Omar Khadr was not the only teenager rounded up and sent off to Guantanamo, as this interesting article by Andy Worthington relates:

quote:

---

...Mahbub Rahman, was born in 1985, according to the Pentagon's own records, and was, therefore, either 17 or 18 years old at the time of his capture, sometime around August or September 2003. If he was 17, then his treatment directly contravenes the terms of the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, to which the U.S. is a signatory, which recognizes that juvenile prisoners – defined as those accused of a crime that took place when they were under 18 years of age – "are particularly vulnerable to recruitment or use in hostilities" and requires its signatories to promote "the physical and psychosocial rehabilitation and social reintegration of children who are victims of armed conflict."

If Mahbub Rahman was a child soldier, in other words, the U.S. was supposed to promote his rehabilitation rather than hauling him off to Guantánamo, along with other, more well-known juveniles – including Omar Khadr and Mohamed Jawad, who are both facing a trial by military commission, and Mohammed El-Gharani, a Saudi resident and citizen of Chad, who was just 14 when he was seized.

It transpires, however, that there was no proof that Rahman was a child soldier at all. Although he was accused of spying on American forces, shooting an Afghan soldier and two civilians, and being caught with two automatic rifles, he denied all the allegations, insisting that his only crime – which had no impact on the United States whatsoever – was to shoot, in self-defense, an enemy of his family who was threatening him with a gun and who had killed one of his brothers several years before. In a long and rambling story, he explained how, after the shooting, he had fled to the madrassa (religious school) at which he had been studying in Pakistan, and was captured after returning to Afghanistan to visit his family.

To complicate matters, three other prisoners were seized at the same time as Mahbub Rahman, although only one of these, Azimullah (who was released in April 2007), was also transferred to Guantánamo, where he too was ensnared in the "spying" allegation, which purportedly revolved around a plot to attack a U.S. base. He was also accused of being involved in a firefight with Afghan soldiers. Azimullah, who knew Mahbub Rahman because they studied at the same madrassa, also denied the allegations against him, explaining to his tribunal, "I was walking toward the village with my friend, and the Afghan soldiers were in there and they saw us and arrested us." He said that he was not told why he was arrested at the time, but that "when they took me to the base they told me that I attacked them and that I did this and this."

There is far more to this story than I can cover here (including, as an intriguing aside, the fact that Salim, the friend mentioned by Azimullah, was last heard of in Bagram, having somehow avoided the flight to Guantánamo), but what's clear about the cases of Mahbub Rahman and Azimullah is that, even if the allegations about spying and being involved in a firefight with Afghan soldiers were true, these actions had nothing to do with terrorism, al-Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks.

---

quote:

---

Omar Khadr’s war crimes trial won’t go ahead as planned on Oct. 8 – which means the results of both the Canadian and U.S. elections could now impact his case.

The judge, Col. Patrick Parrish, delayed Khadr’s trial today and was critical of the slow pace with which the U.S. government has turned over evidence to Khadr’s defence team.

But Parrish has not yet set a new date for the trial....

NDP Leader Jack Layton said today that he would return Khadr as soon as possible, adding that the Conservatives’ refusal to do so is a "stain" on Canada’s reputation.

"It is really unconscionable that other countries who have had prisoners in Guantanamo have been able to bring their citizens home," Layton said.

"But our prime minister steadfastly refuses to what’s right. The fact that Mr. Harper will not act is a stain on this country’s stand on human rights and it is reprehensible." - Toronto Star

---

quote:

---

The charges in the latest case to be put forward for trial by military commission demonstrate the commissions' misplaced zeal with alarming clarity. Obaidullah, a 26-year-old Afghan, is charged with "conspiracy" and "providing material support to terrorism," based on the thinnest set of allegations to date: essentially, a single claim that, "[o]n or about 22 July 2002," he "stored and concealed anti-tank mines, other explosive devices, and related equipment," that he "concealed on his person a notebook describing how to wire and detonate explosive devices," and that he "knew or intended" that his "material support and resources were to be used in preparation for and in carrying out a terrorist attack."

It doesn't take much reflection on these charges to realize that it is a depressingly clear example of the administration's disturbing, post-9/11 redefinition of "war crimes," which apparently allows the U.S. authorities to claim that they can equate minor acts of insurgency committed by a citizen of an occupied nation with terrorism. It's also clear that the charges involve no mention whatsoever of al-Qaeda, the 9/11 attacks, or any of the other terrorist attacks for which the commissions were supposedly established. - Source

---

quote:

---

"We have called for Mr. Khadr to be brought back to Canada. If there is justice to be meted out, then it should be happening here," Mr. Layton said.

---

Shame on you, Mr. Layton!

[ 15 September 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

- Miami Herald Sept. 16

I wonder how much political pressure there was from Harper and Bush to postpone the trial date to beyond the elections. Neither wanted to have the Khadr trial making headlines during the campaigns.

[ 16 September 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

The 2008 Canadian National Pro Bono Awards will be presented... at the 2nd National Pro Bono Conference Dinner & Canadian Pro Bono Awards Ceremony in Vancouver on September 18....

Edmonton lawyers Dennis Edney and Nathan Whitling [will be honoured].

These awards are a national celebration of the dedication and commitment of the many lawyers who give their time freely to represent those who need but cannot afford legal assistance or qualify for legal aid....

