Omar Khadr- Where's the justice?


JLM
No Party Affiliation
#1
Isn't it high time the principals in this matter got their sh*t together? Why is Obama dragging his feet? Why is Harper dragging his feet? Is anyone jumping in and taking charge? Is there no sympathy and compassion for Omar? From what I've read about him he had a very unsettled childhood, & through it I imagine he was left with a big void when it comes down to a sense of nationality. Whatever he was "guilty" of, he should never have been in the position in the first place. Is there any hope for this boy becoming a well adjusted, productive adult? I personally think everyone involved with this case has acted shamefully.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Isn't it high time the principals in this matter got their sh*t together? Why is Obama dragging his feet? Why is Harper dragging his feet? Is anyone jumping in and taking charge? Is there no sympathy and compassion for Omar? From what I've read about him he had a very unsettled childhood, & through it I imagine he was left with a big void when it comes down to a sense of nationality. Whatever he was "guilty" of, he should never have been in the position in the first place. Is there any hope for this boy becoming a well adjusted, productive adult? I personally think everyone involved with this case has acted shamefully.


"As everyone knows by now, the suspected planners pf the 9/11 Incident will be brought to trial in a civilian federal court in New York City, a mere stone's throw from the now-vanished World Trade Center.
The American Civil Liberties Union is happy with that idea, for reasons on which one can only speculate.

If things go as planned and these terrorists actually do get tried under U.S. law as a ordinary criminal they will be set free. When arrested/captured these terrorists were not read the "Miranda Law" which is every criminals right to hear when first arrested.
MIRANDA LAW: A GUIDE TO INTERPRETATION AND EXCEPTIONS
"A bad set of rules is better than no rules at all" (Thomas Jefferson)
The foundations for Miranda v. Arizona (1966) were laid in Malloy v. Hogan (1964) which applied the privilege against self-incrimination to state criminal proceedings and Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) which allowed consultation with an attorney about the privilege against self-incrimination. Because Malloy, or the privilege against self-incrimination, is a primary component of the 5th Amendment, and Escobedo, or the right to counsel, is a primary component of the 6th Amendment, Miranda, or Miranda Law, is usually referred to as"the marriage of the 5th and 6th Amendment." It is therefore not a simple 5th Amendment case nor a simple self-incrimination case. What it deals with are confessions and interrogations, two words that don't even appear in the 5th Amendment.

Miranda is a "bright line" rule (beyond which nobody should cross) intended to forever extinguish the use of COERCION but allowing PRESSURE. It was not intended, as the exclusionary rule was, to reform the police or improve society, but to simply draw the line on coercion, much like Brown v. Mississippi (1936) was intended to outlaw torture. It was not intended to eliminate interrogation, which is inherently stressful and necessarily involves pressure. The purpose of Miranda is to neutralize the distinct psychological disadvantage that suspects are under when dealing with police.

Confessions, prior to Miranda, were only required to meet the voluntariness test, a requirement that all confessions must be voluntary, an exercise of free will on the part of a suspect. This requirement was usually met if the suspect's physical, mental, and emotional condition was stable at the time of making a confession. Today, the voluntariness test and its totality-of-circumstances component continues to be used, but in our post-Miranda era, police must prove they read specific Miranda warnings and obtained an intelligent waiver. Miranda law is not offense-specific; it doesn't matter if the offense is a felony or misdemeanor.

Specific Miranda warnings include the following statements:
  • You have the right to remain silent.
  • Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
  • You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you during questioning.
  • If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you, if you wish.
Intelligent waiver:
  • Do you understand each of these rights as I have explained them to you?
  • Having these rights in mind, do you wish to talk to us now?
There was much concern in the wake of Miranda over the exact wording of the above statements. Police often carried and read from little cards to avoid a favorite tactic of defense attorneys--embarrassing the officer on the stand in repeating the exact words from memory. Over the years, however, Miranda has been "eroded" somewhat (although the courts will not tolerate deliberately reckless departures from the exact wording), as in the case of Duckworth v. Eagan (1989) which held that the following words, although less than perfectly clear, were still acceptable:
  • You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions, and to have him or her with you during questioning. You have the right to the advice and presence of a lawyer even if you cannot afford to hire one. We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court.
A violation of Miranda law will result in immediate (and automatic) suppression of evidence, rendering whatever statements the suspect made to the police and any use the police made with those statements inadmissible in court. However, a violation of Miranda law, in itself, is not grounds for an acquittal nor a reversal of conviction. Two rules have been established in appellate procedure which are followed very strictly.
Miranda Law

In addition all information about how they were captured will be released to the court and news media thus revealing all information about agents involved. This happened once before when The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993. Bin Ladan had everything needed to destroy the U.S. intellegence network as soon as it was made public.
 
Niflmir
Free Thinker
#3
Never thought about that. Its gonna be a farce.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#4
I think Omar should be a completely separate disconnected case from the terrorists.
 
