Sir Bandelot Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 (edited) Some how i don't think he's coming back, the above quote is one, second we as a nation don't have what it takes to charge him with any of a number of other charges.....and we don't want the world finding out that little secret... They should charge him with anything they can, legally. If they have no case, if they can prove nothing, they should let him go. But they've dragged it on so long, thats an admission that they fear there is a problem. It's time to shit or get off the pot, as they say. They might not be able to use the evidence they have, it might be inadmissable due to the use of torture. read a little further in the article- "One of the greatest challenges facing Obama's task force in deciding these cases is whether statements made during interrogations will be discounted in court as the product of torture. U.S. Special Forces shot Khadr twice in the back during his capture, and he was brought to the American-operated prison in Bagram, Afghanistan, in critical condition. During the three months before his transfer to Guantanamo, he was interrogated more than 40 times for up to eight hours a day. His chief interrogator, Joshua Claus, was later court-martialled in connection with the death of an Afghan taxi driver at Bagram." So they may have undermined their ability to convict him, guilty or no. This is what happens when you let a bunch of non law-abiding red neck amateurs have a field day, without professional oversight. If what they did means its inadmissible, he would be let go, and it will be their fault. Time to eat your own guts out. Edited October 29, 2009 by Sir Bandelot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulf42 Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 Yes so what is going on with this little dirt bag these days.... he still breathing.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulf42 Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 They should charge him with anything they can, legally. If they have no case, if they can prove nothing, they should let him go. They should shoot him at sun up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 During the war in Russia, partisans, if caught, were subjected to some of the worst forms of torture imaginable. One account I recall involved the leader of one band having his eye-lids cut off so he couldn't close his eyes as the SS slowly tortured his fellow partisans in front of him. None survived the event. I see...so what you're saying is, our side should be treating prisoners like the SS did? Sweet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 I see...so what you're saying is, our side should be treating prisoners like the SS did?Sweet. No, I'm saying that in a 'real war' like WW2 partisans were dealt with in no uncertain terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 (edited) No, I'm saying that in a 'real war' like WW2 partisans were dealt with in no uncertain terms. Yes I know, we've had no problem having the sorts of allies that rip people's eyelids off in the past and now look at how far we've fallen. We're quite comfortable waging unreal wars with little or no terms or certainty that the partisans we take are dealt with in a legal process that's consistent with our stated principles. Edited October 29, 2009 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 They should shoot him at sun up! Well why not, they've done just about everything else. Oh wait, they did that to him too... twice. Resilient little *&@^*isn't he Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Yes I know, we've had no problem having the sorts of allies that rip people's eyelids off in the past and now look at how far we've fallen. We're quite comfortable waging unreal wars with little or no terms or certainty that the partisans we take are dealt with in a legal process that's consistent with our stated principles. Then why have conventions about POWs vs terrorists if one side doesn't bother to wear uniforms? Partisan by definition is one who is breaking the apparent rules of warfare by appearing to be civilians. Which allies in the past has Canada had that cut folk's eyelids off? Australia? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Well why not, they've done just about everything else.Oh wait, they did that to him too... twice. Resilient little *&@^*isn't he My bud in the 10th Mountain has been wounded five times. He's never seen any of his attackers. They were all road-side bombs built by resilient little @%&$*s like our dear Omar and his al-Qaeda cell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 My bud in the 10th Mountain has been wounded five times. He's never seen any of his attackers. They were all road-side bombs built by resilient little @%&$*s like our dear Omar and his al-Qaeda cell. I wonder how he feels about the fact that Obama wants to negotiate, and pay the Taliban, and offer them amnesty for doing such things to your bud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 I wonder how he feels about the fact that Obama wants to negotiate, and pay the Taliban, and offer them amnesty for doing such things to your bud. He hasn't said. Doubt he will, either. But thanks to these injuries he now drives a desk instead of a armored car. More time for online gaming is a side effect. So that part of getting blown-up he enjoys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Heard a lady say that there is some suppressed evidence regarding Khdar. She mentioned she go hold of a photo of what was supposed to be Khdar laying face down and pinned down by rubble..That an American actually walked on top of him and felt him move - That it was impossible that he tossed the grenade...What is odd is that also after hearing the head of CISIS (or what ever they are called) interviewed - he was not fully briefed on the new developements...NOW if it is found out to be true that the former American administration framed Khdar - then that would be akin to Dick Cheney and George Bush being dressed in leather jackets going out and beating up 12 year old boys - It will show great and shameful corporate cowardice on a scale never seen before - GROWN MEN BEATING THE CRAP OUT OF A MERE