babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Omar Khadr faces military tribunal

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Omar Khadr faces military tribunal
Draco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4885

posted 09 November 2005 01:38 PM      Profile for Draco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
CBC - Ottawa accused of not helping Canadian held at Guantanamo

I would never expect the Liberals to go to bat over human rights in unpopular causes, but this case is so egregious I can't believe they are getting away with ignoring it. The fact that Khadr is a Toronto-born Canadian citizen, in a perfect world, wouldn't be relevant to whether or not he is entitled to basic human rights, but in this world, it makes it our business as a nation.

The possibility of the death penalty for someone who was 15 at the time the events occurred, who won't be given the benefit of a proper trial, is simply not acceptable. This prospect should be damaging Canada-US relations far more than beef or softwood ever could.

-Edit: Apparently, the Pentagon said a couple hours ago that they won't seek the death penalty. Now about that fair trial...

[ 09 November 2005: Message edited by: Draco ]


From: Wild Rose Country | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
PEIguy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10514

posted 09 November 2005 02:55 PM      Profile for PEIguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hmmm. You could be right, but we need to know the other side of the story. This morning on CBC radio, they interviewed one of the American soldiers involved, and he reports that Khadr was clearly lobbing grenades and firing his weapon on the US troops. The USians actually killed everyone else in Khadr's group, he was the only survivor.

Regardless of the rightfulness or wrongfulness of the US involvment, what should be done in a situation like this? If he had been killed with the others, no more would be said about it, because he survived and was young, it is an issue. Canadaian citizen or not, he was acting in 'murderous' capacity. You can agrue that the Amercian soldiers were too, as I don't believe that official war has ever been declared, but again, is that an issue in this matter?

Tough call.


From: PEI | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
mersh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10238

posted 09 November 2005 03:10 PM      Profile for mersh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It really shouldn't be that tough a call. An actual trial would be one place to start. This is just a farce -- regardless of what he may or may not have done.

Yesterday's Toronto Star had
th is from Thomas Walkom. Here's a snippet:

quote:
If U.S. President George W. Bush thinks Canadian Omar Khadr is guilty of murder, he should bring him before a real court where he could receive a fair trial. In a democracy, that would be normal.

But that is not what Bush has done. In his role as commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces, he has decreed that the 19-year-old Scarborough youth, now jailed at the notorious Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba, comes under the jurisdiction of a so-called military commission.

And those in charge of the commission have, in turn, decreed that they will try Khadr for killing a U.S. soldier during a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan.

That might be all right if military commissions were real courts. But they are not. They are bogus courts. In a Bush-style military commission, the judges are also the prosecutors. They can consider hearsay and other evidence that simply wouldn't cut it in a civilian court — or even a U.S. military court hearing a standard court martial.


[ 09 November 2005: Message edited by: mersh ]


From: toronto | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 November 2005 03:16 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If the Canadian goverment were actually interested in standing up to these attacks upon the principles of fair judicial procedures, it could start by questoning the extradtion treaties on the basis that persons being extradited will possibly be exposed to unfair praactices.

I suppose anything like that is unlikely to appear in any Liberal or NDP policy books in the upcoming election. So why worry? Your citizenship card might as well go in th shredder.

As far as the US is concerned they may come here, pick anyone up, and then ship them off to wherever.

As long as Canada maintains the appearance that it is a US-friendly country, this will be unlikely, but with this adminstration anything seems possible.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 09 November 2005 03:22 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The US has the goofy idea that American soldiers can shoot at anyone the CIC chooses with impunity, while anybody who shoots back commits a crime. There is no way that Canada should stand by that double standard.
From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 November 2005 03:23 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why, oh why won't the country the Khadrs despise with every fibre of their being not move heaven and earth to pull some special strings to get their boy released so he can go back and kill some more soldiers before they're all gone??

Why aren't heartless Canadians eager to help these poor, misfortunate Khadrs in their quest to get free healthcare for one son, a special favour for another, and ultimately, the destruction of our corrupt and decadent Canadian lifestyle when we're finished?

Sorry, but any opportunistic tale of woe that comes out of a Khadr cryhole gets an immediate "Shruggie Award" from me. If I thought their "Canadian citizenship" were anything but an occassionally convenient piece of paper to any of them I might see it differently, but as far as I'm concerned, they're honorary Taliban citizens now, and should be taking their self-made problems to the Taliban Embassy from now on.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 09 November 2005 03:25 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Canadaian citizen or not, he was acting in 'murderous' capacity. You can agrue that the Amercian soldiers were too, as I don't believe that official war has ever been declared, but again, is that an issue in this matter?

On the face of it, I do not understand why it is murder to oppose the invasion of Afghanistan by foreign troops.

It makes no sense to me that supporters of the Taleban are murderers for trying to keep their government in power, while US soldiers are not murderers for trying to remove that government.

I presume that the Americans are saying, yet again, that people like Khadr are not entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions, so what otherwise would be protected military activity becomes plain old murder.

But I doubt that drawing such a bright line makes any moral sense.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
PEIguy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10514

posted 09 November 2005 03:31 PM      Profile for PEIguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Apparently (reported by CBC) his whole family is a tad fundemental and have no problem with 'dying a martyr'. He knew the ramifications of his actions, took a side and is now suffering for his conscience decision.

I think we should take a pass on move on.


From: PEI | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 09 November 2005 03:39 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
He was 15 years old at the time.

Sure his dad (who died) could have been charged, had he survived, with involving a minor in a combat situation, but that is a moot point now.

I don't like the Khadr family's outlook any more than Magoo does, but the use of children in war is a serious human rights issue that should have little to do with the ideologies the kids have been brainwashed into - what was that nutty Christian "God's Army" thing, with a bunch of twelve-year-olds running around and killing everyone?

And the idea of charging troops with murder of other troops in a combat situation seems to fly in the face of international law. (jeff and others, I need a lawyer here)!


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 November 2005 03:40 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Why, oh why won't the country the Khadrs despise with every fibre of their being not move heaven and earth to pull some special strings to get their boy released so he can go back and kill some more soldiers before they're all gone??

Why aren't heartless Canadians eager to help these poor, misfortunate Khadrs in their quest to get free healthcare for one son, a special favour for another, and ultimately, the destruction of our corrupt and decadent Canadian lifestyle when we're finished?

Sorry, but any opportunistic tale of woe that comes out of a Khadr cryhole gets an immediate "Shruggie Award" from me. If I thought their "Canadian citizenship" were anything but an occassionally convenient piece of paper to any of them I might see it differently, but as far as I'm concerned, they're honorary Taliban citizens now, and should be taking their self-made problems to the Taliban Embassy from now on.


I am glad that you feel that people you don't like shouldn't be accorded the same rights you would wish for yourself. Perhaps one day we will have a government in this country that feels likewise about you. With people like you taking principled stands such as yours, that day is more likely sooner than later.

