My, what a lovely communion dress you have there! But you shouldn’t be hanging around on the same corner as the rest of us girls, who are no better than we should be. Your reputation might suffer.
Hell, I been hangin’ with you low-lifes for better than ten years. I can’t get any more suffered.
Simple. There was a scandal that someone needed to take the fall for. A Sergeant is low on the totem pole, so he takes the fall.
Given that there were no recovered bodies and the photographs were conveniently destroyed, I expect that a lot worse happened than just what the story describes.
Why are we even still discussing this? The guy would most likely be guilty of high treason in Canada for conspiring with our enemies (assuming someone had the balls in Canada to prosecute him for it. Too many ‘elucidator’ types here, unfortunately). That’s a life sentence. Anything less than that and he is getting off easy.
Bricker, face facts. People were straight-up tortured at Guantanamo. And the methods of torture were taken, in a very literal manner, straight out of the methods used in the Stalinist Soviet Union. And what was the purpose of the methods used under Stalin? Not to gather information, but simply to produce a confession.
And that’s exactly what happened in this case. He was tortured, using methods familiar to anyone who has read The Gulag Archipelago.
The fact that a military judge is willing to pretend the torture didn’t happen doesn’t mean the rest of us get to shrug our shoulders and pretend along too.
His 2002 actions fit the definition of a 2009 act? Is it normal for an Act to have reach into the past? (IANAL, etc… just curious).
At least we’ve made a bit of progress. At the very least, now you are talking about evidence, rather than rampant speculation. That’s a positive step.
If you want to present the evidence as unbelievable, incredible, or full of lies, that’s your perogative. Just don’t pretend it’s not evidence.
As I said before, you are free to question all the evidence in this case. Poke your holes, bring up inconsistencies, wonder why the defendant didn’t testify and instead pled guilty if you wish. One thing I will ask, though, is that you stop pretending there isn’t any evidence. He was present, one of only two people who could have thrown it, and confessed to it. There is videotape of him with other Al Qaeda operatives constructing and planting IEDs. The reason we won’t have a trial, is because he has admitted his guilt. I dare not think that the evidence will convince you, but you could be a tad bit more objective about the evidence.
So, to be clear, are you arguing that a law passed 7 years after the alleged actions took place should be held to have sway over this defendant, that he fits within its reach in some way?
Or some other argument I’m still missing?
I’ve been arguing against Guantanamo for years now. I’ve been pissed that Obama for refusing to prosecute the people who allowed/did the torture, and have been adamently opposed to how the Bush administration has handled the entire thing.
But there is scant evidence that Khadr was ever tortured, in fact there is a great deal more that he wasn’t. I completely understand just how much the Bush administration cost us in credibility and trust, but there is still room to remain objective and look at the evidence.
Yes, there are many “bleeding heart” types in Canada who would probably have balked at prosecuting Omar Khadr for “high treason”
I guess part of the problem would have been the fact that Khadr’s family moved him to Jalalabad, Afghanistan when he was 10 years old, and that for his entire life, he was taught that the West was something terrible.
It may have been hard to convince a jury that a 10 year old child, growing up to a 15 year old boy in a foreign country, under the influence of a family that hated the West could be reasonably convicted of High Treason against the country he was nominally born in.
We’re just wimpy that way.
Borders are just ink on a piece of parchment. I’ve seen no evidence that indicates Khadr chose to be born in Canada.
Ah, the ignorance of the law excuse. I’ve tried it with speeding tickets. Doesn’t work. You going to use it in relation to throwing a grenade at someone and not knowing that the person could be killed, too?
And if we take the ‘nominally’ Canadian track, then we only have to ‘nominally’ worry about his rights, right?
KarlGauss quotes allegations in post 106 about how he was abused/tortured. Not to mention threatened with rape and death, by a group of people with a history of both. Why should I disbelieve accusations of torture aimed at people with a history of torture?
I think it is a safe bet he was tortured, because he was in the hands of torturers and fits the profile of the people they liked to torture. It would be more surprising if he wasn’t tortured.
Like the right not to have a country or nationality thrust upon him and be bound to same for life? It seems you’ve treated that ‘nominally’ already.
But there’s evidence and there’s evidence, isn’t there? Its not as if all evidence is equal.
You have factual, CSI evidence, and you have testify evidence. If 500 of the most honest people you know swear the sun goes around the earth, for instance, in still ain’t so.
