- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 59,447
- Reaction score
- 39,025
- Location
- Best Coast Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Thoughts are?In its split ruling, the appeals court set aside the military commission conviction of Ali Hamza al-Bahlul, a Guantanamo Bay detainee who did media relations for Osama bin Laden.
In essence, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the conspiracy case against al-Bahlul was legally flawed because conspiracy is not a war crime — similar to arguments Khadr has made. The commission only had jurisdiction to try internationally recognized war crimes, the court said.
From what I understand this is not the 1st case that was overturned by courts.Pretty much everything about Guantanamo Bay, from it's inception, are our war crimes. So yeah, I agree with this, it's at least beginning to approach some rational thinking.
Pretty much everything about Guantanamo Bay, from it's inception, are our war crimes. So yeah, I agree with this, it's at least beginning to approach some rational thinking.
I'm not sure I understand this. Is the court saying that conspiracy to conduct a terrorist act is not a war crime? Or is it saying that the conspiracy is irrelevant to the crime? Can some of the Canadian legalese speakers explain this?
Its hard to imagine that conspiring to commit a war crime isn't a war crime, but that does seem to be what they are saying
I'm not sure I understand this. Is the court saying that conspiracy to conduct a terrorist act is not a war crime? Or is it saying that the conspiracy is irrelevant to the crime? Can some of the Canadian legalese speakers explain this?
It goes to the authority of the Military tribunals. What they were permitted and what they were not.
From what we have seen, they could not organize a cluster****.
Its hard to imagine that conspiring to commit a war crime isn't a war crime, but that does seem to be what they are saying
Look man, I don't have a problem with getting Khadr out of Gbay or whatever prison he was at. His case was a sham and people on this forum got a lot of **** for pointing that out. However, if the courts have come to the conclusion that there is no crime in conspiring to commit terrorist activity (and that's what it seems like, I'm not entirely clear and I'm probably wrong on this) that's not something I can support. As I said, if somebody who speaks legalese can clear this up, I'll change my opinion but as I understand it, it feels a lot like the courts are saying there is no crime in conspiring to commit terrorist acts....
Interesting link.It wasn't "conspiring to commit a war crime," though, the charge was conspiracy. Best I can read it, anyway. IANAL.
A U.S. military appeals court on Wednesday threw out the conviction of Australian David Hicks on a terrorism-related charge, saying the activity for which he was convicted did not become a crime until years after he was captured in Afghanistan.
Hicks, 39, pleaded guilty in 2007 to providing material support to terrorism after acknowledging he had trained at an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan and met al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
The ruling from a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that Hamdan's conviction by a military commission for providing material support for terrorism had to be overturned because under the international law of war of the time, his actions — driving bin Laden around — were not defined as a war crime. Hamdan was bin Laden's driver from 1996-2001.
Material support didn't become a war crime until 2006, when Congress passed the Military Commission Act.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?