Omar Khadre
- Thread starter landscaper
- Start date
You're wrong, actually. There had already been a pre-trial ruling on the tainted evidence--it had been accepted. You can say it had not been formally accepted because the trial had not begun, but that's a technicality. The judge had already signaled what was going to happen in his pretrial ruling.But it was misleading of you to suggest that tainted evidence had been admitted when there was a guilty plea and no trial.
It was extortion.
In addition to the tainted evidence there were examples of the prosecution and the judge colluding to withhold critical evidence from the defense, and a whole host of other abominations of justice. For example, the judge attempted to withhold from the defense information that Khadr's interrogator had been convicted of torture in a different case that occurred in the same facility at roughly the same time as Khadr's interrogation.
It was a kangaroo court.
Tell us about your training in trial procedure.You're wrong, actually. There had already been a pre-trial ruling on the tainted evidence--it had been accepted. You can say it had not been formally accepted because the trial had not begun, but that's a technicality. The judge had already signaled what was going to happen in his pretrial ruling.
It was extortion.
And you are suggesting that the pre-trial ruling on some of the evidence guarantees the evidence would be admitted at trial?
You mean experiance at cangaroo trials. I would not expect any canadians to have experience from that.Tell us about your training in trial procedure.
That would be Kangaroo trials which I think is an Austrialian specialty.You mean experiance at cangaroo trials. I would not expect any canadians to have experience from that.
Are you suggesting that the US is rife with kangaroo courts?
I do have a feeling that I have appeared before more courts and military tribunals than Fuji...
I have no reason to not trust your feelings on that. I believe the military tribunal in Guantanamo bay is a Kangaroo court.That would be Kangaroo trials which I think is an Austrialian specialty.
Are you suggesting that the US is rife with kangaroo courts?
I do have a feeling that I have appeared before more courts and military tribunals than Fuji...
I'm suggesting that the pre-trial, and the earlier kangaroo trials, were the legal equivalent of putting a round the cylinder of a revolver, spinning it, pointing the gun at his head, pulling the trigger, click, cocking the hamer, pointing it at his head again, and asking him whether he wanted to plead guilty.Tell us about your training in trial procedure.
And you are suggesting that the pre-trial ruling on some of the evidence guarantees the evidence would be admitted at trial?
What makes you think that's relevant? The tribunal at Guantanamo was neither. I have every confidence that had Khadr been put up before a domestic US court, or a UCMJ tribunal, that he would have received a fair trial.I do have a feeling that I have appeared before more courts and military tribunals than Fuji...
The third, separate legal system, created just for Omar, at Guantanamo was set up because the administration did not want Khadr to have the ordinary rights of the accused. They worried about what a UCMJ presiding officer or US court judge would do upon learning that the defendant had been captured as a minor and then tortured--no doubt they worried about that for good reason.
So they created a third system of justice that lacked the ordinary rights of the accused, just for Omar, just so they could be sure of getting a conviction, or as it turned out, extorting a plea.
I see that Fuji and Danmand are still in the throes of "true believer syndrome" about the "poor misunderstood youth."
You have watched one too many episodes of the deer hunter.I'm suggesting that the pre-trial, and the earlier kangaroo trials, were the legal equivalent of putting a round the cylinder of a revolver, spinning it, pointing the gun at his head, pulling the trigger, click, cocking the hamer, pointing it at his head again, and asking him whether he wanted to plead guilty.
Pre-trial rulings and prior trials are called "knowing the case you have to meet" and "precendent" in CL countries. Most jurists suggest they are the foundations of a quality court system. Only you could get that backwards.
Negative again. I am in favour of the rule of law, contrary to your fascist ideals.I see that Fuji and Danmand are still in the throes of "true believer syndrome" about the "poor misunderstood youth."
In this case they were repeatedly ruled unconstitutional, they even had a judge removed from the case for ruling in favour of the defendant. This was not something that bears any resemblance to your prior experience with ordinary courts.Pre-trial rulings and prior trials are called "knowing the case you have to meet" and "precendent" in CL countries. Most jurists suggest they are the foundations of a quality court system. Only you could get that backwards.
Khadr did not enjoy the rights of the accused to which you are accustomed, nor did the process in Guantanamo bear more than a passing resemblance to the UCMJ or US domestic court system.
If they were ruled unconstitutional and a judge was removed from the case...that would be evidence that the system was working...In this case they were repeatedly ruled unconstitutional, they even had a judge removed from the case for ruling in favour of the defendant. This was not something that bears any resemblance to your prior experience with ordinary courts.
Khadr did not enjoy the rights of the accused to which you are accustomed, nor did the process in Guantanamo bear more than a passing resemblance to the UCMJ or US domestic court system.
How often do you think the show trials in the USSR had that happen?
Since you are facinated by this was Uncle Joe a fascist?your fascist ideals.
That's why the Russian roulette analogy is so apt. They were determined to try, and try, and try again until they got a conviction.If they were ruled unconstitutional and a judge was removed from the case...that would be evidence that the system was working...
How often do you think the show trials in the USSR had that happen?
And no, it does not instill confidence that they were seeking the most biased system they could get away with, without interference from the US SC. The fact that they couldn't locate the trial inside continental USA for fear that Khadr would gain enough rights to evade conviction should tell you something.
Hurrah. let us all celebrate that the americans are better than Stalin.How often do you think the show trials in the USSR had that happen?
Harper, I believe is much nicer than Hitler also.
I fixed your post.Hurrah. let us all celebrate that the americans are so far better than Stalin and Hitler, and Denghis Khan, ...
As long as we rejoice together ...I fixed your post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyhTJXFBPyg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxL1uXwSrdU&feature=related
Was he the P.D.Q. Bach of Genghis Khan's family? :eyebrows:Denghis Khan
Old Danish spelling, sorry.Was he the P.D.Q. Bach of Genghis Khan's family? :eyebrows:
