Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian

[kimmy]

What are your views about that? What do you think about Canada not doing anything about parents who would go against international law and raise their child the way Omar was raised?

We in Canada had a news story in 2009 where a child was taken from her parents after she went to school with a swastika on her arm... it seems to me that if raising your kid to be a white supremacist is cause enough to have them taken away, then raising your kids to be militant extremists should be likewise.

-k

[bloodyminded]

I'm concerned about everyone's role in it, and that includes Omar's parents. It's against international law to raise kids to be child soldiers/combatants, so I'm just wondering why his mother is living the good life in Canada -- when she is responsible for Omar's having been where he was, ie: in this gunfight.

What are your views about that? What do you think about Canada not doing anything about parents who would go against international law and raise their child the way Omar was raised?

There seems to be little doubt that Omar's parents fanaticism has been destructive, not least to their own son. I wouldn't argue with you for the Khadrs.

But parents breaking international law seems small potatoes compared to nations breaking international law. Further, because of the perversity of the political world, people (I don't mean you, AW) will jump to condemn the parents even as they defend the gangsters with real power--ie officials in positions of tremendous influence who help direct the fate of entire nations.

Just to put it in perspective, what we are talking about here is official Canada's breach in two distinct (if related) incidents: Canada's unwillingness to go after parents that I would consider abusive; and Canada's unwillingness to step up to its responsibilities on the international stage...possibly from some sort of ideological affinity with Washington's oily, law-breaking torturers, or possibly to curry favour with the most powerful nation on Earth. Either way, it's Canadian cowardice.

But the latter (Canada's active breaking of international alw) is far more serious than the former (Canada's passive acceptance of individual lawbreakers). Laxity or laziness about possibly dangerous offenders is one thing; active culpability in torture coupled with an also active derision of the very rule of law and the spirit of justice itself is quite another.

Edited December 29, 2009 by bloodyminded

[Shady]

active culpability in torture coupled with an also active derision of the very rule of law and the spirit of justice itself is quite another.

Your entire premise is wrong. There was no torture, and there is no derision or breaking of international law relating to enemy combatants. And the "spirit" of justice can mean many different things to many different people. As far as I'm concerned, the individual in question, is and has recieved justice.

[bloodyminded]

Your entire premise is wrong. There was no torture, and there is no derision or breaking of international law relating to enemy combatants. And the "spirit" of justice can mean many different things to many different people. As far as I'm concerned, the individual in question, is and has recieved justice.

Ah, so the trial must have been kept secret.

"No torture".

Riighghgt.

[eyeball]

I'm concerned about everyone's role in it, and that includes Omar's parents. It's against international law to raise kids to be child soldiers/combatants, so I'm just wondering why his mother is living the good life in Canada -- when she is responsible for Omar's having been where he was, ie: in this gunfight.

What are your views about that? What do you think about Canada not doing anything about parents who would go against international law and raise their child the way Omar was raised?

Again, what is it that Canada could have done about Omar Khadr's upbringing back then? Probably no more than they could have done in the case of the kid that kimmy mentioned, which is seize him.

But you seem to be suggesting that Canada should now charge Omar Kahdr's mother for having turned her son into a child soldier. Fine, please bring it on.

Now, do you still seriously believe this would have zero influence on the case your government is making that Omar Khadr is not a child soldier? A case you seem to be defending?

Edited December 29, 2009 by eyeball

[bloodyminded]

Again, what is it that Canada could have done about Omar Khadr's upbringing back then? Probably no more than they could have done in the case of the kid that kimmy mentioned, which is seize him.

But you seem to be suggesting that Canada should now charge Omar Kahdr's mother for having turned her son into a child soldier. Fine, please bring it on.

Now, do you still seriously believe this would have zero influence on the case your government is making that Omar Khadr is not a child soldier? A case you seem to be defending?

"Your honour, Mrs. Khadr must be indicted for turning her son into a child soldier. Which he is not. The prosecution rests."

