Omar Khadr likely to sue Ottawa for millions for complicity in his torture

[fuji]

Perhaps the endorsed him because he was the best option available at the time

No doubt that is exactly what they thought. I stand by my claim that the G&M waffles between the Liberals and the C's and is generally to the right of center on most issues.

 

[seth gecko]

the imediate action drill when we had a dud on the range was to sit there for 1/2 an hour and wait to see if the thing decided to go off. If not I got to go out and apply persuasion.

LOL....good one! You must have been the guy with the little ball-peen hammer. Thats why the C13 style is better than the pineapples - use a fresh one like a bocce-ball to trigger the dud!!

The reporter in this case is making judments and decisions years after the fact and without actually being there, the wall could have collapesed after he threw the thing, or it could have been destroyed as a result of the reply to the grenade being thrown . Either way unless she was there during the action the best she can do is insinuate her version of the facts.

Correctamundo! To say stuff like "he couldn't have thrown it because blah blah blah....." probably just reveals that persons' ignorance or antipathy for the facts.

 

[fuji]

Correctamundo! To say stuff like "he couldn't have thrown it because blah blah blah....." probably just reveals that persons' ignorance or antipathy for the facts.

Sounds like there are various plausible stories here. I'd call it a reasonable doubt.

Without the fraudulent confession it doesn't seem like there was a solid case to be made here.

 

[seth gecko]

Thanks for sharing your opinions, but unless you have some facts or some expertise either in law or combat, you really haven't added anything new or worthwhile to this thread in quite some time.
But keep trying - amateur opinions have some value (generally amusement), and its the only way you'll ever learn anything (I just wish it didn't take so damn long for that to happen!!)

We're all rootin' for you, Fuj

 

[fuji]

Here's a fact -- the court accepted a confession most likely extracted under torture as if it were voluntary.

Here's an interpretation of that fact -- the trial had to be held outside US jurisdiction because any ordinary US judge would have tossed that confession, and without it, the prosecution wouldn't have had a case. We'd be left with conflicting interpretations of photographs, meaning, reasonable doubt.

I think there's pretty good odds that Khadr is actually innocent of the charges, but we'll never know until or unless he actually gets a fair trial.

 

[rld]

Here's a fact -- the court accepted a confession most likely extracted under torture as if it were voluntary.

Here's an interpretation of that fact -- the trial had to be held outside US jurisdiction because any ordinary US judge would have tossed that confession, and without it, the prosecution wouldn't have had a case. We'd be left with conflicting interpretations of photographs, meaning, reasonable doubt.

I think there's pretty good odds that Khadr is actually innocent of the charges, but we'll never know until or unless he actually gets a fair trial.

It seems hard to reconcile your claim it is a fact with the term "most likely." Feel free to shit or get off the pot.

And conflicting interpretation of photos does not neccesarily mean reasonable doubt. But then again, why should you know, your trial and legal experience are clearly non-existent.

And now we have a full elocution at at time when he was represented by counsel, which took place years after any alleged torture. It is all wrapped up nice and tight, despite what some whiners may say.

 

[fuji]

It seems hard to reconcile your claim it is a fact with the term "most likely." Feel free to shit or get off the pot.

No it's not hard at all, Khadr's interrogator was convicted and jailed for torturing another prisoner to death at the same time. That confession wouldn't last three seconds in front of a proper judge in a real court.

The second confession was extorted out of him under threat that the court would convict him by calling the first one "voluntary", it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

 

[rld]

No it's not hard at all, Khadr's interrogator was convicted and jailed for torturing another prisoner to death at the same time. That confession wouldn't last three seconds in front of a proper judge in a real court.

The second confession was extorted out of him under threat that the court would convict him by calling the first one "voluntary", it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

Then take out the words "most likely."

But the best part it, this is all hot air, but an unhappy internet guru (crossbows anyone?). Khadr will do the full sentence and then likely get out of dodge.

 

[fuji]

In proper courts running under democracies that respect the rule of law and the rights of the accused there is not a snowball's chance in hell that his confession would be accepted into evidence.

