Obama orders trials halted in Gitmo

[Topaz]

Topaz. Please cite your source for this statement from M. Harper. When and where did you hear, see or read "it doesn't matter to him being a child soldier?

As a matter of fact Topaz, wouldn't this Khadr kid have to be in a country's "army" to be classified as a child "soldier"? Which country's army was this Khadr kid a soldier of -- Pakistan? Afghanistan? Iran? Syria? -- a very broad hint for you to google for the 'actual' statement.

I think Dancer has the right attitude -- it's all about toasters!

`

I read alot online before coming to these forums and I can't remember all the places from which I have read them BUT... "harper/khadr" will take you to it or the Ottawa citizen of the day I read it. "child" soldier are treated differently internationally so it does matter which army he fought for. Naturally, he was fighting for his familiies country who was being invaded by the US. As it has been stated many many times , people do get killed in wars!

[M.Dancer]

Naturally, he was fighting for his familiies country who was being invaded by the US. As it has been stated many many times , people do get killed in wars!

So you are saying he was fighting in Afghanistan cause his family's country, Egypt/Canada was being invaded by the US?

I need a citation for that one....

[Army Guy]

I read alot online before coming to these forums and I can't remember all the places from which I have read them BUT... "harper/khadr" will take you to it or the Ottawa citizen of the day I read it. "child" soldier are treated differently internationally so it does matter which army he fought for. Naturally, he was fighting for his familiies country who was being invaded by the US. As it has been stated many many times , people do get killed in wars!

Naturally he was fighting for Canada, as both had emirgrated in the 70's .....or maybe it was Egypt his fathers orginal country of orgin, or perhaps it was Palistine his mothers orginal country of orgin....NOPE none of the above....Last time we checked it was Al Quida a terror organization they were fighting for.....not a country, but a terrorist organization.... not even close to his families countries....and certainly not being invaded by the US....

[Oleg Bach]

Put all aside and get back to topic - IF ---- IF there was one small instance of torture at Gitmo - than the place should be closed immediately and bull dozed then streilized. As for trials held by Cheney the corporate sadist - His days are over and he will have to get his kinky kicks else where - He is the type of guy that gets lusty and gleeful at the fact that he can execute or jail someone for life - It makes them feel relevant and POWERFUL.....get an administrator in to quickly try them - some one who is not governed by fear ---some one who is not afraid of terrorists because they are cowards ----as I said before - In the circle of high rollers that want to torment the primatives..let them get dogs and kick them.

[Sir Bandelot]

.....not a country, but a terrorist organization.... not even close to his families countries....and certainly not being invaded by the US....

So then if its a criminal act, it should be dealt with under criminal law. Let him face trial. But if so, his detention was probably illegal already.

Welcome to the SNAFU called "legal justice", a little thing old Georgy Boy and his buddies seem to have forgotten about.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[M.Dancer]

So then if its a criminal act, it should be dealt with under criminal law. Let him face trial. But if so, his detention was probably illegal already.

Welcome to the SNAFU called "legal justice", a little thing old Georgy Boy and his buddies seem to have forgotten about.

You sem to forget that some criminal acts, like insurrection and armed rebellion are often dealt with under military law. Civil or criminal lawis not needed in those cases.

[Sir Bandelot]

I don't forget these things, I simply don't need to point out EVERYTHING. But that's why we have you...

Aside from the obvious fact that the military has had them for 5 or 6 years and did not act. Their time is now up it seems according to Obama. If they wanted these prisoners sentenced, they should have made their move before the Bush term ended. What are they then? Are they really prisoners charged with having committed an illegal act, or just some kind of symbol of US political will and ideology?

