Obama Administration Secures Conviction of Khadr

[Coito ergo sum]

Ex-child soldier Khadr gets 40-year prison sentence
A US military tribunal sentenced former child soldier Omar Khadr to 40 years in prison Sunday, but a plea deal means he will only serve up to eight years behind bars.
Ex-child soldier Khadr gets 40-year prison sentence
A seven-member military panel deliberated for nearly nine hours over a two-day period before reaching their decision for Khadr, who pleaded guilty earlier this month to throwing a grenade that killed a US sergeant in Afghanistan in 2002 when he was just 15 years old.

http://news.ph.msn.com/top-stories/arti ... id=4430814

[Trolldor]

So, why did the military panel come to the decision they did?

[mistermack]

So, why did the military panel come to the decision they did?

And what the fuck has it got to do with a US military panel anyway?
.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, why did the military panel come to the decision they did?

And what the fuck has it got to do with a US military panel anyway?
.

It? The guy pled guilty and was therefore convicted and was just sentenced to 40 years.

EDIT: Did you mean "what the fuck has the Obama administration have to do with a US military panel anyway?"

Err...the Obama administration is the Chief Executive, and Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces, and it is the Obama Administration that runs the prosecution of these fellows. It is they who decide whom to prosecute, and whom to let go, etc. They have everything to do with it.

[maiforpeace]

So, why did the military panel come to the decision they did?

And what the fuck has it got to do with a US military panel anyway?

He just thought he would throw the Obama administration in there for good measure.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo ... 5946346000

There has been great debate over whether to try terror suspects in civil court vs by a military tribunal.

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index ... ian_courts

[Coito ergo sum]

So, why did the military panel come to the decision they did?

And what the fuck has it got to do with a US military panel anyway?

He just thought he would throw the Obama administration in there for good measure.

I don't get it. What could possibly be wrong with mentioning the Obama Administration here? Didn't they secure the conviction? This is as much an Obama Administration successful prosecution as it would have been a Bush administration prosecution. It's the Department of Defense Military tribunal and as the Chief Executive and Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces, I would imagine that it would be Obama Administration

There has been great debate over whether to try terror suspects in civil court vs by a military tribunal.

Yes, there has, and my position has been consistent that trying them in military tribunals is consistent with past practice by the US and every other western (and non-western) country.

[mistermack]

Yes, there has, and my position has been consistent that trying them in military tribunals is consistent with past practice by the US and every other western (and non-western) country.

It's very convenient. It's not justice, but you can convince the dumb and gullible that it is some kind of justice.
So it works very well in the US.
.

[maiforpeace]

So, why did the military panel come to the decision they did?

And what the fuck has it got to do with a US military panel anyway?

He just thought he would throw the Obama administration in there for good measure.

I don't get it. What could possibly be wrong with mentioning the Obama Administration here? Didn't they secure the conviction? This is as much an Obama Administration successful prosecution as it would have been a Bush administration prosecution. It's the Department of Defense Military tribunal and as the Chief Executive and Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces, I would imagine that it would be Obama Administration

Nothing. It just wasn't anywhere in the title or content of the article you posted.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, there has, and my position has been consistent that trying them in military tribunals is consistent with past practice by the US and every other western (and non-western) country.

It's very convenient. It's not justice, but you can convince the dumb and gullible that it is some kind of justice.
So it works very well in the US.
.

Well, it was good enough for the Nuremburg Trials...

Under the Third Geneva Convention, Article V, military tribunals determine which prisoners are to be criminally tried and which are to be afforded prisoner of war status, and criminal trials before military tribunals and commissions are acceptable under international law.

This is a strange idea that for some reason, now, they are unacceptable.

General George Washington convened what amounted to a military commisssion in 1780 to try a British major accused of conspiring with Benedict Arnold during the Revolutionary War. The board recommended to Washington that Major John Andre be executed, and he was promptly hanged. Military tribunals have been appropriately used ever since. The British have had military tribunals (e.g. with respect to some IRA folks, the Boers). France had no problem using war crimes tribunals before and after WW2. These

The Obama administration entered office expecting to shut down military commissions and to prosecute all terror suspects suspected of crimes in federal courts. But the administration realized within months that not all detainees could be prosecuted in federal courts, not (as critics of military commissions are fond of saying) because the detainees had previously been abused, but rather because many detainees had committed war crimes but not federal crimes.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, why did the military panel come to the decision they did?

And what the fuck has it got to do with a US military panel anyway?

He just thought he would throw the Obama administration in there for good measure.

I don't get it. What could possibly be wrong with mentioning the Obama Administration here? Didn't they secure the conviction? This is as much an Obama Administration successful prosecution as it would have been a Bush administration prosecution. It's the Department of Defense Military tribunal and as the Chief Executive and Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces, I would imagine that it would be Obama Administration

Nothing. It just wasn't anywhere in the title or content of the article you posted.

Well, there were several articles on the topic - here's a link which does mention the Obama Administration: http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewN ... ase_101027

Child Soldier Cuts Deal with Obama Administration in Murder Case

and an earlier article on MSNBC - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38600565/

Criminy....what's the big deal? So, the particular article above didn't mention Obama? Is there any doubt who is running the prosecution?

[mistermack]

Yes, there has, and my position has been consistent that trying them in military tribunals is consistent with past practice by the US and every other western (and non-western) country.

It's very convenient. It's not justice, but you can convince the dumb and gullible that it is some kind of justice.
So it works very well in the US.
.

Well, it was good enough for the Nuremburg Trials...

Yes, I'm sure Hitler would have used them too, if he'd won. He was very fond of show trials.
They are a convenient tool for those in power, to convince the gullible masses that a fair process was followed. You need to be pretty dumb to believe it, but then, plenty of people are.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, there has, and my position has been consistent that trying them in military tribunals is consistent with past practice by the US and every other western (and non-western) country.

It's very convenient. It's not justice, but you can convince the dumb and gullible that it is some kind of justice.
So it works very well in the US.
.

Well, it was good enough for the Nuremburg Trials...

Yes, I'm sure Hitler would have used them too, if he'd won. He was very fond of show trials.
They are a convenient tool for those in power, to convince the gullible masses that a fair process was followed. You need to be pretty dumb to believe it, but then, plenty of people are.
.

Where would you try war crimes? In courts without jurisdiction to try them?

[mistermack]

Where would you try war crimes? In courts without jurisdiction to try them?

An unbiased court.

[Coito ergo sum]

Where would you try war crimes? In courts without jurisdiction to try them?

An unbiased court.

Such as?

[mistermack]

Such as?

If you're going to try war crimes, it should be in a court that has no ties or is not influenced by any of the parties to that war. How is it I need to explain that?
This fiction that a US military court can be unbiased is just ludicrous. Who could possibly defend it?
The trouble is, in America, you just accept anything that suits america. It's a national mindset. Part of your brains appear to be missing, a sort of selective blindness.
.