Dennis Edney and Nathan Whitling have devoted countless hours jointly fighting for the rights of Omar Khadr who has been imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay since 2002. The significance of their commitment is based not only on the tremendous time, energy, and personal resources spent advocating on Mr. Khadr's behalf, but also based on the complexity of the litigation, which was argued before Canadian and U.S. courts and military tribunals. Their commitment in the face of potential personal repercussions of representing an unpopular case is a testament to the finest tradition of the legal profession. The fruits of their labour have not only increased access to justice for one individual, but impacted human rights the world over.

---

[ 17 September 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

[ 17 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Time spent in jail is only considered after conviction, when the sentence is being decided.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
At least I hope any judge that tries the case will see it that way.

---

[ 17 September 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

New Democrats support the call to have Omar Khadr returned to Canada where the legal consequences of his alleged actions should be adjudicated in the Canadian criminal justice system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Since he has committed no crime under Canadian law he would be released for lack of evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
So what the fuck is Layton talking about?

---

Chretien Liberals handed Omar Khadr over to the Americanos for Gitmo law to deal with him. Except, our Liberals neglected to realize that there is no law at Gitmo. Other countries realized it and were successful in repatriating their citizens from Gitmo at the time. Chretien-Liberian Steamships Liberals were quick to ignore Khadr's basic child rights, and now Khadr is paying the price for Liberal kow-towing to Uncle Sam and his phony-baloney war on terror/poor people and democracy in general.

Liberals A-Ok'd Khadr to be tortured at Gitmo. And in doing so, the Liberals were too busy being the Libranos to fight for Khadr's Canadian citizens' rights, as well as his international child rights in 2002.

If you want another four years of Crazy George II's Republican-Conservative policies wafting through Ottawa, then make sure to vote for either the Harpers or the other wing of the party, the Whigs/Liberals "Whigs&Tories™

[ 17 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
There is no way the US will release him without his going into the Canadian system.

---

Second, do you think the US government is going to be tricked into thinking Khadr will be tried in Canada and then once he gets here he's set free? There's no shortage of lawyers in Canada who would be pleased to give the US government a legal opinion on what Canada could charge Khadr with and what the prospects for conviction are. If they are as smart as you, they will tell the US that Khadr will walk scot free.

Third, why should the US be allowed to dictate to Canada how our justice system will deal with a particular person?

quote:

---

Once in our criminal system there will be no sustainable charges and he will have to be released.

---

You don't think Harper would love to have Khadr tried for high treason, if not murder?

Ever heard of Security Certificates?

The absence of sustainable charges didn't stop GW Bush from torturing and imprisoning Khadr. What makes you think Harper is better than that?

quote:

---

You tell me what chance of success there is of our government getting the Americans to admit they made a mistake?

---

quote:

---

Real leaders find ways of accomplishing their goals they don't just bang their heads against a brick wall all the while saying how rightious they are.

---

quote:

---

Third, why should the US be allowed to dictate to Canada how our justice system will deal with a particular person?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I don't know why you keep going on about Liberals. Nobody here is defending what the Liberals ever did. We're talking about what the NDP should be proposing with regard to the repatriation of Omar Khadr.

---

And once again for emphasis, the reason why Omar Khadr is the last and only western world national still there at Gitmo is because the Liberals failed to act during a window of opportunity when other countries' lawyers were defending the rights of their citizens at Guantanamo. Those clever British and Australian and New Zealand lawyers pointed to gaping holes in U.S. military law at Gitmo for which international laws since Geneva and WW II as well as an international children's rights declaration superceded. Since then though, Yanquis have drafted new bogus military law describing Khadr as an "illegal enemy combatant" Yanquis have a grip on Toronto Omar now and refuse to let go citing the new anti-terrorism and bogus Gitmo military law which our Liberals abandoned 15 year-old Khadr to.

quote:

---

What's your position on that? Should Khadr be tried for treason in a Toronto court? Do we have to pretend we're going to try him for treason in order to trick those gullible yanks into returning him to Canada - and then when they do, we say "ha ha" and let him go free?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Khadr's already got competent lawyers working for him. He doesn't need advice from Michael Byers.

---

Where is Khadr now and since 2002? His lawyer thinks the process now is a sham. Perhaps Khadr could use some extra help from an expert in international law. Why would you deny him that if everything is going smoothly since Chretien's Liberals abandoned this Canadian boy to a U.S. military gulag for torture and basic human rights violations in 2002?

quote:

---

I want to know what you think the NDP should be saying about Khadr's fate. Sure, the US should release him, but should he face criminal charges in Canada?

---

When someone says "what's the NDP doing about this", you throw up this incomprehensible stream of "Liberal Liberal Liberal Libranos Steamship Liberals blah blah blah". Christ, it gets tiresome.

M. Spector asks "What's your position on that? Should Khadr be tried for treason in a Toronto court?", and your answer is something about what the Liberals did.

No one cares what the Liberals did. It's irrelevant. We're asking what should be done, now, to repatriate Khadr.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
You're completely obsessed by what the Liberals did. You're the only one to mention them. No one defends them.

---

I'm not defending the Liberals or their second term successors the Libranos either. But Khadr's case does require context. It's part of the truth, and I would have to imagine very important to Khadr's case to look back on why other countries' nationals freedom was fought for and won by their governments at the most opportune time. Our Liberal government turned their backs on Khadr when his child rights as well as Canadian citizens' rights needed defending from attack by a vicious military regime.

quote:

---

M. Spector asks "What's your position on that? Should Khadr be tried for treason in a Toronto court?", and your answer is something about what the Liberals did.

