# A ridiculous end to a ridiculous "trial" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 1, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034 "2010-11-01T00:52:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/221 "2010-11-03T14:27:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Prior to that, they were defined by the Bush-era “unlawful combatant” designation and the earlier military tribunal system, which was worse for them. The MCA defining those is dated [2006](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006). Which would also make it _ex post facto_ when it comes to this kid. How about before that ? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/222 "2010-11-03T14:45:41Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > The MCA defining those is dated [2006](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006). Which would also make it _ex post facto_ when it comes to this kid. How about before that ? As the trial courts in both Hamdan and Khadr ruled, the concept of “unlawful combatants” and their being tried and sentenced by military commissions has been around for over 200 years. They actually executed the death penalty on some in WWII. Simply codifying the definition and creating procedures with which to try them doesn’t violate ex post facto clause, because it’s always been illegal. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/223 "2010-11-03T16:53:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How about the video tape? Oh, the video tape shows him throwing a hand grenade? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/224 "2010-11-03T17:33:28Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > This is simply false. The OC-1 report was given to defense team with the rest of discovery. True as far as it goes. However, if I read this right, and Lord knows I barely understand English much less High Legalese, the original documents were altered, in what appeared to be an effort to remove exculpatory testimony. The led to the Defense team asking for the testimony of “LTC W”. [http://www.jlc.org/files/briefs/khadr/D028%20-%202008-03-04%20-%20Def%20Req%20to%20Depose%20LTC%20W%20-%20FOUO%20REMOVED.pdf](http://www.jlc.org/files/briefs/khadr/D028%20-%202008-03-04%20-%20Def%20Req%20to%20Depose%20LTC%20W%20-%20FOUO%20REMOVED.pdf) Now, this is getting a bit thick, google wise, so I’m having trouble following the thread of this any further. So, if an altered document was offered in place of the original, you might be in some way technically correct. Still, not quite kosher. This discussion at a blog called _Opino Juris_ goes into the matter further, and references and cites the news reports that, apprently, source the Wiki discussion that provides the reference you say is false. > **[Khadr Admitted to Being a Murderer — But Did He Mean It?](http://opiniojuris.org/2010/10/26/did-khadr-admit-to-being-a-murderer/)** > > Omar Khadr accepted a plea deal yesterday that called for him to plead guilty to all of the charges against him in exchange for serving one more year at Gitmo and then being repatriated to Canada t… Did the spectral “LTC W” ever actually testify? I don’t know. But seeing as how you are the claimant here, stating without ambiguity that the defense was offered all relevent documentation, I leave it to you to prove the substance of that claim. I’m also assuming that you meant in an unaltered state, being original and undoctored, since I have no reason to believe you a sneaky-guy. Advise. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/225 "2010-11-03T18:23:58Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > True as far as it goes. No. It’s not true. It’s something you either made up or misunderstood. Not “true as far as it goes”, it’s simply not true. As you point out, it was likely a mistake on your part, rather than deliberate falseness, when you repeatedly asserted that there was some kind of “lost report” or that it “wandered away”. It wasn’t lost, it was provided to the defense with the rest of discovery. You have confounded different things. The report of LTC W. is different from the report by OC-1. Both of them were provided to the defense counsel. The one you rely on to claim was hidden the one by OC-1, wherein OC-1 stated that there was another person alive who may have thrown the grenade. That was provided to the defense in a timely manner with discovery. > [@luci](#): > > Did the spectral “LTC W” ever actually testify? I don’t know. I know you don’t. Which is why this is frustrating to me. You simply throw out a bunch of crappy speculation, and expect someone else to actually do the research. Which is why I remain reluctant to engage you on these issues. It’s much easier for you to spread the bullshit than it is for me to clean it up. > [@luci](#): > > But seeing as how you are the claimant here, More bullshit. YOU claimed there was a “lost report”. YOU claimed the OC-1 report had “wandered away”. YOU intimated that the prosecution was hiding the report from the defense. YOU are the claimant, and, like most of the baloney you’ve spread in this thread, you have little to no evidence to support it. So, instead, you try and shift the burden, make false accusations, and then claim ignorance when called on it. I thought you better than that. