Guantanamo Khadr interrogations

[red]

Or if he did not, did he aid and abet those who did..

good question.

If you have got as far as a trial this question has already been resolved..

not really. self defense is a valid defense during a trial.

Shooting at the police is never self defence. Ever.

.

the US soldiers were not the police.

If he gets as far as a trial this question has already been resolved, if he's not a POW, he is a civlian.

well I disagree with you here as well. he was factually and at law a minor. so far he hasn't been treated as one. if he is put on trial this would be one of the issues to be resolved at trial or on appeal.

 

[fuji]

so if no charge can be made against him, they can hold him forever. do you think thats right?

Prisoners of War are held without charge, correct. In fact it is illegal to charge a prisoner of war with a crime relating to hostile actions they committed against your own forces. This is all quite clearly spelled out in the Geneva Conventions.

Whether he is a POW or not has not yet been settled legally, but if he is one, then the consequences of being one are very well established.

Likely this is moot because he does not appear to fit the definitions of a POW and therefore he is going to wind up being treated as a civilian accused of murdering properly authorized security forces (which also makes it treason as well as murder).

 

[fuji]

not really. self defense is a valid defense during a trial.

You wrote that in response to whether he can claim he was a soldier. If he gets to a trial there will ALREADY be a judicial ruling that he is not a soldier so that defense will evaporate. If he is a soldier that will be determined by the competent tribunal at which point he will be a POW, and automatically he will then be immune from prosecution so in that case there will be no trial.

The only possible "self defense" claim he could make is if he was somehow able to argue that he did not know that the soldiers surrounding his house were representatives of the security forces. He can try that but from the accounts I've heard the security forces well identified themselves as such and ordered the occupants to surrender--so that defense will fail.

His only credible defense is to try and show that he did not throw the grenade and did not render any assistance or support to anyone who did, or anyone who shot at ISAF.

My guess is that when the facts are settled by a court it will turn out he is a murderer.

the US soldiers were not the police.

Sure they were. They were duly authorized agents of the International Security and Assistance Force operating under United Nations command upholding the rule of law on behalf of the sovereign government of Afghanistan. The fact that they also happened to be US soldiers is somewhat irrelevant from a legal perspective.

well I disagree with you here as well. he was factually and at law a minor.

Oh really? And what is the definition of a "minor" under the laws that are in effect? What law is that by the way? Can you cite the specific section of law that contains the definition of minor?

Note that US and Canadian domestic law are irrelevant here. It is either Afghan law or the US Military Code of Justice, or some subset of one of those, that you need to cite.

If he's ruled to be a soldier then there is the Optional Protocol that covers child soldiers and presumably that would apply--but there is as yet no such ruling that he is in fact a soldier, and it's unlikely there ever will be since he apparently fails to fit the definitions set out in international law for what counts as a soldier.

If he is not a soldier then, if Canadian law were to be cited by analogy, or US law, there is MUCH precedent for trying someone who commits a grevious crime like murder or treason as an adult, assuming that he counts as a minor at all under whatever law does apply.

 

[oldjones]

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.



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.

Nope. I'm criticizing them, as their own courts have done over and again, for getting it wrong. I realize all that fine rhetoric about being"…Endowed by Our Creator with Certain Unalienable Rights" wasn't law, but you'd think even Ashcroft and Gonzo would realize it's a good hint as to what they can't get away with.

Please do not blame the military for this mess; it comes from the the highest levels of the Executive branch, and the military's regrettable role has been to, "just follow orders". Except of course for the Prosecutor who resigned citing "undue command interference". And the judge in Hamdan's case who has ordered that General Hartmann, legal advisor to the convening authority be replaced, in a ruling which "… noted that he was ''troubled'' by testimony indicating that Hartmann pick and chose among cases ''because of political factors'' including ``whether they would capture the imagination of the American people, be sexy or involve blood on the hands of the accused.'' Such reasoning, he said, "suggests that factors other than those pertaining to the merits of the case were at play.''

