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

#61 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 10:43 AM

You know what I find funny (ha ha) is that those who mock other's who seek the protection of their rights under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, will often be the first among the 'brave', 'free' and 'patriotic' to cry foul and wrap themselves in the Charter's protective blanket at the first sight of their own perceived oppression.

It never ceases to amaze me...the disconnect and hypocrisy.



Given that poor old Omar is most certainly an enemy combatant, and was at the time a couple years in age from being clearly guilty of TREASON (seems odd that young offenders act works for people that have been living in Afganistan for five years at a terrorist camp, but whatever), this is definately the test to see just how far people will go to ensure it's followed. You should be delighted.

With any luck he won't use his freedom, years of anger, and terrorist training to negative effect in what will be very much a new country for him.
  • 0

#62 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 10:45 AM

One thing that is forgotten here is that this murderer would not be alive today if it were not for the swift actions of his victim's buddies. They came to his aid and saved his life as their friend, his victim, bled out in front of them. By legal right, they could have 'taken care of him' right them and there, but they didn't. I assume they were ordered to capture as many AQ as they could, for the LOAC allowed them to engage their threat until it was dead.

He is a killer, a terrorist, and sadly, a Canadian. He's one lucky SOB.



Ya, the real lesson is in the future to just shoot any enemy child soldiers. That is unless you want them roaming the streets back home one day if you don't.
  • 2

#63 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,284 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 10:47 AM

Ya, the real lesson is in the future to just shoot any enemy child soldiers. That is unless you want them roaming the streets back home one day if you don't.

Fixed it for you. There is no way to tell his age in the heat of battle, with bullets, grenades, and orders being screamed about. This isn't xbox.

Edited by JAH, 26 October 2010 - 10:47 AM.

  • 2
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali

#64 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,284 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 10:50 AM

Ya, the real lesson is in the future to just shoot any enemy child soldiers. That is unless you want them roaming the streets back home one day if you don't.

Do you think the grenade that killed Speers was a pokemon grenade? Child soldier or not, the kid just killed a Special Forces soldier and was preparing to carry on the fight when he got shot. He was a threat, age be damned, and he could have legally, ethically, and morally been killed. There is not a court in the world that would bat an eyelash at it.
  • 2
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali

#65 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 26 October 2010 - 10:56 AM

Yes. The Law of Armed Conflict (which includes the GC) does not distinguish legal target from illegal one based on age. If you think about it it makes sense. If someone is shooting at you (or in the case of this POS, throwing a grenade), he is still a threat and you have the legal right to eliminate that threat.


Perhaps you can assist me in, in the case of this "POS", to show that he undoubedtly and actually threw a grenade.

Let me start with this...then you can respond about this "POS", and let me know if you're going to continue eating and regurgitating whatever horse**** the U.S. military and media continue to feed you.

Secret document casts doubt on Khadr's guilt

U.S. NAVAL BASE GUANTANAMO, Cuba -- A secret document accidentally released by the U.S. military Monday raises questions about whether someone other than Canadian terror suspect Omar Khadr could have thrown a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier during a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan.

Comprising a U.S. investigator’s report of his interview with the operative who wounded Khadr, the document reveals a second alleged al-Qaeda fighter was both alive and still fighting about the time the grenade was thrown.

The operative also testified Khadr had his back facing him when he hit the Canadian with two bullets. This could be significant because, the document additionally reveals, the U.S. soldier killed in the grenade attack had been behind the U.S. operative.

However, the document concludes that while the operative did not see Khadr throw the grenade, he believes the Canadian did it.

Officials for the military commission hearing Khadr’s case repeatedly called for the document’s return after realizing it had been attached to other court papers distributed to reporters.

They claimed it contained sensitive information and also that Khadr’s defence team had wanted none of the information revealed.

But Khadr’s lead military defence lawyer, Lt.-Cmdr. Bill Kuebler, told reporters he had no objections to the document’s release.

“This is a process that is designed to take place outside public view,” Kuebler said. “It’s not that the government shouldn’t be able to protect information when there is a legitimate need ... [rather] it’s the government’s overuse of classification.”

The drama unfolded after Khadr’s defence lawyers presented an array of arguments calling for dismissal of the war crimes and other charges against the Canadian.

Central to the bid is a claim Khadr, who was 15 at the time of the firefight, is protected by international law that says child soldiers should not be prosecuted as war criminals.

The military judge hearing the case will rule later on the arguments.

Khadr’s lawyers revealed late last year that the commission’s prosecutors had admitted to long knowing about a witness who could disprove the Pentagon’s claim the Canadian was illegally fighting American troops.

The U.S. operative whose testimony appears in the newly revealed document is not that witness, said Kuebler. But he added it could raise doubt about Khadr’s culpability in the grenade death of army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher J. Speer.

“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,” the lawyer said.

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

The prosecution had apparently given the defence full access to the document, but Kuebler said he’d agreed it could be withheld from public release because it had been marked FOUO -- meaning For Official Use Only.

Officials speaking on behalf of the commission suggested there might be repercussions if reporters repeated the information in the document, but said they would not force its surrender.

Canwest is withholding such information as names of special agents and units that are mentioned, as requested by the U.S. military.

