Khadr “felt happy” when his grenade killed U.S. medic

Fact summary at Guantanamo tribunal reveals new details


A summary of facts read in court at the war-crimes tribunal of Omar Khadr reveals new details about the five war crimes to which the Guantanamo Bay prisoner has confessed. The summary states: “During an interview in October 2002, Khadr stated he felt happy when he heard that he had killed an American. Khadr indicated that when he would get “pissed off” with the guards at Bagram, he would recall his killing of the U.S. soldier and it would make him feel good.” Khadr also confirmed that he was a member of al-Qaeda and that the “happiest moment of his life” was when he built and planted roadside bombs aimed at killing Americans and other ‘unbelievers’ who were then in Afghanistan. The summary also describes Khadr’s father Ahmad, who was killed in raid in 2003, as a “trusted senior member of al-Qaida” who “helped raise funds and provided the funds in support of al-Qaida operations.” It also confirmed that Khadr does not fit the definition of prisoner of war under the Geneva conventions.

Montreal Gazette

Globe and Mail

Filed under:

Khadr “felt happy” when his grenade killed U.S. medic

  1. What, no comments from the Khadrophiles? Emily? Holly Stick? Anyone??

  2. What particular aspect of "due process" was he unjustifiably denied? And flawed as it may have been, the process that is now concluding is, I suspect, preferred by Khadr to what typically happens when soldiers on a battlefield encounter the enemy shortly after said enemy has blown up their medic.

    • Well, we'll start with the fact that every court that has reviewed this process has said that it was a joke. But, you're right, I have no doubt that in many cases, Kadr would have ended up dead.

      I don't have sympathy for Kadr. I do think, however, everybody who is charged with something should get a fair trial. Sorry, that's just me.

      • Courts call other courts a joke all the time – sometimes it's true, sometimes it isn't (the biggest joke courts in the country right now are, of course, the human rights tribunal – see Boisson v. Lund – but I digress). But WHY did every court say it was a joke? What precisely and specifically was flawed and, to the extent it was flawed, were there any reasonable explanations for the flaws? What about the trial he was about to receive prior to pleading guilty was unfair?

        • Courts call other courts in other countries jokes all the time? Really? Hmm. Anyway. Here's a summary of our own Canadian courts' views on the Kadr process.

          In there, there is a good summary of the concerns our courts had with the way Kadr was being treated. Maybe it's a bunch of hooey… but the SCOC seems to be a pretty credible body. I do concede — if that is the right word — that the SCOC did not order the Gov't of Canada to act to repatriate Kadr because it didn't want to step on external affairs' toes, and I happen to agree with that decision. However, the problems with the process were upheld by the SCOC.

          • Any time an appellate court overrules a lower court it is, in essence, calling that court a joke, albeit using nice soothing legal words, often latin ones. As far as the SCOC ruling is concerned, it is fatally flawed because, prior to establishing some Khadr right had been breached, the Court failed to discuss why the Charter could be invoked by Khadr in the first place. The SCOC was also strangely silent on why the normative remedy when the state has obtained evidence in breach of an accused rights – exclusion of that evidence at trial – was insufficient. Finally, and IIRC, the "tainted evidence" obtained by Cdn officials in breach of Khadr's Charter rights did not include a confession.

          • Well… I bow to your supreme legal knowledge… supreme even to the SCOC. I'll keep my mouth shut.

      • I am sure he would have got a fair trial in Afghanistan. What makes this little prick so special. He committed acts of Terrorism in Afghanistan so he should have been given "Due Process" under Afghan law in Afghanistan.
        Typical all over the world, Canadians get in trouble, smuggling drugs, child sex trade etc…. then think they should be treated the way they would have been in Canada. Commit a crime in another country then face the music in that country.

        • Little prick! So I suppose you are going to claim to have met and analysed Khadar and know him well. Your comment is simply what one would expect from a bigot.

          Perhaps you forget that what he did in Afghanistan was NOT a crime in Afghanistan, which is why the US authorities created a kangaroo court at Guantanamo. By your faulty reasoning, he should never have been taken into custody.

          Many people posting on this comment board have small minds combined with big mouths and fail to know when to keep the first open and the second closed. They do their cause much harm by posting comments in this way.