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/226 "2010-11-03T18:52:38Z")
Oh, well, OK, want to throw politeness to the side? I’m your huckleberry! So you don’t know if the defense’s request for testimony was permitted? Why not? Since you know this stuff so much better than I , so much better that you can offer me your snide, you tell me: did he testify. or no? Given that the facts are at your fingertip, and I am but a misinformed bullshitter, you must have it right at hand! And the cites to go with it, as well. Was the defense request just so much uninformed bullshit, or did they have a valid point to make? Professional lawyers, career men, educated men, they simply indulged themselves in meaningless crap? Is that the scenario you offer us, here? I have no evidence? I have citations, offered. Where’s yours? If I am as full of shit as you claim, this must be no problem at all, but in your eagerness to reveal my character flaws, you have overlooked that detail. Here is another opportunity! Might as well refute these, while your about it, from the discussion I offered, above… [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/07/world/main3802917.shtml](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/07/world/main3802917.shtml) > [@](#): > > …And now, a secret government document mistakenly handed to reporters attending the trial appears to contradict the Bush administration’s charges against Khadr, throwing his trial into a tailspin… > > Prosecutors said Khadr, who is now 21, was the only person alive at the compound (which had been hit by U.S. air strikes), and so was the only person who could have thrown the grenade that fatally wounded Speer. > > On Monday, reporters attending the tribunal were handed a packet of pretrial motions by a spokesperson for the Office of Military Commissions, which included previously classified testimony by an unnamed witness who said Khadr wasn’t the only living person at the scene, and may not even have been in a position to throw a grenade at all… > **[Breaking News - Headlines & Top Stories | The Star](https://www.thestar.com/)** > > thestar.com is one of Canada's largest online news sites and 100% Canadian-owned. Live news, investigations, politics, sports and the heartbeat of Toronto, Canada's largest city. > [@](#): > > …One witness, identified only as “Lt. Col. W,” was accused last March of doctoring a report to implicate Khadr in Sgt. Christopher Speer’s killing. The second witness remains unnamed. (It is unknown whether either could help Khadr’s defence.) > > But the identity of the third witness was revealed publicly for the first time yesterday: U.S. government employee Jim Taylor. > > Taylor has not met with Khadr’s defence team due to instructions from his “employer.”… > > …U.S. Army judge Col. Patrick Parrish chastised the prosecutors for the “glacial” pace that information is turned over to Khadr’s defence team and set a deadline of the end of the month to report back with an explanation about Taylor’s status… “Glacial pace”? He must be lying, the judge, we have rock solid testimony from the esteemed **Hamlet** otherwise. Or the reporter is lying. Somebody is. You present an image of the prosecution playing with total integrity and cooperation. Eager to comply with the rule of fair play. How is it, then, that the judge here is so woefully misinformed? Did he forget to consult you? Anyway, there’s my cites. Where’s yours? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/227 "2010-11-03T19:03:33Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So you don’t know if the defense’s request for testimony was permitted? Why not? I do know. I knew when I typed my prior response. Because I looked it up. LTC K did testify. He testified via video back in May, 2010. Simple facts that you could have found out by yourself. But you’d rather rely on someone else to do your research before you spout off. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/228 "2010-11-03T19:14:31Z")
And the “glacial pace”? Lies? He never said it? You present the unfortunate appearance of someone eager to rebut what he finds easy, and ignore what he finds difficult. Either the judge said it, or he didn’t. He’s either lying, or he is misinformed, or I have point. Which is it? The request is dated March, 2008. It took two years to find him? Why? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/229 "2010-11-03T19:20:33Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > The MCA defining those is dated [2006](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006). Which would also make it _ex post facto_ when it comes to this kid. How about before that ? Yes: even before that version of the Military Commissions Act, military commissions had the authority to try unlawful combatants as criminals, and even execute them. _Ex parte Quirin_, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). > [@Supreme Court in 1942](#): > > Petitioners’ main contention is that the President is without any statutory or constitutional authority to order the petitioners to be tried by military tribunal for offenses with which they are charged; that in consequence they are entitled to be tried in the civil courts with the safeguards, including trial by jury, which the Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee to all persons charged in such courts with criminal offenses. > . > . > . > By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/230 "2010-11-03T19:24:05Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Well, forgive me for taking the opinion of a working lawyer who specializes in the field over yours. You should take the opinion of the lawyer that has addressed the entire argument. Ms. Mariner mentions that she’s quoting form a plurality opinion but never explains the significance of it. I do. I don’t know whether she offered her analysis before or after his guilty plea, but if after, she also apparently doesn’t address the fact that a guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional defects. (Cite for that proposition on request.) