I fear it will. The will of the people seems to be for complacency.

Helplessness and Defeat are not roommates I am comfortable with, but they are moving in nonetheless. Brought their redrawn maps of the world and put them on the walls, turned back the calendar, kicked the cat. These two, they throw out the recycling on purpose, laugh when they do so. No rules in this household, though it always seems I am breaking one. Thing is, the rules change all the time, and I never know which ones apply to me. These two watch FOX news and cheer, take my civil liberties and compassion for humanity off my shelves and throw them on the floor; jump all over them in their jackboots. I tried to leave but they told me I can’t….get used to us, they said, this is NOW, Baby. WE are your future. And they climb into bed with me and even though I put the pillow over my head they talk and talk and jabber on at me until I am exhausted. Until I finally agree with them, just so they will put out the light and let me sleep.

With logic like that, Omar Khadr hasn’t got a hope in hell. Any faint hope I had that Canada would not bend to emotion but would look at the facts–a 15 yr old Canadian citizen charged with War Crimes; a charter, federal law and a signed UN convention that absolutely states we (Canada) do not condone this action against a child–is gone. Human rights, civil liberties are gone. Facts are meaningless. What matters is who vents their emotion the strongest. And you can damn well bet it won’t be children, the poor, mentally ill, disabled. Their voices are lost.

Well, until you’ve actually experienced exactly what they’ve done to Khadr, I wouldn’t be soooo quick to judge. It would depend on how long he had to endure it.

And by the way, your whole paragraph is basically a strawman argument, an argument based on a presumptive fallacy. That sleep deprivation isn’t that bad, hence not considered torture and besides his family are terrorists.

Again, drop the didactic stance. I know it’s hard, but it’s seems most of your arguments are either ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments or pure hyperbole based on your “opinion”. Great tactic.

Or did he at all?
That’s exactly the issue. Did he or didn’t he? In your original comment # 14 you make it quite clear that Omar did infact “initiate the attack” and throw the grenade that took the life of the American medic.
You talk about it as if you were there in person and witnessed what happened first hand.
The fact of the matter is that no one knows exactly what went down on that day. The only people who know for sure are those that were there and some of those people are dead. Even those who were present on that day have given conflicting accounts of exactly what occurred. So at the end of the day no one knows for sure.
It doesn’t matter how many rhetoric laced comments you leave, how many sources you link and how many Geneva Convention tidbits you quote.
Omar was 15 when he was captured and has been held (without direct evidence) in a prison where he has most likely been tortured (both mentally and physically) for a supposed act that he may or may not have even committed.
In my mind, there is something wrong with that.

Bubba, ad hominem? Really?

Ad Hominem:
.–adjective
1. appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.

So you were saying…

Now, your ““strawman”? do you even know what that means” is certainly along those lines. Ironic isn’t it?

“in terms of being a relevant analogy. its an analogy”

Yes, but not relevant. That was the point.

“first words to his captors being “just kill me now”-translation: I fought my jihad and now I want my virgins”..by the way, does anyone else think it a little risky to disavow oneself of all charges because hes a “child soldier”? ”

Um, how is it you pretend to know Omar Khadr’s thought’s upon capture, let alone that what you’ve been told he said is even true? No “translation needed, thank you. I’ll wait for hom to actually clarify what he intended.

Disavow? where did I write that? Or anyone else for that matter? You certainly have a bad habit of assuming things and then going on rhetorical rants about the things you assume.

“how would your bleeding hearts…” More inflammatory rhetoric. This is getting exhausting.

and finally:
“rest of us are just being emotional about this.”
no, but you certainly are..”

Um, nice try Bubba, but that device doesn’t work very well here. No emotion attached or intended. Please, if you can, cite where the “emotion come into play on my part?

Matt, I usually won’t engage trolls looking to pick fights, but sometimes the rhetoric and hyperbole needs to be called.
By chance have you ever read “Gorgias” by Plato? It’s Socrates arguing the merits, or lack thereof, of rhetoric with Gorgias. Worth the read.

“2. States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in hostilities.

3. States Parties shall refrain from recruiting any person who has not attained the age of 15 years into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of 15 years but who have not attained the age of 18 years, States Parties shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.

Additional Protocol II (applicable in non-international armed conflicts) is similar. Article 4(3)(c) states:

********* “children who have not attained the age of 15 years shall neither be recruited in the armed forces or groups nor allowed to take part in hostilities.”‘*************

So initially, the age cutoff was 15, which makes Khadr’s case debatable(according to the Geneva Conventions). HOWEVER, while this supports my initial argument I do recognize that the age increased from 15 to 18 with “The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict” adopted by the UN General Assembly on 25 May 2000.

