eyeball Posted May 6, 2012 Report Posted May 6, 2012 How about, as the outcome of such a trial, a deprogramming of this little child, so he doesn't go through life hating the society he's part of? That's what you do with cults. You mean treat him as oppose to punish him? Okay. The problem here jbg is that it's a large part of our society that needs to be deprogrammed, so it doesn't go through life hating a kid who actually deserves society's compassion. That's what the shame of a SC trial, an official apology from Parliament and a massive compensation settlement will bring about. Perhaps not right away and real hard core cultists will probably only become even more enraged and bitter but in the end, Canada will one day come to regard what it did to and what it didn't do for Omar Khadr with a deep un-abiding shame. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
g_bambino Posted May 6, 2012 Report Posted May 6, 2012 I'm wondering why you feel as if there wouldn't be "equal application of the law" if he were to be tried for treason. That's not what I feel at all. What I think is that it would take a twisting of the law to suit Khadr in order to convict him of treason. I don't know how many Canadians have fought for an enemy country's forces and not been charged with treason, or, if there are any, why they weren't. The last who was found guilty of treason fought for Japan during the Second World War and was tried following the end of hostilities. Quote
Army Guy Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 See the preceeding debate about the content of the Criminal Code relating to treason. The way the clauses are worded, it seems that Omar would have to have been fighting as a member of a country's armed forces, which, by 2002, the Taliban/Al Qaeda was not; they had been replaced as Afghanistan's armed force and relegated to insurgents. Though, I suppose it depends on which point of view one takes: the Taliban certainly must have thought their forces were the legitimate forces of Afghanistan, but the Canadian government would have recognised the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (the ones they were fighting alongside) as the country's forces.I recall reading somewhere that treason charges are almost never levied because it is almost impossible to get a conviction. I don't buy that for one minute, we have already established the fact that AL Quada was part of the Talibans military forces, prior to the war, just because that during the short conflict between the coalition and taliban forces the regime had changed does not change the fact that AL Quada and omar merry gang get a free pass. As they were already part of that group before the conflict... The Afghan Interim Administration (AIA) was the first administration of Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban regime and was the highest authority of the country from 22 December 2001 until 13 July 2003. My link Piont to not Germany, and Japan also had regime changes, and yet it did not effect the outcome of those courts and those charges that were laid.. the last man to be charged in Canada was Kanao Inouye after he served in the japanese military during WWII After the Japanese capitulation in August 1945, Inouye was arrested in Kowloon and tried for war crimes by a military tribunal. He was convicted and was sentenced to death. However, the verdict was overturned on appeal, since as a Canadian citizen, he could not be prosecuted for war crimes committed by an enemy army.In April 1947, Inouye was tried on the criminal charge of treason. He was again found guilty, and on August 27, 1947, he was executed by hanging at Hong Kong's Stanley Prison. His last word was "Banzai!"[5] So it has been done before, After a regime change. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
g_bambino Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) just because that during the short conflict between the coalition and taliban forces the regime had changed does not change the fact that AL Quada and omar merry gang get a free pass. We're talking specifically about Omar Khadr, though. And it looks like he would get a free pass on treason. There's a small window between Canada's entry into the Afghan war in September 2001 and the fall of the Taliban in December 2001 (coincidentally, the same span of time in which Omar turned 15, thereby taking him out of the UN's and Geneva Conventions' classification of a child soldier) that one could argue he was working with the Taliban/Al Qaeda armed forces of Afghanistan on bombs and plotting to kill and maim soldiers belonging to any of the invading countries' forces, which would include, by that point, Canadian ones. I think it would be incredibly difficult to prove, however, since there seems to be little concrete evidence of what he was doing in that month. So it has been done before, After a regime change. He was convicted of treasonous crimes committed before the surrender of Japan in 1945. [ed.: +] Edited May 7, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
cybercoma Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 We're talking specifically about Omar Khadr, though. And it looks like he would get a free pass on treason. There's a small window between Canada's entry into the Afghan war in September 2001 and the fall of the Taliban in December 2001 (coincidentally, the same span of time in which Omar turned 15, thereby taking him out of the UN's and Geneva Conventions' classification of a child soldier) that one could argue he was working with the Taliban/Al Qaeda armed forces of Afghanistan on bombs and plotting to kill and maim soldiers belonging to any of the invading countries' forces, which would include, by that point, Canadian ones. I think it would be incredibly difficult to prove, however, since there seems to be little concrete evidence of what he was doing in that month. He was convicted of treasonous crimes committed before the surrender of Japan in 1945. [ed.: +] Has anyone under the age of 18 ever been charged with treason? The charge is exceedingly rare. However, I can't imagine anyone that's not of legal voting age even being charged under the law. The kid couldn't even drive a car in Canada, let alone vote in an election. It doesn't make sense that he could be tried for treason. Quote
GostHacked Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 Has anyone under the age of 18 ever been charged with treason? The charge is exceedingly rare. However, I can't imagine anyone that's not of legal voting age even being charged under the law. The kid couldn't even drive a car in Canada, let alone vote in an election. It doesn't make sense that he could be tried for treason. I've got a question for that then : Who was the last Canadian to be tried for treason? Quote
eyeball Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 Omar turned 15, thereby taking him out of the UN's and Geneva Conventions' classification of a child soldier Special representatives of the UN Secretary-Generals are highly respected experts on human rights issues. The expert responsible for advising signatory nations to the Geneva Conventions on Children and Armed Conflict makes it pretty clear that what you are saying about Omar Khadr is just plain wrong. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
