The U.S. military is finally moving along with the case against Omar Khadr (one of Canada’s children). He is a suspected al-Qaida soldier captured in Afghanistan who stands accused of tossing a hand grenade and killing a medic with the U.S. Special Forces. There has been much lobbying and sympathy on Omar Khadr’s behalf - typical example from Rolling Stone magazine:
He was a child of jihad, a teenage soldier in bin Laden’s army. Captured on the battlefield when he was only fifteen, he has been held at Guantanamo Bay for the past four years — subjected to unspeakable abuse sanctioned by the president himself
Our Canadian media has pretty much followed suit with the poor little boy defense. I’ve asked before - What if Omar Khadr was captured by Canadian soldiers and charged with murdering a Canadian?
::
I’m not the only one thinking this - The Last Amazon:
I think the Canadian government should apply for special prosecutor status and arraign the little snot-nosed pooh-shoveling piece of pestilence with a separate charge of treason. It was just a twist of circumstance he didn’t kill a Canadian combat medic rather than one of our allies’ combat medics. Once he’s up on the dock for treason, we can work our way through the Canadian criminal code. And if convicted, let the sentence start when the US sentence ends.
Treason isn’t it?
This entry was posted by Darcey on Tuesday, April 24th, 2007 at 2:58 pm in terrorism. Feel free to leave me a message about this post below.
3 in the pocket to “Canadian terror suspect charged with murder”
Richard Romano Says:
April 24th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
That’s the left for you–they condone any behaviour that is against American power and imperialism.
I hope they string him up high!
Lanny Says:
April 24th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
If anybody caught an interview with Khadr’s mother and sister where they justified the 9/11 attack, they might get a clue. The whole family backs Bin Laden, as far as I could tell. I heard he was charged and cheered.
Doug Says:
April 24th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I guess the fact that all the “abuse” he received at the hands of the evil Bushitler is considered “unspeakeable” relieves Rolling Stone of any need to actually give examples.
Couldn’t he be both? One is a nationality, one is an ideology. I’m appalled by the boy’s alleged crime (murder of an American soldier by grenade) and by the lack of due process. The secret prisons of Guantanamo Bay have done damage to America’s standing in the international community that is going to take a long, long time to undo. It’s too bad.
Taliban and Al-Queda are not recognized as soldiers but as enemy combatants, thus the Geneva Convention or such does not apply to them
They can be imprisoned indefinitely and be tortured
I have no doubt that the US is following the rules/laws to the letter, maybe not the spirit though
When the British were executing/torturing prisoners during the War Of Independence, Washington ordered that such be not done to the British. This was a good PR move and won International support
While crimes were committed by US personnel during wars, nobody made it policy, except maybe for Cheney
The terrorist was not in uniform and not a member of a recognized state.
He was a terrorist who was caught on a battlefield engaging in killing Coalition Soldiers - in this case US Soldiers.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]The terrorist was not in uniform and not a member of a recognized state.
He was a terrorist who was caught on a battlefield engaging in killing Coalition Soldiers - in this case US Soldiers.
He’s no more soldier than gun totting white supremacist nutbars are soldiers.
It’s guys like this who give going overseas and undergoing brainwashing and guerrilla training a bad name.[/quote]Correction: It’s guys like this who give child soldiers a bad name. Save that unlike most child soldiers, he was still in the company and under the authority of his father.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]“Child soldiers” have a good name?
Good grief![/quote]Not that I know of. This is one reason why it’s all bad.
I’m curious, TC. You’ve got a boy who’s not so much younger than this poor schmuck was when his father dragged him off to Afghanistan. Just for the sake of argument, if you were foolish enough to do something similar, and your boy – seeing you wounded, helpless, and in harm’s way – acted to protect his father, how much responsibility do you think he should bear for the consequences? Seriously.
[quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]“Child soldiers” have a good name?
Good grief![/quote]Not that I know of. This is one reason why it’s all bad.
I’m curious, TC. You’ve got a boy who’s not so much younger than this poor schmuck was when his father dragged him off to Afghanistan. Just for the sake of argument, if you were foolish enough to do something similar, and your boy – seeing you wounded, helpless, and in harm’s way – acted to protect his father, how much responsibility do you think he should bear for the consequences? Seriously.[/quote]
What if the father had only one ball and he was trying to make his son a man in a metrosexual world and simply overcompensated??
Seriously TC, do you have only one ball?
btw, playing “what if” questions with posters and their IRL children is lame.
What if it were YOUR kid jaboney and your grandson?
My testicles are the topic here. And neither are ridiculous hypothetical questions.
The terr was caught on the battlefield while lobbing grenades at Coalition Forces…and killing US Soldiers.
He darn lucky to still be alive.
Any mention of how much weight he gained? How his studies are progressing now that he’s not been under the radical Mohammedan Death Cult?
How about his health care while at Club Gitmo?
Heck…ship him back to Canada and let them make a ‘Hero of The North Country’ out of him.
Why lame? Make it real, bring it home, focus your faculties and get serious.
A child of that age, in most everyday circumstances, is probably mature enough to be responsible for his most of his actions. For serious criminal actions undertaken on his own, probably not; that’s recognized in most jurisdictions.
Is a child of that age, under the direct supervision of his father, responsible for most of his actions? No, I don’t believe so.
If I were foolish enough – or unlucky enough – to place my self and child in harm’s way, I expect (hope) the child would act to protect me without thinking too much about the political situation (because he would just my judgment in having chosen our ground). In essence, he would be acting at my direction, would not be a free agent, and responsibility would fall to me.