I have huge respect for the best of US law—the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution—but what's being foisted on thge poor wretches at Guantanamo is some of the worst, little better than Jim Crow, Or Judge Lynch.

Remember the evil geniuses who created the Gitmo Mess didn't just "…think that the Constitution wouldn't apply" as if they misread some homework assignment. They spent millions of tax dollars, and did everything they could possibly think of trying to make sure it wouldn't. And the SC didn't just disagree: they ruled. Those who would subvert the Constitution by pretending it didn't govern them are wrong.

 

[dcbogey]

Yet another set back for the prosecution. This ruling relates to the trial of OBL's driver but it seems the precedence has been set.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080721.wgitmoban0721/BNStory/International/home

Gitmo judge bars coerced evidence
MIKE MELIA
Associated Press
July 21, 2008 at 8:10 PM EDT
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba — The judge in the first American war crimes trial since World War II barred evidence on Monday that interrogators obtained from Osama bin Laden's driver following his capture in Afghanistan.

Prosecutors are considering whether to appeal the judge's ruling – a development that could halt the trial of Salim Hamdan that began Monday after years of delays and legal setbacks.

“We need to evaluate ... to what extent it has an impact on our ability to fully portray his criminality in this case, but also what it might set out for future cases,” said Army Colonel Lawrence Morris, the tribunals' chief prosecutor.

Mr. Hamdan, who was captured at a roadblock in Afghanistan in November, 2001, pleaded not guilty at the start of a trial that will be closely watched as the first full test of the Pentagon's system for prosecuting alleged terrorists. He faces a maximum life sentence if convicted of conspiracy and aiding terrorism.

The judge, Navy Captain Keith Allred, said the prosecution cannot use a series of interrogations at the Bagram air base and Panshir, Afghanistan, because of the “highly coercive environments and conditions under which they were made.”

 

[dcbogey]

Did I miss something? it doesn't say anything about the Cuba detention facility.

Please enlighten us.

Read the article.

"In addition to the other interrogations, the judge said he would throw out statements whenever a government witness is unavailable to vouch for the questioners' tactics. He also withheld a ruling on a key interrogation at Guantanamo in May, 2003, until defence lawyers can review roughly 600 pages of confinement records provided by the government on Sunday night."

 

[Aardvark154]

It could be argued that the legal government at the time was the Taliban.

Was he Afghan? - NO; was he in any sort of recognizable uniform? - NO; was he under the authority of any recognizable military command structure - NO; Therefore what we have here is an illegal combatant someone not protected as a POW, but rather a common murder or terrorist.

 

[oldjones]

To add to that, if he was 15 and tossed a grenande in NYC that killed a police officer, you can be sure he would be tried as an adult, for 1st degree murder which comes with potential death penalty, and Canada would do NOTHING about it.

Until the legal back and forth is done (and that could take a very long time) all of this discussion about Omar Khadr is an attempt to trick Canadian citizens into thinking that a kid who spent 12 our of his 15 years outside of the country is some sort of Canadian martyr. He isn't.

Doubt it would take the New York Courts six years before he was even charged. And he'd have rights to bail, habeas corpus, to make full defence, to confront the witnesses and the evidence against him. And IF it was proven he killed the officer, he'd have begun serving his sentence long ago.

Why are GeorgeII's best and brightest so much less competent than the State of New York?

Never mind that the killing of a police officer on a peaceful city street is somewhat different from killing an invading enemy combatant during open armed conflict, I believe the death penalty is also a possible outcome for the kid in Guantanamo.

However, back to your analogy: New York hasn't executed anyone foer anything since 1976. Currently there are just two on its Death Row. More to the point: This post from 2005:

Supreme Court Bars Death Penalty for Juvenile Killers
Washington - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states.

����The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.

���The executions, the court said, were unconstitutionally cruel.