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/231 "2010-11-03T19:28:43Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > …LTC K did testify. He testified via video back in May, 2010… By the way, “LTC K”, not “LTC W”? Typo? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/232 "2010-11-03T19:33:48Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Was the defense request just so much uninformed bullshit, or did they have a valid point to make? Professional lawyers, career men, educated men, they simply indulged themselves in meaningless crap? Is that the scenario you offer us, here? No. LTC W’s report and the changes to it are clearly relevant, and important. That’s why they had him testify via video about the changes. But, once again, that’s not what you called the “lost report”. That’s not what you said had “wandered away”. That’s not what we were talking about. You simply keep changing the goalposts, bringing up every thing you’re little googling fingers can bring up and demand that I explain the entire case to you and prove to you something you don’t want to believe. I’m not going to do that. There’s no reason for me to do it. > [@elucidator from CBS news](#): > > “…And now, a secret government document mistakenly handed to reporters attending the trial appears to contradict the Bush administration’s charges against Khadr, throwing his trial into a tailspin…” > > [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/07/world/main3802917.shtml](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/07/world/main3802917.shtml) Here is where you made your mistake. You read that, and made an assumption. I’ll give you a cookie, if you can tell me what assumption you made, and why it was wrong. > [@elucidator](#): > > "You present an image of the prosecution playing with total integrity and cooperation. Eager to comply with the rule of fair play. How is it, then, that the judge here is so woefully misinformed? Did he forget to consult you? I corrected a factual error that you made. I didn’t, however, claim the prosecution was perfect, or didn’t drag their feet, or any of the other strawmen you are trying to build. I pointed out you were wrong. And that obviously pissed you off. So you’ve resorted to dumping out every little tidbit you’ve gleaned that calls anything about the charges into question. And you expect me to answer for the entire military and government. I’m not going to do that. The judge found there was no evidence of torture. The judge found that the confession was admissible. The judge found there was a factual basis for the charge and took Khadr’s guilty plea. From my quick research into it, I have no problem with a guy who is on videotape creating and placing IED’s with Al Qaeda members and who confessed to throwing the grenade that killed a US servicemember, getting to plead guilty to the crimes he was charged with. Note: This does not mean there aren’t issues that could be raised (the changing of LTC W’s report, the possibility that another person was alive to throw the grenade), just that I don’t find them enough to reject his guilty plea, the confession, and the videotape. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/233 "2010-11-03T19:34:53Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > By the way, “LTC K”, not “LTC W”? Typo? Yep. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/234 "2010-11-03T19:37:27Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > And the “glacial pace”? Lies? He never said it? More strawmen. It’s like you think that, since I contradicted one of your baseless assertions, I must now defend everything the government did in the entirety of its handling of Khadr. So you’ll keep coming back with “What about …”, “what about …” and expect me to defend every facet of everything that happened. I won’t do that. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/235 "2010-11-03T20:18:59Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > …Note: This does not mean there aren’t issues that could be raised (the changing of LTC W’s report, the possibility that another person was alive to throw the grenade), just that I don’t find them enough to reject his guilty plea, the confession, and the videotape. I am a big fan of careful wording, and that is a peach! “Issues that could be raised”, yes, that says it very, very carefully, you craft your sentences as cautiously as porcupines make love. I quite agree there are “issues that could be raised”, that’s why I raised them. **Hamlet** , in these peculiar cases, the prosecution holds all the cards. If they do not scrupulously commit themselves to ruthless fairness and a strict determination to give the defense everything it has, what chance for justice? Which is our mutual goal, yes? If the prosecution doesn’t play fair, the defense cannot have a fair day. How can we say that the prosecutions “issues” are not substantial, even definitive? If these things were done, how can you be sure that worse behavior has not evaded us? Is it your impression that whether or not he actually threw the grenade is not strictly relevant? Forgive the ignorance of one who has been no closer to law school than delivering pizza, but I thought that was the whole point. That he was being tried for actions committed, and not simply because we can prove he hated America. And since the prosecution has what amounts to a total monopoly on the evidence, isn’t it crucial to justice that they play strictly by the rules? And they did not, yes? They had the report and “dragged their feet” in offering crucial evidence to the defense. I worded that sarcastically, of course, I did not mean that the report grew legs and “wandered away”. You attack my wording, but the underlying truth remains, whether or not we say “misconduct” or the far, far more benign “issues that could be raised.” Which, as I noted, is a lovely bit of precise euphemism. Would “prosecutorial misconduct” fit the facts as well? And if not, why? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/236 "2010-11-03T20:48:56Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I am a big fan of careful wording, and that is a peach! “Issues that could be raised”, yes, that says it very, very carefully, you craft your sentences as cautiously as porcupines make love. I quite agree there are “issues that could be raised”, that’s why I raised them. And had you simply confined yourself to raising valid questions based on the evidence about the prosecution, we could have avoided much of this animosity. But you didn’t. Even now, you continue to confuse your facts, build strawmen, change the goalposts, and make accusations with very little evidence, all the while expecting me to defend every single thing the military did. All because I had the audicity to correct you. > [@luci](#): > > They had the report and “dragged their feet” in offering crucial evidence to the defense. They gave the OC-1 report to the defense with the discovery. Hell, the defense referenced that report in their motion to suppress the confession. The defense had known about the witnesses since late 2007. And whatever footdragging happened (which was not over the OC-1 report as you falsely asserted), it was over 2 years ago. There has not been, as far as I could find, anything close to a finding of prosecutorial misconduct by the judge. And, since then, Khadr has had his opportunity to go to trial. Instead he pled guilty to the charges. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/237 "2010-11-03T20:53:57Z")
Okay, another question. Wasn’t the US soldier killed by this guy a medic? Or am I confusing this with another incident? ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/238 "2010-11-03T21:36:41Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Okay, another question. Wasn’t the US soldier killed by this guy a medic? Or am I confusing this with another incident? > **[Christopher Speer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Speer)** > > Christopher James Speer (September 9, 1973 – August 6, 2002) was a United States Army combat medic and an armed member of a special operations team who was killed during a skirmish in Afghanistan on July 27, 2002. Speer, who was not wearing a helmet at the time because the mission called for indigenous clothing, suffered a head wound from a grenade and succumbed to his injuries approximately two weeks later. Omar Khadr was charged and convicted of throwing the grenade that killed Speer.\[ Speer en... I think this is the guy in question. While it says he received combat medic training, it does not say if he wore any distinctive markings, or if he was operating as a medic on that mission. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/239 "2010-11-04T00:10:27Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > …Even now, you continue to confuse your facts, build strawmen, change the goalposts, and make accusations with very little evidence.. I at least offer cites. Count the number of cites you have offered since this argment between us began. I’ll make it easiy for you: zero, zip, zilch, nada damn one. I don’t mind someone telling me I’m wrong. Someone telling me I’m a bullshitter, well, frankly, that gets on my nerves, big time and downtown. But at least prove it. At least address the cite with some proof beyond the legendary authority of\*\* Hamlet\*\*. With all due awe, if you do not discredit or refute a cite, I think I am entirely within my rights to assume its because you can’t. For instance: > [@](#): > > …They gave the OC-1 report to the defense with the discovery. Hell, the defense referenced that report in their motion to suppress the confession. The defense had known about the witnesses since late 2007. And whatever footdragging happened (which was not over the OC-1 report as you falsely asserted), it was over 2 years ago. There has not been, as far as I could find, anything close to a finding of prosecutorial misconduct by the judge… For all of this, not one cite. And some of these assertions are a bit shaky. > [@](#): > > …They gave the OC-1 report to the defense with the discovery… All of it? Was the defense as fully informed as they had right to be? Did the prosecution rush to be cooperative, leaving no effort unexpended? Why then the judges admonition? > [@](#): > > …The defense had known about the witnesses since late 2007… That’s nice. When did this case begin? Quite some time before that. Is there some reason, legitimate reason, for the delay? Which, of course, there may be, but you don’t tell us why we should believe that. > [@](#): > > …And whatever footdragging happened (which was not over the OC-1 report as you falsely asserted),… Cite? But footdragging did occur, we are in agreement there? If the “footdragging” was over something else, what? Something inconsequential? Then why the admonition. Something just as important, but not precisely the same as “OC-1”? No, that can’t be it, that would be dishonest. > [@](#): > > ..it was over 2 years ago… Why do you even mention