|
Post by Skilly on Mar 23, 2008 22:33:24 GMT -5
If the U.S. is right, where is the outcry that all the world's child soldiers are going unpunished at all the world's tribunals except this one? [/i][/quote] If this author, (and others) are right, then where is the proof that they are not acting on their own accord and that they are "frightened, brainwashed, or acting against their own better judgement". Where is the proof that they do not know right from wrong and should not have "mass murder killings" held against them for the rest of their lives. (Talking not just about Khadr here, so lets not limit this to just his case). The Young Offenders Act was instituted because legally young kids can not know the consequences of their actions, and they shouldn't be held against them for the rest of their lives. Are you telling me. that these kids that are "recruited" do not know right from wrong? Do not know that attaching a bomb to themselves and killing innocent people is wrong? Any association with this is wrong? Al-Quaida knows our answer to this.... yes, they will protect these young kids and they will be out in 4-5 yrs serving our cause again. So they get like-minded youths (not brainwashed IMO, these kids are only to happy to help their hero) and know that if they die, they died for the cause, and if they are captured, oh well, see you in 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 23, 2008 22:41:09 GMT -5
I totally disagree with this statement. Al-Qaeda's recruitment of child soldiers is immoral, and abusive, ... but it is also calculated. They know if they are caught over here that we will do nothing to them. Our Young Offenders Act is way too lenient. We let children hide behind it, just because of age ... alot of "youths" know exactly what they are doing, and do exactly what they planned on without remorse. To me, these should be tried as adults. The problem is that we do not have a proper "evaluation technique" to seperate the ones who the Act was actually written for from the calculating devients who laugh at the act - unless we delve into the psycho mumbo-jumbo which in the hands of most people is more art than science. The response comes straight from the article: the U.S. stretches the point: "If anything, the Protocol obligates the United States to prosecute Khadr" because not punishing Mr. Khadr would "further incentivize" al-Qaeda in recruiting young people.
If the U.S. is right, where is the outcry that all the world's child soldiers are going unpunished at all the world's tribunals except this one?Also, I fail to see the link here. The US wants to keep Khadr and punish him to act as a deterent, and to possible hurt Al-Quaida's recruitment of child soldiers..... rightly or wrongly I can follow the logic there. But what does that have to do with "the outcry about the world's child soldiers going unpunished"? It would be nice of the author to give us a list of all these child soldiers, their crime, the possible sentence, and how the host country is handling it in relation to Khadr.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 24, 2008 0:10:01 GMT -5
It would be nice of the author to give us a list of all these child soldiers, their crime, the possible sentence, and how the host country is handling it in relation to Khadr. Did you read the article? It gives examples of situations where child soldiers were not held accountable. I think the general idea is that child soldiers should be reintegrated with society (whether this is possible for Khadr, I don't know, but as the article points out, his brother has seemingly abandoned terrorism). The link is that, if it makes sense to hold Khadr accountable, then it would make sense to hold child soldiers anywhere accountable. Why is it that society seems to generally accept the view that child soldiers are victims, but in this specific case, not only are we comfortable with holding Khadr accountable for his upbringing, we are comfortable with him apparently being framed and very possibly mistreated. His trial does not meet any standards of fairness, and the US government has said they may not release him even if he is found innocent. I suspect that if Khadr had fought for any cause other than Al Qaeda, people would view him very differently.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 24, 2008 15:33:36 GMT -5
I suspect that if Khadr had fought for any cause other than Al Qaeda, people would view him very differently. A more correct statement would be: If Khadr had been arrested for any other reason than being a terrorist who is a known friend of Osama Bin Laden. There is a world of difference there. (That whole aiding and abetting a known fugitive)
|
|