Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Khadr Sentenced To 40 Years By Military Tribunal


  • Please log in to reply
803 replies to this topic

#691 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,506 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 01 October 2012 - 05:05 PM

If Im not mistaken the Liberals were running the country when this whole situation developed. How come they never raised any objection in the first place?
  • 0

#692 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,338 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 01 October 2012 - 05:22 PM

That's incorrect.


No correct.

That's a misinterpretation of the act. The act applies to those recruiting child soldiers and say that Guerilla forces shouldn't recruit. It, however, makes no mention of what to do when those guerilla forces actually do recruit. So techinically, if you captured a soldier between 15-18, you could still treat him as a regular soldier.
  • 0

#693 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,338 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 01 October 2012 - 05:27 PM

If Im not mistaken the Liberals were running the country when this whole situation developed. How come they never raised any objection in the first place?


Khard was in jail for 4 years while the Liberals were in power. They made no efforts to secure his release. In fact, CSIS was directly invovled in getting confessions out of Khadr while the Liberals were in power. CSIS interrogated him many times between 2002 and 2006, when the Liberals were in power.
  • 0

#694 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,775 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 01 October 2012 - 05:51 PM

Except that Khadr and his family weren't "defending their homeland". Khadr is a Canadian by nationality and an Egyptian/Palestinian by ethnicity. Afghanistan is in no way his homeland. Khadr and his father were part of a militant group that was propping up the arab backed Sunni governments on the Afghan people. He was doing no different than the US soldiers you condemn.

That being said Khadr was also a 15 year old child, whose parents put him in that awful situation. I'd be fine with letting him go and throwing his mother in prison.


Actually Afghanistan was in a way very much like a homeland to Ahmed Khadr and in a way adopted it as his homeland. Khadr's father has had all types of accusations and allegations thrown his way that amounted to no convictions but he has actually done a tremendous amount of aid and charity work in Afghanistan for decades going back to the early 80's. He helped build and establish schools for boys and girls, orphanages, medical clinics, hospitals etc. He brought his children up with this as well. Almost everyone in Afghanistan either knew him or knew of him because of his work.

Now, you might argue that he and his children were training to learn combat and fighting etc. (though he has often been described by fighters as "not a man of jihad but a man of charity work and aid") but this is precisely what the Americans were striving for in order to defeat the invading and occupying USSR was it not?

Who was it that funded, armed, encouraged and supported Muslims from around the world to migrate to Afghanistan in order to fight the USSR? Are you aware that the US government permitted Taliban members to travel throughout the US and recruit soldiers from Muslim communities and Mosques for fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan?

Journalist Eric Margolis referred to Ahmed Khadr as a 'man of respect' as well as a 'humanitarian'.

The same people being referred to as 'terrorists' today are the same ones who were hailed as 'heros' and 'mujahideen' in the 80's and 90's (how easily people are programmed).

You'd be fine with letting Omar Khadr go and throw his mother in jail instead, but to me this sounds like nothing except a heavily tainted sense of justice due to where you get your info from. For example, it seems you still believe that such a thing called Al-Qaeda exists.
  • 0

**RETIRED...**

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

11477626583_2368927097.jpg     49997_b70e6ae14ce1652fa11bd1dda624afd1.g   7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#695 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,775 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 01 October 2012 - 06:09 PM

Khard was in jail for 4 years while the Liberals were in power. They made no efforts to secure his release. In fact, CSIS was directly invovled in getting confessions out of Khadr while the Liberals were in power. CSIS interrogated him many times between 2002 and 2006, when the Liberals were in power.


Probably why an official report declared that the Canadian Cabinet failed Khadr and that Khadr's Constitutional Rights were violated.

CSIS also not only lied to Khadr but also essentially to all Canadians with regard to their motives and interrogation of him.
  • 0

**RETIRED...**

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

11477626583_2368927097.jpg     49997_b70e6ae14ce1652fa11bd1dda624afd1.g   7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#696 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,338 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 01 October 2012 - 06:26 PM

Actually Afghanistan was in a way very much like a homeland to Ahmed Khadr and in a way adopted it as his homeland. Khadr's father has had all types of accusations and allegations thrown his way that amounted to no convictions but he has actually done a tremendous amount of aid and charity work in Afghanistan for decades going back to the early 80's. He helped build and establish schools for boys and girls, orphanages, medical clinics, hospitals etc. He brought his children up with this as well. Almost everyone in Afghanistan either knew him or knew of him because of his work.

Now, you might argue that he and his children were training to learn combat and fighting etc. (though he has often been described by fighters as "not a man of jihad but a man of charity work and aid") but this is precisely what the Americans were striving for in order to defeat the invading and occupying USSR was it not?

Who was it that funded, armed, encouraged and supported Muslims from around the world to migrate to Afghanistan in order to fight the USSR? Are you aware that the US government permitted Taliban members to travel throughout the US and recruit soldiers from Muslim communities and Mosques for fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan?

Journalist Eric Margolis referred to Ahmed Khadr as a 'man of respect' as well as a 'humanitarian'.

The same people being referred to as 'terrorists' today are the same ones who were hailed as 'heros' and 'mujahideen' in the 80's and 90's (how easily people are programmed).

You'd be fine with letting Omar Khadr go and throw his mother in jail instead, but to me this sounds like nothing except a heavily tainted sense of justice due to where you get your info from. For example, it seems you still believe that such a thing called Al-Qaeda exists.


The Khadr family, Osama Bin Laden, etc... initially entered Afghanistan for the purpse of removign the Soviets, but then stayed in order to pursue their own goals and agenda. Can you possibly argue that backing the Taliban had the best interest of the Afghan people as a whole in mind. They wanted to push their own religious agenda on the Afghan people, and they used them as pawns.

I'm not saying that what the USA did was any better, but your argument about "adopted homeland" is such garbage. Beginning in the early 90s, the agenda clearly switched from giving humanitarian aid to proping up a brutal regime, aka the Taliban. Arab/Pakistani led militias conducted numerous massacres in the region.

On the day in question, Omar Khadr, was caught with one of the most notorious Arab war mongerers, Abu Laith al-Libi. People like al-Libi care nothing about the Afghan people. He stated several times his goal was to impose islamic dictatorship on the world. He started with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The worst part was that people like al-Libi and Bin Laden lived a decadent lifestyle with multiple wives, while the Afghans suffered. The worst kind of chicken hawks.

Whether or not you want to believe that Al-Queda exists, there's no denying that people like al-Libi and Bin Laden had been employing gangs of arab and pakistani soldiers to prop up the Taliban and impose it on the Afghan people.
  • 0

#697 jmfaminoff

jmfaminoff

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,816 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 05

Posted 01 October 2012 - 06:33 PM

Which is why he should have been treated as a 'child soldier' then at the least, because it would have afforded him international treaty rights that deal with child soldiers.....but he wasn't.

I agree but Taliban is not uniformed. The ones who put the rifle in his hands, metaphorically speaking, are the ones responsible.

