Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian

[DogOnPorch]

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.

The Khadrs are fifth column enemies of Canada that their supporters insist are just normal hockey loving citizens. If there was a war on, I'd have them arrested. Oh wait...

[M.Dancer]

Let me be Clear:

Try scientology then...

I blame Canada for not doing as she should of years ago.

Pre-emptive actions guided by psychic advisors isn't within the federal mandate.

Both Liberal and Conservative governments have failed Omar Khadr over these years.

Of course...just as much as they have failed you, yet, so far you haven't buggered off to parts unknown to murder anyone, that we know of...

CANADIANS have failed to be what I thought them.

You poor poor thing....maybe you should see if you can get a finacial settlement...

There are far too many Babbling Baboons.

You sure like that insult...

[Radsickle]

I didn't say it meant nothing; I said it didn't really tell me anything. Two very different things.

Usually, a sentence conveys meaning... `tells' the reader something. Why do you tell us Khadr was shooting at Americans even after reading the sentence "He was found unarmed"? What part of "bang bang" don't you get? Oh, he threw the gun away~! eh!? Still Guilty!?

You try to re-direct the conversation to something non-related, as far as a citizen's rights are concerned. Are you trying to Prorogue the thread and form a committee about current parenting practices in Canada? So Canadians don't start thinking about the monsters they're becoming?

[Radsickle]

The Khadrs are fifth column enemies of Canada that their supporters insist are just normal hockey loving citizens. If there was a war on, I'd have them arrested. Oh wait...

Could you explain `fifth column' for us normal people?

Nevermind: A fifth column is a group of people who clandestinely undermine a larger group, such as a nation, from within, to the aid of an external enemy.

Yes, we should be suspicious of them and externalize them and alienate them and...

Be afraid. Be very afraid! There's a war on! The enemy is everywhere!

woof woof

Edited December 31, 2009 by Radsickle

[Oleg Bach]

How in heavens name can you trust a former administration that destroyed one of the oldest cultures on earth with a ruse? Weapons of mass destruction? Saddam propogated that idea because he wanted to bluff the Iranians. America must have known that..and if not then their leadership is inept. The fact that the Americans hired a bunch of thugs to tear the head off the body of Saddam under the guise of some sort of democratic judicalship is also quiet distrubing. Now the facts are coming out that Khadr probably did not do a damned thing other than hang out with his lunitic father a little too long. BUT when you have a corporate elite that beieve a war is like a hostile merger and seek to wage it without having the experence is disasterous. Removing the best American commanders is very Stalin like...If Stalin was in charge of this mess..would we trust him when it comes to making an example out of what was once a mere stupid boy?

[bush_cheney2004]

...If Stalin was in charge of this mess..would we trust him when it comes to making an example out of what was once a mere stupid boy?

Yes...we already trusted Stalin to do exactly that, and helped him to do it.

[DogOnPorch]

Oleg: Saddam propogated that idea because he wanted to bluff the Iranians.

So much so Saddam actually used those WMDs during the Iran-Iraq War to underline the bluff.

Radsickle: Could you explain `fifth column' for us normal people?

Nevermind: A fifth column is a group of people who clandestinely undermine a larger group, such as a nation, from within, to the aid of an external enemy.

Yes, we should be suspicious of them and externalize them and alienate them and...

Be afraid. Be very afraid! There's a war on! The enemy is everywhere!

woof woof

There is a war on last I checked. Yup...it's still on. Someone I knew even died in it today. She was killed by a roadside bomb. The same sort Omar is seen building. So go join your pal.

[bloodyminded]

Try scientology then...

Well, since Scientology as is a conservative sect, I don't think Radsickle would fit in. You might look into it, though. It's more amenable to right-wing thought.

Come to think of it, so is radical Islamism.....

Of course...just as much as they have failed you, yet, so far you haven't buggered off to parts unknown to murder anyone, that we know of...

Ah...so we know that Omar murdered someone? Why was the trial that adjudged him guilty kept secret from us?

[Guest American Woman]

Usually, a sentence conveys meaning... `tells' the reader something. Why do you tell us Khadr was shooting at Americans even after reading the sentence "He was found unarmed"? What part of "bang bang" don't you get?

I never said he was shooting at Americans. I've said he deserves a trial and I've said I believe he should be held accountable for his actions. I've said he was found in a gunfight with Americans, and he was. I've said he was raised to be a child soldier/combatant, and he was. As for being found unarmed, I don't know if that's true. The press has said many things. As for his being found unarmed, if it is true, it still doesn't really tell me anything regarding whether or not he was shooting earlier. Also, if he did throw the grenade, he was hardly "unarmed."

