy to make a bold statement for the benefit of Canada's national interest and International peace and security.

John Manley's contribution should not be understated, take his words at a news conference:

"We've heard it again and again, 'This is NATO's most important mission.' Well, it's time for the rhetoric to end, either they mean it, that this is the most important mission, or they don't. If they don't, then we need to look to the well-being of our young people."

This is a master stroke. It's a bold challenge to other NATO countries to get involved in a meaningful way in the mission. Canada is willing to sholder more than it's share of the burden, but we can't do it alone. Manley has also effectively put the responsibility on Prime Minister Harper to pressure other countries to play their part.

John Manley, you've done an excellent job. Prime Minister Harper, gifts like this don't come along every day please make full use of it. NATO - prove this alliance relevant and ensure we accomplish this mission!

But why would HE meet with THEM?

So Stephan Dion and Michael Ignatieff went to Afghanistan to meet with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Mr. Dion and Mr. Ignatieff ... told the Afghan leader that they
believe Canada's combat role should not be renewed.

However, they told Mr. Karzai that the party still supports diplomatic and development efforts, as well as a possible continued military presence in the country, they added.

No word was available on how Mr. Karzai reacted to that position, although Mr. Dion said the Afghan leader did thank Canada for its current contributions during the
talks.

No word indeed. I can guess what Mr. Karzai was thinking, "Why did I agree to meet with these two clowns." The Afghan government has been very clear that Canada's role, including it's military support is and has been essential to that country's security. I doubt very much that Afghanistan's position has changed.

I truly cannot fathom why Karzai would even meet with these two unless he thought that he could convince them that Canada's mission should be extended. Obviously he has more convincing to do.

CSIS Better Have a File on This Guy

Amir Attaran, has triggered an investigation into how Canadian soldiers have treated Afghan detainees. The Globe and Mail reported:

At least one, and perhaps three, Afghan detainees "taken captive by the Canadian Forces appears to have been beaten while detained and interrogated by them," alleges Amir Attaran, a University of Ottawa law professor, in a letter sent to the commission.

The allegations are based on documents obtained by Mr. Attaran under the Access to Information Act outlining injuries in the cases.

Presumably Mr Attaran was on a fishing expedition requesting all available records from our military. Through all of this he found one detainee who was a suspected bomb maker and continually resisted Canadian Forces ended up with some cuts and bruises, likely of his own making. The Canadian Forces stated:

When transferred to Military Police stationed at Kandahar Airfield, the detainee continued to display extreme agitation as well as belligerent and totally unco-operative behaviour. Already restrained by nylon straps to his wrists while being guided by Military Police, the detainee used his legs to leverage himself off the back of a vehicle in an effort to generate resistance against the Military Police escorting him. In accordance with proper use of force procedures, Military Police used appropriate physical control techniques to restrain him from doing that.

It appears this is an open and shut case; the military have acted responsibly. The big question is what kind of Canadian would have an interest in systematically looking for evidence to discredit our forces? I think it's the responsibility of CSIS to find out. The second question is why is our major media so anxious to discredit our forces by painting responsible behaviour as scandalous?