Talk:Omar Khadr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

I have some problems with this part:

Most press accounts of the skirmish say that Khadr killed a "medic", implying that he had attacked a noncombatant after giving his surrender, but although Sgt. Christopher Speer had been trained in a medic, he was actually leading the squad combing the compound after they believed all occupants had been killed.

After pretending to surrender, Khadr threw a grenade, which killed Sgt. Speer, and injured 3 other members of the squad. Omar was shot three times, and left nearly blind in one eye.

First of all, the medic thing needs to be rewritten or possibly excised. It is not Wikipedia's job to expose media bias; it's also not so clear to to me that saying one killed a medic implies having surrendered.

Anyway, the facts are unclear in the article. Did Khadr surrender or didn't he? I see there have been discussed before, at User_talk:Khanada. What was the consensus? --Saforrest 15:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the link to the article entitled "The Good Son"? Khadr emerged from hiding, threw a grenade, then took several rounds to the chest. Khadr was gravely wounded, lying on the ground, pleading with the Americans to kill him. That doesn't sound like surrender to me.

No, it is not wikipedia's job to expose media bias. But, realistically, if the article doesn't address the inaccurate media accounts, the article is likely to face continual "corrections" by editors who have only read the inaccurate accounts, who want to add the killed a medic meme.

I have encountered many people who have accused Khadr of murdering a "noncombatant" because he killed a "medic", based on these inaccurate news reports.

I was surprised to learn that medics are no longer non-combatants in the current US forces. Apparently they aren't. The Geneva Convention sets out protections for medics who are non-combatants. For military chaplains too. If you remember those old World War II movies those medics had a Red Cross on their helmet, and wore Red Cross armbands. Knowingly shooting at those medics would be a war crime in and of itself, even if you missed. Military vehicles or vessels, with an RC lozenge on them, are similarly supposed to be protected, because they are supposed to be unarmed, and not carrying military supplies. See the article on the RFA Argus, which the Brits referred to as "a primary casualty receiving ship", rather than a "Hospital ship", because she carries weapons.

People who know what a medic is from old movies, or from their Nation's Armed Forces, where a medic is a non-combatant, are going to think -- as I did until I looked into it -- that if he got close enough to a medic to attack him, he must have pretended to surrender first. -- Geo Swan 18:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading image

There is a serious problems with that photo. It's an obvious attempt to make him look like he's still a child. Other images found online show him to be considerably older than that little kid.
The image page says it's probably a "family-provided image". They're not an impartial source. This is propaganda.
Either the age must be clarified, or that photo should be removed.
-- Randy2063 00:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's worse than I thought. Here's one that's much more recent. Note that he appears much, much older there, and even so, it still says it was "taken before he was imprisoned."

It's propaganda of the worst sort.

-- Randy2063 00:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. The photo should be the one you linked to. This one seems appropriate. Jeff 15:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to pick my battles nowadays. But since its been brought up...

1. I have questions as to whether the photo of Omar at 7 or 8 or 9, or however old he is really can be: "...presumed to be used with the permission of the family." -- They cooperated with the documentary "Son of Al Qaeda". But that was two years ago. And that went really badly for them.
2. I don't know the source of the older photo. Is it a DoD mug-shot? A passport photo? How old is he in it? Hard to say. Maybe he is as young as 14. He was 14 on 9-11. He was captured a bit more than a month before his sixteenth birthday.
3. I understand contributors concern that a photo of Omar when he is an angelic looking child risks expressing bias and generating sympathy. So, would a current photo risk appearing to express bias if it showed that he lost the sight in one eye? He lost the sight in one eye during the skirmish when he was captured. Maybe this photo is a post-capture photo, and whatever injury caused the loss of sight doesn't show? I think I read a description that said he was over six feet tall now.

Perhaps we shouldn't use either photo?

I think I may have read an article that used the younger photo that said he was eight when it was taken. If so that would probably date back to the time when his father Ahmed was in the Pakistani prison. Ahmed was imprisoned by the Pakistanis because they suspected he had been involved in financing a bombing in Pakistan. Some months later Chretien, the Canadian Prime Minister, and an entourage from the Canadian Press Corps, were visiting Pakistan. Ahmed's wife, Omar's mother managed to buttonhole Chretien, together with her young family, and appealed to him for help. He was a Canadian. She was a Canadian. Their children were all Canadians. She told Chretien, on National TV, that her husband was an innocent charity worker, caught up in an awful misunderstanding, or case of mistaken identity. His incarceration has left their children destitute.

If my guess that this photo dates back to this first incident then it is almost certainly a copyrighted photo from some newspaper or televisions network's photo archive -- not one released by the family

Maybe it would qualify for "fair use" anyhow. I must confess "fair use" still confuses me. -- Geo Swan 18:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I had missed the updates to this one.

That other photo looks like an uncropped version of the other one that was described as being from before he was captured. I agree that a current photo might also be misleading. In that sense, I'm pulling the image. It might be reasonable to replace it with the other one but I think then it should explain when it was taken.

I hadn't known about Jean Chretien interceding to get Khadr's father released. Omar not might have found a better life anyway, but it's possible he'd have been somewhere else.

And I agree that "fair use" is confusing. As I understand it, it's applied to a small excerpt of an article, or to thumbnail images that don't compromise the value of the paid-for original. Part of the confusion is that sites like truthout.org and commondreams.org claim fair use when they copy entire articles. I'm pretty sure that's illegal but I haven't seen them sued over it.

-- Randy2063 22:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You and I are agreed that neither of the two photos can be presumed to be free enough to used here -- and, if they were, the caption should state when it was taken. -- Geo Swan 22:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)