The operative interviewed for the report is in any event identified only by the code OC-1. Given he was centrally involved with the U.S. forces that captured Khadr, he could have been a member of the U.S.’s crack Delta Force, or even a paramilitary with the Central Intelligence Agency.

http://www.nationalpost.com/newsletter/story.html?id=285287#ixzz13ULU93Qv



  • 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


#66 GarthButcher

GarthButcher

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 901 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 07

Posted 26 October 2010 - 10:57 AM

Wow, I don't know if the praise I gave for some of the level headed balanced opinions set off some warning bells for some users on here to rain down the close minded, laughable posts.

This poor guy has been tortured for eight years, and people are blaming him for it? That's truly sad!

The interview his mom and sis did with CBC had them in Burkas talking about how they were proud of him and that he was a freedom fighter. While in politics, these are legitimate opinions, in the post 9-11 climate, they alienated most Canadians. Certainly horrible optics for the government to step in and defend at the time.

Still, this is no reason to abandon our principles as a country and remain the only western nation to leave a (under aged) citizen in Gitmo for almost a decade.

As for having a government that respects international norms and values, it's true that you want a government that will stand up for what's unpopular...when it's right. Mocking the UN, working against climate change legislation, protection criminal acts on the part of states from being prosecuted, removing aid to developing nations, being an accessory to torture then cancelling parliament to not have to admit to it, increasing criminalization of minor offendors, building more prisons, attempting to reverse harm prevention strategies (and the list goes on), are not the values that most Canadians stand for.

I would love to see a majority of people here get thrown in jail without a trial or representation as a minor, be tortured for years and then forced to confess in a kangaroo court just to get transfered to a different prison, only to have people in your home country accuse you of treason and the like without a trial.

This guy is a victim, and is a black mark on all the values we should hold as sacred in Canada.
  • 0
Posted Image

The immortal Garth...awaiting his place in the ring of honour!

#67 Sterling Archer

Sterling Archer

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,279 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 26 October 2010 - 10:59 AM

Do you think the grenade that killed Speers was a pokemon grenade? Child soldier or not, the kid just killed a Special Forces soldier and was preparing to carry on the fight when he got shot. He was a threat, age be damned, and he could have legally, ethically, and morally been killed. There is not a court in the world that would bat an eyelash at it.

That's the thing people don't get. It really is black and white in war most of the time. It's kill or be killed, that's it. All we can see from home are the shades of grey.


And Garth, I completely agree. Terrorist or not, they're still human and therefore have rights. One of those is a fair trial.

Edited by Holmes, 26 October 2010 - 11:00 AM.

  • 0
EMBRACE THE HATE

#68 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,284 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 11:02 AM

Perhaps you can assist me in, in the case of this "POS", to show that he undoubedtly and actually threw a grenade.

Let me start with this...then you can respond about this "POS", and let me know if you're going to continue eating and regurgitating whatever horse**** the U.S. military and media continue to feed you.

[/size][/b]


The only issue this article casts doubt on is whether he threw the grenade. Two things that cannot be questioned is where he was (in Afghanistan) and what he was doing (fighting with AQ against Canadian and US troops in contravention of the GC and the LOAC). THAT is what makes him a POS.

You are looking at this from a civilian law perspective. What you don't realize is that in a military operation, the civilian law is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the target. He was a soldier (child or not) actively engaged in (illegal) combat with a force that was acting within Int'l Law. He was a legit target.

I personally don't care who threw the grenade. I thought the trial was bs. He should have been either killed on the battlefield or dealt with as a War Criminal (which he also was, btw).

Edited by JAH, 26 October 2010 - 11:07 AM.

  • 2
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali

#69 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 11:09 AM

Wow, I don't know if the praise I gave for some of the level headed balanced opinions set off some warning bells for some users on here to rain down the close minded, laughable posts.

This poor guy has been tortured for eight years, and people are blaming him for it? That's truly sad!

The interview his mom and sis did with CBC had them in Burkas talking about how they were proud of him and that he was a freedom fighter. While in politics, these are legitimate opinions, in the post 9-11 climate, they alienated most Canadians. Certainly horrible optics for the government to step in and defend at the time.

Still, this is no reason to abandon our principles as a country and remain the only western nation to leave a (under aged) citizen in Gitmo for almost a decade.

As for having a government that respects international norms and values, it's true that you want a government that will stand up for what's unpopular...when it's right. Mocking the UN, working against climate change legislation, protection criminal acts on the part of states from being prosecuted, removing aid to developing nations, being an accessory to torture then cancelling parliament to not have to admit to it, increasing criminalization of minor offendors, building more prisons, attempting to reverse harm prevention strategies (and the list goes on), are not the values that most Canadians stand for.

I would love to see a majority of people here get thrown in jail without a trial or representation as a minor, be tortured for years and then forced to confess in a kangaroo court just to get transfered to a different prison, only to have people in your home country accuse you of treason and the like without a trial.

This guy is a victim, and is a black mark on all the values we should hold as sacred in Canada.



If they are engaged in combat with us or our allies I would rather they just get shot during the battle. It would save a lot on court cases.

He is a victim of an increadibly bad upbringing but the main culprit already got shot. There's still time to deport the rest of the treasonous family.