          • Hey big mouth. Murder is a crime anywhere. Khadr was making IEDs which may well have ended the lives of some of our soldiers. He was photographed walking around with severed limbs. He killed a U.S. Medic and relished in it. He is an Egyptian who went to Afghanistan to kill NATO soldiers and any Afghan who did not go along with the Taliban. Yet people like you would have him come back to Canada, a people and a country he hates. It's called Treason. Look it up.

          • You may be correct that he comitted this crime. Then put him in front of a credible court and prove it using these photographs and whatever other evidence there is. This was never done, apparently because the evidence just doesn't add up. The US military court had to settle for a "confession" that took nine years to extract under conditions that would be considered torture anywhere else.

            He was born in Canada and holds a valid Canadian passport.

    • GreatWallsofFire: He was in front of a military court purposely situated where no US law applies and where the application of international law is in question. His own country abandoned him. The judge was a US soldier. The trial lawyers were US soldiers. The jury were all US soldiers. The defence lawyer was a US soldier. The bailifs were US soldiers. The jailers were US soldiers. The interrogators were US soldiers. The messhall was run by US soldiers.

      You are probably right; he did get what typically happens on a battlefield, not the due process expected in ANY courtroom.

      • Well, he committed his crime against the US, in breach of US law on territory the US was present on in accordance with International law – on what basis would any individuals of any other nationality get involved? It's not a fair trial unless there's a Belgium prosecutor, Chilean jury member and a court reporter from Vanuatu?

        And how would the whole procedure have been better, but for the absence of non-Americans? Other than delusional Khadrophiles, pretty much anybody with knowledge of the circumstances understands that Khadr was the only survivor of a firefight with US forces and therefore the only person who could have possibly lobbed the grenade that killed the US medic – by all means, explain to me how that irrefutable set of circumstances results in anything other than a conviction, irrespective of the relative "quality" of the legal proceeding that is employed?

        • Fine, he may well have committed this offense. Then put him in front of a credible court and prove he was guilty before that court using evidence provided by "pretty much anybody with knowledge of the curcumstances". This was never done. The apparent reason is that the evidence didn't hold water.

          • There were many reasons but "the evidence didn't hold water" was most assuredly not one.

          • If the evidence holds water then put him in front of a credible court, don't hide from credible courts and work out a negotiated deal in a back room. Perhaps you are most assured the evidence holds water, but the rest of the world expects a bit more than just your assurance.

          • Khadr wasn't being tried in front of a US military tribunal because the "evidence didn't hold water" – name me a court that wouldn't have convincted Khadr of at least of the terrorism charges on the strength of no other evidence than the videotape.

            As for "putting him in front of a credible court" – what you seem to be suggesting is "venue shopping", which is subject to sanction in every western democratic legal system I'm familiar with – when you''re an accused criminal, "you're stuck dancing with the guy that brought you", which in this case was the US military tribunal.

  3. "Due process"?

    You mean the one in the context of him not having Geneva Convention protections, as correcty concluded in the report? Conventions designd to protect civilians (target civilians or wear civilian garb in battle and you've CHOSEN to not be protected)?

    Funny how with all the talk about the "rule of law" being violated by Kadr defenders, how that most solumn rule designed to protect civilians (the same civilians Kadr proudly professed his desiret to kill) is ignored.

    Perhaps we should modify the Geneva convention to carve out a more "culturally sensitive" defnitio of civilian to exclude "unbelievers" of Islam?

  4. Get your facts right, Amar was and is not a child soldier even under UN Law. He was 15 when he comitted mass murder, so he was over the age UN considered as child (under 14). The Khadr family are Egyptians and have no right to be in Afghanistan. Had ilks like you did not fight for his Father's release from Pakistan prison, then we would have not been facing this problem now. Can you imagine if Omar will turn out just like the father and use Canada as spring board for his jihadi children? Expect to see same scenarios in the future being played out, no thanks to you and people like you.

    • I didn't realize that throwing a grenade that killed a single soldier is considered "mass murder".

      I wonder what that makes the Apache pilot and gunner who gunned down, what, 17 civilians in Iraq (including a news crew)?

      • Do you honestly think, that was the only time he committed the act, or the only time he was caught? This angelic child has been assembling IED long before he was caught.