I am sure there would be people all over who will be glad to step up to the plate to say that you don't deserve a fair trial, because you must be guilty prima facie, if you weren't why would you have been arrested in the first place?

Perhaps they would find a reason to indict your whole family holus bolus, and why not, families never disagree on anything, its a known fact.

Magoo, do you even know what a "principle" is?

[ 09 November 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 November 2005 03:49 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am glad that you feel that people you don't like shouldn't be accorded the same rights you would wish for yourself.

Hehe. There's lots of people I don't like, and I'm certainly not suggesting that they should all lose any fundamental rights.

But when you decide to join the army of another country to fight against Canada's allies, I think you lose a few rights. The first of these rights is your right to demand that Canada should use whatever diplomatic clout it may have to try and assist you when the country whose soldiers you were trying to kill decides it may want to kill you back.

It's not like Omar was plucked out of his Canadian classroom where he was harmlessly reading a Farley Mowat book and talking about the Leafs. He chose to go to another country and take up arms against a country who, whether you like it or not, are our treaty allies. As far as I'm concerned, at that moment he proudly renounced any Canadian citizenship for Taliban citzenship.

quote:
Perhaps one day we will have a government in this country that feels likewise about you.

I'm sure you're referring to if the Khadrs got their wishes, right?

quote:
I am sure there would be people all over who will be glad to step up to the plate to say that you don't deserve a fair trial, because you must be guilty prima facie, if you weren't why would you have been arrested in the first place?

I'm not out to deny him a trial. I just don't think he's Canada's problem. If you or any other Canadian has a hunch that his trial or tribunal won't be fair, my thinking is you should contact the Taliban and let them know that one of their citizens could be in jeopardy.

quote:
Magoo, do you even know what a "principle" is?

Yes, certainly. Like, for example, being a Canadian citizen, I'd never travel to Afghanistan to kill Americans in the name of the Taliban. On principle. I'm good that way.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 09 November 2005 03:49 PM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I guess the moral of this story, according to some, is that justice, the rule of law and international agreements only apply to nice people who come from families who hold mainstream opinions.

The "trial" is a sham, as are so many other aspects of this "war on terrorism," at home and abroad. Khadr and his lawyer are not allowed to be in the courtroom at all times. They have no right to hear all the "evidence" against him (and as pointed out above, the standards for what counts as evidence is lower than for a real court).

I just love the irony as well, that Khadr has been declared an unlawful combattant (there is a special term that they are applying - I can't recall it off the top of my head), so he doesn't get the protection of the Geneva Convention, etc. according to the US. But he is being tried in a pseudo-military court.

If he's guilty of what they say he's guilty of, and they have soldiers who are willing to testify that he was lobbing grenades and such, then an open, fair hearing in civilian courts should be a fairly straightforward thing, resulting in a conviction. (Assuming they US has the right to try him...which I am not convinced of). As is, the process reeks of manipulation and violation of basic rights.

And, while I don't support most interventions the US miltary participates in, when they perpetrate such shams, it only reduces the value placed on playing fairly with the US and their soldiers.


From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 November 2005 03:59 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes, certainly. Like, for example, being a Canadian citizen, I'd never travel to Afghanistan to kill Americans in the name of the Taliban. On principle. I'm good that way.

Not that it matters to the principle of the thing but he was there already numb nuts (may I call you numb nuts?) It was the American's who went there to get him.

So, as a Canadian citizen living in France, and France was invaded by Germany, and you thought that was wrong and you picked up a gun and killed Germans, you think the Germans should be at home treating you as an "enemy combatant" without rights. On this basis the entire BEF in France during world war two was commiting a war crime.

15 years old! He didn't even have the right, under Canadian law, not to be where his parents told him to be.

[ 09 November 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 09 November 2005 04:07 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fighting for the Taliban, no, but I think a lot of us wouldn't mind going to fight for Cuba or Venezuela (despite our misgivings about the governments in those countries, and I have plenty), if the US were to invade them.

I don't see why NATO and NORAD treaties to protect North America from invaders should have any bearing on US agression abroad.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 09 November 2005 04:20 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
So, as a Canadian citizen living in France, and France was invaded by Germany, and you thought that was wrong and you picked up a gun and killed Germans, you think the Germans should be at home treating you as an "enemy combatant" without rights. On this basis the entire BEF in France during world war two was commiting a war crime.

The BEF wasn't living in France at the time of the German invasion. They were they at the invite of teh French gov't in exile. There was a state of war between Britain and France. They fought under flag and uniform.

Foreign geurillas operating behind the lines were shot on sight by the Germans. And that was perfectly legal.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 November 2005 04:22 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So, as a Canadian citizen living in France, and France was invaded by Germany, and you thought that was wrong and you picked up a gun and killed Germans, you think the Germans should be at home treating you as an "enemy combatant" without rights.

If Canada and Germany had signed treaties, and considered themselves allies for the last many decades, I certainly wouldn't expect Canada to come to my aid. And for what it's worth, while I might have opinions about this invasion, I just don't have enough Ernest Hemingway in me to feel compelled to pick up a gun and start killing people.

quote:
15 years old! He didn't even have the right, under Canadian law, not to be where his parents told him to be.

Perhaps, but "being in Afghanistan" and "being in Afghanistan, trying to kill Americans" are two very different things. I'm not aware that all Afghani 15 year olds are now in Gitmo, are they?

Again, it seems to me that this ceased to be Canada's problem when Omar joined a foreign army and began trying in earnest to kill our allies, and what's more, this is entirely a problem of their own creation. I cannot understand what the Khadrs are rabbiting on about. They dislike Canada. They send their kids abroad for a good old fashioned terrorist education. They make no bones about their support for the man who killed several dozen Canadians 4 years ago, along with several thousand Americans and a few dozen more citizens of other countries, they seemed to want their boys to end up as big GI Joe-killing heroes, but when it didn't pan out that way they decide they should fall back on "their country" for some free health care and a big favour.

For what it's worth, I understand the principle involved. I'm not a fan of Guantanamo, not in the least. And I'm not a cheerleader for the U.S. Army, neither in Afghanistan (now) or Iraq. But weighing all the different variables, including the fact that this situation is a result of decisions the Khadrs made every step of the way, I'm personally willing to ignore the principle this time. When principles are in opposition you have to let one go. In this case, I'd be willing to let the principle go, as far as saying that it's not Canada's problem, and we shouldn't feel any particular obligation to bail out Omar. So, should Omar get a fair trial? Of course. If he doesn't, should Canada down tools and rush to help? I don't really care if we don't. Again, if I thought the Khadrs were actually Canadian in any meaningful way I might see it differently.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Draco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4885

posted 09 November 2005 04:38 PM      Profile for Draco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

For what it's worth, I understand the principle involved. I'm not a fan of Guantanamo, not in the least. And I'm not a cheerleader for the U.S. Army, neither in Afghanistan (now) or Iraq. But weighing all the different variables, including the fact that this situation is a result of decisions the Khadrs made every step of the way, I'm personally willing to ignore the principle this time. When principles are in opposition you have to let one go. In this case, I'd be willing to let the principle go, as far as saying that it's not Canada's problem, and we shouldn't feel any particular obligation to bail out Omar. So, should Omar get a fair trial? Of course. If he doesn't, should Canada down tools and rush to help? I don't really care if we don't. Again, if I thought the Khadrs were actually Canadian in any meaningful way I might see it differently.

