Omar Khadr to be freed on bail while awaiting appeal
2Cdo @ Fri May 08, 2015 10:57 am
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
$1:
When it comes to radical islam, there is no other way to look at it.
You mean, when it comes to the topic of radical Islam, anyone who doesn't agree with you has to be considered a terrorist sympathizer? Go back and read Martin's last post that started this topic. He basically states that those who don't share his opinion of how Khadr should be treated thinks "he did nothing wrong" by "killing those bad bad Americans"
I'm going to hate being the one saying "I told you so" when he inevitably goes back to his old ways.
Hopefully the only people that he hurts are the apologists.
BeaverFever @ Fri May 08, 2015 11:24 am
Who are you kidding, you're would love saying "I told you so". 
And if you die of old age without it happening then your last words will be "just wait for it...any day now!" so you have the benefit of never having to admit you're wrong.
The guy will probably be under surveillance for the rest of his life.
PluggyRug @ Fri May 08, 2015 11:27 am
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Who are you kidding, you're would love saying "I told you so". And if you die of old age without it happening then your last words will be "just wait for it...any day now!" so you have the benefit of never having to admit you're wrong.
The guy will probably be under surveillance for the rest of his life.
And if you die of old age without it happening then your last words will be "just wait for it...any day now!" so you have the benefit of never having to admit you're wrong.The guy will probably be under surveillance for the rest of his life.
.....and a rich man if the weenies have their way.
2Cdo @ Fri May 08, 2015 12:15 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Who are you kidding, you're would love saying "I told you so". And if you die of old age without it happening then your last words will be "just wait for it...any day now!" so you have the benefit of never having to admit you're wrong.
The guy will probably be under surveillance for the rest of his life.
And if you die of old age without it happening then your last words will be "just wait for it...any day now!" so you have the benefit of never having to admit you're wrong.The guy will probably be under surveillance for the rest of his life.
Nope. Because when he does something its going to hurt innocents. The only guaranteed way to keep the left-wings pet muslim from doing anything is to keep him locked up for life.
BeaverFever @ Fri May 08, 2015 2:20 pm
Well the only way to guarantee ANYONE will never cause harm is to lock them up for life. I'm just not sure why you are convinced he's committed to making an attack. Do you have some special insight into his state of mind that the rest of society doesn't?
fifeboy @ Fri May 08, 2015 3:19 pm
I hate, therefore I am!
Praxius @ Fri May 08, 2015 4:41 pm
2Cdo 2Cdo:
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Who are you kidding, you're would love saying "I told you so". And if you die of old age without it happening then your last words will be "just wait for it...any day now!" so you have the benefit of never having to admit you're wrong.
The guy will probably be under surveillance for the rest of his life.
And if you die of old age without it happening then your last words will be "just wait for it...any day now!" so you have the benefit of never having to admit you're wrong.The guy will probably be under surveillance for the rest of his life.
Nope. Because when he does something its going to hurt innocents. The only guaranteed way to keep the left-wings pet muslim from doing anything is to keep him locked up for life.
Jebus, you might be right.... One day, years from now when our guard is down, he might try to cook a turkey in the oven, but then feel tired and go lie down for a bit. Then the oven catches fire and burns the house down while he slept due to an electrical fault and kills himself and whatever pet he owns at the time.
And while some will be in absolute shock, people like you will stand on your soap boxes and shout "See! He was a terrorist after all! He just couldn't help but to seek martyrdom and take a life with him!! He should have been locked away for the rest of his life!"
Absolutely Astonishing! *slaps cheek*
How could we be soooooo blind?
andyt @ Fri May 08, 2015 4:55 pm
Let's lock up all the male soldiers to make sure they don't sexually assault the female ones - only way to be safe.
What use is Khadr going to be to jihadis fighting in the ME? Diddly squat. What's he going to get up to in Canada, with all the attention on him? Diddly squat.
I do think he owes it to us to speak out against jihadism tho, be a deprogrammer.
2Cdo @ Fri May 08, 2015 4:56 pm
Praxius Praxius:
Typical ludicrous comment.
2Cdo @ Fri May 08, 2015 4:59 pm
andyt andyt:
Let's lock up all the male soldiers to make sure they don't sexually assault the female ones - only way to be safe.
What use is Khadr going to be to jihadis fighting in the ME? Diddly squat. What's he going to get up to in Canada, with all the attention on him? Diddly squat.
I do think he owes it to us to speak out against jihadism tho, be a deprogrammer.
What use is Khadr going to be to jihadis fighting in the ME? Diddly squat. What's he going to get up to in Canada, with all the attention on him? Diddly squat.
I do think he owes it to us to speak out against jihadism tho, be a deprogrammer.
Defending radical islam and making disparaging comments about Canadian soldiers. TAB
2Cdo @ Fri May 08, 2015 5:00 pm
An Andy, Praxius, fife boy circle jerk with Andy as the pivot man.
andyt @ Fri May 08, 2015 5:02 pm
Omar Khadr's odds of winning U.S. appeal look good, legal expert says
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/omar-khad ... -1.3065931
$1:
n her initial decision granting bail release, in April, Alberta Justice June Ross cited the work of law professor David Glazier in connection with Khadr's U.S. appeal.
Glazier, a leading expert on military commissions, teaches courses on the law of war and international law at Loyola School of Law in Los Angeles.
Before that, Glazier served 21 years in the U.S. navy, including as commander of the frigate USS George Philip.
The key merit of Khadr's appeal, Glazier says, "is that he's being tried in a military court system which, as a matter of law, should only have jurisdiction over actual war crimes' allegations, and none of the charges that have been levied against him constitute war crimes, as recognized by international law."
Khadr's prosecution in 2010 "has no credible legal foundation," he adds.
