Jump to content

The Never-Ending Guantanamo Gong Show


BoomerPete

Recommended Posts

You just have to wonder: What will it take for our government to recognize that the prosecution of Omar Khadr has lost any credibility it might have ever had ?

The Ottawa Citizen: U.S. military judge reinstates fired Khadr lawyer

U.S. military judge reinstates fired Khadr lawyer

 

By Steven Edwards, Canwest News ServiceApril 7, 2009

  A decision by Judge Patrick Parrish, an army colonel, effectively re-instates navy Lt.-Cmdr. Bill Keubler as chief counsel for Canadian terror suspect Omar Khadr just days after the attorney’s immediate boss fired him.Photograph by: Chris Wattie, ReutersNEW YORK — A military judge Tuesday overruled the Pentagon in its firing of Omar Khadr's military defence lawyer — a decision that provoked more confusion in the Guantanamo Bay case.

The move by Judge Patrick Parrish, an army colonel, effectively reinstates navy Lt.-Cmdr. Bill Kuebler as chief counsel for the Canadian-born terror suspect just days after Kuebler's immediate boss fired him.

But the office headed by Air Force Col. Peter Masciola, who gave Kuebler his marching orders Friday, hit back by saying the judge had misread the rules governing the military commissions under which Khadr and other accused terrorists are being prosecuted.

The developments open a new round of infighting for the commissions, which former president George W. Bush established in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

"It is imperative that a decision is made sooner rather than later regarding whether Lt.-Cmdr. Kuebler should remain or not," said Dennis Edney, one of the two Canadian civilian lawyers representing Khadr.

"In the meantime, Omar Khadr is left in a limbo, and his best interests are not being served."

Kuebler, who declined comment Tuesday, had publicly accused Masciola of a conflict of interest in the Khadr case when the colonel fired him.

Masciola cited unspecified ethics violations and accused Kuebler, well known in Canada for having campaigned vigorously for Khadr's repatriation, of being divisive.

Kuebler complained to Parrish and, according to one source, was coincidentally in Masciola's office Tuesday on the colonel's order to discuss the case when the judge issued his ruling.

The source said Masciola was not at all pleased.

"When the ruling came down, Col. Masciola said that he thought the judge was wrong and ordered Lt.-Cmdr. Kuebler to leave the office," the source said.

"Lt.-Cmdr. Kuebler asked to use the phone and he was told that he was not a member of the office and could not use any office equipment."

Rules of the commissions at the U.S. naval base in Cuba lay out conditions under which an attorney assigned by the Pentagon to represent a detainee can be dismissed, but Parrish and Masciola appear to have interpreted them differently.

Parrish says he, as military judge in the case, must approve any firing, which can only be made with cause.

But others interpreting the rules and the overriding Military Commissions Act of 2006 say they guard against outside interference — either political or judicial.

"Col. Parrish interpreted the rule under which Col. Masciola removed Lt.-Cmdr. Kuebler as providing that 'only the military judge may authorize the removal of a detailed counsel,'" said Mike Berrigan, Masciola's deputy.

"We believe the military judge has erred as a matter of law (and) we . . . are asking the judge to re-examine the issue."

Berrigan added Parrish's ruling did not address the "underlying merits" of Masciola's dismissal of Kuebler.

Masciola's service as commissions defence chief has not been without friction, with some attorneys, besides Kuebler, charging he has met with detainees they are representing without their approval.

"Bill is not alone," said one official familiar with the office operations.

"There are attorneys that have told him to back off from interfering, because his job is to administer and supervise, but not get involved in cases without the consent of the lawyers involved."

Another official familiar with the running of the office described the atmosphere as "sour."

But there has also been friction within the team Kuebler led, which currently comprises two other Pentagon-appointed lawyers following the recent departure of a lawyer who had supported him.

Generally, a detainee himself can fire the assigned attorney, or the attorney can be fired with cause.

While Parrish says he plans to hold a hearing on the issue, Nate Whitling, Khadr's second Canadian civilian lawyer, is scheduled on Wednesday to see the detainee to inform him of developments.

The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama is reviewing the files of the more than 240 detainees, and rulings are currently set to be issued in May. Khadr is accused of five war crimes, including murder in the death of a U.S. soldier during a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan, when Khadr was 15.