Personally, I disagree that they should be let free as they will possibly become leaders or used as symbols of inspiration by terrorists. But it has to be done by legal means. It offends my conscience that people can be detained for many years, without due legal process. It also offends my conscioence that people should be tortured. I think torture should be illegal, except for the most dangerous enemies and only with direct authorization from the President.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[noahbody]

The one thing always put forward is "he described as a mere acquintance a man who signed on his lease and who once took a walk with him to the mosque after they run into each other at the mosque". I don't know about you, if I had met the brother of a friend at a few gatherings, if he had come to sign on my lease by my friend was not available, and if I ran into him at the subway station on my way to church once or twice, I too would prbably describe him as an acquitance.

According to Arar's own website, he was able to describe in great detail the only times he had met the man in question. It's that he failed to mention the signing of the lease that made him look guilty. It's just not something you ask someone you barely know to do for you.

The story about his friend being sick is the equivalent to a kid getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar and saying "It's really not what it looks like, honest."

[CANADIEN]

According to Arar's own website, he was able to describe in great detail the only times he had met the man in question. It's that he failed to mention the signing of the lease that made him look guilty. It's just not something you ask someone you barely know to do for you.

The story about his friend being sick is the equivalent to a kid getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar and saying "It's really not what it looks like, honest."

Or it is true that his friend was sick and send his brother instead. The O'Connor Commission was fully aware of the story when it concluded there was no evidence that Arar was a terrorist.

[tango]

He was in Afghanistan.

My mistake. I forgot it was before Canadian soldiers were there.

The Khadr mother makes a pretty good imitation of someone who hates us, then.

What did she say?

Being in the middle of a group of terrorists, fighting, is not wha I'd call helping with school.

He was not armed. He was not fighting. He had no choice about being there.

He was a child/youth in the care of adults.

He was badly wounded, blinded, covered with rubble, could not have thrown the grenade, and the forensic evidence showed it was a US grenade - 'friendly fire' that killed the American soldier.

[tango]

Here is some quotes from Cdn papers, reading them i can feel the love they have for this country, infact i'm thinking about moving into thier neibourhood...how about you.

Media

Funney thing about this whole illision you have of Omar being the School master for a bunch of Afgan refugees, is not entirely true....you've saidf that he just happened to be there, at the time of the attack....and yet a search of the rubble and the found serveral tapes, on these tapes is serveral of Omars buddies, also killed in the attack, but wait Omar is in the tapes as well, and guess what they are doing Planting IED's at night , what we have is a confession and vidio of him planting mines and IED's on serveral occasions....

The search of the destroyed house also found bomb making material and explosives....one does not have to be on the NASA staff to figure out Omar was a IED maker and planter....making him a terrorist and guilty of terrorist activties....under Canadian Law, inter-national law...

He did not go to pay for anyones sins but his own....

There isn't one actual quote of Mrs. Kahdr there, just what some media hack columnist wants to report she said.

Omar was a child in the care and control of adults.

Where are those videos available?

[tango]

Naturally he was fighting for Canada, as both had emirgrated in the 70's .....or maybe it was Egypt his fathers orginal country of orgin, or perhaps it was Palistine his mothers orginal country of orgin....NOPE none of the above....Last time we checked it was Al Quida a terror organization they were fighting for.....not a country, but a terrorist organization.... not even close to his families countries....and certainly not being invaded by the US....

Army guy, how old do you have to be to be considered a soldier?

As a child, Omar did not have free choice.

[tango]

TStar: A last look at Guantanamo

MICHELLE SHEPHARD/COPYRIGHT TORONTO STAR NEWSPAPERS LTD. 2009

Canadian detainee Omar Khadr at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in December. His fate is now in the hands of the Obama administration.

Jan 26, 2009 04:30 AM

Michelle Shephard

NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER

This is Omar Khadr today.

He is taller than six feet, weighs more than 180 pounds, has a full beard, short coarse hair and looks nothing like the 15-year-old who was shot and captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan 6 1/2 years ago.

Khadr's fate now rests in the hands of the Obama administration and the Canadian government who will decide if he is to be tried in the U.S. or sent home. The only thing certain is that the 22-year-old will leave Guantanamo Bay this year.

Last week was my 15th, and likely final, time reporting from Guantanamo, the U.S. prison on Cuba's southeast coast.

