Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian

[bloodyminded]

Omar Khadr would fall under the protected category of the child soldier. By definition. This makes him a victim. Since Canada is a signatory to the conventions on these matters, we are legally obligated to work ON his behalf, not against him.

[M.Dancer]

Omar Khadr would fall under the protected category of the child soldier.

But he doesn't. He wasn't a soldier. At best,if his crimes were committed here, he would fall under the category as a young offender with a chrages so serious he would be tried as an adult.

By definition. This makes him a victim.

Criminals aren't victims, no matter how young.

Since Canada is a signatory to the conventions on these matters, we are legally obligated to work ON his behalf, not against him.

Let him stand in line and wait his turn.There are over 600 Canadians in US jails, most of whom are not charged with murder or attempted murder.

[bloodyminded]

But he doesn't. He wasn't a soldier. At best,if his crimes were committed here, he would fall under the category as a young offender with a chrages so serious he would be tried as an adult.

Leaving aside the draconian and morally relativist situations in which we try fifteen year olds as adults (without allowing them any of the rights or priveleges as adults...in the manner of police states, an odd thing for true conservatives to embrace...and no doubt many do not), he was caught on the battlefield; and it has been strongly suggested (by his DETRACTORS, as well as supporters) that he was indoctrinated into a violently combative lifestyle.

This makes him a protected person under the Convention of the Rights of the Child.

And yes, of COURSE he was a child soldier. You're denying he was a child soldier?

Criminals aren't victims, no matter how young.

They most certainly can be. It's not even a contestable point.

Let him stand in line and wait his turn.There are over 600 Canadians in US jails, most of whom are not charged with murder or attempted murder.

What does this have to do with anything?

Edited December 14, 2009 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

And yes, of COURSE he was a child soldier. You're denying he was a child soldier?

Absolutely.

If he was a soldier, what army was he attached to? To which government or governing body is the army apart of? Who are his superiors? What was his rank? What uniform was he wearing?

He was/is a terrorist and being so is not protected by any covenant or treaty regarding soldiers.

[M.Dancer]

Let him stand in line and wait his turn.There are over 600 Canadians in US jails, most of whom are not charged with murder or attempted murder.

What does this have to do with anything?

He is a common criminal. He deserves only common measures concerning the repariation of criminals.

[bloodyminded]

Absolutely.

If he was a soldier, what army was he attached to? To which government or governing body is the army apart of? Who are his superiors? What was his rank? What uniform was he wearing?

He was/is a terrorist and being so is not protected by any covenant or treaty regarding soldiers.

It's different for a child soldier. In fact, the term is most commonly applied to children who are kidnapped by or coerced into officially UNrecognized milita-rebel groups to fight.

Yopu take exception because you think the word "soldier" automatically implies "good," and thus wish to protect the cherished notion.

This is simple military fetishism, a sort of cultural disorder in which "the troops" become sacred and Holy and forever Just.

[M.Dancer]

It's different for a child soldier. In fact, the term is most commonly applied to children who are kidnapped by or coerced into officially UNrecognized milita-rebel groups to fight.

But that is not the case with lil omar.

Yopu take exception because you think the word "soldier" automatically implies "good," and thus wish to protect the cherished notion.

No. The convention on child soldiers is a legal contract and in this case soldier is a legally defined term. A mercenary is not a soldier...nor is a terrorist.

This is simple military fetishism, a sort of cultural disorder in which "the troops" become sacred and Holy and forever Just.

And this is just word salad.

[bloodyminded]

But that is not the case with lil omar.

No. The convention on child soldiers is a legal contract and in this case soldier is a legally defined term. A mercenary is not a soldier...nor is a terrorist.

And this is just word salad.

He is a child soldier.

But ok, you won't accept elementary truisms; and you prefer tortured legal acrobatics that allow the most powerful people on Earth to do whatever they wish, to anybody, everywhere (a jaw-droppingly obedient stance); let's look at a related issue, since it's been brought up.

If you support minors being treated, under the law, as adults, what (EXACTLY what) is the proper cut-off point? 14? 12? 6? 3?

I know, I know--at this exact point, the children-haters will always say, "3???? That's ridiculous!"

Well, I wholeheartedly agree.

But since you think 18 is inappropriate, the onus is on you to determine the proper cut-off date, when a child can no longer reasonably be considered an adult.

Further, since legal/criminal responsibilities go hand-in-hand with legal rights and priveleges (the two matters are 100% inextricable in a free society) you must then determine that all children older than this magical cut-off age are allowed all adult rights.

You can't demand adult responsibility without adult rights.

[bloodyminded]

And this is just word salad.

Not at all. Military fetishism is all too real.

For example: "Don't you support the troops?"

Political correctness.

Read Andrew Bacevich on the matter of military fetishism. It's very teling. Cowards indulge it in all the time.

Edited December 14, 2009 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

He is a child soldier.

Calling him one doesn't make him one. He was not part of any army or any militia.

