Khadr judge fired by military

[eyeball]

Why is the US held to a higher standard?

It comes with the Shining Beacon.

Blowbacks a bitch eh?

[bush_cheney2004]

It comes with the Shining Beacon.

Blowbacks a bitch eh?

Sure.....especially in Kandahar province.

[bush_cheney2004]

Right, we can spend millions trying someone like Bernardo, or Hell's Angels, but just can't afford the same for someone allegedly involved in a crime on much higher scale? Where's the logic in this? Or is just another truth that doesn't need any argumentation?

See Pikton Pig Farm Murders....still waiting for the remaining trials.

Exactly for the reason that many look up to somebody dropping these "truths", and follow them blindly, America's edging closer to the very folks they've been trying so hard to destroy. It's them who are running kangaroo courts (or no courts at all); convict not as result of just process, but on belief. This is what they do; not champions of justice and democracy.

America owes you and your expectations nothing. Seek truth and justice elsewhere.

[Wilber]

Do you think your own country (or many others) are above such criticisms? What harm shall befall the USA from this very minor case compared to known "kangaroo" injustices affecting millions over the past 200 years?

Of course my country isn't above such criticisms, no country is but the US has already made itself look bad by holding and trying people offshore because it couldn't legally do it on its own soil. This isn't going to help.

Why is the US held to a higher standard?

Because it claims to abide by one.

Edited June 1, 2008 by Wilber

[peter_puck]

Right, we can spend millions trying someone like Bernardo, or Hell's Angels, but just can't afford the same for someone allegedly involved in a crime on much higher scale? Where's the logic in this? Or is just another truth that doesn't need any argumentation?

Exactly for the reason that many look up to somebody dropping these "truths", and follow them blindly, America's edging closer to the very folks they've been trying so hard to destroy. It's them who are running kangaroo courts (or no courts at all); convict not as result of just process, but on belief. This is what they do; not champions of justice and democracy.

We don't live in an ideal world. There are very few Paul Bernardos, but a whole lot of Islamic militants. We are having a debate about this particular terrorist scumbag because he is from a western country. There are thousands and thousands of others who are not ? Are we supposed to spend a million dollars a pop to jail each of them ?

Are we supposed to reveal all our intelligence to the Al Queda terrorist so he can get a "fair trial" ? Our we supposed to reveal who let us know he was a terrorist so his buddies can behead the informants entire family, infants and all ?

[myata]

We don't live in an ideal world.

Right, it usually starts with this simple adage. I'm all for it, but this world just wouldn't let me..

... but a whole lot of Islamic militants.

....

Are we supposed to spend a million dollars a pop to jail each of them ?

Who would be happy to sort their problems between themselves and wouldn't bother us, should we not come to them to stir their pot. Then, what is the meaning, definition of being a "militant"? Is being one a crime? Who can determine somebody to be a militant? Secret military commission? Your buddy? Would it be any different from a witchhunt?

Then, why is it wrong to run witchhunts? Ethnic cleansings? Selective (by ethnicity) detentions? Because of holy scripture? Constitution? Or because people living here, decide that its the way they want to be? Whatever happents, each and every day, we have that choice; we can raise above our fears and stand up to the principle; or we can give in to them and step back into the past; the medieval past of tortures; forced confessions; manipulated trials; The choice is ours to make; and the result, how we see ourselves, will be a natural consequence of, among others, that choice.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course my country isn't above such criticisms, no country is but the US has already made itself look bad by holding and trying people offshore because it couldn't legally do it on its own soil. This isn't going to help.

Going to help what? I applaud the 'Gitmo solution, as it respects the US Constitution!

You know, like those pesky detentions for Security Certificates in Canada, predating anything the Americans have done for rendition or detentions.

Because it claims to abide by one.

It also claims to have the world champions of baseball....so what?

[Peter F]

We don't live in an ideal world. There are very few Paul Bernardos, but a whole lot of Islamic militants. We are having a debate about this particular terrorist scumbag because he is from a western country. There are thousands and thousands of others who are not ? Are we supposed to spend a million dollars a pop to jail each of them ?

Are we supposed to reveal all our intelligence to the Al Queda terrorist so he can get a "fair trial" ? Our we supposed to reveal who let us know he was a terrorist so his buddies can behead the informants entire family, infants and all ?

