You really should give up on these legal threads, you just keep embarassing yourself.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.
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.
And head of a democratically elected majority government.Hurrah. let us all celebrate that the americans are better than Stalin.
Harper, I believe is much nicer than Hitler also.
I disagree. From your accounts, the tribunals that were poorly constructed were struck down, and the biased judge was removed. He received the clear benefit of due process...and then pled guilty.So was Stalin. What's your point? Khadr was deprived of the ordinary rights of the accused.
Only a judge who ruled in favour of Kadr was removed from the case.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?
How many times has been pointed in news articles that these Kangaroo Courts are not subject to the normal US justice system just to avoid the scrutiny by the Supreme Court.I must have missed the order from SCOTUS that Khadr be released...
.You are entitled to your opinion.
But it was misleading of you to suggest that tainted evidence had been admitted when there was a guilty plea and no trial.
The hearing had not yet been commenced. It could well have been excluded..
But it had been admitted at the Tribunal
LOL, I can't believe you actually believe that. Maybe you are even dumber than I think.I disagree. From your accounts, the tribunals that were poorly constructed were struck down, and the biased judge was removed. He received the clear benefit of due process...and then pled guilty.
After a long series of ridiculously unfair rulings, abominable behavior by the judge, and countless abuses of Khadr's right to a fair trial you're right, they could have suddenly started behaving like a real court. Unlikely. But technically speaking anything is possible.The hearing had not yet been commenced. It could well have been excluded.
I guess it bothers you that he finally owned up to his criminal acts by pleading guilty.After a long series of ridiculously unfair rulings, abominable behavior by the judge, and countless abuses of Khadr's right to a fair trial you're right, they could have suddenly started behaving like a real court. Unlikely. But technically speaking anything is possible.
Extortion and abuse of power, plain and simple.I guess it bothers you that he finally owned up to his criminal acts by pleading guilty.
So you are proposing justice by polling now? New low for you Fuji.42% of Canadians do not believe that Omar Khadr got a fair trial. That is a blight on the reputation of the American justice system.
I suspect in non-Western countries the % who think he got an unfair trial is far higher.
I'm one of them.A staggering number of Canadians feel Osama bin Laden got his just reward when U.S. Navy SEALs shot the world's most-wanted terrorist in the head and chest and dumped his body into the Arabian Sea, says a new poll.
I'm one of the 35% here, probably the smart half of the country. I think the raid would have been just as successful--and without the blowback--if the US had included the Pakistani President. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe this would have compromised the mission.Asked whether the U.S. overstepped its authority by launching a secret raid on foreign soil without Pakistan's permission, 48% disagreed while 35% agreed.
That's the wrong question to ask. The question is whether the Pakistani president could be trusted. There are plainly elements in the Pakistani government that cannot be trusted, but they are not the upper echelons of the Pakistani government.But when asked to agree or disagree if the Pakistani government could not be trusted with intelligence
