Guantanamo Khadr interrogations

[fuji]

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"?

There were several attempts to construct the legal system during that time which Khadr's team (or others) challenged, sending the whole thing back to the drawing board several times over. That takes time.

New York has a legal system.

New York's legal system took a few hundred years to develop.

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.

There's no political vacuum. There's a legal one: The Afghan government's laws and courts to which you refer didn't exist or weren't mature enough at the time Khadr was arrested.

As for considering his age, assuming he is not a POW, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me under which law it is that he is considered a child at 15 or 16.

 

[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. please provide an example for what "usually happens"

 

[red]

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

I am not just smart, I am groovy.

its not a US military court since he is a US soldier. Its either a court in afghanistan (most likely since that is the jurisdiction of the alleged crime), a US federal court since he is a prisoner of the US government or the world court in the Hague. that didn't take ten years did it?

 

[red]

Please notice! Imporant! Critical reading skills required:

"foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay may challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts"

It doesn't say they can try their cases in US courts, only that their continued detention in Cuba can be challenged. We aren't up to fighting about guilt or innocence here.

Reality is that if Khadr someone got his detention case heard and won, that he would be moved to a non-US location overnight and the point would be ruled moot.

Again, this isn't about guilty or innocent, we are a long, long way from even figuring out what court has true jurisdiction over that.

I am glad you and oldjones ain't laywers, your clients would be so screwed.

yes. they would rather have you as their lawyer. at least you couldn't bill too much since your clients would have been executed without trial.

 

[red]

Well give them a call when they finish with world war 2.

they hear cases all the time, comrade.

 

[red]

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.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice applies to US soldiers, reserves etc and to POWs. If he is a POW then he can be tried under the exisiting US military system - i.e. under a court martial and with the same rights as a US soldier which includes the right to appeal to a civilian court.

If he is not a POW (and the US gov't has said he is not) then the UCMJ does not apply. The options then are a trial by the afghan gov't, a US federal court, and the world court.

The Gov't by using these "new tribunals" have not been giving the prisoners extra rights (rights being inalienable by the way) but has tried to curtail their rights- especially the right to appeal to US civilian court.

This tribunal debacle has served only to delay trials.

 

[danmand]

As for Canada, I go with Harper on this one: Stay out of it, and if anything, start looking for a way to say "he really isn't a citizen, he never really lived here for long" and leave it at that.

Wow, Wow, Wow.

If you think Harper is ready to stand up and tell canadians that there are
more than one class of canadian citizens, you are sorely mistaken.
That would send the conservatives in opposition for a lifetime.

 

[nervous]

This is interesting since you could look at his situation in only two different ways:

1) a POW: Then leave him in a POW camp until the 'war' is over. No trial or lawyers needed

2) A person who committed a belligerent act: (aka spy! or a partisan): You can deal with then however you like, including execution.

 

[red]

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..

ISAF was authorized by the UN on dec 21, 2001 to act in precincts of Kabul. For almost two years, the ISAF mandate did not go beyond the boundaries of Kabul. The responsibility for security throughout the whole of Afghanistan was to be given to the newly-constituted Afghan National Army. However, on October 13, 2003, the Security Council voted unanimously to expand the ISAF mission beyond Kabul (Resolution 1510).

Omar Khadr was captured on July 27, 2002 near khost, Afghanistan (about 150 km from kabul).

How were the US troops acting legally (as the "police") when they were outside their mandated area?

 

[red]

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.

then put him on trial as with any other criminal.

 

[Aardvark154]

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.

Not to point fingers - but is this the old "The Golden Horseshoe is Canada."

Sun Media ran a column yesterday to quote in part

"Last week, our media and politics were consumed with the case of Omar Khadr held in Guantanamo Bay, with unsubtle urgings that he be returned to Canada.

How things have changed since 2002 and 2003.

When this Toronto-born youth was captured in Afghanistan — the only survivor in an American attack — he was charged with murdering a medic with a grenade.

There was revulsion in Canada for the Khadr family — a self-described “al-Qaida family,” trained in terrorism and committed to Taliban and al-Qaida ethics and goals.

Since then a campaign has been mobilized on Omar’s behalf — a support team consisting of couple of Edmonton lawyers, military defence lawyers, opposition MPs (led by Bob Rae who sounds more than Liberal), Amnesty International and human rights groups, the CBC, Globe and Mail and Toronto Star.

The only ones unimpressed with the “free” Khadr movement, or at least the “bring him home” campaign, are the Canadian public.

Judging from response she’s seen, Michelle Shephard, the Star’s national security reporter (and author of an informative book on Khadr, Guantanamo’s Child), feels the public’s mood is adamantly against Khadr and family.

And when the question was put to Sun Media readers, 82 per cent said Khadr should not be returned to Canada." [emphsis added]

It sounds like Fuji's comments pretty much do reflect the outside the GTA mood.

 

[red]

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.

.

we will never agree on much of this.

Let him be tried. lets see the result. there appears to be little physical or eye witness evidence that he did anything. but he deserves a fair and open trial.