When it comes to defending human rights principles, I'd rather have a government that looked for pretexts to get involved, rather than reasons to shrug off the responsibility.


From: Wild Rose Country | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 November 2005 04:39 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

The BEF wasn't living in France at the time of the German invasion. They were they at the invite of teh French gov't in exile. There was a state of war between Britain and France. They fought under flag and uniform.


So Khadr, in order to be absolved of any criminal wrong doing here, had simply to delare in Engliah that a "state of war" existed between himself and the persons he intended to kill before he threw his grenade, or was he supposed to contact the State Department directly?

The fact is that the US invaded Afghanistan, and Khadr was in fact invited by the local government to be there, as was the case of the BEF.

In anycase, none of this obviates the right of persons to a trial to ascertain the truth of the charges against him.

For instance:

1) that he has been corectly identified as the person whom made the attack.

2) That he was not acting in self-defence

Etc. Etc. Your whole case rests on the presumption that the "facts" of the prosecutors (whom btw are also the Judges in a military commission) are actually facts. That is why we have "trials," it is not just a forum for assertaining what conditions of punishment should be metted out to those whom we deem to be guilty by the matter of the fact of their arrest.

Why not do away with trials for everyone, and we can just have the police do whatever they think needs to be done.

Please explaing Gir, how it is that the facts of the case as you know them are true, other than through heresay evidence provided by the accusser/presecutor/judges?

Stalin smiles now, and says: "Ahh the people, they are always the same, isn't that right Herr Hitler?"

quote:

Foreign geurillas operating behind the lines were shot on sight by the Germans. And that was perfectly legal.

In fact the entire Geneva convention was changed to assert the rights of common militias to the same rights as war prisoners, entirely to account for what was deemed moral misconduct of the Germans in relation to their civilian opposition.

[ 09 November 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 09 November 2005 04:43 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Do not most countries (canada included) have laws against allowing citizens to join foreign armies? I know France, the U.S. and most of the western countries do at least.
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 09 November 2005 04:45 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The geneva convention allows foreign guerillas to be shot on sight, just not if they have surrendered or are otherwise rendered incapable of continuing to fight (like being wounded and unable to lift a gun)
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 November 2005 04:55 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
When it comes to defending human rights principles, I'd rather have a government that looked for pretexts to get involved, rather than reasons to shrug off the responsibility.

I'd be as delighted as anyone if Canada would come down hard against Gitmo, on behalf of anyone held there and their rights.

But that's not what Maha Elsamnah is asking for. She wants Canada to spring her boy.

Why is she not asking the government on whose behalf her boy was killing? The government she actually likes? If I sent my son to Eastern Slobovia to fight a Canadian ally on their behalf, and he were injured or captured while fighting on their behalf, I think I'd be reminding them of this and asking them how they usually advocate for their soldiers. I sure wouldn't be expecting Canada to call in a mark for me.

Lemme give you an analogy. I work for a university, and we have a good health plan. If I decide to moonlight with a night job, and I'm injured by a poorly maintained machine while at my night job, I can't really expect my university to pay the cost of my health care, nor advocate on my behalf in a legal suit. It's just not their problem. I wasn't working on their behalf when it happened, and in fact they may frown on me moonlighting to begin with. Obviously, it's the other company who should be standing behind me. I was injured working for them, after all, and I can reasonably argue that they have a duty and a responsibility to me for that.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 November 2005 05:11 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:
The geneva convention allows foreign guerillas to be shot on sight, just not if they have surrendered or are otherwise rendered incapable of continuing to fight (like being wounded and unable to lift a gun)

Why even bother discussing these legal nicities. It is clear that for some here, the moral principles which these codes of conduct and legal traditions were meant to reflect are inconvenient when not invisible.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 09 November 2005 05:19 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

So Khadr, in order to be absolved of any criminal wrong doing here, had simply to delare in Engliah that a "state of war" existed between himself and the persons he intended to kill before he threw his grenade, or was he supposed to contact the State Department directly?


No. There are a number of options which would have led him to be absolved.

a) Canada had declared War on the US. This would have been benefical since he is now claiming his Canadian citizenship.

b) He had fought under flag and uniform.

As to facts, the only one that is really relevant is: No flag, no uniform, no state of war between his country and the one who has detained him? TFB for him.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 09 November 2005 05:34 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Forgive my ignorance, but has anyone ever been acquitted in any of these US tribunals?

Even at Nuremburg, the Allies let a few defendants go.


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 09 November 2005 05:50 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
1. Was he in the Taliban prior to the US deciding to invade Afghanistan? If he was, then he wasn't there to kill US soldiers - how could he know that US soldiers would be coming to kill him? Once they did, who wouldn't fight back?

2. Whether or not he is guilty, every human being, not matter what they have done, has a right to a fair trial. That means access to a lawyer, access to the evidence being used against you, and access to some form of justice. I don't give a damn if it's Adolf Hitler himself on trial, the evidence needs to be heard before the courts. If he's guilty, that's fine, but no verdict has any justice whatsoever if it comes out of an unfair trial.

3. If we do not have fair trials, we are not a democratic system. Once justice is no longer blind - once it is based on who you are rather than what you did - it's over. (I would say the same thing about torture, rendition and other practices as well).

4. WIthout fair trials and humane treatment of prisoners, nobody has any right to any kind of moral high ground.

Magoo - your points are based on who the defendant is (related to) rather than the right to a fair trial. The 'court' in question won't be legitimate enough to make a determination of guilt, but yet you are because his name is Khadr. Good for you - but that ain't democracy.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 November 2005 05:56 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Magoo - your points are based on who the defendant is (related to) rather than the right to a fair trial.

I'm not arguing against his right to a fair trial, I'm arguing that ensuring such a trial specifically for him shouldn't be Canada's job anymore. He switched teams. Now the other team should go to bat for him.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Draco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4885

posted 09 November 2005 06:19 PM      Profile for Draco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

I'm not arguing against his right to a fair trial, I'm arguing that ensuring such a trial specifically for him shouldn't be Canada's job anymore. He switched teams. Now the other team should go to bat for him.


If he deserves a fair trial why shouldn't Canada do all it can to see that he gets one?


From: Wild Rose Country | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 09 November 2005 06:31 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

I'm not arguing against his right to a fair trial, I'm arguing that ensuring such a trial specifically for him shouldn't be Canada's job anymore. He switched teams. Now the other team should go to bat for him.


