Ridiculous, incredible response to someone doing their job
By dartman2
@dartman2 (124)
Canada
May 30, 2008 12:01pm CST
I have just heard that the judge presiding over the case of Canadian Omar Khadr being held in Guantanamo Bay has just been fired for delaying the case. What the judge did, thank his soul, was threaten to suspend proceedings if the prosecution didn't make key evidence available to the defence. This is a typical case of another cover-up. Perhaps now that Omar has been held from age 15 to age 21 means that he "must" be found guilty to justify all of the time he has been held in prison. I believe that we need Omar back in Canada where there is at least a chance of a fair trial. What do you think?
2 responses
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
31 May 08
In the case of Omar Khadr I would like to know his status. Is he a POW, an "enemy combatant" or an "unlawful enemy combatant"? In either case he can be held according to the Geneva Conventions by the US. If he is a POW he can be held until the end of the war and a treaty is signed or other mutual arraignments can be agreed upon by both countries engaged in the war. If he is an unlawful enemy combatant then the US May Charge him under US Law if it wishes. The military may consider the enemy combatant to dangerous to be in the general POW camp and may hold them in isolation or in a separate part of the camp. If these enemy combatants are believed to hold important information then "rigorous interrogation tactics" may be used. If you read the Geneva Convention Treaties you will see some very specific thing outlined such as treatment of POW (soldiers in uniform under a central command of a country and following the rules of war). The treaties also talk about "lawful enemy combatants" who are fighting as part of a civilian militia and "unlawful enemy combatants". Unlawful enemy combatants are those not under the command of a central government and those from a foreign country not at war. For this group there are suggestions of what to do with them but in reality they are without protection by the treaty. They are not even considered common criminals and afforded those few legal protections. The treaties use vage language that sound good. Such terms as the military MAY do this or they may use "rigorous interrogation tactics". This allows people to define the terms as they see fit.
Where they have to hold a hearing it is left open as to what kind of hearing. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is different that the Civilian laws. For some more information on this subject I have included a link to a web site that might be useful. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-enemy-combatant.htm
@tigertang (1749)
• Singapore
31 May 08
And to be fair to the US Army, they actually have rules about what constitutes "rigorous interrogation techniques." If I'm not wrong, Congress tried to keep the CIA using these guidelines against the wishes of the Bush Administration - which considering the lack of combat experience of any of its members, kept insisting that it was necessary for the CIA to use techniques that were harsher than the ones used in the army.
What bugs me here is the fact that the Bush administration seems to have very little regard for due process of American Law. America has been such a force in the last five decades of human history by setting an example of being against things like torture and all for due process of the law. It's such a shame to see this aspect of America being flushed down the tube.
Of course, many will argue that I'm being a blind idealist - why play by the rules when the likes of Al Qaeda clearly don't. It's like fighting with your hand tied behind your back. But that's the only way for a democracy to fight terrorist. A war on terrorism is a moral one as it is a military one. Flushing due process down the toilet is the surest way to become the star recruiter for Al Qaeda!
1 person likes this
@Citizen_Stuart (2016)
•
31 May 08
Absolutely. The only way to deal with terrorists is to treat them like the criminal losers they actually are - which includes applying the law to them just as much as anyone else. If you think someone's guilty, gather evidence against them and argue your case to the Twelve Angry Men. Holding someone for years without trial and denying them due process is just the sort of thing we used to criticise Eastern Bloc countries for.
1 person likes this
@dartman2 (124)
• Canada
31 May 08
It appears to me from what I can gather on the net, (esp. Wikipedia) that there are documents important to this case that are not being brought to light. Hence, the judge's ruling and subsequent firing. I cannot find out what "status" Omar has at present as it seems this can change whenever it suits to keep him jailed. I don't know any of this for sure, but it just sounds "murky" to me.
@tigertang (1749)
• Singapore
30 May 08
Really? Didn't you know that we can't give these guys freedome or due process? It might actually mean that the Anti-Semites in charge of the US of A would actually have to behave as dictated by US law. Sorry, you Canadians cannot have him. He's an Arab, a Muslim and according to current logic too dangerous to the Western World, lead by guess who, to be allowed to have a fair trial. Besides, you can't really trust Semitic People to do what they're told.
