Omar Khadr not tortured: judge

[punked]

Last I checked, he's not part of the government anymore. Hasn't been for a couple of years. And even when he was, it was only used a few times until 2003. Mountain out of a mole hill.

Hate to tell you this because I know your trying to forget Bush but he only left office a year and a little bit ago not a couple of years. Never get tired of correcting you.

[M.Dancer]

Hate to tell you this because I know your trying to forget Bush but he only left office a year and a little bit ago not a couple of years. Never get tired of correcting you.

One year, seven month...

[Army Guy]

GWB claimed it was not torture....

the government and the military government are not on the same page obviously...the military operates on a different level of justice...the whole Kadr situation looks like one of those hollywood movies about corrupt kangaroo courts behind the old iron curtian, it's a sham, the entire process is geared toward a conviction and it's conclusion has already been decided...

How does the military operate on a different level of justice ? and why is it a sham ? because it is not going your way ? Did they not give Omar a chance to speak, did the Judge not encougage him to speak for himself...and yet he said nothing, refused to take the stand, refuse to make his accusation of torture in court....the defense has not even proven with out a doubt he was tortured....so how can you conclude it has already made a decision?

[Guest American Woman]

GWB claimed it was not torture....

I realize that. But not only is he not the POTUS anymore, he's not "the government." Hence my correction, that some within the government have said it's not torture, just as Obama, our current POTUS, hence our "current government" by your line of thought, has said it is torture. Therefore, your comment, in light of "our government now" made no sense.

the government and the military government are not on the same page obviously...the military operates on a different level of justice...the whole Kadr situation looks like one of those hollywood movies about corrupt kangaroo courts behind the old iron curtian, it's a sham, the entire process is geared toward a conviction and it's conclusion has already been decided...

Because you've had an inside view as to what's been going on? Or because you choose to believe what you want to believe out of all we've been told?

You don't have to answer that question as I already know the answer.

[dre]

How does the military operate on a different level of justice ? and why is it a sham ? because it is not going your way ? Did they not give Omar a chance to speak, did the Judge not encougage him to speak for himself...and yet he said nothing, refused to take the stand, refuse to make his accusation of torture in court....the defense has not even proven with out a doubt he was tortured....so how can you conclude it has already made a decision?

How does the military operate on a different level of justice ?

Well youd probably know more than me, but from what I can tell theres a lot less public oversight (in some cases none), and a completely different set of evidentiary rules, including in some cases provisions for the accused and their attorneys to get an incomplete discovery of the evidence against them.

did the Judge not encougage him to speak for himself...and yet he said nothing

This in itself is disturbing. A judge has no business encouraging a defendant to take the stand. In a real court the defendants attorney decides whether their client should take the stand (and very few defendants ever do). The judge is there to direct the trial and rule on matters of process.

Now... Im not saying military courts and tribunals are a sham... but it sure seems that the defenant AND the public have a lot less rights in one of these things.

[dre]

I realize that. But not only is he not the POTUS anymore, he's not "the government." Hence my correction, that some within the government have said it's not torture, just as Obama, our current POTUS, hence our "current government" by your line of thought, has said it is torture. Therefore, your comment, in light of "our government now" made no sense.

Because you've had an inside view as to what's been going on? Or because you choose to believe what you want to believe out of all we've been told?

You don't have to answer that question as I already know the answer.

Because you've had an inside view as to what's been going on?

The irony here is seriously almost bizzare. Of couse he doesnt have an inside view... thats one of the biggest reasons some people think military tribunals and courts are a sham. Theres often very little transparency or public scrutiny and civil servants behave badly under those conditions.

[Army Guy]

Well youd probably know more than me, but from what I can tell theres a lot less public oversight (in some cases none), and a completely different set of evidentiary rules, including in some cases provisions for the accused and their attorneys to get an incomplete discovery of the evidence against them.

I can not speak for how the US military courts work, but it is very rare that a Canadian military court tries civilians...unless they have commited an offensive in a war zone, or theatre of operations...But there is public oversight and they are tried with all the Canadian laws as well they may be subject to Canadian military laws as well. While it is true the evidentiary rules are different, the defendent may ask for time to study or refrute any edvidence that is brought to bear.. That being said the same evidence rules do not transfer to a war zone....for example here in Canada the crime scence is sealed of until the police or investagators are finshed with it....in a war zone once the battle is finished thats it time to move on....any evidence is either trampled through by troops doing their reorg...or the field is left to be scavenged by civilians....