Edited by jmfaminoff, 01 October 2012 - 06:34 PM.

  • 0

#698 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,775 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 01 October 2012 - 06:33 PM

No correct.

That's a misinterpretation of the act. The act applies to those recruiting child soldiers and say that Guerilla forces shouldn't recruit. It, however, makes no mention of what to do when those guerilla forces actually do recruit. So techinically, if you captured a soldier between 15-18, you could still treat him as a regular soldier.


The UN declared him as a child soldier and the US is party to an optional protocol that stipulates child soldiers under the age of 18 are to be supported and re-integrated with their families and communities.

I believe International Law prohibits the prosecution of children under 18 for war crimes or crimes against humanity.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...hadr-letter.pdf
  • 0

**RETIRED...**

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

11477626583_2368927097.jpg     49997_b70e6ae14ce1652fa11bd1dda624afd1.g   7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#699 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 01 October 2012 - 07:54 PM

No correct.

That's a misinterpretation of the act. The act applies to those recruiting child soldiers and say that Guerilla forces shouldn't recruit. It, however, makes no mention of what to do when those guerilla forces actually do recruit. So techinically, if you captured a soldier between 15-18, you could still treat him as a regular soldier.


However, he wasn't recruited by the standards of a standing national military, which is what the the prescriptions of the international treaty established.

And I don't think that UNICEF, or the undersecretary for the UN, misinterpreted the optional protocol to the Convention that I cited. I don't believe I have either, if you're suggesting that I was the party that misinterpreted the legislation and its application to Omar.

There's information in this thread that spells it out at length, as this debate was central to the thread at one point. Have a read, if you want.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#700 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,775 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 01 October 2012 - 08:06 PM

The Khadr family, Osama Bin Laden, etc... initially entered Afghanistan for the purpse of removign the Soviets, but then stayed in order to pursue their own goals and agenda. Can you possibly argue that backing the Taliban had the best interest of the Afghan people as a whole in mind. They wanted to push their own religious agenda on the Afghan people, and they used them as pawns.

I'm not saying that what the USA did was any better, but your argument about "adopted homeland" is such garbage. Beginning in the early 90s, the agenda clearly switched from giving humanitarian aid to proping up a brutal regime, aka the Taliban. Arab/Pakistani led militias conducted numerous massacres in the region.

On the day in question, Omar Khadr, was caught with one of the most notorious Arab war mongerers, Abu Laith al-Libi. People like al-Libi care nothing about the Afghan people. He stated several times his goal was to impose islamic dictatorship on the world. He started with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The worst part was that people like al-Libi and Bin Laden lived a decadent lifestyle with multiple wives, while the Afghans suffered. The worst kind of chicken hawks.

Whether or not you want to believe that Al-Queda exists, there's no denying that people like al-Libi and Bin Laden had been employing gangs of arab and pakistani soldiers to prop up the Taliban and impose it on the Afghan people.


The Khadr family by all accounts entered Afghanistan for charity and humanitarian reasons and it very much became an adopted homeland as Ahmed Kahdr's Imam in Ottawa stated. By the time the early 90's came around Ahmed Khadr had been in Afghanistan for a decade already and had done a great deal of humanitarian work.

You mention massacres but the Taliban pale in comparison in this regard to the Northern Alliance warlord groups that the US enlisted and supported. The US and other militaries have also conducted massacres in Afghanistan and Iraq. And while we're on the topic, the Taliban also pale in comparison to many brutal regimes that have been supported by Western power-nations for many, many years.

Here is a transcript of a Taliban member giving a lecture at USC in the USA in March 2001:

http://www.freerepub...ws/556980/posts

Now of course I will stand with you together in condemnation of any atrocities or injustice done by members of the Taliban or anyone for that matter.

But perhaps this is the reason that the US and many nations today acknowledge that the Taliban must be part of a negotiation process for any hope of peace in Afghanistan. Just last year US government officials openly stated that the Taliban are not the enemy...the games must go on right?

But this is not about the Taliban or the geopolitical propaganda and games surrounding them because geopolitical games and propaganda are not limited to them.

You mentioned that Omar Khadr was found with Al-Libi but there is another version of this story, which is that Al-Libi actually reconciled a large disagreement between Khadr family members in Afghanistan which earned the family's trust. Al-Libi then asked Ahmed Khadr if his son Omar could be be used to help as a translator for some Arabs who were coming into the country (something very normal that had been going on for decades) and Omar's father agreed (the mother you adamantly desire to throw in jail totally objected to all of it)...Al-Libi did not tell Omar's father where he was taking him the day he was captured.

And in fact, Ahmed Khadr was witnessed very angrily yelling at Al-Libi and blamed him for what happened.

Funny thing about Al-Libi is that he was considered a hero for fighting against the Soviets and against Ghaddafi. He was reportedly killed in a drone attack, which I'm sure pleased many people...yet the terrorist group he belonged to (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group) were recruited by NATO and hailed as heros for deposing Ghaddafi just last year.

The same terrorist group has also been recruited to fight and help train terrorists heros in Syria to massacre civilians, blow up buildings, destabilize the country and force Assad to step down.

the games must go on...
  • 0

**RETIRED...**

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

11477626583_2368927097.jpg     49997_b70e6ae14ce1652fa11bd1dda624afd1.g   7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#701 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 01 October 2012 - 10:02 PM

Canada's treatment of Khadr should be a source of national embarrassment


This weekend saw two prominent stories involving Canadians returning to their country to face legal penalties for serious crimes committed abroad – one a convicted child rapist, the other an exploited child. The difference in their treatment says a lot about Canada’s priorities.

The first, Christopher Neil, is an admitted serial sexual exploiter of children, caught in Thailand after officials decoded the computerized swirl patterns he’d used to disguise his face in numerous photos in which he sexually assaulted children.


After having served his full sentence of three years and three months in Thailand, he was allowed to fly back to Canada. He strolled into Vancouver airport on Friday night and was arrested by the RCMP on precautionary grounds. As RCMP Corporal Mat Van Laer told reporters, Canadian officials felt “confident enough that some form of monitoring would be a good idea in this case.”

The second, Omar Khadr, was not allowed to return home on his own, but was brought back in shackles, despite having already spent 10 years in the ultra-high-security U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He will face another six years in the penal system in Canada. Canada’s government has taken unprecedented efforts to prevent him being returned to his home country, even as every other Western country has fought to get its Guantanamo inmates returned to their soil.

The discrepancy does not end there. If Mr. Neil was a confessed exploiter of children, Mr. Khadr was, among other things, an exploited child. There is no ambiguity in this: He was 15 when he lobbed a grenade at American soldiers during one of the initial skirmishes of the Afghanistan war, after his political-extremist family persuaded him to fight.

As such, he was a young offender under Canadian law – a fact acknowledged by Canada’s courts, which have suggested that his Guantanamo convictions are unconstitutional – and a child soldier under every international legal definition. This fact was acknowledged by the United Nations secretary-general’s special representative for child soldiers, who told courts in 2010 that Mr. Khadr is an example of “the classic child-soldier narrative: recruited by unscrupulous groups to undertake actions at the bidding of adults to fight battles they barely understand.”