---

Well that's very close to what a Liberal MP in Jean Chretien's government suggested be done with Khadr at the time - to try him on terrorism charges or some bullshit Liberal propaganda in-line with Crazy George II's military governments' trumped up charges. I know you hate the Liberals, and so do I. And so will Omar Khadr loathe the stoogeocratic Liberal regime who failed him the most crucial and trying time of his life, we can be sure.

quote:

---

For six years, and for no pay, Dennis Edney has represented Omar Khadr, the next prisoner at Guantanamo Bay to face trial in a military tribunal system that the lawyer calls a sham.

So he's stepping outside the courtroom, speaking out about his client and hoping to win a victory in another venue. His goal is to sway public opinion and pressure the Canadian government into bringing his Toronto-born client home.

---

quote:

---

Appointed by the Pentagon, navy Lt.-Cmdr. Bill Kuebler is awaiting the judge's rulings on a host pretrial matters, principally whether he can have the Toronto-born youth undergo independent psychiatric and psychological assessments.

"If he grants the experts, the trial's not going to be able to happen before January," Kuebler said.

In January, a new president enters the White House. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opposes the military commissions at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that the Bush administration established outside traditional U.S. court systems to prosecute terror suspects.

But Kuebler denied his strategy was to press for delays in the trial start date in the hope of an Obama victory.

"We've simply been litigating this case as zealously as possible," he said, adding he wasn't confident anything would quickly change with the commissions system regardless of who wins the Nov. 4 presidential election.

The analysts identified by Kuebler would assess the degree to which Khadr - 15 when plucked from an Afghan battlefield in 2002 after being raised in terrorist settings in Afghanistan and Pakistan - has been capable of acting in his own best interest since his detention began….

Kuebler said that having the statements ruled inadmissible could lead to the prosecution dropping its case, but prosecutors have said they have other evidence independent of what Khadr has said in detention. – Source

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Omar Khadr was not the only teenager rounded up and sent off to Guantanamo...

---

quote:

---

The prosecutor in a Guantanamo war crimes case has asked to quit his assignment due to ethical concerns, defence attorneys and the lead military prosecutor said yesterday.

The departure would make at least four Guantanamo prosecutors who have left with misgivings about the fairness of the process, which has drawn international criticism as inhumane and unjust.

Army Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld gave notice within the last few weeks that he wanted to quit the prosecution team early and cited "personal reasons," Col. Lawrence Morris, the Guantanamo military commissions chief prosecutor, told reporters.

The request was accepted and Vandeveld is winding down his involvement with the commission, Morris said.

Vandeveld was prosecuting Afghan murder suspect Mohammed Jawad and the case will go on, Morris said....

Jawad is charged in the Guantanamo tribunal with throwing a grenade into a U.S. military jeep at a bazaar in Kabul in December 2002, injuring two U.S. soldiers and their Afghan interpreter. He was 16 or 17 when Afghan police arrested him and turned him over to U.S. forces.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Army Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld gave notice within the last few weeks that he wanted to quit the prosecution team early and cited "personal reasons," Col. Lawrence Morris, the Guantanamo military commissions chief prosecutor, told reporters.

---

quote:

---

Although Col. Morris attempted to explain that Lt. Col. Vandeveld was leaving “for personal reasons,” the real reasons were spelled out in a statement issued by Vandeveld (PDF), in which he expressed his frustration and disappointment that “potentially exculpatory evidence” had “not been provided” to Jawad’s defense team:

My ethical qualms about continuing to serve as a prosecutor relate primarily to the procedures for affording defense counsel discovery. I am highly concerned, to the point that I believe I can no longer serve as a prosecutor at the Commissions, about the slipshod, uncertain “procedure” for affording defense counsel discovery. One would have thought … six years since the Commissions had their fitful start, that a functioning law office would have been set up and procedures and policies not only put into effect, but refined.

Instead, what I found, and what I still find, is that discovery in even the simplest of cases is incomplete or unreliable. To take the Jawad case as only one example -- a case where no intelligence agency had any significant involvement -- I discovered just yesterday that something as basic as agents’ interrogation notes had been entered into a database, to which I do not have personal access … These and other examples too legion to list are not only appalling, they deprive the accused of basic due process and subject the well-intentioned prosecutor to claims of ethical misconduct.

Vandeveld also stated, “My view of the case has evolved over time,” and proceeded to explain how he had come to suspect that Jawad, who has always denied throwing the grenade, was duped into joining a militant group, and was drugged before the attack. Michael Berrigan, the Commissions’ deputy chief defense counsel, added that prosecutors also knew that the Afghan Interior Ministry said that two other men had confessed to the same crime, although Vandeveld did not mention this in his statement.

Vandeveld added, “Based on my view of the case, I have advocated a pre-trial agreement under which Mr. Jawad would serve some relatively brief additional period in custody while he receives rehabilitation services and skills that will allow him to reintegrate into either Afghan or Pakistani society.” This, however, was turned down by his commanding officers. He continued: “One of my motivations in seeking a reasonable resolution of the case is that, as a juvenile at the time of capture, Jawad should have been segregated from the adult detainees, and some serious attempt made to rehabilitate him. I am bothered by the fact that this was not done.”

