Khadr judge fired by military

HisSelf · June 3, 2008

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.

This is exactly the point I was making - that the judge was dismissed for forcing the prosecutor to reveal evidence which might be exculpatory. Amazing where the thread went after that.

The guy is a Canadian citizen. The Brits got their "unlawful enemy combatants" extradited home for trial. We deserve no less. Unfortunately, Harper government is selective about the citizens it protects. If you're a weeping woman who is falsely accused of fraud, you get a private jet back home. If you're a Moslem being subjected to a heavily tainted trial process, there is a different standard.

HisSelf · June 3, 2008

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

I have found the ignore feature to be very calming.

GostHacked · June 3, 2008

I have found the ignore feature to be very calming.

Ignoring them won't make them go away. Confronting them will.

HisSelf · June 3, 2008

Ignoring them won't make them go away. Confronting them will.

That's where you're wrong. It does in fact make them go away, LOL.

Topaz · June 3, 2008

Maybe a few of you may not know or remember this but when the US was rounding up these prisoners they were paying out big bucks for "terrorist" and Iraqis were turning over anyone they could, to get the money so they could eat! The proof is by all those prisoners that were let go in the past from Cuba. There's proof he didn't kill no one and yet Bush needs to punish someone to show got someone and Harper is such a pussy and will not stand up to the US!

bush_cheney2004 · June 3, 2008

That's where you're wrong. It does in fact make them go away, LOL.

No, it only makes you go away.

HisSelf · June 4, 2008

Maybe a few of you may not know or remember this but when the US was rounding up these prisoners they were paying out big bucks for "terrorist" and Iraqis were turning over anyone they could, to get the money so they could eat! The proof is by all those prisoners that were let go in the past from Cuba. There's proof he didn't kill no one and yet Bush needs to punish someone to show got someone and Harper is such a pussy and will not stand up to the US!

Khadr is the last western prisoner in Gitmo. Says a lot doesn't it?

M.Dancer · June 4, 2008

Khadr is the last western prisoner in Gitmo. Says a lot doesn't it?

1) That the definition of Western is very broad?

2) That the majority of extremists caught are non western?

3) There were very few western extremists?

4) They need to catch more western extremists?

5) The Tribe has Spoken, Khadr is the Survivor?

GostHacked · June 4, 2008

That's where you're wrong. It does in fact make them go away, LOL.

Well you make then go away for you, and that does not mean they are gone for good. Not all use the ignore feature. Sure, the more that put one person on ignore the better, they might just go away for they don't have a forum *snicker* to speak. You'd have to ignore the users who would quote him as well. It is best to take these kinds of people head on. It's tough sure. If you put him on ignore, you can no longer confront his rhetoric. So, we all must put him on ignore OR all confront him head on to resolve that issue. Easier said than done though. We have seen similar incidents with another poster, Monty Burns?? BTW, have not seen much of him around as of late.

Topaz

I recall that kind of thing happening. Must have happened in Afghanistan as well. Poor people will turn in their best neighbour in order to feed their family.

bush_cheney2004 · June 4, 2008

Well you make then go away for you, and that does not mean they are gone for good. Not all use the ignore feature. Sure, the more that put one person on ignore the better, they might just go away for they don't have a forum *snicker* to speak. You'd have to ignore the users who would quote him as well....

Agreed....those who use the ignore feature are effectively disengaging while remaining vulnerable to continued retorts without response, like an ostrich that buries its head in the sand.

M.Dancer · June 4, 2008

Agreed....those who use the ignore feature are effectively disengaging while remaining vulnerable to continued retorts without response, like an ostrich that buries its head in the sand.

I use it to remind myself to not engage idiots.

Topaz · June 4, 2008

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

BC, would you fight for your country in the military?? If yes, why aren`t you and if no, you are exactly like your pen name!

bush_cheney2004 · June 4, 2008

BC, would you fight for your country in the military?? If yes, why aren`t you and if no, you are exactly like your pen name!

Sure...I already have. But I would "fight" for my country even if not in the military....that's what I do here! :lol:

HisSelf · June 4, 2008

Well you make then go away for you, and that does not mean they are gone for good. Not all use the ignore feature. Sure, the more that put one person on ignore the better, they might just go away for they don't have a forum *snicker* to speak. You'd have to ignore the users who would quote him as well. It is best to take these kinds of people head on. It's tough sure. If you put him on ignore, you can no longer confront his rhetoric. So, we all must put him on ignore OR all confront him head on to resolve that issue. Easier said than done though. We have seen similar incidents with another poster, Monty Burns?? BTW, have not seen much of him around as of late.
Topaz

I recall that kind of thing happening. Must have happened in Afghanistan as well. Poor people will turn in their best neighbour in order to feed their family.

I don't ignore posts by people who quote somebody on my ignore list, so I guess I'm not a purist.