 

[red]

Not to point fingers - but is this the old "The Golden Horseshoe is Canada."

Sun Media ran a column yesterday to quote in part

"Last week, our media and politics were consumed with the case of Omar Khadr held in Guantanamo Bay, with unsubtle urgings that he be returned to Canada.

How things have changed since 2002 and 2003.

When this Toronto-born youth was captured in Afghanistan — the only survivor in an American attack — he was charged with murdering a medic with a grenade.

There was revulsion in Canada for the Khadr family — a self-described “al-Qaida family,” trained in terrorism and committed to Taliban and al-Qaida ethics and goals.

Since then a campaign has been mobilized on Omar’s behalf — a support team consisting of couple of Edmonton lawyers, military defence lawyers, opposition MPs (led by Bob Rae who sounds more than Liberal), Amnesty International and human rights groups, the CBC, Globe and Mail and Toronto Star.

The only ones unimpressed with the “free” Khadr movement, or at least the “bring him home” campaign, are the Canadian public.

Judging from response she’s seen, Michelle Shephard, the Star’s national security reporter (and author of an informative book on Khadr, Guantanamo’s Child), feels the public’s mood is adamantly against Khadr and family.

And when the question was put to Sun Media readers, 82 per cent said Khadr should not be returned to Canada." [emphsis added]

It sounds like Fuji's comments pretty much do reflect the outside the GTA mood.

each of these media sources opinion polls will be self selecting based on readership.

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Adults in Canada are clearly divided on the pending legal process of Omar Khadr, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 38 per cent of respondents would leave Khadr to face trial by military commission in Guantanamo Bay, while 37 per cent demand Khadr’s repatriation to face due process under Canadian Law.

 

[Aardvark154]

then put him on trial as with any other criminal.

As has already been posted first there had to be the legal determination that he was not a POW - something the defence has been blocking for years.

 

[red]

Wow, get out the broadbrush and start painting... I think you missed a spot (let's talk about comrade, right RED?)

So far all attempts to create the proper tribunal or to figure out which legal system would have jurisdiction has come up blanks, usually blocked by Khadr's own lawyers.

Remember, it isn't unusual for a criminal from another country to be held in the US indefinately until the proper jurisdiction can be set. Canada does the same thing, extradition cases can run years, and in Khadr's case, it still isn't clear where he would go even at this point.

For the moment, he is stuck where he is, the wheels of US justice grind slowly, and it may be a very long time indeed before any of us even know where this will be tried, let alone the outcome.

As for Canada, I go with Harper on this one: Stay out of it, and if anything, start looking for a way to say "he really isn't a citizen, he never really lived here for long" and leave it at that.

this isn't an extradition hearing. harper should put pressure on the US to shit or get off the pot. if they have evidence put it to a trial and be done with it. if he is not a POW as the US claims- fine- put him on trial using the US court system.

 

[red]

As has already been posted first there had to be the legal determination that he was not a POW - something the defence has been blocking for years.

actually they have been objecting to the tribunal process. they are fine with either US federal court or the UCMJ.

 

[red]

2) A person who committed a belligerent act: (aka spy! or a partisan): You can deal with then however you like, including execution.

you can? maybe if you are a nazi in occupied poland.

 

[landscaper]

Spys and sabatures ( sorry about the spelling) are subject to execution in accordance with the geneva conventions , the executions can in fact be summary.

 

[Malibook]

They should have just left him there to suffer and hopefully die from his injuries.

A supposed Canadian who goes to Afghanistan to fight with the Taliban against NATO gets absolutely no sympathy from me.

 

[red]

Spys and sabatures ( sorry about the spelling) are subject to execution in accordance with the geneva conventions , the executions can in fact be summary.

I don't think thats in accordance with the geneva conventions. it may be conventional thinking however. From the geneva conventions:


An occupying power may sentence civilians to death if they are guilty of serious acts of sabotage Ñ but only if these offenses were punishable by death by local laws before the occupation began. (Convention IV, Art. 68)

Combatant who are captured while spying do not have the right to prisoner of war status unless they were wearing their military uniforms. (Protocol I, Art. 46)

No sentence may be passed and no penalty may be executed on a person found guilty of a penal offence related to the armed conflict except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by an impartial and regularly constituted court respecting the generally recognized principles of regular judicial procedure, which include the following: (a) the procedure shall provide for an accused to be informed without delay of the particulars of the offence alleged against him and shall afford the accused before and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence; (b) no one shall be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility; (c) no one shall be accused or convicted of a criminal offence on account or any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under the national or international law to which he was subject at the time when it was committed; nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than that which was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed; if, after the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby; (d) anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law; (e) anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to be tried in his presence; (f) no one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt; (g) anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (h) no one shall be prosecuted or punished by the same Party for an offence in respect of which a final judgement acquitting or convicting that person has been previously pronounced under the same law and judicial procedure; (i) anyone prosecuted for an offence shall have the right to have the judgement pronounced publicly; and (j) a convicted person shall be advised on conviction or his judicial and other remedies and of the time-limits within which they may be exercised.