Gitmo Lawyers Say Detainee Was Not Read His Rights-- Therefore He Must Be Set Free

[Frankg]

Gitmo Lawyers Say Detainee Was Not Read His Rights-- Therefore He Must Be Set Free
In July 2002, Omar Khadr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr) threw a grenade that blew up an American soldier in Afghanistan.
http://bp2.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/SFgo0XfXUjI/AAAAAAAAObI/_gE-Web5Rec/s400/omar+khadr.JPG (http://bp2.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/SFgo0XfXUjI/AAAAAAAAObI/_gE-Web5Rec/s1600-h/omar+khadr.JPG)
Khadr was wounded and captured during this same firefight.
After his capture a video was found that shows Khadr toying with detonating cord as other men including Abu Laith al-Libi assemble explosives in the same house that had been destroyed in the firefight. He was also seen planting landmines while smiling and joking with the cameraman. It has been suggested that these were the same landmines later recovered by American forces on a road between Gardez and Khowst- Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr).

Omar Khadr will appear before a military judge on Wednesday.
His defence lawyers want him released from Gitmo because he was not read his rights.
Canada.com (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=787dda24-18e2-40e3-8227-54a2fc784529) and LGF Quick Links (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/) reported:

Omar Khadr appears for the first time Wednesday before a military judge whose reputation for working quickly through trial preliminaries has earned him the nickname "rocket-docket."

As the prosecution presses for an early trial date, army Col. Patrick Parrish is expected to process a virtual conveyor belt of defence motions more rapidly than his predecessor, who refused to be rushed.

Khadr's defence team does not want to go to trial, arguing the proceedings before the United States war crimes commissions at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, are unfair.

But Parrish, who has been on the job for a little more than two weeks, has already shown his determination to press on.

On the weekend, he rejected a request from Khadr's defence lawyers to postpone Wednesday's hearing to give them more time to assess the implications of last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling on detainee rights.

In a 5-4 decision, the court placed a question mark over the Bush administration's policy on holding foreign terror suspects, saying they have a "habeas corpus" right under the U.S. Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

Against that backdrop, navy Lt.-Cmdr. Bill Kuebler, Khadr's military-appointed defence lawyer, will use Wednesday's hearing to argue that the entire case against the Toronto-born accused terrorist should be thrown out on grounds U.S. authorities have never told him of his rights.
Omar Khadr faces five war crimes charges that include murder.

Khadr was injured in the firefight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Omar_Khadr_getting_battlefield_first_aid.jpg )and begged to be killed...
But US medics saved his life.
http://bp1.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/SFhFsNnbD3I/AAAAAAAAObY/OdHBaKT34LU/s200/khadr.jpg (http://bp1.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/SFhFsNnbD3I/AAAAAAAAObY/OdHBaKT34LU/s1600-h/khadr.jpg)
Instead, of facing death, Khadr may be set free.
Look for Hollywood to come calling
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/

[Smurf-Herder]

That's insane.

If our soldiers have to give an enemy combatant his miranda rights, when he captures him instead of killing him in battle, then we've gone over the edge.

[Moby]

If that's the entire story then it is insane. Look at the source. There's probably a lot of missing information.

[Cat slave]

We could settle the whole issue if we took them all to WA and set them free
right at the foot of the WA monument. That would satisfy the whiners so
concerned with "terists" rights and then we wouldnt have to pay to feed them.

[bairdi]

Why would you not expect a defense lawyer not to use every argument at his disposal? Just because an argument is presented by the lawyer does not mean the court will accept it. This thread and the article are nothing more than frankie's attempt to stir the pot of division as usual. I think I will start a thread...Scientists Say Asteroids Travel Through Space--Therefore Earth Will Be Destroyed.

[mrbill]

This whole war on terror hasn't been fleshed out very well yet. Once we decide whether terrorists are enemy combatants or civilians,then hopefully we can move beyond this. I'm going to go see right now whether pirates were considered combatants or civilians. either way, in my opinion we have precedence.

[mrbill]

I just looked up the barbary pirates. Unfortunately, the founders considered them neither. We paid tribute to them, but at the same time had the Navy fight them. I guess we treated them as businessmen. Go figure

[Betty Blowtorch]

Usually the failure to read a suspect his rights doesn't result
in a dismissal of the charges. It just means that the suspect's
"confession" and statements to the authorities can't be used
as evidence against him in court.