The fact that Canadian officials are treating a badly mistreated child soldier far worse than an admitted child rapist should be a source of national embarrassment.

Clive Stafford Smith, the British civil-rights lawyer who has acted on behalf of at least 128 Guantanamo inmates, said that he is shocked by Canada’s behaviour: While other countries fought to have their Guantanamo inmates repatriated, Canada fought very hard to keep Washington from releasing its sole inmate, the youngest in the system and the last of between 15 and 21 children to be released from the prison. Only after Mr. Khadr had agreed to plead guilty to terrorism – a dubious charge, given that his victims were soldiers, not civilians – was return to Canada even made a possibility.

“It is a sorry state of affairs when you have to be found guilty before you can be set free,” Mr. Stafford Smith said from his offices at Reprieve, the London-based penal-justice charity. “This is the system with which Canada has been complicit. I am sad that Canada has behaved so badly over Guantanamo. I have always held Canada in high esteem, but the country has let us (and the rule of law) down on this score.”

Mr. Stafford Smith points out that to continue to pretend that Omar Khadr was not a child soldier would represent an abandonment of core Canadian values – and of generally accepted morality.

“There were, we are told, equal reasons why the current pope was not considered responsible for his membership in the Hitler Youth when he was precisely the same age (15),” he notes. “Certainly we did not try the Pope at Nuremburg, thank goodness, and it is fairly ludicrous that the US decided to try Omar Khadr as if he were an adult.”

http://www.theglobea...article4579178/


  • 1

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#702 jmfaminoff

jmfaminoff

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,816 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 05

Posted 02 October 2012 - 07:26 AM

Good article. The contrast between the two cases is interesting. The question is whether Canada convicts minors as adults for heinous crimes like murder.
  • 0

#703 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,338 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:15 AM

Good article. The contrast between the two cases is interesting. The question is whether Canada convicts minors as adults for heinous crimes like murder.


Except that they miss the point that Neil served his entire sentence in Thailand and was only allowed to come once finished his sentence. Canada brought Khadr back before serving his setence.
  • 0

#704 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:19 AM

Except that they miss the point that Neil served his entire sentence in Thailand and was only allowed to come once finished his sentence. Canada brought Khadr back before serving his setence.


And you missed the point that Neil received a fair trial and Omar didn't.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#705 jmfaminoff

jmfaminoff

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,816 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 05

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:36 AM

And you missed the point that Neil received a fair trial and Omar didn't.

He was a noncombatant foreigner fighter found in the field participating in the battle. He does not dispute that. Omar had a lawyer and was represented at his trial. He agreed to a plea deal, pled guilty, and was sentenced. The problem most of us have is that it was a military tribunal, and not a criminal court.
  • 0

#706 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:57 AM

He was a noncombatant foreigner fighter found in the field participating in the battle. He does not dispute that. Omar had a lawyer and was represented at his trial. He agreed to a plea deal, pled guilty, and was sentenced. The problem most of us have is that it was a military tribunal, and not a criminal court.


He had no choice but not to dispute it. He was tortured as a minor, and then told any chance of freedom, ever, would be linked to his plea agreement, even though he and his lawyer adamantly had been saying that he wasn't fighting and that he didn't kill the US soldier.

You don't seem to get it....he did not have a trial. He had a military tribunal hearing that was set to keep him at Gitmo for life. You or I or anyone who found ourselves in that set of circumstances would have plead as well, in order to come home.

A military trial does not allow the same rights for an accused as a criminal court or military court would, and that's exactly why the U.S. kept him away from them.

FFS, they tried Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Federal Court in NY, but Omar Khadr was more dangerous than him to be tried in the U.S.??

There's a reason they didn't bring this case in front of a civilian or military court and that's because under the rules of evidence, Omar would have been likely found not guilty.

Edited by Sharpshooter, 02 October 2012 - 10:15 AM.

  • 1

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#707 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 02 October 2012 - 01:40 PM

He was a noncombatant foreigner fighter found in the field participating in the battle. He does not dispute that. Omar had a lawyer and was represented at his trial. He agreed to a plea deal, pled guilty, and was sentenced. The problem most of us have is that it was a military tribunal, and not a criminal court.

I seldom post here due to the number of pre-pubescent morons allowed to run loose at CDC without control (present company in this thread excluded of course) but I was asked to drop by and offer some thoughts on the Omar Kahdr case.

An extorted or coerced plea deal is proof of nothing - there is a reason real courts do not accept such evidence. As Khadr's former military defence counsel Marine Lieutenant Colonel Colby Vokey has stated publicly he would have advised Khadr to plead guilty to the JFK assassination to get out of that system that was stacked against him. In fact Khadr did plead guilty to to charges that had never even been laid against him as result of the plea agreement and as part of that plea agreement he had to promise to not sue the US in future. As the National Post wrote at the time of the plea:

This week, Omar Khadr was offered the following choice: plead guilty, or face two different routes to life in prison. He could go to trial, and thanks to a confession that would be laughed out of any real court of law, he'd probably be convicted. But even if the court somehow found him not guilty, the U.S. reserved the right to detain him indefinitely as an enemy combatant. The only sure way to get out of jail early was to tell his interrogators what they wanted to hear.

On Monday, Khadr was even forced to cop to other crimes, including the killing of two Afghan soldiers, something he wasn't even charged with, and for which the prosecution appears to have had no evidence. And, in a nice touch that Stalin would have appreciated, Khadr appears to have also been forced to sign away his right to sue his jailors for the various forms of deprivation and abuse that he was subject to.


The accusations against Khadr are bad, said Vokey, who was appointed in 2005 to defend him. But "we're really talking about the heart of what the Constitution says: Everyone is due a fair trial. Period."

And his assessment of the proceedings? Vokey said the Guantanamo Bay legal system "is horrific ... a complete sham."

As Vokey states:

(Khadr) didn't deserve to be treated like a "human mop" while being interrogated at Guantanamo Bay, said Colby Vokey, who was once Khadr's lead attorney before leaving the Marines this year to return home and join a prestigious Dallas law firm.


And the interrogation techniques?

Standing in his cramped office, bare of mementos he has yet to unpack, Vokey demonstrated how Khadr claims he was interrogated by U.S. authorities at Guantanamo.

His hands were shackled behind his back to his feet and the floor, Vokey said, forcing him to bend down awkwardly. A strobe light flashed on and off, and loud music blared nonstop. As Khadr crouched there for hours, he fell over every once in a while.

"They would come in, back into the room, and set him on his feet," Vokey said. "And he would fall down."

Eventually Khadr urinated on himself. Personnel came in, squirted cleanser on the floor, "then they grabbed Omar like a human mop and they mopped up the Pine-Sol and urine with Omar. And then they left him there and he was in these clothes for days."

