"Let me get this straight. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, gets a fair trial

[snagglepuss]

with all the constitutional trimmings. But Omar Khadr, the Canadian child-soldier accused of killing an American sergeant during battle, will still be tried before a kangaroo court."

snip

Why the difference? U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder insists he merely wants to differentiate between those accused of attacking civilians and those charged with crimes against the military.


snip

... as my colleague Michelle Shephard writes in her book, Guantanamo's Child, Khadr – seriously wounded in the Afghan firefight – was in such bad shape during questioning that even his U.S. interrogator feared he might die.

In civilian court, statements obtained under such circumstances would be dismissed as coerced.



http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/725779--walkom-omar-khadr-heading-for-a-kangaroo-court





IMO the person who should be tried is his a**hole mother who knowingly sent her child to fight in a war and who has publicly stated she supports AQ and its aims.

[stray cat]

1. Soldiers don't get convicted for fighting in a war - they do get treated as prisoners of war

[iamjoy]

2. No Way Mohammed Gets A Fair Trial

there is no way Mohammed gets a fair trial. OK, that sounds arrogant. I do not believe Khalid Sheikh Mohammed can get a fair trial in the US. I just can't imagine they'd find an impartial jury.

1 - The trial is going to be in lower Manhattan, not far from where the World Trade Centers stood. I think given all the information that has already been shared on the news and American sentiment about 9-11, it would be hard to find an objective jury anywhere in the country, but emotions are probably a little stronger amongst people who survived those awful attacks first hand.

2 - He's brown. I'm not saying that non-Caucasians never get justice or a fair trial, but ingrained racial prejudices may play a role in how a jury decides.

3 - He's already confessed. Supposedly, he already confessed, and supposedly before he was tortured. Confessions can be withdrawn and defense attorneys can make the case that the confession was coereced. But, Mohammed may very well be proud of what he did.

4 - A prosecutor can say something outrageous or inadmissable. The defense counsel can object and the judge can sustain. The remark can be stricken from the record. Can the jury strike it from their minds so easily?

5 - Jury intimidation. Remember how a lot of people thought the jury that acquitted Michael Jackson was crazy? I don't imagine any direct intimidation of this jury, but perhaps a collective peer pressure of Mohammed's guilt.

Please don't think I'm defending Mohammed. I'm merely pointing out that a civilian trial is not necessarily a free pass for him.

[dorkulon]

3. If he says he did it, and is proud of it, and is convicted, how is that not fair? nt

[iamjoy]

4. Not Much of a Trial, Is It?

If he's proud, it isn't much of a trial, more of a showcase, right?

[dorkulon]

5. A proudly confessed murderer doesn't require "much" of a trial.

You can't say a trial isn't fair just because the accused doesn't bother to feign innocence.

[iamjoy]

6. Then It Isn't Really A Trial At All

what I meant was that, if the accused has confessed and doesn't bother retracting, it isn't really a trial. In that case, we can't even get into the question of fairness since it isn't really a trial in the first place.

However, since Mohammed has supposedly confessed, if he were to retract his confession (for whatever reason, or basis) it would still be held against him that he once supposedly bragged about it.