You try to re-direct the conversation to something non-related, as far as a citizen's rights are concerned. Are you trying to Prorogue the thread and form a committee about current parenting practices in Canada? So Canadians don't start thinking about the monsters they're becoming?

What I raised is a serious issue, and it's very much related.

[Guest American Woman]

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?

It is all arbitrary, that's my point.

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?

According to the U.S., under 15. Since Khadr was picked up by U.S. soldiers, I don't think we're going to see Khadr being treated differently because of his age.

But he was raised at a younger age to be a soldier/combatant, so that's why I put him in the category of being raised as a child soldier/combatant, and think his parents should have been held accountable for their part in it.

To complicate matters further: if we are going to hold juveniles responsible as adults, we are stating, unequivocally in fact, that one's responsibilities 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.

But we do have it "both ways" in many instances. One can drive at 16, but can't get married until 18. Unless they have parental permission, then they can. One can vote at 18, but can't drink until 21 in the States. One has to be 18 to join the military in the U.S., unless they have parental permission to join at 17. Apparently "children" can join the military in Canada:

Thinking of joining the Army Team?

You have to :

* be a Canadian citizen

* be at least 17 years old (16 years old to apply to the Reserves, with parents permission)

So 17 year olds, under age 18 defined as child soldiers by some and for voting/drinking/marriage rights in Canada, can join the military; and 16 year olds can even apply to the Reserves with parental permission.

So there are many times juveniles are treated as "adults," and not just in criminal cases.

Edited December 31, 2009 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

It is all arbitrary, that's my point.

According to the U.S., under 15. Since Khadr was picked up by U.S. soldiers, I don't think we're going to see Khadr being treated differently because of his age.

But you were OBJECTING to the arbitrary nature of 18; while you are NOT objecting to the arbitrary nature of 15.

Why?

But we do have it "both ways" in many instances. One can drive at 16, but can't get married until 18. Unless they have parental permission, then they can. One can vote at 18, but can't drink until 21 in the States. One has to be 18 to join the military in the U.S., unless they have parental permission to join at 17. Apparently "children" can join the military in Canada:

Thinking of joining the Army Team?

You have to :

* be a Canadian citizen

* be at least 17 years old (16 years old to apply to the Reserves, with parents permission)

So 17 year olds, under age 18 defined as child soldiers by some and for voting/drinking/marriage rights in Canada, can join the military; and 16 year olds can even apply to the Reserves with parental permission.

So there are many times juveniles are treated as "adults," and not just in criminal cases.

But you're pointing out the occasionally arbitrary nature of rights, and applying that to the arbitrary nature of a person being held criminally responsible.

But ok, let's leave this aside for a second, because I note you haven't answered my question.

I asked you WHY, if "under 15" was ok, why shouldn't it be "under 14" or "under 13"?

Your answer was to say, basically, that because that's the way it is.

First, you OBJECT to the arbitrariness..unless it's good and young, evidently.

And second, you have not answered the question--which is central. It is everything:

What IS the age limit....when a child will no longer be considered an adult?

If you SUPPORT the government's decision...you must be able to explain it. If not, you are merely bowing your head to powerful men. Nothing more.

(I'm frankly amazed that everyone who is ok with this sort of draconianism REFUSES to answer the questions DEMANDED by their own stance.)

1. What is it, exactly, about "under 15" that is acceptable?

Why?

2. If under 15...why not under 14? There's no appreciable difference. If 15 is responsible, so is 14.

So...why not?

3. If under 14, why not under 13?

You see? You DO have some age restriction on this matter...at some point. I can safely speak this about you, because it is incontestable fact.

But you refuse to go there. You won't examine the actual consequences of your defense of the government's actions.

Edited December 31, 2009 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

The age of criminal responsibility and the age of majority are two completely different things with no good reason to be linked. In other words just because you are too young to vote has no bearing on whether you are too young to spend time in C block. Whether someone at 16 can drive, or at 18, 19 or 21 drink liquor is irrelevent. Driving, drinking and breaking the law are not rights.

[bloodyminded]

The age of criminal responsibility and the age of majority are two completely different things with no good reason to be linked. In other words just because you are too young to vote has no bearing on whether you are too young to spend time in C block. Whether someone at 16 can drive, or at 18, 19 or 21 drink liquor is irrelevent. Driving, drinking and breaking the law are not rights.