Masciola's office announced the day he fired Kuebler that Khadr's new chief defence counsel was navy Cmdr. Walter Ruiz, whom it described as having considerable experience in civilian and military courts.

Kuebler's conflict of interest charge centres on Masciola's alleged efforts to ensure that his office and staff remain in place even if the Obama administration review ends up shutting down the whole operation.

He was trying to do this, Kuebler argued, by manoeuvring so that his staff military lawyers continued to represent detainees even if their cases are shifted to civilian courts.

Kuebler had argued Masciola should have left the way clear for him to make the case to the Obama review team that the evidence suggested Khadr would be better repatriated than prosecuted.

© Copyright © Canwest News Service

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
Guest rattler

Court confirms ruling to repatriate Khadr

Andrew Mayeda, Canwest News Service 

Published: Friday, August 14, 2009

  Janet Hamlin/AFP/Getty Images The Federal Court of Appeal has upheld a ruling ordering the government to repatriate Omar Khadr from the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay.

OTTAWA -- The Federal Court of Appeal upheld a ruling Friday ordering the government to repatriate Canadian-born terrorism suspect Omar Khadr from the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay.

In April, Federal Court Justice James O'Reilly ordered the Harper government to seek Mr. Khadr's repatriation, arguing the government's ongoing refusal to do so violates his rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The government's appeal was heard by three Federal Court judges, justices John Maxwell Evans, Karen Sharlow and Marc Nadon. Justices Evans and Justice Sharlow concluded the government's appeal should be dismissed, with Justice Nadon dissenting.

In their reasons for denying the appeal, Justice Evans and Justice Sharlow agreed with Justice O'Reilly's conclusion that Mr. Khadr's charter rights were breached when CSIS officials interviewed him in 2003 and 2004 at Guantanamo Bay, and passed the information they gleaned to U.S. authorities.

Justice O'Reilly ruled the Canadian government was directly involved in Mr. Khadr's mistreatment in Guantanamo Bay by sharing information with U.S. authorities, even though Canadian officials knew Mr. Khadr was being subjected to torture techniques such as sleep deprivation.

"There can be no doubt that their conduct amounted to knowing participation in Mr. Khadr's mistreatment," the appeal judges wrote.

They also shot down the government's argument that Justice O'Reilly overstepped his bounds in ordering Khadr's repatriation.

"While Canada may have preferred to stand by and let the proceedings against Mr. Khadr in the United States run their course, the violation of his charter rights by Canadian officials has removed that option."

But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Nadon argued that Justice O'Reilly erred in determining that Canada has failed to protect Khadr, assuming it had a duty to do so under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"In my opinion, Canada has taken all necessary means at its disposal to protect Mr. Khadr during the whole period of his detention at Guantanamo Bay," Justice Nadon wrote.

Justice Nadon also agreed with the government's argument that Justice O'Reilly went too far in placing the repatriation order.

"In my opinion, the remedy granted by (Justice O'Reilly) exceeds the role of the Federal Court and is not within the power of the Court to grant," Justice Nadon stated.

A spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said it would be "inappropriate" for the government to comment until it has carefully reviewed the case, noting the ruling is a "lengthy judgment with a strong dissenting opinion."

Mr. Khadr, who was born in Toronto, was 15-years-old in 2002 when he was picked up by the United States army in Afghanistan during a shootout with American forces. He is accused of lobbing a grenade that killed a U.S. army medic.

Mr. Khadr, now 22, has been detained at Guantanamo Bay since October 2002. He is the only westerner still detained at the facility, as other nations have repatriated their citizens to face justice at home.

At a hearing in June before the appeal court, a Justice Department lawyer argued that Justice O'Reilly overstepped his bounds by ordering the government to repatriate Mr. Khadr. Although admitting that Mr. Khadr wouldn't pose any specific security risk if repatriated, the lawyer also noted there is only a "remote hypothetical possibility" that the United States will agree to Mr. Khadr's release.

Mr. Khadr's trial on war-crimes charges was suspended in January when U.S. President Barack Obama said the Guantanamo Bay military complex would close within a year. Disputes over who would represent the accused terrorist have further delayed his trial.

Last month, the watchdog for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service concluded the spy agency failed to consider human-rights concerns when its officials interrogated Mr. Khadr in Guantanamo Bay in 2003.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Guest rattler

Seems that our Government is sticking to the guns but with any luck the final ruling will also eliminate any confusing regarding the duty of the Government and the rights of Canadian Citizens who have committed crimes in other countries.

