Khadr Sentenced To 40 Years By Military Tribunal

[Wetcoaster]

That's odd...one would think you'd fight tooth and nail, and challenge the decision if convicted.

And the SCC has neither the authority nor the jurisdiction to decide if the tribunal is illegal (I'm not arguing one whether it is or ins't. I am on record several times stating I think it's crap).

[JAH]

Yeah..go after the ones who used him and set him free...exactly.

And he was found as a child soldier within afghanistan, is why I reference his protection at the age of 15, under the CRC, which is a GC protocol.

[ronthecivil]

Why fight tooth and nail in an illegal tribunal when the rules change to suit your captors and rulings by US civil courts are ignored? Once the illegal process has ended (in this case through a coerced guilty plea) then Khadr can get before the civil courts.

"In our view, it's all a fiction," said Dennis Edney, one of Khadr's Canadian lawyers. "In our view, Mr. Khadr is innocent."

In the end, Edney said, Khadr was forced to choose between the chance to serve part of his sentence in Canada and the likelihood that he'd remain in the "hellhole" of Guantanamo Bay indefinitely, fighting against an "illegal process" where the odds were stacked against him.

As to the claim of perjury in respect of the guilty plea... one cannot perjure oneself before an illegal tribunal. The SCC certainly has the authority to make that determination and they have done so. Also if the plea was coerced then it cannot be considered perjury in any event.

Once Khadr is on Canadian soil the Courts can then provide substantive remedies for the Charter violations which they are unable to do until he is returned to Canada.

And the Canadian courts are in no way restricted or limited in the remedies that they may choose to fashion for the Charter breaches:

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

[ronthecivil]

Why fight tooth and nail in an illegal tribunal when the rules change to suit your captors and rulings by US civil courts are ignored? Once the illegal process has ended (in this case through a coerced guilty plea) then Khadr can get before the civil courts.

"In our view, it's all a fiction," said Dennis Edney, one of Khadr's Canadian lawyers. "In our view, Mr. Khadr is innocent."

In the end, Edney said, Khadr was forced to choose between the chance to serve part of his sentence in Canada and the likelihood that he'd remain in the "hellhole" of Guantanamo Bay indefinitely, fighting against an "illegal process" where the odds were stacked against him.

As to the claim of perjury in respect of the guilty plea... one cannot perjure oneself before an illegal tribunal. The SCC certainly has the authority to make that determination and they have done so. Also if the plea was coerced then it cannot be considered perjury in any event.

Once Khadr is on Canadian soil the Courts can then provide substantive remedies for the Charter violations which they are unable to do until he is returned to Canada.

And the Canadian courts are in no way restricted or limited in the remedies that they may choose to fashion for the Charter breaches:

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

[JAH]

Why fight tooth and nail in an illegal tribunal when the rules change to suit your captors and rulings by US civil courts are ignored? Once the illegal process has ended (in this case through a coerced guilty plea) then Khadr can get before the civil courts.

"In our view, it’s all a fiction," said Dennis Edney, one of Khadr’s Canadian lawyers. "In our view, Mr. Khadr is innocent."

In the end, Edney said, Khadr was forced to choose between the chance to serve part of his sentence in Canada and the likelihood that he’d remain in the "hellhole" of Guantanamo Bay indefinitely, fighting against an "illegal process" where the odds were stacked against him.

As to the claim of perjury in respect of the guilty plea... one cannot perjure oneself before an illegal tribunal. The SCC certainly has the authority to make that determination and they have done so. Also if the plea was coerced then it cannot be considered perjury in any event.

Once Khadr is on Canadian soil the Courts can then provide substantive remedies for the Charter violations which they are unable to do until he is returned to Canada.

And the Canadian courts are in no way restricted or limited in the remedies that they may choose to fashion for the Charter breaches:

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

[ronthecivil]

You still haven't shown the motive for pleading guilty.

I think we all can agree that it was EXCEPTIONALY unlikely he would not have been convicted had he stayed with the not guilty plea. So he circumvented the process and plead guilty.

He's in the same boat.

[Sharpshooter]

The ref to Afghanistan in the piece you posted is referring to the State, not the geographical place. It's not as if the US (for instance) can delpoy 5 year olds to a non-signatory country (say, Iran), but can't send them to Afghanistan (as they are a signatory). The STATE of Afghan'n said they will not employ child soldiers (yeah right...tea Thursdays anyone?).

[inane]

Being a child soldier he has a get out of free jail card.

Memo to soldiers in the field. Next time one of these guys asks to be killed, kindly follow through. Otherwise you get this mess.

[JAH]

[ronthecivil]

Yeah, what a ridiculous law it is to protect children. You're right, shoot first ask questions later. I can't possibly see how that could turn out bad.

