Guantanamo judge drops charges against Khadr

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Guantanamo judge drops charges against Khadr

An American military judge abruptly dropped all charges on Monday against Omar Khadr, although it's unlikely to mean freedom for the only Canadian at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

Under the Military Commissions Act that was revised and passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2006, military commissions only have jurisdiction to try "unlawful enemy combatants." However, Khadr was classified by a military panel in 2004 as only an "enemy combatant" — which is what led the judge to dismiss the charges on Monday.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/06/04/khadr-charges.html?ref=rss

Proof positive that the MCA does allow for due process.

 

[Kandahar]

Proof positive that the MCA does allow for due process.

Wait...so they dropped the charges, and they're STILL not going to release him? And you're using THAT as proof of due process? Are you trying to be ironic?

 

[Iriemon]

Proof positive that the MCA does allow for due process.

Proves no such thing. The fact that one judge took an appropriate action or achieved a just result in one case is no evidence that a system provide fair due process if safeguards are not in place to ensure that it is not abused.

If dictators get the right result once in a while.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Wait...so they dropped the charges, and they're STILL not going to release him? And you're using THAT as proof of due process? Are you trying to be ironic?

Umm he's still an enemy combatant captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan fighting Coalition forces, are you suggesting that he should get better treatment than anyother POW in history? What happened here shows that only Unlawful combatants will be prosecuted for their crimes, enemy combatants will be treated like anyother POW.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Proves no such thing. The fact that one judge took an appropriate action or achieved a just result in one case is no evidence that a system provide fair due process if safeguards are not in place to ensure that it is not abused.

If dictators get the right result once in a while.

Umm this case proves that the safeguards are in place, if they are not deemed to be unlawful enemy combatants by a military tribunal then they can not stand trial before a military commmission.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Proof positive that the MCA does allow for due process.

Are you for real? This "ruling" means that his right to a trial is eliminated and he can be held forever without a trial and you somehow interpret this as the system working? That's ridiculous.

BTW - This person was captured when he was 15 years old so it's possible he could be held for 60 or 70 years in prison without ever having a trial. If that is not the most Anti-American grotesque abuse of our Constitution I do not know what is.

 

[Binary_Digit]

It looks to me like he got off on a technicality - he wasn't classified as an unlawful enemy combatant. Military comissions only have jurisdiction over unlawful enemy combatants. But according to the article:

"None of the roughly 380 detainees at Guantanamo have been classified as "unlawful" enemy combatants."

So the military comissions have no jurisdiction over any of the detainees??

 

[Kandahar]

Umm he's still an enemy combatant captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan fighting Coalition forces, are you suggesting that he should get better treatment than anyother POW in history? What happened here shows that only Unlawful combatants will be prosecuted for their crimes, enemy combatants will be treated like anyother POW.

Right, as you said, they should be treated like any other POW, in accordance with the international agreements which the United States has signed and ratified. And if they aren't POWs, then they should have a trial. But they can't simultaneously be POWs and not be POWs, depending on whether or not it suits the Bush Administration's needs.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Umm this case proves that the safeguards are in place, if they are not deemed to be unlawful enemy combatants by a military tribunal then they can not stand trial before a military commmission.

Your "logic" is totalitarianism to the nth degree. I already know that you have no sense of the American way or our Constitution but your posts in this thread are even more radical than your normally extremist right wing un-American writings.....

 

[Binary_Digit]

If that is not the most Anti-American grotesque abuse of our Constitution I do not know what is.

The human rights that are recognized by the U.S. Constitution only apply to Americans, everyone else can piss up a rope.

</sarcasm>

 

[Binary_Digit]

This "ruling" means that his right to a trial is eliminated and he can be held forever without a trial

That's not necessarily the case:

"The U.S. Defence Department said Monday that there would be an appeal of the judge's decision within 72 hours. Khadr will either be re-arraigned or will have his status reviewed by a military tribunal, the Pentagon said."