Its main provisions:

Article 1:

State Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that members of their armed forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do not take a direct part in hostilities.

Article 3:

1. States Parties shall raise the minimum age in years for the voluntary recruitment of persons into their national armed forces from that set out in Article 38(3) the Convention on the Rights of the Child, taking account of the principles contained in that article and recognize that under the Convention persons under 18 are entitled to special protection.

2. Each State Party shall deposit a binding declaration upon ratification of or accession to this Protocol which sets forth the minimum age at which it will permit voluntary recruitment into its national armed forces and a description of the safeguards that it has adopted to ensure that such recruitment is not forced or coerced.

3. States Parties which permit voluntary recruitment into their national armed forces under the age of 18 shall maintain safeguards to ensure, as a minimum, that:

- such recruitment is genuinely voluntary;

- such recruitment is done with the informed consent of the person’s parents or legal guardians;

- such persons are fully informed of the duties involved in such military service, and

- such persons provide reliable proof of age prior to acceptance into national military service.

..note at the end no absolute ban on child soldiers, and conditions that recruitment of child soldiers by countries who allow the practice must make sure such recruitment is *voluntary* and with the informed consent of the parents.

Look, the language of the law is nebulous. I’m not saying you all are wrong because I think its clear the intention is to ban child soldiers. But I think its important to note that there is NO absolute ban on child soldiers, and no explicit abrogation of the rights and responsibilities of the child soldiers who choose to fight.

which begs the question, did Omar Khadr willingly pick up an AK and hand grenades, or was he forced to? and if the former, what should the consequences be?

If you believe that Khadr shouldn’t be afforded rights and should be tried by a wholly bias US military tribunal, then say as much. If you believe that international law regarding child soldiers applies to other 15 year olds, just not Khadr, then say as much. It’s that simple really.[/quote]

Well stated. There have been so many diversions from the issue at hand–people’s values, emotions, beliefs, etc.–that I have not yet heard a well-stated argument as to why Canada should contravene the charter and international conventions we have signed and agreed to in this case. That’s the thing with rights and civil liberties–they are there to ensure that emotions and biases do not cause unfair treatment for some of our citizens. If we would throw out this child’s rights then which ones are we willing to throw out next? And who gets to decide?

Regarding Khadr, the argument has nothing to do with whether he was identifiable as a soldier. Are child soldiers in Africa in uniform? If one, at the age of 15, shoots a soldier, are they suddenly placed beyond being classified as a child soldier? This is simply a case of popularization because an American was killed and because the boy’s family obviously indoctrinated him. It is also a case that exemplifies how the United States has chosen to completely disregard all standards and practices in the post 9/11 world and can get away with it because there is no one that is able to seriously challenge them.

If you believe that Khadr shouldn’t be afforded rights and should be tried by a wholly bias US military tribunal, then say as much. If you believe that international law regarding child soldiers applies to other 15 year olds, just not Khadr, then say as much. It’s that simple really.

As for what he has endured at Guantanamo, what can be produced at a tribunal that can be substantiated? Even sleep deprivation can be denied. And even if it is admitted to, then what is to say that worse did not occur? According to those that have been released, worse did occur at the camp. In fact, even members of the FBI have claimed as much in written complaints to their own director. But ultimately all of that is beside the point because of the convolution of the process itself. Omar Khadr is not being tried so much as he is being judged. All that truly remains to be seen is what that judgment will render.

I agree that the 4th geneva convention is a bit ambiguous. but this is deliberate and there is a good reason for this. you can’t expect every palestinian to suit up, when international law recognizes the illegality of israel’s occupation. with iraq, I deem it a legitimate resistance, because it was an illegal war. therefore I have more sympathy for the resistance than I do for the soldiers. afghanistan is unlike both these cases(in that it was sanctoned by the international ommunity and abided by jus ad bellum[just cause] war norms), therefore the soldiers of that conflict are held to the normal standard(of having to distinguish themselves). the “uniforms/insignias” rule exists to protect civilians. but remember that besides American incompetence, a big reason for civilian casualties is that the taliban doesnt distinguish themselves in terms of appearance. soldiers having to wear uniforms is expressly required to protect civilians. it doesn’t matter if you can’t afford or don’t have the time to make uniforms. hell, you can fight without them, but then you also have to realize theres a disincentive to do so. you don’t mortgage all your rights, but you certainly dont get the same ones a regular POW does.

