Full Version: The curious case of the captured child combatant...
By now most Canadians are familiar with the story of Omar Khadr, but he hasn't garnered as much attention in the States. To sum up (courtesy the NY Times):
Basically Khadr was captured in Afghanistan after a battle with American forces in which he is accused of directly killing one American and injuring several others; at the tender age of 15. Ignoring the moral morass that is debating soldiers as terrorists for a moment, this particular case raises all sorts of other interesting questions.
Defenders will point out that he was indoctrinated pretty much from birth and pressed into violence before age ten, and had no chance to learn "right from wrong."
Attackers, it seems, say that he killed Americans.
Obviously I am simplifying to a great degree (and my own beliefs may be showing a bit), but the fact remains that we as a society frequently "rescue" children who are in far milder situations (think children being removed from abusive parents, religious cults, etc.) because we recognize the harm that it does to a child. Yet, when a kid is raised in an environment which is beyond comparison to these.
1. At what point does a crime become so heinous that questions of free-will and "knowing right from wrong" becomes moot?
2. Is Omar Khadr beyond redemption? Does his age warrant consideration? Why?
3. In a world where children are increasingly being exploited in violent conflicts, what sort of precedence does this prosecution set?
4. How much of the desire to prosecute Khadr stems from the fact that he killed an American?
Editted to change "worse" to "milder" above.
QUOTE
Mr. Khadr may not be the most sympathetic figure for those pressing for the more forgiving interpretation of international law. He was born in Canada to a family with such deep Al Qaeda ties that some newspapers there have called them Canada’s first family of terrorism...
The prosecutors, they say, included in their charges acts that occurred when Mr. Khadr was younger than 10. Mr. Khadr “was subject to undue adult influences,” said Muneer I. Ahmad, an associate professor at the American University Washington College of Law, who has represented Mr. Khadr.
The prosecutors, they say, included in their charges acts that occurred when Mr. Khadr was younger than 10. Mr. Khadr “was subject to undue adult influences,” said Muneer I. Ahmad, an associate professor at the American University Washington College of Law, who has represented Mr. Khadr.
Basically Khadr was captured in Afghanistan after a battle with American forces in which he is accused of directly killing one American and injuring several others; at the tender age of 15. Ignoring the moral morass that is debating soldiers as terrorists for a moment, this particular case raises all sorts of other interesting questions.
Defenders will point out that he was indoctrinated pretty much from birth and pressed into violence before age ten, and had no chance to learn "right from wrong."
Attackers, it seems, say that he killed Americans.
Obviously I am simplifying to a great degree (and my own beliefs may be showing a bit), but the fact remains that we as a society frequently "rescue" children who are in far milder situations (think children being removed from abusive parents, religious cults, etc.) because we recognize the harm that it does to a child. Yet, when a kid is raised in an environment which is beyond comparison to these.
1. At what point does a crime become so heinous that questions of free-will and "knowing right from wrong" becomes moot?
2. Is Omar Khadr beyond redemption? Does his age warrant consideration? Why?
3. In a world where children are increasingly being exploited in violent conflicts, what sort of precedence does this prosecution set?
4. How much of the desire to prosecute Khadr stems from the fact that he killed an American?
Editted to change "worse" to "milder" above.
QUOTE
1. At what point does a crime become so heinous that questions of free-will and "knowing right from wrong" becomes moot?
Well that depends on your perspective. If you believe in the teachings of Muhammed, then this child was doing holy work and has done no wrong. That he is so young means very little really. Such child soldiers have existed for ever and still do in Africa. We could explain to our bruised sensibilities that as a child he didn't know right from wrong, but in doing so we fool ourselves and deny the reality that he was doing right by his own people's code of morality.Whether or not there is a consideation of free will is almost ironic given these people explain their actions by virtue of divine obligation. Being devout Muslims, they have no free will!
