Guantanamo Khadr interrogations

[fuji]

I was talking about Canada as we are in Canada and he is a Canadian

Do you ordinarily think that Canadian law applies to Canadian citizens arrested by foreign powers for offenses committed in foreign countries?

 

[red]

Do you ordinarily think that Canadian law applies to Canadian citizens arrested by foreign powers for offenses committed in foreign countries?

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.

 

[danmand]

Sorry, I must have missed that, would you care to explain yourself again?

I will reprint my earlier post

That is a fair request.

First, when the americans (or was it Nato) found a 15 year old boy in a war zone in Afghanistan, I think he should have been returned to Canada where children's Aid Society could have taken him as a ward, and the canadian courts could have dealt with his crimes. It has been stated that the americans kept him, because his father has high connections in Al Quada.
That, to me, is punishing him for his fathers sins. Take costody away from his parents.

Now, I am not sure the US is to blame for keeping him in Guantanamo for 6 years. I believe that he is the only "foreign" national still kept in Guantanamo. All others have been returned to their respective countries, at the request of their countries. I blame Canada for not requesting his return to Canadian justice, like every other allied country has done. Here Canada charters a private jet to get a women back from Mexico convicted of money laundering, but leaves a boy to years of "advanced interrogation" in Guantanamo.

I reject the idea that there are more than one single class of canadian citizens. I know some members here think that native indians or recent immigrants, or muslims, or sikhs are less canadian than themselves. I believe we are all equal for the law in Canada.

I suspect that Khadr when this is over, will sue the canadian government, and receive a large settlement, just like the guy who was sent to Syria for "advanced interrogation". Then we will all pay.

 

[red]

It is under battlefield conditions.

it is? please provide some recent examples of the execution, for treason, of individuals under battlefield conditions.

 

[red]

Oh Red: The crime didn't happen in the western world. This isn't someone on a Yonge street corner punching someone in the face because they stole their parking spot.

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?

 

[red]

Nice long post. Too bad the crime didn't happen in the US.

Move along, nothing to see here.

he is being held by an arm of the US gov't so oldjones post is relevant. the supreme court of the US seems to agree with him.

 

[red]

Seemingly the message, although I'm well aware you don't intend it as such, is don't take prisoners they aren't worth the trouble.

no the message would be follow the law. they could have tried him for murder long ago using laws already on the books. they chose not to do so.

 

[red]

Actually, the only thing the US supreme court has had to say so far doesn't seem to apply directly.

I would actually prefer he gets returned to a muslim country and is punished under muslim law. I think murder is pretty much a death sentence.

No wait, that would make you bleeding heart liberal types crap yourselves.

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.

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.

 

[oldjones]

Actually, the only thing the US supreme court has had to say so far doesn't seem to apply directly.

I would actually prefer he gets returned to a muslim country and is punished under muslim law. I think murder is pretty much a death sentence.

No wait, that would make you bleeding heart liberal types crap yourselves.

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.

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.

 

[red]

Actually not yet relevant, as they haven't found the right court / tribunal / legal system to try him under yet.



See above. You can't try a case without a court.



Once again, we aren't at this point yet. Until it gets to some sort of process, the question is moot



I could keep going. Until the issue of venue, responsibility and the actual system he will be tried under is set to everyone's satisfaction, your questions are meaningless. It is safe to say, however, that it is obviously to the public's safety to have any potential terrorist locked up for as long as it takes to get it right. Sending him home to his (bin ladin linked) father with a tap on his butt wouldn't be right.

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.

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.

 

[oldjones]

Says you? [I had said, countering fuji, there is no situation where there is no 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.

There is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between "a US imposed law" and "US law" that you are for some reason ignoring. The US imposed SOME law, but not US law. It would, in my opinion, be morally and ethically wrong to impose the whole cannon of US law on the Afghan people. It would equally be wrong not to impose ANY law.

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.

And what was that? [referring to pre-Taliban law, which I said might have been used] Who knows what it was, and how to enforce it?

Oh c'mon. All the books and records, all those who practised and enforced have all been completely obliterated? Do be serious.

Sure. Why should any of that [US Supreme Court decisions] apply in Afghanistan?

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?

Correct. If he is found to be a POW then he should continue to be held without charge and it would in fact be illegal at that point to charge him with anything.

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.

 

[exbrower]

Okay, you are smart. Which court has jurisdiction? Call me in 10 years when you figure it out.

International Court of Justice in the Hague.

 

[fuji]

it is? please provide some recent examples of the execution, for treason, of individuals under battlefield conditions.

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.

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.

 

[fuji]

With respect to him being subject to military justice according to martial law in place at the time:

1. If he was subject, then he was a legal combatant
2. if he was subject to the laws at the time and place, why did the US create these special comissions and laws?

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.

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.

 

[fuji]

Semantics I think. A law imposed by the US is US law to me, if not to you.

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.

just the bits you need and you may have to make those up to suit

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.

 

[fuji]

whether a crime has been committed is still subject to a trial.

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.

If it does not, then..

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 crime was committed in Afghanistan. He could be extradited to face trial there.

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)

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

2. if he did kill the soldier, why is it murder, if in fact it was during a battle during a "war"?

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

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?)

Shooting at the police is never self defence. Ever.

4. if he did, and there is no justification, is he responsible as a "child soldier"?

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

 

[fuji]

International Court of Justice in the Hague.

It only has jurisdiction of crimes of humanity, and of all the things Khadr is accused of, that isn't one of them. So the Hague does not have jurisdiction over this matter.

 

[red]

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.

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.

murder not treason. try again.

by the way- at the time the murder was a capital crime in Canada.

 

[red]

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.

.

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

 

[red]

The crime was committed in Afghanistan. He could be extradited to face trial there.


.

can he? is there an extradition treaty between the US and Afghanistan?