[Guest American Woman]

"Your honour, Mrs. Khadr must be indicted for turning her son into a child soldier. Which he is not. The prosecution rests."

I'm not saying that he wasn't a child soldier/combatant, so I don't have a clue as to where that's coming from. I happen to believe he was raised to be one, and he became what he was raised to be. I also happen to believe when children are raised that way, they have to be held accountable for their actions because sadly they are what they've become; and the illegality the way they were raised shouldn't give them free reign to kill. Furthermore, adults will be even more encouraged to exploit children and to force children to fight their battles for them if no one is held accountable. It's a win-win situation for them if they aren't held accountable for turning kids into child soldiers and the child soldier isn't held accountable, either.

[bloodyminded]

I'm not saying that he wasn't a child soldier/combatant, so I don't have a clue as to where that's coming from. I happen to believe he was raised to be one, and he became what he was raised to be. I also happen to believe when children are raised that way, they have to be held accountable for their actions because sadly they are what they've become; and the illegality the way they were raised shouldn't give them free reign to kill. Furthermore, adults will be even more encouraged to exploit children and to force children to fight their battles for them if no one is held accountable. It's a win-win situation for them if they aren't held accountable for turning kids into child soldiers and the child soldier isn't held accountable, either.

I understand, and I wasn't making a judgement on your opinion of his status. It seems eyeball was mistaken on this point.

It's true that people have to be held accountable for their actions, but there has been an international effort to look at child soldiers differently.

I understand it's contentious, but I personally agree with it. There are cases of child soldiers in certain African countries who have committed the worst crimes imaginable, ones that make Khadr's actions look peaceful in comparison. We're talking the most brutal and heinous crimes imaginable.

However, due to their age, advocates have taken a diferent approach. This is both humane and rational, because we're not talking about some Western kid with a troubled life who became a murderer; we're talking total indoctrination into violence, as well as direct coercion and so on. Children can't be expected to withstand this: we cannot demand our children be moral heroes.

What underlines the rightness of the advocates' position is that some of these ex-child soldiers have grown into unofficial ambassadors for peace and justice and human rights. (Though no doubt many are psychologically damaged beyond repair.)

Khadr's case isn't as extreme as many, but that he was coerced and indoctrinated, by his own parents, isn't even disputed. To hold a fifteen year old in this position as being as responsible as an adult is, to me, not only wrong: it's in contravention to justice itself. It's holding the letter of the law up as MORE important than the spirit of justice which is law's genesis.

I would consider it morally criminal to hold Khadr responsible like an adult.

Legally, I'm not sure about America's culpability, because I don't know if they're signatories to the Convention. (Ethically, I definitely consider them wrong.) But Canada IS a signatory, and so therefore the PM's office, among others, are technically committing an ongoing crime as we speak.

Edited December 29, 2009 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

...Legally, I'm not sure about America's culpability, because I don't know if they're signatories to the Convention. (Ethically, I definitely consider them wrong.) But Canada IS a signatory, and so therefore the PM's office, among others, are technically committing an ongoing crime as we speak.

Nonsense, for reasons of jurisdiction, elements of the offense, and sovereignty. What a putz!

[Oleg Bach]

The top dog legalist look at our population as "the convicted and the yet to be convicted." You must first describe what a criminal really is! In my limited black and white mind crimials are the ones that lost the big feud two hundred years ago who are desperately trying to make a comeback...and the top of legitimate established society are simply the better and tougher criminals who won the feud. If all people operated via rule of law we would not have all these problems. Far as I can make out is when it becomes visable that a so-called non criminal entity such as the USA starts to water board and freeze detained prisoners for the fun of it...then the said legitimate entity is no longer legitimate..and there is no way you can talk your way out of those facts...mission control..we have a problem....rot!

[Radsickle]

He was unarmed, does that tell you something.

Not really.

It should say something to you. You keep trying to portray Omar as a combatant, as being in a "gunfight", blah blah blah.

It might mean nothing to your blindly patriotic eyes but he was found unarmed and so have many innocent people. The Taliban like to surround themselves with innocent people. Heck, they even like to blow them up.

