15 year old boy held by US for war crimes, youngest ever.

Gitmo Prisoner Could Return to Canada Next Year

A Canadian citizen held by the US since he was a teenager could be returning to Canada as early as next year. On Monday, Omar Khadr was ordered to serve a maximum of eight more years of a forty-year sentence after pleading guilty to war crimes charges last week. But as part of the plea deal, the US government agreed to allow Khadr’s transfer to a Canadian prison. Once in Canada, Khadr could be eligible for release within three years under the country’s sentencing rules. Khadr was fifteen years old when US troops imprisoned him in Afghanistan in 2002. He says US military guards beat him and threatened him with rape after he arrived at Guantánamo that same year. His trial was set to be the first under the Obama administration’s revised military commissions system and the first war crimes tribunal anywhere since World War II to prosecute someone for acts allegedly committed as a juvenile.

Tehelka Interview w/ Arundhati Roy Regarding Sedition Charges.

As a section of the political class and the media bays for her blood, author Arundhati Roy tells SHOMA CHAUDHURY why her opinions do not amount to sedition.

Speaking her mind Arundhati Roy’s views on the Kashmir issue have invited brickbats from all possible quarters PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES

The State has been contemplating charges of sedition against you for your speeches in Delhi and Kashmir. How do you understand sedition? Did you see yourself as being seditious? What was your intention in speaking from those two platforms in Delhi and Srinagar under the rubric — Azadi: The only way.

Sedition is an archaic, obsolete idea revived for us by Times Now, a channel that seems to have hysterically dedicated itself to hunting me down and putting me in the way of mob anger. Who am I anyway? Small fry for a whole TV channel. It’s not hard to get a writer lynched in this climate, and that’s what it seems to want to do. It is literally stalking me. I almost sense psychosis here. If I was the Government of India I would take a step back from the chess board of this recent morass and ask how a TV channel managed to whip up this frenzy using moth-eaten, discredited old ideas, and goad everybody into a blind alley of international embarrassment. All this has gone a long way towards internationalising the ‘Kashmir issue’, something the Indian government was trying to avoid.

One of the reasons it happened was because the BJP desperately needed to divert attention from the chargesheeting of Indresh Kumar, a key RSS leader in the Ajmer blast. This was a perfect opportunity, the media, forever in search of sensation, led by Times Now, obliged. It never occurred to me that I was being seditious. I had agreed to speak at the seminar in Delhi way before it was titled “Azadi: The only way”. The title was provocative, I guess, to people who are longing to be provoked. I don’t think it is such a big deal frankly, given what has been going on in Kashmir for more than half a century.

The Srinagar seminar was called ‘Whither Kashmir? Enslavement or Freedom?’ It was really meant for young Kashmiris to deepen the debate on what they meant by and what they wanted from azadi. Contrary to the idea that it was some fire-breathing call to arms, it was really the opposite — it was about contemplation, about deepening the debate, about asking uncomfortable questions.

Muslims arrested for Terror charges, entrapment?

A Virginia resident has been indicted in connection with an alleged plot to bomb several Metro stations in Washington, DC. Farooque Ahmed, a US citizen originally from Pakistan, was arrested Wednesday after a six-month undercover sting. But as with other recent cases alleging terrorist plots, questions are being raised over whether Ahmed was subjected to government entrapment. He discussed the alleged plot with agents posing as Islamic militants, and US officials say the public was never in real danger. Defendants in other cases nationwide have accused government informants and agents of devising the plots for which they were accused.

No Charges for Ex-Blackwater Operative in Iraq Killing... US has two beliefs about justice.

Mmm Justice, who needs it? not blackwater, but those students kept by Iran...ya we'er pissed about that we want them back...we believe in justice in that case.....hm. 

Federal prosecutors have announced they won’t file criminal charges against a former operative for the private military firm Blackwater accused of killing an Iraqi security guard in 2006. The operative, Andrew Moonen, was reportedly intoxicated when he shot and killed Raheem Saadoun, who was on duty protecting Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi. Moonen is the latest former Blackwater employee to evade prosecution. Last year a federal judge threw out all charges against five Blackwater operatives involved in the 2007 Nisoor Square massacre that killed seventeen Iraqi civilians.

I wonder why so many want to attack us. Maybe consistent application of justice should be a new national security platform.

Iran to Prosecute 2 Jailed Americans, welcome to the other side America

Doesn't it suck when a justice system has no legal presedent, or people are detained without evidence, and there is no transparency or due process.... welcome to the other side America.

The Iranian government say it’s preparing to try the two jailed Americans Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal early next month. Bauer and Fattal were arrested in July 2009 after hiking near the Iran-Iraq border. A third hiker, Sarah Shourd, was freed last month. On Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton renewed calls for the pair’s release.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: "We continue to express our hope that the Iranian authorities will exercise the humanitarian option of releasing these two young men. We do not believe there is any basis whatsoever for them to be put on trial, and we regret that they and their families are being subjected to a criminal system that we do not think in any way reflects their actions."

