Canadian Government Guilty of Violating Khadr's Rights

[Guest American Woman]

If you'd been paying attention you'd noticed I've given up citing the Geneva Convention's definition of Child Soldier, the proper term should be Conflict Child.

And if your ego weren't so huge, you'd realize that the moment you gave up using "child soldier" and substituted it with "conflict child," which basically has the same criteria anyway, wasn't a memorable moment for me.

The expert evidence as provided by you and others who have argued against Khadr clearly indicates that the definition of what an adult is needs to be upgraded, perhaps up as far as 25 years of age. In this light and given his own twisted upbringing even Charlie Manson deserves our sympathy.

Or perhaps, instead of giving Charles Manson sympathy, you could recognize the fact that 99.9999% of 15 year olds realize that killing is wrong.

Perhaps, though, in light of the expert evidence we've provided, we should not expect anyone to magically overcome their upbringing until age 25. Then, I'm sure, they will suddenly know right from wrong. Because of course Manson, upon hitting that magical age, turned over a new leaf.

I really don't mean to sound trite when I ask this but can anyone seriously imagine Jesus saying, "screw the little prick"?

And I don't mean to be repetitive when I say this (actually, I do) but people aren't either of your mentality or the "screw the little prick" mentality. There's lots of area in between. But then, you don't believe that, so I guess that makes it not so.

I sure can't and I'm an atheist. We'd probably be better off asking the Dalia Lama what to do, apparently he knows of people who, as kids, were forced at gunpoint to kill their parents, forced by people who probably believed they were being just and acting within the law. People we're allied with now in the War of Terror.

I don't think Omar had a gun to his head, but if you read of some of those accounts, it's not just kids who were brainwashed into such actions. Nice to know you're all understanding and sympathetic, though, until they reach the magical age of .... whatever age you're going by now. Sure wouldn't want to be accused of "not paying attention" again.

[Shady]

the proper term should be Conflict Child.

Nope. The proper term is terrorist. It's just too bad he wasn't shot dead in Afghanistan instead of being captured.

[bloodyminded]

Nope. The proper term is terrorist. It's just too bad he wasn't shot dead in Afghanistan instead of being captured.

I had thought "terrorist" applies to people who attack innocent civilians.

[eyeball]

There's lots of area in between. But then, you don't believe that, so I guess that makes it not so.

I don't see a speck of common ground anywhere between you and me to build on, do you?

[eyeball]

I had thought "terrorist" applies to people who attack innocent civilians.

Apparently it also means anyone who is too poor to afford uniforms that fight people who can.

I've always though the term should apply firstly and foremost to anyone who provides military dictatorships with the aid and support they need to survive. I can't think of anything more terrifying to a civilian population myself.

[g_bambino]

No, I'm simply saying Omar Khadr should be judged according to the law and I'd rather he be judged by our justice system. Evidently your justice system routinely throws kids as young as 13 into prison for life without parole and just as evidently my government is fine with that.

You do realise that the Youth Criminal Justice Act allows for young offenders to receive adult sentences, right?

[eyeball]

You do realise that the Youth Criminal Justice Act allows for young offenders to receive adult sentences, right?

Yes, and it looks like there's less justification for doing so all the time. Sadly it also looks like there's a greater desire to be even more unjust.

Given the clear reference the SCC has made to Khadr's age I'm fairly confident our justice system isn't so far gone yet that it would "screw the little prick" the way some people want the U.S. system to.

[bloodyminded]

You do realise that the Youth Criminal Justice Act allows for young offenders to receive adult sentences, right?

If I can speak for eyeball, I have little doubt that he is aware of this distressing fact.

As well as to the fact that such terms as "adulthood" can only ever apply to criminal responsibility...never to individual rights. Gods, no.

Objective facts do not translate into "what is good," like some perverse delineation of Taoism.

He is also no doubt aware that rape is a common occurence, without deeming it necessary and just.

[Guest American Woman]

No, I'm simply saying Omar Khadr should be judged according to the law and I'd rather he be judged by our justice system. Evidently your justice system routinely throws kids as young as 13 into prison for life without parole

According to Equal Justice Initiative, it's not "routine" at all.

It is ... unusual to sentence a young teen to life without parole. Nationwide, only 73 people are serving life-without-parole sentences for crimes committed at 13 or 14 years old. link

That's 73 people over the course of how many years? Hardly "routine."

I would point out that I don't agree with such sentencing, but I'm sure you wouldn't believe me.