A child soldier is any person under 18 years of age who is part of any kind of regular or irregular armed force or armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to cooks, porters, messengers and anyone accompanying such groups, other than family members. The definition includes girls recruited for sexual purposes and for forced marriage. It does not, therefore, only refer to a child who is carrying or has carried arms.

http://childsoldierrelief.org/2008/07/22/official-definition-of-a-child-soldier-from-cape-town-principles/

No one claims he was part of the Taliban.

But ok, you won't accept elementary truisms; and you prefer tortured legal acrobatics that allow the most powerful people on Earth to do whatever they wish, to anybody, everywhere (a jaw-droppingly obedient stance); let's look at a related issue, since it's been brought up.

You haven't posited any truisms but you emote rather well...

If you support minors being treated, under the law, as adults, what (EXACTLY what) is the proper cut-off point? 14? 12? 6? 3?]

If I do, but I haven't said I do...

I know, I know--

No you don't, no you don't

at this exact point, the children-haters will always say, "3???? That's ridiculous!"

Can you make this argument without straw?

Well, I wholeheartedly agree.

But since you think 18 is inappropriate, the onus is on you to determine the proper cut-off date, when a child can no longer reasonably be considered an adult.

Apparently you can't.

Further, since legal/criminal responsibilities go hand-in-hand with legal rights and priveleges (the two matters are 100% inextricable in a free society) you must then determine that all children older than this magical cut-off age are allowed all adult rights.

Demonstatably untrue:

What is the legal driving age?

What is the legal drinking age?

What ios the legal working age?

What is the legal voting age?

You can't demand adult responsibility without adult rights.

Tell that to the crown.

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071127004111/http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/yj/repository/3modules/05adult/3050001a.html

[bloodyminded]

Calling him one doesn't make him one. He was not part of any army or any militia.

http://childsoldierrelief.org/2008/07/22/official-definition-of-a-child-soldier-from-cape-town-principles/

Sweet Godzilla on His Throne--YOUR OWN quote here tells us that Khadr was a child soldier. Are you arguing with yourself?

If I do, but I haven't said I do...

How coy. It's a simple question. Don't be frightened to answer.

Can you make this argument without straw?

No straw at all. IO notice you refuse to offer a cut-off limit for criminally-responsible adulthood.

And that's because you've never once thought it through.

Which is astonishing: that you will lay claim to idea without even considering crucial, utterly related, totally inescapable issues surrounding that idea.

Demonstatably untrue:

What is the legal driving age?

What is the legal drinking age?

What ios the legal working age?

What is the legal voting age?

Some of these vary slightly, but here in NB:

16

19

15 (?)

18

But you're obfuscating. 18 is legal adulthood. And yes, certainly one should be able to buy alcohol if he can vote, go to federal prison, etc. You seem to be wish to take this minor injustice to a whole new draconian level.

Again I ask: at what age is a child NOT legally responsible like an adult.

EVERYONE agrees such an age must exist. So the onus is on you to stop avoiding the issue which is central to YOUR assertion.

Edited December 14, 2009 by bloodyminded

[GostHacked]

If Kadr was a child soldier, what army did he belong to?

[bloodyminded]

If Kadr was a child soldier, what army did he belong to?

I don't know why you guys insist on believing this to be a clever argument, a "gotcha" moment.

When children are kidnapped or coerced into, say, illegal, rebel, brutal militias in, say, the Congo...well, according to you, all these brutal terrorists have to do is NAME THEIR army, and then magically they are somehow legitimate, and magically their little victims can be termed "child soldiers."

But if they don't go by any recognizeable NAME, then voila! Their victims don't meet "child soldier" criteria.

Really? That's your argument? Honestly? It's kind of hard to believe you would hold such absurd ideas without thinking them through.

Edited December 14, 2009 by bloodyminded

[GostHacked]

I don't know why you guys insist on believing this to be a clever argument, a "gotcha" moment.

When children are kidnapped or coerced into, say, illegal, rebel, brutal militias in, say, the Congo...well, according to you, all these brutal terrorists have to do is NAME THEIR army, and then magically they are somehow legitimate, and magically their little victims can be termed "child soldiers."

But if they don't go by any recognizeable NAME, then voila! Their victims don't meet "child soldier" criteria.

Really? That's your argument? Honestly? It's kind of hard to believe you would hold such absurd ideas without thinking them through.

He was classified as an ILLEGAL COMBATANT. Otherwise if he did belong to a recognized standing army, he would be a POW. With branding someone with the term ILLEGAL COMBATANT, you can do away with the Geneva Convention along with basic human rights in general. This is why he is being held at GITMO indefinitely without due process being applied to him (until recently). This is where you fail to understand the implications of these classifications.

[bloodyminded]

He was classified as an ILLEGAL COMBATANT. Otherwise if he did belong to a recognized standing army, he would be a POW. With branding someone with the term ILLEGAL COMBATANT, you can do away with the Geneva Convention along with basic human rights in general. This is why he is being held at GITMO indefinitely without due process being applied to him (until recently). This is where you fail to understand the implications of these classifications.

Let's not pretend the classification "illegal combatant," entailing a total abrogation of all rights (including for a fifteen year old) is some objective standard to which all legal experts agree. We both know that's not the case.

It's a politicized maneuvre, agreed upon only by those who support the right of the most powerful nations to do as they will.