I currently have 3 people on ignore. The first is a guy who routinely resorts to name-calling when he runs out of arguments. I come here to discuss political issues with informed respectful people, not to be a punching bag. The second is someone who it seems cannot debate opinions different than his own on the Middle East without playing the hate card. The first time he did it, I let it go, the second time, I hit the ignore button. Debating the Middle East with people like this is like debating black social issues with a white supremacist. Sooner or later, it's all about hate. The third guy is someone who spends all of his time trying to rationalize a foreign policy that most of the free world now considers to be completely bankrupt. This is a guy for whom foreign affairs is a zero sum game. There always has to be a winner and a loser and the winner is always going to be the guy with the biggest guns. It is pointless to confront someone like this because they are like a broken record. There are people here who have similar views, but they give other people space to make their points. On the other hand, there is no end to this guy.

We all have a choice as to who we engage. I find the ignore feature helps me tune out the noise.

myata · June 5, 2008

Another closed door trial: Khaled Sheik Mohamad trial - CBC story.

Why can't it be open for everybody to see the horror of the crime committed? Could it be that the confession, obtained under torture, won't be admitted? The case won't stand open scrutiny of law?

Looks like the (self proclaimed) torch of freedom and civilization is heading full steam into the mediaeval past.

HisSelf · June 5, 2008

deleted....

Edited June 5, 2008 by HisSelf

Rue · June 5, 2008

Because it wanted to.
Correct...it worked for Abe Lincoln too.

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.

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

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

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

Your response and reference to rectums did not address the issues I raised.

Ask Abe? Are you again serious? For someone who claims to understand US history you lost me on that comment.

Your comment about the US not giving a crap about the SCC does not surprise me. of course you speak for yourself not anyone else.

I have a gut feeling despite your crap comment, ou would be the very same person screaming for the court you ridicule to release you if you were arrested and detained illegally.

You call yourself a student of history, maybe its time you go read the Nuremberg trials, Dwight Eisenhower and Abe Lincoln.

The entire U.S. system is designed to maintain moderation and prevent extremism through an intricate system of checks and balances in its legal doctrine and protocols. The fact that you do acknowledge them doesn't mean they do not exist.

On a more serious note, hey now my rectum is boring.

As for that rectum while I am glad you are interested in it, trust me its a democratic rectum and my colon works on the fundamental principles of checks and balances. So yes I try put fibre in my diet.

Edited June 5, 2008 by Rue

HisSelf · June 5, 2008

I have found the ignore feature to be very calming for cases like bush_cheney2004.

Rue · June 5, 2008

Sure...I already have. But I would "fight" for my country even if not in the military....that's what I do here!

With due respect you are the first soldier I know who speaks of soldiers abusing civilians as something you feel is legitimate and makes a case for violating due process. The few soldiers I know like you were thrown out of the army and never made it passed boot camp or end up in military prison. I know plenty of good men compelled to do bad things, you are the first I read who talks about it as something admirable. I find your lack of humility unusual. With due respect the people I have come across with such bravado usually are people who have never served in a theatre of war or conflict. The ones I do know are tight lipped and introspective.

I confess my bias comes from witnessing what they were asked to do and the toll it took on them and from having a father who served in the military and who brought me up to never believe force without reason and accountability is acceptable.

Edited June 5, 2008 by Rue

HisSelf · June 5, 2008

With due respect the people I have come across with such bravado usually are people who have never served in a theatre of war or conflict. The ones I do know are tight lipped and introspective.

My father served for 4 years during WWII; it was like prospecting for trace minerals to get a word out of him about it. He died without me knowing much more than his rank and the ships he served on.

bush_cheney2004 · June 5, 2008

Your response and reference to rectums did not address the issues I raised. The point was you made a legally outrageous comment. The point is there is a reason why Britain and Australia removed their citizens from G-Bay and why every legal bar in the Western world has renounced this law as a violation of international law and the US constitution for the specific reasons I suggested and you did not address.

So what? It is IRRELEVANT....they (and you) have neither jurisdiction or standing....hoping that you know what that means.

Ask Abe? Are you again serious? For someone who claims to understand US history and its constitution you clearly do not. Are you even aware of the 14th amendment and what Lincoln's role was? You quote him as historic and legal precedent for violating the US constitution? Get real.

References to President Lincoln 's suspension of habeas corpus in 1862 is on point (that's legal talk). The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution does not apply to jurisdictions outside the USA/states. That's why the detainees are at 'Gitmo....DUH! See JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER

I should have also included FDR's internment of citizens and legal residents of Japanese decent during WW2 stateside, an action later upheld by the US Supreme Court (the one I care about, not yours).

Your comment about the US not giving a crap about the SCC summarizes it all. You speak for yourself but pretend you speak on behalf of the U.S. You do not. The point is you do not give a crap about the SCC which is the only point-you could care less about the law and due legal process. You care about having your political opinions serviced.