but heres the relevant issue which thus far has been lacking from the discussion: has khadr been tortured? if so, I ABSOLUTELY agree that canada should attempt to bring him to canada to face treason charges, possibly mitigated by the fact of his age. in no way should the case be thrown out because hes a “child.” but has he been tortured? if you believe his lawyers, who seem to throw around every claim imaginable and hope it sticks(the friendly fire theory being especially ridiculous), then yes, he has been. but really, is mild sleep deprivation torture? I sure as hell don’t think so. in a proper interrogation(his father was an alqaeda financier and his brothers are both terrorists, one of which in jail), it is one of the more effective methods, which actually work, unlike torture which is the deliberate infliction of pain. might he have been tortured? possibly, given the US’ track record. but I’m unconvinced and I don’t think its fair to assume that he was tortured automatically because such atrocities have occurred in the past. if mild sleep deprivation isn’t torture, you have to admit the allegations saying so are specious at best.

Now as to the didactic tone of your entry, you can drop the “smarter than thou” approach. What your saying, being that Afghanistan didn’t have a national army in 2001, is that the citizens of Afghanistan had no right to try to repel the invading force of their homeland based on the fact they didn’t have coordinating outfits and ranks? Just sit and let it happen would be your approach?
Again, lacking in logic and reason, and reeking of rhetoric.

Second, that isn’t a relevant analogy. Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Afghanistan didn’t. Canada is a democratic nation, Afghanistan is and was not. Fuck, we have running water, Afghanistan….. Since when does defending oneself in a war zone from an invading force constitute a federal crime or a crime at all? Where in the Geneva Convention does it mention this? Page numbers would be appreciated.

“a 15 year old is fully capable of knowing right from wrong”
Really? Then why are 15 year olds classified as CHILD SOLDIERS under the Geneva Convention? You can’t cherry pick the parts you like and ignore the ones you don’t.
Period.

“khadr and his militant peers were not defending themselves. they initiated the attack”

Um, hate to burst your big ideologue bubble here, but they were under attack, by AN INVADING FORCE of their sovereign homeland.
As to Khadr “being the only one alive” again, enough with the cherry-picking. There are several witnesses, all US servicemen that contradict this statement. Careful with the absolutes friend. Your inner-idealogue is showing and the rhetoric your spewing is a little heavy handed.
And finally finally who is it that determined Khadr was an “unlawful combatant” again?
The Geneva Convention determines Khadr as a POW. Unlawful enemy combatant doesn’t apply, nor is it mentioned.
Funny that.

As to the final statement, again your didactic posturing is nauseating. Yes, you’re the only one here that has applied any form of critical thinking to the subject matter, the rest of us are just being emotional about this. Chomsky’s irrelavant to the subject matter, but it was a nice attempt at starting a strawman argument Bubba.[/quote]

where do i start?
where did I say this blog is “media”? actually, technically it is media but the context of my statement refers to the sources of most of the posters information: the mainstream media. I’ll not belabor this point, its upon each individual to decide for themselves how seriously they take the MSM. all i’ll say is a humble recommendation that everyone use a diversity of sources of information(including referring to relevant geneva conventions and laws of war, and of course, ignoring far right blogs and other such propaganda boxes)

its “you’re”, not your. there is an important grammatical distinction.

“smarter than thou”? settle down, friend, just trying to have a civilized discussion, and offer a dissenting point of view from whats fashionable. “bubba”? that’s just ad hominem.. “strawman”? do you even know what that means?

but I digress. I’ll not pick up my flamethrower, you win that by a long shot. let me try to address a couple of your serious claims:
in terms of being a relevant analogy. its an analogy. but the point is that at a certain point, certain crimes lead to certain charges and consequences. “im just a kid” doesn’t cut it in a lot of cases. re child soldiers, this is a debatable point. compare khadr with ishmael beah and there are differences. I seem to recall khadrs first words to his captors being “just kill me now”-translation: I fought my jihad and now I want my virgins”..by the way, does anyone else think it a little risky to disavow oneself of all charges because hes a “child soldier”? why don’t we let him out so he “can get his revenge”? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/60minutes/main3516048.shtml

and khadr is a Canadian citizen. in terms of jurisdiction, that’s debatable. but since khadr killed(allegedly) an American citizen, I’m not entirely uncomfortable with American jurisdiction on this one. should he be in guantanamo? personally id say no, but he being an alqaeda/taliban jihadi(allegedly of course!), I won’t lose too much sleep over it.
should he be shipped to canada to face treason charges? how would your bleeding hearts feel about him facing even more serious charges?

“Yes, you’re the only one here that has applied any form of critical thinking to the subject matter, the rest of us are just being emotional about this.”
no, but you certainly are..