        • Ah yes, the "unreported crime" meme again. You do understand, don't you…never mind.

          • So, what, Craigola – are you saying those IEDs that he is captured on film assembling for use against Western soldiers never got used? They're probably just collecting dust on some shelf somewhere, having never hurt a soul, right?
            There is a better than good chance that the actual victims of Omar Khadr extend well beyond Christopher Speers.

    • 'You people'. Nice.

      Well, if it wasn't for 'us people' — folks who believe in the rule of law — we'd just skip trials and either imprison or kill people we don't like. 'Us people' believe that we don't have to compromise the fundamentals of law and democracy to defeat the terrorists.

      I'd like to hear how 'you people' would handle things differently.

      • If you believe in the rule of law, then the patriarch Khadr should have not been admitted back in Canada after he was arrested in Pakistan for terrorism, and we would have not been facing this same problem with his son. The liberals should have left him in Pakistan where he committed the crime. Not only that, the liberals at that time even brought the rest of Khadr's family here in Canada- after the fact. This family have been abusing their oaths of citizenship which should have made their Canadian citizenships null and void.

        • You won't get a defense from me about how the Liberals handled Kadr Sr. I don't know enough about it to even try, if I wanted to. That said, I do know that the case of Kadr Sr. doesn't have anything to do with the case of Kadr Jr. If my Dad is a jerk, I know I don't want to be held responsible for things he does.

          • Haven't you heard? Junior had been making IEDs before he threw a grenade to kill a medic. Who knows what else he did long before he was caught.

    • Given the choice between living my life in a dangerous world with human rights and living it in a dangerous world without human rights, I'll choose the former, thank you.

    • Egyptians have no right to be in Afghanistan?

  5. The problem with not giving Khadr a fair trial is that there are now doubts about whether his confession is genuine or not. As some commenters have mentioned, after 8 years in Gitmo, it would be tempting to confess to anything in order to escape.

    If the normal judicial process had been followed, and Khadr had been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt – which is the standard criterion – it would be easier to decide what to do with him.

    • There was ample evidence to convict him on even if he never confessed, starting with the fact he was the only fighter who survived the firefight and, accordingly, the only one who could have thrown the grenade.

      • Let's break this one down, shall we?
        "There was ample evidence to convict him on even if he never confessed." Fine. This happens every day. However, that people don't confess to the crimes of which they're accused doesn't generally delay their trials for nearly a decade. What could the problem have been in this case?
        "…He was the only fighter who survived the firefight and, accordingly, the only one who could have thrown the grenade." Having had a little more time to think about what you wrote, do you understand yet how the second half of your sentence doesn't actually follow from the first? But before you answer, I implore you to please be careful. My faith in the public education system is riding on your answer.

        • "However, that people don't confess to the crimes of which they're accused doesn't generally delay their trials for nearly a decade. What could the problem have been in this case?"

          Why is the delay a problem – would you have been happier if he'd have pled guilty the day after he was captured? Certainly, most of the evidence that supported a conviction was available the day after, so there was no real "tainting" of the evidence resulting from the delay. Furthermore, I suspect a goodly chunk of the delay was attributable to his own legal maneuvering, including regularly firing his lawyers and applying to various courts to have the whole thing called off.

          "Having had a little more time to think about what you wrote, do you understand yet how the second half of your sentence doesn't actually follow from the first? But before you answer, I implore you to please be careful. My faith in the public education system is riding on your answer."

          Wow, that's a lot of pressure – but – here goes: first part of my sentence restated – there was a firefight involving Al Quaida operatives and the US and Khadr was the only Al Quaida operative to survive. Second part of my sentence restated: after the firefight, the US sent in a crew, including medics, to survey the scene and treat the wounded and someone through a grenade and killed a US medic. Careful enough?

          • Hm. I wonder.. in a force known for using suicide bombers, if the one with the grenade just might have.. see if you can follow along here.. not survived the grenade blast?

          • Well if you want to make up facts, why stop at "more than one jihadi survived the firefight, but not the tossing of the grenade". Let's go full tilt – what actually happened is the US medic was depressed and decided to depart this mortal coil by his own hand, so he seized the opportunity while looking for wounded after the firefight to grab a Russian-made grenade when no one was looking and throw it at himself and when George Bush learned about it, he and Dick Cheney ordered the CIA, aided by Haliburton, to use sophisticated computer graphics programs to make a video with a CGI of Khadr smiliing as he armed IUDs and hide it beneath the floorboards of the destroyed jihadi compound".