On October 26, as Jawad’s defense lawyer, Maj. David Frakt, sought to have the case dismissed due to “gross government misconduct,” Lt. Col. Vandeveld testified for the defense by video link from Washington D.C., explaining, as the Associated Press described it, that “the embattled military tribunal system may not be capable of delivering justice for Jawad or the victims.” “They are not served by having someone who may be innocent be convicted of the crime,” Vandeveld said, reiterating that, even after six years, “it is impossible for anyone in good conscience to stand up and say he or she is provided all the discovery in a case.”

Explaining more of his reasons for quitting his job, Vandeveld told the court that he “reached a turning point” when he chanced upon “key evidence among material scattered throughout the prosecutors’ office.” In another case file, he said he “saw for the first time a statement Jawad made to a military investigator probing prisoner abuse in Afghanistan,” and described it as “an episode that helped convert him from a ‘true believer to someone who felt truly deceived.’” He added that he had “even developed sympathy” for Jawad. “My views changed,” he said. “I am a father, and it's not an exercise in self-pity to ask oneself how you would feel if your own son was treated in this fashion.”

---

[ 03 October 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

[F]ederal appeals judges issued a decision this summer that ridiculed as inadequate the Pentagon's secret evidence for holding one of the Uighurs, Huzaifa Parhat, a former fruit peddler who said he had gone to Afghanistan to escape China.

Since then, the Pentagon has conceded that it would "serve no useful purpose" to continue to try to prove that any of the 17 Uighurs were ever enemy combatants.

The Uighurs say they have never been enemies of the United States, though they were in Afghanistan in 2002, where they were detained. They say they would be persecuted or killed if they were returned to China. The Bush administration says it has failed to find another country willing to accept them.

On Tuesday, a federal district judge, Ricardo M. Urbina, is to hear an urgent claim by lawyers for the Uighurs, that they should be released immediately into the United States since they are no longer considered enemy combatants.

The government argues that they should be held at Guantánamo until another country can be found to accept them. In filings, the Justice Department lawyers make expansive arguments that, while Judge Urbina can hear the Uighurs' case, he cannot order their release. The judiciary "simply has no authority" to release the Uighurs into the United States, one filing said.

The Justice Department said the government's executive branch, not the judicial branch, has the authority to conclude military detentions, as it has in prior wars. It noted that in World War II "no court ever questioned that it was solely for the political branches - not the courts" to decide how Italian prisoners of war were handled.

P. Sabin Willett, one of the Uighurs' lawyers, said such claims appeared to be laying the groundwork for government appeals in the event that a judge orders a detainee freed. - NYT

---

[ 05 October 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
...the Pentagon has conceded that it would "serve no useful purpose" to continue to try to prove that any of the 17 Uighurs were ever enemy combatants.

The Uighurs say they have never been enemies of the United States, though they were in Afghanistan in 2002, where they were detained. They say they would be persecuted or killed if they were returned to China.

---

quote:

---

Lawyers working to free 17 Chinese Muslim Uighurs detained at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp voiced bitter disappointment Thursday over an appeals court ruling temporarily blocking their release.

"This is a terribly disappointing development for no one more so than our clients -- innocent men who once again are left to wonder whether they will ever know life beyond barbed wire," said Neil McGaraghan, a lawyer representing some of the imprisoned Uighur prisoners.

Emi MacLean, an attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which coordinates representation of many Guantanamo detainees, also expressed regret over the ruling late Wednesday.

"Seventeen men were told yesterday that they were going to be released after nearly seven years of wrongful detention," she said.

"Now, they have to be told that their detention will continue to be indefinite."

The Uighurs were living in a self-contained camp in Afghanistan when the US-led coalition bombing campaign began in October 2001. They fled to the mountains, but were turned over to Pakistani authorities, who then handed them to the United States.

The group has been held in limbo at Guantanamo -- despite being cleared for release by the US government -- because officials can not find a country willing to take them. The men cannot be returned to China because they would be tortured there as political dissidents.

In Tuesday's historic ruling, a US federal judge ordered that the group be released in the United States, and said the men should be brought to Washington by Friday -- the first time a court had ordered that "war on terror" prisoners detained at the US base should be released onto US soil.

But the three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia halted the process late Wednesday to give the US Justice Department time to prepare an appeal. - AFP

---

quote:

---

Despite no pay and intense opposition, Dennis Edney has remained passionate about representing high-profile Guantanamo Bay detainee Omar Khadr for over six years.

Edney and colleague Nathan Whitling, who has also been representing Khadr, were recognized for their dogged commitment to the Khadr case with a National Pro Bono Award in September….

Edney became involved with the Khadr case in 2002. Before committing himself, he spoke with his family and Whitling, all of whom felt that Khadr’s was a just cause. Even after more than six years, countless hours of non-billable labour and many thousands of personal dollars, Edney, Whitling and their families are still fervently committed to the Khadr case.

It hasn’t been easy. First, there is the lack of funding. Khadr doesn’t qualify for legal aid because he was not detained in Canada. The Canadian government had declined help, notwithstanding that Edney and Whitling were appointed by the Pentagon as foreign attorney consultants and so saw themselves as representing Canadian interests. Other organizations, while sympathetic, have stopped short of offering financial assistance.

There have been many abuses. Edney described how, at one point, he was denied access to Guantanamo Bay and his client because of his position on the military tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction. On another occasion, en route to Cuba, Edney’s plane was diverted by the American government to a private airfield in Florida. Once on the ground, Edney was subjected to questioning and his laptop was seized. He pointed out that these blatant abuses garnered no outcry from anybody.

“Where have the voices been — of lawyers, law societies? If I have been abused, then what protection is there for anybody?” asked Edney.

