I am not overly inclined toward criminal accused.
For example, I disapprove of cases letting violent accused go free because of police wrongdoing -- so I see the Court of Appeal going the wrong way in Tran.
That disclaimer aside, it is a basic principle of the Common Law that confessions are admissible only if they are free and voluntary.
That's just not the case here. Omar Khadr was not able to make any statement unmotivated by hope of favour or fear of prejudice. Col. Patrick Parrish may be a fine soldier but his decision is wrong.
August 20, 2010
Colin Perkel
The Canadian Press
Threats of gang rape did not prompt Omar Khadr to make any self-incriminating statements and no evidence exists that the Canadian citizen was tortured, the U.S. military judge in his Guantanamo Bay war crimes trial said in a decision released Friday.
In his nine-page written ruling, Col. Patrick Parrish states Khadr's various confessions to his interrogators are reliable and were made voluntarily.
"There is no credible evidence the accused was ever tortured . . . even using a liberal interpretation considering the accused's age," Parrish wrote.
The decision amplifies the terse oral ruling given by Parrish last week in denying defence pretrial motions to exclude Khadr's statements as the products of torture.
Among other things, Khadr's lawyers cited evidence from one interrogator, who told the badly wounded 15-year-old about the gang-raping an uncooperative inmate to death.
"There is no evidence that story caused the accused to make any incriminating statements then or in the future," Parrish said.
6 comments:
Well said, James. This is Stalin's view of the rule of law. A judicial lynching.
He was 15. Many of those who defended Berlin were similar in age.
Same in the moribund world of the Vietnam conflict. No 15 yr old Viet Cong was ever subject to an American show trial.
No Viet Cong ever called me Nigger. (Muhammed Ali)
A Kangaroo court for a child - the first prosecuted since WWII - all thanks to Stevil "Christian" Harper.
It would be too much to ask that the military "judge" actually had a legal clue, wouldn't it. Outrageous.
Why didn't the Liberals bring Khadr home in 2002?
or 2003? or 2004? or 2005?
2 Liberal Prime Ministers
Chretien and Martin,
both refused to seek extradition or repatriation.
Not even after the Aug. 10, 2005 Federal Court ruling that the Charter extends to Omar Khadr, being held by Americans in Cuba.
Common Law does not apply here Morton.
Military law applies.
Morton is a Neo-Marxist................
Paid to indoctrinate children with his far left marxist progressive views.
With my tax dollars...................
Civil War sounds good to get rid of these marxist communists.
Agreed that military law applies -- so apply it! What is being done here is a mishmash of different concepts all, it seems, developed to obtain a conviction. I won't respond to the Marxist point except to not most of my piece go in the National Post ...
Post a Comment