Khadr Sentenced To 40 Years By Military Tribunal

[JAH]

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

[Wetcoaster]

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.

[Sharpshooter]

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'.

[ronthecivil]

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.

[Sharpshooter]

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.

[JAH]

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.

[Wetcoaster]

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.

[Wetcoaster]

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.

[ronthecivil]

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!

[inane]

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!

[JAH]

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.....

2-So, there 's the doubt about ...actively fighting against the soldiers.....that much we can at least reasonably argue

[JAH]

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.

[ronthecivil]

ughh...fear monger much?

[JAH]

Spend five years living in an Al Quada camp and then the rest amogst the worst of the worst in Gitmo, so is it hard to expect that he would have the no how?

And if he wasn't already pissed at the west or our governemnt, I suspect he is now!

Naah, why worry about a guy like that?

[Sharpshooter]

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!

[JAH]

The boogey man's coming to get you! Run!

[Wetcoaster]

I'm not arguing the murder charge....I DON'T CARE IF HE THREW THE GRENADE OR NOT.

I am arguing that he was a legitimate target of the US soldiers there, that he was actually saved by those same troops, and I am refuting any suggestion that he was captured, THEN shot, THEN saved.

[Wetcoaster]

Are you saying that a man who admits to being trained by AQ, who engaged in a firefight with US troops, who spent 8 years in Gitmo with some very nasty people, who will be free in a few years in Canada....is not at least a concern for you? Not on the radar at all?

What consititutes a real threat? Nothing short of Hitler?

[JAH]

Soldier 2's evidence and the photographs suggest otherwise. At the time of his capture he was not wounded in the back.

[JAH]

The threat assessments filed in Parliament and other reports seem to come to a different conclusion but never let facts get in the way of an uninformed rant.