I won't even get into the irony of calling someone who calls Omar a "freedom fighter" as having a legit political opinion, but people that don't agree with that are "close minded" with "laughable" opinions. The smug superiority is more than enough amusement in itself.
  • 1

#70 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,284 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 11:11 AM

If they are engaged in combat with us or our allies I would rather they just get shot during the battle. It would save a lot on court cases.

He is a victim of an increadibly bad upbringing but the main culprit already got shot. There's still time to deport the rest of the treasonous family.

I won't even get into the irony of calling someone who calls Omar a "freedom fighter" as having a legit political opinion, but people that don't agree with that are "close minded" with "laughable" opinions. The smug superiority is more than enough amusement in itself.

+1
  • 0
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali

#71 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 26 October 2010 - 11:19 AM

The only issue this article casts doubt on is whether he threw the grenade. Two things that cannot be questioned is where he was (in Afghanistan) and what he was doing (fighting with AQ against Canadian and US troops in contravention of the GC and the LOAC). THAT is what makes him a POS.

You are looking at this from a civilian law perspective. What you don't realize is that in a military operation, the civilian law is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the target. He was a soldier (child or not) actively engaged in (illegal) combat with a force that was acting within Int'l Law. He was a legit target.

I personally don't care who threw the grenade. I thought the trial was bs. He should have been either killed on the battlefield or dealt with as a War Criminal (which he also was, btw).


So would it fair to say that a rational and logical person such as yourself could have a 'doubt' about whether or not he threw a grenade, after saying that kid this killed a special forces soldier? Is it remotely possible that he did in fact not, throw the grenade while hiding out in a house filled with women and other children and some men?

The same factual evidence that goes against him throwing a grenade at U.S. soldiers, is from the same 'machine' that brought forth evidence about his 'training' and his 'al-queda' linkage and 'soldiering'. Do you believe everything the U.S. government and military tell you, is the gospel truth?

What's more likely, this was a battle hardened 15 year old Al Queda operative, or that the U.S. military fracked up, one of it's many fracked up and then covered up 'special forces' operations in a civilian area, and decided to hide, falsify, lose, destroy, create, evidence to support their claims? On a balance of probabilities, and with a past track record to guide your opinion, what do you honestly, through a bit of soul searching, really think could be more likely?


  • 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


#72 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 26 October 2010 - 11:24 AM

One thing that is forgotten here is that this murderer would not be alive today if it were not for the swift actions of his victim's buddies. They came to his aid and saved his life as their friend, his victim, bled out in front of them. By legal right, they could have 'taken care of him' right them and there, but they didn't. I assume they were ordered to capture as many AQ as they could, for the LOAC allowed them to engage their threat until it was dead.

He is a killer, a terrorist, and sadly, a Canadian. He's one lucky SOB.

Or if you go by the testimony of one of the US soldiers present, Khadr was shot in the back twice after he was found buried under rubble and captured. The same soldier says it would not not have been possible for Khadr to have thrown the grenade that killed Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer. That soldier also was the one who found Khadr buried when he was standing on the rubble and it began to shift. He first thought he was standing on a trap door until he pulled away the debris and found Khadr beneath.

BTW the military tribunal prevented that evidence from being presented.
  • 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.

#73 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,284 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 11:30 AM

So would it fair to say that a rational and logical person such as yourself could have a 'doubt' about whether or not he threw a grenade, after saying that kid this killed a special forces soldier? Is it remotely possible that he did in fact not, throw the grenade while hiding out in a house filled with women and other children and some men?

The same factual evidence that goes against him throwing a grenade at U.S. soldiers, is from the same 'machine' that brought forth evidence about his 'training' and his 'al-queda' linkage and 'soldiering'. Do you believe everything the U.S. government and military tell you, is the gospel truth?

What's more likely, this was a battle hardened 15 year old Al Queda operative, or that the U.S. military fracked up, one of it's many fracked up and then covered up 'special forces' operations in a civilian area, and decided to hide, falsify, lose, destroy, create, evidence to support their claims? On a balance of probabilities, and with a past track record to guide your opinion, what do you honestly, through a bit of soul searching, really think could be more likely?

1- Who cares who threw the grenade? I don't. The bigger issue is his active role as an AQ soldier fighting against a legitimate army in contravention of the Geneva Conventions, the LOAC, and the Cdn Crim Code. These are War Crimes, and IMHO, are FAR worse than plain old murder.

2- I don't believe everything anyone tells me. But he WAS there, he WAS armed, he WAS trained by AQ.

3- If you have evidence that the US made up this operation to cover up the shooting of Khadr, please post it. But remember that the easier way to do that would have been to either kill him or let him bleed out.

4- There is NO doubt in my mind that Khadr was there, and only a fool blinded by anti-US hatred and too many viewing of Loose Change would believe otherwise. Why save his life? Why not just shoot him? Trying a 15 year old Canadian was done to accomplish....what? Your 'theory' has no basis in reality.

Come back to earth, you're sounding very 'tinfoil hat'.
  • 0
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali

#74 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,284 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 11:32 AM

Or if you go by the testimony of one of the US soldiers present, Khadr was shot in the back twice after he was found buried under rubble and captured.

So, if I understand this (and I haven't read what you referred to so I'll take it at face value), that Khadr was shot, and he was then uncovered and then captured.