That's handy, but not exactly what we expect our government to do for the rest of us.

If we break a law in another country, we are subject to the laws of that country, but our government has an obligation to ensure that we recieve a fair trial. If we don't recieve a fair trial, it has an obligation to protest and make an effort to get us out. This applies equally whether we are accused of shoplifting or terrorism.

Of course, the laws of a given country are determined by the sovereign government of that country. During the invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban were the government. I'm reasonably sure that fighting for them against the invaders was consistent with their legal system, whatever it was.

So, we either provide equal support to all citizens in legal difficulties abroad, or we don't. Personally, I'd prefer that our government not apply a 'political convenience' lens to their decision making on the issue. For illumination, see William Sampson, Maher Arar or any of the other innocent Canadians that have been given some variation of the Gitmo treatment by the US and its pals in the last couple of years.

[ 09 November 2005: Message edited by: arborman ]


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 09 November 2005 06:46 PM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
He switched teams. Now the other team should go to bat for him.

How completely illogical.

1. The "team" doesn't exist anymore, and wasn't recognized as a government by the international community in many cases anyways.
2. In the logic of the US, he didn't join another "team," as the US decided he was an illegal combattant, not a member of a foreign army.
3. He was 15. Compare this to child soldiers in other countries - often children who have been kidnapped and forced to become soldiers in order to stay alive. Are you really saying the country they were kidnapped from have no obligations to them? That we should let those who abused them be responsible for their interests and wellbeing?
4. He was and is a citizen of Canada. So, no matter how you feel about his "loaylty" or ideology or actions, he's on the team. Suck it up.


From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 09 November 2005 06:52 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just to put the shoe on another foot: a distant relative, many times removed, was a Hungarian teenager when the Russian tanks rolled in, back in 1956. The young lad shot a Russian soldier who had invaded his house and attacked his family. The Russians would have executed the boy had they caught him; he escaped and came to Canada.

Now we look at this and see the Rusians as invaders and the boy defending his family. What's the difference with the young Khadr? If the Americans attack the locals have ther right to defend themselves. It is not important that we like or dislike the young man or his family. Sure, the Khadrs are more than a bit screwed up. So what? The Americans invaded their homeland.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 09 November 2005 06:59 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cougyr:
Just to put the shoe on another foot: a distant relative, many times removed, was a Hungarian teenager when the Russian tanks rolled in, back in 1956. The young lad shot a Russian soldier who had invaded his house and attacked his family. The Russians would have executed the boy had they caught him; he escaped and came to Canada.

Now we look at this and see the Rusians as invaders and the boy defending his family. What's the difference with the young Khadr? If the Americans attack the locals have ther right to defend themselves. It is not important that we like or dislike the young man or his family. Sure, the Khadrs are more than a bit screwed up. So what? The Americans invaded their homeland.



But your distant relative was a Hungarian living in Hungary. Had the Russians executed him they would have been in violation of the Geneva conventions, which state that a person is allowed to defend themselves and their house against troops even if they aren't part of a uniformed party to to the conflict (or something very close to that).

Now, if he was a Canadian living there, his rights under the convention extend to him putting up his hands, saying "I'm Canadian" and not throwing grenades at the Soviet troops.

That's just the way it is.

The Khadr's weren't locals. They were visiting foreign nationals (at least according to them now).


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 November 2005 07:04 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are you really saying the country they were kidnapped from have no obligations to them? That we should let those who abused them be responsible for their interests and wellbeing?

Well, his mother isn't in jail or anything, so I don't know how far you can take the "kidnapping" analogy.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 09 November 2005 07:20 PM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From what I've heard, the entire Khadr family are completely reprehensible human beings. I really don't like them at all. However this issue still boils down to a simple qustion: Is he a Canadian citizen?

Since the answer to that is yes, he is a Canadian citizen, then that means the Canadian government has a duty to stand up for him and try to protect his rights. This goes doubly so given the shady justification the Americans use to bring and hold people in Guantanamo.

Now if the Canadian government can get him a fair trial and he's found guilty, then I have no problem with that. Alternatively if our government can bring him back to Canada and charge him and/or his family with some valid crime then I would be all for that as well. However as long as he's a Canadian citizen held by a foreign power under shady pretexts then I expect our government to look out for his rights as they should for any and all Canadians.


From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
mersh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10238

posted 09 November 2005 07:24 PM      Profile for mersh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You see, it is possible to hold those two notions simultaneously in one's head without it exploding. Protecting human rights and upholding international laws against secret trials, detention and torture aren't debatable. Well, they shouldn't be at least. This thread has had me going "gah!" all day.
From: toronto | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 November 2005 07:37 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You see, it is possible to hold those two notions simultaneously in one's head without it exploding

But will it be so easy for everyone to hold these two notions simultaneously?

quote:
a fair trial and he's found guilty

From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 November 2005 08:11 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

No. There are a number of options which would have led him to be absolved.

a) Canada had declared War on the US. This would have been benefical since he is now claiming his Canadian citizenship.

b) He had fought under flag and uniform.

As to facts, the only one that is really relevant is: No flag, no uniform, no state of war between his country and the one who has detained him? TFB for him.


So you are saying soldiers of a country that has been invaded must declare war before firing back? So i guess the Nazis had the right to round up all those Polish soldiers and shoot them.

I am sure you will take issue with Khadr's Canadianess again, and ignore the fact that many of Khadr's co-accused are Afghan. Are you saying then that Khadr's Canadianess makes him more prosecutable, and that those Afghan's held with him on similar charges should be free to go?

Are you able to be logically consistent at least?

***How do you know hat he was not fighting under a flag and a uniform? ***

That is precisely the kind of questions that could be answered in an a proper court. Does this nineteen year old who has spent 1/5th of his life incomunicado in prison even know this? Has he been provided with indpendent legal advice, by persons whom are aware of the terms of the geneva convention? No. And no.

Is there no end of your legalized preverication?

You sought to justify all this by pointing to what you call the "legal" acts of the Gestapo during world war two. The point of reference you chose to reflect upon morality is indicative.

It was actually typical of the Nazis to legalize of immorality that they too came up with complicated reasons, which allowed them to, as an example, exterminate Russian soldiers en masse.

And they made radio broadcasts into England informing people that British partisans who resisted a German invasion would be trreated as war criminals, and called the Home Guard an illegal organization. Convenient for them to try an subvert resistance to their plans, and typical.

Fine company that you keep there, fella.

"TB for him?" To bad for all the fifteen year
olds with fanatic fathers.

You're here to show us the moral side of the CPC I understand, or are you just an NDP schill, set up to make Harper look like Ghandi?

I suppose you want me to believe that the "values" being "defended" by the US in Afghanistan, are the ones that you are expressing here. Let me tell you, not a smidgen of blood should be spilt in defence of the pinciples you have expounded here. Quite the opposite I think actually.