But as g_bambino has pointed out, young offenders in Canada can receive adult sentences, too:

youth court judges have the authority to impose adult sentences.... the legislation lowers the age for sentencing youth as adults. Under the amended Young Offenders Act, there was a presumption that cases involving youth aged 16 or over charged with murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, or aggravated sexual assault would be transferred to adult court. The Youth Criminal Justice Act lowers the age of presumption to 14 ..... link

Edited February 14, 2010 by American Woman

[g_bambino]

Given the clear reference the SCC has made to Khadr's age I'm fairly confident our justice system isn't so far gone yet that it would "screw the little prick" the way some people want the U.S. system to.

I too would hope we haven't sunk to the level of mob justice. However, granting a young offender an adult sentence is not necessarily reckless vigilantism. Certain persons defined by law as children can actually have, in reality, a level of maturity equal to that which we'd normally ascribe to an adult in contemporary society; just because it isn't as common today doesn't mean it isn't still possible.

Regardless, I guess my point is that much of the argument for Kadhr's return to Canada rests on the assumption that here he might be tried as a young offender, meaning he'd get a less stringent sentence that that he'd receive in the US. But, that actually isn't necessarily the case.

[+]

Edited February 14, 2010 by g_bambino

[eyeball]

According to Equal Justice Initiative, it's not "routine" at all.

It is ... unusual to sentence a young teen to life without parole. Nationwide, only 73 people are serving life-without-parole sentences for crimes committed at 13 or 14 years old. link

That's 73 people over the course of how many years? Hardly "routine."

It seems we're working with conflicting statistics.

Children as young as 13 can be sentenced to life

imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Worldwide, there are only 13 individuals sentenced

to life for crimes committed as a juveniles. In the

United States alone, there are 2,200.

http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/juvenile-justice/factsheets/braindev.pdf

Perhaps the 2200 represent adults who are still serving sentences they received when they were 13.

I would point out that I don't agree with such sentencing, but I'm sure you wouldn't believe me.

Only because you persist in making it very difficult to.

[Guest American Woman]

It seems we're working with conflicting statistics.

Perhaps the 2200 represent adults who are still serving sentences they received when they were 13.

Nope, clearly my source says: Nationwide, only 73 people are serving life-without-parole sentences for crimes committed at 13 or 14 years old; it doesn't say they are that age now, but that 73 people are serving such sentences for crimes committed when they were that age.

Only because you persist in making it very difficult to.

Of course I'm making it difficult; I'm not agreeing with you. As I said, you seem to have "difficulty" believing anything that doesn't follow your line of thought.

[bloodyminded]

Could the discrepancy in stats be between "life imprisonment" with vs without the possibility of parole?

[eyeball]

I guess my point is that much of the argument for Kadhr's return to Canada rests on the assumption that here he might be tried as a young offender, meaning he'd get a less stringent sentence that that he'd receive in the US. But, that actually isn't necessarily the case.

I think it's safe to assume that much of the argument for leaving Khadr in the hands of the American's is the hope he will get a stringent sentence there.

I think our present government's desire to leave him down south nicely resonates with it's more general desire to be seen as tough on crime. The Liberal's, of course fearing the opposite, have likewise abandoned him.

In the meantime Canadians are only becoming more polarized, conflicted and hardened against one another. Such is the result of having picked sides and wading into this bloody quagmire in the first place.

The SCC is about the only thing left standing that still represents Canada's values, at least as I used to understand them.

[g_bambino]

The SCC is about the only thing left standing that still represents Canada's values, at least as I used to understand them.

Values are subjective. Perhaps that's where the polarisation you speak of comes from. It might then be better to remain focused on the facts and not embellish with personal ideologies or fill in blanks with opinion, which seems to happen quite a bit with both sides of the debate around Khadr.

[eyeball]

Of course I'm making it difficult; I'm not agreeing with you. As I said, you seem to have "difficulty" believing anything that doesn't follow your line of thought.

The difficulty seems to revolve around the words "held responsible" vs "held accountable". We both agree he should be held although for how long might be an issue, but I cannot shake the feeling that when you say responsible you really mean fully culpable in the legal sense and therefore deserving of a stringent punishing sentence.

I'm saying his upbringing accounts for his actions to enough of an extent and in the spirit at least of the term Child Soldier, that he is not culpable in the legal sense at all. In other words he's simply not guilty. He is accountable but not responsible and deserves a room in a hospital where he can be treated and recover not a prison cell where he can be punished.

Just answer this for me, should he be treated or punished? Do you discern a difference between these or is it blurry like it is between accountable and responsible?

[eyeball]

Values are subjective. Perhaps that's where the polarisation you speak of comes from. It might then be better to remain focused on the facts and not embellish with personal ideologies or fill in blanks with opinion, which seems to happen quite a bit with both sides of the debate around Khadr.

I've noticed a lot of the same sort of blanks in the debate about the War on Terror, that's why I think this kid symbolizes so much of that debate. Now even our laws are becoming subjective given the standoff between the government and the SCC.

[Guest American Woman]

Just answer this for me, should he be treated or punished? Do you discern a difference between these or is it blurry like it is between accountable and responsible?

Why does it have to be one or the other? I believe the objectives of prisons should include treatment/rehabilitation.

Edited February 16, 2010 by American Woman

[Army Guy]

The difficulty seems to revolve around the words "held responsible" vs "held accountable". We both agree he should be held although for how long might be an issue, but I cannot shake the feeling that when you say responsible you really mean fully culpable in the legal sense and therefore deserving of a stringent punishing sentence.

I think the justice system has already answered that question , As provided by AM "currently" there are 73 persons that have been held responsiable and accountable for thier crimes that were committed as youths. What makes Omar any different than these 73 ?, his upbringing ?...your not suggesting that we only sentence those with good upbringing are you ?

I'm saying his upbringing accounts for his actions to enough of an extent and in the spirit at least of the term Child Soldier, that he is not culpable in the legal sense at all. In other words he's simply not guilty.

That is not what is spelled out under the child soldier defination, provided by the UN, or it's creator.

It does leave provisions for the child to be held accountable and responsible for thier actions....no were does it say they are not culpable, in the legal sense..

He is accountable but not responsible and deserves a room in a hospital where he can be treated and recover not a prison cell where he can be punished.

What does that mean exactly....he gets to spend his time in a hospital...and those other 73 get to spend thier time behind bars....not because thier crimes where more deserving but rather Omar is a child soldier, and gets a free ride ?

[bloodyminded]

I think the justice system has already answered that question , As provided by AM "currently" there are 73 persons that have been held responsiable and accountable for thier crimes that were committed as youths. What makes Omar any different than these 73 ?, his upbringing ?...your not suggesting that we only sentence those with good upbringing are you ?

What does that mean exactly....he gets to spend his time in a hospital...and those other 73 get to spend thier time behind bars....not because thier crimes where more deserving but rather Omar is a child soldier, and gets a free ride ?

No. No child should be held responsible as an adult. 73 wrongs don't make a right.

[Army Guy]

No. No child should be held responsible as an adult. 73 wrongs don't make a right.

Not 73 wrongs, those 73 are currently serving time, there as been thousands that have been tried and that have served "life sentences " for crimes they have commited....found guilty by a jury, sentenced by a judge. i guess your blanket statement holds no water...or our justice system is completely broken...

[bloodyminded]

Not 73 wrongs, those 73 are currently serving time, there as been thousands that have been tried and that have served "life sentences " for crimes they have commited....found guilty by a jury, sentenced by a judge. i guess your blanket statement holds no water...or our justice system is completely broken...

It's an excellent justice system. But excellence is only a comparative statement, so there are always flaws which need to be redressed.

And yes, mine is a blanket statement that a youth should never be tried as an adult.

I'd be more willing to accept it if it weren't for the Police-State mindset that undergirds the "youths-as-adults" framework--the Police-State mentality that is inherently a part of it.

Because youths never have adult rights. Only adult responsibilities, on the whim of judges, juries, lawmakers and parts of the public frightened into terror at the Monumental Youth Menace.

So, I would be at least be open to the idea--IF every youth sentenced as an adult immediately had the right to sue the crown--for withholding their adult rights for all this time.

If he's an adult, he gets the rights and priveleges...not just the punishment.

Or else we are sinking into a police state.

[eyeball]

Not 73 wrongs, those 73 are currently serving time, there as been thousands that have been tried and that have served "life sentences " for crimes they have commited....found guilty by a jury, sentenced by a judge. i guess your blanket statement holds no water...or our justice system is completely broken...

I'd certainly conclude that about any justice system that throws any number of 13 year olds into jail for life without any chance of parole. That's just plain sick. There's no other word for it.

Given that countries with the sort of mentality that stand for this have helped craft the Geneva Convention I'd have to say it's probably busted too.

[Topaz]

The Canadian government has to knowledge that Khadr's rights were violated and NOT judge him as guity or not guilty. As far as being guilty or not, if countries are going to hold people if they kill one of "THEIRS" then maybe young people should really think about NOT joining groups, even the military when it comes to protection of a country.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm curious. Those of you who don't think anyone under 18 is old enough to be given an adult trial for murder because of lack of maturity, do you have the same problem with "children" under the age of 18 giving birth and raising children? Do you think that raising children involves less responsibility and a less "mature" brain than knowing murder is wrong?