Omar Khadr

[Melanie_]

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.

As mentioned in post 67, the Geneva Convention was amended in 1949, to directly address child combatants. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was passed in 1989, and Canada adopted the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict. I think the most relevent piece of this protocol in terms of Omar Khadr, and Canada's obligations towards him, is:

States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons within their jurisdiction recruited or used in hostilities contrary to the present Protocol are demobilized or otherwise released from service. States Parties shall, when necessary, accord to such persons all appropriate assistance for their physical and psychological recovery and their social reintegration.

[wulf42]

As mentioned in post 67, the Geneva Convention was amended in 1949, to directly address child combatants. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was passed in 1989, and Canada adopted the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict. I think the most relevent piece of this protocol in terms of Omar Khadr, and Canada's obligations towards him, is:

Omar is not a child Soldier because Al Qaeda is not an Army but just a rag tag group of terrorist's thugs, the Americans should have shot and killed this person when they found him saving us all a lot of grief. In the war on terror it should be an standing order not to take ANY Al Qaeda members prisoner as they do not fight in a uniform or under a flag they should be considered saboteurs and treated as such.

Edited October 27, 2010 by wulf42

[Oliver]

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

The issue of Omar Khadr in particular is over, but the dispute over "child soldier" definition remains. It only goes to show the importance of education and information in the developing world to prevent future terrorists (?) being influenced by fundamentalist propaganda:

http://unitedoncampus.com/articles-omar-khadr-oct-25.html

I think education plays as much of an important role in the region as the military, if not more.

[William Ashley]

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

Where is your evidence - and what is the source?

[William Ashley]

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

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

If there is snow that needs to be cleaned - just ask Mel Lastman.

No body does it better than badboy

noooo body.

Edited October 27, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

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

I'd go for the Cuban Citizenship test - hopefully he tried to learn spanish while he was in cuba long enough to become a citizen.

Whether you get it or not he has spent about 1/3rd of his life in Cuba.

He spend another chunk touring Asia.

Before that he was a kid.

He might get more respect in Cuba than Canada.. plus he looks like fidel

ARTICLE 30

Cuban citizens by naturalization are:

1. those foreigners who acquire Cuban citizenship in accordance with the regulations established by law;

2. those who contributed to the armed struggle against the tyranny overthrown on January 1, 1959, provided they show proof of this in the legally established form;

3. those who having been arbitrarily deprived of their citizenship of origin, obtain Cuban citizenship by virtue of an express agreement of the Council of State.

ART. 13. Cubans by naturalization are:

1st. Aliens who, after five years of continuous residence in the territory of the Republic, and not less than one year after having declared their intention of acquiring Cuban nationality, obtain the letter of citizenship in accordance with the law, provided that they know the Spanish language.

It is one of those funny loopholes that allows anyone held by the US for atleast 5 years at Guantanmo to aquire cuban citizenship.

NO winteres come on man.

Edited October 27, 2010 by William Ashley

[guyser]

I'd go for the Cuban Citizenship test - hopefully he tried to learn spanish while he was in cuba long enough to become a citizen.

Whether you get it or not he has spent about 1/3rd of his life in Cuba.

He spend another chunk touring Asia.

Before that he was a kid.

He might get more respect in Cuba than Canada.. plus he looks like fidel

Get what ? He travelled ? Ok. I get it

Now about his citizenship......

[Saipan]

I think the most relevent piece of this protocol in terms of Omar Khadr, and Canada's obligations towards him

We have no obligation toward anyone fighting us.

He's unrepentent terrorist. And he won't be missed by anyone.

[M.Dancer]

We have no obligation toward anyone fighting us.

As tough and as manly as you wished that sounds, it is still 100% incorrect.

[fellowtraveller]

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.

Translation: Khadr will serve somewhere between a few days and a few months in a Canadian jail and will emerge a triumphant and persecuted hero to a significant chunk of Canadians.

Like it or not, that's how we roll, folks.

[PIK]

Translation: Khadr will serve somewhere between a few days and a few months in a Canadian jail and will emerge a triumphant and persecuted hero to a significant chunk of Canadians.

Like it or not, that's how we roll, folks.

And then he will run for a seat in 4 years in toronto and win.

[Army Guy]

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.

Actually Melanie this entire situation came about with x 3 Afghanis regulars knocking on the door to the compound Khadr and his merry buddies were in, they were greeted with a hail of gunfire in which 2 of them where killed....by you guess it omar and his buddies....So the answer to your question is yes the soldiers where aware of why they were there, they also understand the ROE's very well....And we are talking about a 15 year old here, an age in which is very common for insurgents, remember the country is dirt poor, and fighting pays well...

