# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/121 "2010-11-01T21:09:21Z")
I wonder if this is just a pride thing. One of our soldiers was killed, and not by some hardened, hardcore terrorist, but by a frightened 15 year old kid. Not sure why it matters. It’s not like it’s this huge heroic effort to kill thousands of militants with helicopter gunships, predator drones, tanks and fighter jets, and who wield ancient, outdated weaponry and whose only actionable skill is the ability to hide in caves. It’s like those civil war era troops being all proud of taking out a village of bow wielding Indians with cannons and rifles. Gee, how hard that must have been. The war in Afghanistan is a necessity. We can’t have governments allowing terrorists to train and equip people to attack our country. But is the lack of a “true” capable enemy what drives this sort of thing by our government? Are they overcompensating? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/122 "2010-11-01T21:13:34Z")
And, where, exactly, in these Rules of which you are so enamored, where is the use of mercenary soldiers condoned? Or am I being too “kumbaya”? I have yet to meet a cynic who didn’t imagine himself a hard headed realist. ---
**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 1, 2010, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/123 "2010-11-01T21:16:09Z")
> [@Kinthalis](#): > > I wonder if this is just a pride thing. > > One of our soldiers was killed, and not by some hardened, hardcore terrorist, but by a frightened 15 year old kid. > > Not sure why it matters. It’s not like it’s this huge heroic effort to kill thousands of militants with ancient, outdated weaponry and whose only actionable skill is the ability to hide in caves. > > It’s like those civil war era troops being all proud of taking out a village of bow wielding Indians with cannons and rifles. > > The war in Afghanistan is a necessity. We can’t have governments allowing terrorists to train and equip people to attack our country. But is it the lack of a “true” capable enemy what drives this sort of thing by our government? Seriously? You think that the war in Afghanistan is too easy pickings? You think the US wanted to go invade Afghanistan because the enemy wasn’t capable? Do you know nothing about the history of military actions in Afghanistan? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/124 "2010-11-01T21:16:37Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > There are benefits to playing by them, the protection of your soldiers, the protection of innocents, and being treated in accordance with the rules by the opposition. Unfortunately, those things aren’t really high on the list of priorites for Al Qaeda or the Taliban. They’ve taken positions, in fact, clearly in opposition to that. I agree. And if one side doesn’t want them, they really become meaningless. > [@Hamlet](#): > > So what is the solution? We seem to agree that the current rules are not a good fit, what would you recommend? I honestly don’t know. One thing I don’t like, however, as a lawyer, is the idea of dressing up non-legal processes in legal garb. It devalues the rule of law. One possibility is granting non-uniformed combatants POW status. It’s a bit of a pain in the ass, but we could turn round and say that whether they ignore the rules or not (and they will) we will continue to follow them. In combat, shoot the bastards. If they surrender, put them in POW camps, if necessary for the duration. Follow the Geneva convention to the letter. If they have committed crimes of war, prosecute them for those. But attacking US troops isn’t a war crime. > [@Hamlet](#): > > I apologize for being a bit flippant. No offense was meant. Apologies from me too - I was a little heated from another situation and wasn’t really looking to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. I made a mountain out of a molehill, looking back. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/125 "2010-11-01T21:18:23Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > … Do you know nothing about the history of military actions in Afghanistan? Outside of the fact that everybody who does it soon wishes to God they hadn’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 1, 2010, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/126 "2010-11-01T21:19:05Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > And, where, exactly, in these Rules of which you are so enamored, where is the use of mercenary soldiers condoned? Or am I being too “kumbaya”? What is the point of this? That since the Afghan (what can only be loosely called) government has some unsavory warlords with guns for hire that we shouldn’t detain anyone? Granted it happens a bit much, but I’m having a problem following the lucilogic on this one. ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/127 "2010-11-01T21:21:56Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Seriously? You think that the war in Afghanistan is too easy pickings? TOO easy pickings? No. Easy pickings? It should have been. It could have been, perhaps, if competently carried out, and did not involve stupid side expeditions. > [@](#): > > You think the US wanted to go invade Afghanistan because the enemy wasn’t capable? Care to quote the part where I say this was the REASON for invasion? > [@](#): > > Do you know nothing about the history of military actions in Afghanistan? I’ll admit, I’m not an expert, but I think I understand it ok. I’m thinking better than you do. ---
