Omar, Khadr family, & Accountability

[Guest American Woman]

I've posted a bit about this in the "Omar Khadr" thread, but it's really off-topic there since it's about his family, and their accountability, too. Since I think his family, regarding accountability, is worthy of discussion in and of itself, I'm starting a new thread specifically about that issue.

This is an excerpt from one of Gen. Dallaire's interviews regarding Omar and his family:

NOW SOME PEOPLE WOULD SAY – SOME CANADIANS WOULD SAY, IS OMAR KHADR REALLY A CHILD SOLDIER? HIS FAMILY WAS INDOCTRINATING HIM, WAS LEADING HIM INTO FIGHTING. IT WASN’T THAT HE WAS PULLED OUT OF A FAMILY AND FORCED INTO AN ARMY. IT WAS HIS FAMILY WANTED HIM TO BE THERE, THAT WAS THEIR VALUES. THAT’S WHAT LED HIM THERE. SO IN EFFECT, DOES HE STILL FIT THE CHARACTERIZATION WE HAVE OF YOUNG CHILDREN IN WAR?

[Gen. Dallaire]: Yeah, well, a child soldier and the protocol is quite clear that anyone under the age of 18 is not allowed to be indoctrinated, trained, equipped nor used in conflict. Now, it’s like human rights, it’s every human being.

Gen. Dallaire says "anyone under the age of 18 is not allowed to be indoctrinated, trained, equipped nor used in conflict," so wouldn't "not allowed" in this instance mean 'against international law?" So if his family did what's "not allowed," ie: against the law, why aren't they being held accountable?

If he can't be held accountable because he was a "child soldier," why isn't his mother being held accountable when children under the age of 18 aren't allowed to be raised to be used in conflict? To those who say "she's a Canadian citizen same as everyone else" I ask: doesn't it appear as if she broke the law by "allowing [Omar]," when he was "under the age of 18," to be "indoctrinated, trained, equipped [or] used in conflict?" So why isn't she being held accountable, being tried, same as other Canadian citizens are when they go against what's "allowed?"

Edited September 13, 2009 by American Woman

[jdobbin]

If he can't be held accountable because he was a "child soldier," why isn't his mother being held accountable when children under the age of 18 aren't allowed to be raised to be used in conflict? To those who say "she's a Canadian citizen same as everyone else" I ask: doesn't it appear as if she broke the law by "allowing [Omar]," when he was "under the age of 18," to be "indoctrinated, trained, equipped [or] used in conflict?" So why isn't she being held accountable, being tried, same as other Canadian citizens are when they go against what's "allowed?"

I don't know why the governments have not pursued a more active focus on how adults in the family were not held accountable for some of the behaviour and activities they were involved in.

I have been arguing for some time that the government should have been considering its legal options since Khadr is likely to end up back in Canada at some time.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't know why the governments have not pursued a more active focus on how adults in the family were not held accountable for some of the behaviour and activities they were involved in.

It is difficult to understand. People keep referring to her as "a Canadian same as any other Canadian," but I don't recall hearing about any other Canadians raising their kids to take up arms against Canada and/or Canada's allies. The fact that she's proud of Omar for 'fighting back' against Canada's ally in a war should separate her from most Canadians who become Canadians out of respect for Canada and it's laws and customs. Seems to me when naturalized citizens raise their children to take up arms against Canada and/or Canada's allies in war, there should be some question regarding the "right" to remain a citizen.

I have been arguing for some time that the government should have been considering its legal options since Khadr is likely to end up back in Canada at some time.

In the meantime, his mother is there. Having done the things she did, which evidently "isn't allowed." Saying the things she's saying. And nothing is being done. So even if Khadr doesn't end up in Canada, it seems to me that this is a seperate legal issue that should be being pursued, and one has to wonder why it isn't. Does Canada's 'reputation' for "tolerance" enter into it? Does "tolerance" include tolerating what "isn't allowed," presumably by international law?

Edited September 13, 2009 by American Woman

[eyeball]

In the meantime, his mother is there. Having done the things she did, which evidently "isn't allowed." Saying the things she's saying. And nothing is being done. So even if Khadr doesn't end up in Canada, it seems to me that this is a seperate legal issue that should be being pursued, and one has to wonder why it isn't. Does Canada's 'reputation' for "tolerance" enter into it? Does "tolerance" include tolerating what "isn't allowed," presumably by international law?

Do we really want the state interfering on a case by case basis on what values parents teach their kids?

Since I think his family, regarding accountability, is worthy of discussion in and of itself, I'm starting a new thread specifically about that issue.

How do you discuss the specific case of the Khadr's without the issue of the state interfering in any families entering into it? Where do you draw the line and more importantly how do you even begin to draw it?

Seems to me when naturalized citizens raise their children to take up arms against Canada and/or Canada's allies in war, there should be some question regarding the "right" to remain a citizen.

I have this image of Quebec separtists being rounded up by some overzealous child protection worker...

I think our tolerance might stem from the idea that trying to find a way to insert the state between every parent and child would cause more problems than they'd solve. Whatever means you use to legally intervene in a family like the Khadrs would have to be applicable to every family in the land. Good luck.

[Guest American Woman]

Do we really want the state interfering on a case by case basis on what values parents teach their kids?

When it's something that's "not allowed" by international law, I would think the state would rightfully "interfere." Or do you think it's ok to go against international law?

How do you discuss the specific case of the Khadr's without the issue of the state interfering in any families entering into it? Where do you draw the line and more importantly how do you even begin to draw it?

It's not "state interference" when a family is doing something that's "not allowed" by international law; it's the state doing it's job.

I have this image of Quebec separtists being rounded up by some overzealous child protection worker...

Are they doing something that's "not allowed?" Do they have children who have engaged in gunfights against Canada and/or Canada's allies? Have their children, as a result of the way they were raised, been "indoctrinated, trained, equipped [or] used in conflict?" Have any of them been "child soldiers?" If so, then those separatists should be rounded up by overzealous child protection workers.

I think our tolerance might stem from the idea that trying to find a way to insert the state between every parent and child would cause more problems than they'd solve. Whatever means you use to legally intervene in a family like the Khadrs would have to be applicable to every family in the land. Good luck.

Enforcing international law against indoctrinating, training, equipping, or using children in conflict absolutely should be applied to every family in the land.

[DogOnPorch]

It's a little game of denial we play up here, AW. To acknowledge that terrorists and their supporters live amongst us would be to call into question the entire rotten system that allowed them in here in the first place. Hear no evil...see no evil...speak no evil. Therefore there is no evil.

Edited September 13, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[eyeball]

This issue is like most that seem to have swirled off in every direction since 9/11 et al. Its unresolvable, distracting and ultimately exhausting.

What we really need are international laws that forbid nations from committing covert operations against one another, partly because of the pain and suffering they cause but mostly because they contribute to the world being filled to overflowing with unresolvable issues.

[Alex Moore]

I think the biggest problem with this issue is that it has never been encountered and that the laws in effect do not describe the situation. We have to admit that in Canada we are charging him with treason (which he is clearly guilty of, you know fighting for al qaeda [bleeding hearts far too often over look this]). Had he been a terrorist in Canada our only issue would be in sentencing as to whether or not to charge him as youth offender or an adult because I don't believe that the youth offender act covers acts of treason. However enter the really complicating part: he was fighting in Afghanistan and based solely on age he is considered a "Child Soldier". Now the idea behind child soldiers was to protect children forced into combat. There are to options to consider from this point one that his father indoctrinated him to the point where he had no choice but to fight. Or that he was a willing participant in the conflict. we may be able to define him as a child soldier. Regardless what we often forget in our liberal society is that the final decision must be made to as to whether of not he is a threat to society. Whether or not he is an indoctrinated or a willing participant he remains a threat to society. for two reasons: one that we cannot be sure as to whether he is still a terrorist or not. Two that if defined as a child soldier this gives terrorist the ability to use children with the full knowledge that the world has no ability to take action against them. Only encouraging them use children.

