The closest they ever come to peace is intermittent periods of exhaustion.
Yeah, well, we just tag along on these little adventures. We don’t start them. I just wish given the starting of them you’d figure out how to finish them.
Maybe you’d like to storm Guantanamo to rescue the little bastard, but I’d prefer we didn’t.
I’m finding it hard to feel sorry for a guy who goes to war against the nation that he then wants to protect him when he gets in the shit.
Surprisingly, Charter protections apply to people for whom we don’t feel sorry.
Anyway, the US has been looking to repatriate Khadr for quite a while — Canada doesn’t want him. You can certainly see why —no government, Liberal or Conservative, could ever come out of this situation looking good — but that doesn’t change the fact that his Charter rights should have been protected, and weren’t.
Of course not, silly man. Because we can just add that to the rules that we created to make sure that what we do is just and right, but what the other side do is foul and evil.
Here, let me add "or a spiffy set of night goggles, or maybe a really cool tache like the guy in Modern Warfare " to the bit about “must be wearing a uniform”. See, all sorted!
He is a child soldier and should be treated as a victim or war.
You don’t get to decide that this only applies to African teenagers who rape and murder, unfortunately it also applies to kids like this.
But the judge in Khadr’s case didn’t overlook the circumstances of his confession. He held a hearing, allowed the defense to call witnesses, and eventually found that there was no evidence Khadr “was ever tortured . . . even using a liberal interpretation considering the accused age.” He went on to consider Khadr’s age and maturity, finding that Khadr had a sufficient understanding to give a confession. He found the statements to be admissible. And then there is the fact that Khadr actually pled guilty.
I do want it clear, though, that I do not support military tribunals that do not conform with due process. Confessions obtained through torture should not be admissible. But the judge held a hearing and ruled that that simply wasn’t the case in Khadr’s confession.
Again, what is your solution? I’m not thrilled to have our jurisdiction extended to wherever our military is at, but, to me, it’s better than locking people up forever.
I know it’s hard to separate the question of what should be done with detainees from the entirety of the fiasco the Bush administration got us into. But I’m not going to try and defend waterboarding. As to Delta Force out of uniform, if they are acting as spies and sabateurs, then they have to deal with the consequences of not having the protections of the Geneva Conventions for POWs.
Problem solved for one guy. I’m also concerned about the other detainees and how our country is going to handle this in the future.
We’re on the same page. The problem I have with the trials at the moment is that I don’t trust due process is being provided. And even the smallest amount of torture has a terrible long term effect - sort of like Gresham’s Law. If there has been torture anywhere (and there has), it casts a pall over all confessions/evidence/testimony. If doesn’t allow us to draw a clear line between us and them any more.
Again - not a great difference here. The POW idea wouldn’t work under current circumstances. There needs to be a declaration of war, and an actual enemy. Justfiying things under the Global War Against Terrorism ™ is bogus as it would lead to never ending detention. Wars on ideas don’t work.
Why no, that’s not torture, that’s “tough love”. Very, very tough.
If every allegation in the wiki link regarding Khadr’s treatment is true, how would “credible evidence” be obtained? What evidence might you expect to exist, the absence of which can be said to be definitive? Are we being treated to a very generous interpretation of what constututes “torture”? Why would we expect “credible evidence” to exist for the use of techniques specifically designed not to leave such evidence?
It will take a long time to get people to trust the government and the military again. And some people will never, ever be convinced. But the first step is to begin giving these people due process and figuring out what to do with them instead of simply locking them up forever. Which is why this charge/trial/guilty plea was one of the the first steps, albeit a wobbly baby step, in the right direction.
Why, thank you, for the opportunity to review, once again, the judge’s ruling. It has not changed significantly, if at all, from the last time I looked at it. I take it you are impressed with the clear objectivity and unstinting determination to get at the truth, as evidenced by the form of the proceedings, i.e., “Did you do this? No? Well, then, moving right along…”
I especially love the strictly unbiased approach, stating at the outset that, of course, the accused is guilty, but we are truly a lovely bunch of folks for offering “world class” medical treatment. Does this, somehow, require mentioning. Don’t I already assume that, and have no need to be reassured? Apparently not.
I sincerely hope that should I ever fall afoul of the law, I might be shown similar respect and presumption of evidence as offered here.
“Did you do this?”
“No.”
“Next!”
I am, of course, pleased to see that our reputation for humane treatment of prisoners remains spotless and unsullied. Well, OK, lightly speckled and a teensy-tiny bit sullied. But no more than angel’s tears on a communion dress.
