Re: It's the THINGS THAT IRK YOU thread - not hockey related
Reply With Quote
2 pointsOriginally Posted by Godin
1. Khard did enter a plea deal with the U.S. government in October 2010 whereby he pled guilty. In that sense he is “guilty”. He pled “guilty” to “murder in violation of the laws of war” in a US military tribunal. Since entering the guilty plea multiple other convictions from the same court have been overturned by US Appeal Courts for a variety of reasons including that the crimes charged were not recognised war crimes and thus the military tribunal had no authority to make the rulings. Essentially, Khadr was convicted of a crime created by the US government after the actions he was accused of took place in many ways it was a crime invented after the fact.
2. The bigger issue is the reason Khadr entered his guilty plea was that even if he were to be acquitted of the charges in front of a US tribunal, the US took the position it still had the right to detain him indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay. So, go on trial, be acquitted, still get detained as an enemy combatant. Further, it had been 10 years and there was no trial in sight for Khadr, the only way he was guaranteed a hearing was by agreeing to pled guilty. By pleading guilty Khadr’s hope and understanding was that he would be repatriated back to Canada to serve his sentence. Ultimately Khadr was repatriated to Canada in 2012 to serve out the remainder of his sentence.
In a nutshell there was a very real possibility that if he refused to pled guilty he'd never had seen a trial, or been acquitted at trial and still held indefinitely.
Finally, the argument “the other side is garbage and tortures people so who cares if we tortured someone who is allegedly a member of the otherside” holds zero water IMO. We adhere to the rule of law whether the others do or not, we do it because it’s the right thing to do and because our principles demand it. We uphold the rights of individuals because they are rights, if the government fails to uphold them, or upholds them selectively they become privileges.
We don’t and can’t know what to believe. That’s why we have a trial, to test the evidence and apply the law. Ultimately Khadr has never stood trial before a court of competent jurisdiction with the evidence being tested. That is the whole issue here. Obviously you or I don’t know if Khadr is guilty of the crimes he was accused of that’s the entire point of a trial, a real trial, with real rules of evidence and rules of natural justice (right to face your accuser, right to know the case against you, the right to know the evidence against you and to cross-examine same, right to an impartial trier of facts etc. etc. etc.). If he’s found guilty of the charges then we punish him in accordance with our principles of justice and if he’s acquitted of the charges we release him. This never happened. Instead he was held without charges, or trial for over a decade, no charges, no court, no trial whatsoever.
Further, the fact that Khardr was tortured is not disputed by either side. The US military records and CSIS records both acknowledge that Khardr was sleep deprived for 21 straight days (moved cells every 3 hours for 21 straight days) he was short shackled, denied medical attention and force-fed. The US disputes that some or all of these amount to “torture” preferring “enhanced interrogation techniques” but the fact that these actions occurred is not disputed.
You are correct that he was held by the American government. The Canadian government failed him in other ways, that is what his lawsuit was over and that is the lawsuit that is being settled. The Canadian government (across parties) was compliant in his capture and detention and at points even helped in his interrogation.
This is a complex issue legally, morally and ethically and a fine debate that could go on for many pages. For that reason I'm going to end my comments in this thread [The Things that Irk You] here as I believe the intention of the irks you thread are matters that are much lighter in nature. If anyone is interested in continuing the debate I will be happy to do so in a new thread.