That is exactly the point; he was NOT a MAN…he was a CHILD, as defined by Canada, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, The UN Paris Principles, of which Canada is a signator. As a CHILD and a CANADIAN CITIZEN, we have an obligation to intervene. We cannot choose WHICH children or Canadian citizens are more deserving of the rights we claim to hold as fundamental. Every other point–his innocence/guilt, his family, your feelings on terrorism, religion, etc. detract from the only real issue, which is: as a child and a Canadian citizen, why is it that our government is not choosing to intervene?

What was his reaction during the firefight(as he is said to have been there, but not done what he is accused of). Did he seem scared? Even just a little bit. If anything this is not just a case of him being evil, but more of a case of sychological harm.

And given his youth, and the horrid treatment he is facing, that doesn’t help.

I also love my(US) governments thoughts on international law. Which seems to be only comply with it or recognize it when it is too your advantage. Not just with this, but with Saddam and the chemical weapons attacks in the Iran-Iraq war. Where was the minds of our right winged white house that when in power always claims to be so great with national security? They also claim to be great morally as well but I can’t see why they’d think that.

I am not saying I support any acts of terror, but if we are allowed to do this, then why is it so much worse that they do these horrific things on the other side?

Perhaps some facts are in order.They were attacked by an invading force.You mean the the coalition forces invited into Afghanistan by the democratically elected govt? They (Messrs.Khadr and co.) were Taliban, and most found in that compound were not from Afghanistan, including Khadr.Canada is his “sovereign homeland’

One of the men closest to the action, a special forces sgt. (who lost an eye..) states that there was no other one in the compound who could have thrown the grenade, as all except Khadr were dead or otherwise incapacitated.

As far as the Genevea conventions go, If you are not recognized by them, i.e., fighting in uniform with national insignia, you are considered a non-uniformed enemy combatant.As such, you are not afforded any protection under the convention and in fact can be shot out of hand for your partisan actions.It is only through the goodwill of those on the ground that night that this man is even alive.He caused the death of one of two medics , and just as easily as not bled out and died.

For the poster that thinks that somehow, medics are not with fighting soldiers, and are kept somewhere behind the lines till needed, i am afraid you are sadly mistaken.

In saying all of this, i have a few questions of my own.Why do i see most of the poster’s here expressing concern for this man? This person, if he had the chance, would destroy everything that you hold dear as a Canadian.Where is the sympathy for the soldier he killed, or his family? Or the countless Afghans who suffered greatly under Khadr’s compatriots? What special place does this bad seed from our land hold in the hearts of many of you here? Is it because he ’stuck it to the man’ in Afghanistan? Is it that you hold your anti-Americanism in higher regard than your capability to call a spade a spade?

As a former soldier who has seen many conflicts and much tragedy, i find your allegiance to this man somewhat questionable.He turned his back on our society, after being given a very good head start in life.Perhaps if you want to hold some one accountable for the poor dear, you should look no furthur than his parents.If the Canadian govt( under the Liberals) had not obtained the release of his terrorist father from Pakistan, and deported his Al-queda connected family, we would not be talking about this.

Instead, we get to hear the opinion, lovingly lapped up by the MSM, of his mother and sister, two avowed Anti-western Muslim bigots.Day after day.Is this what you want?

If we do bring him home, what then? Will i hear some of you mewling that we should let him walk the streets freely? I would love to hear from some of the posters here, if this is what they feel should be done with this man If he comes to Canada, would you support him being charged with treason? Or jailed for the rest of his life? I for one, do not want to see him walking the streets of our land, or living anywhere near me.

We all make decisions in life..thankfully, some of his family have made the right one’s and have turned their backs on extremism. Sadly, Khadr will never join their ranks, and must be kept away from our society, the one his family and he chose to hate..

How many years did it take our government to exonerate Steven Truscot and pay him 6.5 million in compensation…..

Send your emails, we can do it again in the near future for someone else. Voices unheard.

And when he is finally released the ruling body will take credit, disregarding all those lonely voices that pleaded for justice.

Peace.[/quote]

So, again, I ask–in all humility, helplessness and sincerity–WHAT CAN/SHOULD WE DO??

I remember learning about the Second World War and the Holocaust and thinking, as a young idealist, that if WE (my generation) were around at that time, we would never have allowed this to happen….what’s wrong with our parents/grandparents/etc. that they allowed this? Hmph, we would have done something different…

So, now I am at a loss. What do I/we do? What will our children/grandchildren say about us, or more frighteningly (?) ask us…..?