Buried under rubble - Macleans.ca
 

Buried under rubble


 

Michelle Shepherd gets access to new documents and pictures in the Omar Khadr case.

Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr was buried face down under rubble, blinded by shrapnel and crippled, at the time the Pentagon alleges he threw a grenade that fatally wounded a U.S. soldier, according to classified photographs and defence documents obtained by the Star.


 

Buried under rubble

  1. If I was accompanying and assisting a group of people who committed multiple murders, am I also guilty of murder or would I have to actually have to pull the trigger myself?

    • Good question. Perhaps a fair trial in open court might decide that.

      • ZING!

    • If you are being charged with murder, as the person who shot the deceased, and if it is demonstrated you did not pull the trigger, the State cannot meet the burden of proof that you have committed the crime for which you are being charged. If you are charged with murder because your actions supported the actions of the person who pulled the trigger of the gun that murdered the deceased, that's a different charge, and the State (I use this term as in Canada we'd refer to the Crown, but in the U.S.A., it is the People, is it not? anyways, the State is clear enough) needs to drop the specific charge of murder committed by you, and continue with its charges of murder by dint of accessory before or after the fact.

      Consider the hair split.

  2. Wait a sec. He’s accused of very serious crimes, and the USA has a non-process that they are putting him through. The government of Canada has no duty to ensure he has access to a fair trial in a court of law. The Government of Canada is free to let him rot in an American prison camp without due process.

    Shameful.

    • That's the "Law and Order" party in action for ya…

  3. Good point. Maybe the soliders who shot Khadr, and the mysterious Agent X who polished the guy who was probably the grenade thrower should be on trial, too. After all, it wasn't a war, and they weren't Afghanistan police officers, right?

  4. See Harper Stand Up For Canadians! Not.

  5. Shameful that we don't harbour our Al Qaeda terrorists better!

    Stay on point – the only troubling aspect is Khadr's age at the time.

    • Just so I understand:

      That he was 15 at the time: Troubling.

      That there are credible allegations of torture: Not Troubling.
      That there is reason to believe Canada was complicit, or at least aware that a Canadian citizen was tortured: Not Troubling.
      That he's been held for 7 years without due process: Not Troubling.
      That the case against him appears weaker the more we learn: Not Troubling.

      Apparently I am more easily troubled than you.

      • There are allegations of torture within prisons all over the world.

        Define due process, in precise terms, for international offences, that has the hearty endorsement of all nations considered, and remembering that we are a third party nation, not the one where the offense took place, or against.

        The suggestion that the case against him is weak in any sense, is absurd. He was clearly a terrorist, had trained with terrorist cells, had a vast family background in terrorism, so suggesting that the case against him is weak is being willfully ignorant.

        • The answers to your questions are set out in the relevant cases at the federal court and court of appeal, and they apply regardless of the severity of his actions.

          • Saying we have a federal court, so that is the due process, is to obscure the whole nature of international law. In every case, there is a problem with jurisdiction and contending principles and practices. In this case, the United States took a determined shift in policy to severely limit the civil liberties of international terrorists. The United States have now taken a determined examination of whether those changes were legitimate. What does our federal court and the relevant cases have to say on that matter? Where are those answers in our case history?

            Clearly, the legal aspects of the case are not as simple as you imply. The issue the article wants to advance, is Khadr's innocence. It fails in that attempt.

    • the only troubling aspect is Khadr's age at the time

      Oh, I don't know. I think perhaps 7 years incarceration without trial is troubling no matter what one is accused of, or how old one was when the alleged crime took place. Seven years in an off shore prison is a long time to wait for one's fair trial.

      • Terrorists in prison for 7 years doesn't bother me at all.

        • Maybe not, but precedent is precedent. Always imagine your enemies having the power that the state has exercised. Imagine the people that wish you and your culture would cease to exist had that kind of power.

          Eventually, they will.

        • Without a fair trial to prove it?

        • Terrorists in prison for 7 years doesn't really bother me much either.

          Alleged terrorist in prison for 7 years is a bit more troubling, imho.

  6. I have to say to all my fellow Conservatives that the state is scarier than terrorists.

    You know this, so why defend holding someone without trial for 7 years? Why encourage the state to trample over liberties in the name of security? It baffles me.

    • Who is suggesting that waiting for trial for 7 years is acceptable? The Bush regime was obviously outside the boundaries of legitimacy in their handling of terrorists. Excusing terrorists, people who are responsible for the deaths of many Canadian soldiers and who would revel in the deaths of Canadians on Canadian soil, because of how Guantanamo was run, would only compound the errors.

      This article is one suggesting that Khadr is really an innocent. On that issue, I think there is a clear case that he is not.

      • Perhaps that case should be tried in a court of law. Some conservatives believe all kinds of crazy things, including that the earth is 6000 years old. I’d rather not take their word on it, and have an airing of the evidence in a fair and open court.

        • Conservatives don't hold a monopoly on crazy beliefs. In fact, if your primary concern is the efficacy of ideas, you are by definition, a conservative.

          Once again, who is arguing against a fair and open court? The article's issue is to try to prove his innocence outside of court.