Don't forget the boiling and the eating of the flesh etc etc.

What intelligence is in danger of being revealed to Al Queda? That during a battle Khadr killed an American and was captured by the Americans? Boy, that would be an intelligence coup!

As for spending zillions per pop jailing each of them...The US already is. In fact they desire to do so indefinately (excepting the terrorist scumbag murdering baby killers that they have already released back to thier home countries where most of them wander the streets shopping Guatanamo abuse stories)

The USofA appears to have a strange dichotomy going on. On one hand accused terrorists are arrested and tried in the usual criminal courts following the usual rules of evidence and court procedure. On the other alleged terrorists are arrested and tried through military commissions where the usual rules of evidence and court procedures do not apply.

Supposedly the difference is that the Guatanamo terrorists are illegal combatants...except that most of them were not combatants at all. The only real excuse for such different treatment that I can see is that those apprehended by the American military end up in Guatanamo and Military Commissions. Those apprehended by the Police/FBI are tried in Criminal courts.

The fact that the accused are terrorists really has nothing to do with it. Criminal courts in the US also have the ability to conceal sources from the public - but not from the accused.

For some reason the government felt that that info need not be revealed to the accused...I guess because maybe the accused might beat the charge and go free - wich somehow is a fear that normal courts do not find of overiding concern.

None of it makes any sense.

Edited June 1, 2008 by Peter F

[Leafless]

Supposedly the difference is that the Guatanamo terrorists are illegal combatants...except that most of them were not combatants at all.

I think you mean 'enemy combatant'.

An enemy combatant has historically referred to members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war.[1][2] In the case of a civil war or an insurrection the term "enemy state" may be replaced by the more general term "Party to the conflict" (as described in the 1949 Geneva Conventions Article 3).[3]

In the United States the use of the phrase "enemy combatant" may also mean an alleged member of al-Qaida held prisoner by the United States, so the term "enemy combatant" has to be read in the context of the article in which it appears as to whether it means a member of the armed forces of an enemy state, or if it means an alleged member of al Qaida held prisoner by the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

[Peter F]

I think you mean 'enemy combatant'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

Actually the term I should have used is "Unlawful enemy combatant"

Charges Dismissed etc., Defenselink News

Brownback argued that the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the law that governs military commissions, requires that a detainee be an unlawful enemy combatant to be tried by commission. The law specifically designates between unlawful enemy combatants and enemy combatants, who fight for a legitimate armed forces.

Combatant Status Review Tribunals are one-time administrative hearings to determine each detainee’s status. Khadr’s was conducted in September 2004; the Military Commissions Act was signed into law Oct. 17, 2006. Brownback’s ruling points out an apparent discrepancy created by the Military Commissions Act’s new requirement that detainees be designated as “unlawful” enemy combatants to be tried by commissions, because it was signed into law after the majority of CSRTs had been completed at Guantanamo.

None of the detainees who have gone through the CSRT process at Guantanamo have been designated as unlawful enemy combatants, Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, chief defense counsel for the Office of Military Commissions, told reporters after the ruling. All the detainees who have gone through the process have been designated either “enemy combatants” or “no longer enemy combatants.”

[Wilber]

Going to help what? I applaud the 'Gitmo solution, as it respects the US Constitution!

You know, like those pesky detentions for Security Certificates in Canada, predating anything the Americans have done for rendition or detentions.

It also claims to have the world champions of baseball....so what?

Suit yourself, not my country.

[bush_cheney2004]

Suit yourself, not my country.

Thanks....and accordingly, please enjoy yours as well. It's a great country despite any warts reported by others.

[kuzadd]

Reports went in a number of news outlets, here's The Star story: Khadr's case.

The judge required prosecution to deliver some documents to the defense, and refused to set the date for the trial, till the documents are provided.

Let's see: first we set up a pseudo justice system that doesn't hold to any standards; then, when judge attempts to enforce even those inferior standards, he is dismissed. Does judicial independence mean anything in the world of secret military tribunals?

The latest in the modern democratic justice, coutesy of Bush administration, and ready to go as democratic template for installation (perchance, with persuasion) around the world?

well as usual this topic goes awry.......

the judge was fired, by the Pentagon, because it seems he was conducting a legitimate trial, as opposed to a show trial.