QUOTE
2. Is Omar Khadr beyond redemption? Does his age warrant consideration? Why?
Our laws require that he is given redemption, or at least a chance to redeem himself but would it make a difference? Can the law impress upon him the futility of his actions and the price they have exacted on his victims? Were his actions truly with out merit or is this just our intepretation? Since we now choose to flounder in moral ambiguity, we can no longer impose our laws with the same self righteous tone they were written. What we are left with is confusion. This child is a murder, but he is also a child. How can we be confused when this sort of thing has been happening for centuries? Confusion indicates a gap in our understanding of the world. If you are old enough to commit a deliberate act of murder then you are old enough to face the consequences of your action. Leniency is a gift, not an obligation.
QUOTE
3. In a world where children are increasingly being exploited in violent conflicts, what sort of precedence does this prosecution set?
Surely that will depend on the outcome...?If the suggestion is made that this individual is too young to be tried for murder, then we can expect to see a lot more 15 year old jihadi's. Any one who doubts this is fooling themselves. We already see young Muslim teenagers raping Danish women with the full knowledge that until they pass 16, they are free from prosection. It doesn't take a genius to realise that the terrorists will exploit this to the full.
QUOTE
4. How much of the desire to prosecute Khadr stems from the fact that he killed an American?
I'm not an American and I say he is old enough to be tried for what he has done.
1. At what point does a crime become so heinous that questions of free-will and "knowing right from wrong" becomes moot?
The seriousness of a crime is not relevant to these questions. Let's imagine a very young child picking up a gun and firing it someone, resulting in death. Assume the child is so young that she has no idea that a gun can actually hurt someone; it's just a toy. Is her crime (if we can even call it that) any more deserving of legal punishment than if she had stolen a stick of gum, because she is too young to understand the idea of property? I would say not.
Therefore it is important to determine if someone is genuinely too young, or too mentally disabled, or too mentally ill, to understand the nature of her actions.
I don't think any of these things apply in this situation. Fifteen isn't that young. The undeniable fact that adherence to extreme ideologies, particularly when they are religious in nature, leads to evil and irrational behavior does not mean that those who commit such crimes are genuinely insane. One must distinguish between the fanatic (no matter how "crazy" she may seem to be) and the schizophrenic.
Those whose minds have been poisoned by irrational ideologies are to be pitied, but they are also responsible for actions taken freely which result in harm and suffering.
2. Is Omar Khadr beyond redemption? Does his age warrant consideration? Why?
Well, one must hope for redemption as a possibility for everyone, although it will not always happen. As I have said, fifteen is not that young, particularly for someone who has participated in battle of his own free will, as far as I can tell. Khadr should be treated as an enemy soldier or as an accused murderer, depending on which status is more appropriate.
3. In a world where children are increasingly being exploited in violent conflicts, what sort of precedence does this prosecution set?
Although I don't really see Khadr as a "child," it's true that there are much younger persons being used in battle, some of whom may have little idea what they are really doing. We must do the best we can to determine which young people understand their actions, and which do not. The situation is similar when young people are charged with violent crimes within their own nations. Are they responsible for their actions or not? Careful judgment is needed.
4. How much of the desire to prosecute Khadr stems from the fact that he killed an American?
Hard to say. Some, no doubt. Legally and ethically, the situation should be no different if he killed any other person in battle.
The seriousness of a crime is not relevant to these questions. Let's imagine a very young child picking up a gun and firing it someone, resulting in death. Assume the child is so young that she has no idea that a gun can actually hurt someone; it's just a toy. Is her crime (if we can even call it that) any more deserving of legal punishment than if she had stolen a stick of gum, because she is too young to understand the idea of property? I would say not.
Therefore it is important to determine if someone is genuinely too young, or too mentally disabled, or too mentally ill, to understand the nature of her actions.
I don't think any of these things apply in this situation. Fifteen isn't that young. The undeniable fact that adherence to extreme ideologies, particularly when they are religious in nature, leads to evil and irrational behavior does not mean that those who commit such crimes are genuinely insane. One must distinguish between the fanatic (no matter how "crazy" she may seem to be) and the schizophrenic.