that, if it is entirely innocent? And if it was not, is there a statute of limitations on honesty? > [@](#): > > …There has not been, as far as I could find, anything close to a finding of prosecutorial misconduct by the judge… Semantics. They were scolded, at the very least, for the “glacial pace”. If you want to call that something other than misconduct, fine. You don’t like that wording, offer a replacement. But what you are doing is refuting the semantics while pretending that you refuted the facts. Which you didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2010, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/240 "2010-11-04T02:01:32Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I at least offer cites. Count the number of cites you have offered since this argment between us began. I’ll make it easiy for you: zero, zip, zilch, nada damn one. I linked to the judges’ ruling on the confession. > [@elucidator](#): > > I don’t mind someone telling me I’m wrong. Someone telling me I’m a bullshitter, well, frankly, that gets on my nerves, big time and downtown. I consistently stated you made mistakes, that you probably misunderstood something, and engaged in speculation, not that you were deliberately bullshitting. > [@elucidator](#): > > But at least prove it. At least address the cite with some proof beyond the legendary authority of\*\* Hamlet\*\*. With all due awe, if you do not discredit or refute a cite, I think I am entirely within my rights to assume its because you can’t. When you assume … > [@elucidator](#): > > For instance: > > …They gave the OC-1 report to the defense with the discovery. Hell, the defense referenced that report in their motion to suppress the confession. The defense had known about the witnesses since late 2007. And whatever footdragging happened (which was not over the OC-1 report as you falsely asserted), it was over 2 years ago. There has not been, as far as I could find, anything close to a finding of prosecutorial misconduct by the judge… > > For all of this, not one cite. And some of these assertions are a bit shaky. You can start off [here](http://www.defense.gov/news/commissionsKhadr.html). It’s the DoD’s website for the documents in the Khadr case. It has the ruling I linked to earlier and the motions I referenced. [This is the defense motion for Appropriate Relief](http://www.defense.gov/news/Khadr%20-%20D%20-%20064%20Defense%20Motion%20for%20Appropriate%20Relief.pdf) (I make that motion to my wife alot). In it, the defense actually cites to the OC-1 report. When you first brought up the report, you stated: “And if this report had not accidentally been released, would we know about it? Any evidence of eagerness on the part of prosecutors to supply exculpatory evidence to the defense?” I think you misunderstand, and thought that the release was accidentally to the defense, which wasn’t the case, as opposed to being accidentally released to the reporters, which was the case. Part of the confusion is also that, back in late 2007 the judge issued a order protecting the identity of witnesses. Also, in [this article](http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/03/19/khadr.html), they reference the OC-1 report as being known since at least February 2007. I hope that you don’t need a cite for the proposition that November 2010 is more than 2 years from September 2008. As to the last sentence "There has not been, as far as I could find, anything close to a finding of prosecutorial misconduct by the judge… " There isn’t any I could find in all the DoD files, nor by searching google. If you have a cite on point about it, I’d be more than happy to take a look. But outside of the one admonishment you linked to, I found nothing. Have you had any luck? > [@luci](#): > > All of it? Was the defense as fully informed as they had right to be? Did the prosecution rush to be cooperative, leaving no effort unexpended? Again with the baseless speculation. > [@luci](#): > > That’s nice. When did this case begin? Quite some time before that. Is there some reason, legitimate reason, for the delay? Which, of course, there may be, but you don’t tell us why we should believe that. He was arraigned on November 14, 2007. [Cite](http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Khadr_Arraigned_in_Military_Commissions_Hearing). > [@luci](#): > > But footdragging did occur, we are in agreement there? If the “footdragging” was over something else, what? Something inconsequential? Then why the admonition. Something just as important, but not precisely the same as “OC-1”? No, that can’t be it, that would be dishonest. Do you even read your own cites? Here it is again: "Khadr’s lead lawyer, U.S. Navy Lt.-Cmdr. Bill Kuebler, said Taylor was crucial to Khadr’s defence because he had written a report – date unknown – claiming more than one occupant of the compound raided by U.S. Special Forces was alive when Speer was wounded. Kuebler said he could not disclose the government agency or department where Taylor works since it is classified. U.S. Army judge Col. Patrick Parrish chastised the prosecutors for the “glacial” pace that information is turned over to Khadr’s defence team and set a deadline of the end of the month to report back with an explanation about Taylor’s status." I read that as they were footdragging on the issue of Taylor’s current whereabouts and job, not that they were hiding information about the firefight from the defense counsel. That would have been odd considering defense counsel already knew about it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034.md?page=13)