The US needs a 'conviction' to justify their actions, and are determined to get one by any means.

It seems there has been an issue of falsified evidence against Khadr, and it is questionable wether Khadr, actually did commit the crime he is accused of.

One would think the people who are endlessing promoting justice and democracy etc., etc., should actually be concerned with justice being done.

That would mean a legitimate trial.

This trial or lack thereof, causes me to wonder, on the outcome of other Canadian citizens who may become incarcerated under possible false pretenses?

While it may be acceptable to some fools, because this is a member of the Khadr family, the reality this type of treatment could extend other Canadians, who stand falsely accused.

Never mind we have already seen that.

One day, it won't be Muslims only.

[myata]

Thanks....and accordingly, please enjoy yours as well. It's a great country despite any warts reported by others.

As said, the choice is ours (yours) to make and nobody will take the privilege from you. Let me only point out that US isn't by far the only country to face terrorism, but one of the very few, so far, from those claming themselves to be "developed", to react is such measures (full invasions of foreign countries; manipulation of justice; using torture, etc) that will do nothing but diminish it to the level of its opponents.

[Argus]

As said, the choice is ours (yours) to make and nobody will take the privilege from you. Let me only point out that US isn't by far the only country to face terrorism, but one of the very few, so far, from those claming themselves to be "developed", to react is such measures (full invasions of foreign countries; manipulation of justice; using torture, etc) that will do nothing but diminish it to the level of its opponents.

All nations use whatever force is at their disposal. The US simply had more force. And you shouldn't make blanket statements which simply reveal your ignorance. Have a look, sometime, at how the French handled Algerian terrorists, or how the British dealt with the IRA (hint, think of assassination teams sent around the world to execute suspected terrorists without trial).

[Wilber]

Thanks....and accordingly, please enjoy yours as well. It's a great country despite any warts reported by others.

Well if it respects the US Constitution it must be OK right? It bothers me that the US is damaging it's own reputation as " Leader of the Free World" (a title it bestowed upon itself) with things such as Gitmo because the title has been effectively true for many years and everyone wants a leader they respect, but if Americans don't care, I suppose there is no reason I should.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well if it respects the US Constitution it must be OK right? It bothers me that the US is damaging it's own reputation as " Leader of the Free World" (a title it bestowed upon itself) with things such as Gitmo because the title has been effectively true for many years and everyone wants a leader they respect, but if Americans don't care, I suppose there is no reason I should.

The only problem is that such a reputation has never held up to rigorous scrutiny. That other nationals (or Americans) would "want" or need such a "leader" only reflects romance with hype over reality. For instance, the US maintained so called "Tiger Cages" for prisoners at Con Son Island during the Vietnam War...prisoner treatment at 'Gitmo would be paradise by comparison.

We know, time and time again, that the US government will do such things particularly during time of war. America is at war...maybe with itself. But either way, it can never fully live up to your lofty expectations.

[Leafless]

Actually the term I should have used is "Unlawful enemy combatant"

Charges Dismissed etc., Defenselink News

Why?

Currently, he is legally an 'enemy combatant' and not an 'unlawful enemy combatant'.

It is not clear how Khadr’s case will proceed. Brownback specifically ruled that the military commission is not the proper authority, under the provisions of the Military Commissions Act, to determine the status of a detainee. A two-step process, including the administrative determination of a detainee’s status, is critical in these cases, he said. However, he did not rule out the possibility that facts could be provided to prove Khadr is an unlawful enemy combatant.

[Peter F]

Why?

Currently, he is legally an 'enemy combatant' and not an 'unlawful enemy combatant'.

Certainly. But the Military Commissions Act specifically applies to 'Unlawful enemy combatants'. It has to because Lawful enemy combatants would benefit from all the requirements of the Geneva Conventions. Under those conventions Lawful enemy combatants are entitled to trials using the usual court martials or civil courts as normally practiced by the holding state.

It would be illegal to try enemy combatants under a newly created Military Commissions trial. Thus the need to specify that the combatants on trial must be 'unlawful combatants'.

The Combatant Status Review panels are legitimate panels required by the Geneva Conventions to determine solely whether a captured person is a 'combatant' or a non-combatant. They determined Khadr to be a 'combatant'.