1. He makes a claim that he was tortured

2. It later comes out, after he's made this claim, that his interrogator is a convicted torturer

3. The prosecution/army STOP the investigation that would have determined whether his claim was true

Not only would any proper judge toss that confession in the blink of an eye, he'd be calling the prosecution into his chambers and demanding an explanation as to why they think they should be permitted to continue working as prosecutors, why he shouldn't simply debar them for having the audacity to bring such an affront to justice into a court of law.

 

[rld]

In proper courts running under democracies that respect the rule of law and the rights of the accused there is not a snowball's chance in hell that his confession would be accepted into evidence.

1. He makes a claim that he was tortured

2. It later comes out, after he's made this claim, that his interrogator is a convicted torturer

3. The prosecution/army STOP the investigation that would have determined whether his claim was true

Not only would any proper judge toss that confession in the blink of an eye, he'd be calling the prosecution into his chambers and demanding an explanation as to why they think they should be permitted to continue working as prosecutors, why he shouldn't simply debar them for having the audacity to bring such an affront to justice into a court of law.

Of course they would, in Fuji world.

After all those hours you have clearly spent in chambers you must know exactly what goes on.

And it would be "disbar" not "debar."

Are you disagreeing with my statement that the deal will stand and he will serve the sentence he agreed to? Do you think there will be some other outcome?

 

[landscaper]

No it's not hard at all, Khadr's interrogator was convicted and jailed for torturing another prisoner to death at the same time. That confession wouldn't last three seconds in front of a proper judge in a real court.

The second confession was extorted out of him under threat that the court would convict him by calling the first one "voluntary", it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

There is no proof that he tortured Kahdr that is your assumption, an assumption is not valid in any court that I am aware of

 

[fuji]

There is no proof that he tortured Kahdr that is your assumption, an assumption is not valid in any court that I am aware of

There is, however, a reasonable doubt. Last I checked in fair and democratic courts the benefit of the doubt went to the accused. I haven't seen the prosecution prove that he wasn't tortured, and there sure is a hell of a lot of circumstantial evidence indicating that he was.

 

[fuji]

Are you disagreeing with my statement that the deal will stand and he will serve the sentence he agreed to? Do you think there will be some other outcome?

I think he will serve his sentence, Canada has to honour its treaties with the US, however much we may hold their legal processes in contempt. What should happen is that there should be an inquest into the matter to find out how such a travesty was allowed to happen.

Essentially Gitmo should be put on trial now, either in the context of a Khadr lawsuit, or in the context of a government run commission or inquest.

 

[landscaper]

There is, however, a reasonable doubt. Last I checked in fair and democratic courts the benefit of the doubt went to the accused. I haven't seen the prosecution prove that he wasn't tortured, and there sure is a hell of a lot of circumstantial evidence indicating that he was.

Why wouyld the prosecution have to prove he was not tortured?

They have to prove he did what they say he did, which in this case includes a confession. If he wants to bring up torture allegations it is up to him to prove those allegations.

 

[fuji]

Why wouyld the prosecution have to prove he was not tortured?

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove its case. The defense does not have to prove Khadr was tortured, only raise a reasonable doubt that he was. He's then entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt.

Khadr's claim that he was tortured gained CONSIDERABLE weight when subsequently it came to light that his interrogator had tortured a man to death at the same facility and around the same time as he "interrogated" Khadr. That takes it from being Khadr's word against others, to a situation in which there's some corroborating circumstantial evidence for Khadr's claim--a pattern of others being tortured in that facility and by that man.

That raises a reasonable doubt. Any normal court would throw that initial confession out and run the trial without it. Either that, or demand proof from the prosecution that Khadr wasn't tortured, despite the appearances that he likely was.

 

[Aardvark154]

Any "normal" court.

As I have pointed out to you Fuji easily a dozen times, and others have mentioned well beyond that, Omar Khadr was not robbing a pharmacy at the corner of King and Younge or Broad and Chestnut.

The German Operation Pastorius agents were not treated as ordinary domestic criminal defendants by the U.S.A., neither should be, nor was Omar Khadr.

 

[flubadub]

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove its case. The defense does not have to prove Khadr was tortured, only raise a reasonable doubt that he was. He's then entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt.