At speaking engagements, Vokey asks his audience: "Was that torture or coercion?"

"I don't really care what you call it," he said, answering his own question. "But what I do know is any statement you take after you've done that to someone should never be used in anything you want to call a real trial."


And if fairness, justice, fundamental justice and due process do not float your boat.... how about enlightened self-interest? And why should the US military be concerned about the way they have treated Omar Khadr?

Vokey is not the only attorney to speak up -- last year he was among a group of Guantanamo defense lawyers honored by the American Bar Association as Criminal Defense Attorney of the Year. And even his most vocal opponent, the head of prosecutors at Guantanamo Bay, has since retired and testified about problems with the system.

A fair trial is critical, Vokey said, not just for Khadr, but for Americans.

"I don't want our Marines and soldiers going through the same thing when another country captures us," he said. "If we set aside all the international law, set aside our Constitution, make up crazy rules, use unlawful, coercive interrogation techniques and then try these guys in a sham trial system, then what are we going to expect when our guys get captured?"

http://www.cleveland...canadian_t.html

The problem was not that this was a military tribunal - the problem was that this was an illegal military tribunal that did not even pretend to have the most basic trappings of a lawful court/tribunal and violated what we in Canada refer to as fundamental justice and the US refers to as due process.

The military's incident report, filed by a soldier identified only as "Lt. Col. W," originally stated that someone who was subsequently killed threw the grenade - there was another adult alive and fighting at the time Speer was killed.. Several years later, however, the report was altered to state that the grenade was thrown by someone who was injured - to implicate the only survivor, Khadr. The "revised" version was backdated to cover up the change in the original. The defense had obtained a copy of the original report, which the government never intended to provide, when it was inadvertently included in some discovery filings. "W," who testified by video link, claimed he changed the report "for history's sake" because he believed at the time that Khadr - who he maintains threw the grenade - had died. But the same reason "W" adduced for believing Khadr had died casts doubt on whether he could have thrown the grenade. Photographs taken after the firefight, moments after the grenade was thrown, show Khadr, shot and buried face down in rubble. The soldier who discovered Khadr buried referred to an adult fighter who was alive and killed in the firefight after the grenade was thrown.

There have been two constant myths - Khadr was the only one who was alive when the grenade was thrown so who else could have done it and Khadr killed an unarmed combat medic. Speer was not unarmed, he was a Special Forces unit soldier who had received combat medic training (like members of such units they cross-train) but he was an ordinary combat soldier on that mission.

There has been evidence suppressed by the military tribunal that raises a reasonable doubt that Khadr threw the grenade.


Omar Khadr could not have possibly thrown the grenade that killed a U.S. soldier during a 2002 firefight because he was buried under the rubble of a collapsed roof, his lawyer argued in court yesterday, pointing to photos from the firefight that show Mr. Khadr under so much debris that a U.S. soldier inadvertently stepped on him.

But Colonel Patrick Parrish, the judge in Mr. Khadr's Guantanamo Bay military commissions hearing, banned Lieutenant-Commander Bill Kuebler from showing the photos in court, meaning the public did not get to see them.

"I don't want things shown that may not be admitted [as evidence]," Col. Parrish told a clearly exasperated Cdr. Kuebler, who tried for several minutes to change the judge's mind.

Asked afterward why the judge didn't allow him to show the photos, Cdr. Kuebler told reporters: "Because they show he's innocent."

In a rare occurrence, the chief and deputy chief of the defence staff at Guantanamo joined Cdr. Kuebler at a press conference after the court session to blast the judge's decision.


Also:


A report provided by a U.S. soldier casts doubt once more on the Pentagon's assertion that Canadian captive Omar Khadr threw a grenade that killed an American soldier.

A military court was told for the first time yesterday that Khadr, then 15, was buried under rubble from a collapsed roof before he was captured, which would suggest he could not have thrown the grenade.

A witness identified as Soldier No. 2 was said to have accidentally stepped on Khadr because he did not see him under the rubble.

The soldier "thought he was standing on a `trap door' because the ground did not seem solid," stated a motion submitted by Khadr's defence lawyers.

He then "bent down to move the brush away to see what was beneath him and discovered that he was standing on a person; and that Mr. Khadr appeared to be `acting dead,'" the motion continued.

That new version of what happened in Afghanistan on July 27, 2002, conflicts with reports from other soldiers who said Khadr was sitting up and conscious when he was shot twice in the back.

http://www.thestar.c.../article/553305

The photographs put lie to the official version of what occurred as contained in the OC-1 CITF witness report where it is claimed that upon entering the hut -

"When the dust cleared, OC-1 saw Khadr crouched on his knees facing away from the action and wounded by shrapnel that had just permanently blinded his left eye, and shot him twice in the back."

The other witness statement -
(H)e saw a second man sitting up facing away from him leaning against brush. This man later identified as KHADR, was moving. (- identified this man as the man photographed in Attachment 8.) ] - fired two rounds both of which struck KHADR in the back. - estimated that from the initiation of the approach to the compound to shooting KHADR took no more than 90 seconds, with all of the events inside the compound happening in less than a minute.

We know these statements are false because the photographs subsequent to the claimed events show Khadr was completely covered by rubble and soldier 2 has stated he discovered Khadr only when he stood on top of the rubble covering him. When Khadr was dug out of the rubble he had no bullet wounds to his back.

Soldier 2 also stated that after the grenade was thrown that killed Speer:
He heard moaning coming from the back of the compound. The dust rose up from the ground and began to clear, he then saw a man facing him lying on his right side. - identified this man as the man photographed in Attachment 7). The man had an AK 47 on the ground beside him and the man was moving. - fired one round striking the man in the head and the movement ceased.

“One of the myths that’s grown up around this case is that Omar Khadr must have thrown the hand grenade because Omar Khadr was the only [person] alive in the compound ... and the fact is that’s just not true,” (Khadr's) lawyer said.

“There was at least one other person alive, and fighting, when Omar Khadr supposedly hurled this hand grenade that killed Sgt. Speer.”

It was after this that Soldier 2 discovered Khadr buried under rubble when he stood upon him.

The photographs that were taken at the time of Kahdr's capture which show he had leg wounds and shrapnel wounds to his face and eyes but not the two bullet wounds in his back.

Also the pictures show another adult soldier (the one shot in the head as the soldiers entered the compound) on the ground next to the buried Khadr - which was contrary to what the prosecution had been claiming - saying Khadr was the only enemy soldier alive at the time of the attack.

Those are the pictures the military tribunal refused to allow into evidence.


Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr was buried face down under rubble, blinded by shrapnel and crippled, at the time the Pentagon alleges he threw a grenade that fatally wounded a U.S. soldier, according to classified photographs and defence documents obtained by the Star.

The pictures, which were taken following a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan and have never been made public, show the then 15-year-old Canadian covered in bricks and mud from the roof of a bombed compound.

The body of an adult fighter – the unnamed man Khadr's lawyers contend could have thrown the grenade that killed U.S. Sgt. Christopher Speer – lies beside him.