Ok...for the fourth or fifth time:

If anyone supporting the "15-year-old adult" thesis cannot offer an age in which absolutely the person will not be deemed an "adult"--and explain WHY they came to this conclusion--then that person has no business offerring opinions on matters which they refuse (presumably out of fear of "losing" a debate) to examine and to think through.

So, Go: what's the proper age; and why?

Edited December 31, 2009 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

But you were OBJECTING to the arbitrary nature of 18; while you are NOT objecting to the arbitrary nature of 15.

Why?

I'm not "accepting" or "rejecting" either; I'm simply pointing out that anyone who accepts this age or that age is doing so arbitrarily. But more importantly, I've pointed out that there are exceptions made to these ages. If any soldier under 18 is considered a child soldier by the Conventions that you say Canada signed, wouldn't that make Canada guilty of the very thing it's against?

... I note you haven't answered my question.

I asked you WHY, if "under 15" was ok, why shouldn't it be "under 14" or "under 13"?

Your answer was to say, basically, that because that's the way it is.

Let's throw your question back at you. Why are you objecting to the arbitrary age of 15 but not 18? Why do you accept 18 as the age one becomes responsible for their actions?

First, you OBJECT to the arbitrariness..unless it's good and young, evidently.

And second, you have not answered the question--which is central. It is everything:

What IS the age limit....when a child will no longer be considered an adult?

It's not written in stone. That's what I'm pointing out to you. There are instances when 'juveniles' are given adult status by the privileges they're being granted.

Why do you object to Omar being held accountable, at 15, when Canada will allow a 16 year old to join the reserves with parental permission? Evidently Omar had 'parental permission' to be where he was. Do you object to that? What about a 17 year old being able to join the military in Canada without parental permission? That's "under 18," which is the guidelines that UNICEF has for "child soldier." What is the age that Canada agreed to when it signed the Conventions you referred to earlier?

If you SUPPORT the government's decision...you must be able to explain it. If not, you are merely bowing your head to powerful men. Nothing more.

Right back at you. I've seen no explanation from you, other than 'we can't have it both ways, if 15 year olds are to be treated as adults in criminal cases, then they need to be treated as adults in others,' and I've shown you that there are instances when they are treated as adults in other areas.

(I'm frankly amazed that everyone who is ok with this sort of draconianism REFUSES to answer the questions DEMANDED by their own stance.)

No matter what one's stance is, they have just as much an obligation so answer the questions DEMANDED by their own stance. That obligation doesn't apply to just one side.

You see? You DO have some age restriction on this matter...at some point. I can safely speak this about you, because it is incontestable fact.

But you refuse to go there. You won't examine the actual consequences of your defense of the government's actions.

I've explained my position quite clearly, as to why I think Omar should be held accountable for his actions. It's not simply this or simply that. I've gone on at length to explain my views and I've clearly stated that it's not 'black or white,' and that's why I think age, which is arbitrarily chosen, doesn't in and of itself make a situation black or white; and I've clearly illustrated that according to our nations' actions, it's not.

Edited December 31, 2009 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

If any soldier under 18 is considered a child soldier by the Conventions that you say Canada signed, wouldn't that make Canada guilty of the very thing it's against?

You might want to read the treaty and the parameters of canadian military enlistment before making anymore stupid comments along these lines.

[M.Dancer]

So, Go: what's the proper age; and why?

Proper age for what?

[bloodyminded]

I'm not "accepting" or "rejecting" either; I'm simply pointing out that anyone who accepts this age or that age is doing so arbitrarily. But more importantly, I've pointed out that there are exceptions made to these ages. If any soldier under 18 is considered a child soldier by the Conventions that you say Canada signed, wouldn't that make Canada guilty of the very thing it's against?

Sure...but why do you belabour ther point, which I continually dismiss, that I"m speaking out of some sort of patriotic defense of Canada's actions? I'm not. (Though all the defenses of US actions are exactly that.)

If you think I"m being somehow defensive about Canada, then frankly you aren't reading my posts. Hell, this, for me, has been mostly ABOUT Canada's poor behavior.

Let's throw your question back at you. Why are you objecting to the arbitrary age of 15 but not 18? Why do you accept 18 as the age one becomes responsible for their actions?

Because at 18, certain emotional immaturities aside, a person is physically an adult; and "physically" includes the pysiognomy of the brain.