OTTAWA -- The Supreme Court of Canada will decide whether the Harper government must seek Omar Khadr's repatriation from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Without giving reasons, the court announced Friday it will hear a government appeal of rulings in the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal ordering the Conservatives to ask the United States to surrender the young Canadian man.

The Supreme Court agreed to expedite the appeal and the case will be heard Nov. 13.

The court's decision to hear the case means the bench will tackle the thorny issues of what duty, if any, a government has to protect its citizens abroad and whether elected officials should have the discretion to decide when and if they will seek the return of a Canadian detained in another country.

Federal Court Justice James O'Reilly ruled in April that the government, by its years of indifference to Khadr, violated his Charter of Rights guarantee to fundamental justice and, therefore, must seek the 22-year-old's return "as soon as is practicable."

In particular, Canadian officials failed Khadr and violated international human rights norms by interviewing him at the U.S. military camp and then passing on the intelligence to American officials, all the while knowing that he had been subjected to sleep deprivation to induce him to talk, O'Reilly concluded.

While the Charter of Rights does not normally protect Canadians accused of crimes abroad, O'Reilly drew heavily on a May 2008 ruling in the Supreme Court of Canada that found all bets are off when it comes to Guantanamo Bay because the process of detaining prisoners at the compound did not comply with either U. S. domestic or international law.

O'Reilly's decision was upheld last month by the Federal Court of Appeal, with a strong dissenting opinion from Justice Marc Nadon, who sided with the government's argument that it should have the power to decide whether to request the return of a Canadian detained abroad.

Khadr, who was born in Toronto in September 1986, is charged with murder as a war crime for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. army medic on a battlefield in Afghanistan in July 2002.

His trial was suspended in January after U.S. President Barack Obama said the military unit at Guantanamo Bay would close within a year. Khadr is the only remaining westerner at the prison.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has maintained Khadr is charged with a serious crime, and the government should wait to find out if the U.S. intends to drop charges before making any moves.

The government also has said it has done plenty to help Khadr, including requests for consular visits, insisting on medical treatment for the young man, supplying him with educational materials, and seeking assurances he would not be subject to the death penalty.

The current appeal arises from an August 2008 legal challenge filed by Khadr against the prime minister, the minister of foreign affairs, the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and the commissioner of the RCMP.

Close

Presented by

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was fighting for a group determined to destroy us.

Keep him out as long as possible. The only Gong show is the bleeding hearts who stand up for the rapists, murderers and terrorists.

Good work Paul Martin and Stephen Harper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rattler
I realize this kid, in all likely hood, was no angel BUT how he was NOT a 'child soldier' I will never understand.

Guess that all depends upon when a child becomes an adult , that does vary from country to county. I wonder what the age is in Iraq?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"He was fighting for a group determined to destroy us"

Interesting presumption of guilt.

The key is not whether he associated with bad people - his father was a terrorist financier and probably more.

However, there are serious questions about what Omar Khadr actually did or did not do of a military nature. The evidence supporting the charge of murder would probably be thrown out by any civilian court in any democracy. Documents appear, then disappear, then appear again -seemingly altered.

Sorry, you don't have to like the kid or his family politics. The question is, does the evidence support the commital of a crime, and is the evidence credible, i.e. was he tortured, was evidence favorable to his cause suppressed, was evidence detrimental to his cause tampered with or fabricated, and by the standards of punishment the US established has even a guilty Khadr served enough time: see Robert Calley, My Lai massacre, who served only three years of a life sentence. Then there is the whole child solider argument, and it goes on and on.

It is hard to imagine an impartial trial under US military law. Due process, the ultimately protection afforded ALL OF US, has been violated repeatedly in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
Guest rattler

I guess if he is transferred to the US, the debate on if he should be brought back to Canada before trial will be closed. (probably not cool.gif )

Guantanamo inmates headed for Illinois prison

Last Updated: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 | 6:41 PM ET Comments0Recommend1CBC News

The Thomson Correctional Center is set to become the new home for a limited number of Guantanamo Bay detainees. (M. Spencer Green/Associated Press)A state prison in Illinois will become the new home for up to 100 terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre, the White house announced Tuesday.