The photographs were part of an 18-page submission presented earlier this year by Khadr's former military defence team to an Obama administration task force investigating Guantanamo.

While the defence's argument that it was physically impossible for Khadr to have thrown the grenade first surfaced at a Guantanamo hearing last year, the military judge would not release the photos or declassify the written submissions.


Cdr. Kuebler argued in court yesterday afternoon for the production of a witness - "Soldier No. 2" - who the lawyer said will present a different account of events than the one given so far, in which Mr. Khadr is found not sitting up, but buried under the rubble of a recently collapsed roof . (The U.S. military bombed the compound Mr. Khadr was staying in before the soldiers moved in.)

"Soldier No. 2 will establish the [other version of events] is false," Cdr. Kuebler told the court.

The defence lawyer had planned to show to the entire court, which included myriad reporters and other observers, photos that he believes support this account, including one where Mr. Khadr is clearly buried beneath the rubble.


Khadr's military defence lawyers made motions to have "soldier 2" identified and appear as witness but the military tribunal refused the motions as well as refusing to declassify the witness statements and other military and criminal investigation documents.
http://www.defense.g...dacted) (2).pdf

The above ruling is almost Kafkaesque - the military refused to disclose the identity of "soldier 2" and then the presiding judge used the fact the defence had not spoken with soldier 2 to get a "proffer" (synopsis) of his testimony to bar the evidence. :sadno:

The presiding member then goes on to say the defence should seek the cooperation of the prosecution - the very persons who had been blocking the identification of "soldier 2" and resisting his appearance before the tribunal.

And the combat report was changed to hide the fact that there was second person alive at the time Speer was killed:


The disclosure came on a day Mr. Khadr’s defence lawyers also highlighted a critical change made to a senior commander’s report of the firefight in which the Canadian is accused of killing a U.S. soldier in a grenade attack.

Speaking afterward with reporters, Mr. Khadr’s military lawyer, navy Lt.-Cmdr. Bill Kuebler, charged the change helped what he called the U.S. government’s “manufactured” theory about what happened the day of Mr. Khadr’s capture.

The author of the combat report, identified as Lt.-Col. “W,” initially wrote July 28, 2002, that another U.S. operative subsequently killed the fighter who “engaged” the deceased U.S. soldier, Lt.-Cmdr. Kuebler told the commission.

About two months later, a new report -- bearing the same July date -- emerged saying the fighter had not been killed.

This is significant, because a separate confidential combat report inadvertently released to journalists last month revealed for the first time that a second fighter had been present alongside Khadr at the time the grenade was thrown. That fighter, who was killed, could be the person Col. “W” refers to in his first draft.

Lt.-Cmdr. Kuebler noted that Ottawa’s inquiries to the U.S. government about why it was holding Toronto-born Khadr -- then just 15 -- could have provoked the change as the U.S sought to justify the detention. If so, the U.S. government will have effectively lied to the Canadian government.

“Omar is captured and detained, there is pressure from the Canadian government to know about the circumstances of his capture . . . there is a story generated to respond to those allegations,” said Lt.-Cmdr. Kuebler. “It turns out we now know that that story was false.”

Lt.-Cmdr. Kuebler said when the prosecution provided the defence with both versions of the report, he was told Col. W “updated the document to make it more accurate.”

“The point is an official U.S. government document was retroactively altered to be consistent with the proposition that Omar had thrown this hand grenade,” Lt.-Cmdr. Kuebler said.


Under any legitimate and lawful civilian court procedure this would raise more than a reasonable doubt. Under any properly constituted judicial tribunal the chance of him being convicted based on the evidence that is known would be slim and none and slim has long since left the building.

This tribunal was in violation of international law and created by the US congress. Even more to the point the charge of murder in violation of the law of war which were laid against Omar Khadr were a fantasy construct by the US.

As law professor Audrey Macklin of the University of Toronto has noted Omar Khadr is unique in the world as he is the only person convicted of the particular offence of "murder in violation of the laws of war" created by the US.

Per Jason Ralph who is a professor in international relations at the University of Leeds. He is an expert in the fields of international law, American foreign policy, human rights and the war on terror.

The news that the youngest of the Guantánamo detainees, Omar Khadr, has been sentenced to eight years in a maximum security prison for the killing of US special forces medic Christopher Speer is a reminder that some of the more contentious practices in America's war on terror continue. The charges against Khadr reflect US attempts to rewrite international law – and the implications for the laws of war are potentially profound.

Khadr's case was heard by a military commission rather than a federal court, and rights groups have consistently denounced the procedures leading up to the plea bargain. Of course, President Obama promised to close Guantánamo Bay within a year of taking office. Now, at the mid-point of his first term, 174 detainees remain in the camp, and the plan to close it either by repatriating them, prosecuting them in federal courts, or transferring them to a "supermax" prison on the mainland, has stalled because of political opposition.

The Obama administration justifies the use of military commissions and what it calls "prolonged detention" by referring to the president's war powers, which, it reminds us, were delegated by Congress when it passed the Authorisation to Use Military Force (AUMF) on 18 September 2001. It uses the same argument to justify the equally contentious practice of "targeted killing".

Liberals continue to argue that such actions are illegal outside the battlefield, or that they can only be justified in circumstances when there is no other way of preventing a terrorist atrocity. If there is one single, compelling piece of evidence that the post 9/11 American exception has outlasted the Bush administration, then its successor's continued reliance on the AUMF is it.

Much of the controversy surrounding Khadr related to his age at the time he was detained on the Afghan battlefield: he was 15. Given his juvenile status, at the time he threw the grenade that killed Speer, he should have been subject to a different judicial process. There are other aspects of the case that attract attention, including the Canadian government's refusal to request extradition and its role, now apparent in facilitating the plea bargain, as well as what should have been the admissibility of a confession allegedly extracted through torture.

What has not been reported so widely, however, is the nature of the charges against Khadr and the impact his guilty plea could have on the laws of war.

The issue here is that "murder in violation of the laws of war" – the charge laid against Khadr – is not recognised internationally as a war crime. Following the Bush administration's lead, the US Congress insisted in the 2009 Military Commission Act that any civilian targeting an American soldier was an unprivileged belligerent guilty of murder or attempted murder. But "unprivileged belligerent" is not a category of combatant defined in the laws of war.

Under the Geneva conventions, violent individuals are either combatants or civilians. As an enemy combatant, one would have expected Khadr (age aside) to be targeting US soldiers. The only way the US government could have prosecuted him under the laws of war, therefore, was to charge him with killing while disguised as a civilian or with "perfidy".

As the defence counsel argued in the similar case of Mohammed Jawad, however, al-Qaida fighters do not have uniforms to give up, so their civilian appearance was not a disguise. They were, therefore, in the eyes of the laws of war, civilians. As a non-combatant throwing a grenade, Khadr could certainly have been prosecuted for murder – but not under the laws of war and not in a military commission. He should have been due a trial in the civilian courts of Afghanistan, the US or Canada, where the rules of evidence would have been very different.