Considering the international media exposure of torture and
"enhanced interrogation techniques" used against suspects
by US military and intelligence agencies, any "confessions"
made by those suspects should be inadmissable in court.

The whole point of Guantanamo is to deprive suspects of their
rights as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention and to
deprive them of constitutional rights under US law. To insure
convictions, Guantanamo has been set up as a kangaroo court
with military interrogators, prosecutors, judges and executioners
who can convict suspects on the basis of evidence that would
never be allowed in any US court.

It's a sham and a disgrace to American justice.

[Betty Blowtorch]

If you read the WIKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr) link, you'll see that Omar Khadr can hardly
be considered a dangerous al-Qaeda terrorist leader. He was a
15-YEAR-OLD KID in the wrong place at the wrong time.

He followed his father into the mountains of Afghanistan after
some bombing attacks. Little Omar was allowed to cook meals
and wash dishes for local militants. He was also instructed in
building landmines and other military training. This is certainly
not surprising since he lived in a war zone filled with warring
Afghan militias.

Omar is accused of attacking US troops and tossing a grenade
that killed a US soldier, but that's not what really happened.

Omar went with some local militants to a house in a village.
Based on a tip, US troops and Afghan militia surrounded and
attacked the house. A firefight ensued, and the house was
bombed from the air. All of the men in the house were killed,
except Omar.

Omar was the only survivor. He had been shot several times,
bombed and hit with shrapnel, unconscious and barely alive.

Legal documents have been leaked which state that there's
no evidence whatsoever to support the charge that Omar
threw the grenade that killed a US soldier. He was simply
one of the people in the house that was attacked.

While it's true that Omar received military training from local
militants, does this constitute a sufficient basis to convict
him of being a terrorist? If so, then a huge proportion of
the men in Afghanistan and Iraq could be prosecuted for
"aiding terrorists."

[Smurf-Herder]

I keep thinking of the guys we did let go from Gitmo, who we thought we had cleared; who ended up back on the battlefield killing our troops.

BTW, all these guys already had redress about being designated an enemy combatant through a DC Judge.

[Smurf-Herder]

If you read the WIKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr) link, you'll see that Omar Khadr can hardly
be considered a dangerous al-Qaeda terrorist leader. He was a
15-YEAR-OLD KID in the wrong place at the wrong time.

He followed his father into the mountains of Afghanistan after
some bombing attacks. Little Omar was allowed to cook meals
and wash dishes for local militants. He was also instructed in
building landmines and other military training. This is certainly
not surprising since he lived in a war zone filled with warring
Afghan militias.

Omar is accused of attacking US troops and tossing a grenade
that killed a US soldier, but that's not what really happened.

Omar went with some local militants to a house in a village.
Based on a tip, US troops and Afghan militia surrounded and
attacked the house. A firefight ensued, and the house was
bombed from the air. All of the men in the house were killed,
except Omar.

Omar was the only survivor. He had been shot several times,
bombed and hit with shrapnel, unconscious and barely alive.

Legal documents have been leaked which state that there's
no evidence whatsoever to support the charge that Omar
threw the grenade that killed a US soldier. He was simply
one of the people in the house that was attacked.

While it's true that Omar received military training from local
militants, does this constitute a sufficient basis to convict
him of being a terrorist? If so, then a huge proportion of
the men in Afghanistan and Iraq could be prosecuted for
"aiding terrorists."


Okay then ....... why are we holding this kid if that's true, after releasing thousands?

[Betty Blowtorch]

Okay then ....... why are we holding this kid
if that's true, after releasing thousands?
That's precisely the point of habeas corpus.

If this teenager is so fucking dangerous (and guilty)
then indict him in a US court, provide him with an
attorney, bring him to trial, and let the jury weigh
the evidence and determine his guilt or innocence.

Do you have a problem with that? Do you prefer
the Stalinist method?

[Smurf-Herder]

That's precisely the point of habeas corpus.

If this teenager is so fucking dangerous (and guilty)
then indict him in a US court, provide him with an
attorney, bring him to trial, and let the jury weigh
the evidence and determine his guilt or innocence.

Do you have a problem with that? Do you prefer
the Stalinist method?

If he was fighting US troops when captured, then he's a POW. Not subject to the US "civilian" legal system. If he was arrested at his house in the US by the FBI, then that's a different situation entirely.

There must be some of the story missing, if we let so many go but keep him. And regardless of the new decision, he already had the right to redress his "combatant" status before a US Federal Judge in DC. We already went through all this a couple years ago already; and that's what everybody already agreed upon.