U.S. President Barack Obama ordered the government to acquire Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Ill., a town near the Mississippi River about 240 kilometres from Chicago.

The almost empty prison is expected to house both federal inmates and no more than 100 detainees from the U.S. centre in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It is not known when the transfer of the Guantanamo detainees will take place.

Military tribunals for potential detainees are expected to be held at Thomson. Detainees the president determines must be held indefinitely but can't be tried may also be moved to the prison.

A Pentagon spokesman told CBC News that Canadian Omar Khadr, who is now at Guantanamo and whose trial by military commission is expected to resume next July, could be transferred to Thomson if it's ready in time.

Republicans condemned moving Guantanamo prisoners to the Illinois prison.

“Gitmo is not being closed, it’s being moved to northwest Illinois,” said Republican Congressman Don Manzullo.

Reaction has been mixed in the town. Some residents are grateful for the thousands of jobs that could be created but others said they are concerned about the inmates.

Both Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn and the two U.S. senators from Illinois supported the decision.

“This will be the most secure prison in America,” Quinn said. “No one has ever escaped from a federal prison.”

White House national security adviser James Jones said shifting detainees to Thomson would make the United States more secure and remove "a recruiting tool that Guantanamo Bay has come to symbolize" for terror organizations.

Obama promised after he became president that he would close the Guantanamo Bay centre. Acquiring the Thomson prison may not solve all the administration's problems related to Guantanamo, since the centre now holds more than 200 detainees. The administration could also face other legal issues and possible resistance from Congress.

The Thomson prison was built by Illinois in 2001 with the potential to house maximum-security inmates. Local officials hoped it would improve the local economy, but state budget problems have kept the 1,600-cell prison from ever fully opening.

At present, the prison houses about 200 minimum-security inmates. Illinois officials have said these inmates can easily be transferred to other state prisons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the federal government doesn't transfer Kadhr as a prisoner they are going to have to deal with Kadhr as a deportee.

They can't just pretend he doesn't exist or is never coming back.

Just give him his $10 million and let's move on... blink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Fantastic news. We have save hundreds of thousands of dollars by not bringing in a fellow keen to destroy us.

A clear example of good government and a clear choice on what the alternative would have been if the government was different.

Good work Stephen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have save hundreds of thousands of dollars by not bringing in a fellow keen to destroy us.

Is he keen to destroy us?

It's not even clear that he is guilty of what he is charged, and I have never heard his thoughts on Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fought for the Taliban, brought up by his terrorist family...good enough information for me thank you. Besides...all us Canadians paying to go to Cuba and he gets all expenses paid....the lucky **bleep**.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fought for the Taliban, brought up by his terrorist family...good enough information for me thank you. Besides...all us Canadians paying to go to Cuba and he gets all expenses paid....the lucky **bleep**.

No it's not. Brought up by his terrorist family is an idiotic argument. It's guilt by association. I don't know that he "fought" for the Taliban. As a 15 year old, he may have been a messenger, but it is very much in dispute whether he threw the grenade in question. As a messenger he may have been following Daddy's orders, but the facts revealed to date do not support the conclusion that he is out to destroy Canada. Was Canada even present in Afghanistan at the time?

He is entitled to a fair trial which isn't getting.

And if he's so well off in Cuba living the high life for FREE, I suggest you offer to trade places with him - which would not only get you a suntan, but would deprive this board of your Berlusconi-like presence. Or is it your Burlesque-like presence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know the reality. He is a child soldier for the Taliban. The opposition will pay millions to bring him back so he can get out soon. Just like all the other criminals whose rights are more important than others. Hopefully Obama will give him a fair trial

That is reality...along with the reality that he ain't coming back from his suntanning in Cuba.

when it comes to burlesque...."Burlesque is a humorous theatrical entertainment involving parody and sometimes grotesque exaggeration". I suggest forum readers look at Daggers postings....

http://forum.aeforum.net/index.php?showtop...0entry1551763

"Taliban boasts of using child soldiers

The Taliban boasted yesterday of its ability to mobilize children against Western forces in Afghanistan, announcing Hafidh Muhammad Zarif, 14, had killed a U.S. soldier. The communique on a website operated by the Islamic fundamentalist group comes as Canadian-born Omar Khadr faces resumption of U.S. military tribunal proceedings against him on charges that include murder of aU. S. soldier in a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan at age 15. "This is not the first time when the boys of this country, as a result of their Islamic and then Afghan feelings, killed the occupation soldiers," says the posting translated by SITE Intelligence Group."