And if any crime did happen it is normally not actioned until the unit is pulled from the line...or finished with the mission....in some cases this could take weeks....and in many cases if serious enough another mission would be mounted into the area to try and recover any evidence, however if the threat is to large they will wait until the threat levels decrease. My piont is you will never get the same level of collection of evidence as you do here in Canada....

[Army Guy]

This in itself is disturbing. A judge has no business encouraging a defendant to take the stand. In a real court the defendants attorney decides whether their client should take the stand (and very few defendants ever do). The judge is there to direct the trial and rule on matters of process.

Most of their case is around the fact that Omar had been tortured, So when the defense does not mention anything about torture would it not strike you as funney.....The judge is responsable to ensure the defence is doing everything they can to defend their client, and if it becomes apparent they are not he can step in..also part of his duties.

[Guest American Woman]

Most of their case is around the fact that Omar had been tortured, So when the defense does not mention anything about torture would it not strike you as funney.....The judge is responsable to ensure the defence is doing everything they can to defend their client, and if it becomes apparent they are not he can step in..also part of his duties.

It is pretty hard to understand why Omar wouldn't take the stand and be cross-examined in regards to his claims of torture. Seems to me this would be his chance to have his say; to tell the world about the torture.

I have to agree with this:

Khadr’s lawyers filed an affidavit supposedly authored by Khadr himself in support of their torture claims, but Khadr did not allow prosecutors to cross-examine himself on his story. The judge noted that Khadr had the right to decline to testify, but it certainly did not help his case.

I don't see what's to question about the way his refusal to testify was handled, and I can't imagine a judge ruling that he was tortured without any testimony/cross examination from him.

Of course then the headlines read that the judge found he wasn't tortured, and the judgement starts: what else could one expect from a US military judge, trial unfair, etc.

[Peter F]

The judge did not rule that Khadr was not tortured. The judge ruled that his confessions would be allowed to be entered as evidence since it was not shown that he was tortured. And a confession or two did not seem to be related to the events of torture claimed by the defence.

Personally, I disagree, but nevertheless the judge has allowed the confessions into the evidence. That does not mean that the confessions are not the result of torture - they could very well be - but it was not convincingly shown to be such.

So the tribunal gets to assess the evidence of the confessions and also the evidence that the defense will provide that they are a result of torture and/or abuse and/or fear of khadrs captors. The tribunal will get to assess the confessions in light of the evidence and make thier own decisions.

I am quite sure that the ruling will be appealed at the end of the trial to the MC review board.

Khadr has already said that he will not be partaking in his defence as he believes its a sham trial anyways. Thats why he never

took the stand to describe the torture/abuse and be cross-examined on that issue.

[Guest American Woman]

Khadr has already said that he will not be partaking in his defence as he believes its a sham trial anyways. Thats why he never

took the stand to describe the torture/abuse and be cross-examined on that issue.

Whether he believes it's a sham trial or not, it's odd that the never took the stand to be cross examined in regards to his torture claims. As I said, it would have been his chance to reiterate to the world that he was tortured. I used to believe he was. Now I question it. I can't imagine why he would have made all the noise about it that he has so far only to choose to be silent under oath, at his trial, when it counts the most.

[bloodyminded]

Whether he believes it's a sham trial or not, it's odd that the never took the stand to be cross examined in regards to his torture claims. As I said, it would have been his chance to reiterate to the world that he was tortured. I used to believe he was. Now I question it. I can't imagine why he would have made all the noise about it that he has so far only to choose to be silent under oath, at his trial, when it counts the most.

First of all, his testimony won't change many people's minds...most poeple probably believe he was tortured, but don't care. (Several people on this very board have been helpfully explicit about their lack of care about torture...which is objectively support for torture.)

Second, if he is sincere about his belief that it's sham trial (an unknowable component for us) then he would be committing an immoral act by participating in it.

[Bonam]

Second, if he is sincere about his belief that it's sham trial (an unknowable component for us) then he would be committing an immoral act by participating in it.

Yes, I'm sure he cares deeply about such aspects of morality... seriously, who do you think we have on trial here? He isn't exactly a philosopher.