Khadr was only 15-years-old when he was detained in 2002. Edney listed a litany of abuses he says Khadr has been subjected to since then, including being: interrogated for hours at a time, tortured, and denied eye protection against the glare from his cell lighting. He has never been psychologically assessed. Edney and Whitling have never been allowed access to his medical files.

Edney said this case is not about Khadr’s guilt or innocence (which has yet to be argued). It is about upholding the rule of law, which Edney considers “under siege.” He believes lawyers have an obligation in this fight.

“We’re part of an ancient tradition. We are sworn to uphold the cause of justice,” said Edney. “Whether that’s representing some guy in a rent dispute or whether it’s representing somebody who’s detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”

---

quote:

---

The American Civil Liberties Union is at Guantánamo monitoring the military commission hearings of Omar Khadr and Mohammed Kamin and the arraignment of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani scheduled to take place this week. The ACLU has been present as an independent observer at nearly every commission hearing since 2004 and continues to see no indication that the proceedings are fair, impartial or in accordance with constitutional principles.

"From the get go, these deeply flawed commissions have stacked the deck in favor of the Bush administration. Any judicial system that allows evidence obtained through torture is fundamentally incompatible with the American system of justice" said Judy Rabinovitz, an ACLU attorney who is observing this week’s proceedings. "With the whole world watching these proceedings, the U.S. must stand up, reject this system and reaffirm its commitment to the rule of law"

Tainted by political interference, the proceedings have been riddled with ethical and legal problems from day one. Among other things, the proceedings allow the admission of secret evidence, hearsay and evidence obtained through torture. The Bush administration has admitted that at least three detainees in its custody have been subjected to waterboarding.

In September, a military judge banned Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, a Pentagon general, from acting as a legal advisor in Khadr’s case because of bias towards the prosecution. Several weeks later, the Department of Defense announced that Hartmann would be "reassigned" to a newly created post – director of court logistics – and replaced by his deputy as the military commissions’ legal advisor. Pledging to prosecute detainees at a quick pace, Hartmann said that his goal in his new post is "to keep the process moving, really intensely" an objective that raises questions about trials that cut corners, deny basic fairness and are aimed at convictions rather than uncovering the truth.

"The Khadr case in particular has illustrated the legal black hole that Guantánamo represents" said Rabinovitz. "Our government should end this farce and make a fresh start in America’s traditional civilian or military courts where the Constitution still means something."

---

quote:

---

There are 12 days until the presidential election and three months until the White House is inhabited by a leader who has vowed to close the U.S. naval prison here.

The question now is, when will Omar Khadr go to trial?

Military judge Army Col. Patrick Parrish yesterday denied a request by Khadr's lawyers for an "indefinite delay," saying he would decide this week whether to postpone the proposed Nov. 10 trial start date.

---

quote:

---

Omar Khadr's trial will now not begin until January 26, a U.S. Military judge has ruled, pushing the trial date past the point where a new administration will take over in Washington, and casting serious doubt as to whether the detained Canadian will face trial in Guantanamo Bay at all.

Colonel Patrick Parrish, the judge overseeing Mr. Khadr's trial on charges of terrorism-related offences and the murder of a U.S soldier during a 2002 Afghan firefight, ruled Friday that the Canadian will now go to trial in late January instead of early November.

The judge's ruling is based on a number of factors, including the defence team's argument that it will take more time for an independent psychologist to fully examine Mr. Khadr. - Globe

---

Why, Amnesty International Canada, of course!

Their Bring Omar Khadr to Justice campaign (which makes it sound like Khadr is some sort of war criminal) involves duping a lot of well-meaning people into signing a petition addressed to Stephen Harper that literally invites him to repatriate Khadr to Canada and then put him on trial here. Yes, this would be the same Stephen Harper who heads the government that the Supreme Court has found was complicit in the torture of Khadr at Guantanamo Bay!

I suppose if Harper does exactly that it will be up to other human rights organizations besides A.I.C. to demand that the charges be dropped and Khadr be released.

[ 24 October 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
What kind of lame-ass national "human rights" organization would call for its own government to put a former child soldier on trial for murder "if there is sufficient and admissible evidence" - even after he has been imprisoned without trial and tortured for seven years by a foreign rogue regime?

---

Here's more on the same theme - the Anglican Diocese of Montréal, Amnesty International, and others, going to bat for a non-Canadian Guantanamo detainee, and saying (in oh-so-genteel terms) why his cause is worthier than Omar Khadr's:

quote:

---

Human-rights officials are calling on the Canadian government to fast-track Ameziane's case, given his detention and and taking into account he has a brother in Canada.

Ameziane's case is not like the high-profile detention of Omar Khadr, the only western citizen left at Guantanamo, says Janet Dench, executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees.

"The Canadian government, whether you agree with them or not, say (Khadr) must face charges against him," Dench said. "That is not the case with Djamel. He's there without any charges against him."

---

[ 24 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

Given where Khadr is now, being in front of a Canadian court would be a huge step up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:

I have every expectation that a Canadian judge would respond favourably to a motion to dismiss on child soldier grounds.

---

So he lives his life with a reputation as a terrorist and murderer?

And the U.S.'s crime was only that he should have been turned over to a youth version of Guantanamo?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
I have every expectation that a Canadian judge would respond favourably to a motion to dismiss on child soldier grounds.

---

And how many months do you think it would be fair to have him sit in a Canadian jail awaiting trial?