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics...html?id=2273639

Then of course....

One in ten freed Guantánamo detainees goes back to terrorism

More than one in ten of the Guantánamo detainees sent back to their countries of origin have subsequently become involved in terrorist activities, according to the Pentagon.

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon spokesman, said that an estimated 62 former inmates had been linked to terrorism again. “That's an 11 per cent recidivist rate,” he told The Times.

Said Ali al-Shihri, released to Saudi Arabia in 2007, was put through the kingdom's special rehabilitation programme for Jihadists but subsequently emerged as al-Qaeda's deputy leader in Yemen, Mr Morrell claimed. “The detainees released in the early phases were considered to be the easy ones, in other words they could be released with minimal risk, and yet 11 per cent have returned to terrorism,” he said.

“With the remaining detainees, it's increasingly difficult to come to an arrangement because they are considered to pose a greater danger, although not necessarily too dangerous to release to their home countries in the right circumstances.”

Of the 243 detainees left in Guantánamo, 100 are Yemenis. The United States is still trying to negotiate a deal with the Yemeni Government about suitable monitoring and rehabilitation before they can be released.

The US says that it is not insisting on their detention in a Yemeni jail but it is seeking a firm assurance that they will be under some form of control and not be “subject to torture or abuse”.

Yemen recently released 170 al-Qaeda suspects after receiving promises from the individuals that they would renounce terrorism.

With the closure of Guantánamo less than 12 months away, on the orders of President Obama, the US authorities are trying to find ways of dealing with the remaining detainees.

Dick Cheney, the former US Vice-President, said recently: “If you release the hard-core al-Qaeda terrorists that are held at Guantánamo, I think they go back into the business of trying to kill more Americans and mount further mass-casualty attacks.

“If you turn them loose and they go kill more Americans, who's responsible for that?”

http://www.pre.nl/lcm2009/?gclid=CJCy8eazyp8CFVWF7Qodk2PDzw

Woxof...keeping Canada safe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have changed from my original thinking on Gitmo from "screw 'em all, they deserve to be there" to "there are some real problems with how Gitmo has handled their prisoners"

I am not sure what the link that Woxof contributes except to say there is a translated link that says the Taliban uses child soldiers. It does not contribute to the Khadr discussion.

I think the US has pooched it on this one and is refusing to acknowledge the mistake. From what I have read, there is not even any proof that Khadr was a combatant and may have just been present.

To me the issue is to either give him his due process or turn him loose. The whole Gitmo set up was a farce designed to circumvent the law. The US should be better than that. I also think that the role of the Canadian government is to at least advocate for due process for a citizen of our country, something they have seemd unwilling to do.

editted to add; Dick Cheney should go away. That chickenhawk is a coward and a liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Woofer, my position on Khadr is consistent. Everyone is entitled to due process of law, a fair trial. It doesn't matter if you like their politics, their mother, their skin color or their religion. It doesn't matter who their dead ancestors are.

It's about respect for due process because that's one of our fundamental protections in a democratic society, and if you start to get selective about who gets basic rights you may wake up one day and find out YOUR democratic right to due process has been removed by a government that finds your politics or religion offensive, or at least an impediment to their goals.

God help you, Woofer, if you wake up one day in a foreign country, get mistaken for a bad guy, get arrested, and the Canadian government treats your case like they have Khadr's on the presumption that you are a bad guy.

Rest assured that as a believer in due process for all Canadians, native-born or naturalized, I will scream bloody murder if a Canadian government does not stand up for your right to due process.

If Khadr is guilty, if it's cut and dried, he could have been tried a long time ago and convicted. The fact he languishes in prison without trial almost eight years after his alleged crime suggests strongly to me that the US is afraid it will lose a fair trial, and be embarrassed by the "evidence" against him, which may have been invented or altered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure they'll get around to his trial eventually. Barack Hussein Obama has promised new military tribunals. We trust Obama.

Enjoy Cuba.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantastic news. We have save hundreds of thousands of dollars by not bringing in a fellow keen to destroy us.

A clear example of good government and a clear choice on what the alternative would have been if the government was different.

