Military lawyer says U.S. stacked deck against Canadian at Gitmo

[bigtree]

Mar 17, 2007 04:30 AM
Thomas Walkom

Can Omar Khadr, the Canadian held at the American Guantanamo Bay prison camp, get a fair trial?

His U.S. military lawyer says no.

Lt.-Cmdr. William Kuebler says his government has stacked the deck. He says Khadr's detention is unlawful as is the process under which he is due to be tried. The entire system of military commissions approved by the U.S. Congress last year, he says, is not designed to determine who is guilty or not guilty of terrorism. Rather, its aim is to justify the U.S administration's decision to arrest these men in the first place.

"It's a device for laundering evidence derived from torture and coercion and using that to convict people, which is fundamentally unfair and contradicts everything the U.S. and Canada stand for."

{snip}

If the U.S. had followed the Geneva Conventions, Khadr would have been treated, initially at least, as a prisoner of war when U.S. forces captured him after a 2002 firefight, in which he allegedly killed an army medic. That might have been the end of the story. Soldiers don't usually get charged with war crimes for killing enemy soldiers.

Had the U.S. felt that Khadr was not a legitimate soldier, it had other options under the Geneva Conventions. He could have been charged under Afghan law. Or he might have been returned home to be charged under Canadian anti-terror laws. Or he might have been subject to a speedy and constitutionally valid trial by American occupation authorities in Afghanistan.

But none of that happened. Instead, Khadr was shipped to Cuba to be jailed without charge for almost five years. All of this, says Kuebler, was based on the Bush administration's "erroneous legal theories." Information was extracted from Khadr and other detainees through methods not accepted in any reasonable court of law. The government then brought in a new statute, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, that simply declared these unconstitutional methods legal.

Under this act, Khadr has almost no chance. His lawyers are not allowed to challenge the legality of his detention. Evidence gathered through torture is fine. It's up to Khadr to disprove third-party allegations levelled at him by people his lawyers can't cross-examine . . .

report: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/193064



my take:

Monday, September 18, 2006

Bush's Political Prisoners
It's an inexcusable political ploy for Bush to hold these Afghans and Arabs in his prisons, indefinitely, without charges; as substitutes for his inability to capture the man our government says is responsible for the 9-11 attacks, bin-Laden, and his accomplices.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_060918_bush_s_political_pri.htm


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[papau]

1. Fox's Bill O’Reilly says to say our Military trials are not totally fair is unAmerican!

Indeed because thre were many papers that were worried about moving from the American Court system to one where Command influence is permitted and expected, Bill had a great night showing how left wing our media is! :-)

[bigtree]

2. under the new law, the accused can't even say the trials are unfair

The new 'American Way' says they can't legally challenge the appropriateness of the proceeding, like we can under our constitution.

[papau]

4. I'm afraid your post above means your on Bill's list as not "fair & balanced" -

and we both may have reached the Fox News "un-American" level :-)

[Broadslidin]

3. Thank You for the Unamerican Activities Report & Toronto Star Link....!

And to say,
my Canadian Friends have received a copy.