[Hog Trash]

I have rationalized that if you are not an American citizen whether or not you should be afforded Constitutional rights is debatable. Cowards who murder and mame unsuspecting men, women and children indescriminantly and hide in schools and seek sanctuary in mosques should not even be afforded human rights let alone constitutional rights. Let the evidence against them be judged by there captors who witnessed their atrocities. After all information has been extracted from them their bodies should be ground up and fed to the dogs used to guard the cages of the next batch captured.

[Smurf-Herder]

I have rationalized that if you are not an American citizen whether or not you should be afforded Constitutional rights is debatable. Cowards who murder and mame unsuspecting men, women and children indescriminantly and hide in schools and seek sanctuary in mosques should not even be afforded human rights let alone constitutional rights. Let the evidence against them be judged by there captors who witnessed their atrocities. After all information has been extracted from them their bodies should be ground up and fed to the dogs used to guard the cages of the next batch captured.

Habeas Corpus on the battlefield translates to "No prisoners taken, sir."

[Betty Blowtorch]

If he was fighting US troops when captured,
then he's a POW. Not subject to the US "civilian"
legal system.
When I asked you if you have a problem with this kid
receiving a fair trial, your answer is apparently "YES."
You don't want the kid to get a fair trial.

But you seem to want to have it both ways. You don't
think he deserves a fair trial because he's a "POW" but
you don't want him to have the legal rights of a POW
under the Geneva Convention.

Nazi soldiers in World War II killed lots of US soldiers,
but only the highest ranking leaders were subject to
war crimes trials. The rank-and-file soldiers were held
in POW camps until the war was over, then released.

They weren't tortured, held in solitary confinement
for indefinite periods, or subject to being tried and
executed for killing US soldiers. They were treated
like POW's.

As I stated in a previous post:

The whole point of Guantanamo is to deprive suspects
of any constitutional rights under US law and to deprive
them of the normal rights of prisoners of war under the
Geneva Convention.

To insure convictions, Guantanamo has been set up as
a kangaroo court with military interrogators, prosecutors,
judges and executioners who can convict suspects on
the basis of evidence that would never be allowed in
any US court.

In other words, Stalinist show trials.

If the prisoners at Guantanamo are subject to trial,
they should be given fair trials.

If you don't want them to get fair trials, that's OK.
Just don't pretend to be a patriotic American.
You haven't got a clue what it really means.

[Hog Trash]

Nazi soldiers in World War II killed lots of US soldiers, but only the highest ranking leaders were subject to
war crimes trials. The rank-and-file soldiers were held
in POW camps until the war was over, then released.



The nazi war crimes trials were for the murder of 6 million Jews, not American military casualties and low

ranking military and civilians who were involved were also tried when they could be identified and captured.

[doctordog]

When I asked you if you have a problem with this kid
receiving a fair trial, your answer is apparently "YES."
You don't want the kid to get a fair trial.

But you seem to want to have it both ways. You don't
think he deserves a fair trial because he's a "POW" but
you don't want him to have the legal rights of a POW
under the Geneva Convention.

Nazi soldiers in World War II killed lots of US soldiers,
but only the highest ranking leaders were subject to
war crimes trials. The rank-and-file soldiers were held
in POW camps until the war was over, then released.

They weren't tortured, held in solitary confinement
for indefinite periods, or subject to being tried and
executed for killing US soldiers. They were treated
like POW's.

As I stated in a previous post:

The whole point of Guantanamo is to deprive suspects
of any constitutional rights under US law and to deprive
them of the normal rights of prisoners of war under the
Geneva Convention.

To insure convictions, Guantanamo has been set up as
a kangaroo court with military interrogators, prosecutors,
judges and executioners who can convict suspects on
the basis of evidence that would never be allowed in
any US court.

In other words, Stalinist show trials.

If the prisoners at Guantanamo are subject to trial,
they should be given fair trials.

If you don't want them to get fair trials, that's OK.
Just don't pretend to be a patriotic American.
You haven't got a clue what it really means.

Nazis didn't fly planes into buildings in New York, I don't want my tax dollars wasted or trials for these people, I would rather put them on a raft and float them out to sea, let God sort them out.

[Kanadesaga]

If the rule of law doesn't apply to one person or group, then it doesn't apply to any of us. When you deny civil rights to one group, you are validating it being taken away from you. and if you can't see that. Then you are no American. You are a fascist. You are an elitist. You are the problem.