Good work Stephen.

Written as only someone who has completely missed the import of the judgment could. Thanks for not letting us down woxof.

Boomer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"60 Minutes footage outrages Khadr's lawyer

Omar Khadr's Canadian lawyer has blasted CBS News for airing never-before-seen tape that supposedly shows the 21-year-old constructing explosives, saying the footage from a 60 Minutes special subtitled "The Youngest Terrorist?" violated a court ban.

Dennis Edney, a lawyer for the Toronto-born detainee, said a U.S. judge had already ruled the video could not be admissible as evidence for Khadr's terrorism trial at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay.

On Sunday evening, however, the CBS current affairs program aired a feature on Khadr, using video images that 60 Minutes said "appears to be Omar Khadr helping put together a firing device."

The footage showed a group of men sitting indoors on the floor, where gadgets and wires are strewn about. One clip appears to show a young man fanning himself and handling a roll of tape, and another clip shot in night-vision shows a man apparently burying a landmine.

Khadr was only 15 years old in July 2002, when U.S. authorities allege he threw the grenade that fatally wounded a U.S. medic in eastern Afghanistan. Khadr was found alive in the rubble of a bombed-out building shortly afterwards, and was detained at the Guantanamo Bay base in Cuba, where he has since been charged with murder.

The military had reportedly been long planning to show the seized videotape during trial. Edney told the Canadian Press he believed the U.S. government leaked the tape to 60 Minutes to circumvent the court's ruling that the tape could not be considered as evidence."

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/11/19/khadr-video.html

BooHoo for poor Omar. The bleeding hearts are so concerned. No surprise. And they insult the people would be his victims...as usual.

In fact they can reminisce about his happier days by looking about three-quarters of the way down this Wkipedia page at a picture from a video of Omar with a big smile while planting landmines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr

Enjoy the Cuba vacation Omar. Then it will be Illinois for a long, long time.

And yes, it was a very important and wonderful judgement

Woxof....not letting Canada down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genesis 18:23-32 (New International Version)

23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare [a] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."

27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?"

"If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it."

29 Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?"

He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it."

30 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?"

He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."

31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?"

He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it."

32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"

He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."

copied from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...-32&version=NIV

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So, in contradiction of this tenet of faith, you are not Christian, Jewish or Muslim. You sure don't sound Hindu nor of any other major religious group.

Don't get me wrong. I'm the last person on the planet to endorse modern organized religion (with no disrespect to those who have a faith). But these are words of peace, of giving the benefit of the doubt, of the very foundation of our way of life: that individuals accused of a crime are innocent until proven guilty. Whatever any non-religious, agnostic or atheist individual believes, these words have helped to build the world we have today. Everywhere. With every faith. They are "good" words.

The damning of Mr. Khadr as has taken place is akin, albeit on a solitary basis, of the summary judgements of Jews, homosexuals, political dissidents, and now Muslims by past leaders of our world.

I'm sorry, but I find your vitriole disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I cannot find the full video of our poor young Omar planting his landmines(perhaps legal reasons). Yes, I'm sure he is quite comparable in your mind to all those poor Jews, and other discrimminated against people.

No surprise at that.

There is no crime that he has commited that Canada can put him in jail for. If he gets here, he is free. Just like so many on this thread want.

Good work Stephen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I cannot find the full video of our poor young Omar planting his landmines(perhaps legal reasons). Yes, I'm sure he is quite comparable in your mind to all those poor Jews, and other discrimminated against people.

No surprise at that.

There is no crime that he has commited that Canada can put him in jail for. If he gets here, he is free. Just like so many on this thread want.

Good work Stephen.

It seems as if there is no crime he has committed anywhere that the US can put him in jail for, or they would have held the trial already. The guy who tried to blow up a Delta jet in Detroit on Christmas Day will see the inside of a courtroom again within months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone in Canada does indeed have the right to the due process of law and if you do the crime outside of Canada, then the law of the land applies.  That being said, until such time as he is tried in the US courts, we can not judge him as being guilty.

But that's just it, he won't be tried in the US court system. He's stuck in the no man's land that is Guantanamo Bay. Had he been treated in the way that the accused are normally treated in the US legal system, his trial would have been over 5 years ago. Either that, or his lawyer would have won a dismissal for failure to provide due process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...