eyeball Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 I don't know. What I do know is that the term child soldier doesn't apply at all to Mr. Khadr. You figure that's what the government's defence lawyers will say when all this finally ends up in a real court? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) Can you provide a modern-day example of who the term child soldier would apply to, if not him? Well, during WWII, there were a number of under 18 year olds that were serving in the German army, especially towards the end of the war. Edited May 19, 2015 by Shady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 You figure that's what the government's defence lawyers should argue when all this finally ends up in a real court? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Well, during WWII, there were a number of under 18 year olds that were serving in the German army, especially towards the end of the war. Why do you think I said "modern day"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Why do you think I said "modern day"? You think that's ancient??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 You think that's ancient??? You can't provide an example from the present day? There are no child soldiers anymore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 You can't provide an example from the present day? There are no child soldiers anymore? My example is modern. You do know that there are actually people that fought in WWII still alive right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 My example is modern. You do know that there are actually people that fought in WWII still alive right? Why are you avoiding the question? Are you saying that child soldiers no longer exist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 It is estimated that there are about 60,000 Canadian WWII vets alive today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 It's one of those arguments that work really well if you don't think too hard. There is no such thing as a child soldier because soldiers, by definition, have to be in a legitimate army and legitimate armies, by definition, don't have children in them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 What army was Khadr a soldier of? That doesnt matter. According to the Paris Principles of 2007, which Canada endorsed, a “child associated with an armed force or group refers to any person below 18 years of age who has been recruited or used by an armed force or armed group in any capacity…” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Why are you avoiding the question? Are you saying that child soldiers no longer exist? I'm sure they do. But I don't have access to the birth records of every military in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 That doesnt matter. Ok, how does it work if the "child" is associated with terrorists and/or a terrorist group and commits a murder? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Ok, how does it work if the "child" is associated with terrorists and/or a terrorist group and commits a murder? Look in the Table of Contents. It's in section 8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Ok, how does it work if the "child" is associated with terrorists and/or a terrorist group and commits a murder? The adult terrorist, who likely did throw the grenade,was shot. That wasn't called murder. War, I guess. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Ok, how does it work if the "child" is associated with terrorists and/or a terrorist group and commits a murder? Ok, well first of all this wasnt an act of terrorism. This kid at the behest of his father traveled to Afghanistan and joined an armed resistance to a foreign invasion. Hes no more a terrorist than Afghan irregulars that fought against the Soviet invasion. Either you should treat him as a POW, in which case you hold him until the end of the war and then release him... Or you treat him as a civilian which means he gets a proper day in court, and access to a vigorous legal defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Did the US declare war against Khadr and his associates? Was this not part of "The War on Terror"? So you admit he is a terrorist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Go get yourself waterboarded and then get back to us. After you kill a medic. That wasn't armed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 So you admit he is a terrorist. He was an illegal combatant, but I guess all child soldiers, by definition, are illegal combatants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 After you kill a medic. That wasn't armed. Of course he was armed, it was a firefight. And there are numerous doubts as to what exactly Khadr did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 So you admit he is a terrorist. I dont see why anyone would characterize him as that. You have to get pretty damn promiscuous with that word to use it on Kahdr - at least with regard to this incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 After you kill a medic. That wasn't armed. Speer was armed. He wasn't assigned as a medic that day, just a soldier. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) The effort taken to not acknowledge kids as children or missions as war has only opened a Pandora's Box of moral conflicts. If politicians believed they could or would somehow squelch whatever inconvenient questions they've tried to doge they couldn't have picked a worse way than to twist and distort common terms and definitions the way they have in Omar Khadr's case. Pedantism and disingenuity are an implosive mixture that's as self-annihilating as an explosive in the hands of a moronic moral midget. In any case, the last SCC ruling, 3 for 3 now in Omar Khadr's favour, has quite effectively and unequivocally declared to the government and anyone who's paying attention that it regards Omar Khadr as a juvenile. It seems the only options left to the government is to start invoking the notwithstanding clause or eliminate the SCC. Anyone who thinks they're helping matters by supporting or defending the official fiction, especially in the vindictive manner it's usually told, is probably only helping to increase the size of the financial penalty, not to mention the moral stain, that Canadian's will finally have to face. It is after all a war crime to demonize and denigrate POW's. It's just another form of torture as far as I'm concerned. Edited May 20, 2015 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 I don't know. What I do know is that the term child soldier doesn't apply at all to Mr. Khadr.If the United States wasn't targeting soldiers, then they're in violation of international law. That's the point that keep whizzing over your head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 No, he was tried as a terrorist. Different systems were developed for that. You're the confused one. Ever heard of the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws? 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.