[Sir Bandelot]

He may see it as the only form of protest he has. But I think he's making a mistake in not participating. Despite the fact it might be a "sham trial", or a forgone conculsion, this could be the only chance he'll have to tell the world what happened.

[Peter F]

Whether he believes it's a sham trial or not, it's odd that the never took the stand to be cross examined in regards to his torture claims. As I said, it would have been his chance to reiterate to the world that he was tortured. I used to believe he was. Now I question it. I can't imagine why he would have made all the noise about it that he has so far only to choose to be silent under oath, at his trial, when it counts the most.

Wether he thinks its a sham or not is crucial to wether he participates in his defence or not, as Bloodyminded pointed out.

And, if it is a sham, as he believes, his taking the stand will mean absolutely nothing to the outcome. His lawyers tried to make the case and failed to convince the judge. What was Khadr going to add or say that hadn't already been said? Did his lawyers hold something back? Very doubtful. Was Khadr withholding some crucial bit of info? also doubtfull.

Also his silence accounts for nothing. He has every right to remain silent. If the trial is not a sham the tribunal will convict him based on the evidence presented - if they convict that is - and not on what Khadr didn't say.

[bloodyminded]

Yes, I'm sure he cares deeply about such aspects of morality... seriously, who do you think we have on trial here? He isn't exactly a philosopher.

Believe me, I take your point, but consider:

1. Everybody, with the exception (arguably) of full-blown sociopaths, has a moral compass, and principles to which they adhere. I would say this is probably without exception.

2. More importantly, much more importantly, are words like "alleged" and "accused." Just because you've personally indicted him does not mean he's definitely guilty.

Or why bother with a trial at all?

Edited August 28, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

................

Edited August 28, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Sir Bandelot]

The judge did not rule that Khadr was not tortured. The judge ruled that his confessions would be allowed to be entered as evidence since it was not shown that he was tortured.

The judge ruled that the confessions would be admissable despite the fact he was threatened with torture.

"The judge declined to suppress statements Mr. Khadr made after an Army interrogator sought to frighten him with a fabricated story about an Afghan youth who disappointed interrogators and was sent to an American prison where he died after a gang rape. In a pretrial hearing, the interrogator confirmed making that implicit threat, but the judge ruled it did not taint Mr. Khadr’s later confessions."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38890128/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/

And the it continues:

"Prosecutors disqualified an officer from the jury because he said he agreed with President Obama that Guantánamo had compromised America’s values and international reputation."

Sounds like a sham to me. If Khadr knew they were going to accept the confessions anyway, despite recognizing that the threats were made, there's no point in giving his own testimony in the trial.

[Guest American Woman]

Wether he thinks its a sham or not is crucial to wether he participates in his defence or not, as Bloodyminded pointed out.

Whether he thinks it's a sham or not, this is his one and only chance. If I were innocent, even if I thought the trial were a sham, I'd be damn sure to speak out in hopes that I was wrong. Even if the trial is a sham, what does he have to lose by speaking out? Nothing. But if he's wrong and the trial isn't a sham, he's got everything to lose. Seems like a really stupid choice on his part. If he was tortured. But if he wasn't, then not speaking out is the smart thing to do. That way everyone will just be down on those involved in the trial, assume the worst regarding the trial, and keep thinking poor Omar is a victim all the way around.

As I said, I used to believe he was tortured, but in light of his refusal to testify/be cross examined, I'll presume those he's accused are innocent, applying the same standards applied to Omar. "Innocent until proven guilty" has to apply to all or none.

And, if it is a sham, as he believes, his taking the stand will mean absolutely nothing to the outcome.

On the other hand, if it's not a sham, he has everything to lose.

His lawyers tried to make the case and failed to convince the judge. What was Khadr going to add or say that hadn't already been said? Did his lawyers hold something back? Very doubtful. Was Khadr withholding some crucial bit of info? also doubtfull.

Hearing it from him is entirely different from hearing it from his lawyers. His lawyers have presented a prepared, pre-written case. By cross examining, the judge can see his demeanor. A lot of times one can tell whether one is telling the truth by watching their expression. Also, one cannot try to trip up a written statement, but by rephrasing questions, the judge can see if Omar's responses are consistent.

If all one needed was to read a written statement, and to believe all the the accused said without question, the outcome would speak for itself and we wouldn't even need trials.

The fact that Omar is refusing to be cross examined makes me wonder if he's afraid he will trip up. Tell the truth and one doesn't have to have a good memory. Don't tell the truth, and one has to fear being tripped up. Makes me wonder if his refusal is due to the latter.