No Canadians or US pers would be fighting, because of the agreements we have signed on to. it is illigal to have anyone under the age of 18 in a combat zone....

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.

Sorry should have been clearer, when this agreement was signed it was meant to address the problem of child soldiers in those 2 areas, the agreement does cover the entire globe, that being said the agreement covers child soldiers, it does not cover terrorist or Illigal combatants....of which Omar is clear one...

Your piont about bringing Omars mother in and holding her accountable i very much agree with. if we don't then this entire agreement we've signed is just a shell, empty document....

[Army Guy]

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

Yes rebel militias , and if you've seen pictures of these kids, they are in uniforms, carry arms openily, or have bands or something similar to indentify them as such.... conforming to the conventions...

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...

How did that work out for them.....

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...

It does if your brought up in that culture and don't know any better.....it still does not change the fact that our young mr Omar was considered an adult in the Taliban regime, or for that matter in Afghan today....now your fishing i've said nothing about child bribes....so i've claimed nothing.....But your right in my mind i think at age 15 he should be home playing on his play station , expermenting with girls, smokes , and beer....not on the battlefield...however you can not say at age 15 he was not capable of knowing right from wrong....That planting mines and killing NATO soldiers collecting bounties was wrong....lets keep in mind this is the kid that will be roaming our streets soon....

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...

Really maybe you should re read the History of the taliban and AL Queda, while there may of been some cross over it does not share the same history....but i guess the northern alliance also full of cross overs from the Mujaheden sinks that theory....

And while they may of been considered freedom fighters did they employ terrorist tactics again'st there own, the Russian civilian population.....what was their target....russian soldiers...military targets....what was that difination of a terrorist again....someone got that link to the UN site ?

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...

I'm baised really because i've traded bullets with is buddies....here i spell it out if you use terrorist means to accomplish your goals your a terrorist...and according to the genva convention and inter national law that is again'st the law, and you will be branded a terrorist, no longer afforded any protection available to you by those 2 laws or conventions.....

it does not matter which side your on...thats the law....i can't explain it any simplier....if you have proof that any country, individula or group broke that law take it to the inter national courts....but here in this forum it's a mout piont until it is proven.....in omar case it is proven, shit he confessed....

[Army Guy]

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

I like to add something, killing is legal, provided it is within the guide lines set out by each nation.... if it is your job to do so, and you've been asked to so...

IS it wrong, thats something each policemen and soldier will have to answer for , on the day he meets his maker....i think it is why God does not make it easy....mentally or physically , then he makes you live with it forever...atleast until the day you meet him face to face....

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.

Yes the rules have changed, slightly...but then again we are talking about war, which has very little rules to start with....and while we have rules that are suppose to protect old men , women , children, they are hollow and not very well enforced....IE Omars mom , we know what she did was wrong, but we lack the courage to enforce it.

[Army Guy]

Translation: Khadr will serve somewhere between a few days and a few months in a Canadian jail and will emerge a triumphant and persecuted hero to a significant chunk of Canadians.

Like it or not, that's how we roll, folks.

I really hope for our veterns and still serving pers that is not true, i just wondering how a significant amount of canadians can look a vet of Afghan conflict in the eyes, seeing his missing limbs and knowing that for his service he was paid out a maximum of 250 K (a rare case indeed), and told to carry on with his or her life.... while a young terroist combatant was welcomed home a hero, and quite possiably paid out many more times than that....something to chew on....a great motivator for our young men and women in uniform today....but also sends a clear message to the rest of those discontented Canadians by birth fantical it's OK to take up arms, again'st Canada...infact it actually pays out more.....

[Melanie_]

Actually Melanie this entire situation came about with x 3 Afghanis regulars knocking on the door to the compound Khadr and his merry buddies were in, they were greeted with a hail of gunfire in which 2 of them where killed....by you guess it omar and his buddies....So the answer to your question is yes the soldiers where aware of why they were there, they also understand the ROE's very well....And we are talking about a 15 year old here, an age in which is very common for insurgents, remember the country is dirt poor, and fighting pays well...

My intention wasn’t really to call the soldiers’ actions into question, although as I read it of course I see that is how it sounds. My point was that he was acting just as anyone else would probably act in the same situation; I agree with Segnosaur that a teenager can understand killing is wrong, but it is likely that he had been indoctrinated to see the soldiers as the ones doing the killing, and to interpret their actions as wrong. This is part of the reason children are used in these conflicts – they can easily be manipulated and convinced of the “rightness” of their side.