[Topaz]

Wasn't the US government holding Khadr because they thought he killed a US soldier? They don't seem to care how old he was, just he killed an American and they wanted revenge for it. In Canada , it was a different issue altogether. I say, that if the US is going to put on Khadr trial, then other countries like Iraq and Afghanistan should be able to put NATO soldiers who kill innocence citizens on trial. It is a war after all, the charge is so stupid!!

[Alex Moore]

Wasn't the US government holding Khadr because they thought he killed a US soldier? They don't seem to care how old he was, just he killed an American and they wanted revenge for it. In Canada , it was a different issue altogether. I say, that if the US is going to put on Khadr trial, then other countries like Iraq and Afghanistan should be able to put NATO soldiers who kill innocence citizens on trial. It is a war after all, the charge is so stupid!!

Irrelevant

[bush_cheney2004]

....I say, that if the US is going to put on Khadr trial, then other countries like Iraq and Afghanistan should be able to put NATO soldiers who kill innocence citizens on trial. It is a war after all, the charge is so stupid!!

Nope, since Khadr was an "unprivileged", illegal combatant.

[Guest American Woman]

Wasn't the US government holding Khadr because they thought he killed a US soldier? They don't seem to care how old he was, just he killed an American and they wanted revenge for it.

Some people call it "justice," as in "justice system," not "revenge system."

But yes, that's one of the reasons; one of the charges.

In Canada , it was a different issue altogether. I say, that if the US is going to put on Khadr trial, then other countries like Iraq and Afghanistan should be able to put NATO soldiers who kill innocence citizens on trial. It is a war after all, the charge is so stupid!!

Let's say we don't give him a trial; we just hold him the way prisoners taken in war have always been held until the war is over. Would that be more acceptable to you?

Because unless you can prove differently, Canadian/American/ally troops taken prisoner by the Taliban/al Qeada haven't been given a trial, much less one resembling any semblance of 'fair,' and then released if (wonder of wonders) they were found "innocent."

Having said all that, this thread isn't about Omar or whether or not the United States "cares about how old he is." It's about Khadr's family, what they have done/said, and why they aren't being held accountable.

I think we're all aware of the fact that you believe the U.S. should be held accountable when breaking international law. Now tell us how you feel about the Khadr family breaking international law and Canada not doing anything about it, because that's the subject of this thread.

[Guest American Woman]

It's a little game of denial we play up here, AW. To acknowledge that terrorists and their supporters live amongst us would be to call into question the entire rotten system that allowed them in here in the first place. Hear no evil...see no evil...speak no evil. Therefore there is no evil.

It would seem, at least in the case of the Khadr family, that you do have terrorists and their supporters living amongst you .... knowingly living amongst you.

[jdobbin]

It is difficult to understand. People keep referring to her as "a Canadian same as any other Canadian," but I don't recall hearing about any other Canadians raising their kids to take up arms against Canada and/or Canada's allies.

I don't know this this is the view of many Canadians.

I'm sure many would like a full investigation into the matter.

The government though seems to have washed their hands of it as long as Khadr remains in U.S. hands. The Supreme Court may eventually hasten the government to ask for Khadr back and maybe they will actually look into how he was raised.

In the meantime, his mother is there. Having done the things she did, which evidently "isn't allowed." Saying the things she's saying. And nothing is being done. So even if Khadr doesn't end up in Canada, it seems to me that this is a seperate legal issue that should be being pursued, and one has to wonder why it isn't. Does Canada's 'reputation' for "tolerance" enter into it? Does "tolerance" include tolerating what "isn't allowed," presumably by international law?

Think we just saw various governments brush it aside rather than looking to see if the law was broken in Canada by being involved in activities elsewhere. There was a precedent for charges back from the former Yugoslavia.