As this dark chapter in history closes – a story that began with the horrific Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, but ends with condemnation of a U.S. administration that sacrificed the moral high ground – it's time to look back at a prison that has become an enduring symbol.

Guantanamo is a place of jarring juxtapositions.

Bad things aren't supposed to happen in beautiful places, which is why each trip becomes surreal moments before landing, when the military pilot makes a sharp right turn to avoid Cuban airspace and the splendour of the aquamarine coastline and rugged terrain comes into focus.

From the start, the Pentagon tried to control the message in sometimes farcical ways.

Suicides of the detainees became "asymmetric warfare" and force-feeding prisoners on hunger strikes was "assisted feeding." Captives did not have "interrogations" but had "reservations." And signs posted on the road to the camps listed the "Value of the Week" as "Pride" or "Respect" even as Washington debated the definition of torture.

...

The Toronto Star is the only media outlet to have attended every court hearing for Khadr – a process Pentagon officials have insisted was "full, fair and open."

But the fact that the hearings were held in Cuba, and that we had to agree to pages of ground rules, meant that these trials were anything but open.

Legal motions were often not "cleared" for release until months after a hearing had taken place. Few exhibits were ever given to reporters.

There was also a ban on identifying military witnesses. Sometimes this made sense if it meant protecting someone posted abroad or undercover. But one perplexing instance in Khadr's case came last month when lawyers were arguing about a witness known as "D.C." It was clear they were talking about Damien Corsetti, a military interrogator – now retired – who had befriended Khadr when he was held in Bagram, Afghanistan.

I had interviewed Corsetti in 2007 for a book on Khadr's case and his account of what happened to prisoners at the U.S. base was featured in the Star and in an Oscar-award-winning documentary, Taxi to the Dark Side.

Corsetti did not mind going public but we didn't publish his name for that day's story because under the military court rules we could have been barred from the base.

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/577209

*****

It was Damien Corsetti I saw interviewed on tv. He confirmed that torture was definitely part of Omar's treatment even before Gitmo - 'interpretations' of the Geneva Convention like 15 min sleep = not moving, even with eyes open, and even that cut short. After days of that "They were just babbling anything."

Bless him for going public. He befriended Omar after torturing him, said Omar was just like any 15 year old kid - missed things at home like his Playstation, etc.

and ...

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Doctor+te...1719/story.html

(Dr.) Mosier recalled being startled to hear Khadr answer her in English when she first questioned him at his bedside.

She expressed that this and his generally more “well-fed” appearance made her think he “didn’t seem” typical of what she had seen of young al-Qaida fighters.

Mosier operated on both Khadr’s eyes, which she said had been laid open by shrapnel. She eventually acknowledged she almost certainly saved his sight.

IE, if Omar could have thrown anything with three holes through his chest, very unlikely, he couldn't have been aiming because he could not see at the time.

Khadr, who has been detained at Guantanamo since his transfer in the fall of 2002, continues to suffer from the effects of bright light, and has complained he is losing sight in one of his eyes.

His prosecutors have called Mosier as well as more than a dozen other witness to counter Kuebler’s bid to have the judge toss out self-incriminating statements Khadr made. Kuebler has argued they were extracted from the then-youth either through coercion or possibly torture.

Indeed testifying for the defence on the harsh interrogation conditions at Bagram will be Damien Corsetti, a former army specialist who was known as the “monster” and “king of torture” when he served as an interrogator at the facility.

...

While campaigning for the presidency, Obama said he saw no reason why traditional U.S. military or civilian courts couldn’t handle the Guantanamo cases. That suggests Khadr could be recharged once the new administration decides on a revised plan.

Kuebler, however, is optimistic that the new administration will conclude Khadr, now 22, should instead be repatriated to Canada.

Citing military battle reports and other materials, Kuebler has argued in numerous pre-trial hearings that someone other than Khadr threw the grenade that killed Speer, and that Khadr’s statements weren’t freely given.

