Omar Khadr

[The_Squid]

Has as much weight in the US as Court of Lower Slobovia.

What's your point? No one claimed that it did. You asked what court and I answered. The decision had nothing to do with influencing the USA. I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court knows what their jurisdiction is. I will bold it for you and type slowly so you can read it...

The court declared that Canadian officials breached Khadr's right to life, liberty and security of the person under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Sir Bandelot]

I like those set of rules. What arny was he a part of? What was his rank? Who was his superior officers? What were the indentifying badges he wore?

Mullah Omar: We don't need no steenkin badges...

[g_bambino]

at 18 is not responsible to know when to smoke, but old enough to know when it's okay to take a life? that's ludicrous...

What happened between 1914 and now to make it ludicrous?

[guyser]

He was raised as terrorist. Several "canadians" (born and 'raised' here) were shot by Russians in Chechnuya. 'Canadians" who went to "wedding" in Pakistan. Somehow got "lost" and ended up in Chechnya carrying AK-47. Things happen

Deflect is all you have.

What part of born on Canadian soil do you have trouble with.

Btw if you're losing debate try name calling

Um, you mean when you lost. Right....Al ?

Like you said, go read and learn.

[PIK]

If chretien did not go to bat for his terrorist father, probaby none of this would not have happened, want to blame someone for this , then blame chretien.

[The_Squid]

If chretien did not go to bat for his terrorist father, probaby none of this would not have happened, want to blame someone for this , then blame chretien.

You sure you can't pin this on Trudeau too somehow.....???

[wulf42]

If chretien did not go to bat for his terrorist father, probaby none of this would not have happened, want to blame someone for this , then blame chretien.

Better yet if the U.S. Marine that shot Omar had of been a better shot none of this would have happened.

[Melanie_]

I don't think its that inconceivable for a teenager to understand "killing=wrong", even if they're not mature enough to make informed decisions in other areas of their lives.

Now, whether Khadr was mature enough to actually make that distinction is something I don't really know; however, simply slapping the label "child soldier" on him and absolving him of all guilt may not necessarily be the answer either.

Did the soldiers that attacked the encampment he was in understand "killing = wrong"? How old were they? We're talking about a 15 year old kid who was severely wounded in a battle and expected to die. I wonder how many American or Canadian soldiers would continue fighting under those circumstances.

He didn't choose to be in Afghanistan, his parents placed him there, and I agree with ToadBrother, his mother should be charged with abuse (his father is dead). She still lives in Toronto; I don't know what exactly she could be charged with (reckless endangerment? corruption of a minor?) but there must be a way to hold her accountable. Canada is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which specifically states that children cannot be used as soldiers (sorry, Army Guy, that applies across the board, not just in Africa and Asia); as part of upholding our obligations to this Convention, we should be prosecuting Omar Khadr's mother.

[Saipan]

I will bold it for you and type slowly so you can read it...

The court declared that Canadian officials breached Khadr's right to life, liberty and security of the person under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is very fortunate that you typed it slow, bold and in Italics.

So how did "Canadian officials breached Khadr's right to life, liberty and security of the person"???

Edited October 26, 2010 by Saipan

[M.Dancer]

It is very fortunate that you typed it slow, bold and in Italics.

So how did "Canadian officials breached Khadr's right to life, liberty and security of the person"???

That is somewhat irrelevant given that was the ruling based on the evidence provided. debate with the SCC.

What wasn't ruled ort decided was whether he was tortured. The US court has ruled he was not.

[Saipan]

Did the soldiers that attacked the encampment he was in understand "killing = wrong"?

This is the best one I've seen in 70 years

What do you think soldier's job is? Cleaning snow in Trana?

We're talking about a 15 year old kid who was severely wounded in a battle and expected to die. I wonder how many American or Canadian soldiers would continue fighting under those circumstances.

Unfortunately he survived and cost us more money. YES, they would continue to fight just like they did in Germany during WW II. Whole pile of Hitlerjugend (younger than Khadr) armed with Schmeisers were shot by Allies. Or do you think they would just lay down and play dead?

[wyly]

Please provide a link to where it states that terrorist or unlawful combatant's are mentioned in the child soldier agreement we signed....if you had read it you'll find that it's contents are provided to protect children forcefull recruited into regular armies,...and when it was written it was designed for those being used in Africa and Asia, whose armies where using child soldiers.....

if you read anything you'ld know those african armies were not regulars, most were rebel militia's...

The Child soldier argument is a myth in Omars case....if it had any truth to it Omar would have used it as part of his defense...

it was...

Any of your experts versed in Afghanis culture, are they Muslims, have they been to any Muslim country....ask them when a boy is considered an adult in those cultures....

culture does not affect physiological age or brain development...interesting that you would bring that up since we hear such an outcry about child brides in afghanistan, but now you claim it's okay? again a double standard, they're just kids when it's convenient but responsible adults when it's not...

But he was'nt part of the Taliban he was AL Queda which is a terrorist organization...kind of changes everything now does'nt it....

changes nothing Al Qaeda was formed from the mujahedeen remember them, ya that's right those CIA trained,financed and armed FREEDOM FIGHTERS...but that was when they were attacking someone else so they were patriotic freedom fighters our allies, now we're the target they're terrorists...how times change but the hypocrisy remains consistent...

And yes during the opening days of the war, the Taliban where the legiment government ,and both sides recogized that fact....however the coalition declared war on that government remember that....they lost, and the Coalition held elections and replaced the government you remember that....

The fact that he was part of a terrorist group is all that matters here....regardless of what side he thought he was fighting for....he is still a terrorist.

only by your definition and you're biased, if he were fighting with the afghan security forces terrorizing civilians he would be a patriotic afghan, a trusted ally...it all depends on which side of the fence you sit...

[M.Dancer]

if you read anything you'ld know those african armies were not regulars, most were rebel militia's...

Militias are not considered unlawful combatants if they wear uniforms and openly carry weapons which the african bush militias do.

[Melanie_]

This is the best one I've seen in 70 years

What do you think soldier's job is? Cleaning snow in Trana?

Unfortunately he survived and cost us more money. YES, they would continue to fight just like they did in Germany during WW II. Whole pile of Hitlerjugend (younger than Khadr) armed with Schmeisers were shot by Allies. Or do you think they would just lay down and play dead?

So killing isn't wrong if it is your job. Got it.

Whatever happened in WWII wasn't governed by the same rules and treaties we have in place now. Maybe we've learned something from the experiences of child soldiers back then, that has helped us protect children from manipulative armies, generals, and jihadists today.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Melanie_

[M.Dancer]

only by your definition and you're biased, if he were fighting with the afghan security forces terrorizing civilians he would be a patriotic afghan, a trusted ally...it all depends on which side of the fence you sit...

But he wasn't and couldn't, he is a canadian....but if it helps, keep making up facts.

[M.Dancer]

So killing isn't wrong if it is your job. Got it.

Whatever happened in WWII wasn't governed by the same rules and treaties we have in place now.

Pretty much the same. The roots of the Geneva |convention go back to the Hague protocls os 1899...and the GC| was in force during the second worls war.

[Melanie_]

Pretty much the same. The roots of the Geneva |convention go back to the Hague protocls os 1899...and the GC| was in force during the second worls war.

From what I can see, though, the Geneva Convention was amended in 1949 to directly address the issue of children in conflicts. And the Convention on the Rights of the Child came into effect in 1989, again setting out guidelines for how to deal with children participating in war. In Sierra Leone, rather than prosecuting the child soldiers, they chose to prosecute the people who recruited them - this is what I would like to see happen with Omar Khadr's mother.

[M.Dancer]

From what I can see, though, the Geneva Convention was amended in 1949 to directly address the issue of children in conflicts. And the Convention on the Rights of the Child came into effect in 1989, again setting out guidelines for how to deal with children participating in war. In Sierra Leone, rather than prosecuting the child soldiers, they chose to prosecute the people who recruited them - this is what I would like to see happen with Omar Khadr's mother.

Yes, in 49 the cutoff age was 15...that was changed to 18. It's all irrelevant though, Omar wasn't a child soldier, he was a child terrorist/illegal combatant.. and the GC has not addressed when terrorist organistations can recruit child terrorists....while illegal combatants are....illegal.

[Saipan]

So killing isn't wrong if it is your job. Got it.

Good. Your teacher should tell you that.

Whatever happened in WWII wasn't governed by the same rules and treaties we have in place now.

Yes, it is. You shoot at the enemy or they will kill you [unless that is what you want). Which part is a mystery to you? Have you been shot at?

[Melanie_]

Yes, in 49 the cutoff age was 15...that was changed to 18. It's all irrelevant though, Omar wasn't a child soldier, he was a child terrorist/illegal combatant.. and the GC has not addressed when terrorist organistations can recruit child terrorists....while illegal combatants are....illegal.

That is where it gets murky. The CRC talks about children participating in armed conflict, not necessarily in organized armies. A child recruited by a terrorist organization is still covered by the CRC; it talks about the parties of the conflict, which could include Al Quaeda. The Paris Principles which governed the tribunals about child soldiers in Sierra Leone stated that children associated with armed forces or armed groups should be considered primarily as victims of offences against international law. That doesn't rule out prosecution, but even if they are found guilty they must be given opportunities for restorative justice and rehabilitation.

[eyeball]

And its also possible that Ted Bundy wouldn't have grown up to be a serial killer had he had a more stable home life.

Yes, Khadr had a very poor upbringing. His family is directly responsible for his situation. But somewhere along the line we have to make a decision: is an individual mature enough at this point in his life to make a rational decision. Kadhr spent a lot of time being indoctrinated into a "terrorist mindset" (for lack of a better word); however, he also spent time in Canada, getting exposed to western culture.

He was exposed to Canadian culture off and on until he was about 11 at which point he was pretty much pressed into service for Al-Qaeda.

You're asking me to accept that somewhere between the age of 11 and 15 he passed some point at which he was capable of making a rational decision that he could be held criminally responsible for, just like an adult. In so doing you're also setting a maximum age at which extenuating circumstances are cancelled out by that capacity to make a rational decision. So exactly what should that limit should be, 14 or 12 and half or maybe 11 years and 3 months old? Maybe 11 is too high a threshold and we should be setting it at 10 or 8 or even lower. My wife hung this poster on our bathroom wall that says that we learn everything we need to know and how to be and what to do when we're in kindergarten.

So how about 6, after that the gloves come off, what do you think?

[eyeball]

Hey, I'm all in favor of charging his parents and the older members of his family with abuse.

I am too, I think they should be charged with the international war crime of indoctrinating a child soldier and then forcing him to fight in a war. I'm curious what you think it is they did?

[Alta4ever]

So killing isn't wrong if it is your job. Got it.

Whatever happened in WWII wasn't governed by the same rules and treaties we have in place now.

Just when do you think the bulk of the geneva conventions were written? You may want to look this up, to verify it, but I beleive the first was written in 1864, the second in 1906, and the third which pertains to treatment of prisoners of war in 1929.

But then again these would not apply anyway nor would anything else as nothing has really been set down in conventions of any type regarding the treatment of terrorists.

[capricorn]

That doesn't rule out prosecution, but even if they are found guilty they must be given opportunities for restorative justice and rehabilitation.

Coincidently, restorative justice and rehabilitation as applied to Khadr are almost exactly the same terms recently used by NDP MP Wayne Marston.

New Democrat MP Wayne Marston said Khadr should have been treated as a child soldier under the United Nations' Protocol on the Rights of the Child.

“The sentence he receives needs to be restorative and rehabilitative so that he can be reintegrated back into Canadian life,” said Marston.

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/canada/2010/10/25/15820786.html

I can understand the rehabilitation part but the restorative part, I have no clue what is meant by that.

[Jack Weber]

Wayne Marston is a good man,but he is completely wrong on this issue....