So far, Canada has only purposely tortured some innocent people. Don't know about the US though...

Seriously, AW, the way you try to shift the focus of this thread... Do you work for the CIA or the Bush family or just do part-time propaganda work for Karl Rove? Is Omar's mother living the "good life" in Canada? Really? Is "Canada not doing anything about parents who would go against international law"? Or are you just a baboon trying to play the wiser American, chastizing Canada for not being `tough enough' or isolationist enough.

Are you suggesting a nation should do random audits of its parent's skills? Look to your own backyard first and imagine trying to impose such an idea. I agree, some people should never be allowed to raise kids, but those people are mostly white North Americans; the very same people who would never listen to a government that tried to tell them how to raise their kids.

I imagine Omar might've benefitted from such a fascist state.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Radsickle

[Oleg Bach]

Watching this whole thing is like watching a horror movie. Actually watching any media of late seems quite dreamy and not in a nice way. Wonder what Khadr must have thought once he went into American custody...I bet you he was surprised when he discovered that the Americans were not the good guys and were exactly like the bad guys that he was induced into henchmenship..must have been confusing when an evil little boy assists in attacking goodness and finds that the goodness is as evil as he is himself - quite confusing for the lad I must say - Kind of like working for the devil and being captured by the great satan...it's very amusing.

[bloodyminded]

Nonsense, for reasons of jurisdiction, elements of the offense, and sovereignty. What a putz!

Settle down, little guy.

[Guest American Woman]

It might mean nothing to your blindly patriotic eyes ....

I didn't say it meant nothing; I said it didn't really tell me anything. Two very different things. And sadly, from this point on, your post becomes even more moronic, so I won't be wasting any more time responding.

[Guest American Woman]

I understand, and I wasn't making a judgement on your opinion of his status. It seems eyeball was mistaken on this point.

Eyeball has been disappointing me with some of his comments, but here's the thing: one shouldn't draw conclusions about someone's beliefs based on what others claim their beliefs to be. Seems to me you should be aware of that firsthand.

It's true that people have to be held accountable for their actions, but there has been an international effort to look at child soldiers differently.

Yes, there has been, and there really hasn't been agreement even to the definition of "child soldier." Some say under 15, which wouldn't include Omar, while some say under 18. Yet at 18 they are suddenly, miraculously ready to be held accountable?

I understand it's contentious, but I personally agree with it. There are cases of child soldiers in certain African countries who have committed the worst crimes imaginable, ones that make Khadr's actions look peaceful in comparison. We're talking the most brutal and heinous crimes imaginable.

Exactly. And therein lies the problem. From what I've read, there are about 300,000 child soldiers worldwide engaging in combat at any given time.

However, due to their age, advocates have taken a diferent approach. This is both humane and rational, because we're not talking about some Western kid with a troubled life who became a murderer; we're talking total indoctrination into violence, as well as direct coercion and so on. Children can't be expected to withstand this: we cannot demand our children be moral heroes.

Expecting them to be "moral heroes" is not part of my reasoning. As I said, sadly, they are what they were trained to be. The reason they are what they are might be troubling at best, horrific at worst, but it doesn't undo what has been done and it doesn't change what they have become.

What underlines the rightness of the advocates' position is that some of these ex-child soldiers have grown into unofficial ambassadors for peace and justice and human rights. (Though no doubt many are psychologically damaged beyond repair.)

Of the 300,000, how many have become advocates of peace and how many have been psycholicaly damaged beyond repair? Even grown men come back from war with PTSS, and we evidently aren't even addressing that problem completely. So who is to take in these 300,000 children and rehabilitate them? Obviously we can't leave them in a country that is advocating child soldiers. So are we to bring them all to our countries, and hope for the best? Rehabilitation is difficult at best, and failure could have horrific results. So in the name of doing what's right by them, how do we justify putting others in harm's way?

So believing as I do isn't something I'm totally comfortable with, but I would be less comfortable feeling differently. It's not a black and white situation, and to my way of thinking, there's no easy answer.