Those whose minds have been poisoned by irrational ideologies are to be pitied, but they are also responsible for actions taken freely which result in harm and suffering.
2. Is Omar Khadr beyond redemption? Does his age warrant consideration? Why?
Well, one must hope for redemption as a possibility for everyone, although it will not always happen. As I have said, fifteen is not that young, particularly for someone who has participated in battle of his own free will, as far as I can tell. Khadr should be treated as an enemy soldier or as an accused murderer, depending on which status is more appropriate.
3. In a world where children are increasingly being exploited in violent conflicts, what sort of precedence does this prosecution set?
Although I don't really see Khadr as a "child," it's true that there are much younger persons being used in battle, some of whom may have little idea what they are really doing. We must do the best we can to determine which young people understand their actions, and which do not. The situation is similar when young people are charged with violent crimes within their own nations. Are they responsible for their actions or not? Careful judgment is needed.
4. How much of the desire to prosecute Khadr stems from the fact that he killed an American?
Hard to say. Some, no doubt. Legally and ethically, the situation should be no different if he killed any other person in battle.
I couldn't agree more with Victoria on all points above. I'm curious, UJ, how you would answer your own questions on this? If a person kills another in a combat situation, that person would generally qualify as an enemy combatant and detained until the time that hostilities are over. That would mean, in this case, until Afghanistan is not still technically a combat zone (or until he convinces the professionals his days of throwing grenades are over). If there was a case of perfidy this is a criminal offense and a trial might be warranted.
Even in the best of situations, this person cannot (certainly should not) be released unless and until we are certain he would not go back and do it again. It doesn't matter what the personal motivation for killing military forces. Canadian forces turn over lots of bad guys for punishment and/or detention in Afghanistan and I'm quite certain that many are below the age of 18. Can't have 15 year olds, or even 13 year olds throwing grenades at your forces with impunity.
Even in the best of situations, this person cannot (certainly should not) be released unless and until we are certain he would not go back and do it again. It doesn't matter what the personal motivation for killing military forces. Canadian forces turn over lots of bad guys for punishment and/or detention in Afghanistan and I'm quite certain that many are below the age of 18. Can't have 15 year olds, or even 13 year olds throwing grenades at your forces with impunity.
At what point does a crime become so heinous that questions of free-will and "knowing right from wrong" becomes moot?
The boy is an enemy combatant and needs to be jailed for the duration as a minimum. Certainly when you take up arms you “know” what you are doing. Its not “right and wrong” its army against army.
Hitler used kids down to 12 years old.
2. Is Omar Khadr beyond redemption? Does his age warrant consideration? Why?
He is an enemy combatant pain and simple to be treated as any other. In many US cities you are tried as an adult at 15 if you kill. Same here imo.
3. In a world where children are increasingly being exploited in violent conflicts, what sort of precedence does this prosecution set?
If he is not considered an adult it could cause an increase in the use of children for that reason alone. This is the reason some cities prosecute down to 14 as adults.
4. How much of the desire to prosecute Khadr stems from the fact that he killed an American?
Should be none. He is an enemy terrorist.
The boy is an enemy combatant and needs to be jailed for the duration as a minimum. Certainly when you take up arms you “know” what you are doing. Its not “right and wrong” its army against army.
Hitler used kids down to 12 years old.
2. Is Omar Khadr beyond redemption? Does his age warrant consideration? Why?
He is an enemy combatant pain and simple to be treated as any other. In many US cities you are tried as an adult at 15 if you kill. Same here imo.
3. In a world where children are increasingly being exploited in violent conflicts, what sort of precedence does this prosecution set?
If he is not considered an adult it could cause an increase in the use of children for that reason alone. This is the reason some cities prosecute down to 14 as adults.
4. How much of the desire to prosecute Khadr stems from the fact that he killed an American?
Should be none. He is an enemy terrorist.
QUOTE(Ted @ Jun 4 2007, 02:53 PM) 
The boy is an enemy combatant and needs to be jailed for the duration as a minimum. Certainly when you take up arms you “know” what you are doing. Its not “right and wrong” its army against army.