The guy is accused of throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. corpsman. I think he should be treated like any other PoW. Except that the WoT has no end in sight, so he could fesably be locked up for the rest of his life. There must be a better way.

 

[26 X World Champs]

The human rights that are recognized by the U.S. Constitution only apply to Americans, everyone else can piss up a rope.

</sarcasm>

I know you're joking but that is what Trajan, Navy Pride, Stinger, JamesRage and too many other Americans actually believe!

My question is why are they afraid of trials? That seems so weird to me because what is the rational in being scared to try people?

Since the Bush days are numbered and there's a better than 50% chance that a Democrat will be elected President AND the Democrat's majority in Congress will also increase that bodes well for due process and habeas corpus.

 

[26 X World Champs]

That's not necessarily the case:

"The U.S. Defence Department said Monday that there would be an appeal of the judge's decision within 72 hours. Khadr will either be re-arraigned or will have his status reviewed by a military tribunal, the Pentagon said."

The guy is accused of throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. corpsman. I think he should be treated like any other PoW. Except that the WoT has no end in sight, so he could fesably be locked up for the rest of his life. There must be a better way.

My previous post contains the solution....get Democrats elected and fair play will return to America....

 

[jfuh]

Proof positive that the MCA does allow for due process.

Bullshit, the only reason of such a ruling was because of him not being classified as "unlawful"

The military judge, Col. Peter E. Brownback III of the Army, said that Congress authorized the tribunals to try only those detainees who had been determined to be unlawful enemy combatants. But the military authorities here, he said, have determined only that Mr. Khadr was an enemy combatant, without making the added determination that his participation was “unlawful.” - source

And due process?

The colonel’s ruling does not mean that Mr. Khadr will be freed. The military prosecutors are permitted to refile their murder and terrorism charges against him. They could repair the legal problem by holding a new hearing here, known as a combatant status review tribunal, to determine if he was an unlawful enemy combatant.

So he can still be held indefinitely even without being charged a crime, or until the prosecutors figure out what crime to label him with how the hell is that due process?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Are you for real? This "ruling" means that his right to a trial is eliminated and he can be held forever without a trial and you somehow interpret this as the system working? That's ridiculous.

Ya I do this means that he won't be convicted and sentenced to death, there's no question that he was an enemy combatant he was captured in Afghanistan, why else would a Canadian citizen be in Afghanistan?

BTW - This person was captured when he was 15 years old so it's possible he could be held for 60 or 70 years in prison without ever having a trial. If that is not the most Anti-American grotesque abuse of our Constitution I do not know what is.

A) Blame those who employ child soldiers.

B) Why in the hell should this soldier be treated any different than anyother POW in the history of the U.S.? Are you suggesting that because he fought under the rules of war that he should just be released and allowed to return to the battlefield of Afghanistan?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Bullshit, the only reason of such a ruling was because of him not being classified as "unlawful"

Exactly he fought by the rules of war and thus will not be convicted and executed.

And due process?
So he can still be held indefinitely even without being charged a crime, or until the prosecutors figure out what crime to label him with how the hell is that due process?

And how is that different than anyother POW in the history of war?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That's not necessarily the case:

"The U.S. Defence Department said Monday that there would be an appeal of the judge's decision within 72 hours. Khadr will either be re-arraigned or will have his status reviewed by a military tribunal, the Pentagon said."

The guy is accused of throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. corpsman. I think he should be treated like any other PoW. Except that the WoT has no end in sight, so he could fesably be locked up for the rest of his life. There must be a better way.

Ya if he did not fight by the rules of war he will be tried by military commisssion and hung by the neck until he is dead, that's the better way.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Right, as you said, they should be treated like any other POW, in accordance with the international agreements which the United States has signed and ratified. And if they aren't POWs, then they should have a trial. But they can't simultaneously be POWs and not be POWs, depending on whether or not it suits the Bush Administration's needs.