That's fine with me. Like I said, I think the murder trial was a farce. He should have been tried as a war criminal only for his violations of the LOAC. I couldn't care less about the murder rap.
  • 1
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali

#75 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 26 October 2010 - 11:40 AM

Given that poor old Omar is most certainly an enemy combatant, and was at the time a couple years in age from being clearly guilty of TREASON (seems odd that young offenders act works for people that have been living in Afganistan for five years at a terrorist camp, but whatever), this is definately the test to see just how far people will go to ensure it's followed. You should be delighted.

With any luck he won't use his freedom, years of anger, and terrorist training to negative effect in what will be very much a new country for him.

Khadr is only an "an alien unlawful enemy combatant" (per the charge sheet) under the tortured definition the US drummed up for this purpose. It is not certain to those who can read newspaper or follow the case.

The US courts pulled Bush up short on this so he changed the definition.


In 2002, Donald Rumsfeld famously called the detainees at Guantánamo "the worst of the worst." General Richard B. Myers, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned they were "very dangerous people who would gnaw hydraulic lines in the back of a C-17 to bring it down." These claims were designed to justify locking up hundreds of men and boys for years in small cages like animals.

George W. Bush lost no time establishing military commissions to try the very "worst of the worst" for war crimes. But four and a half years later, the Supreme Court decided in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that those commissions violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. So Bush dusted them off, made a few changes, and rammed his new improved military commissions through the Republican Congress last fall.

Only three detainees have been brought before the new commissions. One would expect the people Bush & Co. singled out for war crimes prosecutions would be high-level al-Qaeda leaders. But they weren't. The first was David Hicks, who was evidently not so dangerous. The U.S. military made a deal that garnered Hicks a misdemeanor sentence and sent him back to Australia .

Salem Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who used to be Osama bin Laden's chauffeur, was the second. Hamdan, whose case had been overturned by the Supreme Court, was finally brought before a military commission Monday for arraignment on charges of conspiracy and material support for terrorism.

The third defendant was Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen, who appeared for arraignment the same day as Hamdan. Khadr was 15 years old when he arrived at Guantánamo. He faced charges of conspiracy, murder, attempted murder, spying, and supporting terrorism.

On Monday, much to Bush's dismay, two different military judges dismissed both Hamdan's and Khadr's cases on procedural grounds.

The Military Commissions Act that Congress passed last year says the military commissions have jurisdiction to try offenses committed by alien unlawful enemy combatants. Unlawful enemy combatants are defined as (1) people who have engaged in hostilities or purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its allies; or (2) people who have been determined to be unlawful enemy combatants by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) or another competent tribunal. The Act says that a determination of unlawful enemy combatant status by a CSRT or another competent tribunal is dispositive.

But there are no "unlawful" enemy combatants at Guantánamo. There are only men who have been determined to be "enemy combatants" by the CSRTs. The Act declares that military commissions "shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants." In its haste to launch post-Hamdan military commissions, Bush's legal eagles didn't notice this discrepancy. That is why the charges were dismissed.

The Bush administration may try to fix the procedural problem and retry Khadr and Hamdan. But regardless of whether Guantánamo detainees are lawful or unlawful enemy combatants, the Bush administration's treatment of them violates the Geneva Conventions. Lawful enemy combatants are protected against inhumane treatment by the Third Geneva Convention on prisoners of war. Unlawful enemy combatants are protected against inhumane treatment by Common Article Three.
...
According to Donald Rehkopf, Jr., co-chair of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Military Law Committee, "The government has steadfastly refused to allow hearings on this alleged [unlawful enemy combatant] status because there are so many prisoners at GTMO that were not even combatants, much less 'unlawful' ones. Khadr is in an unusual situation because he has a viable 'self-defense' claim - we attacked the compound that he and his family were living in, and the fact that he was only 15 at the time."

If Khadr were a U.S. citizen, he would not even be subject to trial by court-martial because of his age. When the Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that children under 18 at the time of their crimes could not be executed, it said that youths display a "lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility" that "often results in impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions." A juvenile, the Court found, is more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and his character is not as well-formed as that of an adult. "From a moral standpoint," Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority, "it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed." The Bush administration's treatment of Omar Khadr flies in the face of the Court's reasoning.



Had Canada done what other western democracies did, Khadr would have been back in Canada years ago. It took the court to publicly shame the government into taking action - finally.
  • 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.

#76 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 26 October 2010 - 11:42 AM

Do you think the grenade that killed Speers was a pokemon grenade? Child soldier or not, the kid just killed a Special Forces soldier and was preparing to carry on the fight when he got shot. He was a threat, age be damned, and he could have legally, ethically, and morally been killed. There is not a court in the world that would bat an eyelash at it.

There is cogent evidence that Khadr did not throw the grenade. There was also evidence that he was buried by rubble and unable to "carry on the fight".
  • 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.

#77 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 26 October 2010 - 11:43 AM

Ya, the real lesson is in the future to just shoot any enemy child soldiers. That is unless you want them roaming the streets back home one day if you don't.

According to on US soldier present that was done. Khadr was shot twice in the back after capture.
  • 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.