Hitler used kids down to 12 years old.
Hitler used kids down to 12 years old.
Firstly, no he didn't. The lowest age of forced recruitment into the Volkssturm was 14. Still terribly low of course, but lets try and be correct if we use historical examples, shall we? Secondly, the US and UK had a policy of dealing with underage german troops differently from their adult peers. Even SS and HJ members were teated differently, held under different laws and subject to different justice if they were underage. Your example of the second World War demonstrates the exact opposite of your assertion.
QUOTE
2. Is Omar Khadr beyond redemption? Does his age warrant consideration? Why?
Of course his age warrants consideration. Why wouldn't it? he may e beyond redemption, he may not be. The point of having a different justice system for children is that they tend to NEVER be beyond redemption before a certain age, and their actions are generally a product of environment, or as in this case, brainwashing. maybe he's misguided, maybe he's evil. But of course his age is a factor.
QUOTE
3. In a world where children are increasingly being exploited in violent conflicts, what sort of precedence does this prosecution set?
If he is not considered an adult it could cause an increase in the use of children for that reason alone. This is the reason some cities prosecute down to 14 as adults.
If he is not considered an adult it could cause an increase in the use of children for that reason alone. This is the reason some cities prosecute down to 14 as adults.
No offense, but thats just silly. Warlords send children into battle brainwashed to fight and die: do you really think these warlords will be discouraged if they find out their warrior kids might face prosecution as adults if captured? Do you really think they will care at all?
And that is the whole point. The history of child soldiers is NOT one of children going off and killing, it is one of children being brainwashed by adults to go off and kill. The kids never had a chance, they deserve a chance now.
A simple question:
If Omar the Diaper had been killed in combat, rather than captured, would we be having this conversation? No, save to villify those who have theoretically corrupted a child. Omar is now 19. For all intents, he is no more reformable than any other 19 year old. I don't think they should bother with the charges, they should simply lock him up and throw the key away for the duration.
If Omar the Diaper had been killed in combat, rather than captured, would we be having this conversation? No, save to villify those who have theoretically corrupted a child. Omar is now 19. For all intents, he is no more reformable than any other 19 year old. I don't think they should bother with the charges, they should simply lock him up and throw the key away for the duration.
Looks like they dismissed the terrorism related charges.
But, he will remained detained as a combatant. Sounds reasonable to me.
QUOTE
The judge, Army Col. Peter Brownback, said he had no choice but to throw the Khadr case out because he had been classified as an "enemy combatant" by a military panel years earlier — and not as an "alien unlawful enemy combatant."
But, he will remained detained as a combatant. Sounds reasonable to me.
It seems to me that Pigpen would strive to work with an occupying military force should some nation invade and occupy the USA over their very-real WMD stockpiles. If China invaded the US, Pigpen wouldn't throw a grenade or attack troops who shot her family down in their own home. Pigpen would try get a job with the Chinese in their downtown-Washington D.C. fortified RED ZONE.
QUOTE(TruthMarch @ Jun 6 2007, 10:59 AM)
It seems to me that Pigpen would strive to work with an occupying military force should some nation invade and occupy the USA over their very-real WMD stockpiles. If China invaded the US, Pigpen wouldn't throw a grenade or attack troops who shot her family down in their own home. Pigpen would try get a job with the Chinese in their downtown-Washington D.C. fortified RED ZONE.
If Pigpen's country were invaded, Pigpen would indeed resist. Upon capture, Pigpen would then fully expect to be detained as a combatant.
QUOTE(TruthMarch)
It seems to me that Pigpen would strive to work with an occupying military force should some nation invade and occupy the USA over their very-real WMD stockpiles. If China invaded the US, Pigpen wouldn't throw a grenade or attack troops who shot her family down in their own home. Pigpen would try get a job with the Chinese in their downtown-Washington D.C. fortified RED ZONE.
How, exactly, does this relate to a CANADIAN "CHILD" captured in Afghanistan? It doesn't, although it is a dandy ad hominem on Mrs P.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.