The implication of finding a civilian guilty of murder in violation of the laws of war is significant. It is another instance where the US has "militarised" civilian crimes. Other detainees, for instance, have been found guilty by military commission for providing material support for terrorism, and rights groups continue to fear that the US interpretation of "enemy combatant" is now so broad that a proverbial "little old lady in Switzerland" giving to a charity with armed Islamist connections could be tried in a military commission.

Above all, the Khadr ruling is a case where the US has pursued its own definition of the laws of war. "Murder in violation of the laws of war" was codified by the US Congress alone, and many experts consider it a rank misinterpretation of international law. If other states adopt the American example, then we may look back at the Khadr trial as the moment when a new form of war crime was created, unilaterally and for the expediency of the world's pre-eminent military power.


The US actually began referring the Gitmo detainees to civilian courts but the problem would be the prosecution would be unable to obtain a convictions because real courts would not allow coerced confessions to be tendered. In the result the US immediately shut down real trials and went back to the kangaroo court system of Military Tribunal Commissions where any evidence the military wanted could be tendered, exculpatory evidence could be excluded or ignored and the guilty verdict was pre-determined. A number of military lawyers (including some connected directly to the Khadr case resigned in disgust and have been outspoken in their criticisms of the Military Commission Tribunal system.. These were officers who swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and were appalled at what was going on.

A US civil court would never have countenanced the evidence extracted by abuse and torture to sustain a conviction.

This occurred in New York state where Ahmed Ghailani, who was implicated in the 1998 terrorist bombings of the United States Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania that killed 224 people, including 12 Americans was put on trial civilly and not under the kangaroo court dreamt up by the US government and administered with no real legal safeguards by the US military.

Ahmed Ghailani was the first former Guantanamo Bay detainee to be tried in federal criminal court and was found guilty on a single conspiracy charge on November 17, 2010 but cleared on 284 other counts.

The court had problems with the evidence tendered by the prosecutors. They rejected the evidence that was "fruit of the poisonous tree" obtained by torture.

Analysis of the verdict is likely to focus on U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan's decision to exclude the testimony of a Tanzanian whom the prosecution had described as a potentially "giant witness." The man was expected to say that he sold Ghailani explosives used in the attack.

But the judge ruled that the government learned of the witness only through the use of coercive interrogations at CIA prisons and that the participation of the witness would taint the process.

"The court has not reached this conclusion lightly," Kaplan wrote, barring the testimony. "It is acutely aware of the perilous nature of the world we live in. But the constitution is the rock upon which our nation rests. We must follow it not only when it is convenient, but when fear and danger beckon in a different direction." The prosecution did not seek to introduce any statements Ghailani made to the CIA.


Luckily for the US the Khadr military tribunal was not bound by such legal technicalities. And in Khadr's case the only real evidence was his coerced statements to his torturers as there was conflicting evidence from the soldiers who witnessed the firefight and photo evidence that supported the evidence that an adult soldier was alive and fighting when the compound was breached, not just Khadr as the military prosecutors tried to claim. That witness only identified as "Soldier 2" (believed to be a Delta Force soldier) had his evidence come to light when military prosecutors inadvertently included his statement in a package of other documents.
http://www.thestar.c...-of-u-s-soldier

In Khadr's case the military prosecutors ably aided and abetted by the military tribunal fought to prevent "Soldier 2" being called as witness for the defence and refused to identify him or order the defence have access to him. And the tribunal granted immunity to the interrogators of Omar Khadr for any testimony they would give so they could not be prosecuted for war crimes or for torturing Khadr..

Here is how some view the Ahmed Ghailani verdict. Posted Image

Republican lawmakers, however, said the verdict should force the administration to abandon the civilian trials. "I am disgusted at the total miscarriage of justice today in Manhattan's federal civilian court," said Rep. Peter T. King (N.Y.), the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee. "This tragic verdict demonstrates the absolute insanity of the Obama administration's decision to try al-Qaeda terrorists in civilian courts."


As retired Rear Admiral John Hutson, who served as a Judge Advocate in the United States Navy from 1973‐2000 and as the Judge Advocate General of the Navy from 1997‐2000 said in his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 7, 2009:

If the point of this exercise is to create a court system that will ensure convictions of alleged terrorists against whom we don't have sufficient admissible evidence, then we have missed the point. You can't have a legitimate court unless you are willing to risk an acquittal. If you aren't willing to accept the possibility that a jury will acquit the accused based on the evidence fairly presented, then it isn't really a court. It's a charade.

The corollary to that is that you can't have a real court if the rules of evidence and procedure are so stacked against the defendant that he has no real chance to present his case or defend against the government's case. The admissible evidence against him based on the facts may be so overwhelming that conviction is assured but that must be the consequence of facts, not rules of evidence tilted in favor of the prosecution.


And as both former military prosecutors and defence counsel have pointed out in detail that is precisely the system that was in place at Guantanamo Bay and resulted in cooked evidence, lack of disclosure of exculpatory evidence and coerced confessions and a coerced guilty plea from Omar Khadr.

As Admiral Hutson points out this is not a real court... a legitimate court - it cannot be so under these abhorrent conditions. Much better to get a pre-determined guilty verdict in a system totally rigged against an accused prepared to accept torture and coerced confessions and pleas, eh? The US should be ashamed of itself because it has let the terrorists succeed and put lie to the rights freedoms for which it claims to be fighting. Hypocrites of the first order.

In July, 2006, the United Nations called for the closure of Guantanamo Bay, terming the indefinite detention of individuals without a charge “a violation of the convention against torture.” Two months later, more than 600 U.S. legal scholars and jurists called on Congress not to enact the Military Commissions Act of 2006, as it would rob detainees of fundamental protections provided by domestic and international law.

This act allowed prosecutors to use evidence gleaned from abusive interrogations, including coercion and torture. The commissions also sabotaged individuals’ ability to defend themselves by barring access to exculpatory evidence known to the U.S. government. In Khadr’s case, documents used as evidence for war-crimes charges, laid in February, 2007, have been altered.

In December, 2007, Colonel Morris Davis, then chief military prosecutor of the military tribunals, resigned in protest over blatant political interference. “It’s a disgrace to call it a military commission,” he said. “It is a political commission.”

No international court or Western country has prosecuted a child offender for alleged war crimes for over 60 years. The guilty plea makes the US the first Western nation since World War II to convict someone for acts committed as a child in a war crimes tribunal.

Child soldiers are war crime victims - that is the whole rationale for the protocol and the international community signed on to not prosecute child soldiers.

You do not get to say hey great it applies just to some countries. If the person is a child soldier as is Omar Khadr you should not ignore the law to pursue an clearly illegal and immoral prosecution and the government of Canada was the only western nation that stood idly by while other western nations repatriated 500 of their citizens.