[ 09 November 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 09 November 2005 08:58 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You see, it is possible to hold those two notions simultaneously in one's head without it exploding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magoo - But will it be so easy for everyone to hold these two notions simultaneously?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a fair trial and he's found guilty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hardly an issue, since the trial he is facing won't be fair. Let's form our respective opinions on the verdict after, not before, a fair trial.

Or are you just trying to change the subject by attacking those of us limpwristed 'fair trial' advocates.

I never imagined that a 'right to a fair trial for Canadian citizens' would be a topic of debate, nor did I think the 'right not to be tortured' or the 'right not to be held without trial or access to legal counsel' would come up as topics in a country that purports to be a democracy.

I'm not absolute about much, but Habeus Corpus has been around for ~800 years, and seems to go a long way to preventing the abuse of power by elites. I'm not prepared to give it up just because I don't like someone. I'm surprised anyone with any sense of civilization is so willing.

Next we'll be arguing about giving the police the right to snoop through our belongings (by our I mean Canadian citizens) without any particular reason. Hey, if you have nothing to hide, it won't be an issue, right?

If the best you can come up with is 'yeah, but Khadr is bad! bad! bad!' and his mom's a jerk, then we have descended even further than I thought.

[ 09 November 2005: Message edited by: arborman ]


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 November 2005 09:03 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

Ben Franklin


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 09 November 2005 09:21 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thomas Walkom is wrong - Khadr does not belong in a "real" court. He does not belong in any court at all.

This is a classic example of "victor's justice". To charge and try someone - child or not - with murder, for killing a member of an invading armed force is reprehensible.

This was not an assassination - it was a battle in which two Afghan militia members were killed as well. Are the U.S. soldiers who killed them going to be charged with murder also? If the Taliban had won the war and had captured the invading U.S. soldiers who killed those two militiamen, would they be justified in putting them on trial for murder? The answer to both questions is no.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 November 2005 09:31 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree with this, but what is most disturbing overall is the destruction of the legal process. Your defence, and what you say, could very well be part of defence in a trial, which is of course the reason the US wants them secret.

There is no apparent security issue ate work here as the evidence, all pertains to events that happened in open battle, and Khadr is not charged with any counts relating to secret international conspiracies, relating to what people like to call terrorism these days.

He is charged with murder in the bold light of day in front of witnesses, nothing more. Therefore there is no likelyhood of overiding security issues being a factor in the trials revelation of evidence.

The reason that the US does not want an open trial in regular court is that under such conditions an indpendent judge, might allow for the technical defence you just made, and the Attorney General's office does not want any US court making any judgement that indicates the war was illegal.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 November 2005 09:32 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hardly an issue, since the trial he is facing won't be fair. Let's form our respective opinions on the verdict after, not before, a fair trial.

But not, evidently, our opinions of the trial itself.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 November 2005 09:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So your saying that trials where the prosecutors and Judges are one in the same, are not demonstratable unfair, just in their structure?

Now I understand.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 09 November 2005 09:36 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

But not, evidently, our opinions of the trial itself.


Are you saying that this process is a fair trial? Because I have no difficulty in asserting that a trial in which the defendant is not allowed to hear or answer to all the evidence against him is not a fair trial.

I'm not a lawyer - but I am willing to bet you $50 that the structure of what is generally considered a fair trial is not being followed in this particular case.

You are being disingenuous because your position has no merit.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 09 November 2005 09:59 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
CBC radio news said the US says it never intended to seek the death penalty against Khadr.

Put me in the fair and open trials for all camp.


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 09 November 2005 10:07 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
His fate is in the hands of Allah. May Allah have mercy on his soul.

Allāhu A`alam

[ 09 November 2005: Message edited by: Webgear ]

[ 09 November 2005: Message edited by: Webgear ]


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 09 November 2005 10:17 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
His fate is in the hands of Allah. May Allah have mercy on his soul.
Fatuous crap.

His fate is in the hands of the United States. Last time I looked, Allah was not in charge there.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 09 November 2005 10:24 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
His fate is in the hands of Allah. May Allah have mercy on his soul.

What M. Spector said. But since you've dropped by, Webgear...

On an earlier thread, you said:

quote:
The Khadr lad killed an army medic giving first aid to wounded soldiers (both Afghan, non-Afghan and Americans) and most of the fighting was done when he was killed.

The army medic was wearing the red-cross symbol used by medical personal (and by right should not be a target), and he was not engaged in combat and posed no threat to the Khadr boy.


But as I pointed out on that thread, US military medics don't wear red cross symbols.

quote:
Medics Brown and Blohm were sitting in the aid station when their master sergeant ran in to report a possible casualty out on the highway. Medics no longer wear big red crosses on their helmets; during the Second World War, they suffered high losses because they were easy to pick off. Nowadays they look and dress like other soldiers, down to the weaponry, and address each other as “soldier-medic,” with the emphasis on “soldier.” Their primary mission is that of any warrior, which, as the Soldier’s Creed puts it, is to “engage and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.” Often the first thing a medic will do for a wounded soldier is shoot back, in order to protect him.

So I'm curious as to where you got this version of events.

[ 09 November 2005: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 09 November 2005 10:35 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lance

I got my information while in Kandahar in 2002, talking to the Americans soldiers that where there. Sorry there is no links for my information just personal experinces.

And your article talks about the Iraq War not the Afghan War. The article does not even mention the word Afghanistan and the articles talks about what the Americans medics are two years after the event in this thread.

Here is a link about the medic being killed.

U.S. won't seek death penalty against Khadr

"Khadr was just 15 when he allegedly threw a grenade that killed a U.S. medic during a skirmish with Taliban fighters in Afghanistan."

[ 09 November 2005: Message edited by: Webgear ]


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 09 November 2005 10:39 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I got my information while in Kandahar in 2002, talking to the Americans soldiers that where there. Sorry there is no links for my information just personal experinces.

Yes, well if you don't mind I'll give more credence to The New Yorker. I seriously doubt that US military practice changed so in two years.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 09 November 2005 10:51 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lance

I am telling you what I saw and heard, sorry that I am not a reporter. American medics in Kandahar wore the red cross armbands.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 09 November 2005 11:02 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And I'm telling you that I don't believe you, and that I think you're retailing sentimental rubbish, likely in order to make Omar Khadr sound as bad as you possibly can.

Edit:

Several people on this Usenet discussion thread claim to have US military experience. Several remark, and are not contradicted, that US military medics haven't worn the red cross, and have gone armed, since Vietnam.

I seriously doubt that a Special Forces sergeant, especially these days, would be a conscientious objector, and trade in his weapons for a red cross. And I just don't, and won't, take seriously your implication that all American medics in Kandahar wore/wear the red cross.

Furthermore, neither the news story you've linked to, nor any other I can find on the Net, includes any of this embroidery about the soldier-medic concerned "wearing the Red Cross," nor about "the battle being over."

Forget it, Webgear. It just won't wash.