“A number of things Omar is alleged to have done could be tried in a federal court in the United States under U.S. code,” said Kuebler. “Our belief is that when the Obama administration looks at that evidence they’ll come to the conclusion there really is no evidence to support the most serious charges against Omar, and that they will elect, in light of his status as a child soldier, to transfer him back to Canada for appropriate process there.”

...

“We would support some kind of arrangement whereby he would be brought back under some sort of supervision or control order,” he added, reflecting proposals he has long made for the terms of Khadr’s return to Canada.

Kuebler has also long argued Khadr is a youth in need of help, not prosecution.

“All in all (Guantanamo) has been a very negative effect,” he said. “Omar was essentially picked up as a 15-year-old boy and never exposed educational and socializing influences that an adolescent is exposed to. [-ed-and tortured instead] In many ways he is frozen in the mindset of a 14- or 15- year-old. That’s a consequence of a decision that the U.S. government made.”

[email protected]

Tell Obama to send Omar Khadr home,

with an apology and compensation.

Edited February 2, 2009 by tango

[Army Guy]

He was not armed. He was not fighting. He had no choice about being there.

He was a child/youth in the care of adults.

Here is when the evidance tells a different story. The below mentioned tape confirms that Omar our little boy soldier, was building explosives, and in shows him and some buddies planting IED's which is a crude explosive device that has killed so many of our soldiers....So from the tape we know that he was involved in making devices which is terrorist activties....second some of those very same buddies seen on the tape are killed in that same attack Omar is wounded....third the same building in which is shown on the tape is the same one where the attack occured....

It's not a school, nor a playground not an orfanage we are all lead to believe....but a palce where terrorist make bombs to be used again'st NATO soldiers.....

An AK 47 was found just 2 or 3 feet away from where Omar was found, and yet no one else was found with 20 to 30 feet from him.... Yes it could be anyones, but then again if put into context his buddies also on that tape where armed, and all where involved in the attack....which is what it was Afgan soldiers knocked on the door, the occupants responded with a burst of automatic wpns fire....not the usual way to answer the door even for Afganis...anyways 2 Afgan army soldiers are struck down and killed, a third was shot in the back as he tried to take cover....Yup sounds like a school to me.... the occupants of the house then took this fight into the yard it is hear that once pined down by NATO and Afgan rifle fire, that arty was called in killing most of them....

the rest where killed during the assualt to take the house.....

Omar has been reported he threw that greande over is shoulder, yes a US grenade, available world wide, including Afgan....available to all that can afford them or find them....and the only one that truely knows if he did it is the dead US medic, and omar....

Khadr tape

As a child, Omar did not have free choice.

Omar was a child in the care and control of adults.

Which adults , where were these adults there the night he was wounded, or are you saying that those adults he was left with where terrorists....and where involved in this attack....please clarify....Because Omar was seen on tape with a few of his buddies roughly the same age, all alone planting IED's laughing and joking, bragging about killing NATO soldiers.....he could have at this time just left....he is 15 years old, able to atleast think and act on his own...instead he has taken action on his own , he is planting IED's and in Afgan that will get you killed....NATO Rules of engagement put this activity as one that Deadly force is Authorized....one that i'm sure that these terrorist are very much aware off....making IED's or bombs is taken very seriously in Afgan and they all knew that hence why they attacked the Afganis army whom were knocking at the door... So while i would agree with you that he may not have had much chioce in being sent to Afgan....he did have a choice on his actions while he was there...

"My quote"

Naturally he was fighting for Canada, as both had emirgrated in the 70's .....or maybe it was Egypt his fathers orginal country of orgin, or perhaps it was Palistine his mothers orginal country of orgin....NOPE none of the above....Last time we checked it was Al Quida a terror organization they were fighting for.....not a country, but a terrorist organization.... not even close to his families countries....and certainly not being invaded by the US....

"Your response"

Army guy, how old do you have to be to be considered a soldier?

