Military Judge Refuses to Reinstate Charges Against Omar Khadr

Omar Khadr, the young Canadian Gitmo detainee whose charges were dismissed in early June because the judge ruled he had not been properly designated an enemy combatant, will not have his charges reinstated.

A military panel had declared Khadr an "enemy combatant" but Brownback said that did not meet the strict definition of the law that authorized the tribunals.

He said the distinction was critical because international law requires other types of trial for captives who are considered "lawful enemy combatants."

"The term 'unlawful' is not excess baggage, and it is not mere semantics, it is a critical predicate to jurisdiction," Brownback wrote in the ruling.

Canadian news has this in depth profile of the Khadr family. In 2005, the Toronto Star reported Omar's alleged torture while at Guantanamo.

< The EPC and the Forgotten Footnote | Sunstein: The Legal Academy's Broder >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    well jim (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:10:48 PM EST
    based on the facts and circumstances, he could well argue self-defense. our soldiers attacked them, they defended themselves. pretty straightforward really. if a policeman attacks me, out of the blue, without identifying themselves first, i have every legal right to defend myself. should he/she be killed in the process, oh well, that's tough cookies for him/her. that my friend, is the law. you gotta problem with that?

    while you may not give a rat's patoot about international law, or how other nation's view our actions, others, way smarter than you, do. and rightfully so. that's what (hopefully) keeps our troops from being abused, should they be captured.

    easy for you to blow everyone else off, your ass isn't on the line. how very convenient.

    jim, have you been promoted yet, in the 101st keyboarder's brigade?

    cpinva (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:03:42 PM EST
    cpinva - For about the 10,000 time I did my share, and then some. Ten years in Naval Aviation. I think you also served. Am I correct?

    But let me ask you. Are you saying that only those who served may talk about it? I guess that means we will hear no more from the Surrender Army.

    You define your attitude pretty well when you write:

    if a policeman attacks me, out of the blue, without identifying themselves first,

    First of all, these were not policemen, and secondly, Khadr knew full well what was going on. So please don't embarass yourself with such a nonsenscial comment.

    And I really love the standard excuse beloved by the Left.

    that's what (hopefully) keeps our troops from being abused, should they be captured.

    You and I both know that has not helped the ones captured, and won't in the future. The kindest comment I can use on this comes from Col. Potter.

    Horse hockey.


    Bizarro world (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Sailor on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:09:50 PM EST
    due process in these cases will make a mockery of justice
    That is about the craiest thing I have ever read here. There is no justice without due process.

    sailor (1.00 / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:19:37 PM EST
    No. There is no "legal" system without it.

    Justice is a completely separate issue.


    et al (1.00 / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:18:48 PM EST
    In the meantime the American soldier he killed is dead.

    As we all knew, due process in these cases will make a mockery of justice. That is a shame because when you cripple what is an important part of the whole, the whole will fail.

    Sooner or later we will pay a price for the lawyering of the US Military.

    I'm sorry but pifffle (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:05:25 PM EST
    Every soldier I know will be the first to tell you that being a soldier is about putting your life at risk during whatever combat situation arises.  They have made a choice for themselves so I find your argument that the death of soldier must find the same sort of justice that we strive to exist on the streets of America just plain goofy.  If my husband were killed in Bosnia or Iraq it isn't a one on one personal situation.  Soldiers live by the mission and die by the mission...and lawyering the military.  If any one single institution needs lots and lots of lawyering from now till the end of eternity it is the military my friend.  God save us from the day that the military is no longer "lawyered".  The military is an institution so don't worry Jim, it feels no pain from all this lawyering but without lawyering you may feel some pain someday at the hands of the military.

    The soldier he killed... (none / 0) (#8)
    by manys on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:05:02 PM EST
    What was his name?

    Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:34:55 PM EST
    What would you talk about if you didn't have a husband in the Army??

    Being killed in combat is not the issue, and I find it typical that you can't grasp what it is.

    The issue is a lack of justice of for the killer who was not in uniform. Was not a member of an actual army. What he was was a guerilla. Who cares if he was unlawful, plain awful, an apple waffle or an illegal whosits.

    Historically the fate of gurellias were to hung/shot or otherwise quickly dispatched to the great beyond.

    Damn shame he wasn't lefr to die. We have spent enough resources on him to treat a grade school
    class of uninsured children.