Khadr's claim that he was tortured gained CONSIDERABLE weight when subsequently it came to light that his interrogator had tortured a man to death at the same facility and around the same time as he "interrogated" Khadr. That takes it from being Khadr's word against others, to a situation in which there's some corroborating circumstantial evidence for Khadr's claim--a pattern of others being tortured in that facility and by that man.

How much more weight will that carry now that Bush has admitted to authorizing torture in his book?

 

[seth gecko]

By the fourth day the CSIS man, exasperated that he’s failed to shake Mr. Khadr’s story one iota, demands that he tells him the truth. Mr. Khadr replies: “That’s what I told you, the truth. You don’t like the truth. … You just want to hear whatever you want to hear. … You can’t believe me.” This 16-year old is either an Academy Award-calibre actor or he’s telling the truth.

I'm curious if OK gave this Academy Award-worthy performance before or after he insisted for days that he was Akhbar Farhand, poor little Afghan shephard-boy whose father died fighting the Russians. Or after he claimed that his mother had recently passed away from cancer (its not clear if he was referring to his actual mother Khadr, or his "pretend" mother from his time as Akhbar F.) Was he acting or lying when he made these statements? If he lied about being Akhbar in a weak attempt to hide his actual identity, its very reasonable to believe he would lie about being tortured. His own affidavit described treatment that was closer to rehabilitative physiotherapy ("they made me sit up in bed"), part SERE (a version of which he already underwent a few years earlier whilst training at Tarnak Farm) and part, I don't know what to call it ("he farted in my face"). Ok was afraid of the reputation of one certain interrogator, but OK himself never singled out that dude as having treated him excessively rough physically.
Ok was used to being treated as the "golden boy" because of his family connections, and when he didn't get that preferential treatment after being captured by the US, he complained about his poor treatment. There was no mention of waterboarding, strappado, denailing, crushing, etc etc.
Anyways, seeing as to how he received some rehabilitation and repudiated his actions as a terrorist, and finally took responsibility for his actions via his confession and promise to make something of himself (Dr. Khadr, I presume!), prolly the best thing for everyone involved is to focus on the future. Omar has accepted his situation, maybe his fanboys should try to do the same.

 

[landscaper]

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove its case. The defense does not have to prove Khadr was tortured, only raise a reasonable doubt that he was. He's then entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt.

Khadr's claim that he was tortured gained CONSIDERABLE weight when subsequently it came to light that his interrogator had tortured a man to death at the same facility and around the same time as he "interrogated" Khadr. That takes it from being Khadr's word against others, to a situation in which there's some corroborating circumstantial evidence for Khadr's claim--a pattern of others being tortured in that facility and by that man.

That raises a reasonable doubt. Any normal court would throw that initial confession out and run the trial without it. Either that, or demand proof from the prosecution that Khadr wasn't tortured, despite the appearances that he likely was.

You have a very twisted idea of what reasonable doubt and proper forms in court.
a) if the defense raises an issue be it torture or what ever they are the ones that have to provide the proof of their accusation, the judge can then decide if the information is worthy of inclusion. The prosecution is under no obligation to prove they did not do something. They are under an obligation to prove the defendant did in fact do something.
b) The fact the interogator was in the same location as Kahdr has no bearing unless he was interogating Kahdr, as of yet I have seen no proof of any kind that he was.
c) The judge would have to balance the freely given confession in court with counsel present against what up to this point is a cloak of many colours that you have created.
d) Kahdr confessed following the discovery of a video of him making IED.s and describing how he planted them not due to torture .

 

[fuji]

The defense has to raise a reasonable possibility that their claim is true, they do not have to prove that it's true. At least in free and fair courts that's how it works, apparently not at Gitmo.

As for your claims b) it is a fact that it was the same interrogator at the same location at the same time. The same guy as he was interrogating Khadr on that same posting to that same place was subsequently convicted of torturing a man to death there.

What's even worse is that the prosecution, with the support of the judge, tried to SUPPRESS this information. They sought to prevent Khadr's legal team from learning about it! That in and of itself is tampering with process in illegal ways and raises questions about what ELSE they suppressed that didn't leak out.

This sort of bullshit would NEVER be allowed to happen in an American civilian or military court.