#78 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,284 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 11:43 AM

Wet (or anyone): what did the US do to Khadr that amounts to torture? I have read that he was sleep deprived only. This WOULD be uncomfortable and not a lot of fun, but by any definiton I have read is not considered torture (heck, I am subjected to it on military exercises).

Was he tortured?
  • 1
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali

#79 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,284 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 11:45 AM

There is cogent evidence that Khadr did not throw the grenade. There was also evidence that he was buried by rubble and unable to "carry on the fight".

Which is why he was captured... once a soldier is Hors de Combat, he is not a legitimate target.

I noticed on your next post you referred to Khadr being captured and THEN shot...please post some kind of link to your ref.
  • 0
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali

#80 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 26 October 2010 - 11:46 AM

So, if I understand this (and I haven't read what you referred to so I'll take it at face value), that Khadr was shot, and he was then uncovered and then captured.

That's fine with me. Like I said, I think the murder trial was a farce. He should have been tried as a war criminal only for his violations of the LOAC. I couldn't care less about the murder rap.

The claim is that he was shot after being pulled out of the rubble.
  • 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.

#81 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,284 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 11:47 AM

The claim is that he was shot after being pulled out of the rubble.

Claimed by whom? Proof please.

editted to add:

It makes NO sense to capture him, THEN shoot him, THEN save his life. Obviously, if they shoot him in battle it's a necessity, and under the GC they are required to provide aid to him post-battle. So if they shot him, THEN captured him, THEN saved his life, I can see and understand that. What makes no sense is to go to the extreme measures to capture him and THEN shoot him (a clear violation of the LOAC) and then to save his life. If they wanted him dead, why save him? If they shot him after they captured him, and let him die, who's going to prove that this was the sequence of events?

Makes no logical sense.

Edited by JAH, 26 October 2010 - 11:56 AM.

  • 1
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali

#82 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 26 October 2010 - 12:24 PM

Claimed by whom? Proof please.

editted to add:

It makes NO sense to capture him, THEN shoot him, THEN save his life. Obviously, if they shoot him in battle it's a necessity, and under the GC they are required to provide aid to him post-battle. So if they shot him, THEN captured him, THEN saved his life, I can see and understand that. What makes no sense is to go to the extreme measures to capture him and THEN shoot him (a clear violation of the LOAC) and then to save his life. If they wanted him dead, why save him? If they shot him after they captured him, and let him die, who's going to prove that this was the sequence of events?

Makes no logical sense.

It makes sense if army medics appeared on the scene before he bled out or superior officers arrived and directed he be treated.

In any event the soldier who discovered Khadr by standing on his rubble covered body (identified only as "soldier 2") has said this is what happened. Also his version of events is borne out by 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 on the ground next to Khadr - which was contrary to what the prosecution had been claiming - saying Khadr was the only enemy soldier present at the time of the attack.

Those are the pictures the miltiary 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.
...
"Omar is actually innocent of the allegation," write Khadr's military-appointed lawyers, Cmdr. Walter Ruiz and Michel Paradis, along with his Canadian lawyers, Nathan Whitling and Dennis Edney.

"Omar suffered blinding shrapnel wounds and severe injuries to the legs during the course of a U.S. bombardment that crippled him before the attack."

The documents note that a soldier (My note - soldier 2) stood on top of Khadr's body before realizing someone was buried.
...
But one of the greatest challenges facing Obama's task force in deciding these cases is whether statements made during interrogations will be discounted in court as the product of torture.

U.S. Special Forces shot Khadr twice in the back during his capture, and he was brought to the American-operated prison in Bagram, Afghanistan, in critical condition. During the three months before his transfer to Guantanamo, he was interrogated more than 40 times for up to eight hours a day. His chief interrogator, Joshua Claus, was later court-martialled in connection with the death of an Afghan taxi driver at Bagram.

Khadr claims that during his questioning he was threatened with dogs, hung by his wrists or put in stress positions, despite his injuries. He also alleges he had a hood placed over his head and then soaked with water until he began to suffocate, and had LED lights shone into his eyes, injured by shrapnel.

"Though critics of the Bush administration have at times been too quick to use the word, this can only be described as torture," his lawyers argue in their submission.



Khadr's military defence lawyers made a number of motions to have "soldier 2" 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 him to get a "proffer" (synopsis) of his testimony. :blink:

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.

Under any reasonable civilian court procedure this would raise more than a reasonable doubt.

Plus case law requires the prosecution to turn over all evidence including exculpatory evidence to guarantee a fair trial. In Canada this flows from the Stinchcombe case and is a basic Charter right:

The Supreme Court delineated, in the Stinchcombe case (1991), the legal parameters of a full and complete defence, as guaranteed by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This had the effect of eliminating the legal uncertainty surrounding the disclosure of evidence by the Crown. The Court unanimously affirmed that the Crown had the duty to reveal its evidence to the defence in order that the accused could mount a full and complete defence. This right, which was already recognized by the common law, thereby acquired new vigour, constituting one of the pillars of criminal justice. Rather than being merely voluntary, the disclosure of Crown evidence became obligatory. The duty of disclosure embraced all evidence and all pertinent information. The initial disclosure must take place, moreover, before the accused elects his mode of trial or makes his plea. The absolute refusal to divulge can only be justified by the existence of a right to confidentiality. The discretionary power of the Crown, however, is subject to control by the trial judge.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0009192
  • 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.