g_bambino Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 The expert responsible for advising signatory nations to the Geneva Conventions on Children and Armed Conflict makes it pretty clear that what you are saying about Omar Khadr is just plain wrong. How interesting. The sources seem to make the age of 15 the cut-off: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 38: "State parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in hostilities... States Parties shall refrain from recruiting any person who has not attained the age of fifteen years into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, States Parties shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest."[1] The Rome Statute, S.8.2.b: "Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:... Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities."[2] Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Article 77.2: "The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces..."[3] Geneva Conventions Protocol II, Article 4.3.c: "[C]hildren who have not attained the age of fifteen years shall neither be recruited in the armed forces or groups nor allowed to take part in hostilities."[4] Quote
eyeball Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 States Parties shall refrain from recruiting any person who has not attained the age of fifteen years into their armed forces. He was 15 when he was rescued/detained, he was recruited at a much younger age than that, more like between the age of 8 or 9. I'm betting the UN quite aware of the sections you've cited and yet they still maintain Omar should be regarded as being a child soldier when determining his treatment. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
g_bambino Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) He was 15 when he was rescued/detained, he was recruited at a much younger age than that, more like between the age of 8 or 9. Okay, so he was a child soldier before the age of 15. What has that got to do with his capture and detention, which took place after he turned 15? [The UN] still maintain Omar should be regarded as being a child soldier when determining his treatment... Oh? [ed.: +] Edited May 7, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
eyeball Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 Okay, so he was a child soldier before the age of 15. What has that got to do with his capture and detention, which took place after he turned 15? The key word throughout the conventions is recruited. Your argument might have a leg to stand on if he'd been recruited when he was 15, but the simple fact of the matter is that he was recruited long before he was even a teenager. The huge mitigating factor you and our government continually seem to go way out of the way to ignore here is that his capacity to make any sort of rational adult-like decision to wilfully become a criminal was severely compromised and diminished by years of deliberate indoctrination at the hands of malicious abusive adults. It is these who are the criminals and Omar was their victim. His disputed status as a minor is the key issue and always has been. At the very beginning of this case, the government did express concern about Khadr's age. That soon changed.Just before Khadr's transfer from Afghanistan to Guantanamo in 2002, Canadian officials were directed to "claw back on the fact that he is a minor." Those instructions not to publicly raise the age issue came from Colleen Swords, the chief legal adviser at Foreign Affairs. Story Why the government has decided Omar better not be officially or legally recognized as a child soldier is obvious enough, because if he was, then just about every legal leg our participation and conduct in this war stands on looks really dodgy, to say the very least. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
g_bambino Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 [T]he simple fact of the matter is that he was recruited long before he was even a teenager. Repeating the obvious doesn't indicate its significance. His disputed status as a minor is the key issue and always has been. A minor and a child soldier are not necessarily the same thing. Quote
eyeball Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 Repeating the obvious doesn't indicate its significance. And yet repeatedly denying it's significance does. A minor and a child soldier are not necessarily the same thing. They are when they're sequential as in Omar's case. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
g_bambino Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 And yet repeatedly denying it's significance does. It's easy to deny what doesn't yet exist! They are when they're sequential as in Omar's case. In the context of whether or not he was a child soldier when captured: how so? Quote
eyeball Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 It's easy to deny what doesn't yet exist! Okay. In the context of whether or not he was a child soldier when captured: how so? He wasn't an adult at the time. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
g_bambino Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 He wasn't an adult at the time. I assume you mean he wasn't an adult according to Canadian law. If so, then sure. But, that's not relevant to the child soldier issue. Quote
eyeball Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 I assume you mean he wasn't an adult according to Canadian law. If so, then sure. But, that's not relevant to the child soldier issue. What are you talking about? That's the most relevant thing about it. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
g_bambino Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 What are you talking about? That's the most relevant thing about it. No... A person can be a minor under Canadian law but still not meet the general requirements to be defined as a child soldier. Quote
eyeball Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 No... A person can be a minor under Canadian law but still not meet the general requirements to be defined as a child soldier. If you say so. In this case the world's foremost expert on the issue says Omar does meet those requirements. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
GostHacked Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 So who was the last person, and what were the reasons that the person was convicted of treason against Canada? Quote
g_bambino Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 In this case the world's foremost expert on the issue says Omar does meet those requirements. So you say... Quote
eyeball Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 So who was the last person, and what were the reasons that the person was convicted of treason against Canada? Kanao Inouye, all the reasons being given why Omar Khadr should be convicted of the same. Kanao Inouye was 26 when he was conscripted, not 8. 8 - 26...what's the difference? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 So you say... I'm pretty sure a great many people of note in groups like Amnesty International, The Canadian Bar Association, UNICEF and the Supreme Court of Canada amongst others say so too. What have you got besides a bunch of partisan hacks, unaccountable officials and a quasi-legal process that wouldn't be given a minute's latitude in a real court of law? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
g_bambino Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 What have you got besides a bunch of partisan hacks, unaccountable officials and a quasi-legal process that wouldn't be given a minute's latitude in a real court of law? Do you still assault elderly women? Try asking a question that isn't loaded. Quote
eyeball Posted May 7, 2012 Report Posted May 7, 2012 What have you got? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.