Jump to content

Widow suing Khadr

Recommended Posts

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 by Shady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
    John Wilson
  • Recent Achievements

    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • exPS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...