Niflmir
Free Thinker
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

I think Omar should be a completely separate disconnected case from the terrorists.

Agreed, but who has the authority to force the authorities to live up to their responsibilities?
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#6
If the Defense attorneys want to, they can request a separate trial. Up to the Government and Prosecutors to allow it or not. Only the Law can force anything to happen, no person.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
#7
These are show trials.
 
EagleSmack
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Isn't it high time the principals in this matter got their sh*t together? Why is Obama dragging his feet? Why is Harper dragging his feet? Is anyone jumping in and taking charge? Is there no sympathy and compassion for Omar? From what I've read about him he had a very unsettled childhood, & through it I imagine he was left with a big void when it comes down to a sense of nationality. Whatever he was "guilty" of, he should never have been in the position in the first place. Is there any hope for this boy becoming a well adjusted, productive adult? I personally think everyone involved with this case has acted shamefully.


Do you think Obama cares about Omar?

I stick by my original views on this. The US should release Omar to Canadian authorities immediately so Canada can welcome him with open arms and give him a ticker tape parade through Ontario.
 
EagleSmack
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Spade View Post

These are show trials.

So Cuz...the US is now going to try them in American courts with full rights granted to them...which is what the fans of GITMO prisoners wanted...but now they are going to be "show trials"?
 
DurkaDurka
No Party Affiliation
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Do you think Obama cares about Omar?

I stick by my original views on this. The US should release Omar to Canadian authorities immediately so Canada can welcome him with open arms and give him a ticker tape parade through Ontario.

You're also making a silly assumption that the majority of people in Ontario ever want to see the scumbag again. Him and his family aren't exactly loved by the masses.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Spade View Post

These are show trials.

So what if they are show trials, they will be tried found innocent of a parking violation's and sent home.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

Agreed, but who has the authority to force the authorities to live up to their responsibilities?

We've had this absolutely useless United Nations since 1946, it's time they grew their teeth and started using them instead of staying in limbo at the public trough.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurka View Post

You're also making a silly assumption that the majority of people in Ontario ever want to see the scumbag again. Him and his family aren't exactly loved by the masses.

The rest of Omar's family aside, if that is the attitude of Ontarions toward Omar, that is reprehensible and they should be ashamed to be Canadians.
 
EagleSmack
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurka View Post

You're also making a silly assumption that the majority of people in Ontario ever want to see the scumbag again. Him and his family aren't exactly loved by the masses.

That is true and it was more directed towards the people who adore this kid and do at least want to welcome him with open arms and coddle him.

But hey Durka...we have them here in Massachusetts too. Amherst, Mass., another one of our ultra-liberal towns are trying like heck to get four GITMO detainees to resettle in Amherts saying that they would be a wonderful addition to their community. The town has petitioned the US Govt. and there is a committee of reponsible (lol) community leaders actively working on this!
 
EagleSmack
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

The rest of Omar's family aside, if that is the attitude of Ontarions toward Omar, that is reprehensible and they should be ashamed to be Canadians.

Durka...case in point.
 
DurkaDurka
No Party Affiliation
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

The rest of Omar's family aside, if that is the attitude of Ontarions toward Omar, that is reprehensible and they should be ashamed to be Canadians.

We should be ashamed for despising someone who fought against his own country? He's a scumbag traitor, regardless of his age.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#17
'This is a prosecutorial decision as well as a national security decision," President Barack Obama said last week about the attorney general's announcement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al Qaeda operatives will be put on trial in New York City federal court.
No, it is not. It is a presidential decision—one about the hard, ever-present trade-off between civil liberties and national security.
Trying KSM in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda and the hostile nations that will view the U.S. intelligence methods and sources that such a trial will reveal. The proceedings will tie up judges for years on issues best left to the president and Congress.
Whether a jury ultimately convicts KSM and his fellows, or sentences them to death, is beside the point. The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism. It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war.
John Yoo: The KSM Trial Will Be an Intelligence Bonanza for al Qaeda - WSJ.com
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

We've had this absolutely useless United Nations since 1946, it's time they grew their teeth and started using them instead of staying in limbo at the public trough.

Any one of the U.N. Security Council member nations can veto anything they want. It will never become a truly world goverment. No teeth, only gums.
 
gerryh
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism. It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war.


It never was an "act of war" and AQ has always been a criminal organization.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurka View Post

We should be ashamed for despising someone who fought against his own country? He's a scumbag traitor, regardless of his age.

I don't buy that argument, with his upbringing I doubt if the kid actually had any idea which country he belonged to - probably felt abused in all of them.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#21
I don't buy the argument about his upbringing being a part of why he did it either. Kids have a mind set of their own and being part of a so called army is like game playing, being an adult. Unfortunately in his case he was being played by adults. Children commit crimes, they should be punished accordingly.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

I don't buy the argument about his upbringing being a part of why he did it either. Kids have a mind set of their own and being part of a so called army is like game playing, being an adult. Unfortunately in his case he was being played by adults. Children commit crimes, they should be punished accordingly.

