eyeball Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 Who has the right to rehabilitate him? That's not how it works. We have a responsibility to try and rehabilitate him while he has the right to be rehabilitated. As for the rest of your post I don't understand what you're getting at. It's his religious beliefs. There are others who have expressed similar views to Omar Khadr in Canada. Can we insist he no longer have his views, while allowing others to continue to believe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 My piont wsa Eyeball had stated that children follow thier parents wishes without thought of consquences...which is not true, Omars parents had wanted him and his brother to become sucide bombers for the cause and the family, both had refused....knowing that it would mean giving up thier lives....or like the other example telling them to jump off a bridge....they knew it was wrong regardless of what they had been told ot taught via their religion...They just knew... As for him taking up arms again'st invaders, really...Correct me if i m wrong but was it not an AQ element that flew those plnes into the towers. If so we can not act surpirsed when Uncle Sam decided to stomp them into dust....declaring them invaders is a step is it not...They must have known that the US would hold them accountable and come after them..... My piont on treating children differently is this...on the battle field children are treated the same, it is when the fighting has stopped, they are even considered for special treatment if that is what you call it...they are separated from the rest of the prisoners,housed separatily if space allows, then they are treated as any other prisoner, until the conflict is over...they are treated humanily...etc etc...So really there is not alot of protection or laws in place to really make a difference... I was pionting out some of the twisted pionts of the laws and conventions , for instnaced it is ok to shoot them,or blow them up with a F-15E full of 500 pounders, but not to hold them in most cases accountable for crimes they have commited.... Why do you say that, AG? Omar is certainly being held accountable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 Why do you say that, AG? Omar is certainly being held accountable. Perhaps it is just me i find it alittle ironic that the entire UN convention in regards to Child soldiers orginal intent was to protect children involved in warfare... And yet children recieve very little attention when it comes to treatment during conflict ....they recieve none on the battlefield, once labeled a combatant then they are legal targets to be engaged at will anytime, any place...the only special treatment they recieve is onve combat operations have ceased, they are to be separated from adult prisoners , they are to be housed separatly if the situation permits, other than that they are to be treated the same as any other prisoner, IE treated humanily, feed , sheltered, etc etc....the main diference is when they are to be tried for any crimes they are deemed responsiable for, here the convention does state that Children may be held responsiable but the main effort should be on treatment....All in all this is the law in which we signed on for, it is what we protect children of war with.... So to sum it all up once a child becomes a combatant we can kill them, but we can not in most cases hold them accountable for their actions, sure there is a clause in there that says the UN can take legal action again'st those that approve the use of children in armies...which i beleive there is one case before the courts now, really a paper law...ineffective at best... The Laws are not strong enough to deter the use of children in combat period , we see this in the news everyday ...And while we here in Canada signed on for this convention, we have really agreed that these conventions are good enough.... As for Omar being held accountable , yes he has seen his day in the courts, he has been sentenced, and he will be serving that sentence until we agree he has accounted for his crimes... And in my opinion it's not enough, 8 years out of 40 to me is a light sentence almost a laughable one...like i said my opinion.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 No one serves time for thousands of people killed in war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilter Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 It's a little unreal to imply every single kid is a write-off when child soldiers can be and are being rehabilitated and reintegrated as we speak. According to the international laws that protect them child soldiers are legally innocent, which is what really matters. As for the broader subjective interpretation of the term, if innocence can be lost or damaged then it can also be found and restored. We signed onto those laws up here in Canada by the way. Americans could pick their allies more carefully, but I guess that ship sailed decades ago didn't it? The proof of these rehabilitations is --- Where? The rehabilitated aren't yet old enuf to see the improvement. Is it possible they are living the good life to grow up to be more dangerous? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 The proof of these rehabilitations is --- Where? Have you never used a search engine before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 Canada has championed the cause of child soldiers in other countries, but there's never been a word about Afghanistan, not even from returning soldiers, to my knowledge. One has to wonder why ... ? Is it somehow different when orphans are kidnapped and forced into service, than when a parent forces a child into service? We do that here in the west as well. One can consider entities like the Air Cadets as indoctrinating to-be child soldiers. Sure the methods are different but I would think the concept is the same. Get em while they are young! You can get into the Canadian Forces when you are 16, with parental consent. Technically they are children, only at 18 are you considered an adult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 I'm saying Khadr has'nt shown alot of remorse for his parents behaviour or the belief system he was indoctrinated into... And I don't have alot of sympathy for anyone who comes from a family that is an admitted "Al Quaeda family" and his own mother admitted she hates it an Canada and the West but now wants Canada to protect her wayward son...It's more than a little rich... Correct me if wrong, but: He is a Canadian. Canada is fighting Al Quaeda as a member of NATO troops. He as an enemy combatant attacked NATO troops. That should make him a traitorous Canadian by any logical assessment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 Correct me if wrong, but: He is a Canadian. Canada is fighting Al Quaeda as a member of NATO troops. He as an enemy combatant attacked NATO troops. That should make him a traitorous Canadian by any logical assessment. The only trouble is you left out the game-changing things that kick your logic out from under you. He was also a child soldier that was illegally indoctrinated. By any legal assessment of the international laws our government agreed to abide by we're the one's in the wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 To be eligible to apply to the Canadian Forces, you must meet the following three minimum requirements: Be a Canadian Citizen Be 17 years of age (with parental or guardian consent) or older, except: Regular Officer Training Plan – Junior applicants, who must be 16 years of age or older Meet the minimum education requirements for your desired military occupation: Grade 10 or Secondaire IV in Quebec, and additional educational prerequisites as specified by the occupation DND However you must atleast 18 years old to be deployed outside of Canada. or engaged in any form of Comabt internally or