Khadr's case isn't as extreme as many, but that he was coerced and indoctrinated, by his own parents, isn't even disputed.

Yet his parents weren't even held accountable. His mother is living in Canada without any repercussions, while indoctrinating child soldiers is against international law.

To hold a fifteen year old in this position as being as responsible as an adult is, to me, not only wrong: it's in contravention to justice itself. It's holding the letter of the law up as MORE important than the spirit of justice which is law's genesis.

If I could forget about the victims, and potential future victims, of children who have been raised this way, it would be easy to say they can't be held accountable. But I can't. So it's not so much "holding up the letter of the law" for "the spirit of justice" as it is protecting other innocent people.

I would consider it morally criminal to hold Khadr responsible like an adult.

And I would consider it morally criminal to release someone who is a threat to others.

Legally, I'm not sure about America's culpability, because I don't know if they're signatories to the Convention. (Ethically, I definitely consider them wrong.) But Canada IS a signatory, and so therefore the PM's office, among others, are technically committing an ongoing crime as we speak.

The U.S. apparently goes with the "under 15" definition:

.....on October 3, 2008, President Bush signed the Child Soldiers Accountability Act into law. The Act “makes it a federal crime to recruit knowingly or to use soldiers under the age of 15 and permits the United States to prosecute any individual on US soil for the offense, even if the children were recruited or served as soldiers outside the United States.”

Under the law the criminalization of the recruitment and, or, use of child soldiers allows the US the ability to arrest and prosecute, as well as deny entry into the country, or to deport individuals who are engaged in such activities. link

Re: Canada -- I have to say, being a signatory of the Convention while allowing the raising of a child to be a combatant, is counterproductive at best.

Edited December 30, 2009 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

Yes, there has been, and there really hasn't been agreement even to the definition of "child soldier." Some say under 15, which wouldn't include Omar, while some say under 18. Yet at 18 they are suddenly, miraculously ready to be held accountable?

Well, of course there will be a level of arbitrariness involved, but that's 100% inescapable. There's not a single one of us in this discussion who would disagree on SOME age limit when it comes to being legally responsible.

So you seem to hold the 18 number as arbitrary and maybe even ridiculous. OK: you mention that the US has signed off for "under 15". How is that not totally arbitrary as well?

We can say "If 18, why not 15"? That's fine...but if 15, why not 14? there's no seriously demonstrable difference between 15 and 14. Or 14 and 13. And so on.

So what SHOULD be the age limit?

To complicate matters further: if we are going to hold juveniles responsible as adults, we are stating, unequivocally in fact, that one's responsibiltiies are more important than one's rights. This is in direct contravention to democratic principles in our (relatively) free societies. Our rights and responsibilities are supposed to go hand-in-hand, inextricable from one another.

That's why we have age limits on "adult responsibility" in the first place.

If 15 year olds are suddenly adults, then clearly they must be given adult rights. Voting, buying alcohol, serving in the military, and so on. (If not...why not? They're "adults" after all.)

We can't have it both ways. That's police state logic.

[g_bambino]

So you seem to hold the 18 number as arbitrary and maybe even ridiculous. OK: you mention that the US has signed off for "under 15". How is that not totally arbitrary as well?

It's not, of course. Arbitrary numbers cannot be the definers of what is and is not a child; there are those in the world today who we'd legally classify as children but who are more mature than those ten years older. Hell, my parents were in their mid-teens at the equivalent level of maturity of the average North American person in their late 20s today; i.e. finishing up school, beginning careers, and on the cusp of a life-long relationship and the beginning of their own family. So, I never buy the blubbering about how Khadr was "only" fifteen, always presented as though the statement of the obvious was some argument for how he should now be treated. He should instead be judged as a unique individual who may not have been as innocent as the stereotypical fifteen year old is made out to be.