**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 1, 2010, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/128 "2010-11-01T21:34:20Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I agree. And if one side doesn’t want them, they really become meaningless. > > I honestly don’t know. One thing I don’t like, however, as a lawyer, is the idea of dressing up non-legal processes in legal garb. It devalues the rule of law. I agree. It’s yet another aspect of our country that the Bush administration has cost us greatly. Had he established a worthy program for detainees, granted them due process and habeas, didn’t allow any torture whatsoever, and had Congress set up a good system for making these kinds of determinations, we would be in a much better stance now. The damage his presidency has done to our country goes further than just the surface level. > [@villa](#): > > One possibility is granting non-uniformed combatants POW status. It’s a bit of a pain in the ass, but we could turn round and say that whether they ignore the rules or not (and they will) we will continue to follow them. In combat, shoot the bastards. If they surrender, put them in POW camps, if necessary for the duration. Follow the Geneva convention to the letter. If they have committed crimes of war, prosecute them for those. It’s a fine idea, but I don’t think it is a better outcome than allowing for trials for these people. I fully agree that the detainees should be given most of the protections of a POW, but I do have a serious problem with their ongoing, seemingly unending, detention. The theory behind holding the POWs until the cessation of hostilities is that they comported themselves within the rules, so they can’t be instantly assassinated or tortured, but they would still be a risk to return to “the battlefield”. In the case with detainees in the War on Terror (I hate that term, so feel free to add whatever you think is appropriate), there is no true “battlefield” and there is no centralized command structure or government to turn them back over to. The very purposes for the POWs aren’t met. So the issue, to me, becomes whether we should be allowed to detain them forever. I’m not a fan of that outcome, so I find the idea of military tribunals (always assuming they are afforded due process) to be much more palatable. > [@villa](#): > > But attacking US troops isn’t a war crime. Again we’re at the problem that they don’t abide by the Laws of War. I agree this is a tough one, because there are certainly issues with extending jurisdiction worldwide, the concepts of criminal activity rather than war, ex post facto, and other concerns are troubling. But something must be done beyond “lock them up forever”. And while by no means a perfect solution, I have yet to see one (maybe international tribunal for terrorists, but we’re a long way from having those up and running) that is better right now. > [@villa](#): > > Apologies from me too - I was a little heated from another situation and wasn’t really looking to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. I made a mountain out of a molehill, looking back. No worries whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/129 "2010-11-01T21:34:40Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > There are benefits to playing by them, the protection of your soldiers, the protection of innocents, and being treated in accordance with the rules by the opposition. Nonsense. We’ve clearly demonstrated that we are unwilling to play by any rules. And on top of that the rules were written to benefit us; obeying them would just get any resistance group promptly slaughtered to the last man. Which is why we wrote them that way, I’m sure. > [@Hamlet](#): > > Seriously? You think that the war in Afghanistan is too easy pickings? You think the US wanted to go invade Afghanistan because the enemy wasn’t capable? We never wanted to invade Afghanistan in the first place; it was just something to get out of the way so we could conquer Iraq. > [@Hamlet](#): > > What is the point of this? That since the Afghan (what can only be loosely called) government has some unsavory warlords with guns for hire that we shouldn’t detain anyone? Granted it happens a bit much, but I’m having a problem following the lucilogic on this one. He’s probably referring to OUR mercenaries. And the atrocities they’ve committed, and how we placed them above any law. But hey, atrocities are OK if it’s _our_ guys committing them, right? ---
**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 1, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/130 "2010-11-01T21:37:15Z")
> [@Kinthalis](#): > > TOO easy pickings? No. Easy pickings? It should have been. > > It could have been, perhaps, if competently carried out, and did not involve stupid side expeditions. > > Care to quote the part where I say this was the REASON for invasion? > > I’ll admit, I’m not an expert, but I think I understand it ok. I’m thinking better than you do. I’m very comfortable with asserting the war in Afghanistan was not, and likely will not ever be, by any stretch of the imagination, easy pickings. You are, of course, free to disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/131 "2010-11-01T22:14:06Z")
Canada has [agreed](http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/11/01/canada.khadr/index.html?hpt=T1) to accept Khadr. He will serve one year in US custody and then finish out an additional seven-year term in Canada. If his conduct in prison is good, he could be out after serving two-thirds of the seven. ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/132 "2010-11-01T22:40:33Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Canada has [agreed](http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/11/01/canada.khadr/index.html?hpt=T1) to accept Khadr. He will serve one year in US custody and then finish out an additional seven-year term in Canada. If his conduct in prison is good, he could be out after serving two-thirds of the seven. I mean to respond to other things in this thread too, but help me out, lawyers: what’s his ability to challenge his detention in Canadian courts? My understanding has been that he can, and probably will. If so… do you really think Canada’s courts will accept the legitimacy of the American ruling, given the conditions of his internment and the manner of his trial? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/133 "2010-11-01T22:58:00Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > I mean to respond to other things in this thread too, but help me out, lawyers: what’s his ability to challenge his detention in Canadian courts? My understanding has been that he can, and probably will. If so… do you really think Canada’s courts will accept the legitimacy of the American ruling, given the conditions of his internment and the manner of his trial? IAMAL, but I believe that the government has already accepted the ruling, and it would probably be a waste of Khadr’s time to challenge it in a Canadian court. He’s likely perfectly fine with serving the rest of his sentence away from Guantanamo. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/134 "2010-11-01T23:17:23Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > IAMAL, but I believe that the government has already accepted the ruling, and it would probably be a waste of Khadr’s time to challenge it in a Canadian court. He’s likely perfectly fine with serving the rest of his sentence away from Guantanamo. Why? You think he’s “perfectly fine” with spending four-seven _more_ years for the “crime” of attacking soldiers? After already spending eight years? There’s also the possibility that once he’s out of the grip of America Canada will just shrug and let him go. It isn’t like many people outside of America take our accusations and posturing seriously anymore. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/135 "2010-11-01T23:20:12Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > What is the point of this? That since the Afghan (what can only be loosely called) government has some unsavory warlords with guns for hire that we shouldn’t detain anyone? Granted it happens a bit much, but I’m having a problem following the lucilogic on this one. Cute. Not all that abstract, your mom may have mentioned it when your were knee-high. That you cannot condemn others for failing to follow rules that you, yourself, play fast and loose with. Nor can you use the failure of others to follow said rules to toss them aside. The rules are the rules, or they are not. Suppose we had evidence that he threw his grenade at the mercenary soldiers? How does that change the situation? Does the sanctity and legitimacy of US soldiers transfer on to whomsoever we wish? And what about the question of whether or not we have any evidence to prove that he ever threw a grenade at anyone. (I imagine the forensic problems of lifting fingerprints from grenade fragments are daunting). Referencing the wiki above: > [@](#): > > …Silver initially claimed that two Delta Force troops had opened fire, shooting all three of the shots into Khadr’s chest, after the youth was seen to be holding a pistol and facing the troops. _These claims all directly contradict OC-1’s version of events as the only eyewitness._ OC-1 did agree however, that something was lying in the dust near Khadr’s end of the alley, although he couldn’t remember if it was a pistol or grenade… (emphasis mine) And why, do you suppose, he was crouched on his knees facing away from the action? Rather an odd combative stance, don’t you think? And apparently he wasn’t actually holding anything, there was something lying in the dust that might have been a pistol, might have been a grenade. And nobody checked? They just left random bits of armament lying about, nobody can testify about what they were, because nobody looked? Odd, don’t you think? This is as close to physical evidence I can find, eyewitness testimony contradicted by another eyewitness. My years of research in \*Perry Mason \*TV shows suggests that this is rather weak. If we could hire him, **Bricker** could beat this rap behind a frontal lobotomy and a fifth of vodka. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/136 "2010-11-01T23:24:13Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Why? You think he’s “perfectly fine” with spending four-seven _more_ years for the “crime” of attacking soldiers? After already spending eight years? > > There’s also the possibility that once he’s out of the grip of America Canada will just shrug and let him go. It isn’t like many people outside of America take our accusations and posturing seriously anymore. Khadr made a deal to get the hell out of Guantanamo, and end the farce of a trial. I doubt if he will spend 4-7 more years in jail. [From the Globe and Mail:](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/verdicts-in-khadr-is-ottawas-problem-now/article1779878/) > [@](#): > > Mr. Khadr’s Canadian lawyers believe he will be free almost as soon as he is repatriated > [@](#): > > "The Government of Canada therefore wishes to convey that, as requested by the United States, the Government of Canada is inclined to favourably consider Mr. Khadr’s application to be transferred to Canada to serve the remainder of his sentence,\*\* or such portion of the remainder of his sentence\*\* as the National Parole Board determines.” Given that Mr. Khadr will have been in prison for more than nine years, he will be eligible for immediate release. (bolding mine) ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/137 "2010-11-01T23:29:36Z")
So let me get this straight: If an invading force from Belligerencia airdrops into Las Vegas, and I kill one of them, I’m guilty of murder? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/138 "2010-11-01T23:33:40Z")
So long as you yell “Wolverines!”, you’re cool. Just don’t yell “Badgers!”. We don’t need no stinking badgers. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/139 "2010-11-01T23:33:42Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > So let me get this straight: If an invading force from Belligerencia airdrops into Las Vegas, and I kill one of them, I’m guilty of murder? No, but if the US invades Fukistan, and you travel to Fukistan and fight the US armed forces, don’t be surprised if they are really, really pissed off at you, and try to use you as a scapegoat for the entire screwed up fiasco. ---
**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 1, 2010, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034/140 "2010-11-01T23:34:18Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Suppose we had evidence that he threw his grenade at the mercenary soldiers? Catch me up here. _What_ mercenary soldiers are you referring to? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-ridiculous-end-to-a-ridiculous-trial/559034.md?page=8)