U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-13-2013, 01:09 PM
 
10,357 posts, read 7,989,798 times
Reputation: 4547

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubblejumper View Post
To save you from writing any further irrelevant rants, I'll repost the last couple of lines from the first post of mine.



To add a little: The entire premise of my argument over those two posts was that Khadr was not a child soldier and that it's possible for a child to waive certain rights, at least in a practical sense. As noted above, I specifically stated that his treatment in Guantanamo was not justified.

Nothing you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote.

You've quoted my posts but who, exactly, are you arguing with?

That's your opinion that a child soldier waives certain rights, that's not the case under international law, as far as I know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-13-2013, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Lethbridge, AB
1,132 posts, read 1,655,075 times
Reputation: 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
That's your opinion that a child soldier waives certain rights, that's not the case under international law, as far as I know.
The convention on the rights of a child allows for youths aged 15-18 to enter into military service, voluntarily, though the state cannot conscript them and it must make feasible efforts to keep them out of combat.

Since they can enter into military service they cannot keep all of their rights under the convention - it would be impossible for a 16 year old to join the army and keep the right to avoid corporal punishment, freedom of expression and rights to parental care, for example.

To expand on that, the convention allows for youth volunteers to act in roles supporting the fighting forces during a conflict. It is again, not feasible to expect parental care while a 16 year old is, for example, transporting munitions to the front lines of a conflict.

By voluntarily joining the military - which is, by definition, an adult organization, they're expecting to be treated like adults and there is no provision that enemy forces treat them differently than adult soldiers captured (which are, of course, subject to the Geneva Conventions).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 01:40 PM
 
Location: Canada
5,692 posts, read 6,545,845 times
Reputation: 8193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubblejumper View Post
The convention on the rights of a child allows for youths aged 15-18 to enter into military service, voluntarily, though the state cannot conscript them and it must make feasible efforts to keep them out of combat.

Since they can enter into military service they cannot keep all of their rights under the convention - it would be impossible for a 16 year old to join the army and keep the right to avoid corporal punishment, freedom of expression and rights to parental care, for example.

To expand on that, the convention allows for youth volunteers to act in roles supporting the fighting forces during a conflict. It is again, not feasible to expect parental care while a 16 year old is, for example, transporting munitions to the front lines of a conflict.

By voluntarily joining the military - which is, by definition, an adult organization, they're expecting to be treated like adults and there is no provision that enemy forces treat them differently than adult soldiers captured (which are, of course, subject to the Geneva Conventions).

The problem is that the US wants to redefine its responsibilities under the Geneva Convention, much in the same way as it by passed the rights granted criminals under its own constitution by bringing the prisoners to Guantanamo in the first place. The United States and the Geneva Conventions - Council on Foreign Relations
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Lethbridge, AB
1,132 posts, read 1,655,075 times
Reputation: 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwit View Post
The problem is that the US wants to redefine its responsibilities under the Geneva Convention, much in the same way as it by passed the rights granted criminals under its own constitution by bringing the prisoners to Guantanamo in the first place. The United States and the Geneva Conventions - Council on Foreign Relations
I just want people to stop calling him a child soldier and to treat him as they would an adult. I'm not suggesting that Guantanamo Bay, nor the treatment prisoners receive there is appropriate nor lawful.

There's two separate arguments going on here. I think it's worth separating his actions up until his capture and his treatment after his capture. Some here are wanting to absolve him of blame entirely, and I don't think that's correct. Others are willing to overlook his treatment post-capture in light of his actions and I don't think that's correct, either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 02:32 PM
 
1,723 posts, read 5,144,921 times
Reputation: 1351
Stubblejumper, your argument is so ludicrous as to be almost unworthy of rebuttal. However, I'll take a quick stab. Are you trying to argue that somehow the Taliban/AlQaeda/Whatever Terrorist Organization is a signatory to the convention and therefore a valid military force which a child 16 years of age or older can voluntarily join? And that therefore, Omar Khadr was a member of the military force of a signatory state and therefore the rest of the convention does not apply to him? If that is what you are implying, you are very, very mistaken.

And to jambo - 9/11 was a false flag operation, don't post pictures of the twin towers thinking it will justify any incursions into foreign war.

Oh, even if it was really undertaken by SAUDI nationals as claimed, why would an attack on Afghanistan be justified by that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Lethbridge, AB
1,132 posts, read 1,655,075 times
Reputation: 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarp View Post
Stubblejumper, your argument is so ludicrous as to be almost unworthy of rebuttal. However, I'll take a quick stab. Are you trying to argue that somehow the Taliban/AlQaeda/Whatever Terrorist Organization is a signatory to the convention and therefore a valid military force which a child 16 years of age or older can voluntarily join? And that therefore, Omar Khadr was a member of the military force of a signatory state and therefore the rest of the convention does not apply to him? If that is what you are implying, you are very, very mistaken.
The point, and perhaps I haven't made it clearly enough, is that by voluntarily engaging in military action, a youth is waiving their right to non-conscription and avoidance of combat duty. They're also waiving, in practice, other rights that are covered in the convention, but that cannot be feasibly fulfilled.