It is huge black mark against the Harper government that unlike all other western countries including Great Britain, Australia, France, Sweden etc. their citizens were all removed from Gitmo and returned to their home country... and none of those returnees were child soldiers like Omar Khadr.
  • 2
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#708 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    LEGENDARY POSER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,694 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 02 October 2012 - 02:19 PM

*
POPULAR

I am above this place, but someone keeps emailing me saying I should come post all this stuff, so here I am to post it. Instead of just having the conversation in private, I will have the conversation here, even though I am above it.

Wet, who is it that keeps emailing to you to come back to CDC?

You should really just ask them to stop.
  • 5
Posted Image

 
i'm not alone; i'll never be
 

#709 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 02 October 2012 - 02:24 PM

I am above this place, but someone keeps emailing me saying I should come post all this stuff, so here I am to post it. Instead of just having the conversation in private, I will have the conversation here, even though I am above it.

Wet, who is it that keeps emailing to you to come back to CDC?

You should really just ask them to stop.

Why?

You are opposed to becoming informed and educated on a complex matter with overlapping legal issues??

If the person who asked me to post in this thread wishes to identify himself/herself - that person is free to do so.
  • 3
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#710 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 02 October 2012 - 02:43 PM



Behind the facade of David Hicks’ guilty plea

1 June 2007, 05:20PM







Simon Morrison, a practising solicitor and National President of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, has the facts on the incarceration of David Hicks. He looks at what lies behind his guilty plea.

This article was first published in the June/July 2007 issue of the Human Rights Defender, AIA's bi-monthly publication.

Just recently there was one Australian who needed the assistance of the Australian Lawyers Alliance more than any other - and that was David Hicks.

He was processed through a military commissions system that is so unjust the governments of the United States and United Kingdom will not subject their own citizens to it.

However, the Australian Government allowed David Hicks to remain imprisoned for more than five years, without valid charge, only to be processed in an unfair and unreasonable system.

In its Executive Summary, the US Manual for Military Commissions states that it affords all the judicial guarantees that are recognised as indispensable by civilised people.

In late January, the Australian Lawyers Alliance put together a panel of expert lawyers to monitor the new regulations announced by the US Office of the Military Commissions.

We took the step of establishing the review panel given the failure of government officials to support an Australian citizen in foreign legal proceedings.

In our opinion, it was quite clear from the beginning that the rules Hicks would be tried under amounted to little more than a kangaroo court.

There are three major points that need to be made about the rules of the military commission. Firstly, the charges laid against David Hicks were allowed to be retrospective. Secondly, hearsay evidence was allowed. And thirdly, evidence gained under coercion was admissible.

In the end, it did not matter. David Hicks got out of there any way he could.

The charges he faced were, from a legal perspective, a worry as well.

The offence of 'providing material support for terrorism' is clearly retrospective in its application to David Hicks. Proceeding with a trial on the basis of this charge was in clear violation of international treaties to which Australia and the United States are parties and contravenes the Australian Criminal Code.

David Hicks ended up agreeing to a plea bargain, where in exchange for a guilty plea, he would be able to come home and spend the remainder of his nine-month sentence in an Australian jail.

Adelaide lawyer Stephen Kenny, who represented David Hicks for three years from 2002, said although he was surprised by the guilty plea, he could understand the circumstances that may have led to the outcome.

David Hicks had been incarcerated for more than five years when he appeared before a military commission, and if he or someone else had challenged the validity of the system he was being processed by, it could have seen his trial suspended indefinitely.

He has agreed to not communicate with the media for a year and stated he had never been illegally treated while in US custody.

David Hicks cannot sue due to the conditions he faced while incarcerated, must pretty much stay in Australia for fear of further arrest, and admit he pleaded guilty voluntarily.

Since this deal was made the Australian Attorney-General, Mr Philip Ruddock, has admitted the gag order on David Hicks would not be enforceable and the US would only be able to act on any breach of the agreement if David Hicks came within their reach.

The Australian Government's inaction over David Hicks' ongoing incarceration, and the way his time in Guantanamo Bay came to an end, is a threat to the human rights of each and every Australian.

About the Australian Lawyers Alliance

The Australian Lawyers Alliance is an association of lawyers and other professionals dedicated to the protection and promotion of justice, freedom and the rights of the individual. Its members work in the areas of personal injury law, criminal law, immigration law, Indigenous law, elder law, employment law, laws affecting human rights and all types of law where ordinary people need assistance against the legal tactics of the state and big corporations

this makes me ashamed to be an australian , when will both our countries remove our heads from up america's ass

and so we go on with our lives we know the truth but prefer lies .

Edited by The Ratiocinator, 02 October 2012 - 02:49 PM.

  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#711 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    LEGENDARY POSER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,694 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 02 October 2012 - 02:46 PM

Why?

You are opposed to becoming informed and educated on a complex matter with overlapping legal issues??

If the person who asked me to post in this thread wishes to identify himself/herself - that person is free to do so.


I'm not opposed to you informing or educating me, or anyone else at all. In fact, it's quite useful.

What I am opposed to, and what I thought I specifically addressed is why you have to introduce each of your lectures with "I'm above this, but since you all need it, here I am..."

Couldn't you just type this into your personal conversations and have it copy/pasted here, if you hate this place so much?

I don't want to derail the thread, I just don't get why you've gotta start almost every one of your posts with that garbage.
  • 1
Posted Image

 
i'm not alone; i'll never be
 

#712 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 02 October 2012 - 02:51 PM

I'm not opposed to you informing or educating me, or anyone else at all. In fact, it's quite useful.

What I am opposed to, and what I thought I specifically addressed is why you have to introduce each of your lectures with "I'm above this, but since you all need it, here I am..."

Couldn't you just type this into your personal conversations and have it copy/pasted here, if you hate this place so much?

I don't want to derail the thread, I just don't get why you've gotta start almost every one of your posts with that garbage.

Because if I do not post such a disclaimer I get messages from posters welcoming me back as regular CDC poster as has occurred in the past. Consider it an example of truth in advertising.

Now I only do guest columns at CDC - by request.

The request was that I post in this thread, not engage a one on one conversation.

Feel free to ignore my posts if they unduly distress you.

BTW if you were worried about derailing the thread perhaps you should not have made the initial post.

Edited by Wetcoaster, 02 October 2012 - 02:53 PM.

  • 4
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#713 gurn

gurn

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,346 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 11

Posted 02 October 2012 - 03:41 PM

Thanks for the post Wetcoaster.
Unfortunately too many people just don't see or care.
Hard,troubling times are coming if people don't start standing up to corrupt power.
  • 0

#714 jmfaminoff

jmfaminoff

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,816 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 05

Posted 02 October 2012 - 07:25 PM

Wetcoaster, you should have been his attorney. You know I respect you but there is nothing like reading your filibuster. After 2006, Boumediene v. Bush, he had the right to habeas corpus. Regardless of how stacked the deck was, his attorney never pursued that avenue in the public courts--where were the lawyers lined up to take his case?

His attorney can say whatever he wants now. But at the end of the day his attorney was the one who advised his client to plead, and Kadhr pled out. If you are not guilty, you do not plead guilty or no contest, or make a plea deal.