And in testifying evidence, I’m sure you will agree that there is testimony by an objective, uninvolved witness, and then there’s testimony by someone with a “dog in the fight”. Now, it certainly wouldn’t be fair to level a blanket accusation of perjury. But on the other hand, can anyone doubt that the military has a vested interest in not saying to the public “Yeah, we shot a 15 year old boy in the back while he was kneeling, wounded and unarmed. Hey, shit happens!”.
I’m sure you take my point, no reason to belabor it. If I may be accused of speculation rampant, might not you be accused of a rather bland certainty where certainty is elusive? That was my point about the judge here, he not only knew the boy is guilty, he knew what the boy was thinking, and when! From whence? An intense, intimate and longstanding relationship?
From the ground up, every military person involved in this had a vested interest. This does not mean they were lying. But it does reduce the level of evidence from uninvolved and objective to a slightly lower category.
But cut to the nub, the story of a boy and his hand grenade. Of course, there is no physical evidence to offer, there is only testimony. Conflicting testimony. And, of course, there is the little matter of the evidential testimony that seems to have wandered away and gotten lost. Well, darn! Kind of a shame about that, the defense might have found that useful, but everybody knows he’s guilty, why obscure the issue?
(Did I mention this to you, Hamlet? Lord knows I tried, but the hamsters must have gobbled it up before it got to you…)
But, for me, the crucial question of torture has to do with its bearing on the “confession”. This latest update regarding the Canadian question puts a whole different light on it. Did he know about this? If he knew, when did he know? May we reasonably speculate that he might be willing to offer a “confession” in order to leave Gitmo and go to Canada, where he certainly has better prospects for treatment and comfort, and even the prospect of release? I daresay.
(I wonder if they might put up a sign at the border, Welcome Back Khadr!. No, probably not…)
In that case, the threats of eventual buggery and harm weighed against the prospect of humane conditions and possible release…yeah, I’d sign it, Hugh Betcha. As compared to a possible trial at the hands of people who are already determined to prove your guilt? I’d sign if I never knew the difference between a hand grenade and an Easter egg!
And the big target here? His confession is not reliable as evidence. There is no physical evidence, the testimonial evidence is, at best, contradictory, and his confession may well have been influenced, if not outright suborned.
The question isn’t whether he hates America, if he didn’t before, he has good reason to now. Its not even whether he fancied himself a jihadist. It whether or not he threw the hand grenade that killed an American soldier. We can even set aside the question of whether he would have been within his native human right to resist violence, we can argue that another day, or go bowling, all the same.
Did he do it? Doesn’t seem real likely to me, YMMV. Kneeling, wounded, half-blind, he threw the grenade over his shoulder? Seriously? According to the standards of certainty we purport to believe, this doesn’t get there, this does not meet the criteria of the rule of law. And as we all know, the law is the handjob of Justice.
Nope. This is called an ex post facto law (or retroactive law) and its frowned upon for obvious reasons, especially in criminal matters. In fact, many countries explicitly frorbid them in their Constitutions (including the US, Article 1 Section 9), with sometimes an exception for ex post factos that or more lenient than the original.
I’ve already confirmed upthread that I think he should be culpable for his actions that caused the death of the US Soldier. He should have been returned to Canada to face justice, instead of being held without trial for 8 years.
But High Treason? Not so much.
Well, maybe he does, and then, maybe he doesn’t. You have to separate the Kalid Sheik Muhammed type from the ordinary shlub. For whatever reasons, they thought they had a gold mine in those to guys they tried to devolve into amphibians. They thought these guys were gold mines, they were going to wring every drop out of them.
And the Abu Ghraib nausea might best be described as recreational sadism, there was no military point to it, just fucking people over because they could.
Now, if this boy isn’t likely to know anything of major importance, and his handlers come to that conclusion, he really isn’t a candidate for serious medieval-ness. Its a lot of trouble, and you might get caught.
Way I scan it, they were more than willing to apply pressure to obtain a confession, so they wouldn’t have to admit an ugly truth. But he doesn’t have anything that would merit a promotion, he probably won’t even get waterboarded once, he’ll only have to face Torture Lite, thin, clean, and easy on the conscience.
Nevermind
I’ve quoted the relevant law up thread. How doesn’t it apply and why? He is a Canadian and he aided our enemies in addition to directly attacking our allies. Seems to fit the law to a T.
Then why hasn’t he renounced his Canadian citizenship rather than trying to rely on it to get him off or a lighter sentence?