So if Kahdr hasn't died of old age first, and IF he's found guilty and IF he's sentenced to death, expect an appeal. What was that saying about justice has to be seen to be done?

 

[oldjones]

Was he Afghan? - NO; was he in any sort of recognizable uniform? - NO; was he under the authority of any recognizable military command structure - NO; Therefore what we have here is an illegal combatant someone not protected as a POW, but rather a common murder or terrorist.

Well your points may 'prove' he can't be a POW. Even those who fought and captured him realize it takes a whole lot more to determine whether he's a terrorist, or a murderer. It's a quaint notion called a trial, and they're at least pretending to have one. Perhaps we safe-at-homes might at least wait till it's over before pronouncing, lest we look even worse than them.

 

[Aardvark154]

What you have here is a child who is Canadian on paper only, educated (what little education her got) mostly outside of Canada, except for 2 years of elementary school while his father benefitted from the Canadian social medical system. Otherwise, he is a child of another country, and has spent all of his time outside of Canada. "Canadian" is a very relative term.

Likewise I find it fascinating that there are descendants of Louis Herbert who are not considered Canadian Nationals, and there are tons of descendants of United Empire Loyalists who fled to Upper Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia who are not considered Canadian Nationals, but this murderous terrorist is?

 

[fuji]

Doubt it would take the New York Courts six years before he was even charged.

The legal system is complex and whenever that happens processes take time.

Never mind that the killing of a police officer on a peaceful city street is somewhat different from killing an invading enemy combatant during open armed conflict, I believe the death penalty is also a possible outcome for the kid in Guantanamo.

Actually it's really not different at all. Khadr was not party of any militia and ISAF was not an invading army at the time he threw the grenade--it was the legitimate security force of the government.

That means he is just a common criminal accused of murder.

He's entitled to his defense but it sounds to me like he's guilty and that you're defending a bloodthirsty murderer.

He needs to spend a lot more years in jail than he has so far. I assume he'll get credit for time served once he's finally convicted of something.

Assuming he doesn't fight it all and get himself labelled a POW and held without charge indefinately.

 

[dcbogey]

in other words, to this point, the ruling has (a) nothing to do with cuba, and (b) nothing to do with khadr.

a) It seems pretty clear that unless a government witness can vouch that any information gained during an interrogation was not the result of coercion, the evidence will not be allowed, regardless of where the questioning took place

b)Do you honestly believe that this ruling will not set a precedent for other trials to follow? Khadr was interrogated in Afghanistan as well.

 

[Aardvark154]

Well your points may 'prove' he can't be a POW. Even those who fought and captured him realize it takes a whole lot more to determine whether he's a terrorist, or a murderer. It's a quaint notion called a trial, and they're at least pretending to have one. Perhaps we safe-at-homes might at least wait till it's over before pronouncing, lest we look even worse than them.

As I previously said what this builds up to in retrospect is: that in combat against terrorists it is better to have a take no prisoner’s policy than to go through the balderdash that we have over the past seven+ years.

 

[danmand]

No matter from which angle this case is observed, it is by now a massive fuckup.

When Nato found the 15 year old, they should have sent him back to Canada,
where Childrens Aid Society could have removed him from his family and he
could have been on his way in school and a productive life.

The americans are not going to kill him, so there remain only two outcomes:

1. He will be found guilty and sent to canada for sitting in jail for a very long time.

2. he will be found not guilty, an inquiry will be held, and he will receive a
large sum of money in compensation from the Canadian government.

In both cases, the canadian taxpayers will support him for life.

 

[Aardvark154]

The americans are not going to kill him, so there remain only two outcomes:

1. He will be found guilty and sent to canada for sitting in jail for a very long time.

2. he will be found not guilty, an inquiry will be held, and he will receive a
large sum of money in compensation from the Canadian government.

In both cases, the canadian taxpayers will support him for life.

Not that I"m disagreeing, but what would have been your solution, for the U.S. Army to have killed him on the battlefield?

