eyeball Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 (edited) My question is why did Khadr plead guilty to all charges if indeed he is innocent. People will say anything given enough duress, his plea is as empty of guilt as America's mission accomplished banner was empty of any credibility, that's certainly what all the crowing about this plea sounds like. The US has neither the ethical or moral background to pass judgement on what constitutes an actual war crime and Khadr's persecutors in Ottawa are no better. It used to be apparently but, them's the breaks. Edited October 26, 2010 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 People will say anything given enough duress, his plea is as empty of guilt as America's mission accomplished banner was empty of any credibility, that's certainly what all the crowing about this plea sounds like. Well the duress he was under must be a recent development. How else would you explain that he was able to take this duress for so many years before it finally dawned on him and his attorneys that a plea bargain was the best option? If I was falsely accused of such a serious crime, no amount of duress would cause me to plead guilty to something I didn't do. I would go to trial. The US has neither the ethical or moral background to pass judgement on what constitutes an actual war crime and Khadr's persecutors in Ottawa are no better. It used to be apparently but, them's the breaks. Of course, by Khadr's persecutors in Ottawa you are referring to the Conservative government. As far as I can see, the Conservatives' consistent position has been that the US system should take it's course. What's your problem with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Well the duress he was under must be a recent development. How else would you explain that he was able to take this duress for so many years before it finally dawned on him and his attorneys that a plea bargain was the best option? If I was falsely accused of such a serious crime, no amount of duress would cause me to plead guilty to something I didn't do. I would go to trial. A recent development? We must have wildly different ideas on what recent means. In any case its probably pretty easy for you to imagine sticking to your guns from the comfort of your home in Canada instead of an extra-judicial legal system in an extra-judicial prison camp. If I was Khadr, I think I'd want to get out of the clutches of the US government before it falls to the real wing-nuts that are likely to take it over again after the next election cycle. I think he's probably also counting on history and of course the Supreme Court of Canada, to exonerate him. I would certainly encourage him to. Of course, by Khadr's persecutors in Ottawa you are referring to the Conservative government. Oh no, I also mean the Liberals, the cowards who abandoned him from the outset. As far as I can see, the Conservatives' consistent position has been that the US system should take it's course. What's your problem with that? It's simply been an extension of the Liberal's position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 If I was falsely accused of such a serious crime, no amount of duress would cause me to plead guilty to something I didn't do. I would go to trial.yes you would...it happens regularly in courts all over N america...given the choice of eight yrs in prison or life/death in a rigged military court, you'd take the eight in a heartbeat...it's easy to talk the big talk quite another when you actually have to do it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39834263/ns/us_news-security/ Ask a silly qusetion If that take is true then the Lil Omar team had some serious leverage. Why go guilty with an 8 year term? Why not say, this is very embarrassin' for you, we will plead no contest with time served so you can save face? I think the ral answer lies in the way Lil Omar has been playing the justice sysyem, hiring and firing lawyers and delaying his day in court...knowing that the court would not likely give more than 8 years the US traded the inevitable verdict spent in a federal prison for a chance to spend time in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 What court was that, you mean the same kangaroo court that's so desperate to accept his plea? By definition, Kangaroo courts have no need to plea bargain. So either it is a valid court or it isn't. Since by they workied a deal, it must be a valid court, the same court that said there was no evidence of abuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Why don't they want to test their shiny new military tribunal on him? We may never know, JBG They did test the tribunal on him. The defence has agreed to the facts. They give them the verdict and sentence today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 The differences are in the agreements we signed, Omar is not a child soldier but considered a terrorist, and there is NOTHING in the current agreement we signed at the UN that covers terrorists....the UN clearly spells it out on what makes a soldier, and what is a terrorist.... However Kadr was detained per US laws/orders/policies. It is all in the term of 'illegal combatant'. The UN does not even come into play here at all. If the UN was involved, Kahr would not be at Gitmo. As for justice give me a break....it is our justice system that our current ROE's are derived, and it clearly states these child terrorists can be engaged and killed when they take part in terrorist activities.....so our justice system say's it's alright to kill them, but we just have a problem with locking them up, or having them face a court for their actions....to sum up it's alright to kill them just not put them in a court of law....i get it....and from my side of the fence it's wrong.... It's not Canada's or the UN's justice system in play here. Perhaps you can provide a link where it states you can not hold them accountable. Even the agreement we signed at the UN does not state we can not hold them accountable for what they have done.... Irrelevant because of the US law/policy and the term 'illegal combatant'. The UN has nothing to do with this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 If that take is true then the Lil Omar team had some serious leverage. Why go guilty with an 8 year term? Why not say, this is very embarrassin' for you, we will plead no contest with time served so you can save face? I think the ral answer lies in the way Lil Omar has been playing the justice sysyem, hiring and firing lawyers and delaying his day in court...knowing that the court would not likely give more than 8 years the US traded the inevitable verdict spent in a federal prison for a chance to spend time in Canada. Perhaps but the reverse must also be true. They need him to spend at least some time in a US prison. The rumoured 1 year in US jail seems mainly to be symbolic. The same question can be asked, why didn't the US simply say to hell with this guy, no more shenanigans he goes to trial and gets the full brunt of the legal system applied. They could have nailed him to the wall. But they didn't. Clearly, something is not right with the case. There was much outcry from political infulences in the UN, maybe those external infuences were enough for them to want to avoid a trial. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Who knows... but little Omar will probably soon be coming back to Canada. Then will be interesting to see the pony show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Mission Accomplished! Could you please explain again how Omar Khadr managed to delay justice by playing the system, the most powerful extra-judicial system that is, on the planet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 By definition, Kangaroo courts have no need to plea bargain. So either it is a valid court or it isn't. Since by they workied a deal, it must be a valid court, the same court that said there was no evidence of abuse. I'm not very smart, in fact I am so naive I make a 9 year old girl look worldly. Explain how he delayed his trail? http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/13/khadrs-trial-delayed-at-least-a-month/ http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Khadr+lawyer+seeks+delay+terror+detainee+murder+trial/3351613/story.html http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/833191--omar-khadr-fires-his-lawyers http://canadasworld.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/omar-khadrs-lawyer-william-kuebler-fired/ Lets see...lil omar fired 3 sets of lawyers....one faints in court.....that ain;t enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Could you please explain again how Omar Khadr managed to delay justice by playing the system, the most powerful extra-judicial system that is, on the planet? Could you explain why such a powerful "extra-judicial"(sic) system entertained a plea bargain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Could you explain why such a powerful "extra-judicial"(sic) system entertained a plea bargain? You said it yourself, it was between a rock and a hard place. It was desperate to avoid being played by Lil Omar any longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 You said it yourself, it was between a rock and a hard place. It was desperate to avoid being played by Lil Omar any longer. If I said it myself, the context is, and since you agree with me you have to accept my context too, the court was neither the most powerful (nor extra judicial) or a kangaroo court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 (edited) Could you explain why such a powerful "extra-judicial"(sic) system entertained a plea bargain? Because they had little to no evidence against him? OR The fact that Omar used the same system to go against the system that was trying to convict him? Don't hate the playah, hate the game yo! OR They are tired of this game, and offered the bargain so they can charge him with something to end the debacle? If this was such a clear cut case, why has it taken this long to come to a 'deal' ?? Edited October 26, 2010 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Perhaps but the reverse must also be true. They need him to spend at least some time in a US prison. The rumoured 1 year in US jail seems mainly to be symbolic. The same question can be asked, why didn't the US simply say to hell with this guy, no more shenanigans he goes to trial and gets the full brunt of the legal system applied. They could have nailed him to the wall. But they didn't. Clearly, something is not right with the case. There was much outcry from political infulences in the UN, maybe those external infuences were enough for them to want to avoid a trial. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Who knows... but little Omar will probably soon be coming back to Canada. Then will be interesting to see the pony show. I think eyeball is planning a ticker tape parade for someone we're all apparently supposed to view as a national hero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 If I said it myself, the context is, and since you agree with me you have to accept my context too, the court was neither the most powerful (nor extra judicial) or a kangaroo court. I don't agree with you at all, I'm mocking your ridiculous assertion that it's actually Khadr who's delayed his day in ahem...court...all these years. It remains obvious as shit however that the US government is ashamed at the spectacle it's made and would continue to make of itself by dragging a child and the only so-called terrorist it's managed to process to date through it's so-called court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Terrorist to child: "Put on this bomb vest, take this rifle and go to that hill over there, and shoot some Americans."Child: "Wait, let me check first to see what agreements were signed..." Not knowing the law is not an excuse to break it, or from becoming accountable to it.... However Kadr was detained per US laws/orders/policies. It is all in the term of 'illegal combatant'. The UN does not even come into play here at all. If the UN was involved, Kahr would not be at Gitmo. Yes the term the US was using was "Illegal combatant" , i was using terrorist in the same context my bad for not being clearer...As for the UN coming into play Eyeball has constantly refered to Omar as a child soldier, that entire agreement in which Canada signed off on was a UN agreement, hence why i was refering to it and the UN. That agreement does not include Illegal combatant or terrorist... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Not knowing the law is not an excuse to break it, or from becoming accountable to it.... So what law did he break? American Law? NATO Law? UN Law? Afghanistan Law (aka at the time Taliban Law) And depending on the law, how was it applied? Yes the term the US was using was "Illegal combatant" , i was using terrorist in the same context my bad for not being clearer...As for the UN coming into play Eyeball has constantly refered to Omar as a child soldier, that entire agreement in which Canada signed off on was a UN agreement, hence why i was refering to it and the UN. That agreement does not include Illegal combatant or terrorist... That's much clearer, thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Not knowing the law is not an excuse to break it, or from becoming accountable to it....even if guilty as a kid he would be out of prison by now...kids are held to a different level of accountability because they're kids not adults...Yes the term the US was using was "Illegal combatant" , i was using terrorist in the same context my bad for not being clearer...As for the UN coming into play Eyeball has constantly refered to Omar as a child soldier, that entire agreement in which Canada signed off on was a UN agreement, hence why i was refering to it and the UN. That agreement does not include Illegal combatant or terrorist...the usa twists wording to avoid international law, trade agreements, geneva convention you name it...now you want Canada to do the same, Canada signed on to a treaty that defines him as a child soldier which is an illegal act by those who made him one... you want to hold a child responsible for his actions but you're not willing to hold governments and the adults responsible for their deliberate infringement of the laws...amazing hypocrisy on your part, aren't you supposed to be defending our laws?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Mapleleafweb: where non-soldiers tell veterens how things really are in Afghanistan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 Mapleleafweb: where non-soldiers tell veterens how things really are in Afghanistan. ...you can't make this stuff up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 ...you can't make this stuff up! No doubt Khadr belongs to the political/humanitarian wing of Al-Qaeda as per Sinn Fein. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 I have yet to hear what law Khadr broke. Can anyone point that out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 I have yet to hear what law Khadr broke. Can anyone point that out? Geneva Convention articles of war-Unlawful combatant. Everything stems from that, from the construction of boms to the murder of a lawful combattant, as well as membership in a proscribed terrorist organization. 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.