I will reproduce your arguments here, in different order:
1) "In that case, it was pointless for you to quote the protocol at me, complete with bolding, as if it was an argument against what I was saying. Child prisoners are entitled to the protections of the Convention on the Rights of the Child."
It depends on the context and what is meant by "child prisoner". If we are talking about a child that was forced into the military, went through forced military training and was forced into combat, then both the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Protocol on Child Soldiers apply - as in the case of Omar Khadr. The Protocol on Child Soldiers addresses the issue by banning the practice of child soldiers - child soldiers (legally and morally) ought not to exist - ergo, children who have been abused in this way that have been liberated from their captors (i.e., their 'commanders') ought not to be further incarcerated and punished.
2) "That is to say that their status as children entitles them to be treated better than adult prisoners."
Does the Convention on the Rights of the Child word it this way? If we take away the "child" status, there is still something shared by the child and adult soldier: Their inalienable universal human rights. To a) categorize them as "illegal enemy combatants", say they have no rights and torture them and to b) say, "We are not committing acts of torture, at least not according to our legal definition of torture", is a gross violation of international law. Such cases should be thrown out of court and the detainees should be freed and repatriated or sent to a safe country that is willing to take them: Such was the case of Mohammed Jawad. Don't take this personally, but no defense legal team worth their salt would phrase their arguments in the wording "child prisoners are entitled to be treated better than adult prisoners" and "child prisoners ought to be mandated special treatment". Children in the context of Afghanistan ought not to have been incarcerated and tortured in the first place. The fact that they have causes a natural reaction of greater moral outrage (sense of injustice) in the public at large and warrants (more) severe penalties against the authorities responsible, under the law.
3) "I have made those arguments elsewhere, and it would be thread drift to repeat them here."
I am not asking you to repeat them here. I am merely asking you the courtesy of pointing me in the direction of where you made them.
4) "None of which has to do with getting Omar Khadr out of Guantanamo."
If all we have done concerning the plight of Omar Khadr is post on babble, "None of which has to do with getting Omar Khadr out of Guantanamo." In other words, we can post all we like on babble about Omar Khadr, but unless we do something that will have an impact on Khadr's situation, we aren't going to help Mr. Khadr one bit. Isn't that so, my friend?
5) "You seem to be pretty good at touting the 'mission' in Afghanistan as well as the prosecution's case against Omar Khadr. Did you work in the PR department of the Canadian Forces, by any chance?"
In a word, "No". Who I am and the style of intellectual discourse (argument, if you like) I take is the result of my life experiences. I was a soldier for roughly 14 years. The ancient Chinese philosopher warrior Sun Tzu wrote: "Know thy enemy. Know thyself." I was the "enemy". I know how "they" think. I also have a degree in Philosophy. In intellectual discourse, one takes one's opponent's arguments and make them as strong as possible, then destroy them using reason, logic and/or fact: You "set" the arguments "up" (then show their contradictions and fallacies) then beat them down as the "strawmen" they are. In this manner, you can show that your opponent's greatest strength is actually their greatest weakness, so to speak.
Have you ever asked yourself the question why, in a George Orwellian "1984" fashion, Harper wants to ban the use of the term "child soldier" in all federal government communications? There is a logical pattern to his thinking here: We are not fighting a war in Afghanistan. Since we are not fighting a war in Afghanistan, we have no soldier Prisoners of War (PoWs), child or otherwise: Omar Khadr is a not child soldier not incarcerated because he was not detained and not tourtured in the not Afghan war we are not fighting. We have 127 not Canadian soldiers not killed because we are not fighting. What is going on in Afghanistan is a not action. It is a not war, it is a "mission" (a not war).
The truth Harper knows is that if we admit this truth to ourselves, there will be a revolution today and Harper and the Conservatives will be out on their asses in the not unemployment or as we call it the "Employment Insurance" line.
This is what Harper is afraid of and it scares the hell out of him.
When I read this move on the part of Harper, I smelled "blood" and that is why I am going for the "jugular" on the child soldier issue.
Let me show you the One's Opponent's Strength is Their Greatest Weakness theory in action:
6) "It does, however, give another great excuse for Canada's 'mission' in Afghanistan. Not only are we there to liberate Afghan women, but we are also there to liberate child soldiers from their evil Taliban commanders!"
That is the narrative/spin/propaganda/fantasy of the government.
Here is the reality:
Outside of RAWA, have you ever heard the Canadian government, military and mainstream media discuss at length the issue of child soldiers in Afghanistan?
How many of you have forgotten this story? It's been buried by the government, the Canadian military and the mainstream media, hasn't it?
Shortly after the last Afghan Report delivered by MP Stockwell Day to the Canadian media, Prime Minister Harper stated "We are making real measurable progress in Afghanistan."
Here's an idea: Why don't we e-mail the PMO, Stockwell Day's office or a related and relevant office in the federal government and ask for empirical evidence that proves exactly what kind of "real measurable progress" we are making in Afghanistan concerning women or any other area of interest? Or did someone already beat me to this idea?