externally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 He was also a child soldier that was illegally indoctrinated. By any legal assessment of the international laws our government agreed to abide by we're the one's in the wrong. He has already been pigion holed as an insurgent and under that law he is not entitled any other benfits the conventions provide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 The only trouble is you left out the game-changing things that kick your logic out from under you. He was also a child soldier that was illegally indoctrinated. By any legal assessment of the international laws our government agreed to abide by we're the one's in the wrong. Just how are 'we' in the wrong? He confessed to attacking a NATO soldier. Where does international law say there's no responsibility or consequence in doing that? Had he been killed in combat would that then be a war crime? Does someone having a grenade tossed at them have to check age and i.d. before returning fire. Just a further bit of logic. You attack a NATO soldier in a military zone and you might just die, or, be held otherwise accountable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 He has already been pigion holed as an insurgent and under that law he is not entitled any other benfits the conventions provide. It's pigeonholing not holding. International treaties violated by the imprisonment and treatment of Omar Khadr include the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Geneva Conventions. All of this law is binding on Canada Your attempt to use the term pigeonholing is very Freudian. Pigeonholing is a term used to describe processes that attempt to classify disparate entities into a small number of categories (usually, mutually exclusive ones).The expression usually carries connotations of criticism, implying that the classification scheme referred to inadequately reflects the entities being sorted, or that it is based on stereotypes.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonholing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 Just how are 'we' in the wrong? He confessed to attacking a NATO soldier. Where does international law say there's no responsibility or consequence in doing that? I doubt his confession would ever stand up in a Canadian civil court or the ICC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 He was also a child soldier that was illegally indoctrinated. He was allowed to volunteer as an interpreter at age 15. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) He was allowed to volunteer as an interpreter at age 15. He was allowed to confess to trumped up charges in an illegitimate legal system and he was ordered by his father to be an interpreter. Even al Queada has acknowledged that Omar Khadr was a child soldier that was pressed into it's service. It praised his father for "tossing his little child in the furnace of the battle." Edited November 3, 2011 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 He was allowed to confess to trumped up charges in an illegitimate legal system and he was ordered by his father to be an interpreter. Even al Queada has acknowledged that Omar Khadr was a child soldier that was pressed into it's service. It praised his father for "tossing his little child in the furnace of the battle." According to his mother, Omar pleaded with her in order to join the fight. He could've stayed with his mother, away from it all, but he wanted to be there. If I spend the time to dig up the interview with his mother, will it change your mind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 He was allowed to confess to trumped up charges in an illegitimate legal system and he was ordered by his father to be an interpreter. Even al Queada has acknowledged that Omar Khadr was a child soldier that was pressed into it's service. It praised his father for "tossing his little child in the furnace of the battle." So I repeat,if he was shot dead while in the battle (and throwing a grenade), would that constitute a legitimate military response or a war crime? That he survived is in his favor. He might have (should have) been killed in return fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 According to his mother, Omar pleaded with her in order to join the fight. He could've stayed with his mother, away from it all, but he wanted to be there. If I spend the time to dig up the interview with his mother, will it change your mind? I get a real hoot out of listening to people who are forced to resort to citing people they absolutely revile as a reliable source. I think she should be in prison myself so I kind of revile her too just so you know. Would you accept anything Omar Khadr said as the truth and nothing but the truth, beyond his confessions that is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 So I repeat,if he was shot dead while in the battle (and throwing a grenade), would that constitute a legitimate military response or a war crime? I don't know and I don't care because it's irrelevant speculation, not to mention there are some very serious doubts as to whether he threw anything. That he survived is in his favor. He might have (should have) been killed in return fire. But he wasn't so, I guess it sucks to be you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 I get a real hoot out of listening to people who are forced to resort to citing people they absolutely revile as a reliable source. Yes, I was forced to quote one of two direct participants saying something that doesn't help her son's case. Would you accept anything Omar Khadr said as the truth and nothing but the truth, beyond his confessions that is? Depends what he said. If he said or did something that would turn his family against him, maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 I don't know and I don't care because it's irrelevant speculation, not to mention there are some very serious doubts as to whether he threw anything. But he wasn't so, I guess it sucks to be you. No it is relevant. Can you shoot back at another in the enemy camp in a fire fight without determining their age? Is it a war crime if you have shot a 15-16 year old that's with the enemy? Is a person fighting against our NATO military that is a citizen a traitor? Try to address the questions rather than responding with such as, "I guess it sucks to be you." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Yes, I was forced to quote one of two direct participants saying something that doesn't help her son's case. It helped her case, admitting she tossed her little child in the furnace of the battle would be admitting to a war crime which would also gravely challenge Ottawa's position that we're not involved in a conflict that subjects us to international law. I suspect you'd be calling her a bald-faced liar in that event. Depends what he said. If he said or did something that would turn his family against him, maybe. Would that call his so-called confessions into question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 No it is relevant. Can you shoot back at another in the enemy camp in a fire fight without determining their age? Can you determine their age in the middle of a shootout? Probably not. Is it a war crime if you have shot a 15-16 year old that's with the enemy? It might well be if you knew there were children with them and you kept up the attack anyway. Is a person fighting against our NATO military that is a citizen a traitor? That's a little poorly worded but I'll take a stab at it and say they're all just combatants who're fighting for their lives. Try to address the questions rather than responding with such as, "I guess it sucks to be you." There is no way anyone could have answered your questions prior to or during the fight. It's what was determined after the firefight that is relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.