Guantanamo Khadr interrogations
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
you indicated what you thought "normally" happened. It does not normally happen in Canada. I never indicated that Canadian law applies to Canadians world wide- though Canadian law does apply to Canadian prisoners whereever they are located.fuji said:
ManAboutTown said:
whether a crime has been committed is still subject to a trial. he was there because his father brought him there. Whether or not it happened in the western world or not is irrelevant. he is a prisoner of the US not afghanistan.
The questions still to be proven/decided are:
1. did he or did he not kill someone? (not whether someone died but whether it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it)
2. if he did kill the soldier, why is it murder, if in fact it was during a battle during a "war"?
3. if he did, was there any justification for it? (i.e. he was in a building that was attacked by armed men- could it be self defense?)
4. if he did, and there is no justification, is he responsible as a "child soldier"?
5. if he, and there is no justification and he is deemed responsible, then what is the appropriate sentence given his age and the circumstances at the time of the offence?
you and fuji like that sharia law eh? you like people to be punished without trial? not sure why you dislike the taliban so much then.ManAboutTown said:
Associated Press, June 12:
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay may challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.
In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the constitutional rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.
And what would that Supreme Court ruling be? The one that declares Guantanamo prisoners are entitled to habeas corpus? They've pretty much negated the assertion that they're special cases outside US law.ManAboutTown said:
Thanks again for the making up another 'opposing' position so you can playact defeating it. There are many across the political spectrum who, like you,would prefer he was tried abroad, perhaps under muslim law. But my bet is, you'd be among the first to object to a transfer (or have sudden laundry needs, as you so sweetly put it) if the trial were to actually be fair and the verdict unknown and undecided until properly rendered. Folks who 'know' he's guilty in spite of evidence that the grenade was not thrown by him, may not be so numerous outside your closed circles.
you claim a crime has been comitted but don't want him tried? if he comitted murder try him in a civilian court. my questions are only meaningless and irrelevant because you want him killed without finding out whether he was innocent or guilty and the questions are just in your way.ManAboutTown said:
can't send him home to his father -since his father is dead. I have never said send him home- but give him a trial -if he is proven to be guilty then fine- deal with him under US law.
Not I. You say it by asserting the US made law because it found none. A fine illustration that a legal vacuum will be filled. The actual fact is, it didn't like what it found—a conquerer's perogative, and the stated reason for the conquest—but not evidence that no law existed. In other conquests, the US has temporarily continued local authority and laws, though it spectacularly didn't think to do so in Iraq.fuji said:
Semantics I think. A law imposed by the US is US law to me, if not to you. I'd never suggest that every scrap of federal jurisprudence applies everywhere the US wields power. How do you apply OSHA in the poppy fields. You don't impose a canon with cannons, <teehee> just the bits you need and you may have to make those up to suit, but you absolutely must do that making and imposing according to your own laws—every scrap of which applies to your own citizens. The Courts have constantly held against imperial Presidents and their executive privilege. (Isn't it odd how often the name Dick occurs in that context?) And it's more than wrong, as you say, not to impose any law, it's impossibly impractical; which again demonstrates there's never no law.fuji said:
Oh c'mon. All the books and records, all those who practised and enforced have all been completely obliterated? Do be serious.fuji said:
Because they are the final arbiters of whether US office holders are legally and properly discharging their duly sanctioned offices. And they have repeatedly decided they are not, but rather trying to skirt and subvert the laws they took oaths to uphold and carry out. Are you suggesting once an American official leaves the Fifty States they should not be subject to US laws in their duty?fuji said:
And of course the conditions of his confinement would have to be seriously adjusted to bring them into compliance with international PoW law. Of course he might also be paroled or otherwise summarily released by the holding power should they judge him no danger. But this Executive is determined on its pound of flesh, no matter how repellant that reveals them to be.fuji said:
The last time Canadian forces operated under conditions where there wasn't any clear civilian administration to try people for murder was while operating in liberated territories in World War 2.red said:
Harold Pringle was the last person executed by Canadian soldiers by firing squad, on July 5, 1945, after being found guilty of murder by a military tribunal in the field.
He's subject to military justice no matter whether he is a combatant or not, as at that point military justice was the only justice available. The occupying power has a responsibility to impose the rule of law and maintain peace, it is not optional.red said:
As for the commissions, yes, the US did set up commissions that met the requirements of the Geneva Conventions. The commissions, however, did NOT meet the stricter requirements set out under US law. That legal dispute is still ongoing.
At some point a commission will be created that DOES meet both the GC and the US SC standards and Khadr will be found either to be a POW (and immune from prosecution) or not (and likely charged with murder).
If he is a POW then he should be held without charge until the hostilities cease, but provided with care and treatment due to prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. In this case he cannot be charged with any crime.
If he is not a POW then by international law he is a common criminal and should be charged and tried for murder by the military system of justice responsible for security in that territory.
The US has actually granted him additional rights above and beyond what the GC requires in labelling him as an "unlawful combatant", as such he has access to some of the rights and privileges normally afforded only to POW's, to which he would not be entitled if the US were to follow the GC strictly.
Sure, in some abstract sense. However in a practical sense there is a big difference to the US constitution and criminal law applying, versus some system of military justice.oldjones said:
That is actually exactly what the US did, and which you and others are no criticizing them for having done. They picked and chose which bits of US law were relevant and encoded those concepts into a sytsem of military justice and military tribunals.
Originally the military thought that the US constitution (e.g., habeus corpus) would not apply to that system of justice, but the US SC has disagreed and said that it does.
Whether a charge can be made is still subject to a tribunal which has to rule on whether he is a prisoner of war or not. If he is then it is illegal to charge him and he must be held without charge under the terms of the GC.red said:
If it does not, then..
The crime was committed in Afghanistan. He could be extradited to face trial there.
Or if he did not, did he aid and abet those who did.
If you have got as far as a trial this question has already been resolved.
Shooting at the police is never self defence. Ever.
If he gets as far as a trial this question has already been resolved, if he's not a POW, he is a civlian.