[ 09 November 2005: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Section 49
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3186

posted 09 November 2005 11:46 PM      Profile for Section 49     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tape_342:
Forgive my ignorance, but has anyone ever been acquitted in any of these US tribunals?

Even at Nuremburg, the Allies let a few defendants go.


If I recall correctly, the Guantanamo military tribunals have yet to render a verdict in any case. It is unclear if we will see a verdict before the US Supreme Court rules on the tribunals' constitutionality.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 10 November 2005 12:20 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Section 49:

If I recall correctly, the Guantanamo military tribunals have yet to render a verdict in any case. It is unclear if we will see a verdict before the US Supreme Court rules on the tribunals' constitutionality.


Yes, even in the US there are some serious doubts about the justice in this process. But it's good enought for Magoo, apparently.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 10 November 2005 12:56 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Uh, I think he's referring to a ruling on whether or not the tribunals have jurisdiction, not on whether their process is valid.

Anyway, I'm not defending their process. Just pointing out that saying "Let's form our respective opinions on the verdict after, not before, a fair trial." right after noting that the trial simply isn't going to be fair anyway kind of makes it a done deal.

Anyway, for the curious, here's a document from the American Bar Association regarding military tribunals, their procedures, etc.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 10 November 2005 11:10 AM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Nazis had the right to round up all those Polish soldiers and shoot them.

Um If you are refering to the Katyn massacre of Polish troops captures, that was the Russians


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 November 2005 11:33 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
Lance

I got my information while in Kandahar in 2002, talking to the Americans soldiers that where there. Sorry there is no links for my information just personal experinces.

And your article talks about the Iraq War not the Afghan War. The article does not even mention the word Afghanistan and the articles talks about what the Americans medics are two years after the event in this thread.

Here is a link about the medic being killed.

U.S. won't seek death penalty against Khadr

"Khadr was just 15 when he allegedly threw a grenade that killed a U.S. medic during a skirmish with Taliban fighters in Afghanistan."

[ 09 November 2005: Message edited by: Webgear ]


And I am perfectly willing to accept your evidence, as factual. The point is that it would be prudent if such disucssions about US military practices, and such arguement were part of an open trial process where "truth," as we nominally understand it as "fact" could be established.

This will not be the case with this trial, because it is being held in secret. He has not been allowed consular privilages (an ecplicit violation of international treaty obligations agreed to by both the US and Canada, and accorded to all foreign nationals incacerated overseas,) nor independent legal councel. So there is not even anyway we can determine if the line of defence raised by Lance has been considered by whomever is in charge of representing Khadr to the commission he will face and so afford an opportunity for someone such as yourself to enter evidence as rebutal to Lance's proposed line of defence.

Has it even been asked, for instance, if this fifteen year old Muslim boy would recognize the Red Cross for what it is, perhaps thinking instead that it was some Christian symbol of priviliage, or military honour of some kind?

A distinct possibility given his age, and the severly insullar religous education he received, and the fact that any military training he got was probably focussed on practical applications, as opposed to military tradition and law.

[ 10 November 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 November 2005 11:35 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:

Um If you are refering to the Katyn massacre of Polish troops captures, that was the Russians


No I am not. I am talking about mass executions of Polish soldiers other than officers shot at Katyn by the Red Army. Katyn is probably the largest mass execution of Polish soldiers that happened during the war, however, it is not the only one. The official German attitude to Polish POW's was about on par with their attitude to Red Army prisoners, they captured later.

Ostlanders all.

[ 10 November 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 10 November 2005 11:53 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
This will not be the case with this trial, because it is being held in secret.

Considering that Al-Qaeda seems to be alive and well, and active, it seems to me that there could be reasonable grounds for extra security on testimony and evidence.

Mind you, I suppose they could always ask the Khadrs to please not go blabbing anything they learn at Omar's trial, and maybe even make him swear on the Bible that he won't. That should ensure everyone's safety!


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 10 November 2005 11:59 AM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The official German attitude to Polish POW's was about on par with their attitude to Red Army prisoners, they captured later.

Hmm well their attitude to russian prisoners was generally work them to death with very little in the way of food and water.


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 November 2005 11:59 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is not about some shadowy dealing between underground cells operating using false names, passports, connections to the mafia, and or hitmen for hire, and/or CIA assets, which need to be anonymous for their own prtoection.

This is a boy who threw a grenade. Kahdr either threw the grenade or not.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 November 2005 12:02 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:

Hmm well their attitude to russian prisoners was generally work them to death with very little in the way of food and water.


They imprisoned them into barbed wired pens in the Ukranian steps in December, and let them freeze to death. The lucky ones found transhipment to Germany to be worked to death. They also shot them if they were simply inconvenient.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 November 2005 12:06 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
One of the most shameful examples of German barbarity during the second world war was the way in which they treated Soviet prisoners-of-war. Their cold-blooded cruelty was the more repulsive as it was deliberately premeditated, and practised on valiant soldiers who deserved the enemy's respect. The prisoners were kept in so-called "Prisoners’ Camps" in the open air, on the bare ground in cold and rain, without boots, overcoats, or blankets; they were starved, inhumanly treated, beaten and murdered for the slightest disobedience, or for falling out on the march. The aim was undoubtedly the wholesale murder of the prisoners-of-war. But not of them alone. Male civilians caught by Germans trying to retreat with the Soviet Army to the East, and boys and men from the age of 16 to 60 who were caught on occupied territory, were treated in the same way as the prisoners-of-war, especially in the first stage of the war.


Source: German Crimes in Poland. Volume 1. Central Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland. Warsaw, 1946


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 10 November 2005 12:09 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hmm Thanks Cueball, thats part of the war I was not really aware of, aside from Katyn and a few general reports I had come across
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 10 November 2005 12:12 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Didn't Britain kick up a fuss about it's citizens being held in Gitmo a few years back? I seem to remember a few of them were returned back then.

I suspect that this:

quote:
The reason that the US does not want an open trial in regular court is that under such conditions an indpendent judge, might allow for the technical defence you just made, and the Attorney General's office does not want any US court making any judgement that indicates the war was illegal.

...is the over-riding concern. Once the real justice system gets ahold of any of these Gitmo cases, the legal justification for the war in Afghanistan goes on trial, and frankly the legal justification for that war is not particularly solid. Remember Rumsfeld cackling about killing Afghan soldiers using whizbang satellite technology. Imagine that being exhibit, oh say, 5,367 in the defense's case as it continually asks "What was your rationale for invasion again? And when exactly did Congress declare war on Afghanistan?"


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 November 2005 12:27 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Playing adminstrative and legalized shell games was a favourite tool of the National Socialist regieme, who sought on the one hand impose the harshest possible punishment on people whom resisted their occupations, while at the same time trying to preserve the culture of ordered Prussian civilization they claimed to represent:

Massacre of Polish soldiers, was a joint Soviet and German operation, but the German simply changed the status of POW's in order to justify there slaughter, among other things:

quote:
A large proportion of the Polish army was captured: around 400,000 men by the German forces and over 200,000 by Soviet troops. Until February 1940, the German authorities gave the ICRC lists of the Polish prisoners of war they held, but after that date they stopped.