            Just make sure I get the residuals when Khadr sells his story to Hollywood.

          • The only one making up facts is you – Khadr was one of two fighters alive when the grenade was thrown.

          • Well, not according to the formal statement of facts, but let's say that's true – that means the odds of it being Khadr who threw it go from 100% to 50%. Let me reflect on that for a bit – nope, still not outaged.

          • You haven't been paying much attention if you think the "statement of facts" reflects the evidence.
            And there's no need to try to convince me that you're utterly uninterested in the rule of law.

        • The difference in Gtmo is that they can, and do, hold people indefinitely if they declare them dangerous, even without any trial at all. And, in the recent Ghailani case, in a civilian court, when the judge threw out some evidence because of torture, he said that even if the suspect was declared innocent he would not necessarily be released, and the government confirmed that.

          So, Khadr had no choice, if he ever wanted out, and the government wanted a plea deal. Maybe because it avoids an appeal which could end up at the Supreme Court and would be risky for them. The Gtmo prisoners also promise never to sue the US for torture when they take deals, which is important for the government too.

    • He plead guilty.

      The court gave him several chances to say…"oh I didn't really do it, but I plead guilty anyway"…plenty of times yesterday. He didn't.

      Why do those who think so highly of Khadr not even listen to what he says?

      It reminds me of Iggy being last to sign on the dotted line for the coalition…so people could say…"oh…but really he didn't support it."

      The move towards a personal accountability-free society I suppose.

      • "The move towards a personal accountability-free society I suppose."

        If you're talking about there probably not being any consequences for this government's outright refusal to do the right thing, then you suppose right.

      • He plead guilty to get out of e hell-hole that is the US tribunal system, where they can take as long as they want to try you, and you're stuck in a prison where they abuse you.

        Sure, he was offered plenty of opportunities to say he had been coerced into this confession. But it's like someone holding a gun to you, telling you if you say something specific and you'll be set free, and then asking you if what you're saying is actually is a lie.

        • You know Omar personally do you? Did he tell you that was his "real" reason for pleading guilty to all charges? Or perhaps you are clairvoyant? Or perhaps that is only your assumption….? One that conveniently fits into your belief that the system was flawed and illegitimate to begin with.

          There seems to be quite a few people out there who just refuse to believe Khadr could actually be guilty of the crimes he has confessed to…and if he did indeed commit these crimes…that he should be given a "free ride" because he was 15 years old at the time. No matter which way you cut it…I see that as nothing but excuses to relieve Khadr from any sort of personal responsibility from his actions which resulted in the deaths…and attempted murder of others.

          Throw in a healthy dose of partisan politics, anti-Americanism and political correctness into the Khadr mix and you've got a recipe for all sorts of personal agendas leveraged through Khadr's case. I prefer to "cut to the chase" here. He's a self-confessed murderer and terrorist from a murdering, terrorist family.

          ,,,and I don't necessarily disagree with craigola's mention of governments trying to lead an "accountability-free" existence either. There is plenty of that to go around as well…too much in fact…from every party.

        • Was that how you plead for his father's release from Pakistan prison?

    • The normal judical process is a blea bargain. Very few cases actually go to trial and lead to a conviction. In the United States, the figure is something like <5% of all cases are ever actually tried… all others either result in charges being dropped or the defendant pleading guilty, much the way Khadr did here. It's similar here in Canada, although not quite so high.

  6. Liberals and lefties may love Khadr all they want, but he should be sent to Afghanistan for trial since he killed and terrorized people there. Afghans deserve to see justice being done too.

    • "Afghans deserve to see justice being done too."
      Sooo…GWB being put on trial for invading their country, even though it was Saudi Arabians who attacked his?

      • We were there with UN's approval. The Khadr's are Egyptians and were working with Saudi Arabian terrorists training in Afghanistan.

      • Are you telling everyone that you're not even aware that al-Qaeda was using Afghanistan as a base for international terrorist operations, courtesy of the Taliban? If you don't know that much, you're simply embarrassing yourself by making comments.