[ 24 October 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

I just claimed it was not an unreasonable tactic.

The Cons have nailed their colours to the mast on Khadr being bad. The call to try him here is more likely to be accepted by them than an immediate acceptance of innocence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
I didn't claim that this was the most amazing piece of justice and mercy to ever happen.

---

You construct fantasy scenarios based on hopes and suspicions in order to justify treating Omar Khadr as a criminal, rather than as a victim of crime.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
The Yanks aren't going to consider requests for Khadr's release based on anything other than their new and improved phony military legal framework setup since those citizens from other western countries were released from Guantanamo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
You keep on saying that, and I'll keep on reminding you that even John McCain has said he would release Khadr if Harper asked.

---

Oh right! Jean Chretien could have asked at any time when there existed another opportunity to bring Khadr home at the same time other western countries were acting swiftly to bring their nationals home from Guantanamo.

[ 24 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Those who have been pressing for the young Canadian’s release will now be hoping that the Canadian government (which is also a signatory to the UN Convention) will finally discover its spine, and will take advantage of the change of administration to demand his return to Canada, or that the new US government will refuse to proceed with the case. Barack Obama, who voted against the Military Commissions Act that revived the trial system in 2006, has pledged to abolish the Military Commissions, which he regards (along with the use of torture, the shredding of the Geneva Conventions, and the sidelining of the US Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice) as key examples of the Bush administration’s quest for “unchecked presidential power,” and even John McCain, who voted for the legislation, may wish to transfer the ailing system to the mainland, and has already explained that he would repatriate Khadr if asked to do so by the Canadian government.

---

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

and has already explained that he would repatriate Khadr if asked to do so by the Canadian government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
It is somewhat troubling, nay terrifying, that posters here would make up excuses for Canada not even trying to just plain old simply ask the U.S. to send him back.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
And so once again the NDP calls for Khadr to face charges in Canada, instead of demanding his unconditional release.

Shame on you, Mr. Layton!

[ 15 September 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

---

Layton is acting on the precedent set by other G7 countries in having people charged with terrorist acts have been returned to their own land to stand trial.

The NDP provided our stoogeocrats with seven different ways to convince Yanquis that Canadian Omar Khadr should be dealt with by Canadian law not Gitmo military law. One Liberal MP in 2003 wanted Khadr trying on charges of terrorism. That one merits little mention little of the time.

Meanwhile we're supposed to assume that the Americans are looking out for Omar's best interests. Better that he's there and not here being tortured senseless by a Canadian inquisition of the NDP's creation, or some such.

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TVParkdale:
Once he's here--the whole thing falls under "right to trial within a reasonable period of time" [or however that is legally worded] and would probably be chucked out of court, pronto.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
You didn't have to do that in order for us to figure out that you have precious little regard for human rights or principles of justice.

You construct fantasy scenarios based on hopes and suspicions in order to justify treating Omar Khadr as a criminal, rather than as a victim of crime.

Your cavalier suggestion that Canada, already complicit in crimes against humanity in this case, continue the persecution of this child soldier, who has already done seven years of hard time, much of it in solitary confinement and under torture, is revolting to anyone who has any regard for justice and human rights.

---

My position is that Khadr should be pried out of Guantanimo by any means necessary. What you are saying is that unless he is unconditionally released he should just rot there.

Who is the supporter of human rights here?

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
You didn't have to do that in order for us to figure out that you have precious little regard for human rights or principles of justice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
Who is the supporter of human rights here?

You are willing to sacrifice him on the altar of absolute purity, all the while claiming to be the high priest of human rights, calling down anathema on anyone who disagrees.

---

You are, after all, the one who is quite prepared to have the Canadian government offer its judicial system as an adjunct to the military commissions kangaroo kourt system. This would be the same Canadian government that is already complicit in Khadr's illegal and immoral imprisonment and torture.

I'm not "sacrificing" Khadr. You talk as if the USA is demanding that Canada put Khadr on trial as a condition of his relesase from Guantanamo. Do you have any evidence that that is the case, or that there are even negotiations on the table?

I didn't think so.

If it's not necessary, fine, if it is, do it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

You are, after all, the one who is quite prepared to have the Canadian government offer its judicial system as an adjunct to the military commissions kangaroo kourt system. This would be the same Canadian government that is already complicit in Khadr's illegal and immoral imprisonment and torture.

---

It's not the same government. This is a different government today violating Omar Khadr's citizen rights as well as his internationally-agreed upon child rights. There were two, no , three! successive Canadian federal governments involved not one. Although I can certainly see why you refer to them as one. They are legion, and yet they are of the same business-big banking frame of mind - as if two wings of the same prehistoric pteradactyl about to lay a big rotten egg

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
What is your response if it is part of a deal to get him out of Guantanimo?

---

I see a person who was wrongly accused of murder, imprisoned without trial for seven years, and tortured with the connivance of my government, and I demand his unconditional release.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
It's not the same government.

---

Only someone who wanted to absolve the Harper government of responsibility would make such a specious argument.

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Do you think it will help his sanity at all to be subjected to a trial in a Canadian court on trumped-up charges?

---

He's there.

And he should be here.

Other countries lawyers were quick to get their citizens out of there.

Our guys were a little slow on the draw - about six years slow. It's a little late to be laying down international law now that Yanquis have closed the barn door.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

You, on the other hand, offer to subject him to further indignity, expense, and legal jeopardy as a condition of his release. It's a completely unprincipled position.