    Enough already, Tracy. Grow up and figure out what is going on in the world the rest of us live in.

    What would you talk about, Jim... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Dadler on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:59:09 PM EST
    ...if your life had never actually happened?  What would any of us talk about if we were somehow disconnected from the actual people and experiences in our lives?  What is Tracy guilty of?  Spending much of her time thinking about and being concerned about what any sentient being would and should be in her situation?  

    Considering this Iraq crap (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:32:03 PM EST
    and that he is my soul mate and we have two children together one of which is going through hell right now because of all this, I don't have much else to talk about.  Someday though Jim, someday my whole world is going to open up and bloom again because someday this will all be over for me and someday Bush and his horror of wars lied into and wars done wrong will pass too but never will they be forgotten.  I know why I'm here everyday Jim.  It is personal, it is like the air I breathe and the blood in my viens right now but what do you feed on debating this?  What flesh and blood in your life is improving to the point that you believe as you do and defend it all with your last breath.  I have many interests in this life but none that trump this one in my life until this one is over.  Sorry I went and chapped you so soundly.  I suppose we'll live through it.  I certainly will because I have lived through mountains worse than a tongue lashing from you these past four years.  Not to offend you but thinking about it seriously, a tongue lashing or potential face planting from anyone hardly registers with all the insanity courtesy of liar Bush that I have to deal with everyday right now so face plant away because it really doesn't matter to my big picture.  It's like having a hang nail when you are fighting cancer.

    Tracy (2.50 / 2) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:54:28 PM EST
    You didn't chap me, you disgusted me by ringing in seconding edger's BS.

    Understand what edger did. He brought in a supposed gang problem and when I called him on it, he admiiited that his purpose was to use the military to attack Bush.

    How can you support the military and not be offended by that??


    I have to deal a lot with people (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:08:14 PM EST
    being frustrated by what is happening.  I try to cut people some slack in the department of dogging the military right now when I can....sometimes I can't if things get really out of hand dogging the military but my offended detector isn't very sensitive right now for dogging the military.  I know what a hard time I'm having with all of this and I know that a lot of the country is too even if it is from a distance.  I suppose I'm just flat out biased where Edger is concerned too because I know how hard he works for the Iraq War to find its end as soon as it possibly can.  I can't help it Jim, I'm sorry truly and not being dismissive here.  Edger is on my side, he is on my teenage daughter's side who is trying to be a senior in high school next year without a dad....a dad in this big mess that she called a big stupid mess long before even I did.  I will make more of an effort to remain fair and balanced minded but I get fatigued sometimes ;)

    Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:18:22 PM EST
    Edger is on Edger's side. Please don't be deluded.
    That's why he brought in the gang problem. He wants to win.

    If you can tolerate him doing this to attack Bush, be my guest. But don't emote over how you support the troops.


    Edger is on Edger's side? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:48:26 PM EST
    What is it that he is trying to win Jim?  Some online one on one debate with someone who he doesn't even really know?  We really do have a problem with gangs in the military right now much more so than ever we did before Iraq and that is Bush's fault so I fail to see this giant faux pas that you see.

    Now you see there ... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Sailor on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:41:50 PM EST
    ... what you've done is opened up yet another psychotic episode of 'all about jim.'

    Not that we're all not prone to it. I'm thinking we need to take 12 Steps away from him.

    Step 1 would be to realize that all he does is make personal attacks to distract from the actual thread.

    Step 2 would be to ignore his comments and stay on topic.

    Step 3 is up to you or a higher power;-)


    Nothing wrong with guerrilla fighting (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Al on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:08:14 PM EST
    You make it sound as if guerrilla warfare was a crime. It isn't. It's just a tactic. Instead of whining about fighters without uniform, the military should learn how to fight them. Of course, it doesn't involve big juicy contracts with Lockheed Martin for laser-guided missiles from outer space, which is what the Pentagon is really interested in, but which are pretty damn useless against a teenager with a grenade.

    Surely the fact that the very judge presiding the military tribunal doesn't think this was an unlawful combatant must give you pause. You must think the judge is some kind of traitor.


    Al - And your point is what?? (1.00 / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:04:25 PM EST
    We were engaged with fighting these guerillas when Khadr killed the soldier. That we didn't meet your expectations a reason to let a gurellia escape justice and spend years agonizing over what to do with him??