Further to that, I wanted to make it clear that the US had no obligation to treat him differently than any other captured militia - that the convention dealt solely with the treatment of a nation's own children.

I would also appreciate if you would address my initial criticism (post #73, first paragraph).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 03:26 PM
 
10,357 posts, read 7,989,798 times
Reputation: 4547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubblejumper View Post
I just want people to stop calling him a child soldier and to treat him as they would an adult. I'm not suggesting that Guantanamo Bay, nor the treatment prisoners receive there is appropriate nor lawful.

There's two separate arguments going on here. I think it's worth separating his actions up until his capture and his treatment after his capture. Some here are wanting to absolve him of blame entirely, and I don't think that's correct. Others are willing to overlook his treatment post-capture in light of his actions and I don't think that's correct, either.
But he was a child. Whether or not he was a soldier is debatable.

The details of the case are far from clear. First of all, the soldier that Omar Kadhr allegedly killed was killed with a U.S.-made grenade, so some have argued that it was death from "friendly fire." Secondly, Omar was severely wounded during the U.S. attack, and everyone except two other people were all killed. Upon finding Omar and another person, the Americans shot one Afghan individual in the head, and shot Omar twice in the back. You can see his wounds here.

http://freeomarakhadr.com/about/

The whole incident seems highly questionable, and he was found guilty by a Military Court staffed 100 % with American military---what hope would he have had for a fair trial? He was also severely tortured into confession, and Joshua Claus, the person who tortured him has testified as to this.

In the following article, you can read the opinion of a psychiatrist who interviewed Omar for hundreds of hours.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/op...hem.html?_r=2&
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 03:35 PM
 
10,357 posts, read 7,989,798 times
Reputation: 4547
What bothers me about the Omar Khadr case, aside from the inhumanity of the way he has been treated, is how the Canadian government sucks up to the U.S. government instead of standing up for Canadians.

It's the same issue with the internet surveillance. There is no doubt that Canadians are being scrutinized by the National Security Agency every bit as much as Americans, if not more. It is spying, clear and simple. The U.K. is already taking on this issue and insisting on more answers from the Americans. Is Canada going to do that? Probably not, since Canada is America's lapdog.

And the way that data on Canadians is going to be freely provided to the U.S. whenever they cross the border (as described in the link below), as well as departures being recorded, is outlandish. What's next, exit visas?

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/btb-pdf/e...appun-eng.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Lethbridge, AB
1,132 posts, read 1,655,075 times
Reputation: 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
But he was a child. Whether or not he was a soldier is debatable.
Your New York Times article suggests that he was on the premises in the role of a translator for other militants. I think that would qualify as acting in supporting role.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Canada
5,692 posts, read 6,545,845 times
Reputation: 8193
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
What bothers me about the Omar Khadr case, aside from the inhumanity of the way he has been treated, is how the Canadian government sucks up to the U.S. government instead of standing up for Canadians.

It's the same issue with the internet surveillance. There is no doubt that Canadians are being scrutinized by the National Security Agency every bit as much as Americans, if not more. It is spying, clear and simple. The U.K. is already taking on this issue and insisting on more answers from the Americans. Is Canada going to do that? Probably not, since Canada is America's lapdog.

And the way that data on Canadians is going to be freely provided to the U.S. whenever they cross the border (as described in the link below), as well as departures being recorded, is outlandish. What's next, exit visas?

Entry/Exit Information System Phase I Joint Canada-United States Report

Exactly so.

Stubblejumper, with regards to Kadr being a "voluntary" soldier - this is my problem - kids will do pretty darned near anything their parents tell them to do. Kids are by definition indoctrinated by their parents' beliefs. He was not old enough to make a choice on his own - kids go where their parents go.

And secondly, I am not clear on whether Kadr even knew the Americans had invaded at that time or that Canada had joined in the fight. Does anyone know that?

And thirdly, I'd be hard-pressed to put faith in a government eager to spread "freedom and democracy," who then circumvents the right to a fair trial guaranteed by their own constitution by sending prisoners to Guantanamo.

But mostly I am bothered by the failure of the Canadian government to speak up on behalf of a Canadian citizen, regardless of age. When one starts making exceptions, as in deciding that this kid is too bad for us, we're down a slippery path where everyone's rights can be suspended in a similar way. I believe there was at least one case that was well publicised where a Canadian citizen was turned over to the Americans, who in turn turned him over to some other government for torture and the Harper government turned its back on him as well, and there was no evidence he had ever done anything wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top