CANADIEN

Unfortunately (for you), the CBC placed ibn its Website copies of reports prepared by Canadian officials, that were later used and mentioned by the Supreme Court. The Heatherington report, describing the treatment of Khadr prior to the first Canadian interrogation, is about mid-way. Do I also need to scroll the text down for you? (http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/khadr-docs.pdf) As for Amnesty International, I am afraid we are not taling about the same organization. I am talking about the one that reasonable people know to be one of the foremost and best human rights organizations on the planet. I will in almost every case trust their definition of human rights and violation of human rights and torture about anything you will dig up in an attempt to convince yourself that the type of sleep deprivation Omar Khadr was subjected to does not constitute torture. Not because ot fits my opinion, but because I KNOW them to be reliable.

Wake me up when you have something worth reading to contribute.

And i can berely sleep these days. Yet, nobody is preventing me from sleeping. I highly doubt Khadr was subjected to dleep deprivation to the degree that would be viewed as torture by reasonable people. I have sated plainly already that sleep deprivation can indeed constitute torture, but it also may NOT be torture.[]quote] You have also tried to trivialized the whole thing by joking that "not having 10 hours of sleep at night is not torture'> Three weeks of sleep deprivation, consisting of short repetitive periods so short that a person no longer knows where they are and don't even know if it's day or night, is a form of mental torture. And that's the process that, according to CSIS, was applied to Khadr before its interrogation. To quote a spokesperson for Amnesty International Australia:

Interesting that Canadian reports quoted in the Supreme Court judgement indicate that Khadr was submitted for a period of three weeks to a sleep-deprivation regime consisting of waking him up about every three hours, day and night. That may not be six consecutive days without a single minute of sleep, but the effect is certainly not different.

We are not talking here about lettinbg people sleep 8 hours instead of 10, or waking them once during the night. We are talking about a continuous regime designed to weaken the subject physycally and mentally. In some cases, like the "frequent flyer program" used at Guantanamo Bay, the subject is a waken every two or three hours, night and day, constantly moved around as to confused him both about where he is and how long he has been treated that way. Menahem Begin, the former Premier of Israel, described a regime in which the subject was kept awake for days at atime, then suddenly allowed to sleep, only to be awaken after one hour or two for interrogation. Feel free to argue that this is not torture. Feel also free to make a fool of yourself by pretending what we are talking about is a 7 hour night instead of a 10.

I stand corrected. It was Hamdan vs Rumsfeld. But then, considering the number of time the U.S. Supreme Court has slapped the wrist of the Bush Administration for its conduct towards detainees, one can be forgiven for confusing names. In this particular case, the Court found that the military commissions violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions (specifically, Common Article 3 of the Conventions). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

On the impact of that type of torture, I'll take the word of people who have experienced it. I have quoted Menahem Begin. I've quoted him. Because of people whose concern for human rights varies depending on who is the victim and who is committing the abuse. When I state the evident facts that torture is evil and human rights violations are unacceptable, I mean by anyone, anywhere. Period. Were there people here arguing that China, for example, is a model of human rights and that they do not practice torture, they would get the same response that you get when you scream like a baby deprived of his lollipop because some have the audacity to say "the U.S. Government has done wrong". This coming from a right-wing whack job who cannot accept the fact that the U'S' Government can do and sometimes do bad things.

In Hamzi vs Rumsfled (sp) the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the military commissions initially set up to judge the Guantanamo detainees were in vuilation of one of the Generava Convention. Mind you, that violation did not come from the Canadian officials.

Another one who fell asleep during history class. Ever heard of the United Empire Loyalists? They formed the bulk of the original settlers of British origin in what is now Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. From the Canadian Encyclopadia: Many of those Loyalists FOUGHT in auxiliary units on the British side. Others were forced to move, not because even to dare express an opinion opposed to the Revolution resulted in them being attacked by mobs, thrown in jail, deprived of their proporties. In both cases, not what I would call cowardise. Now, I'll sit back and watch the two more clueless posters on mapleleafweb entertain us.

From what I could see, the convention governs the use of child-soldiers, not what to do to those captured beyond treating them in accordance with their age. As I mentioned before, I think the convention has to provide protection against prosecution to children committing crimes under duress (forced recruitment). I do not think Khadr fills that profile, although his lawyers are certainly welcome to try.

In case you forgot, this is not a court of law

He was taking part in combat as part of a known terrorist organization. That he is guilty of, beyond any reasonable doubt in my opinion. I am not so sure that there is no reasonable doubt about him launching the grenade.

poor poor baby Gaby... In case you didn't notice, mentioning what legal standard applies in a court of law DOES have its place in a discussion forum. If you are too immature and obtuse to read it, don't.

It is most certainly damaging to the accusation of murder of the prosecution fails to meet the standard of proof. And any sensible person also knows that "crimes" we'll never know about" have no bearing in a court of law.

The only nonsense is in claiming that sleep-deprivation as a method of interrogation is not torture. That's the thing that shouldn't have to be explained. And the fact that neither him, you or I would want either illustrates the fallacy of the "this is not torture" argument. The issue is not how better or worse he would have been treated anywhere else, but if he has been treated according to fundamental justice. He hasn't. Correction: too many people are incorrectly failing to see that sleep-deprivation as a mode of interrogation is torture. Good thing that some do. He's a failed human being, and he will get what he deserves for the crimes he is found guilty of.

Torture, no matter the degree, is not mere mistreatment. Want to prove otherwise, how about you go for a three week vacation at Gitmo, complete with being deprived of sleep the whole time? ... when it serves your own "let's keep non-whites out" agenda. And you have trivialized human rights abuse committed in Gitmo, Bagram, or Abu Ghraib. Forgive me if I take your outrage with a grain of salt.

Honesty demands that he b sentenced for the crimes, and only for the crimes, the accused can be found guilty of beyond any reasonble doubt. Correction: furtunately, there are laws that prevent arbitrary detention and protect the assumption of innocence, as they protect all of us. That's not a cost, but a main benefit of living in our society.

Unfortunately, as much as I don't like it, the law says otherwise. And that's the one thing that counts.

The only weak-minded are those who argue that some form or torture are not really torture.

Nice try. It is very well documented that there was one than one interrogation. The first was preceded by sleep deprivation.

You can stop the absurdity anytime. By ceasing being absurd. Torture is torture. Are you absurd enough to imply that a coerced confession should have legal value. Oh, BTW, I stand corrected. According to documents from CSIS and quoted by the Supreme Court, Khadr was subjected to three weeks of sleep deprivation. Bid difference LOL Did I say it was not relevant? Nope. It is relevant Still, it does not in and by itself amount of evidence of any crime on the part of Khadr Jr. If that was all that the US prosecutor had, they would be laughed out of court. What makes me spechless is that you show so little understanding of the functioning of a court of law.

Correction, it is an apt iscription for a statement such as yours. This is so laughable that it is berely worthy of a comment. Yet, I'll offer one. I won't talk for others, but I have no tolerance or respect for torture, or for those who try to excuse or minimize it. No matter where it occurs, no matter who commits those act. On the other hand, there is little doubt in my mind that you do not care a bit about most people unjustly detained and tortured around the world, so do yourself a favour and look in the mirror before using the word hypocrite.

... of nothing, really. What counts is eveidence that HE committed criminal act.

Yhere has been conflictual statements by American soldiers about the engagement during which Khadr was involved and whether or not he threw the grenade. In a court of law, the crimes he's committed but that are not presucuted for lack of evidence do not exist. I think he committed the crimes he is accused of, yet it is possible he may be found not guilty. The court could be swayed by the "he was indoctrinated, hence not responsible for his actions" argument, although I find the scenaria doubtful. In the case of the murder... my understanding is that to be guilty he most be the one who threw the grenade. I think it is most likely him who did it, I am not sure it can be proven out of any reasonable dougt.

And officials of the Government of Canada are subjected to the same rule of conduct regarding tje kaw and the Constitution even when they happen to be physically in another country, wouldn't you agree?