[SNIP]

Prisoners of war who refused to become "civilian workers" were mostly sent to concentration camps. In this way, the ICRC lost track of a large number of them.


The ICRC


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 10 November 2005 02:20 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Considering that Al-Qaeda seems to be alive and well, and active, it seems to me that there could be reasonable grounds for extra security on testimony and evidence.

Mind you, I suppose they could always ask the Khadrs to please not go blabbing anything they learn at Omar's trial, and maybe even make him swear on the Bible that he won't. That should ensure everyone's safety!



Ah, the old change the subject approach. Al Qaeda will do what they do - I don't see why we should abandon all the principles of a just and fair legal system just because a bunch of shadowy crackpots want to hurt some of us.

In my opinion, if we abandon the underpinnings of our democratic society, we are toast. It is our fundamental strength.

And anyways, its all beside the point. The events he is being tried for aren't secret. What secrets could possibly be revealed that would help Al Quaeda? He was a 15 year old boy who has been held incommunicado in Gitmo since the event. It's unlikely that he was privy to any secrets of either side - he was a footsoldier at best.

Yeesh, Magoo, you are now grasping at straws in defense of the indefensible. I thought better of your argument skills.

As for the following:

quote:
originally posted by Mr Magoo:

"Anyway, I'm not defending their process. Just pointing out that saying "Let's form our respective opinions on the verdict after, not before, a fair trial." right after noting that the trial simply isn't going to be fair anyway kind of makes it a done deal."


You are being disingenuous. I am saying we need a fair trial - which the current process is not - before we can reasonably form an opinion. A fair trial means access to all the information being used in the prosecution, access to consular support, and access to impartial legal counsel. It also means the prosecution cannot also be the judge. These are not in place in this case, and so it is not a fair trial. Because it is not a fair trial, the verdict is invalid.

I can honestly say that the outcome of the trial and the fate of Khadr are less important to me than the principle. I don't care who you are, every human being deserves a fair trial, bar none. Without a fair justice process, the entire legal system is so much obfuscation in place to enforce the will of those in power. None of us want that, excepting you, apparently.

[ 10 November 2005: Message edited by: arborman ]


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 10 November 2005 02:32 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And anyways, its all beside the point. The events he is being tried for aren't secret. What secrets could possibly be revealed that would help Al Quaeda?

You do understand that this procedure is standard, right? That it's been applied to this type of military trial since Washington was a general?

In the specific, maybe you could argue there's no need for the extra security, just as I might argue that a little old lady, accused of shoplifting, doesn't need to be escorted out of the store by police. But it's standard procedure. It would look a bit odd, don't you think, to make some kind of special exception just because you or someone else thinks there couldn't possibly be anything revealed at trial that could help Al-Qaeda?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 10 November 2005 03:04 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So - unless I am mistaken, military tribunals are for soldiers.

Khadr is apparently not a soldier (just a guy with a gun who fought with his allies against some soldiers). But he is being tried in a military tribunal. But he is denied the basic rights of a soldier at trial (like a fair trial). I'm willing to bet that two years incommunicado in Gitmo isn't standard procedure for soldiers on trial either. What are their interrogation techniques again?

I'd also like you to show me the evidence that the treatment of enemy soldiers by the US military has been the same since Washington. That would be an interesting argument - I'd like to see an example of an 'enemy combatant' (that isn't a soldier who has rights) prior to 2000. Of particular interest would be during the time since the US ratified the Geneva convention, not to mention the Bill of Rights.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 10 November 2005 03:09 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'd also like you to show me the evidence that the treatment of enemy soldiers by the US military has been the same since Washington. That would be an interesting argument - I'd like to see an example of an 'enemy combatant' (that isn't a soldier who has rights) prior to 2000. Of particular interest would be during the time since the US ratified the Geneva convention, not to mention the Bill of Rights.


You'd lose
because he would no doubt bring up the civil war, in which the habeus corpus and other rights were suspended, and enemy prisoners of war (and confederates were not regarded generally as legit soldiers in many cases) were treated much the same.

And WWII as well in which german and italian POWs were kept in camps for several years after the war ended.

Its really only in the later half of the 20th century that the U.S. (supposedly) as well as other countries stepped up to bat for POWs and treatment etc


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 November 2005 03:12 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You really think he'd know all that.

Geeze! This egalitarian tendency toward fairness, and disclosure of all the known evidence really gets in the way of prosecuting a case sometimes, eh?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 10 November 2005 05:17 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fair enough Bacchus, but I suppose what is particularly relevant would be the time since the ratification of the Geneva Conventions.

All of which is somewhat beside the point, which is that the Canadian government is duty bound to advocate and fight to ensure that Canadian citizens who are charged in foreign courts recieve a fair trial. It doesn't matter who it is, or how much we don't like them, every person deserves a fair trial.

Outside of a fair trial, we cannot know if a person is guilty or not - an unfair tribunal will not give us a credible answer.

Right now, all we know is that some people say Khadr is a bad dude who killed a US soldier. He is also a member of a family with other bad dudes in it. That may be true, in fact it probably is true. Whether it is nor not is a matter of conjecture right now, because the evidence hasn't been tested in a courtroom. If he is guilty of a crime, then it should be tried in a courtroom. If being born into a bad family is a crime, then I'd like to see the statute.

For instance, I could assert that Audra is a bad dude who killed someone. Maybe she is related to another bad dude. So she could be arrested in a foreign country for the alleged killing, and Magoo would argue for the Canadian government not to spend any energy trying to ensure she got a fair trial, because the US military says she's bad, and because she's related to a bad person.

Any assertion like that made by me or the US military would be bogus, and a fair trial, using all the available evidence, would make that clear. However, Magoo prefers to base his position on assertions made by the US military - paragons of truth telling that they are.

Again, I am amazed that I am in the position of arguing that Canadian citizens have a right to a fair trial. I thought we had that part figured out by now.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 10 November 2005 06:29 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Clearly the Canadian-born children of immigrants from countries the US doesn't like aren't entitled to fair trials.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 10 November 2005 06:47 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
For instance, I could assert that Audra is a bad dude who killed someone. Maybe she is related to another bad dude. So she could be arrested in a foreign country for the alleged killing, and Magoo would argue for the Canadian government not to spend any energy trying to ensure she got a fair trial, because the US military says she's bad, and because she's related to a bad person.

I thought I was clear in giving my opinion (and in restricting it to an opinion) that by fighting for another country, against Canada's allies, Omar kind of signalled to the world that he's not Canadian.

Now it may be that Canadians are perfectly free to kill our allies and join foreign armies and still whine that we're Canadian when it suits us. If so, I'd call that a bit of an oversight on our part, but so be it.

