Home | About | Donate

Viral Facebook Post Rips Right-Wing Arguments Against Omar Khadr Settlement

Viral Facebook Post Rips Right-Wing Arguments Against Omar Khadr Settlement

Jake Johnson, staff writer

A Canadian entrepreneur has some striking words for right-wing politicians, pundits, and citizens who have argued that the Canadian government's decision to settle with and apologize to Omar Khadr—a Canadian citizen who was detained by the United States at age 15 and subsequently spent 10 years at Guantanamo—is tantamount to compensating "a terrorist."


Even, if, for arguing, Khader threw the grenade that killed the US soldier, he is hardly a “terrorist”, he was defending his family’s adopted second-home country against a foreign invader. He was, at worst, a combatant in a war who was grievously wounded and almost died, then tortured by his enemy captors in violation of international conventions on POW treatment - with Canada’s (under Harper) assistance.

The arrogance of a nation that seems to think it has the right to invade any people’s land it wishes - then designate the people defending themselves as “terrorists” for shooting back at the US thugs, is totally mind-boggling - I really can’t get my mind around it.

By that definition, the Minute Men of Lexington and Concord were terrorists, and George Washington was the Supreme Terrorist. Right?


If you ask me, both GW Bush and Tony Blair should be in prison.


Just an FYI… our good friend Jean and the liberal party was in power when Omar Khadr was imprisoned and our government allowed the US to detain him without a trial…
Let’s check our history again… who was the next PM of Canada? Paul Martin who continued to allow a Canadian citizen remain in Gitmo without a trial.
Khadr was released to Canada in 2012, who was PM?

Wow. So after being in office for 4 years Harper says: “If you confess to being a terrorist we’ll bring you home”. Such a selfless, conservative act by the speedy PM.


I’d add one thing about the frantic terrorist-labeller’s fury at the Khadr money.

My question for them is this: by what right were American troops in Afghanistan shooting at Taliban soldiers?

International law, you say? Self-defense, 9/11?

Let’s set aside the fact that Afghanistan didn’t take down the towers- Al Queda did. Not the Taliban. But let’s just march beyond that and consider the international law involved. There were UN resolutions. So the US was there enforcing international law as established by the UN.

But wait: according to the UN, Khadr has to be considered a child soldier.

So he’s not covered.

So let’s sum up: the law that allowed the US to go into Afghanistan- that law is okay. The law from the same body, that says Khadr has to be treated as a victim, not a combatant- screw that.

A system of law that is observed only by choice is no law at all.


Thank you for clarifying the whole point of the settlement with Khadr. as important as that was to attempt to right things, please remember that this young man was a teenager when he was shot and incarcerated by the US. He was a child soldier under the international treaty dealing with such things and was not to be treated the way he was. So his treatment was illegal, his incarceration illegal, his torture illegal. His presence in a war zone wasn’t even his choice but the individual supposedly killed by him, which no evidence has been shown to confirm, was a man who joined the US military and took his chances in one of the many discretionary wars, the US loves to pursue worldwide. The US war was illegal. The most important result of this terrible case should be the belling of the American cat, the exposure of its corrupt judicial system and the refusal by all countries to extradite any individuals into its rapacious clutches. The US is a rogue state and should be shunned by decent nations.


and where are those decent nations?

1 Like

Americans say when they invade a country and choose to kill anyone who shoots back is a terrorist.

Kadhr had a hole in his chest. It was physically impossible for him to have thrown a grenade. No wonder no trial - they had nothing. US sharia law. American Taliban.

1 Like

The good that may come of Trump is the alienation of the allies.

This is the same argument that was used back in 2003 to show that Cheney/Dubya and their cronies were fellow travelers for al Qaeda. al Qaeda wanted destroy our society, and the repugs with the help of some of the Democrats carried their water and did their work for them. Anytime that it looked like sanity was taking hold in the US, bin Laden would say, “Boo!” and the warmongers would get back to the job of dismantling our democracy.

1 Like

Thank you.

Literally nothing should matter in this entire conversation but that international law universally prohibits torture. Full stop. And, Omar was a child and the detainment of children, if necessary, always demands treatment in the best interests of the child: that includes the right to counsel, access to a guardian, so on. Let alone fucking trial. I’m appalled no one is emphasizing this.

Also uncomfortable seeing poster using anti-Muslim diatribe (orientalist notions of “Sharia”, etc.) to make his point, but whatever.