---

This is either a lie, or you can't read.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
He should face trial in Canada ONLY if it is necessary to get him out of Guantanimo.

---

They want to "bring Omar Khadr to justice." They want Canada to "immediately request the repatriation of Omar Khadr and, if there is sufficient and admissible evidence, arrange for a fair trial before a Canadian court." They don't say "ONLY if necessary to get him out of Guantanamo" - they want him tried in Canada, quite independent of anything the Americans might demand at some point in the future.

And you don't "see a huge problem" with this.

Yes, I can read, unfortunately for you.

While you and Amnesty and Byers are sitting around thinking up new ways for the Harper government to continue participating in the violation of international law and to commit more crimes against humanity (because, after all, we have to respect the views of the knuckle-dragging Harper-lovers who have a hate on for Khadr's family!) the rest of the civilized world is calling for his unconditional release.

One of the things about the right to a fair trial is an obligation to face trial.

If you had an ounce of concern for the rule of law you would know that the entire Guantanamo incarceration-torture-show-trial cycle is illegal, immoral and unjust. Volunteering the Canadian court system to help out in that process has nothing to do with advancing the rule of law, and everything to do with compounding the illegality, immorality, and injustice solely for the purpose of pandering to the war on terror boosters.

Offering to co-operate with the torturing inquisitors of the Guantanamo gulag is all the more despicable because it implies acceptance of the legitimacy of the process and, in the absence of any demonstrable proof to the contrary, is unnecessary in order to accomplish the goal of releasing Khadr.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Why does Khadr have an obligation to face trial on a trumped-up charge? Because the prosecutors at Guantanamo say so?

---

He's already facing trumped-up charges now and god knows what else they continue to do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
So you are back to letting him rot in Guantanamo because you won't pander to Harper's base.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
What a ridiculous lie! I'm the one who wants him released immediately and unconditionally.

---

And you're willing to leave him there until two conditions are met:

1. A new government is elected in the U.S. and finally gets around to moving Gitmo detainees to the U.S. mainland

2. Some combination of Tories and Liberals in Ottawa demand his release

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
That's another ridiculous lie.

---

And the NDP has demanded that the ruling coalition parties do something more than nothing. Wayne Marston on Khadr in the House part two above.

Pretend George W. Bush says, "we'll repatriate Khadr if Stephen Harper agrees to launch a debate in Parliament about whether Canada should sever diplomatic relations with that Communist Cuba".

Would we say: "Hell, do it - we can have the debate and we're pretty sure the House would vote no. Hahaha, pulled a fast one on GWB!"

And if we didn't say that, would we be accused of letting Omar Khadr rot in illegal detention?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I care about Khadr, but I also care about international law, Canadian sovereignty, and the need to oppose U.S. crimes.

---

155 Liberals told 13 NDP MP's that they cared about Khadr in 2002. It's now 2008, and Khadr is still waiting. And I don't think he desires to be made an example of for the sake of international law which his own government has already failed to uphold. International law has even less meaning for Khadr than it does for the vicious empire and hundreds of military lawyers and Republican-friendly court justices. Khadr doesn't care about those blunders, nor does he care how this looks on any political party. Omar's immediate freedom is all that counts for him today.

[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
This is sad.

Pretend George W. Bush says, "we'll repatriate Khadr if Stephen Harper agrees to launch a debate in Parliament about whether Canada should sever diplomatic relations with that Communist Cuba".

Would we say: "Hell, do it - we can have the debate and we're pretty sure the House would vote no. Hahaha, pulled a fast one on GWB!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Khadr doesn't care about those blunders, nor does he care how this looks on any political party. Omar's immediate freedom is all that counts for him today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
NDP: Wayne Marston on Omar Khadr 2

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
No, I think you just have a personal vendetta against the NDP for pointing out Khadr's dilemma to our then phoniest majority government of them all in 2002. That's what I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
That's another ridiculous lie. He is saying that the NDP should be demanding that the Harper government, immediatly ask for his immediate return.

---

Which is exactly what I thought I heard Wayne Marston say in in the clip linked to above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
What a ridiculous lie! I'm the one who wants him released immediately and unconditionally. You're the one who wants to offer to the torturers to subject him to some good 'ol Canadian-style justice if they will return him home in handcuffs - and without a shred of evidence that such an unprincipled approach would make any difference to the Americans!

It's fucking unbelieveable!

---

Yeah well, it's not a lie, it's an inference from what you have written here. If you don't want to have such inferences drawn, learn how to write more clearly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
Which is exactly what I thought I heard Wayne Marston say in in the clip linked to above.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:

Which is exactly what I thought I heard Wayne Marston say in in the clip linked to above.

Also, the quote from Jack cited above had the word "if" before the reference to facing the court. That seems to be being ignored by some posters here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
You're crazy

And as for Wayne Marston, he said exactly what I would have said if I had been an MP. Note that at no point did he urge the government to put Omar Khadr on trial in Canada.

---

John McCain and Barack "Let's start a war with nuclear-armed Pakistan" Obama thinks Khadr should be repatriated, but only if some coalition ratio of Tories to Liberals asks nicely.

Even Paul Martin said Khadr should be brought home, even though he didn't do it himself when in the PMO's office.

