Is this "American justice"? -- Widow of soldier killed in Afghanistan sues former Guantanamo detainee.

SSgt (Join to see) - Staff; Two minor points AND one tiny little question:

[1] The US government DID prosecute.

[2] The US government denied Mr. Khadar the opportunity to defend himself against the civil suit.

and

[3] If you were held in jail and refused the opportunity to retain and instruct council while you were being sued - would you think that you had received "DUE PROCESS"?

Please do not confuse this with any sort of a defence of whatever actions did or did not take place - the issue here is whether the US government acted in accordance with the dictates of the Constitution of the United States of America.

On point 1, my apologies. My statement was based on the fact that this man is no longer in prison and is in fact in Canada and not locked up rotting behind bars. His plea deal was a miscarriage of justice.

On point 3, Khadr is NOT a U.S. citizen and is thus NOT entitled to the protections of the US Constitution. So, yes, the US Government acted in accordance with US Constitution.

SFC Robert Wheeler - Sergeant; And at what point do you start to have some "sympathy" for children?

You do realize that Mr. Khadr fell squarely within the definition of "Child Soldier" under the UN Convention which the government of the United States of America has ratified - don't you?

You do realize that the US government has NOT proven the case against Mr. Khadr and that Mr. Khadr's position is that he only "confessed" because he had a reasonably well founded belief that the US government was never going to let him out of jail (or even actually place him on trial) due to the massive deficiencies in the evidence against him - don't you?

However, regardless of that, do you believe that the US government is providing "due process" when it incarcerates a Defendant in a civil (or criminal) action and refuses to allow that Defendant to participate in the "trial" of the allegations against them?

Would you feel the same way if it was your fifteen year old Grandson who was the one that was incarcerated?

Yes, actually, I would. If the little b*****d threw a grenade at someone he gets what he deserves. It appears that the US government proving it's case is not germane to the law suit as it is being initiated (in the case of one of the joined parties) by an actual victim and direct witness if I read the article correctly. This outstanding young citizen of the world is not facing jail time from the suit-just damages which, ironically, he will be able to pay after he, the alleged terrorist, sues the US government. It is American justice because a person is still liable for civil damages after being acquitted of criminal charges. Just ask O.J.

SFC Robert Wheeler - Sergeant; But is it "American Justice" to find against someone who is not allowed to defend themselves?

Please note - I'm not speaking of the MERITS of the claim against Mr. Khadr - only about the fact that someone who was incarcerated and denied access to counsel and denied the ability to file a defence and (possibly) even denied any knowledge that they were being sued.

My question is STRICTLY "Is this what is meant by 'due process'?".

SSG John Bacon - Staff; Would it still "sound good" to you if the government prevented you from participating in a trial at which you were the Defendant?

COL Ted Mc , COL Which GOVT? Sounds to me that he was in Canada, not in the United States when this transpired. Your question did not contain all the facts. Had you stated that the US GOVT blocked reaction to the charges in Utah then no he did not get Due Process. The way that the question posted reads it is as if he didn't send or was unable too send representation due to him being in Canada. So is this American Justice, Canadian Justice ore just North American Juesice?

The Fact that he plead Guilty to Murder may have been a huge Factor in the GOVT's Decision as well. But he is a Terrorist and a Convicted one at that so I don't feel any sympathy for him.

You Question to me "Would it still "sound good" to you if the government prevented you from participating in a trial at which you were the Defendant?" No, of course not, but I would never put myself in a situation to have to be prosecuted in the first place. Life is about Choices, and I due my best to make the correct ones.

SSG John Bacon - StaFF; Possibly

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=43c0864a-c38a-4898-8774-9a6013eb87db

OTTAWA - A U.S. civil court has ordered the family of Omar Khadr, the Canadian teenager jailed at Guantanamo Bay, to pay more than $102-million to the widow of an American soldier and a second soldier injured in an attack in Afghanistan.

...

Dennis Edney, an Edmonton lawyer for the Khadr family but not in this civil matter, said the judgment is completely unfair.

"A default judgment was obtained through fraudulent means because Mr. Khadr was unable to defend himself," Mr. Edney said.

"The application was not challenged and it could not be challenged because Omar Khadr, the boy, is in Guantanamo Bay, and the father is dead," Mr. Edney said. In the U.S. prison camp, he is unable to communicate with family or lawyers. As such, he could not give evidence, could not communicate with a lawyer and likely is unaware the lawsuit was initiated.

And, then again, possibly not.