[c/e]

Edited December 30, 2009 by g_bambino

[bloodyminded]

It's not, of course. Arbitrary numbers cannot be the definers of what is and is not a child; there are those in the world today who we'd legally classify as children but who are more mature than those ten years older. Hell, my parents were in their mid-teens at the equivalent level of maturity of the average North American person in their late 20s today; i.e. finishing up school, beginning careers, and on the cusp of a life-long relationship and the beginning of their own family. So, I never buy the blubbering about how Khadr was "only" fifteen, always presented as though the statement of the obvious was some argument for how he should now be treated. He should instead be judged as a unique individual who may not have been as innocent as the stereotypical fifteen year old is made out to be.

[c/e]

But he is not being "judged as a unique individual" in the way you are suggesting. He was arbitrarily declared an "Adult" because he committed (actually, MAY HAVE committed) an attack on American troops.

Unless you are privy to the intensive "adult psychology" testing he underwent by the Canadian government, which is magically able to determine such things...and which, for strange reasons, has been kept hidden from us.

Nope. You KNOW it was utterly arbitrary.

What are the criteria that were used to soberly assess him--magically--as an "adult"?

Also--and of course you'll agree--if by any chance he is eventually deemed innocent, he should be in a position to sue the Canadian government for repressing his "adult" rights: because, since he was an "adult" at age 15, it is unlawful for him to have been refused the right to vote, to buy alcohol, and so on. This isn't a dictatorship: you can't assign legal responsibilities, while disallowing rights.

That's the authoritarian, statist position. One of THE benchmarks of it, in fact.

Also, I ask you the question, which I always ask in these debates--and which are never answered. Ever. I trust you will break this inane cycle by answering the obvious, legitimate question...the question, in fact, that is begged by YOUR assertions here:

What IS the age limit when a person can no longer be deemed an adult. I guarantee you must have one. Everyone must.

So, for you, 15 might be acceptable, based on sober assessment (which, incidentally, DID NOT OCCUR in Arar's case, thereby shattering your argument anyway); so, is 15 the limit? Why, or why not?

There's no appreciable difference between 15 and 14, and at any rate, each case must be judged individually etc. etc.

So, 14? But then, what's the difference between 14 and 13? And 13 and 12?

And so on.

Do you have a limit...at all? 6? 3?

If so, explain your reasoning. If not, you're clinically insane.

And (by the EXACT same measure of rights/resposibilities that make up the bedrock of the justice system in all democratic countries)...why should 18 be the arbitrary age that someone may vote? Or join the military? Why not 15? why not younger?

Judge each case individually, and all that.

(oh, and one note: ypour parents were NOT at the equivalent level, at 15, as someone in their later twenties today. Pure behaviorism of this type has long been recognized to be incorrect. A 15 year old's BRAIN has not matured to its full capacity.

At any rate, it wouldn't matter anyway: a lot of things used to be done that are different today, and to a hell of a lot of them we say, rightly, "good riddance.")

Edited December 30, 2009 by bloodyminded

[eyeball]

I'm not saying that he wasn't a child soldier/combatant, so I don't have a clue as to where that's coming from. I happen to believe he was raised to be one, and he became what he was raised to be. I also happen to believe when children are raised that way, they have to be held accountable for their actions because sadly they are what they've become; and the illegality the way they were raised shouldn't give them free reign to kill.

Where is it coming from? I asked you that if Canada held Omar's parents accountable for their crime wouldn't it be a tacit admission that in principle Khadr is innocent on the basis of being a child soldier?

You said No, I don't think so. A child who committed a crime isn't automatically released from guilt; they're held accountable.

I disagree and I think the law does too. The release from guilt in the case of a child is usually automatic because they are children, especially in the case of abused child soldiers. You seem to be either deliberately or obtusely equating accountability with guilt and or refusing to see any difference between the two terms.

What you seem to be saying is that such children should be held both accountable and guilty so that parents can be deterred from exploiting children in the future. This is just plain twisted and goes far beyond simply blaming the victim. Perhaps I'm wrong but its difficult to believe you're merely misunderstanding the difference between being held guilty and accountable. Your final comment below reinforces my sense that you are actually decrying parental exploitation on one hand and then espousing a political or legal exploitation of their victims in some desperate attempt to teach someone...anyone...a lesson. Exploit your kids and we'll exploit them too? How on Earth did you come to find yourself hip deep in such a moral quagmire?

