Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
He's on film making and placing bombs for terrorists. It doesn't really matter which specific bombs specific terrorists used in specific places. Even if he was washing the dishes for the people he was with, he'd likely be convicted as a party to their crimes.
It also doesn't really matter whether his father put him up to it or not. He would still be convicted.
The kind of things you're talking about are likely to be mitigating factors to his sentencing. The confession you're talking about was to the murder of the US soldier, which yes would have been difficult to prove in the first place and probably impossible to prove after all the evidence tampering and coerced confessions.
|
First of all, I was talking about High Treason, a charge reserved for "the most egregious crimes against Canada". Since the majority of evidence against Khadr is, among other things, totally impossible to prove, a video of him making bombs isn't going to amount to a hill of beans. This the best summary of the evidence against him I've found so far...
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017...dr-isnt-guilty
What you're talking about is not Treason. You're talking about other charges under the anti terrorism act, specifically an Offense Involving Explosive or Other Lethal Device. And if that's your charge, then the above bolded text you wrote is absolutely not true.
Quote:
|
Every one who delivers, places, discharges or detonates an explosive or other lethal device to, into, in or against a place of public use, a government or public facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility
|
The placement of the device is actually very key to the charge itself. There no evidence other than what the Americans said "places where US forces were known to travel". And that doesn't amount to a hill of beans when it comes to proving "public place".
You could probably get him for participation with a terrorist group. But again, this comes down to knowing if, where and when Khadr actually planted any IED.
He's guilty in the same sense OJ was guilty. But any possible charge you can think of requires evidence that's pretty hard to verify.