Because I rasied three children, and had a household always filled with children, and it is very, very clear that 15 and 18 are separated by a massive gulf.

Because I could ground my 15 year olds, or otherwise discipline them, or reward them, as a way to teach them behavior that none of us truly expect to be wholly adult at 15.

What about a 17 year old being able to join the military in Canada without parental permission? That's "under 18," which is the guidelines that UNICEF has for "child soldier." What is the age that Canada agreed to when it signed the Conventions you referred to earlier?

Again, you're mistaking my views for Canada'sa hypocrisy?

Why do you suppose that official Canadian hypocrisy should be an argument against anything I've said? It's a continual refrain, and I'm just not understanding it.

Right back at you. I've seen no explanation from you, other than 'we can't have it both ways, if 15 year olds are to be treated as adults in criminal cases, then they need to be treated as adults in others,' and I've shown you that there are instances when they are treated as adults in other areas.

No you haven't. You have noted a couple of variations as apply to 17 and 16 year olds. Not 15. It again begs the question: where does it end? What IS the cut-off? 16, then, according to the examples you laid out? But 16 isn't 15.

You DO have one, AW...a cut-off point, where one could NEVER be considered an adult. Somewhere...you really do. But you refuse to state it. Why?

No matter what one's stance is, they have just as much an obligation so answer the questions DEMANDED by their own stance. That obligation doesn't apply to just one side.

I could turn it around and ask you, why 18? Why not 19? Why not 17? Why not 20? Why not 16? Etc. I haven't seen you "go there."

Well, I mistakenly thought the differences between 15 and 18 obvious; but since they weren't, I expanded a little on it above.

And I agree with you about the arbitrariness: but it's LESS arbitrary between 18 and 19, compared to 18 and 15.

That's obvious enough, I hope. It's a big difference.

But I note you have still refused to do so yourself, even as you "turn it around and ask [me]". But now that I've made the attempt, perhaps you'd be gracious enough to explain your own reasoning on a 15 year old adult?

And--I'll ask yet again (since it's unequivocally related): why not 14? 13? etc?

I've explained my position quite clearly, as to why I think Omar should be held accountable for his actions. It's not simply this or simply that. I've gone on at length to explain my views and I've clearly stated that it's not 'black or white,' and that's why I think age, which is arbitrarily chosen, doesn't in and of itself make a situation black or white; and I've clearly illustrated that according to our nations' actions, it's not.

But our nation's actions are not templates for what's right or just. I would hope that's understood as a truism.

And if there is no black and white on the issue of adult respoinsibility, then you must agree there are five year olds who should be punished as adults for crimes.

If not...why not?

There IS a "black and white"--and you agree with this. You just flat-out refuse to state where it is.

Edited December 31, 2009 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

What about a 17 year old being able to join the military in Canada without parental permission? That's "under 18," which is the guidelines that UNICEF has for "child soldier." What is the age that Canada agreed to when it signed the Conventions you referred to earlier?

If you think I"m being somehow defensive about Canada, then frankly you aren't reading my posts. Hell, this, for me, has been mostly ABOUT Canada's poor behavior.

I love it when two people, clueless on the topic, debate the finer points

[bloodyminded]

Proper age for what?

Since I've asked the question several times, you haven't been reading my posts--which means you are clueless when you said that I am clueless about the topic. By definition, you can't know. Ok; like I said, I'm amused by debating with little bullies.

But ok, one more time:

When is your cut-off age...when can we decide NEVER to treat a child as a legal adult?

You do have an age limit, whether you know it or not; you just haven't thought it through.

Which is remarkable, since you're willing to offer opinions on a subject of which you have refused to examine the logic and the consequences.

But now's your chance:

At what age can we decide a child simply cannot be treated as an adult;

And why that age? Why not a little bit younger?

You must have some reasoning on the matter.

(Also, I admit I find it kind of funny that you, of all people, are calling American Woman "clueless." She and I disagree on several matters, but she's a sharp thinker with an interesting take, unlike...some other posters.)

Edited December 31, 2009 by bloodyminded

[ironstone]

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.

Remember what JFK said many years ago?"Ask not what your country can do for you,but what you can do for your country?"

In my mind,I put most of the blame for Omar Khadr with his family.Most decent minded Canadians do not share their vile views on Western society,Canada bends over backwards perhaps more than any other country in the world for newcomers.Name one positive thing the Khadr family contributes to this country?