To me at least the "oh the poor darling" approach is so much balderdash, somewhat like oh the poor darling rattlesnake.

 

[danmand]

Not that I"m disagreeing, but what would have been your solution, for the U.S. Army to have killed him on the battlefield?

No, as I indicated, to have sent him back to Canada for reintegration into civilized society.
He would have become a ward of the Children's aid society,
prevented from having contact with his parents and family,
who obviously failed him, and sent to school as any other 15 year old.

Too late now, after 6 years of Guantanamo.

 

[danmand]

Actually, when NATO finally found him, the soldier was already dead. Omar Khadr had spent almost all his life as a resident of Pakistan and Afghanistan, so there would be no way for any NATO troops to know about him or even be in the position to do anything with him.

As for the outcomes, you forgot:

3. Found guilty by a military tribunal and sentenced to life in prison.

4. Found guilty by a military tribunal and sentenced to death, and the US supreme court rules that they US constitution does not apply to crimes that occur outside of the US, thus he is executed.

5. Found guilty by a military tribunal and sentenced to life in prison, and Canada says "rot in hell you little f---ker" and doesn't even attempt to get him "returned" to Canada, considering he barely spent 10% of his life here.

6. Found to be not part of the US legal system, and is returned to Afghanistan where is he found guilty of murder and summarily beheaded.

7. The legal ball bounces back and forth for the next 30 years, and when finally sentenced to life in prison Khadr is killed in a US maximum security prison before Canada can do anything.

There are plenty of options, most of them result in death or rotting in prison.

Keep going.

Dream your little bloodthirsty dreams in technicolor, as long as you care. The
americans are not going to kill him, and he is going to end up in Canada
on our money one way or the other.

 

[fuji]

When Nato found the 15 year old, they should have sent him back to Canada, where Childrens Aid Society could have removed him from his family and he could have been on his way in school and a productive life.

If we're going to be releasing murderers into the general population I'd rather we sent them to Denmark instead. Here in Canada we don't like to have murderers walking the street.

 

[danmand]

If we're going to be releasing murderers into the general population I'd rather we sent them to Denmark instead. Here in Canada we don't like to have murderers walking the street.

Please don't use "we" about Canadians. You are not royal, and you don't speak for
canadians. You are not familiar with basic canadian values.

 

[oldjones]

The legal system is complex and whenever that happens processes take time.



Actually it's really not different at all. Khadr was not party of any militia and ISAF was not an invading army at the time he threw the grenade--it was the legitimate security force of the government.

That means he is just a common criminal accused of murder.

He's entitled to his defense but it sounds to me like he's guilty and that you're defending a bloodthirsty murderer.

He needs to spend a lot more years in jail than he has so far. I assume he'll get credit for time served once he's finally convicted of something.

Assuming he doesn't fight it all and get himself labelled a POW and held without charge indefinately.

Oh fuj! Six years in custody before you even get it together to tell him what you're charging him with? And you blame "the legal system"? New York has a legal system. Bush doesn't. After more than half a decade of trying, his toadies still haven't gotten their effort up and running. Sorry, to anyone who respects the Constitution theirs would be "the illegal system". And as it's actions have one by one worked their way to the SC, so it's been judged.

If ISAF was the security force of the legitimate government, then there was no 'legal vacuum' as you've previously asserted, and he should be tried according to that Afghan government's law in its courts.

Read my posts more closely; I've said nothing about his guilt, except that it hasn't been proven. On the basis of the hearsay so far reported—that others were alive who could have thrown the grenade, and that Khadr was observed at the time, but not seen to throw the grenade—it's as at least as likely you're slandering a duped and abused kid. Murderer perhaps, but where's the evidence for bloodthirsty?

The possibility of him getting classed as a POW at this point is laughably remote, although just as in your flawed New York comparison, that would get him treated more appropriately for his age, as a child soldier. The refusal to consider his age at the time is one of the more discreditable aspects of the trumped-up travesty.