You can be a soldier at any age, In Canada the legal age is 17 years old with parent consent....but in other countries any age is acceptable hence the term Child soldiers....which is what i think you where alluding to...but in this case he is neither, he is a terrorist,a criminal...nothing more....that is acording to Canadian law, inter-national law and the genva conventions....The whole child soldier concept was proposed for those children forced into military service by thugs, and scumbags....in this case the thug is his father, mother, and his religion....A batter question would be do we give him a free ride, because of his age...do we give children a free ride in Canada for serious offenses such as rape, murder, etc....or are they tried as adults...

There isn't one actual quote of Mrs. Kahdr there, just what some media hack columnist wants to report she said.

Actually if you had read the link they are from serveral different papers, and while there may be a chance they are all hacks it's funny that they are all reporting the same thing....Our media is controled in printing something that is false,or slanderous leaving them open to charges themselfs...i'm sure it was checked out before printing....And i'm sure the Khadrs would take advantage of that potential pay out...

This case has been a cluster **** since it's inception, by all parties involved, but we should not forget the fact that Omar case needs justice...and not forgotten simply because we feel guilty of what has been done to him.

[Topaz]

http://www.startribune.com/world/38676997....iD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

[Topaz]

http://www.canada.com/news/story.html?id=1211864 This is what Harper said about Khadr not being a child soldier.

[Army Guy]

So i take it you disagree with Mr.Harper, but where is your proof, your source....I hope your not basing your opinion on what these two groups have printed ...

The international Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers and UNICEF have broader definitions than Harper does of what it means to be a child soldier

.

Because thier opinions and definitions mean squat when it comes down to Canadian, inter- national laws, and the genva convention....

Now these documents and organizations are what we should be moulding our opinions on....not some medias third or forth source of info..."Ya did you hear what the janitor said over at the UN HQ"....

By Canadian Law Mr Omar was involved in a terrorist group, and carried out terrorist activites....All of this is on tape...

Canadian law is very clear about consitutes Treason...

Inter-national law, also has a difination of a terrorist, and terrorist activities, although vague they are there....

Genva convention, is very clear on who is considered a soldier, non combatant, illigal combatant, and a terrorist. it describes in detail what each is entitled to...and what is not entitled to any coverage at all.

What we need to ask our selfs is at what piont does a 15 year old boy become accountable for his actions....does he cross that piont at murder, rape, what about treason, which correct me if i'm wrong but is'nt that the worst crime on our books....We have in our past held young offenders accountable, and charged them with adult crimes in an adult court....WHY Does becoming a child soldier give him a blank check....

Do we start calling young gang bangers within our own cities under the age of 18 child soldiers, do they get a blank check, to reign terror on anyone at any time ....because if you twist the orginal intention of Child soldiers enough pretty soon you can encompass alot of groups and people....

Edited February 3, 2009 by Army Guy

[jdobbin]

What we need to ask our selfs is at what piont does a 15 year old boy become accountable for his actions....does he cross that piont at murder, rape, what about treason, which correct me if i'm wrong but is'nt that the worst crime on our books....We have in our past held young offenders accountable, and charged them with adult crimes in an adult court....WHY Does becoming a child soldier give him a blank check....

What country did he show treason to? Was it against Canada? How? If you do believe he is guilty of treason, why hasn't Canada charged him?

Why hasn't the U.S. proved its case in court?

Do you think the military should have a blank check to mete out justice? Do you think that the military has to be accountable?

[noahbody]

http://www.canada.com/news/story.html?id=1211864 This is what Harper said about Khadr not being a child soldier.

He is correct. By definition, to be considered a soldier one must be wearing a uniform.

[Army Guy]

What country did he show treason to? Was it against Canada? How?

Look i'm not a legal expert, nor do i claim to be, but his acts sure fit the discription....you judge from the text below...Keeping in mind that he has been taped planting IED's and mines in AFgan againt'st NATO forces...

