1 - 8
In response to:

Welcome Back, Khadr?

Diane19766 Wrote: Oct 11, 2012 11:27 PM
You seem like a smart person with an interest in this case. My advice to you is to look for original information, rather than relying on other people. For example, look up the "child soldier law" yourself. See what it says. The US Military Commissions website has thousands of documents on this case. You don't have to rely on some second hand source. You can see what the US actually charged K with and why. You can read court decisions. You still might feel the same way about the case, but you'll have better arguments, your own.
In response to:

Welcome Back, Khadr?

Diane19766 Wrote: Oct 11, 2012 11:27 PM
You seem like a smart person with an interest in this case. My advice to you is to look for original information, rather than relying on other people. For example, look up the "child soldier law" yourself. See what it says. The US Military Commissions website has thousands of documents on this case. You don't have to rely on some second hand source. You can see what the US actually charged K with and why. You can read court decisions. You still might feel the same way about the case, but you'll have better arguments, your own.
In response to:

Welcome Back, Khadr?

Diane19766 Wrote: Oct 11, 2012 11:04 PM
It was after the firefight was over, when American troops were tending to the wounded, that Khadr threw the grenade that killed Speer. Wrong. Check out the testimony and eye witness report of the soldier who saw the grenade come over a wall that resulted in the death of Sergeant Speer, and shot Khadr and another man right after. He's the soldier known as OC-1, Pentagon doesn't give names of witnesses. Search for OC-1 CTIF Witness Report - Khadr. Or look for his testimony at the trial, Military Commissions - Khadr - Cases- Transcripts - Starts at 4158. Totally different story than Ezra Levant. The soldier was there. Ezra was not.
In response to:

Welcome Back, Khadr?

Diane19766 Wrote: Oct 11, 2012 10:56 PM
Re Child Soldier Law. A nickname for the "Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children (people of 17 years old and less) in armed conflict (war)". Look it up. It applies to people recruited into war by either state military forces or armed groups. There is no other way to be in a war. This is an international treaty that countries can choose to adopt into their laws, and reject at any time, or put conditions on. Canada & US adopted it, obligating themselves to provide rehabilitation and re-integration into society of such people, obviously with appropriate security measures. Head of child soldier program called K a "classic" example. Military judge did not dispute.
In response to:

Welcome Back, Khadr?

Diane19766 Wrote: Oct 11, 2012 10:39 PM
Re US pressure on Canada to take Khadr back. Well, the US had hundreds of detainees at Gtmo. All western democracies demanded their detainees back, except Canada, because they didn't want them treated as second class citizens in a system for non-Americans only. No country in the world refused to take responsibility for its citizens at Gtmo when the US asked them to, except Canada. Does that explain the pressure?
In response to:

Welcome Back, Khadr?

Diane19766 Wrote: Oct 11, 2012 10:32 PM
Re world wide left who objected to the Guantanamo system. Includes several military prosecutors including Khadr's first one. Includes Khadr's first military interrogator. Includes probably the military judge who tried to dismiss his case & got replaced. Includes US Supreme Court that struck down the whole system. Includes Canadian Supreme Court & many other courts. Includes an ex-US brigadier general & psychiatrist who spent hundreds of hours with K, disagrees with the opinion Toews relied on, and wants to know why his wasn't considered.
In response to:

Welcome Back, Khadr?

Diane19766 Wrote: Oct 11, 2012 10:22 PM
“No public explanation for the deal (Omar Khadr plea bargain) has ever been given” True. We know the US has been trying to get K to plead guilty for a deal on the sentence at least since 2007. One reason might be that when he pleaded guilty he gave up appeal rights, keeping the case out of their regular courts, which might have seen it the same way ours did, illegal. He promised not to sue the US for abuse, contradict the confession, or talk about anything for money. He agreed to be interrogated for a year, maybe to implicate other detainees. The US can keep people in Gtmo indefinitely, regardless of trials or results by saying they are a risk. The deal is a win win for both sides.
In response to:

Welcome Back, Khadr?

Diane19766 Wrote: Oct 11, 2012 10:22 PM
“No public explanation for the deal (Omar Khadr plea bargain) has ever been given” True. We know the US has been trying to get K to plead guilty for a deal on the sentence at least since 2007. One reason might be that when he pleaded guilty he gave up appeal rights, keeping the case out of their regular courts, which might have seen it the same way ours did, illegal. He promised not to sue the US for abuse, contradict the confession, or talk about anything for money. He agreed to be interrogated for a year, maybe to implicate other detainees. The US can keep people in Gtmo indefinitely, regardless of trials or results by saying they are a risk. The deal is a win win for both sides.
1 - 8