BOY, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ace Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Heard a lady say that there is some suppressed evidence regarding Khdar. She mentioned she go hold of a photo of what was supposed to be Khdar laying face down and pinned down by rubble..That an American actually walked on top of him and felt him move - That it was impossible that he tossed the grenade...What is odd is that also after hearing the head of CISIS (or what ever they are called) interviewed - he was not fully briefed on the new developements...NOW if it is found out to be true that the former American administration framed Khdar - then that would be akin to Dick Cheney and George Bush being dressed in leather jackets going out and beating up 12 year old boys - It will show great and shameful corporate cowardice on a scale never seen before - GROWN MEN BEATING THE CRAP OUT OF A MERE BOY, pics and story here http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/662769 And more ... Legal bill to battle Khadr $1.3 million and counting NDP critic says Ottawa is 'in denial' as costs and court defeats pile up Allan Woods in Ottawa Michelle Shephard in Toronto Published On Fri Oct 30 2009 An exclusive photo, right, taken at Guantanamo prison shows what Omar Khadr looks like today (October, 2009), seven years after his capture at 15, left. Taxpayers are on the hook for more than $1.3 million in legal fees incurred by the federal government in its legal battle against Toronto-born Omar Khadr. Documents show Ottawa has spent $1,335,342.37 fighting the alleged Al Qaeda child soldier over the past seven years, and there are more legal costs ahead. Khadr was captured after a firefight with U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2002 and has been detained at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre for the last seven years. His Canadian lawyers have won a handful of legal challenges against the government, including a Federal Appeals Court ruling earlier this year that ordered Prime Minister Stephen Harper to intervene. The costs of the government's appeals were contained in a written response released this week to a question posed by the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons in June. Harper's stubborn streak is costing us a bundle! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Harper is limited in wisdom. AND...There is something that I have always found very manipulative and shifty when dealing with Khdar. Harper once said that "Mr. Khdar has been charged with some very serious crimes." Pay close attention to the "Mister" - this creates an image that it is a full grown responsible and aware adult that he is talking about... It's very distracting from the true image of what Khdar WAS at the time - a mere boy. So the weasils intentionally waited untill this boy grew facial hair and started to look like the stero-typical dark eyed terrorist. IF they had portrayed him as the child he was it would have made Cheney and the boys look like sadistic old men beating up on a baby - which they were. So they intentionally waited and let time pass - someone definitely thought of this before hand that time had to pass - and they had to torment this young boy untill he entered adulthood and appeared to be crazy and dangerous..Khdar must have figure out what they were doing and held on for dear life while they tormented him attempting to create a monster - by the grace of God they failed. This photo - once the time line is worked out should free Khdar....Cheney, Rumsfelt, Bush and Rove refused to bring Bin Laden to justice..because of personal cowardice and the oil connection they had with the Saudis - so they picked on a child..what a bunch of jerks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 well the witness reports shooting the last remaining person an adult who could have thrown the grenade in the head...Kadr was certianly no shape to throw anything, medical reports also say his heart was visible and add to that the incredible feat of hiding himself under all that debris while face down...this kid was superman!... Thats not what the witness statements say, read them again there is x 3 of them....The man that shot both Khadr and the man next to him staes that he fires a volley down a small ally way, then advances to find a man dead from wounds to the head, he turns see a person on his hands and knees he puts 2 rounds into his back..... And while that is a nice picture , every has seen it by now can you be 100 % postive that highlighted body is Khadrs....all i see is a body wrapped in a white covering....and yet in other pictures Khadr is not wear any white these are pictures that clearly show Khadr with US medics working on his chest wounds.......i wonder did they change his clothing , before the medics worked on him.... What the picture does suggest is that person whom ever it was is unlikely to have thrown the grenade ...and i would agree....but then if he is buried in all that rubble how did he recieve 2 bullet wounds to the back...are the other 3 US soldiers lieing as basically they tell the same story....that Omar was seen on his knees, thats when the shot him...in the back... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Documents show Ottawa has spent $1,335,342.37 fighting the alleged Al Qaeda child soldier over the past seven years, and there are more legal costs ahead.Harper's stubborn streak is costing us a bundle! There are some cases where you can argue is the cost worth it. For example spending $14 million to try to recover $2 million in the Mulroney/Scribner case didn't make any sense (didn't Jack support that?). As far as Khadr(s) go, the stubborn streak belongs to Canada in not changing our laws and immigration policies to ensure Canada doesn't become a home to terrorists, who not only present a risk to the safety of the public but cost the taxpayer millions due to surveillance. I would like to know how much Canada has spent to date on this family and other suspected terrorist to date over the years. It has to be staggering. Does anyone know how government lawyers are paid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Does anyone know how government lawyers are paid? Promptly or they sue... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.