"... (a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her; ( levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or © assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are."

legal site

If you do believe he is guilty of treason, why hasn't Canada charged him?

Yes i do believe he is, him and his brothers. and i have no idea why he has not been charged, perhaps they where waiting for the US to levy some sort of punishment...

Why hasn't the U.S. proved its case in court?

This case and so many others like it have turned into a cluster f***, trying to prove his status ie combantant, non combatant, terrorist etc ...has been screwed up, throw in the torture gambit and all the evidance it gathered is tainted....you tell me why the US can't prove it's case in court....

Do you think the military should have a blank check to mete out justice?

I'm not sure where you are going with this, both military and civilian courts are tied to the same laws. Canadian laws, inter-national laws , and genva conventions...in Fact military justice sys has special laws when dealing with discipline of our own soldiers.... So in a war zone i would say yes.

In the Case of Omar where is he not held within a war zone, i would say he should be tried in a civilian court, That being said one can not expect the same level of evidence to apply, there is no crime scene to inspect, in most cases there is not enough time to collect evidence it is after all a battle field....collecting evidence for future charges is not even on a soldiers mind after a battle....so in most cases there is no body, no ballistic samples, DNA, etc etc just patrol reports, after action reports , and if the incident is or comes under investigtion, then individual accounts may be taken but these are sometimes months after the event....

Do you think that the military has to be accountable?

By all means, it should be accountable for everything it does, within reason...what i mean is that our actions have to be placed in context to what you have asked us to do, for instance an F-18 pilot drops a bomb on a target, and non combatents are killed and wounded, he should not be charged with murder...unless it was his intentions to cause those deaths....

But in Omars case it has nothing to do with our military, he is an American Captive, under the control of the US government.

So do you think he should get a blank check, and if so why ? and have we in the past charged children with adult crimes and given adult sentences ?

[jdobbin]

Look i'm not a legal expert, nor do i claim to be, but his acts sure fit the discription....you judge from the text below...Keeping in mind that he has been taped planting IED's and mines in AFgan againt'st NATO forces...

Experts have looked at that area and even those that find Khadr to have been a threat have indicated it would be a stretch to say what he did was treason against Canada.

I don't believe he could have been planting bombs against NATO forces since they didn't participate in the war until 2003 when they took over ISAF. Khadr was captured before that.

Canadian special forces were involved early on in the war but I have never heard a case made by Canada that Khadr was committing treason against them. If that was the case, Canada should have stated its interest since the U.S. case has floundered.

In any event, Canada also has legislation in place on children and their exposure to laws meant for adults. I know some people believe that children should not have any special treatment but the fact is the law exists. The government would have to make the case for elevating the case to adult court.

Habeus corpus would apply. It means evidence would have to be produced and a defence would have to be provided. Evidence gathered would have to be scrutinized as to how it was collected.

Even in a military trial, evidence has to be provided. This is one of the reasons that the U.S. case has floundered. If torture was used to gather evidence, it no longer can act as the foundation of a trial. Even McCain has had a problem with that.

Yes i do believe he is, him and his brothers. and i have no idea why he has not been charged, perhaps they where waiting for the US to levy some sort of punishment...

Well, the U.S. case has floundered. He will end up in Canada one way or the other likely within this year.

I have said all along that if Canada had a case, they should have stated it and laid charges. My feeling is that they will be left scrambling when Khadr shows up at the door. They can't refuse a Canadian citizen entry.

This case and so many others like it have turned into a cluster f***, trying to prove his status ie combantant, non combatant, terrorist etc ...has been screwed up, throw in the torture gambit and all the evidance it gathered is tainted....you tell me why the US can't prove it's case in court....

I think you hit the nail on the head.

I believe Bush's intention was to arrest, detain, interrogate, try and execute all of those that ended up in U.S. custody and do it in secret. The problem is that it runs contrary to U.S. military and civilian law. They have tried to change the law many times but they still run smack dab into the Constitution.

Habeus corpus is an ancient tradition where evidence has to be provided to justify a trial and conviction. Secret trials and sentencing just can't be sustained under our laws.