#83 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 26 October 2010 - 12:27 PM

1- Who cares who threw the grenade? I don't. The bigger issue is his active role as an AQ soldier fighting against a legitimate army in contravention of the Geneva Conventions, the LOAC, and the Cdn Crim Code. These are War Crimes, and IMHO, are FAR worse than plain old murder.

2- I don't believe everything anyone tells me. But he WAS there, he WAS armed, he WAS trained by AQ.

3- If you have evidence that the US made up this operation to cover up the shooting of Khadr, please post it. But remember that the easier way to do that would have been to either kill him or let him bleed out.

4- There is NO doubt in my mind that Khadr was there, and only a fool blinded by anti-US hatred and too many viewing of Loose Change would believe otherwise. Why save his life? Why not just shoot him? Trying a 15 year old Canadian was done to accomplish....what? Your 'theory' has no basis in reality.

Come back to earth, you're sounding very 'tinfoil hat'.


1) Apparently you cared who threw the grenade. You claimed he threw the grenade and killed a special forces soldier...i could requote you if you'd like me too, it's no trouble at all....now you seem to be hedging a bit. But that's ok, i don't blame you. There's enough reasonable doubt for most logical people to have some doubt about Kadr actually being responsible for throwing the grenade that murdered a U.S. soldier. So, there 's the doubt about him throwing a grenade, about him murdering a soldier, about him actively fighting against the soldiers....that much we can at least reasonably argue...for the case of reasonable doubt. But you're more qorried that he may have contravened int'l and domestic law moreso? That's odd...I thought actively murdering someone was about the biggest crimeand concern in this case.

2) Ok, so you believe he was there...i'll concede and say I believe that too. No show me proof of his training, and that he was armed at the time...that is independent of the initial soldiers who captured him and from military intelligence that asserts his training and efficacy as bona fide Al Queda soldier. Any evidence will do. Please show me that you don't just believe everything the U.S. military says by giving me the reasons and evidence independent of your understanding from military sources...i'm actually really looking forward to it.

3) I have precedent as my evidence, i also have contradiction, refusal to admit evidence, and all the trimmings of a kangaroo court, i have the knowledge of war crimes and acts of homicide and fratricide, coverups by the U.S. military...it's documented, it is factual, it has been committed on civilians, their own soldiers(Pat Tillman) and Canadian soldiers alike, by the U.S. military. I don't need to tell anyone the track record of the U.S. military's propensity to lie, cheat and distort. Would you say i'm wrong to not believe everything they tend to say, is factual? Do you still believe Iraq has weapons of mass destruction still too?

4) If you want to think of me a blind fool who only has hate for the U.S. then you don't know me very well, and this shows the power of your argument. Let me tell you how much I hate the U.S. and presumably its soldiers, since we're presuming and all. A couple years ago I was in Atlanta on business, and I was flying to phoenix, to connect to a flight back to vancouver. One the plane I happened to be sandwiched between 2 U.S. marines , returning from Bagram Air Force Base. They'd been flying all night. All they had on were their AR MARPAT's and nothing else. I sat there for a bit, thinking should I strike up a conversation or leave it, because they looked tired but insanely intense. The guy to my left, sorted it out fro me, by offering me a stick of his gum. I accepted gratefully and began taling to him about everything from his experiences to his wife and 3 year old daughter, his fears of returning back home, my views as a Canadian...everything, during that approx 4 hour flight...and subsequent wait at the dallas terminal..after I offered to buy him a cold one, which he politely refused. The last thing he sid to me, as we said our goodbyes and parted ways was, "Thanks, i wasn't sure if you felt like talking,and I was afraid to talk to you", I asked "Why?", and he said "I don't know...if feel scared a lot, nowadays" I said, "No worries, bud, you're safe, enjoy your time with your family" And he said, "Yeah, i hope my daughter doesn't mind me leaving in a couple of weeks again though" My point is that you have no clue, how much respect I have for the soldiers of the U.S. for the most part, and how wrong you're assertion of me having a blind hate for the U.S. is. But,. you go on and think what you want...not all dissent = despise.

4b) By letting him die, it would have been discovered that this 15 year old Canadian citizen was shot in the back twice and left to die. What do you think the outcry and backlash would have looked like for the U.S. military during a time when three months earlier 4 Canadian soldiers were killed by a U.S. F-16 bomb? What would have the the response by our citizenary towards our involvement, our gov't and The U.S. have been if we would have been treated to that bit of news after mourning for weeks the loss of those 4 Soldiers of ours? Tinfoil? Sure. You keep eating...there's plenty more manure to come. I suppose not everyone has the ability to see what 2 and 2 put together could mean.
  • 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


#84 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 12:37 PM

Khadr is only an "an alien unlawful enemy combatant" (per the charge sheet) under the tortured definition the US drummed up for this purpose. It is not certain to those who can read newspaper or follow the case.

The US courts pulled Bush up short on this so he changed the definition.


In 2002, Donald Rumsfeld famously called the detainees at Guantánamo "the worst of the worst." General Richard B. Myers, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned they were "very dangerous people who would gnaw hydraulic lines in the back of a C-17 to bring it down." These claims were designed to justify locking up hundreds of men and boys for years in small cages like animals.