[JAH]

Again, you want it both ways.....if he wasn't afforded the protection of being an Afghani resident...then he had international protections as a Canadian citizen...under the CRC...and for his alleged penal act against a foreign force, should have been immediately brought back to Canada to stand trial. But no, he wasn't, he was made to be a citizen of the ether, and held in a place where no State laws could afford him protection....

You keep fracking that chicken.

[Sharpshooter]

I have two legs actually.

What have you proven? That you don't read what you post? Well done Sir!

And I am currently in a position of command, and I do a damn good job at it.

Again, you post a lot of stuff...some of it interesting, most of it irrelevant. But each and every time you are challenged, you either resort to namecalling (see quoted text), irrelevant references, or youtube videos. You have posted no persuasive legislation and no facts - nothing but hot air fueled by anti-american hatred.

What have you done here? Other than flapped your gums and pontificated like some kind of rabid tinfoiler?

'You don't have a leg to stand on. You know it, I know it and most everyone that isn't batcrap crazy like you, knows it.'

Everyone knows it? Who exactly?

[Wetcoaster]

I have posted my evidence to the contrary, and you have posted...this?

and this:

[JAH]

Each and evertime some quote from an applicable Law or news article or factual reference is given to you...you ignore it and call it irrelevant. Well what's relevant to you? You talk out of both sides of your mouth. You've already essentially ceded Khadr's nationality, citizenship, age, duress and torture. You also want him to be tried here, you don't deny he was tortured, as of a few posts ago, what the frack are you arguing for then? That he was a combatant, when we showed by the contradictory evidence that claims is specious at best? What the hell are you going on about anyways? Do you just like to argue incessantly? Some facts cannot be argued...and you've provided us with no counter facts to support your argument, aside from flimsy testimony, that has shown to be unreliable and inadmissable in a real court, and one blurb out of the GC. Is that all? Are those the legs you're standing on??? I'd brace yourself for the fall then, if I were you.

[Bertuzzi Babe]

I appreciate that this is a very heated debate but I would caution those of you participating in it now, that personal attacks are not acceptable on this board and there will be no more editing of them. Instead, they will be removed and subject to Admin's review.

[Sharpshooter]

He wasn't an Afghan citizen. If he was, we wouldn't be talking about him. He's Canadian, remember?

He wasn't a member of the CF, so no protection there...

He didn't abide by the 4th GC, so no protection there...

He SHOULD have been handed over to Afghan authorities (the 'crime' occured on their soil) for civil prosecution or killed outright in the battle, but I'm not here to bellyache over woulda coulda shoulda. That's your job apparently.

[JAH]

A child soldier is any person under 18 years of age who is part of any kind of regular or irregular armed force or armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to cooks, porters, messengers and anyone accompanying such groups, other than family members. The definition includes girls recruited for sexual purposes and for forced marriage. It does not, therefore, only refer to a child who is carrying or has carried arms.

Cape Town Principles and Best Practices on the Recruitment of Children into the Armed Forces and on Demobilization and Social Reintegration of Child Soldiers in Africa (Cape Town, 27-30 April 1997).

[old_time_hockey]

Hey Jacked...

Refresh my memory (yes I am too lazy to google) and I know I am going a little off topic...

You can join the CF Reserve at 16 with signed authority from a guardian.

Can a 16 year old reservist put their name forward for duty if their unit is asked for volunteers? And if so, do they need the concent of their guardian?

[JAH]

I never said he was a citizen of Afghanistan....I said resident. And as a resident of a country that has protections of 18 year old children, under the CRC, he qualified. Most newspapers and impartial observers in Canada and around the world recognize him as a child soldier....except for you, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld....great company indeed.

.

He was a person in an occupied state, not of the U.S. and if we go with your assessment of his residency, not of Afghanistan as well...not that Afghanistan had a internationally recognised government to begin with in 2001 and 2002.

I would argue that he was not proven to be a combatant and was therefore a protected person, under the Genava Convention, or he was a child soldier and was under the protection of the CRC, and therefore under the protection of the Geneva convention once again. You and Bush and Co. decided to circumvent these definitions and made up a new one that isn't internationally recognised, in order to conduct what is in all intents and purposes an illegal and indefinite detention of people without giving them access to a full and fair, independent trial, outside made up military jurisdiction.

That's what your arguing for....so good luck with that.

[JAH]

Hey Jacked...

Refresh my memory (yes I am too lazy to google) and I know I am going a little off topic...

You can join the CF Reserve at 16 with signed authority from a guardian.

Can a 16 year old reservist put their name forward for duty if their unit is asked for volunteers? And if so, do they need the concent of their guardian?