My suspicions aside, all the evidence offered is a lack of evidence, in a situation where we would not expect evidence. Even waterboarding leaves no physical evidence. Why would we expect there to be evidence?
But, again, thanks for the opportunity to review, it has been hours and hours since I’d seen it, and my memory ain’t what it used to be. Or perhaps it is.
What is the difference between the judge’s verdict in this case, and the judge’s verdict in this instance?
Is there one? Do you believe that SFC Mayo was treated unfairly by the judicial system?
It seems to be that you, in your usual oblique style, are simply saying “I don’t believe the judge, the witnesses, or the evidence.” Is this a generalized distrust of the military judicial process? Was SFC Mayo also a victim of it?
I don’t think the judge’s ruling had been linked to in this thread before. Given some of the misinformation in the thread, I simply offered it for those reading or posting who might be interested in the allegations and the actual evidence involved in the case, rather than simply engaging in rampant speculation and guesswork. In other words, not you.
Excuse me, but what “actual evidence”? All that is noted therein is the lack of evidence. Plus, of course, hearty self-congratulations for providing “world class” treatment for someone so obviously guilty.
And what are we to make of this:
How is it that an absence of evidence is held to exonerate his interrogators, but not him?
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? If so, I seem to have missed it.
Why should I believe a judge who was almost certainly chosen for his willingness to overlook or rubber stamp any torture that the government committed? The US authorities here have already demonstrated their complete moral corruption, including their willingness to lie; I seem no reason to believe this is anything but more of the same.
How do you imagine the judge made his findings in the ruling? Pulled them out of thin air? Magical unicorns told him?
The judge held suppression hearings. At those hearings, he heard testimony of the witnesses (cross examined by Khadr’s defense team of course), including the people who interrogated Khadr, medics, and Khadr’s guards. He received exhibits into evidence, including Khadr’s medical records, the videotape of Khadr preparing roadside bombs and videotape of Khadr being weighed (exhibit #278). He considered sworn affidavits, including the one Khadr’s defense team filed on his behalf. He based his findings on that testimony, the exhibits, and the affidavits. In other words, on the actual evidence.
Nicely done, I like that! “He based his findings on that testimony, the exhibits, and the affidavits.” Those are, basically, the same stuff described three different ways, but presented as if they were three separate and discrete chunks of heavy, heavy evidence. Would you like a turnip, I found this on the truck I just fell off of…
All there is is testimony, no? And the judge clearly and without hesitation considers one set of testimony to be truthful, Interrogator #1 never did this, never did that, never did the other thing. Because Interrogator #1 says so. Period. Full stop.
And the defendant “appeared shaken”. Really. What objective measurement is offered here? And did you note the lovely bit of reasoning, that the “fear” technique of suggesting the kid was going to be buggered to death in the shower, we are told that had no effect on the prisoner’s psyche, but the production of the videotape did. How does he know this, how does he know that the prisoner did not hear about the videotape and think “Shit, this means I’m going to Bugger Farm, I’d better cave, and quick, if I don’t want my shit packed.” He presents to us as facts things he cannot possibly know! Unless he is Capt. LaMont Cranston, and peers into the minds of persons.
And what about that lost report, the one that suggests the prisoner did not throw any grenade? I only mention it again because you don’t. Have you no opinion on that, then, or is it too trivial for your notice?
Is he an innocent lamb, caught at a Boy Scout Jamboree? No, of course not, but he is not accused of hating Americans, he’s not accused of learning things he ought not to know. He is a accused of murder. And yet, so far as I have seen, there is not one shred of evidence that he ever so much as held a hand grenade, never mind used one. Even the testimony that he did is contradictory, and exculpatory testimony appears to have been suppressed.
The evidence, such as it isn’t, does not prove much of anything. But it seems a mite slippery to me for someone to insist that the evidence does not prove coercive treatment, and yet insist that equally flimsy evidence proves murder. On the one hand, we are stern and demanding, on the other, inclined to be forgiving and generous.
I am not interested in shifting the focus of this thread, though you are entirely at liberty to open a thread upon this (no doubt) fascinating topic. I am even less interested in responding to insinuations of bias.
No. Testimony refers to what live witnesses told the judge, face to face. Exhibits are documentary evidence - pictures, video, written records, reports, that have relevance in determining the truth of the matters at issue. Affidavits are written statements of facts in which the author swears under penalty of perjury that the facts so conveyed are truthful. They are quite different – an affidavit cannot be cross-examined, for example.
I don’t blame you for not being interested, since answering this question would expose rather starkly the fact that you only harbor a genuine, good-faith doubt in the military justice system sometimes… like when it’s convenient.