[Wilber]

I don't think of Khadr or his family as being Canadian in any way, shape or form. There's no more of the "Canadian" in them than your average Mumbai hotel clerk

Couldn't agree more. Your average Mumbai hotel clerk would likely be very happy to be a Canadian.

[jbg]

I don't think of Khadr or his family as being Canadian in any way, shape or form. There's no more of the "Canadian" in them than your average Mumbai hotel clerk

Do you think perhaps the Khadrs got sick of hoping for a Toronto Mapleleaf Stanley Cup and gave up on Canada?

[g_bambino]

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.

Obviously, I believe he should be tried as an individual; we all should be. As such, his physical age isn't important; it's his level of maturity and responsibility at the time he supposedly carried out his crime that matters. 15, 18, 92, they're just random numbers that have little meaning when separated from the unique experiences of each person.

[Guest American Woman]

Sure...but why do you belabour ther point, which I continually dismiss, that I"m speaking out of some sort of patriotic defense of Canada's actions? I'm not. (Though all the defenses of US actions are exactly that.)

If you think I"m being somehow defensive about Canada, then frankly you aren't reading my posts. Hell, this, for me, has been mostly ABOUT Canada's poor behavior.

I don't think you're speaking out of patriotic defense of Canada. I think we are both speaking of Canada simply because of Canada's ties to this issue. You brought Canada up here:

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.

So I've been making comments in regards to that.

Because at 18, certain emotional immaturities aside, a person is physically an adult; and "physically" includes the pysiognomy of the brain.

Actually, one's brain isn't fully developed until age 25.

Because I rasied three children, and had a household always filled with children, and it is very, very clear that 15 and 18 are separated by a massive gulf.

There's actually a large gulf between an 18 year old and a 21 year old, too. That's my point.

Because I could ground my 15 year olds, or otherwise discipline them, or reward them, as a way to teach them behavior that none of us truly expect to be wholly adult at 15.

Yet you hold your 15 year olds responsible for their actions. You discipline them. And I've been saying right along that Omar should be held responsible for his actions.

You DO have one, AW...a cut-off point, where one could NEVER be considered an adult. Somewhere...you really do. But you refuse to state it. Why?

I don't have a "cut off point." I've said it's not a black-and-white issue and I've pointed out situations/examples where the age factor varies in different cases/scenarios.

But I note you have still refused to do so yourself, even as you "turn it around and ask [me]". But now that I've made the attempt, perhaps you'd be gracious enough to explain your own reasoning on a 15 year old adult?

And--I'll ask yet again (since it's unequivocally related): why not 14? 13? etc?

Again, I haven't "refused" to do so; I just don't see it as a black-and-white issue. I don't think there is one specific age that one can say 'ok, this arbitrarily chosen age applies to everyone in every situation.' Furthermore, I've not so much said that Omar is a 15 year old adult as I've said that he should be held accountable for his actions, whatever a court of law finds them to be. I don't think being a juvenile means one should 'get away with murder.'

And if there is no black and white on the issue of adult respoinsibility, then you must agree there are five year olds who should be punished as adults for crimes.

Five year olds don't generally commit adult crimes. I don't see a five year old as capable of being in the situation Omar was in.

If not...why not?

There IS a "black and white"--and you agree with this. You just flat-out refuse to state where it is.

No, I don't agree that there is a black-and-white age that should apply to everyone in every situation. 'At 18 one is always morally responsible, at 17 and 11 months they never are' is a line of thought I can't agree with, no matter what the age is.

Edited January 2, 2010 by American Woman

[Radsickle]

There is a war on last I checked. Yup...it's still on. Someone I knew even died in it today. She was killed by a roadside bomb. The same sort Omar is seen building. So go join your pal.

I politely waited till the recent, tragic casualties were brought back here but now, I must say, this is one of the reasons I'm disliking more and more Canadians lately; their willingness to use this war's deaths to stoke their own hateful biases, melodramatic emotions, divisive anger, and tears.

Sorry for your sorrow but...

`Go join my "Pal"'? This attempt to instill guilt in me over my opinion about the specific case of Omar Khadr during the mourning of some of Canada's best is devious, mischievous, deceitful and shameful -- a typical, discussion-ending tactic of Harper's immature thugs but I thought you were a better dog...

Name one positive thing the Khadr family contributes to this country?

I'll name three: Children, taxes, and an important learning experience for a young, imperfect country.