George W. Bush lost no time establishing military commissions to try the very "worst of the worst" for war crimes. But four and a half years later, the Supreme Court decided in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that those commissions violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. So Bush dusted them off, made a few changes, and rammed his new improved military commissions through the Republican Congress last fall.

Only three detainees have been brought before the new commissions. One would expect the people Bush & Co. singled out for war crimes prosecutions would be high-level al-Qaeda leaders. But they weren't. The first was David Hicks, who was evidently not so dangerous. The U.S. military made a deal that garnered Hicks a misdemeanor sentence and sent him back to Australia .

Salem Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who used to be Osama bin Laden's chauffeur, was the second. Hamdan, whose case had been overturned by the Supreme Court, was finally brought before a military commission Monday for arraignment on charges of conspiracy and material support for terrorism.

The third defendant was Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen, who appeared for arraignment the same day as Hamdan. Khadr was 15 years old when he arrived at Guantánamo. He faced charges of conspiracy, murder, attempted murder, spying, and supporting terrorism.

On Monday, much to Bush's dismay, two different military judges dismissed both Hamdan's and Khadr's cases on procedural grounds.

The Military Commissions Act that Congress passed last year says the military commissions have jurisdiction to try offenses committed by alien unlawful enemy combatants. Unlawful enemy combatants are defined as (1) people who have engaged in hostilities or purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its allies; or (2) people who have been determined to be unlawful enemy combatants by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) or another competent tribunal. The Act says that a determination of unlawful enemy combatant status by a CSRT or another competent tribunal is dispositive.

But there are no "unlawful" enemy combatants at Guantánamo. There are only men who have been determined to be "enemy combatants" by the CSRTs. The Act declares that military commissions "shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants." In its haste to launch post-Hamdan military commissions, Bush's legal eagles didn't notice this discrepancy. That is why the charges were dismissed.

The Bush administration may try to fix the procedural problem and retry Khadr and Hamdan. But regardless of whether Guantánamo detainees are lawful or unlawful enemy combatants, the Bush administration's treatment of them violates the Geneva Conventions. Lawful enemy combatants are protected against inhumane treatment by the Third Geneva Convention on prisoners of war. Unlawful enemy combatants are protected against inhumane treatment by Common Article Three.
...
According to Donald Rehkopf, Jr., co-chair of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Military Law Committee, "The government has steadfastly refused to allow hearings on this alleged [unlawful enemy combatant] status because there are so many prisoners at GTMO that were not even combatants, much less 'unlawful' ones. Khadr is in an unusual situation because he has a viable 'self-defense' claim - we attacked the compound that he and his family were living in, and the fact that he was only 15 at the time."

If Khadr were a U.S. citizen, he would not even be subject to trial by court-martial because of his age. When the Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that children under 18 at the time of their crimes could not be executed, it said that youths display a "lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility" that "often results in impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions." A juvenile, the Court found, is more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and his character is not as well-formed as that of an adult. "From a moral standpoint," Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority, "it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed." The Bush administration's treatment of Omar Khadr flies in the face of the Court's reasoning.



Had Canada done what other western democracies did, Khadr would have been back in Canada years ago. It took the court to publicly shame the government into taking action - finally.


I don't support how they were treated any more than I support him walking the streets back in Canada.

And ya, it's sad that his dad decided to teach him to be a Al Quada terrorist since age ten, but unfortunately, he already did. Already shot daddy, so at least that got taken care of.

It's just too bad he survived his injuries.
  • 1

#85 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 26 October 2010 - 12:43 PM

I don't support how they were treated any more than I support him walking the streets back in Canada.

And ya, it's sad that his dad decided to teach him to be a Al Quada terrorist since age ten, but unfortunately, he already did. Already shot daddy, so at least that got taken care of.

It's just too bad he survived his injuries.


Yeah too bad, they didn't kill the child...that woulda shown all the those dirty mooslems you don't mess with the U.S....yeehaw!
  • 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


#86 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,284 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 12:58 PM

It makes sense if army medics appeared on the scene before he bled out or superior officers arrived and directed he be treated.

In any event the soldier who discovered Khadr by standing on his rubble covered body (identified only as "soldier 2") has said this is what happened. Also his version of events is borne out by 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.


Sorry to delete out the rest of your post in my reply, but like I said, I don't really care who threw the grenade. I think that if he was to be tried for murder, it should have been done in Afghanistan, under Afghan law.

'It makes sense if army medics appeared on the scene before he bled out' - well, the one medic was dead, so either he was treated by a secondary medic or the Special Ops troops (who are well trained in Combat Casualty care). They would be intimately aware of any nefarious 'capture then shoot' order and wouldn't save a man who was supposed to die.

'or superior officers arrived and directed he be treated' - those superior officers would be right there, and seeing as the orders to shoot him post-capture would have come from them, it is unlikely they would do an about face like this on the spot. Any Officers who were not a part of the Platoon engaged in the op would be far enough away that by the time they arrived, he'd be dead.

'In any event the soldier who discovered Khadr by standing on his rubble covered body (identified only as "soldier 2") has said this is what happened.' -who is this guy? A name? A link with from a reliable source? Surely you're not relying on an unnamed man in a newspaper article to refute sworn testimony and common sense.