Edited by jmfaminoff, 02 October 2012 - 07:27 PM.

  • 0

#715 Blackberries

Blackberries

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,407 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 07

Posted 02 October 2012 - 07:49 PM

Awesome post wet, Always a pleasure to read your stuff. Despite other sentiment, your writing is still very much appreciated at CDC.
  • 1
Posted Image
Movember Kassian

#716 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 02 October 2012 - 08:19 PM

Wetcoaster, you should have been his attorney. You know I respect you but there is nothing like reading your filibuster. After 2006, Boumediene v. Bush, he had the right to habeas corpus. Regardless of how stacked the deck was, his attorney never pursued that avenue in the public courts--where were the lawyers lined up to take his case?

His attorney can say whatever he wants now. But at the end of the day his attorney was the one who advised his client to plead, and Kadhr pled out. If you are not guilty, you do not plead guilty or no contest, or make a plea deal.

in ordinary circumstances before a real court of law that may be true.

However in this case the deck was so stacked and facing a kangaroo court the only feasible way out was the plea agreement otherwise he was never getting out.

I would not be surprised to see a suit filed here to set aside the plea agreement and since the Canadian government was involved in it, that gives the Canadian courts sufficient jurisdiction to act IMHO. Just last night on CBC his lead counsel, John Norris dd not rule out such a suit and Eddie Greenspan offered a similar opinion.

BTW Khadr's counsel did file as one of the series of the habeas corpus applications - there were actually three habeas applications on behalf of Omar Khadr. Here are the two main ones:
http://www.law.utoro...r_USSCBrief.pdf
http://www.law.utoro...beas-Motion.doc

There was an amicus brief in support of one of the habeas applications filed by Canadian Parliamentarians and Professors of Law:
http://www.law.utoro...AMICUSBRIEF.pdf

His lawyers did a superb job given that the game was rigged against Khadr from the get-go.

And the fact that the Canadian government did nothing despite urging by both his Canadian and US military defence counsel is abhorrent.

Edited by Wetcoaster, 02 October 2012 - 08:26 PM.

  • 2
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#717 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 02 October 2012 - 08:55 PM

Thanks for the info Wet....much appreciated.

I am above this place, but someone keeps emailing me saying I should come post all this stuff, so here I am to post it. Instead of just having the conversation in private, I will have the conversation here, even though I am above it.

Wet, who is it that keeps emailing to you to come back to CDC?

You should really just ask them to stop.


I asked him to come back and provide some info to the current conversation that I and a few other members were having.

What we could do without however, is your prepubescent attempt to derail this thread with your usual yammering.

Why not go play in the music thread, where you can pretentiously tell those in the thread what your song of the year or decade or week is and why and let the adults talk?
  • 1

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#718 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 02 October 2012 - 08:58 PM

in ordinary circumstances before a real court of law that may be true.

However in this case the deck was so stacked and facing a kangaroo court the only feasible way out was the plea agreement otherwise he was never getting out.

I would not be surprised to see a suit filed here to set aside the plea agreement and since the Canadian government was involved in it, that gives the Canadian courts sufficient jurisdiction to act IMHO. Just last night on CBC his lead counsel, John Norris dd not rule out such a suit and Eddie Greenspan offered a similar opinion.

BTW Khadr's counsel did file as one of the series of the habeas corpus applications - there were actually three habeas applications on behalf of Omar Khadr. Here are the two main ones:
http://www.law.utoro...r_USSCBrief.pdf
http://www.law.utoro...beas-Motion.doc

There was an amicus brief in support of one of the habeas applications filed by Canadian Parliamentarians and Professors of Law:
http://www.law.utoro...AMICUSBRIEF.pdf

His lawyers did a superb job given that the game was rigged against Khadr from the get-go.

And the fact that the Canadian government did nothing despite urging by both his Canadian and US military defence counsel is abhorrent.


As is the current demonization of Omar from the moment he entered Canada, by the current Harper Gov't by the equally abhorrent Vic Toews.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#719 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:31 PM

As is the current demonization of Omar from the moment he entered Canada, by the current Harper Gov't by the equally abhorrent Vic Toews.

And Toews may have really put his foot in it (legally speaking).

Once Khadr's transfer was signed by Toews, he was under the jurisidiction of a quasi-judicial tribunal... the National Parole Board as well as the Correctional Service of Canada. The rule of thumb is that the executive should not be commenting upon such cases. It raises issues of reasonable apprehension of bias, conflict of interest, etc. And in this case it is even worse.

Remember who has jurisdiction over the the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board ( the name rhymes with Mick Woes) and NPB members are appointed by Cabinet.

And on the braying by Toews:

"Now that he's back in Canada the government should simply clam up. It has no more duty in regards to this individual. He's now within the process of our judicial system and in that context the executive has no right to interfere in the judicial process," Dallaire said.


And Khadr's counsel, Brydie Bethell, makes the same point and may be laying the groundwork for a bias claim with the National Parole Board and/or the courts.

"In my view, it's quite impermissible for a member of government and a minister of the Crown to be interfering in any way with corrections officials' jobs," Bethell said, adding that it's "very unfortunate" that the minister is "continuing to demonize Omar in the media."


And it seems the federal government realizes that it may have created more problems for itself. Toews' office said Monday that he won't be commenting further on Khadr's case.

That announcement is well past time.
http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ill-monday.html
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#720 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:42 PM

And Toews may have really put his foot in it (legally speaking).

Once Khadr's transfer was signed by Toews, he was under the jurisidiction of a quasi-judicial tribunal... the National Parole Board as well as the Correctional Service of Canada. The rule of thumb is that the executive should not be commenting upon such cases. It raises issues of reasonable apprehension of bias, conflict of interest, etc. And in this case it is even worse.

Remember who has jurisdiction over the the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board ( the name rhymes with Mick Woes) and NPB members are appointed by Cabinet.

And on the braying by Toews:

"Now that he's back in Canada the government should simply clam up. It has no more duty in regards to this individual. He's now within the process of our judicial system and in that context the executive has no right to interfere in the judicial process," Dallaire said.


And Khadr's counsel, Brydie Bethell, makes the same point and may be laying the groundwork for a bias claim with the National Parole Board and/or the courts.

"In my view, it's quite impermissible for a member of government and a minister of the Crown to be interfering in any way with corrections officials' jobs," Bethell said, adding that it's "very unfortunate" that the minister is "continuing to demonize Omar in the media."


And it seems the federal government realizes that it may have created more problems for itself. Toews' office said Monday that he won't be commenting further on Khadr's case.

That announcement is well past time.
http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ill-monday.html




Excellent. I hope they are able to put forth the bias argument in a claim with the NPB. I hope litigation isn't stopped there either. A civil suit against Toews on any grounds they can conjure up because of his statements, would certainly put a smile on my face.

And the only terroristic entity Toews was ever in danger from was his big fat foot in his big fat mouth.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.