    Or is it your belief that we shouldn't have been fighting them at all??

    Come Al, tell us what your problem is with fighting terrorists.


    Strange Arguement (none / 0) (#11)
    by john horse on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 05:21:40 PM EST
    I hope even you know the difference between being accused of something and being found guilty of it.  Omar Khadr was accused of killing an American soldier.  He was not found guilty of this.  Unlike totalitarian systems, a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in our system.  You made a statement that he did, in fact, kill an American soldier.  This was not a statement of fact since this was not proven in a court of law (and I apply the term "law" in applying it to the military tribunals).  
    What I can't understand is this and I understand that you don't care whether any of these prisoners are innocent.  Lets assume that Omar Khadr is guilty.  He walked because the system that Bush set up for prisoners in Guantanamo is so weak and porous.  Why do you support a system that has shown itself to be so weak in bringing prisoners to justice?  

    John Horse (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:39:33 PM EST
    You make my point.

    He was wounded in the act.

    How much more proof do you want??


    Odd (1.00 / 0) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:27:02 PM EST
    I am absolutely, 100% guilty of speeding this AM on my way into the office - despite that fact that this has not been proven in a court of law.

    Assuming this young man is guilty of killing an American soldier, and by definition of international law was fighting as a guerrilla, why would you not support bringing him to justice?


    Even Odder (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by john horse on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:11:51 PM EST
    If were charged with a crime on your way to work you would have the right to a speedy trial, to find out the charges against you, the right to counsel, right to confront witnesses and challenge evidence.  Under our legal system the guilty sometime go free and the innocent are sometimes convicted but, it is, in my opinion, the best system of justice because most of the time the guilty are guilty and the innocent are not wrongly convicted.  More than that it is a far better system than what we have in Guantanamo in terms of results.  If any of these prisoners committed crimes then by all means lets try them.  What I am arguing is that you will have better results if they were charged under our court system then going through the kangaroo courts established at Guantanamo.  Had these prisoners gone through our court system most of them would have been either convicted or set free by now.  After 4 or 5 years most of the detainees at Guantanamo have still not been scheduled for a trial, much less anyone been convicted.  More and more detainees will be set free by our courts because of fundamental systematic flaws in the way the tribunal system was set up.  I'm all in favor of bringing these prisoners to justice and thats the problem.  The system at Guantanamo isn't fair or just.



    John H (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:07:50 PM EST
    How about just trying'em and quit talking???

    This dude is guilty as sin yet the "system" is letting him slide. Sorry John. That helps neither military, the country or the "system."


    What "system"? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Al on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 02:58:24 AM EST
    The judge presiding the military tribunal says that Khadr is not an unlawful combatant.

    Go ahead, PPJ. Tell us what you think of this judge.


    Al (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 09:33:47 AM EST
    I hinted above that I was concerned about your ability to understand...

    I also have noted that you should read the thread.

    Try comment No. 1.


    How About Trying Them (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by john horse on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 07:43:49 AM EST
    You keep missing my point.  You say that you are in favor of trying these prisoners but the system at Guantanamo doesn't do that.  It just holds them.  When they bring these prisoners to trial the prisoners walk because the systematic flaws in the way things were set up don't not hold up to judicial review.  

    The people we put in positions of authority must play by the rules.  For example, lets say a local sheriff obtained confessions through the same abusive treatment that is allowed at Guantanamo.  That case would probably be thrown out and its not the fault of the judge but of the sheriff.

    So if you are in favor of trying them then why would you favor what we have at Guantanamo?  After 5 years hardly anyone has been charged, let alone convicted.

    By the way before you become judge and jury you should read the case of some prisoners held at Guantanamo known as the "Tipton Three".  Under abusive conditions they "confessed" to crimes even though they were innocent.      


    John H (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 09:37:42 AM EST
    Read cpinva's comment. Read your own.

    This is not a CJ matter. The crimes were committed outside the US. The SC and the lawyering of the military has done nothing positive.

    In years past they would have been tried on the battlefield.


    "unlawful" (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by diogenes on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:07:10 PM EST
    So we all agree that there is such a thing as an "unlawful enemy combatant" and that these trials are appropriate for those who fit the definition?

    Hard to see in the dark, isn't it? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 12:50:19 PM EST
    Lamp batteries dead? Again?

    Al (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 09:43:34 AM EST
    Are you delusional???