Sure he should be punished, is 7 years torture in a foreign country enough or do you still want a gallon of blood?
 
wulfie68
No Party Affiliation
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Sure he should be punished, is 7 years torture in a foreign country enough or do you still want a gallon of blood?

If he's found guilty of killing someone (be it as per the original arrest/accusation/allegations or anyone else), 7 years isn't enough. Murder carries a life sentence in most cases in this country. The "torture" allegation is also something yet to be proven as well.

Honestly, I don't care about Omar Khadr: whether he was "played" or not, he was a young man who made some decisions on his own, that he was old enough to know the consequences for. Some of us may not care for the US enforcing its laws in other jurisdictions around the globe, but we're trying to do the same thing.

Khadr is a "Canadian" accused of murdering a US citizen in Afghanistan. In a perfect world I would say the Afghans should be trying him but I still think the US has more claim on him (via the victim) than we do and public relations BS by Khadr's lawyers aside, I don't think its a sovereignty issue.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68 View Post

If he's found guilty of killing someone (be it as per the original arrest/accusation/allegations or anyone else), 7 years isn't enough. Murder carries a life sentence in most cases in this country. The "torture" allegation is also something yet to be proven as well.

Honestly, I don't care about Omar Khadr: whether he was "played" or not, he was a young man who made some decisions on his own, that he was old enough to know the consequences for. Some of us may not care for the US enforcing its laws in other jurisdictions around the globe, but we're trying to do the same thing.

Khadr is a "Canadian" accused of murdering a US citizen in Afghanistan. In a perfect world I would say the Afghans should be trying him but I still think the US has more claim on him (via the victim) than we do and public relations BS by Khadr's lawyers aside, I don't think its a sovereignty issue.

If you care to check, a "life sentence" for a youth in Canada is 7 years and that doesn't include torture. But first of all they would have to prove the "murder" was deliberate. It would be very nice and convenient to tar him with the same brush as the rest of the radical Muslims.......anyway you have a right to your opinions, but personally I think he should be released now with $100,000 to put him back on his feet.
 
DurkaDurka
No Party Affiliation
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

If you care to check, a "life sentence" for a youth in Canada is 7 years and that doesn't include torture. But first of all they would have to prove the "murder" was deliberate. It would be very nice and convenient to tar him with the same brush as the rest of the radical Muslims.......anyway you have a right to your opinions, but personally I think he should be released now with $100,000 to put him back on his feet.

So not only would you release him without any sort of trial you would also give him $100,000? At a minimum he's a traitor, why would we be rewarding him for that?

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc...46///en?page=1
(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurka View Post

So not only would you release him without any sort of trial you would also give him $100,000? At a minimum he's a traitor, why would we be rewarding him for that?

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc...46///en?page=1
(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

It's not rocket science, he wasn't treated to the process of law, as far as I know he never even got the Miranda read to him.
 
DurkaDurka
No Party Affiliation
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

It's not rocket science, he wasn't treated to the process of law, as far as I know he never even got the Miranda read to him.

What law process do you want him to face, Criminal, Military tribunal? I'm pretty sure the Miranda doesn't apply outside of criminal law.

Regardless, if he is sent back to Canada he should have to face the music for the crime he committed against his own country: High Treason.
 
EagleSmack
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

If you care to check, a "life sentence" for a youth in Canada is 7 years and that doesn't include torture.

last time I checked...neither Afghanistan, US Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, or America does not subject itself to Canadian Law.

Quote:

But first of all they would have to prove the "murder" was deliberate.

Tossing frags is not deliberate?

Quote:

It would be very nice and convenient to tar him with the same brush as the rest of the radical Muslims.......anyway you have a right to your opinions, but personally I think he should be released now with $100,000 to put him back on his feet.

I do think he should be released to Canada to save us the trouble. If Canada wants to give him 100K Loonies they can.
 
EagleSmack
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurka View Post

What law process do you want him to face, Criminal, Military tribunal? I'm pretty sure the Miranda doesn't apply outside of criminal law.

I don't think it matters what law process he faces. It is the result that will be the most important.
 
Liberalman
Free Thinker
#30
Conservatives have a perfect track record when comes to helping Canadian Citizens who are visible minorities they don't unless they are ordered by the Supreme Court of Canada to do it
Last edited by Liberalman; Nov 17th, 2009 at 04:31 PM..Reason: ...
 

Similar Threads

173
Omar Khadr....
by dancing-loon | Apr 18th, 2017
39
Omar Khadr sues Canada for $10 million
by earth_as_one | Sep 26th, 2013
119
Omar Khadr- Release him now
by JLM | Apr 30th, 2010
2
Omar Khadr - Cheney link??
by dancing-loon | Mar 6th, 2008