I didn't suggest that Omar isn't our problem because the 'murricans told me to. I suggested that he shouldn't be our problem because he really should be the Taliban's problem. He, and for that matter his brother, got themselves into their respective pickles when they decided of their own volition that they were honorary Afghanis who had to defend "their" country against an invasion. We certainly didn't ask them to do that. They weren't fighting for us.

And if you want to know more about military commissions, when they've been used, why they're different from civilian courts, etc., I posted the link. Give it a read.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 10 November 2005 08:08 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:
Do not most countries (canada included) have laws against allowing citizens to join foreign armies? I know France, the U.S. and most of the western countries do at least.

I expect so. Doubtless if we were to get him repatriated to Canada, we should charge him under it. And try him. In a court of law.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
BC NDPer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5369

posted 10 November 2005 08:37 PM      Profile for BC NDPer   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Omar's still in Gitmo - yawn. Perhaps its a sign of my moral weakness, but the fact that he and the Khadr family want to replace the maple leaf on our flag with a crescent moon and believe it is their divine duty to make us all part of the Umma somehow makes me not give a shyte. Yeah I know Pat Robertson thinks the same way too; I wouldn't care if he was locked up in Gitmo as well.

Let him out when the Taliban and Al Qaeda surrender.

[ 10 November 2005: Message edited by: BC NDPer ]


From: Yes | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 10 November 2005 08:58 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The creeping authoritarians/authoritarian creeps just don't get it. The rule of law and all the safeguards of a fair trial must apply to the most unsavory of accused, whether a child murderer, a terrorist or an investment banker - or it is worth nothing.

[ 10 November 2005: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
BC NDPer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5369

posted 10 November 2005 09:14 PM      Profile for BC NDPer   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, you're a creep! - cheese eating surrender monkey. LOL.

Seriously, when the Taliban and Al Qaeda surrender Omar gets out. Good enough for WWII, good enough for the Afghan campaign.


From: Yes | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 10 November 2005 09:20 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[edited for futility]

[ 10 November 2005: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
BC NDPer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5369

posted 10 November 2005 09:28 PM      Profile for BC NDPer   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Surrendered?

Why let Omar rendezvous with his units?

[Reply to Lance's (now deleted) argument that the terrorists have already surrendered. Looks like he found some common sense]

[ 10 November 2005: Message edited by: BC NDPer ]


From: Yes | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 10 November 2005 09:33 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Reply to Lance's (now deleted) argument that the terrorists have already surrendered. Looks like he found some common sense

Common sense isn't very common. At least, you and I have no sense in common.

I decided there was no point in trying to get my point across to you. And you've ably made this point for me.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 11 November 2005 04:56 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BC NDPer:
No, you're a creep! - cheese eating surrender monkey. LOL.

Seriously, when the Taliban and Al Qaeda surrender Omar gets out. Good enough for WWII, good enough for the Afghan campaign.


So now he's in Al Qaeda. Maybe - lets see the evidence, in a courtroom. No doubt that's illegal, if it can be proven.

Look, non-democratic countries tend to become increasingly repressive over time as people start chafing. They also tend to become ever more corrupt, as those who can wield absolute power of detention start to do it more and more.

So we need to nip it in the bud, while they are abusing their authority with the undesirable folks like the Khadrs. It sounds trite, but it isn't much of a stretch to say that if you give an elite the power to detain and torture people they deem to be terrorists, but don't make them prove it in a fair trial, then it is inevitable that more and more people will start to be deemed terrorists.

It's gradual, and it needs to be opposed every step of the way. It doesn't matter if it's Clifford Olson in Gitmo, he needs a fair trial.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 11 November 2005 06:39 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:
So now he's in Al Qaeda. Maybe - lets see the evidence, in a courtroom. No doubt that's illegal, if it can be proven.
Big "if". Al Qaeda doesn't exactly have membership cards. In fact it may be difficult even to prove that Al Qaeda exists.

Of course, they may have "evidence" from tortured captives or from Khadr himself.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 11 November 2005 07:37 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I thought I was clear in giving my opinion (and in restricting it to an opinion) that by fighting for another country, against Canada's allies, Omar kind of signalled to the world that he's not Canadian.

Canada's allies? Who would that be? the US?

Let's remember that the fundamentalist groups in Afghanistan were a creation of the US. When people joined them (including John Walker Lind), their activities were sanctioned by the US.

They were inflicted upon the innocent of Afghanistan, and many other places, because the US wanted them to fight a proxy war against the Soviet Union (just as they used Saddam Hussein in a proxy war against Iran).

The position of the US now is completely debased by their prior actions.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 11 November 2005 09:49 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Big "if". Al Qaeda doesn't exactly have membership cards. In fact it may be difficult even to prove that Al Qaeda exists.

Of course, they may have "evidence" from tortured captives or from Khadr himself.


Fine, so we shouldn't use his presumed membership in an organization that might not exist as a reason to keep him detained.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 November 2005 12:12 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Agreed.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 16 November 2005 12:02 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
This morning on CBC radio, they interviewed one of the American soldiers involved, and he reports that Khadr was clearly lobbing grenades and firing his weapon on the US troops. The USians actually killed everyone else in Khadr's group, he was the only survivor.

And I'll bet the kid was thinking "Remember the Alamo" during the whole thing.

It seems that some here wouldn't have had a problem with Franco's Fascists killing every member of the International Brigades, including the Canadians in the Mackenzie-Papineau Brigade.

Hey Magoo, do you think this kid will be convicted as a war criminal?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 16 November 2005 12:59 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My guess would be that he'll get 2/3 of whatever's the worst they could throw at him. "War criminal"? I doubt it, though to be honest I don't know whether he's even formally being charged with "war crimes" in the same sense that, say, Milosevic is.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 16 November 2005 10:58 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd say "whoosh," but you're probably just playing dumb.

You do see what sort of jurisprudence applies in cases like this don't you; why Keitel and Jodl were hanged and LeMay and Harris weren't?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 December 2005 11:10 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Khadr allegedly tortured

quote:
Yesterday, Khadr came to his Toronto lawyer's office in borrowed clothes and with his mother at his side, to talk to reporters.

In the course of the interview, he revealed details about the torture he says he endured in Pakistan, the visits he had while incarcerated from several Canadian security officials and how they tried to pump him for information on others, including Maher Arar.

His story may not be simple but his message is: He's not a terrorist and it's the Canadian government that should be answering questions about his detention and alleged torture, not him.

"I just want everybody to know I have nothing to do with anything," the 24-year-old said.

He denies his family is or was ever involved with Al Qaeda. He admits he attended the notorious Khaldan training camp in Afghanistan, but it was when he was 13, and it didn't have ties to terrorism.



From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 09 December 2005 11:42 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The guy in the Star article is Abdullah, not Omar Khadr. Just so we're clear.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 December 2005 12:03 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is he the reasonably sensible one?

If I were him, I'd get a Maternity Test.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca