Omar Khadr

[ToadBrother]

This might well be true when a 15 year old suddenly chooses to join a terrorist group or criminal gang. Most people however recognize a clear dividing line between that and teenager who was actually only 11 when he was dragged into that group/gang. Most would conclude that such a child lacks any capacity to make a choice.

And the age of 18 would be more reasonable in such a scenario?

[eyeball]

And the age of 18 would be more reasonable in such a scenario?

If that person was deliberately isolated and kept from considering alternative rational world views, I'd cut them the same amount of slack Khadr deserves for the same reason.

[bush_cheney2004]

....It's been established in real courts that Khadr was subjected to torture. His plea isn't worth the paper its written on and everybody knows it.

...then why did he change it? LOL! Poor wootle Khadr.....

[segnosaur]

If that person was deliberately isolated and kept from considering alternative rational world views, I'd cut them the same amount of slack Khadr deserves for the same reason.

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.

[wyly]

Well some Gitmo detainees have reportedly been released and done exactly that. Part of the dilemma of what to do with people like this. Even if "innocent", as I suppose those who were released must be in the eyes of the US military, they became radicalized by the experience. And, infamous...

Khadr will be infamous too, but it would be surprising if he ever gets a chance to do anything like that. Suspect that upon his release he will be followed and watched closely.

one american who took part in the interrogation and torture applied to detainees commented that if they weren't terrorists before they were detained they would be after...

[William Ashley]

Well looks like he will be spending at least 8 years in prison, i know i for one will be glad to see this story out of the news and Canadians can maybe start to worry about other more pressing issues.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/10/25/omar-khadr-trial-resumes.html

Kangaroo BS...

He should be granted parole immediately or the conviction thrown out - since the Court system actually called his imprisonment a violation of his constitutional rights.

As an accused child soilder he was the victim of war crimes NOT the perpetraitor.

Also there is something called "Entrapment" you know when someone tries to kill you and you act in self defence. When someone forces you to commit a crime under duress which self defence against murder is applicable - it is not a criminal act - it is a legal defence - and he didn't violate the law in Afghanistan ----

It was a foreign invasion with people running around with guns killing people. It is a war - you can't commit a civil violation during a war - and as a minor he isn't the war criminal - he is the victim of the war. If you actually know international law you should see how illegally the US acted in his imprisonement - that actually was the US commiting crimes against the geneva convention on treatment of prisoners of war. And if that wasn't applicable it would be even worse - because it would be a violation against the civil administration which cannot be manipulated or changed during a war. That is another war crime so no mater what the US committed a war crime in holding khadr the way they did.

What do you call a special forces team firing into the building you are in --- a house warming?

Give me a break, as a child soildier he's not a war criminal - quite the contrary - it is unfortunate the US justice system can't actually apply their own or international law in the cases they are responsible and instead special tribunals that are kangaroo courts - political courts are created instead.

Very unfortunate the US is supporting this. An 8 year sentence on a youth is very extreme even in Canada for murder.

It rarely if ever happens. ANd since his right to expedient and fair hearing basically his case would be thrown out in Canada completely.

The kid walks on parole ought to be the worst thing. It is clear the admission is only to end the illegal imprionment - it is a mockery of justice, a grave injustice - even based upon the accusitions.

Note we use to in north america work under the premise of innocent until proven guilty sadly that is the past in the police state Canada nd the US have become over the last 10 years.

Edited October 26, 2010 by William Ashley

[wyly]

Most countries in the world do have some sort of "dividing line" when a person is subject to the "adult" justice system (as opposed to the juvenile system), but the U.S. (as well as Canada) does allow individuals considered below the age of majority to be subject to the adult court system, depending on the age of the accused, seriousness of the crime, and maturity of the individual.

oh ya those laws are so wonderfully sensible...we don't allow kids to drink or smoke until they're 18 or 19 depending on province because they're not mature enough top make such a dangerous adult decision, yet we let 17yr olds join the forces and give them the power to decide when it's alright to kill someone(but he can't even vote) ....and you want to hold a 15 yr old responsible for his actions yet our laws say he isn't mentaly mature enough to decide on his own to whether to smoke or drink?

Many people would consider 15 to be "old enough" to understand the seriousness of actions that can cause the deaths of others.

and of those many people how many are qualified to make that judgment? extremely few...

[wyly]

Another thing to keep in mind: Kadhr (and his family, if I remember correctly) were not citizens of Afghanistan, nor were they fighting on behalf of a recognized Afghan government. As such, their actions were more criminal than military.

about 8,000 non us citizens join the US forces every year including canadians, I went to school with one who joined to go the Viet Nam war...you want to play by two sets of rules... Edited October 26, 2010 by wyly

[ToadBrother]

Kangaroo BS...

He should be granted parole immediately or the conviction thrown out - since the Court system actually called his imprisonment a violation of his constitutional rights.

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

[bush_cheney2004]

Very unfortunate the US is supporting this. An 8 year sentence on a youth is very extreme even in Canada for murder.

It rarely if ever happens. ANd since his right to expedient and fair hearing basically his case would be thrown out in Canada completely.

Yea...he can open up a Victoria's Secret boutique with Col. Russel Williams with all the money you are going to pay them both!

Edited October 26, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[fellowtraveller]

I'm sorry for the US medic that died, but isn't that what happens when you are involved in a war, there's a very good chance you could be killed?

So you would support the execution of Khadr? An eye for an eye?

He'll serve a year in the US, about two more in Canada though last night his lawyer said it would only be one more in Canada. They are definitely suing the CDN govt, according to the lawyer. They cannot sue the Americans under the plea agreeemnt..

[wyly]

So you would support the execution of Khadr? An eye for an eye?

He'll serve a year in the US, about two more in Canada though last night his lawyer said it would only be one more in Canada. They are definitely suing the CDN govt, according to the lawyer. They cannot sue the Americans under the plea agreeemnt..

and backed with a supreme court ruling against the feds he'll likely win...

[fellowtraveller]

and backed with a supreme court ruling against the feds he'll likely win...

What Omar will need and will get from backers like yourself is some cash for the lawsuit and a job pretty soon.

[segnosaur]

oh ya those laws are so wonderfully sensible...we don't allow kids to drink or smoke until they're 18 or 19 depending on province because they're not mature enough top make such a dangerous adult decision, yet we let 17yr olds join the forces and give them the power to decide when it's alright to kill someone(but he can't even vote) ....and you want to hold a 15 yr old responsible for his actions yet our laws say he isn't mentaly mature enough to decide on his own to whether to smoke or drink?

Pretty much every modern society has different "ages" when certain rights and obligations are granted... under (I think) 8 and you can't be charged with a crime at all. Over 18 you can be charged as an adult. Legal drinking age is 18 or 19 (depending on province). Age of consent is 16. There is no magic age after which an individual suddenly becomes "responsible" in all things, whereas one day earlier they were considered "not responsible".

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.

Many people would consider 15 to be "old enough" to understand the seriousness of actions that can cause the deaths of others.

and of those many people how many are qualified to make that judgment? extremely few...

And are you qualified to judge Kadhr to be "too immature" to accept his actions? Have you actually spoken personally with Kadhr, and do you have an advanced degree in psychology or related field to make the assumption that he isn't old enough?

You're right in the fact that probably few people here are qualified to make that determination. But judges do grant "emancipated minor" status to teenagers under 18, and get juveniles transferred to "adult court". This is done on a case by case basis.

Another thing to keep in mind: Kadhr (and his family, if I remember correctly) were not citizens of Afghanistan, nor were they fighting on behalf of a recognized Afghan government.

about 8,000 non us citizens join the US forces every year including canadians, I went to school with one who joined to go the Viet Nam war...you want to play by two sets of rules...

Ummmm... go back and read my earlier posting... I specifically stated that the Kadhr was not fighting on behalf of a recognized Afghan government.

Those foreigners that were fighting in Vietnam were fighting under the guidance, and while wearing the uniform, of the U.S. army. Kadhr was not fighting "for" the Afghan government; I rather suspect the recognized government probably didn't want him and his group there.

Edited October 26, 2010 by segnosaur

[wyly]

Pretty much every modern society has different "ages" when certain rights and obligations are granted... under (I think) 8 and you can't be charged with a crime at all. Over 18 you can be charged as an adult. Legal drinking age is 18 or 19 (depending on province). Age of consent is 16. There is no magic age after which an individual suddenly becomes "responsible" in all things, whereas one day earlier they were considered "not responsible".

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.

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..."Hey kid shoot that guy, good job you took his head off! What? You want a cigarette! WTF kid you're only 17, you're too young to smoke!"

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.

Canada has signed on to a treaty that says it is...

And are you qualified to judge Kadhr to be "too immature" to accept his actions? Have you actually spoken personally with Kadhr, and do you have an advanced degree in psychology or related field to make the assumption that he isn't old enough?

You're right in the fact that probably few people here are qualified to make that determination. But judges do grant "emancipated minor" status to teenagers under 18, and get juveniles transferred to "adult court". This is done on a case by case basis.

I challenged your "many", what the average unqualified canadian thinks is irrelevant...I personally know two extremely qualified experts who say no, he's still a kid and doesn't have that ability...and because of my association with those experts I don't claim to be an expert but I've more insight than most here to offer my opinion on that topic....

Ummmm... go back and read my earlier posting... I specifically stated that the Kadhr was not fighting on behalf of a recognized Afghan government.

Those foreigners that were fighting in Vietnam were fighting under the guidance, and while wearing the uniform, of the U.S. army. Kadhr was not fighting "for" the Afghan government; I rather suspect the recognized government probably didn't want him and his group there.

like army guy you're trying to play by two sets of rules, the Taliban were the government of Afghanistan, the USA or Canada cannot unilaterally not recognize them at their convenience...that he was a Canadian or that his side had no recognizable uniform that's meets your definition of uniform is also irrelevant... Edited October 26, 2010 by wyly

[M.Dancer]

about 8,000 non us citizens join the US forces every year including canadians, I went to school with one who joined to go the Viet Nam war...you want to play by two sets of rules...

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?

[segnosaur]

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.

Not really.

The concept of "right and wrong" (that theft, murder, and other victim-oriented actions) should be basic concepts that get instilled in a child from a young age. The decision to smoke however is something that is a bit more complex. It involves the recognition of long-term health risks that may or may not be apparent to someone under the age of majority.

What are you suggesting... that we set some magical age, under which a child has no rights and responsibilities (murder, mayhem, anything goes!!!!) and above that age they are fully adult?

I challenged your "many", what the average unqualified canadian thinks is irrelevant...I personally know two extremely qualified experts who say no, he's still a kid and doesn't have that ability...and because of my association with those experts I don't claim to be an expert but I've more insight than most here to offer my opinion on that topic....

I see... and did those "experts" that you know actually talk to Kadhr themselves? Or is it a case of "diagnosis via media reports"?

Oh, and did it ever occur to you that, given your, ahem, political stances, that your particular circle of acquaintiences may contain people that share your same beliefs? Its a little like talking to union members about labor policies, or the KKK about race relations.

like army guy you're trying to play by two sets of rules, the Taliban were the government of Afghanistan, the USA or Canada cannot unilaterally not recognize them at their convenience.

Ummm.. first of all, the Taliban was never recognized as the government of Afghanistan by the USA, Canada, or even the UN. (Only Pakistan, the UAE and Saudi Arabia recognized them.)

Secondly, the Taliban was overthrown in late 2001... Khadr was not captured until the summer of 2002, long after a new provisional government (recognized by pretty much everyone) was in place. The fact that the Taliban once ruled Afghanistan doesn't necessarily mean that people representing the Taliban should automatically be assumed to be following government orders. It would be like a neo-Nazi in Germany claiming that he is fighting for the government even though the "government" they represent has been out of power for decades.

..that he was a Canadian or that his side had no recognizable uniform that's meets your definition of uniform is also irrelevant...

So, by your definition, I can go kill people, and claim I'm a member of the official armed forces of Segnosauria.

[Saipan]

Kangaroo BS...

With Milosovic. And since they couldn't convict him they had to kill him

He should be granted parole immediately or the conviction thrown out - since the Court system actually called his imprisonment a violation of his constitutional rights.

Which "court system" was that?

As an accused child soilder he was the victim of war crimes NOT the perpetraitor.

Whoever allowed Khadr family into Canada is the quilty one. As terrorists they should have no connection with Canada whatsoever.

and he didn't violate the law in Afghanistan ----

Of course he did. He fought with Al-Quida. Geneva Convention CLEARLY specify who is a legal combatant. All other "fighters" can be shot on the spot, no legal requiremenht to hold them as P.O.W.

You need to read more before posting.

[guyser]

Whoever allowed Khadr family into Canada is the quilty one.

"Take your own advice...here...

You need to read more before posting.

Allowed Khadr family in?

[Saipan]

Any specifics or just addressing old Al Zheimer again?

[guyser]

Any specifics or just addressing old Al Zheimer again?

Khadr is a Canadian . Born and raised here. Your stupidity was imported.

[The_Squid]

Which "court system" was that?

It's called the Supreme Court of Canada.

the top court agreed Canadian officials violated Khadr's human rights, and that he continues to be threatened by the effect of those violations.

In a unanimous decision released Friday, 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.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/01/29/omar-khadr-supreme-court.html#ixzz13UuB2pc6

[Army Guy]

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..."Hey kid shoot that guy, good job you took his head off! What? You want a cigarette! WTF kid you're only 17, you're too young to smoke!"

Like it or not but that is the law in Canada, and until recently at age 17 you could serve in a combat zone, now you have to be 18.....take a look at our military history, and you'll find all kinds of children killed in action in WWI it was not uncommon for boys as young as 10 to be at the front serving as a bat boy or other function....IN WWII alot joined as young as 14, korea as young as 16....today the law states you have to be 18 and yes they are making life and death decisions every day...

And your right if the law states they can not drink they are not served, to young to smoke then you can't smoke....it's the law....

Canada has signed on to a treaty that says it is...

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.....

it also has to be read in context with the other UN agreements we have signed onto such as the one defining terrorism, and terrorist, which infact limit which UN charters and coventions these people are protected under.....

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...

I challenged your "many", what the average unqualified canadian thinks is irrelevant...I personally know two extremely qualified experts who say no, he's still a kid and doesn't have that ability...and because of my association with those experts I don't claim to be an expert but I've more insight than most here to offer my opinion on that topic....

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....

like army guy you're trying to play by two sets of rules, the Taliban were the government of Afghanistan, the USA or Canada cannot unilaterally not recognize them at their convenience...that he was a Canadian or that his side had no recognizable uniform that's meets your definition of uniform is also irrelevant...

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....

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.

[Saipan]

Khadr is a Canadian . Born and raised here. Your stupidity was imported.

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

Btw if you're losing debate try name calling

[Saipan]

It's called the Supreme Court of Canada.

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