• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Omar Khadr war crime convictions questioned after U.S. court decision

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,034
Reaction score
38,582
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Omar Khadr war crime convictions questioned after U.S. court decision - Edmonton - CBC News

In its split ruling, the appeals court set aside the military commission conviction of Ali Hamza al-Bahlul, a Guantanamo Bay detainee who did media relations for Osama bin Laden.

In essence, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the conspiracy case against al-Bahlul was legally flawed because conspiracy is not a war crime — similar to arguments Khadr has made. The commission only had jurisdiction to try internationally recognized war crimes, the court said.
Thoughts are?
 
It does sound like a valid legal argument.
 
Pretty much everything about Guantanamo Bay, from it's inception, are our war crimes. So yeah, I agree with this, it's at least beginning to approach some rational thinking.
From what I understand this is not the 1st case that was overturned by courts.
 
Pretty much everything about Guantanamo Bay, from it's inception, are our war crimes. So yeah, I agree with this, it's at least beginning to approach some rational thinking.

You haven't thought about that very deeply, have you. But you do have an opinion. That is embarrassing.
 
I'm not sure I understand this. Is the court saying that conspiracy to conduct a terrorist act is not a war crime? Or is it saying that the conspiracy is irrelevant to the crime? Can some of the Canadian legalese speakers explain this?
 
I'm not sure I understand this. Is the court saying that conspiracy to conduct a terrorist act is not a war crime? Or is it saying that the conspiracy is irrelevant to the crime? Can some of the Canadian legalese speakers explain this?

Its hard to imagine that conspiring to commit a war crime isn't a war crime, but that does seem to be what they are saying
 
Its hard to imagine that conspiring to commit a war crime isn't a war crime, but that does seem to be what they are saying

My own personal thoughts on the entire Omar Khadr case aside: Holy ****, that's ****ing ridiculous.
 
I'm not sure I understand this. Is the court saying that conspiracy to conduct a terrorist act is not a war crime? Or is it saying that the conspiracy is irrelevant to the crime? Can some of the Canadian legalese speakers explain this?

It goes to the authority of the Military tribunals. What they were permitted and what they were not.
From what we have seen, they could not organize a cluster****.
 
It goes to the authority of the Military tribunals. What they were permitted and what they were not.
From what we have seen, they could not organize a cluster****.

Look man, I don't have a problem with getting Khadr out of Gbay or whatever prison he was at. His case was a sham and people on this forum got a lot of **** for pointing that out. However, if the courts have come to the conclusion that there is no crime in conspiring to commit terrorist activity (and that's what it seems like, I'm not entirely clear and I'm probably wrong on this) that's not something I can support. As I said, if somebody who speaks legalese can clear this up, I'll change my opinion but as I understand it, it feels a lot like the courts are saying there is no crime in conspiring to commit terrorist acts....
 
Its hard to imagine that conspiring to commit a war crime isn't a war crime, but that does seem to be what they are saying

It wasn't "conspiring to commit a war crime," though, the charge was conspiracy. Best I can read it, anyway. IANAL.
 
Look man, I don't have a problem with getting Khadr out of Gbay or whatever prison he was at. His case was a sham and people on this forum got a lot of **** for pointing that out. However, if the courts have come to the conclusion that there is no crime in conspiring to commit terrorist activity (and that's what it seems like, I'm not entirely clear and I'm probably wrong on this) that's not something I can support. As I said, if somebody who speaks legalese can clear this up, I'll change my opinion but as I understand it, it feels a lot like the courts are saying there is no crime in conspiring to commit terrorist acts....

I did not intend to cause offence, my apologies.
From what I understand, the tribunals exceeded their specific areas of authority to judge the case is the best I can come up with.
 
It wasn't "conspiring to commit a war crime," though, the charge was conspiracy. Best I can read it, anyway. IANAL.
Interesting link.
U.S. Appeals Court Overturns Conviction Of Guantanamo Detainee : NPR

U.S. court overturns conviction of Australian once held at Guantanamo | Reuters
A U.S. military appeals court on Wednesday threw out the conviction of Australian David Hicks on a terrorism-related charge, saying the activity for which he was convicted did not become a crime until years after he was captured in Afghanistan.

Hicks, 39, pleaded guilty in 2007 to providing material support to terrorism after acknowledging he had trained at an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan and met al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.


Court Overturns Conviction Of Bin Laden Driver : NPR
The ruling from a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that Hamdan's conviction by a military commission for providing material support for terrorism had to be overturned because under the international law of war of the time, his actions — driving bin Laden around — were not defined as a war crime. Hamdan was bin Laden's driver from 1996-2001.

Material support didn't become a war crime until 2006, when Congress passed the Military Commission Act.
 
Back
Top Bottom