On the day he dismissed the charges against Khadr, all Brownback had before him was an enemy combatant when the court he was presiding over required an 'unlawful enemy combatant'. Brownback concluded that there was nothing in the MCA indicating that the commission was supposed to determine lawfulness/unlawfulness of any accused combatant status. So he dismissed the charges claiming his court had no jurisdiction over the accused.

The US govt appealled the decision to the Military Commissions Convening Authority who ordered the charges re-instsated and directed

Col. Brownback that he himself must make the determination wether the accused combatant is unlawful or not.

Brownback then determined that Khadr was combatant but not a lawful one (the two stage process) and the trial proceeded.

The trial could continue under the MCA if Khadr is an unlawful enemy combatant. Just plain ol enemy combatant doesn't cut it.

[myata]

Have a look, sometime, at how the French handled Algerian terrorists, or how the British dealt with the IRA (hint, think of assassination teams sent around the world to execute suspected terrorists without trial).

So, did they blow up Algeria, with maybe Iran, or Lybya as free supplement? Or did the British invade Ireland (proper) in retailiation for IRA attacks?

It's not like those countries did all by the book and don't merit scrutiny (which they received, in full measure), but a matter of proportions. I.e the limit beyond which a reasonable response becomes violation of law then transgresses all reasonable limits and becomes plain and simple, abuse of power.

[Rue]

Going to help what? I applaud the 'Gitmo solution, as it respects the US Constitution!

I read the above comment and gagged. Are you serious? How can you read the Military Commissions Act and say that? In fact there is a reason why the American Bar Association and every leading law school and lawyer in the United States is arguing the Military Commissions Act violates both the US constitution and international law. There is a reason the Canadian Supreme Court just rendered a decision which states procedures under the Military Commissions Act violate Canadian constitutional law which has the same meaning as US constitutional law. There is a reason the British pulled all their citizens out of Guantanamo Bay and their top courts and legal bar denounced this act.

Get real.

This act was implemented three months after the US Supreme Court rendered a decision in Hamden v. Runfeld stating the military tribunal system was defective and flawed and had to be thrown out. This act in fact passed legislation to undo the decision. It was a direct reaction to undo a US Supreme Court decision as to fair procedures in legal and military tribunals.

Let's be specific as to how it violates the US constitution and Geneva Convention and is specifically designed to do just that.

First of all it invents a new classification, alien unlawful enemy combatant. It creates this new definition so it can be exempt from the US Supreme Court decision in Hamden and to be able to violate S.3 of the Geneva Convention which would otherwise stipulate how an enemy combatant is to be tried. It also is designed to violate other UN conventions on the treatment of child combatants.

Let us be clear the US is the first country in modern times to try a child combatant in war as a civilian combatant no differently then an adult.

Under the Geneva Convention, Article 3, any one engaged in war is to be detained in a prisoner of war camp until such time as hostilies are over. What the U.S. did is invent a new definition of combatant.

They did so unilaterally rather then wait for the proper courts of international law to define a new treaty or convention as to detaining and trying civilians engaged in war or terrorism. It did so because it did not want to follow the Geneva Convention.

It also did so to violate the U.S. Constitution. Its a law designed to justify disobeying the law. No more, no less. In regards to violating the US Constitution, the first and most blatant violation is its allowing people to be detained indefinitely without trial. This flies in the face of everything the US constitutional system stands for and is the corner stone of the legal systems of all Western nations.

It means no one who is detained has the right to the write of habeus corpus and could in theory remain in prison until they die with no trial.

It does something else. If it was a U.S. citizen caught engaged in unlawful activities against the U.S. they would have to be tried by a civilian court. However it says, these civilians, since they are not US citizens will be tried in a military tribinal not a US civilian court and that is another blatant violation of the US constitution guaranteeing all civilians be treated in the same manner.

Its a pick and choose system that on the one hand says, you are not a civilian and we treat you as a military combatant in a military tribunal system, but even though you are not considered a civilian, we still get to ignore s.3 of the Geneva Convention and reinvent the rules on how to try and treat you. For that it is a blatantly defective law. It picks and chooses when it treats the combatant as a soldier, and then as a civilian.

But it doesn't stop there. It retroactively goes back nine years and says any act the US engaged in that is a war crime, is now not one.