Furthermore, adults will be even more encouraged to exploit children and to force children to fight their battles for them if no one is held accountable. It's a win-win situation for them if they aren't held accountable for turning kids into child soldiers and the child soldier isn't held accountable, either.

Win win for who the parents or the kids? Held accountable or guilty? Do you feel the same way about Tibetan children who were forced to shoot their parents by Chinese soldiers? Should these kids be held accountable or guilty or both?

[eyeball]

So what SHOULD be the age limit?

How about the age at which the abuse started? We could go right back to the womb in the case of kids with FAS. Its their own damn fault for being conceived.

[bloodyminded]

How about the age at which the abuse started? We could go right back to the womb in the case of kids with FAS. Its their own damn fault for being conceived.

Hell, that's more succinct than what I've been given yet by anyone else (and roughly as reasonable.)

I find it interesting that the only person who really gets it is not of the hang 'em high brigade.

It's funny, eyeball; I've has similar discussions to this with others, and it always comes down to two crucial matters which no one will address: first, the idea that age limits on adult responsibility are bad, because each case must be judged "individually"--as if there is some wondrous device that prove Khadr and other juveniles "legally adult"; a device bizarrely concealed from public knowledge; and second (and more obviously) that everyone, virtually without exception, clearly DOES believe in SOME limit where "legal adulthood" simply cannot apply. Whether it's eleven or four. But no one will deign to explore it...even as they heap withering scorn upon the idea of any age of consent.

"18 is arbitrary," they cry, right before arbitrarily decreeing, say, 15 as the magic age.

This suggests to me that they haven't thought it through...not even on this very elementary level. Which means they should maybe stop cavalierly indicting fifteen year old "adults" in their law 'n order fantasies. If one hasn't the stomach to say "Ten! All accused are adults at age ten!" (or whatever), then one shouldn't have the stomach for thinking along such brutal (and openly statist) lines.

Edited December 30, 2009 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

The prusuit of non responsibility...A Hallmark of the irreseponsible left.

It is never the persons fault, it's someone else's...

It's not Omar's fault he's hateful scum, it's his mommy's...

It's not Mrs. Khadr's fault she raises vermin, it's her mother's fault....

It's no one's fault. Lets end the cycle of abuse by ensuring Lil Omar never enjoys the company of a woman.

[Radsickle]

The prusuit of non responsibility...A Hallmark of the irreseponsible left.

It is never the persons fault, it's someone else's...

It's not Omar's fault he's hateful scum, it's his mommy's...

It's not Mrs. Khadr's fault she raises vermin, it's her mother's fault....

It's no one's fault. Lets end the cycle of abuse by ensuring Lil Omar never enjoys the company of a woman.

The lack of proper spelling and grammatical integrity... A Hallmark of an emotional Baboon.

At this point, it's Canada's and Omar's father's fault, if we're still playing the irresponsible blame game; Omar's father for leaving him in bad company and Canada's for keeping bad company with international law breakers.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Radsickle

[M.Dancer]

At this point, it's Canada's and Omar's father's fault,

As long as it's not lil omar's fault...cause that would be, you know, expected...

we're still playing the irresponsible blame game

Not we....I am fully okay with letting lil Omar pay the price for his own decisions.

Canada's for keeping bad company with international law breakers.

Nice to know you still haven't a clue what you babble about...

[Radsickle]

Let me be Clear:

I blame Canada for not doing as she should of years ago. Both Liberal and Conservative governments have failed Omar Khadr over these years. CANADIANS have failed him. CANADIANS have failed to be what I thought them. I'm becoming much more refined in the number of fellow Canadians I like; there are far too many Babbling Baboons who think Omar deserves to have his life ruined, regardless of the facts.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Radsickle