I'm somewhat confused now that Steve Harper insisted on pursuing the previous Liberal government's policies for abandoning Omar to the American inquisition. And now all of these warmongering plutocrats think so highly of Omar Khadr, especially since mid-summer when Byers and international experts merely suggested various points of law to argue with on his behalf since the new and improved "unlawful enemy combatant" law was enacted for Gitmo purposes. It's all okay now though, because shape-shifting lizard-man McCain and Bracket Obomba promise to release Khadr sometime when they begin bombing some country or another ... if only our stooges in Ottawa would make a formal request for his release. In the meantime, the cheque is in the mail, wink-wink nod-nod. This is what international law has been reduced to between Canada and the U.S. Khadr should ask to be reincarnated as a stick of softwood lumber. The Yanks would tell us where to shove him then.

[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

I am not demanding that he face trial, I am suggesting that facing trial in Canada would be better than being stuck in Gitmo. You disagree.

The logical consequence of that disagreement is that you would leave him stuck in Gitmo if he was required to face trial in Canada.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
I am not demanding that he face trial, I am suggesting that facing trial in Canada would be better than being stuck in Gitmo.

---

Spending three years in a Canadian prison, maybe with day parole, would be far better than being stuck in Gitmo indefinitely. Maybe we should put that offer on the table?

C'mon, we've gotta give the U.S. something here. Not that they've asked for anything, and not that we've ever asked for him to just be sent home.

Let's put a damn offer on the table. How about: no jail time for Omar, but a public declaration of support for the mission, signed by all members of the House?

Then if anyone refuses to sign, we can find out who really really cares about Omar, and who wants to cut him loose in the name of some hifalutin "principle".

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Spending three years in a Canadian prison, maybe with day parole, would be far better than being stuck in Gitmo indefinitely. Maybe we should put that offer on the table?

---

No one has suggested Khadr spend one minute in a Canadian prison, until you mentioned it now.

quote:

---

C'mon, we've gotta give the U.S. something here. Not that they've asked for anything, and not that we've ever asked for him to just be sent home.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
No one has suggested Khadr spend one minute in a Canadian prison, until you mentioned it now.

---

You're right! And that's why he's still rotting in Gitmo!

Hey, I'm from the union. We learn through experience that the other side will never negotiate seriously unless you put a serious offer on the table.

It's time to get serious.

How about this: No jail time for Omar - but we deport the rest of his family!

That's just an opener. I'd still keep the 3 years and day parole in my pocket as a closer.

The Liberals threw a-way Omar's first and best chances by missing those bargaining talks when other countries blew their citizens from Gitmo.

Now is the time to do whatever it takes to get him the hell out of hell.

No more pussy footin' around the Yanks for the sake of Jean Chretien's or Paul Martin's political reps and neoliberal era legacies. None of the crooked Libranos ever did one minute in a crowbar hotel after bilking taxpayers and ignoring Khadr's rights as a Canadian citizen and a slew of other laws.

Just get him the hell home asap. To hell with sticking to international law at this point - the time for that has come and gone as far as Omar and his family in Toronto are concerned - and as far as the new military legal regime in place for Gitmo. Apparently the vicious empire doesnt abide the same international laws you ppl seem to think they should, or at least acquiesced to for the sake of admitting to gaping holes in bogus Gitmo law several years ago. Now Yanquis believe they have closed those gaping holes in their own military law. The

Yanks don't recognize an internationally agreed upon UN declaration of children's rights and basic human rights as we well know. It's the same for what is an American inquisition surrounding the phony global war on terror (PGWOT) from here on out

[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has an obligation to demand the repatriation of Omar Khadr because Canada was complicit in the torture of the Guantanamo Bay detainee, a lawyer for Mr. Khadr told Federal Court on Tuesday. ...

Judge O'Reilly reserved his decision.

---

[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
The problem with the absolutist position is that it is not working. Khadr is still in Gitmo.

---

Not working, you say? Maybe that's because it hasn't been tried yet; Harper has not asked, and Bush has not refused.

The very least we owe Khadr before we start bargaining away his human rights is to demand his unconditional release. If that doesn't work, then maybe we can discuss other options.

quote:

---

I am not demanding that he face trial, I am suggesting that facing trial in Canada would be better than being stuck in Gitmo. You disagree.

---

I would also agree that sending him back to Canada and administering a public flogging and putting him in a Canadian prison for ten years would be better than spending the rest of his life in Guantanamo. But unlike you and Amnesty International and Michael Byers, I wouldn't dream of actually demanding that he face such treatment as a condition of his release from Guantanamo.

You say you are not demanding that Khadr face trial in Canada, but that's what Amnesty calls for, and you have no "huge problem" with such a position.

quote:

---

The logical consequence of that disagreement is that you would leave him stuck in Gitmo if he was required to face trial in Canada.

I really don't believe you mean that, but that is what you have argued in slandering me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
[QB]Harper must demand Khadr's return because of detainee's torture, court told

---

quote:

---

On Tuesday, Mr. Whitling said the obligation to demand repatriation is triggered given the numerous violations of Mr. Khadr's rights under both the Canadian Charter and international law and agreements, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

He blasted Ottawa's repeated statements that the Americans had provided assurances of humane treatment for Mr. Khadr.

“I don't want to use the word ‘lie,' but it was a demonstratively false statement that was made to the Canadian public.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
The problem with the absolutist position is that it is not working. Khadr is still in Gitmo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
What it is about is the fact that no one has been putting preasure on the government because he comes from a pariah Muslim family and is not white.

---

And I might add that the Liberals voted 42 times in favour of propping-up the Harpers who are also mostly white males.

I already said I approve of Marston's statement. Someone should have said something like that 6 years ago.

[ 29 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]