Khadr's jurors

[Army Guy]

Being held accountable is not the same as being held responsible. Khadr has accounted for his actions by pointing to the deliberately deviated upbringing he received at the hands of his parents from at least the age of eight. Parents should be held responsible for the results of this sort of upbringing and failing that our country for not ensuring parents are doing their jobs.

What a load of crap.....How can a person be held accountable for their actions but not take respnsibility for them....That is a liberal cop out, the devil made me do it sort of thing , Yes his mother and father did provide an enviroment in which such acts where noraml and expected, but they where not there at the time he pulled the pin or trigger and while they may of been guilty of being poor parents when compared to western standards, his actions where his and his alone....this crap about my father beat me , i had a poor childhood is just excuses....And if it held any water why has there been no action taken again'st his mother....

Not to mention this can hardly be set at the feet of our nation, as he was only here for a fraction of his life...

[eyeball]

That is an explanation...not yet delivered in court. Even so, while that may be taken into account, he still must face his own pwersonal responsibility.

That is an account.

explanation (n)

Synonyms: clarification, description, elucidation, account, enlightenment, details

We or a jury of his peers are responsible for taking into account his clarification, description, elucidation etc etc. of why he acted as he did before deciding his level of responsibility and subsequent treatment.

Unfortunately we've left that responsibility up to a kangaroo court, which we should be held accountable for and eventually punished for too.

[M.Dancer]

We or a jury of his peers are responsible for taking into account his clarification, description, elucidation etc etc. of why he acted as he did before deciding his level of responsibility and subsequent treatment.

Who says? You? When has someone accused of war crimes been given a trial by a jury of his peers? In Nuremberg? The Hague? Where?

"We" did not apprehend him. "We" are not the ones accusing him. 'We" are not the ones alleged to have been aggrieved by him.

[eyeball]

What a load of crap.....How can a person be held accountable for their actions but not take respnsibility for them...

In a sequential step by step manner. You account for an action and are then subsequently punished or treated as the case may be once your level of responsibility has been properly and fairly adjudicated.

That is a liberal cop out

That is the law.

[eyeball]

Who says? You? When has someone accused of war crimes been given a trial by a jury of his peers? In Nuremberg? The Hague? Where?

"We" did not apprehend him. "We" are not the ones accusing him. 'We" are not the ones alleged to have been aggrieved by him.

The Supreme Court of Canada says, not to mention human decency.

[M.Dancer]

The Supreme Court of Canada says, not to mention human decency.

Incorrect on both counts. If I didn't know you lived in BC, i would think you live in the State of Confusion.

[eyeball]

Incorrect on both counts. If I didn't know you lived in BC, i would think you live in the State of Confusion.

Ad hominem...

[M.Dancer]

Ad hominem...

So what? You are hopelessly confused and in error on what the SCoC ruled and the requirements of human decency.

[Jack Weber]

Who says? You? When has someone accused of war crimes been given a trial by a jury of his peers? In Nuremberg? The Hague? Where?

"We" did not apprehend him. "We" are not the ones accusing him. 'We" are not the ones alleged to have been aggrieved by him.

Are you sugesting the War Crimes trials at Nuremburg were not fair???

That the Allies did'nt give the NAZI's the benefit of the doubt???

[Bonam]

"Understood" is a subjective term for adults...moreso when speaking of a 15 year old. I did things at 15 I would not do now, because of a better understanding of consequences.

I also raised three of them, and I tried to teach them the understanding of "adult" consequences for their actions; but at no time did i look at my 15 year olds and consider them "bad" in the same way as an adult if they did something wrong.

In fact, all parents understand this, easily.

It's only other people's children who should be held to higher standards.

It's a reasonable point, but it always comes back to the same questions: if 15, why not 14? It's still only a year. And if 13, why not 12?

The same applies for trying minors as adults. Is their a cut-off age where this should never be done? Is it 11? 6?

At any rate, I use the "rights and priveleges" analogy only for the sake of expressing the "punishment" aspect in a way that people can understand; that is, unlike yourself (who seems to have a more rational view in such matters) most people who adore the idea of trying youths as adults absolutely despise the notion of giving youths adult rights and priveleges.

This underlines a profoundly statist vision of society, in which people without adult rights can nevertheless be punished as adults.

This is in fact a serious misunderstanding of what a free, law-abiding society IS: you can't be demanded to have adult responsibilities if you don't have adult rights. Seriously, it's a misapprehension of what our society IS, on a fundamental, even a philosophical, level.

Bonam, you are clearly not of this camp, and I'm glad.

Thanks for the compliment... it is always refreshing when people disagree with each other in a certain argument yet still see some merit in each other's posts. I agree that there should be some symmetry between the rights and privileges an individual is granted in a society, and the responsibility and accountability that they have.

Now let's look at Khadr... this is an individual who, at the time of his crime, was residing in Afghanistan, along with his fellow militants. Do you think that he was denied "adult rights" by his fellows in the months leading up to his crime? I of course don't have direct knowledge of how Taliban insurgent cells operate, but I imagine that their 15 year old fighters are not treated much differently from their 18 or 20+ year old fighters. I would argue that Khadr was a man who likely had all the rights and privileges that were available within his chosen society, in the period immediately preceding his crimes.

Now, you might say that it is in Canada that he would not have had his full adult rights, and that since he was technically a Canadian, he should therefore be considered under those standards. But I disagree, this was an individual who went over to Afghanistan and joined a militant group, likely knowing full well that he could be killed in the conflict that was raging there. More generally, I would argue that anyone who undertakes "military duty", whether in an official national army or an illegal insurgent group, loses all chances of being tried as a "minor" or otherwise being held not fully responsible for their actions. If someone is old enough to fight a war, they are an adult and should be treated as such.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Bonam

[bloodyminded]

Thanks for the compliment... it is always refreshing when people disagree with each other in a certain argument yet still see some merit in each other's posts. I agree that there should be some symmetry between the rights and privileges an individual is granted in a society, and the responsibility and accountability that they have.

Now let's look at Khadr... this is an individual who, at the time of his crime, was residing in Afghanistan, along with his fellow militants. Do you think that he was denied "adult rights" by his fellows in the months leading up to his crime? I of course don't have direct knowledge of how Taliban insurgent cells operate, but I imagine that their 15 year old fighters are not treated much differently from their 18 or 20+ year old fighters. I would argue that Khadr was a man who likely had all the rights and privileges that were available within his chosen society, in the period immediately preceding his crimes.

Now, you might say that it is in Canada that he would not have had his full adult rights, and that since he was technically a Canadian, he should therefore be considered under those standards. But I disagree, this was an individual who went over to Afghanistan and joined a militant group, likely knowing full well that he could be killed in the conflict that was raging there. More generally, I would argue that anyone who undertakes "military duty", whether in an official national army or an illegal insurgent group, loses all chances of being tried as a "minor" or otherwise being held not fully responsible for their actions. If someone is old enough to fight a war, they are an adult and should be treated as such.

I see your point. I heartily disagree, but I take your point.

[eyeball]

Thanks for the compliment... it is always refreshing when people disagree with each other in a certain argument yet still see some merit in each other's posts. I agree that there should be some symmetry between the rights and privileges an individual is granted in a society, and the responsibility and accountability that they have.

Now let's look at Khadr... this is an individual who, at the time of his crime,

Don't you mean alleged crime? Where's the symmetry between his right and your's to be treated as an alleged criminal and as being innocent until proven guilty?

I would argue that Khadr was a man who likely had all the rights and privileges that were available within his chosen society, in the period immediately preceding his crimes...

...this was an individual who went over to Afghanistan and joined a militant group

No, he was taken there long before he was 15 and yet you would argue that he was a man who willing volunteered. I'm afraid that pretty much demolishes any merit whatsoever to either your position or your arguments.

More generally, I would argue that anyone who undertakes "military duty", whether in an official national army or an illegal insurgent group, loses all chances of being tried as a "minor" or otherwise being held not fully responsible for their actions. If someone is old enough to fight a war, they are an adult and should be treated as such.

Even if they've been indoctrinated from the age of 8 to do so? That's just plain depraved not to mention illegal.

Edited August 19, 2010 by eyeball

[Army Guy]

No, he was taken there long before he was 15 and yet you would argue that he was a man who willing volunteered. I'm afraid that pretty much demolishes any merit whatsoever to either your position or your arguments.

How so, there was so many anvenues he could have persued, such as followed his fathers footsteps and instead of actual combat concentrated on raisung funds, purchaseing wpns as his older brother and sister did etc....and yet he wanted to kill infidels and become a Martyr for the cause, to him and his culture this was something normal, and what he inspired to do...

So he very well knew the consquences of combat, and he made that choice...in fact it was his mother that tried to force them into becoming suicide bombers, something him and his brothers refused to do, but rather chose to take thier chances in combat...

[eyeball]

How so,

Bonam said this was an individual who apparently with all the free will of a grown man, went over to Afghanistan and joined a militant group. The fact is he was actually taken there at the age of 8 and forced into one, which you seem to acknowledge.

...in fact it was his mother that tried to force them into becoming suicide bombers, something him and his brothers refused to do, but rather chose to take thier chances in combat..

.

You actually believe that choice had anything to do with free will given the alternative his mother had in mind?