I'm not sure where you are going with this, both military and civilian courts are tied to the same laws. Canadian laws, inter-national laws , and genva conventions...in Fact military justice sys has special laws when dealing with discipline of our own soldiers.... So in a war zone i would say yes.

So then you don't believe in being judge, jury and executioner in secret and would have problems if asked to do so?

In the Case of Omar where is he not held within a war zone, i would say he should be tried in a civilian court, That being said one can not expect the same level of evidence to apply, there is no crime scene to inspect, in most cases there is not enough time to collect evidence it is after all a battle field....collecting evidence for future charges is not even on a soldiers mind after a battle....so in most cases there is no body, no ballistic samples, DNA, etc etc just patrol reports, after action reports , and if the incident is or comes under investigtion, then individual accounts may be taken but these are sometimes months after the event....

I understand all that. But we are still left with how confessions are obtained and whether a defence was provided at the time of capture. A civilian trial cannot use evidence against you if you were denied defence counsel.

I know you want the book thrown at Khadr but I don't what law would hold up in either military or civilian courts.

By all means, it should be accountable for everything it does, within reason...what i mean is that our actions have to be placed in context to what you have asked us to do, for instance an F-18 pilot drops a bomb on a target, and non combatents are killed and wounded, he should not be charged with murder...unless it was his intentions to cause those deaths....

The pilot at least is granted a defence against such charges and is allowed to see the evidence against him.

If the military wishes to go to trial, those basic tenets apply. The Nuremberg Trials presented evidence in open court and provided a defence to the accused.

But in Omars case it has nothing to do with our military, he is an American Captive, under the control of the US government.

So, you say there is no role for military justice from Canada in this matter.

If the U.S. fails and Khadr is released, it is up to the civilian courts.

If that is the case, then evidence and a defence will have to be provided. The Canadian court might not be able to use anything gathered in Guantanamo. If it is a treason case, it will have to have evidence that Khadr was betraying Canada. Confessions obtained without counsel are useless in our court. The Supreme Court would kick it out just like the U.S. court would.

So do you think he should get a blank check, and if so why ? and have we in the past charged children with adult crimes and given adult sentences ?

Whenever we have charged someone with adult crimes, we have given reasons and evidence as to why they should be charged. The burden of proof must fall on the prosecution for elevating the case to adult court and for all the evidence presented.

Do you believe his case will meet the requirements of our legal system? I've given it a lot of thought and looked at a lot of what military and civilian legal experts say and I don't believe it does.

If Canada's military and civilian courts can't make a legal case, do you think Harper should order his imprisonment anyway and invoke nothwithstanding clause?

Edited February 5, 2009 by jdobbin

[Army Guy]

Experts have looked at that area and even those that find Khadr to have been a threat have indicated it would be a stretch to say what he did was treason against Canada.

Like i said i'm not an expert, but perhaps i'm not reading or understanding the law in regarding treason, i thought it was very clear, it seems very clear cut to me, now i know the law profession has some need for legal double talk, and double meanings....but the note below seems pretty clear to me....

levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or © assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are."

The tape found at the place of the attack, clearly shows Mr Omar planting mines and IED's...he brags about wanting to kill US and NATO forces....

he is engaged in according to Canadian law terrorist activties....unless i misread that one as well....but how can he be charged with one and not the other....

I don't believe he could have been planting bombs against NATO forces since they didn't participate in the war until 2003 when they took over ISAF. Khadr was captured before that.

Wrong , Canada started combat operations in 2001, in which Canada joined serveral coalition nations in the "war on terror"....starting with a naval contribution in 2001 , then at the beginning of 2002 Canadain ground forces took part in serveral operations there.

DND site.

Canadian special forces were involved early on in the war but I have never heard a case made by Canada that Khadr was committing treason against them. If that was the case, Canada should have stated its interest since the U.S. case has floundered

I don't think Canada wanted to handle this topic not yesterday not tommorow.....i think it will all be swept under the carpet to appease most people ...mean while it answers nothing it, sets no precedence for the next case....and it sends a serveral clear message to our troops....