    • you are correct but the librals are going to hide him

  7. And if you believe all this…

  8. "And if you believe all this…"

    So being caught thousands of miles away in a Al Qaida terrorist traning camp, the purpose of the camp being to arm and train terrorists to kill "unbelievers",

    makes him being happy about planting bombs to kill unbelievers,

    unbelievable or someting?

    There's giving the benefit of the doubt, and then there' just plain puttng one' head in the sand.

    What's so sad is how some are so willing to defend the indefensible, the despicable. For purely petty political partisanship.

    • OR we just get a kick out of arguing with you, chet.

  9. I wonder if this interview in October 2002 involved waterboarding.

  10. I am waiting for the bill.How much will he sue Canada for.I am sure he wont come back here, and get a job, and the left wonder why it's called the blue surge!

  11. The Toronto Star loves the guy. Michelle Shepherd dressed him up in clean whit linen and used his confinement as basis to undermine the esteem of the US. Today James Travers took a break from his usual 24/7 anti-conservative rant to predict that the US ruling is bogus and as soon as he returns to Canada our liberal judges will set him free and he'll be walking the streets of Toronto.

  12. He's another poster boy of the NDP

  13. After being jailed without trial at 15, anybody would feel happy imagining hurting or even killing their captors. There's nothing sinister about that, even if Khadr is the Antichrist.

  14. I bet nobody ever did such a good job of building a case against himself as Khadr did, even told about bad things he was thinking. It was like he was a member of the Prosecution team.

    • Diana1976: What a Crafty litlle bugger ! !…What a '' Marytr ''

  15. What's remarkable is how the leftists here are defending Kadre when he doesn't want to be defended.

    Like virtually every Jihadi terrorist, he is unabashed, open and unapolagetic for his terrorist ways.

    He, like the rest, proudly declares his bombmaking (pointing out the location of the bombs) his happiness to kill unbelievers, ect.

    and the leftists here STILL cannot believe he is a Jihadi terrorist.

    And the suggestion that he desired to kill unbelievers only after he was captured (that his being in a terrorist training camp must have been some big coincidence)

    underscores how dogmatic leftist beliefs cloud reason and rationality.

    • Chet: Khadr, when he '''doesn't want to be defended.'''…..Have to admit, that really puts a different view on things doesn't it ?

  16. Chet—-How dare you cloud your reason and rational here where Liberal elites believe the only prerequisite to allying yourself with any type of criminal is that the end result will make the Harper Gov`t look bad.

  17. he is a hardened Mulsim Jihadist and can never be reformed. Jail him for as long as possible and then send him to a country that wants him. Maybe we could send his family with him. Maybe this country will have a good judicial system.

  18. Send him and his family of jihadist freaks back to his loving home land! I sure don't want to pay for 7 years of incarceration or rehabilitation. I would spend a dollar on a bullet and put it to rest already. There is no shortage of humans that deserve a chance and would be happy to come to Canada. Why bring in someone who is nothing but a burden to society?

    • Canoe: Sadly this Terrorist will come back to Canada in a year and go to a Canadian Prison, aka Club Feb and I can assure you he will not serve 7 years, doubtful if he will serve 7 months before the bleeding heart leftists, artsy fartsies and Liberal a$$hole politicians start pounding their chests demanding his release.

  19. All the leftists cry how poor Omar was only 15 when all this happened. According to Wikipedia he was born on the 19 April 1986.
    The fire fight in the compound where he killed the Medic occurred on July 27, 2002. This would have made him 16 years 3 months + when he killed the Medic and not the poor innocent barely 15 year old boy. The legal age to join the Canadian Army, US Army and British army is 17 as by that time you are well aware of what is going on around and deemed mature enough. Omar was just 8 months and 3 weeks shy of his 17th birthday.
    Age 16 in Canada is the age of consent.

  20. We have already lost a chance to sit on the UN Security Council. Our allies, who fight and die with our troops, will have reason to doubt our loyalty if we give in to those who would accord him a hero's welcome to Canada. We shall then lose all credibility.
    Khadr was old enough to know he was committing treason. His family, so-called Canadians, is abusing our good will.. Do not let them use Canadian citizenship as a form of insurance when divided loyalties fail.
    Withdraw their citizenship and repatriate them to Afghanistan.