There is debate about whether or not the CRC applies to him, because he was a child “terrorist” or “illegal combatant” rather than a “child soldier”. But the Optional Protocol referred to in an earlier post talks about

Condemning with the gravest concern the recruitment, training and use within and across national borders of children in hostilities by armed groups distinct from the armed forces of a State, and recognizing the responsibility of those who recruit, train and use children in this regard,

(bolding mine)

which to me seems to encompass someone like Khadr. It goes on to state, in Article 4 that

1. Armed groups that are distinct from the armed forces of a State should not, under any circumstances, recruit or use in hostilities persons under the age of 18 years.

2. States Parties shall take all feasible measures to prevent such recruitment and use, including the adoption of legal measures necessary to prohibit and criminalize such practices.

This tells me Canada has a case against Khadr’s mother.

And, as I quoted earlier,

States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons within their jurisdiction recruited or used in hostilities contrary to the present Protocol are demobilized or otherwise released from service. States Parties shall, when necessary, accord to such persons all appropriate assistance for their physical and psychological recovery and their social reintegration.

This implies that Canada had a responsibility to repatriate Khadr much earlier, and work on rehabilitation rather than leaving him in Gitmo for the last 8 years.

Of course, there can be other interpretations of this Protocol, but as signatories to it Canada is obligated to figure out what it means and how it guides our actions in this case.

[Army Guy]

My intention wasn’t really to call the soldiers’ actions into question, although as I read it of course I see that is how it sounds. My point was that he was acting just as anyone else would probably act in the same situation; I agree with Segnosaur that a teenager can understand killing is wrong, but it is likely that he had been indoctrinated to see the soldiers as the ones doing the killing, and to interpret their actions as wrong. This is part of the reason children are used in these conflicts – they can easily be manipulated and convinced of the “rightness” of their side.

Lets re wind the tape for a second....prior to the 3 afghanis soldiers knocking on the door....as the Soldiers enter the village, the alarm is raised, the women and children distract the soldiers who at this piont are looking for something out of the ordinary....every dweeling knew the village was about to have company.....at this piont they meaning Omar and his buddies had serveral choices, leave....via the back way...great the soldiers let them do a search and move on....or draw first blood as they did....the piont is they had choices....they chose to fight...

Not because they had no choices but because that is what they wanted to do....most would have left, it was a patrol that in all proablity would have moved on when they found nothing.....and while i will agree with you they do understand right from wrong, they don't have the same reasoning skills as a mature adult.....but anyone could have told you greeting an armed group of soldiers with gunfire was not going to end very good for them.....

There is debate about whether or not the CRC applies to him, because he was a child “terrorist” or “illegal combatant” rather than a “child soldier”. But the Optional Protocol referred to in an earlier post talks about

It does not apply in this case, if it did then the entire terrorism agreement would mean nothing, i'll explain, it clear states that illigal combatants are not afforded any protection under the genva convention ( small exceptions)....which includes this agreement, as it also is part of the convention....i know it is not clear, but in the example you provided an armed group is reffered to one that is following the convention, ie carrying arms openily ,uniforms etc.....as soon as they do not follow that simply conduct then they put regular civilians at risk....which is the entire reason behind the conventions to protect civilians, wounded, sick, etc and to give a few guide lines to soldiers before the bash in each others heads in....

The conventions make it clear to what is a terrorist, terrorist group etc and to what protection they can be afforded....it was written before the child agreement, and it does need to be clarified....

This tells me Canada has a case against Khadr’s mother.

And, as I quoted earlier,

I wish it did, or more to the piont i wished Canada had the will to persue it...but i'm not holding my breath...

This implies that Canada had a responsibility to repatriate Khadr much earlier, and work on rehabilitation rather than leaving him in Gitmo for the last 8 years.

Of course, there can be other interpretations of this Protocol, but as signatories to it Canada is obligated to figure out what it means and how it guides our actions in this case.

And as much as it pains me your right, we as a Nation should have done something....Saying that we as a nation also needed the will to ensure that justice was served as well....something i've said here before i don't think our justice system is ready for Omar just yet...

[eyeball]

Omar is not a child Soldier because Al Qaeda is not an Army

As is obvious to anyone with a basic sense of principled fairness the term child-soldier needs to be deleted from the the GC and replaced with conflict-child.

[M.Dancer]

As is obvious to anyone with a basic sense of principled fairness the term child-soldier needs to be deleted from the the GC and replaced with conflict-child.

Would that cover street gangs?

[Army Guy]

As is obvious to anyone with a basic sense of principled fairness the term child-soldier needs to be deleted from the the GC and replaced with conflict-child.

