You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Omar Khadre
- Thread starter landscaper
- Start date
Not quite. He pleaded guilty to killing one soldier and 4 other charges.
I think you could call his plea deal a reaction to extortion.
I think you could call his plea deal a reaction to extortion.
I agree.
Not quite. He pleaded guilty to killing one soldier and 4 other charges.
I stand corrected. So he's only 20% savage.
I stand corrected. So he's only 20% savage.
That would appear to describe any 15 year old boy.
Because he was plead guilty to the charge and was sentenced for the same by the U.S. Military Tribunal.How do you know he's a murderer?
That you and Danmand want to pretend that the Tribunals are the same as some Soviet Court during the Great Terror is a viewpoint that you share with very few people.
Because he was plead guilty to the charge and was sentenced for the same by the U.S. Military Tribunal.
He was put up in front of a kangaroo court that violated his rights left, right, and center. He was threatened with life in prison, but offered a chance to get out in only 8 years if he would plead to the charges against him, despite the evidence being drawn from stuff that would never be admissible in a fair court.
That is not a fair trial. That is extortion.
The whole thing is a joke.
That you and Danmand want to pretend that the Tribunals are the same as some Soviet Court during the Great Terror is a viewpoint that you share with very few people.
It isn't pretend, nor is it a viewpoint shared by only a few people. It is one of many unfortunate examples of a situation in which the United States abandoned the core values on which the republic was based for reasons of expediency. Along with extrajudicial rendition, and waterboarding, it's yet another case of a failing American empire losing sight of the fact that the ends to not justify the means, when the means are all that ever mattered.
That you and Danmand want to pretend that the Tribunals are the same as some Soviet Court during the Great Terror is a viewpoint that you share with very few people.
No, it is more like the trials in Germany and Italy during the 1940's. That is why you approve.
Most would agree that they were much the same.No, it is more like the trials in Germany and Italy during the 1940's.That you and Danmand want to pretend that the Tribunals are the same as some Soviet Court during the Great Terror is a viewpoint that you share with very few people.
Most would agree that they were much the same.
I believe not. The trials in Germany and Italy were keeping up the appearances of real trials with the support of fascist lawyers and judges. Stalin did not bother as much to keep up appearances.
:blah: Try that line on Germans who either lived through it or have studied it.I believe not. The trials in Germany and Italy were keeping up the appearances of real trials with the support of fascist lawyers and judges. Stalin did not bother as much to keep up appearances.
:argue: No it isn't.
you can believe that if you want to, and if you are comfortable believing things for no reason. I prefer to have reasons for the things I think.
you can believe that if you want to, and if you are comfortable believing things for no reason. I prefer to have reasons for the things I think.
This statement runs contrary to your usual pronouncements on legality.
You're right, evidence based on torture is readily admitted in Canadian and (domestic) American courts.
There was no evidence admitted. There was a guilty plea.
There was no evidence admitted. There was a guilty plea.
The guilty plea was extorted. Through a series of earlier ruling the judge had made it clear the trial was not going to be a fair one.
A guilty plea given in an unfair court should have no force or effect.
The guilty plea was extorted. Through a series of earlier ruling the judge had made it clear the trial was not going to be a fair one.
A guilty plea given in an unfair court should have no force or effect.
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.