This doesn't make any sense. The working phrase is "couldn't care less about"...if I could care less about it then..oh well..never mind...that's too advanced.

You would be the very same person screaming for the very court you ridicule to release you if you were arrested and detained illegally.
Democracy does not and can not exist by suspending the basic fundamental principles required to protect it and have it function.

Of course it can...my ancestors were frickin' slaves in our great democracy experiment...it has worked out quite well.

You are not interested in any democratic system now are you. What you want is a facist or totalitarian regime which imposes the law not by due process but by military force.
You are typical of people who have no respect for the very military you think you cheer-lead.

All "laws" are subordinate to the US Constitution...good ones or bad ones.

Soldiers did not join the military to be used by you as political pawns for your bidding. They are sworn to follow a code of honour that keeps all humans regardless of political belief safe from
enemy combatants.

"All humans"?....bullshit.

I would be suprised what soldiers do in the field? You think you are going to lecture me? Give it a rest. It is precisely because I respect and cherish the role of soldiers and seen what happens first hand, I do not speak of them in such childish terms. You think any soldier needs you cheer leading them? You think you sound like a tough macho guy cheer leading soldiers who beat and torture people? You think the vast majority of soldiers need people like you smeering their good name and honour and suggesting all soldiers do this and this is normal?

See..you were surprised by what soldiers can do in the field. Thank you for proving my point.

You want outrage I will give it to you. There are thousands upon thousands of good soldiers who put their lives on the line precisely because they believe in democracy and due process of the law and they did not ask to be political police and agents for elected officials. Their duty is to their country not elected officials and their political agendas. Their duty is to respect and protect all their citizens not just the will of a few politicians or your personal political views. No they are not your stooges to be used to beat up people for you.

Wrong....in the United States, their duty is to elected officials and the Constitution that instantiates them...from the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.

You call yourself a student of history, maybe its time you go read the Nuremberg trials, Dwight Eisenhower and Abe Lincoln. Why don't you make an effort to find out why the cornerstone of the US legal system was defined by seperating the state from the military before you suggest Abe Lincoln turned them into one apperatus with no checks and balances.

See above.....you lose.

The entire U.S. system is designed to maintain moderation and prevent extremism through an intricate system of checks and balances in its legal doctrine and protocols. The fact that you do acknowledge them doesn't mean they do not exist.

I think you meant ..."don't acknowledge them"...another figment of your imagination.

On a more serious note, hey now my rectum is boring.
As for that rectum while I am glad you are interested in it, trust me its a democratic rectum and my colon works on the fundamental principles of checks and balances. So yes I try put fibre in my diet.

Go for it...can't get any worse! :lol:

myata · June 5, 2008

Come on, people, this is the web. I can be leutenant-general, or even brigadier-general herself, and you won't ever know it (for sure).

bush_cheney2004 · June 5, 2008

With due respect you are the first soldier I know who speaks of soldiers abusing civilians as something you feel is legitimate and makes a case for violating due process. The few soldiers I know like you were thrown out of the army and never made it passed boot camp or end up in military prison.

Get a grip...you know damn right well that the "army" is a reflection of society's heroes and misfits. You can shine some of these folks on, but not all of us. Salute!

I know plenty of good men compelled to do bad things, you are the first I read who talks about it as something admirable. I find your lack of humility unusual. With due respect the people I have come across with such bravado usually are people who have never served in a theatre of war or conflict. The ones I do know are tight lipped and introspective.

I report the human condition in its entirety, unshackled by your petty moral compass. Senator John Kerry was tight lipped? Methinks not!

I confess my bias comes from witnessing what they were asked to do and the toll it took on them and from having a father who served in the military and who brought me up to never believe force without reason and accountability is acceptable.

Sorry...no dad or uncle or great-great grandad yarns from me. I like to do things for myself.

GostHacked · June 6, 2008

Another closed door trial: Khaled Sheik Mohamad trial - CBC story.
Why can't it be open for everybody to see the horror of the crime committed? Could it be that the confession, obtained under torture, won't be admitted? The case won't stand open scrutiny of law?

Looks like the (self proclaimed) torch of freedom and civilization is heading full steam into the mediaeval past.

The defending lawyers do not even have the option to view the evidence against them. Hard to defend someone when you have nothing to back you up. And the evidence against them cannot even be viewed. I understand some of this is TOP SECRET, But I think people would want closure about 9/11.

myata · June 6, 2008

No closure will be achieved with these closed door pseudo justice tribunals. If anything, it'll open the ground for the conspiracy theories for the years to come (seriously, who's hearing about Osama Bin Laden from Bush administration these days?).

A closure would be to bring the culprits before an open just trail. And abide by its decision.