[doctordog]

If the rule of law doesn't apply to one person or group, then it doesn't apply to any of us. When you deny civil rights to one group, you are validating it being taken away from you. and if you can't see that. Then you are no American. You are a fascist. You are an elitist. You are the problem.

I see what you are saying, so should diplomatic immunity be done away with so when those visitors come into our country and break our laws, should they be detained and possibly charged in your opinion?

I just don't think any militant group that targets civilians should be given the same consideration as a POW that fights other soldiers, there is a legitimate difference in those two types.

[Kanadesaga]

I see what you are saying, so should diplomatic immunity be done away with so when those visitors come into our country and break our laws, should they be detained and possibly charged in your opinion?

Diplomatic immunity has a long tradition. It has been ammended several times to acccount for crimes. and local compliance. without immunity, dioplomacy ceases, without diplomacy we get retards sending boys off to Iraq.

I just don't think any militant group that targets civilians should be given the same consideration as a POW that fights other soldiers, there is a legitimate difference in those two types.


They are criminals and should be treated as such. with all the rights of any defendant. Otherwise why bother to have the rights in the first place.

[doctordog]

[QUOTE=They are criminals and should be treated as such. with all the rights of any defendant. Otherwise why bother to have the rights in the first place.[/QUOTE]

I agree all criminals should be given a fair trial, I just don't agree that this particular group falls into that definition.

[Kanadesaga]

I agree all criminals should be given a fair trial, I just don't agree that this particular group falls into that definition.


If they aren't legitmate combatants, then they are civilians and as such criminals. Making up new categories isn't a smart thing to do.

[doctordog]

If they aren't legitmate combatants, then they are civilians and as such criminals. Making up new categories isn't a smart thing to do.

How many different degrees of murder are there? There are misdemeanors and felonies, our laws and punishments have changed throughout our history, maybe it is time to consider changes again.

[Kanadesaga]

How many different degrees of murder are there? There are misdemeanors and felonies, our laws and punishments have changed throughout our history, maybe it is time to consider changes again.


No, there have been reclassifications of crimes. Things have been made illegal. But never has there been, if a murderer we'll use this set of rules and give these rights, and if a drug dealer we'll use these rules and give different rights. It's inherently unequal and violates the equal protection clause. then you can start saying you're white you get these rights, you're black you get these rights! It isn't American.

[Smurf-Herder]

If they aren't legitmate combatants, then they are civilians and as such criminals. Making up new categories isn't a smart thing to do.


THere is already a classification of sorts in the Geneva conventions.

BTW, these guys just made up a new category of war itself.

[Betty Blowtorch]

I don't want my tax dollars wasted on trials
for these people, I would rather put them
on a raft and float them out to sea, let God
sort them out.
The prisoners at Gitmo would LOVE to be put
on rafts and floated out to sea. All they would
have to do is paddle over to the Cuban side of
Gitmo. The Cubans aren't exactly our friends.

Regarding your tax dollars, the war in Iraq costs
$720 million a day. That's $5 billion a week.

There are only a few hundred prisoners left at
Gitmo, and US officials estimate that less than
a hundred of them will be brought to trial at
Gitmo. The rest will be released.

For a fraction of the tax dollars being wasted
in Iraq in just one day, we could transfer all of
the Gitmo prisoners to US jails and give them
fair trials in US courts.

If they are found guilty, they will be punished.
If not, they should be released from custody.
That's the way it's supposed to work in America.

At this point, the Bush gang is afraid to take
some of the Gitmo suspects to trial in US courts
with the whole world watching.

Federal prosecutors won't be able to use coerced
"confessions" or hearsay evidence or any other
evidence that would normally be inadmissable in
federal court. They'll have to prove their cases
in front of juries and get unanimous verdicts.

If any Gitmo prisoners are found not guilty after
having spent 6 years in captivity without a trial,
it will make the federal government and military
look very bad in the eyes of the world.

Gitmo is a kangaroo court designed to convict
the suspects. That's not just my opinion. It's
the opinion of a former prosecutor at Gitmo.

[Kanadesaga]

THere is already a classification of sorts in the Geneva conventions.

BTW, these guys just made up a new category of war itself.


Really? Terrorists have been around a long time. We just weren't smart enough to listen to them when they said "We are at war with America".

We didn't take them seriously. We do now. We just don't deal with them effectively. Gee, we have an asymetrical battlefield, what should we do? Let's fight a totally inappropriate symetrical style war! Could they have their heads further up their own asses?