'Capture, shoot, save' - the first two make logical sense (but are clearly illegal), the third makes NO sense, even if you ignore the ethical component.
  • 0
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali

#87 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 26 October 2010 - 01:10 PM

1- Who cares who threw the grenade? I don't. The bigger issue is his active role as an AQ soldier fighting against a legitimate army in contravention of the Geneva Conventions, the LOAC, and the Cdn Crim Code. These are War Crimes, and IMHO, are FAR worse than plain old murder.

Nope.

Not under the international treaty that Canada sponsored and was first signatory party concerning child soldiers. On the 25th of May, 2000, the United Nations adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession A/Res/54/263: Optional Protocol on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in conflict. Among other things, the Protocol defines children as anyone under 18 years old. It states (Article 6) that such children should be "-demobilized or otherwise released from service," and should be accorded "-all appropriate assistance for their physical and psychological recovery and their social integration." In other words, child soldiers are not to be held responsible for their indoctrination, but are to be assisted and rehabilitated.

The UN Protocol has the force of International Law, and is binding upon the United States as well as Canada. The US simply ignored it and Canada acquiesced.

That may well change once Khadr is back on Canadian soil and the courts can have at what has occurred.

2- I don't believe everything anyone tells me. But he WAS there, he WAS armed, he WAS trained by AQ.

There is no evidence he was armed as demonstrated in the photographs the military tribunal sought to suppress. Those same photos showed an armed adult soldier on the ground near where Khadr was buried under rubble. That is the the soldier the defence claims threw the grenade and it is incontrovertible proof contrary to what the US military tried to claim that there was not another solder present.

Also 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.

Soldier 2 also stated that after the grenade was thrown:
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.

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

3- If you have evidence that the US made up this operation to cover up the shooting of Khadr, please post it. But remember that the easier way to do that would have been to either kill him or let him bleed out.

4- There is NO doubt in my mind that Khadr was there, and only a fool blinded by anti-US hatred and too many viewing of Loose Change would believe otherwise. Why save his life? Why not just shoot him? Trying a 15 year old Canadian was done to accomplish....what? Your 'theory' has no basis in reality.

Come back to earth, you're sounding very 'tinfoil hat'.

According to several reports his execution was stopped by a US superior officer arriving on the scene as he was about to be executed by shot to the head. This is covered off in the book Guantanamo's Child: The Untold Story of Omar Khadr by Michelle Shephard the Toronto Star newspaper’s National Security reporter who has covered the story of Omar Khadr since his capture in July 2002.

If there is nothing to cover up why is the military hiding "soldier 2" and resisting his appearance as a witness as well as refusing to permit access to the military and criminal investigation documents prepared following the firefight?

Seems valid questions and one that would certainly be front and centre in a real trial. Nothing tin foil hat about it.

Your posts are more on the order of there are none so blind as he who will not see.
  • 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.

#88 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 26 October 2010 - 01:16 PM

Sorry to delete out the rest of your post in my reply, but like I said, I don't really care who threw the grenade. I think that if he was to be tried for murder, it should have been done in Afghanistan, under Afghan law.

'It makes sense if army medics appeared on the scene before he bled out' - well, the one medic was dead, so either he was treated by a secondary medic or the Special Ops troops (who are well trained in Combat Casualty care). They would be intimately aware of any nefarious 'capture then shoot' order and wouldn't save a man who was supposed to die.

'or superior officers arrived and directed he be treated' - those superior officers would be right there, and seeing as the orders to shoot him post-capture would have come from them, it is unlikely they would do an about face like this on the spot. Any Officers who were not a part of the Platoon engaged in the op would be far enough away that by the time they arrived, he'd be dead.

'In any event the soldier who discovered Khadr by standing on his rubble covered body (identified only as "soldier 2") has said this is what happened.' -who is this guy? A name? A link with from a reliable source? Surely you're not relying on an unnamed man in a newspaper article to refute sworn testimony and common sense.

'Capture, shoot, save' - the first two make logical sense (but are clearly illegal), the third makes NO sense, even if you ignore the ethical component.

Soldier 2 is discussed in the court documents that I cited. the defence had tried on a number of occasions to secure his attendance as a witness.

Khadr was being tried for the murder of Sgt Christopher Speer - that is contained in the charge sheet cited above.

If you are charging a person with murder it makes significant difference if he actually threw the grenade. The concept of constructive murder would not apply to this sort of case. If Khadr did not then he is not guilty of the charge of murder.
  • 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.

#89 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 26 October 2010 - 01:25 PM

Yeah too bad, they didn't kill the child...that woulda shown all the those dirty mooslems you don't mess with the U.S....yeehaw!



When you're living with the terrorist organisation that was behind 9-11 why would you expect any different?

How will you feel if he decides to cause carnage right here at home after he is let loose? It's fairly safe to say he is fully trained in how to do so!
  • 1

#90 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,995 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 26 October 2010 - 01:27 PM

When you're living with the terrorist organisation that was behind 9-11 why would you expect any different?

How will you feel if he decides to cause carnage right here at home after he is let loose? It's fairly safe to say he is fully trained in how to do so!


ughh...fear monger much?
  • 0




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.