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.
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.