One Canadians do not have the stomach to let justice be served, when it comes to terrorist.....that being the case why even take prisoners ?

Canadians have made it very clear, to all our soldiers....they will hold us to the highest of standards, in regards to our actions, our moral and ethical codes, and our conduct....and yet it seems to me our soldiers can not hold Canadians to the same standards.....

In any event, Canada also has legislation in place on children and their exposure to laws meant for adults. I know some people believe that children should not have any special treatment but the fact is the law exists. The government would have to make the case for elevating the case to adult court.

I agree, but precedence has already been set here, we have in the past charged teenagers under 15 years old with adult crimes and have sentenced them to adult time...So i agree let the courts decide...

Habeus corpus would apply. It means evidence would have to be produced and a defence would have to be provided. Evidence gathered would have to be scrutinized as to how it was collected.

Here is where i have problems, after all we are not talking about a crime scence in Canada, which is thoughly processed by qualified people....

what we are talking about is a bunch of grunts who's job is to close with and destroy the enemy, by any means possiable....once that is completed we move on to the next job...not secure it to allow the police and CSI guys time to process it...it is combat

Most of the evidance is destroyed in the fight, we do not collect the dead unless they are ours, we don't have our conors examine the enemies dead....we leave them to be collected by other bad guys....we after all know how they died, we shot, bombed, them to shit....i guess my rant is about if we collect no evidance after we are finished then those captives which are tried in Canadian courts will go free....regardless if they are guilty or not....

My beef with the Khadrs is this .... the fact they live under the protection and laws that i serve, while the same group is doing or has done everything to undermine them....I know many afgan citizens that have risked thier lives in thier and our struglle to win thier freedoms....and if offered a chance to live in Canada would do so in a second, all with out spitting in our faces while doing it....

Even in a military trial, evidence has to be provided. This is one of the reasons that the U.S. case has floundered. If torture was used to gather evidence, it no longer can act as the foundation of a trial. Even McCain has had a problem with that.

Not every trail is the same, in alot of cases all thier is is individual reports and testimonies....not very acurate at best, but all they have....we have a saying in the military, looks like shit , smells like shit, then it must be shit....

You have to admit, mr omar case is thin as well,...if with alot of the evidance being thrown out...the tape omar made for a keep sake , is proof he was involved in the very least terrorist activites....and if he is guilty of that then there is the treason route....he was there in the building ,a rifle found not 2 feet away, strange to say the least...now on the battlefield it would be enough for me to take his life....but in a court of law, he will more than likely walk....with a huge check to boot....

There would not have been a problem if the US had right off confirmed his status....combatant , non combatant, etc....found him gulity as a combatant and held him as a prisoner of war until the conflict is over....

So then you don't believe in being judge, jury and executioner in secret and would have problems if asked to do so?

Again i'm not sure where you are going with this, I don't agree to what was done at gitmo, i don't agree with torture, let me rephase that i don't think Cdn soldiers should have anything to do with torture.....now what the other nations do with thier POW's is thier bussiness and let the inter national courts and laws deal with them....i will say this had omar been released to Afgan police he'd been dead long ago...he's very lucky that the Americans kept him....

So, you say there is no role for military justice from Canada in this matter.

NONE, this is going to turn into a cluster f*** and the military should step well away from it.....leave it to the government to handle....

Do you believe his case will meet the requirements of our legal system? I've given it a lot of thought and looked at a lot of what military and civilian legal experts say and I don't believe it does.

I hope it does, and i hope justice is served....because alot of soldiers follow this case closely for different reasons, i know i have strong feelings about all the sweat blood and tears i've put into Afgan, seen alot of good people loaded into hercs.....to much has happen to think we have a whole family of Al Quada spitting on all that....living off some of my tax dollars....we are giving aid to the enemy....