And you still haven't addressed my post (which was a response to you, after all) about how an armed group merely naming ITSELF sudenly confers legitimacy and rights upon its young soldier/victims.

Edited December 14, 2009 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

Sweet Godzilla on His Throne--YOUR OWN quote here tells us that Khadr was a child soldier. Are you arguing with yourself?

Try reading it again.

And yes, certainly one should be able to buy alcohol if he can vote,

But 18 year olds can vote but can't buy beer...so your argument fails.

Again I ask: at what age is a child NOT legally responsible like an adult.

Was the gov't link too difficult to follow?

[M.Dancer]

Let's not pretend the classification "illegal combatant," entailing a total abrogation of all rights (including for a fifteen year old) is some objective standard to which all legal experts agree. We both know that's not the case.

Not all rights...only those afforded to genuine combatants vis a vis the GC.

Lets not pretend treaties are plastic wrap that cover any and all circumstances. They are precise and definate so that thay are not abused. We wouldn't want members of street gangs claiming immunity cause they say they are "child soldiers"

[bloodyminded]

Try reading it again.

From the link you supplied:

"A child soldier is any person under 18 years of age who is part of any kind of regular or irregular armed force or armed group in any capacity"

Ye gods. It is so perfectly clear, I can't imagine what you're thinking. What's causing the confusion? Difficult concepts like "any" or "irregular" or "of any kind" or "in any capacity"?

But 18 year olds can vote but can't buy beer...so your argument fails.

No...because if an 18 year old can vote, he SHOULD be able to buy beer.

You're pointing at an unfairness, and using it to justify far, far worse unfairnesses.

Edited December 15, 2009 by bloodyminded

[Radsickle]

Sounds like Khadr might be moved to a courthouse on US soil. Hope he doesn't blow the place up!!!

Only a Baboon would think he would.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Radsickle

[jbg]

Let him stand in line and wait his turn.There are over 600 Canadians in US jails, most of whom are not charged with murder or attempted murder.

What does this have to do with anything?

Because there are people who focus on "mainstream concerns" over cooing over those that want us dead.

[Radsickle]

Because there are people who focus on "mainstream concerns" over cooing over those that want us dead.

Who's "us"? (seriously kid, you should question your assumptions about what you think is "us")

I wouldn't mind those interfering with Omar's justice dead, but I'm not gonna be so arrogant as to claim myself above the law like some of his accusers.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Radsickle

[bloodyminded]

Because there are people who focus on "mainstream concerns" over cooing over those that want us dead.

The foreign policies of the democratic nations and they way these policies affect human beings are "mainstream concerns."

Except for servile nationalists who stare with dewy-eyed awe at Power. But since such people are merely sad little jokes, we needn't concern ourselves with their drunkenly indoctrinated opinions.

Edited December 22, 2009 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

From the link you supplied:

"A child soldier is any person under 18 years of age who is part of any kind of regular or irregular armed force or armed group in any capacity"

Ye gods. It is so perfectly clear, I can't imagine what you're thinking. What's causing the confusion? Difficult concepts like "any" or "irregular" or "of any kind" or "in any capacity"?

Ingrish hard?

Irregular means guerilla...never the less, under international law guerillas or Irregulars still must abide by certain codes of conduct to be covered. Otherwise any 14 year old gangbanger would claim they are immune from prosecution cause they are child soldiers.

No...because if an 18 year old can vote, he SHOULD be able to buy beer.

You're pointing at an unfairness, and using it to justify far, far worse unfairnesses.

You sound like my 5 year old who shout that it is unfair that he has to go to bed at 8 PM. Whether you think it is unfair has little bearing on the fact.

[bloodyminded]

Ingrish hard?

Irregular means guerilla...never the less, under international law guerillas or Irregulars still must abide by certain codes of conduct to be covered. Otherwise any 14 year old gangbanger would claim they are immune from prosecution cause they are child soldiers.

Actually, English is difficult for you--that you insist upon your own illiteracy is surpising.

Let's get past your selective quoting, and look at the last part of it--that is, of the link YOU helpfully provided:

while you concentrate on "irregular armed group", you ignore the immediately subsequent qualification: "or armed group in ANY capacity."

Why is this so difficult for you?

You sound like my 5 year old who shout that it is unfair that he has to go to bed at 8 PM. Whether you think it is unfair has little bearing on the fact.

Sure, fairness and justice are trivial matters best left for children: not for big, strong, sober-minded, pantywaisted servile little nationalists.

Edited December 22, 2009 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

Let's get past your selective quoting, and look at the last part of it--that is, of the link YOU helpfully provided

Why did you highlight the words if you acknowledge they don't apply?

while you concentrate on "irregular armed group", you ignore the immediately subsequent qualification: "or armed group in ANY capacity."

Why is this so difficult for you?

Because Al qaeda is not an armed group by that definition. Would you say that the Mafia is an armed group. Think hard before you respond.

Sure, fairness and justice are trivial matters best left for children: not for big, strong, sober-minded, pantywaisted servile little nationalists.

I take it from that emotional outburst you realize that facts are not made from your wishes.