    You must be if you wish I could do someything that is obviously impossible.

    Incompetent? Doing what? Destroying al-Qaida?? Pitching the winning game in the World Series?
    Scrambling eggs?? What??

    BTW - I'm not in Gitmo.

    BTW - Patriotic? Yes. You??

    Q&A (none / 0) (#40)
    by Al on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 12:23:31 PM EST
    Incompetent? Doing what? Destroying al-Qaida??

    Precisely. Your lot are incapable of destroying Al Qaeda. Because you are incompetent.
    BTW - I'm not in Gitmo.

    I don't care where you are. You identify yourself with Bush policy on Guantanamo. As far as I'm concerned, you are an accomplice.

    Al (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 03:16:11 PM EST
    Precisely. Your lot are incapable of destroying Al Qaeda. Because you are incompetent.

    Huh? Look, I admit that I am not superman...But don't you think claiming I am incompetent just because I need help in saving western civilization a little "much?"


    Saving western civilization? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 03:37:53 PM EST
    When did you decide you need to get rid of yourself?

    Western Civilization (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 03:41:41 PM EST
    Must be a code word for something else. Seems to me that ppj wouldn't know western civilization if it hit him in the face.

    You were right........ (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 07:24:55 PM EST
    I do so know!!!! (1.00 / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 07:21:06 PM EST
    It is what you keep claiming is inferior to all other civilizations!!

    Or much of anything else. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 03:44:48 PM EST
    I'll get by (1.00 / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 07:19:28 PM EST
    with a little help from my friends.



    Pardon (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 07:27:25 PM EST
    We are not amused. As we all know.. (none / 0) (#2)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:49:14 PM EST
    The price for the international P.R disaster of epic proportions is going to be much more crippling in the long run for "us" than the lawyering etc that is only a side-effect of reality (dimmly percieved by some) shining it's light.

    Jondee (1.00 / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:37:40 PM EST
    I think you are bright enough to already have figured this out. But in case you haven't.

    I don't give a rat's patute what the so-called international community thinks. They will help us when it is in their interests, they will take advantage when they can, and they will oppose almost all the time out of sheer jealousy.


    Bullseye (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by manys on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:04:33 PM EST
    You hit the nail right on the head there, Jim. The only reason Bush's war seems not to be in anybody's interests except ours is that they are jealous of it.

    Bullsh*t (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 06:17:36 PM EST
    Of course every nation longs to spend hundreds of billions of dollars precipitating a geopolitical fiasco that creates unprecedented divisions at home, while in the process killing, maiming and traumatizing thousands of it's young men and women and alienating 90% of the rest of the world.

    Yeah, that's right, they're all just jealous.


    I dont give rat's patoot (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:51:49 PM EST
    if you automatically assume that everyone, including "the international community", views the world and their responsibility to it the same way you do.

    Please explain (none / 0) (#26)
    by Al on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:10:42 PM EST
    and they will oppose almost all the time out of sheer jealousy.

    Who are "they"? And what are they jealous of, exactly, do you think?


    Al (1.00 / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:57:49 PM EST
    Perhaps you should try reading the entire thread before asking questions.

    No, but seriously (none / 0) (#33)
    by Al on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 03:01:44 AM EST
    Can you give a straight answer to a straight question? What is the "international community" jealous of?

    Al (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 09:31:48 AM EST
    Since you know the answer and are merely asking a rhetorical one, no.

    And if you truly don't know...well, wow. Our educational system is in worse shape than I thought. Come to think of it, that's why my grandchildren are in private schools.


    Your posts (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by jondee on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 09:39:55 AM EST
    are the best evidence for why they probobly aren't jealous. Speaking of miseducation.

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Al on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 12:31:16 PM EST
    what you mean by "international community", let alone why they should be collectively jealous.

    This is something you habitually do. You throw out a meaningless phrase that is meant to suggest a great insight, and when someone asks you what you're talking about, you start squirming because you have no idea what you're talking about.

    Shall we play this game a little more? What do private schools teach that public schools don't, that the "international community" is jealous of?


    Al (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 03:07:10 PM EST
    What do private schools teach that public schools do not??

    1. Religion. Yeah. That's right. Doesn't that chill your bones???

    They also do a great job on reading, writing and math...

    2. Squirm?? Look. If you don't know, you don't know.

    Perhaps if you had a religious school education..