He's wanted to speak up all this time, and suddenly he's mum? Makes no sense if he's got nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Also his silence accounts for nothing. He has every right to remain silent. If the trial is not a sham the tribunal will convict him based on the evidence presented - if they convict that is - and not on what Khadr didn't say.

Of course he has the right to remain silent. No one said he doesn't have the right to make poor choices, and if he was tortured, his refusal to testify/be cross examined was most definitely a poor choice. Just because we have the right to make stupid choices doesn't mean we should. As I said, his silence most definitely does account for something.

[eyeball]

As I said, his silence most definitely does account for something.

Your conscience perhaps?

I still say the fact he's even being charged is all the indictment his persecutors need. Shame on them for doing so and shame on us for letting them.

Edited August 28, 2010 by eyeball

[Peter F]

Ok you think it was a stupid thing for him to not testify. Help yourself.

But his silence still means nothing.

At one point you beleived he was tortured/abused. Why would you beleive that? His record of public statements? He hasn't made any public statements - ever. His lawyers certainly have, but not Khadr. There's been no interviews with People Magazine or Entertainment Tonight or any Press Conferences...yet you believed he was tortured. There must have been some reason for you

to have come to that conclusion and that conclusion was not based on anything Khadr has said since he has said nothing.

And now, still no interviews or press conferences but perhaps a written statement that has yet to be made public, so you have never seen that either, you doubt the torture/abuse. Apparently its because you now think he's stupid.

[Jefferson]

By Arab standards, he was treated like a dinner guest. Better to lock him up BEFORE he became a full grown terrorist anyway. The US saved his life. He would have blown himself up long ago otherwise. He should thank them.

[Guest American Woman]

Ok you think it was a stupid thing for him to not testify. Help yourself.

But his silence still means nothing.

I do think it was a stupid thing for him not to testify, and therefore his silence doesn't "mean nothing." If it meant nothing in regards to anything or anyone, then it would "mean nothing," as you proclaim. However, since it does mean something to some and it could have meant something to the outcome, it doesn't mean "nothing" except to you and your like.

At one point you beleived he was tortured/abused. Why would you beleive that? His record of public statements? He hasn't made any public statements - ever. His lawyers certainly have, but not Khadr. There's been no interviews with People Magazine or Entertainment Tonight or any Press Conferences...yet you believed he was tortured. There must have been some reason for you

to have come to that conclusion and that conclusion was not based on anything Khadr has said since he has said nothing.

Except he did say something. To other people. You think the idea that he was tortured was just pulled out of thin air? And in light of his claims, I believed he was. Or more correctly, likely was. But now, in light of his silence when it counts the most, I truly question it. I believe his silence says that he's afraid to speak out. That he's afraid he has more to lose by testifying/being cross examined, than he has by remaining silent. And I've clearly stated why I believe as I do.

And now, still no interviews or press conferences but perhaps a written statement that has yet to be made public, so you have never seen that either, you doubt the torture/abuse. Apparently its because you now think he's stupid.

No. Obviously -- not "apparently," but obviously -- it's for the reasons I stated, not because of your moronic deduction.

Edited August 28, 2010 by American Woman

[Oleg Bach]

This kid should have never been an issue..what should be at issue is the fact that America and friends...are now leaving Iraq - a nation that once had a capital city and a pretty decent infrastructure. - Thanks to this mad man imperialism that supposedly is now coming to a military conclusion..this "craddle of civilization" is now back to it's origins - pre-historic barbarism - I imagine that the Americans get green with envy when they see a place or people that have class - so they bomb them back into the stone age..kill all the naturally born beautiful woman and men - and replace it with the hag pretentious artifical beauty of lady frinking GA GA..

As for Afganistan - there used to be a few thousand drug addicts and now there are millions of them - this is much like bringing and institutionalizing the use of the all destroying substance called alcohol....

so what is the big deal about dealing with Khadr? I* can proudly say that we are truely the big satan - and as far as I am concerned even hell has rejected the devil...

Pretty bad when even the devil does not whan us - what a joke we are.

[Bonam]

kill all the naturally born beautiful woman and men - and replace it with the hag pretentious artifical beauty of lady frinking GA GA..

What artificial beauty? She's ugly as hell despite all the artifice.