The blatant violation of the US Constitution goes furtehr. It holds admissable any evidence obtained by illegal torture that would otherwise be in violation of both US constitutional and international laws concerning torture and in particular makes admissable evidence obtained by simulated drownings, inducing hypothermia, electric torture and beatings.

It then further violates the US constitution and all known international laws by stating not just coerced evidence is admissable, but that heresay evidence is admissable.

But why stop there. As a final insult to the US constitution and all international law, it states the person on trial is not allowed to see or hear the evidence being used against them which is the most basic of violations of every Western legal system's rules of natural justice.

So for you to say it comforms to the US constitution with due respect is a crock.

Its a disgrace. It is in the entire history of the US next to the Patriot Act, an abomination of everything US lawyers and Judges and its constitutional creators stand for.

It spits at the Geneva Convention.

I again state, if the U.S. was doing the right thing, it would have conformed to s.3 of the Geneva Convention and placed Kadr in a prisoner of war camp and not created a new tribunal to avoid dealing with conventional US military law which upholds and honours the US Constitution, the Geneva Convention and the military code of honour of all soldiers.

Its why JAG officers wish nothing to do with this flawed system. It turns the US military into controlled puppets for political theatre.

A true US military court is seperate and distinct from civilian law.

The Supreme Court of Canada and every ally of the US will not abide by whatever finding comes about from Kadr.

Guantanamo Bay will be dismantled and this fiasco eventually undone. Not even the right wing Supreme Court Judges who defend Bush defended it.

Kadr should have been placed in a prisoner of war camp. Either that or he should have been sent back to Canada and tried under Canadian law which conforms to the international law as to treatment of child combatants.

I do not like Kadr or his family. I detest everything they stand for and what they have done. But this is not the way to deal with such people.

Dismantling the very fundamental principals that set us apart from terrorists and turn us into kangeroo courts is not the answer.

There is absolutely no difference between this Act and its tribunal system and the very councils and legal systems the US and all democratic countries criticize countries like China and Iran for.

Its a disgrace. It insults the honour of soldiers and those of us sworn to uphold the law and prevent society from debasing itself to such a primative and barbaric level.

[GostHacked]

I think you mean 'enemy combatant'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

In the United States the use of the phrase "enemy combatant" may also mean an alleged member of al-Qaida held prisoner by the United States, so the term "enemy combatant" has to be read in the context of the article in which it appears as to whether it means a member of the armed forces of an enemy state, or if it means an alleged member of al Qaida held prisoner by the United States.

So it depends on context on how you label the combatant?? Cake eat it too?

Peter F, you probably have summed it up the best so far. It reflects exactly what many people are starting to see. They were simply duped.

BC

....it can never fully live up to your lofty expectations.

Again, it seems like it is not even living up to it's own expectations. Rue points this out quite well.

[bush_cheney2004]

Under the Geneva Convention, Article 3, any one engaged in war is to be detained in a prisoner of war camp until such time as hostilies are over. What the U.S. did is invent a new definition of combatan

Because it wanted to.

It means no one who is detained has the right to the write of habeus corpus and could in theory remain in prison until they die with no trial.

Correct...it worked for Abe Lincoln too.

So for you to say it comforms to the US constitution with due respect is a crock.

Tell it to the judge....your unqualified and emotional analysis is irrelevant. Have you heard about the prison ships yet....fasten your seatbelt if you don't like 'Gitmo.

Its a disgrace. It is in the entire history of the US next to the Patriot Act, an abomination of everything US lawyers and Judges and its constitutional creators stand for.

Again..ask honest Abe. You are simply unfamiliar with the "entire history" of the US. That's OK.

The Supreme Court of Canada and every ally of the US will not abide by whatever finding comes about from Kadr.

Really..and if the US gave a crap about the SCC, we would also have same gender marriage.

Its a disgrace. It insults the honour of soldiers and those of us sworn to uphold the law and prevent society from debasing itself to such a primative and barbaric level.

Nonsense...you'd be surprised what soldiers do in the field. See Airborne Regiment in Somalia.

[bush_cheney2004]

Again, it seems like it is not even living up to it's own expectations. Rue points this out quite well.

Rue points out his opinion. Like rectums, we all have one.

[GostHacked]

Rue points out his opinion. Like rectums, we all have one.

Well, no need to continue with this thread. Clearly BC has shown us our downfalls.