Entrapment or Foiling Terror? FBI’s Reliance on Paid Informants Raises Questions about Validity of Terrorism Cases

Warning Issued to Top Texan Appeals Court Judge

The presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has been given a public warning for misconduct in a closely watched case. Sharon Keller has faced scrutiny after refusing to hear a last-minute appeal from a death row prisoner scheduled to be executed that night. Keller reportedly denied an appeal from the lawyers for Michael Wayne Richard at 5:20 pm on September 25th, 2007, saying, quote, “We close at five.” Richard had been on death row for two decades. He was killed later that night by lethal injection. In its warning, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct said Keller had "cast public discredit on the judiciary."

In recent days, conservatives have been attacking President Obama for deciding to try the alleged Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, in civilian courts, ignoring the fact that President Bush did the exact same thing for "shoe bomber" Richard Reid and other terrorists. Former Vice President Cheney has led the charge, telling Politico that Obama "seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won't be at war." "We allow him to lawyer up. And so rather than saying okay, you are a enemy combatant and we're going to put the FBI and the CIA in your face and interrogate you. ... I mean we've now lost a valuable [informant]," former Bush White House adviser Karl Rove said on Fox News last month. Last week, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said on CNN, "I think the President made a very big mistake by not making him a enemy combatant. Because the minute you make him a criminal justice defendant, you cut off the ability to question him." The critics are calling for Obama to use the military tribunal system, arguing the method is more fitting for enemies of the U.S. But as White House homeland security adviser John Brennan explained on Fox News Sunday last week, "[W]e have an array of tools that we will use, and we want to make sure we maintain flexibility as far as how we deal with these individuals. ... Just because somebody is going to be put into the criminal legal process does not mean that...we don't have other opportunities to get information from them."

SAME INCIDENT, SAME RESPONSE: A federal grand jury in Michigan indicted Abdulmutallab on Wednesday on six criminal charges, including the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. The critics of the Obama administration's approach must have short memories, because Bush handled a similar incident -- when Reid attempted to ignite a bomb in his shoes on a plane in December 2001 -- in a nearly identical manner. Federal authorities initially charged Reid "with interfering with the performance of the duties of flight crew members by assault or intimidation." The decision to try Reid in a criminal court, according to Bush attorney general John Ashcroft, wasn't debated much. Asked if he considered using a military tribunal, Ashcroft said, "People were alert, and that created a factual basis for the kind of court case that we've alleged. I did confer with the...Department of Defense and with their general counsel, and they had no objection to our proceeding in this matter." At a press conference on Oct. 4, 2004 announcing the indictment of Reid's co-conspirator, Saajid Mohammed Badat, Ashcroft praised the law enforcement method of dealing with terrorists: "This case is another example of the successful cooperation between American law enforcement and its counterparts around the world. ... Thanks to these efforts, today an alleged terrorist bomber faces the prospect of life in prison, never...to endanger the public."

MOUSSAOUI: Reid was not the only terrorist tried in civilian courts under Bush. Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th 9/11 hijacker, was tried and convicted in federal court in Alexandria, VA. Ari Fleischer, Bush's press secretary at the time, gave a strong defense for not using a military tribunal to process Moussaoui: "During his meeting with the attorney general, the president asked a series of questions about civilian versus military trial, and asked, if this were to be decided in a civilian court, civilian criminal court, would national security be endangered, would sources or methods be compromised? The president was satisfied that the answers to those questions were no." Giuliani similarly said, "I was in awe of our system. It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial. ... We are a nation of law. ... I think he's going to be a symbol of American justice." The Washington Times reported on Jan. 3, 2003, "The decision to try the case in federal court instead of before a military tribunal was made by President Bush, based on what Vice President Richard B. Cheney said was the strength of the case and an assessment that an open trial would not hurt national security." "There's a good, strong case against him," Cheney told The Times. Then-Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist praised the system after Moussaoui's conviction, saying, "Zacarias Moussaoui received what he would deny all of us. Today justice was served."

WHY THEN AND NOT NOW?: Former Bush speech writer Marc Thiessen attempted to explain in the National Review Online why it was acceptable for Reid, and not Abdulmutallab, to be tried in civilian court, writing, "The Richard Reid attack came almost immediately after 9/11, long before we figured out that we had other options than handing him over to law enforcement." He then cited the case of alleged terrorist Jose Padilla, who was "on a mission from [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] to blow up apartment buildings," and designated an "enemy combatant" as an example of the military courts working. But the military tribunal system was created on Nov. 13, 2001 -- over a month before Reid's attempted attack -- and Padilla was ultimately convicted in federal court because the commissions are not an option for American citizens. Critics claim that Abdulmutallab won't share his intelligence if he is processed through the federal court system, but "Abdulmutallab spent a number of hours with FBI investigators in which we gleaned usable, actionable intelligence," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Tuesday. And as The Progress Report has noted, right-wing claims that trying Abdulmutallab in federal court means Obama believes the U.S. is not at war are baseless, considering Obama has repeatedly acknowledged such. Just yesterday Obama said, "[W]e are at war. ... And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them." As Judge William Young, who presided over Reid's trial said rebutting Reid's claims that he was a "soldier" of Allah, "You are not an enemy combatant. You are not a soldier in any army, you are a terrorist. To call you a soldier gives you far too much stature.'' [ I am not sure i agree with this last part. First off by this logic Blackwater, or Xe are also terrorists; but beyond this i think an argument can be made that either all soldiers are terrorist or that all terrorists are soldiers.]

[Justice: due process and courts.]
-Via Think Progress

links to further articles