No what it needs is a process put in place to hunt down those that employ children in conflicts and make them accountable with punishments that will deter the practice....

what also needs to be done is stop treating this group like they are just cute and cuddly children, when the day before they were raping, murdering, and terrorizing inocent civilains.....because they are a dangerous bred, and while treatment should be forced upon them, it should be done with purpose,not by some retired mom, but by professionals and those not savable they should be locked up for as long as it takes.....they should also know that they are going to be held accountable....

[eyeball]

No Canadians or US pers would be fighting, because of the agreements we have signed on to. it is illigal to have anyone under the age of 18 in a combat zone....

Then why hasn't his mother been charged with putting Khadr into one?

Sorry should have been clearer, when this agreement was signed it was meant to address the problem of child soldiers in those 2 areas, the agreement does cover the entire globe, that being said the agreement covers child soldiers, it does not cover terrorist or Illigal combatants....of which Omar is clear one...

How would you feel if the GC said conflict-child instead of child-soldier? Is it really just the terminology that you're hung up on?

Your piont about bringing Omars mother in and holding her accountable i very much agree with. if we don't then this entire agreement we've signed is just a shell, empty document....

The problem is that if Khadr's mother is charged and found guilty of indoctrination and Western governments allow for the term soldier to be applied to Omar as a matter of principle, it will have to allow for the term prisoner of war and all that implies - that Al Qaeda is a real army representing people with actual grievances.

Edited October 28, 2010 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

How would you feel if the GC said conflict-child instead of child-soldier? Is it really just the terminology that you're hung up on?

Termoinolgy isn't the issue, it's the definition that is the issue..what is a conflict? When the Jamiacan Posses fight it out in Kingston at election time, are the 17 years olds Conflict Kids? What if a group like the IRA starts up again, and they start robbing banks, are the 17 year old gunmen conlict kids? Or are they bank robbers...?

[eyeball]

Termoinolgy isn't the issue, it's the definition that is the issue..what is a conflict? When the Jamiacan Posses fight it out in Kingston at election time, are the 17 years olds Conflict Kids? What if a group like the IRA starts up again, and they start robbing banks, are the 17 year old gunmen conlict kids? Or are they bank robbers...?

I don't know Morris, it's obviously a very complicated world out there sometimes. That said there are times when it's also pretty black and white.

Maybe you can try to remember that definitions are the issue the next time you or someone else starts quibbling over the definition of a child.

[fellowtraveller]

I really hope for our veterns and still serving pers that is not true, i just wondering how a significant amount of canadians can look a vet of Afghan conflict in the eyes, seeing his missing limbs and knowing that for his service he was paid out a maximum of 250 K (a rare case indeed), and told to carry on with his or her life.... while a young terroist combatant was welcomed home a hero, and quite possiably paid out many more times than that....something to chew on....a great motivator for our young men and women in uniform today....but also sends a clear message to the rest of those discontented Canadians by birth fantical it's OK to take up arms, again'st Canada...infact it actually pays out more.....

I too wish it was not true, but the reality is that there is a significant segment of our society who see Khadr as a martyr and victim, and see our govt and our soldiers as an oppressor. A few are on this thread.

[Army Guy]

Then why hasn't his mother been charged with putting Khadr into one?

I'm as confused about that one as you...But i would assume it is because we don't have the will, this is not about a boy,or terrorism it about politics....and votes....why else do we have a terrorist family in which half of them have not had a day in court but are just as guilty as omar.....and yet are living off our teat....

How would you feel if the GC said conflict-child instead of child-soldier? Is it really just the terminology that you're hung up on?

It's got nothing to do with the words, it's about clarity....can anyone say without a doubt what exactly the GC conventions say....without having a laywer go over them over and over....because that is exactly how soldiers learn it....a military lawyer explains them over hours of lectures and classes....it should not need a lawyer but aclearer language, who and what is entitled to what and when....

The problem is that if Khadr's mother is charged and found guilty of indoctrination and Western governments allow for the term soldier to be applied to Omar as a matter of principle, it will have to allow for the term prisoner of war and all that implies - that Al Qaeda is a real army representing people with actual grievances

Al Queda is not a real army, it's a group of fanatics bent on perserving a way of life in which they had full control over another group...and they don't care who they kill or murder to bring back the old days....which would allow them to kill and murder anyone who disagreed with them....thats their grievance....the regular Afghan people on the other hand, they are sick of being at war, being oppressed and controled....and all they want is peace, and a job, some money to raise thier kids....thats who we as a nation backed away from....and now we hold one of these terrorists up to the light and offer up the counttries crown jewels....hail to the terrorist boy ....how dare us trying to stop them from controling those dirty Afghanis who wanted peace.....Hail the terrorist boy....