Khadr pleaded guilty to five charges at the military commission, however, all related to events in Afghanistan in 2001-02.
Glazier doesn't think that guilty plea will complicate Khadr's appeal. It's part of the legal tradition in the U.S., and in Canada, he says, that "you can't plead guilty to something that a court can't try you for." Glazier says that Khadr's guilty plea shouldn't have any legal effect.
In an in-depth analysis of the five charges against Khadr, Glazier concluded "that none of Khadr's five charges described actual war crimes, even assuming the underlying factual predicates are true." That means the military commission didn't have jurisdiction.
Glazier, a leading expert on military commissions, teaches courses on the law of war and international law at Loyola School of Law in Los Angeles.
Before that, Glazier served 21 years in the U.S. navy, including as commander of the frigate USS George Philip.
The key merit of Khadr's appeal, Glazier says, "is that he's being tried in a military court system which, as a matter of law, should only have jurisdiction over actual war crimes' allegations, and none of the charges that have been levied against him constitute war crimes, as recognized by international law."
Khadr's prosecution in 2010 "has no credible legal foundation," he adds.
Khadr pleaded guilty to five charges at the military commission, however, all related to events in Afghanistan in 2001-02.
Glazier doesn't think that guilty plea will complicate Khadr's appeal. It's part of the legal tradition in the U.S., and in Canada, he says, that "you can't plead guilty to something that a court can't try you for." Glazier says that Khadr's guilty plea shouldn't have any legal effect.
In an in-depth analysis of the five charges against Khadr, Glazier concluded "that none of Khadr's five charges described actual war crimes, even assuming the underlying factual predicates are true." That means the military commission didn't have jurisdiction.
Freakinoldguy @ Fri May 08, 2015 5:46 pm
andyt andyt:
Omar Khadr's odds of winning U.S. appeal look good, legal expert says
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/omar-khad ... -1.3065931
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/omar-khad ... -1.3065931
$1:
n her initial decision granting bail release, in April, Alberta Justice June Ross cited the work of law professor David Glazier in connection with Khadr's U.S. appeal.
Glazier, a leading expert on military commissions, teaches courses on the law of war and international law at Loyola School of Law in Los Angeles.
Before that, Glazier served 21 years in the U.S. navy, including as commander of the frigate USS George Philip.
The key merit of Khadr's appeal, Glazier says, "is that he's being tried in a military court system which, as a matter of law, should only have jurisdiction over actual war crimes' allegations, and none of the charges that have been levied against him constitute war crimes, as recognized by international law."
Khadr's prosecution in 2010 "has no credible legal foundation," he adds.
Khadr pleaded guilty to five charges at the military commission, however, all related to events in Afghanistan in 2001-02.
Glazier doesn't think that guilty plea will complicate Khadr's appeal. It's part of the legal tradition in the U.S., and in Canada, he says, that "you can't plead guilty to something that a court can't try you for." Glazier says that Khadr's guilty plea shouldn't have any legal effect.
In an in-depth analysis of the five charges against Khadr, Glazier concluded "that none of Khadr's five charges described actual war crimes, even assuming the underlying factual predicates are true." That means the military commission didn't have jurisdiction.
Glazier, a leading expert on military commissions, teaches courses on the law of war and international law at Loyola School of Law in Los Angeles.
Before that, Glazier served 21 years in the U.S. navy, including as commander of the frigate USS George Philip.
The key merit of Khadr's appeal, Glazier says, "is that he's being tried in a military court system which, as a matter of law, should only have jurisdiction over actual war crimes' allegations, and none of the charges that have been levied against him constitute war crimes, as recognized by international law."
Khadr's prosecution in 2010 "has no credible legal foundation," he adds.
Khadr pleaded guilty to five charges at the military commission, however, all related to events in Afghanistan in 2001-02.
Glazier doesn't think that guilty plea will complicate Khadr's appeal. It's part of the legal tradition in the U.S., and in Canada, he says, that "you can't plead guilty to something that a court can't try you for." Glazier says that Khadr's guilty plea shouldn't have any legal effect.
In an in-depth analysis of the five charges against Khadr, Glazier concluded "that none of Khadr's five charges described actual war crimes, even assuming the underlying factual predicates are true." That means the military commission didn't have jurisdiction.
And that would be one mans opinion which, for the record definitely doesn't match the findings of the Court Of Military Commission Review which overturned the original courts finding of non jurisdiction.
$1:
The United States appealed the military judge's order to the Court of Military Commission Review (“CMCR”). In a decision issued on September 24, 2007, the CMCR affirmed the decision in part and reversed it in part. The CMCR agreed that the CSRT's “enemy combatant” finding did not satisfy the “unlawful enemy combatant” requirement of the Military Commissions Act, but disagreed with the military judge's conclusion that a military commission was not authorized to make the appropriate jurisdictional finding in the first instance.
The Military Commissions Act defines an “unlawful enemy combatant” as either:
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces);
or(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
The Military Commissions Act defines an “unlawful enemy combatant” as either:
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces);
or(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1335160.html
But, I guess the Commander must be right because it would never have occurred in a million years to anyone in the US Military Justice System to actually research whether they had jurisdiction over Khadr before trying him, appeals or not.
BRAH @ Fri May 08, 2015 7:12 pm
Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
BRAH BRAH:
His piece of shit Lawyer called Harper a racist.
Part of his lawyers schtick to get his overly large share of the blood money Omar thinks he's entitled to.
"You see your Honour, my client is extremely deserving of that $60 millions dollars because, if the Prime Minister wasn't a racist he wouldn't have been incarcerated by the evil Americans at all".
This guy is living proof that most lawyers are ambulance chasing scum who'll do anything to make a buck.
Very true and the lame stream media's love for him is pathetic as the Left's.