Yes if they are POW's then they should be held until the sessation of hostilities, and if they are terrorists they should be tried by military commission and upon conviction hung by the neck until dead, this kid apparently fought by the rules of war and will not be tried and executed and now he will be treated as anyother POW would IE held until the duration of hostilities.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Your "logic" is totalitarianism to the nth degree. I already know that you have no sense of the American way or our Constitution but your posts in this thread are even more radical than your normally extremist right wing un-American writings.....

Put the crack pipe down buddy enemy combatants captured on the field of battle are not entitled to Constitutional protections in any, way, shape or form, and unlawful enemy combatants can be tried and punished. And tell me exactly how is that 60 odd year policy a sign of state control over the political, economic, social, and cultural life of the citizenry of the U.S.?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I know you're joking but that is what Trajan, Navy Pride, Stinger, JamesRage and too many other Americans actually believe!

Well anyone who doesn't is ingorant, the Constitution does not apply to non-citizen enemy combatants captured on the field of battle.

My question is why are they afraid of trials?

We're not, they should be tried by military commission and once found guilty hung from the neck until dead.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Put the crack pipe down buddy

Nice personal attack...I put you down for your politics and do not attack you personally but you're incapable, it seems, of that so instead you attack me....

 

[RightinNYC]

This whole thing is a ridiculous non-story.

The judge dismissed the case without prejudice simply because of a difference in the classification of the guy in question. The new charges will be filed shortly, and then the case will progress as normal.

This isn't evidence of anything at all, just that one judge is a stickler for following rules properly. No biggie.

 

[Kandahar]

Yes if they are POW's then they should be held until the sessation of hostilities,

Uh huh. Any idea when that might be? We aren't at war with anyone in particular, we're at war with terrorism and evildoers and bad stuff. That makes it kind of difficult for hostilities to ever cease. Can we start holding people indefinitely without a trial, if they're captured in the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty" too?

and if they are terrorists they should be tried by military commission and upon conviction hung by the neck until dead, this kid apparently fought by the rules of war and will not be tried and executed and now he will be treated as anyother POW would IE held until the duration of hostilities.

So you agree that he's entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Uh huh. Any idea when that might be?

I don't know did we know the exact date of when any war is going to end.

We aren't at war with anyone in particular,

Ya we are; Islamic Fascists.

we're at war with terrorism and evildoers and bad stuff. That makes it kind of difficult for hostilities to ever cease. Can we start holding people indefinitely without a trial, if they're captured in the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty" too?

Ya I haven't seen poverty or drugs blow up any buildings lately nor have I seen poverty or drugs captured on the battlefield while fighting against Coalition forces.

So you agree that he's entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention?

This one may be since he has not been deemed to be an unlawful combatant but rather an enemy combatant. If he falls into the category of a POW then we can hold him until the end of hostilities.

 

[Kandahar]

I don't know did we know the exact date of when any war is going to end.

OK, what is the date that this war began?

Ya we are Islamic Fascists.

"Islamic fascists" is not anyone specific. Who is the leader of the Islamic fascists? What is the capital city of Islamic-Fascistan that we can capture to end this war? To whom shall we present the surrender treaty?

Ya I haven't seen povert or drugs blow up any buildings lately.

Then you haven't looked very hard. It doesn't change the fact that we can be at war with nations or we can be at war with specific groups. We can't be at war with abstract concepts like terrorism, Islamic fascism, drugs, poverty, etc.

In WWII, did we declare war on Nazism and imperialism? No, we declared war on Germany and Japan. And when we had beaten them, the war ended. This war will never have an end, because no one has bothered to articulate whom we're fighting and how we will know when the war is over.

This one may be since he has not been deemed to be an unlawful combatant but rather an enemy combatant. If he falls into the category of a POW then we can hold him until the end of hostilities.

And how about all the others? If they're POWs, they're entitled to Geneva Convention protections. If they're not, they're entitled to trials, lawyers, and due process.