I just heard this morning's Current on CBC and they were reporting on the banning of the term "child soldier" in Foreign Affairs.
This just as they take they start their Supreme Court challenge.
FA people are clashing with the Con staffers as they issue orders to stop using the term.
Hopefully the staffers tell their Conservascum overlords to blow it out their asses.
Child soldiers are a vile truth of the 21st century. Banning terms will not make it go away!
They have been a vile truth of every century for the past several millennia.
Undeniably, one would only have hoped that by now we wouldn't be banning the word in the hope it goes away.
It's not being banned in the hope it goes away. Harper doesn't give a shit about child soldiers.
He's trying to pretend they don't exist, and that there are no [url=http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc-conflict.htm]international conventions[/url] on how civilized nations will deal with child soldiers, to which [url=http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11-... has been a signatory since 2000[/url].
It isn't just the term "child soldier" but also includes the terms "gender equality" and humanitarian laws".
Perhaps even as much of a concern is the gag on ambassadors and the "editing" of releases, including altering facts.
Canadians sick of them enough yet? Apparently not.
The only Canadian in the US torture camp in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba is one Omar Khadr. Khadr was a child soldier when he was arrested by the US stormtroopers in Afghanistan some 7 years ago now. One way to avoid the embarrassment of doing nothing about a Canadian minor/child soldier in such a Yanqui torture camp is simply to deny that such things as child soldiers exist at all.
http://embassymag.ca/page/view/tories_elected_foreign_policy-8-5-2009
According to our Mr. Cannon,
"We've been elected to govern the country and the government of Canada
puts forward, sets forward its objectives, its policy objectives as it
does in any other department. And it is up to the departments to
execute the policies that the Canadian population supported and
acknowledged by putting this government in place. And that is exactly
what we are doing."
This change in wording is to reflect a change in Canada's Foreign Policy.
Who Knew?
NDP Foreign Affairs critic, Paul Dewer seems to be the only voice of opposition. Not that I've heard it until now. So where are the Liberals on this? I find this alarming, horrifying ... so many implications.
They think a minority government gives them the right to change Canadian foreign policy?
I forgot to add that by banning the words "child soldier" from the vocabulary of Foreign Affairs, the government of Canada is saved the additional unpleasant task of explaining why they are doing nothing about the torture of minors and children in Guantanamo, in Afghanistan, in Israel, and in the many other places where the Empire has contracted out such activities.
Yes, the government has saved itself many unpleasantries. However, they may have to stick their fingers in their ears to avoid hearing the screams, etc..
They think a minority government gives them the right to change Canadian foreign policy?
Yup. And apparently it does. No parliament required. No publicity required. All you have to do is get elected to change foreign policy. So it says in the Embassy magazine articles.
I forgot to add that by banning the words "child soldier" from the vocabulary of Foreign Affairs, the government of Canada is saved the additional unpleasant task of explaining why they are doing nothing about the torture of minors and children in Guantanamo, in Afghanistan, in Israel, and in the many other places where the Empire has contracted out such activities.
Yes, the government has saved itself many unpleasantries. However, they may have to stick their fingers in their ears to avoid hearing the screams, etc..
I think these changes have a lot to do with Israel - crimes against humanity etc.
As far as sticking their fingers in their ears, remember Igantieff, during Israel's massacre of Lebanonese civilians, "didn't lose any sleep over it". Cons won't hear a thing.
The only Canadian in the US torture camp in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba is one Omar Khadr. Khadr was a child soldier when he was arrested by the US stormtroopers in Afghanistan some 7 years ago now. One way to avoid the embarrassment of doing nothing about a Canadian minor/child soldier in such a Yanqui torture camp is simply to deny that such things as child soldiers exist at all.
Let's be clear about one thing: There are no special rights attached to prisoners who are child soldiers that are not also attached to prisoners who are simply children.
Calling Omar Khadr a "child soldier" does nothing more to enhance his claim to special treatment than calling him a "child". That applies both in law and in public perception.
The only Canadian in the US torture camp in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba is one Omar Khadr. Khadr was a child soldier when he was arrested by the US stormtroopers in Afghanistan some 7 years ago now. One way to avoid the embarrassment of doing nothing about a Canadian minor/child soldier in such a Yanqui torture camp is simply to deny that such things as child soldiers exist at all.
It is a George Bush/Dick Cheney/John Yoo move to narrow the interpretation of national laws in an attempt to make it look like they are not violating international laws.
You should go to the thread "Bring Omar Khadr home and set him free! Part 2". You might also find the DVD documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side" interesting.
I think these changes have a lot to do with Israel - crimes against humanity etc.
[/quote]
I wondered how long it would take before Israel got blamed for this.
What are saying Jaku? Do you think that Israel has not been inciting war in the ME and not conducting travesies against Palestinian children?
Let's be clear about one thing: There are no special rights attached to prisoners who are child soldiers that are not also attached to prisoners who are simply children.
[/quote]
The rights associated with inmates in juvenile detention centers are matters determined by national laws and are one class of prisoner. Inmates who are child soldiers are another class of prisoner. There are international laws, agreements and protocols to which Canada and the U.S.A. are signatories that oulaw the abuse of children as soldiers ("child soldiers").
Because Omar Khadr was detained at age 15 first at Bagram and then GTMO, he was a child soldier and his detention was in contravention to international law. On this basis alone, Omar Khadr should never have been detained and sent to GTMO, period.
I think the fact that Omar Khadr was a child soldier does have an effect on Canadian public perception of the case: When people are informed of this fact, then asked whether Khadr should remain in GTMO - it separates people who have human moral values from those who are cold hearted fascist bastards who will still support the Harper administration, believe that Khadr is a terrorist and deserves continued imprisonment and that Canada is/was more secure because of his imprisonment.
The rights associated with inmates in juvenile detention centers are matters determined by national laws and are one class of prisoner. Inmates who are child soldiers are another class of prisoner. There are international laws, agreements and protocols to which Canada and the U.S.A. are signatories that oulaw the abuse of children as soldiers ("child soldiers").
There are no - repeat no - international laws, agreements and protocols that mandate special treatment for captured child soldiers as distinct from mere children.
Because Omar Khadr was detained at age 15 first at Bagram and then GTMO, he was a child soldier and his detention was in contravention to international law. On this basis alone, Omar Khadr should never have been detained and sent to GTMO, period.
The illegality of his detention had nothing to do with his being a "soldier" and everything to do with his being a child. Again, there are no - repeat no - international laws, agreements and protocols that mandate special treatment for captured child soldiers as distinct from mere children.
I think the fact that Omar Khadr was a child soldier does have an effect on Canadian public perception of the case: When people are informed of this fact, then asked whether Khadr should remain in GTMO - it separates people who have human moral values from those who are cold hearted fascist bastards who will still support the Harper administration, believe that Khadr is a terrorist and deserves continued imprisonment and that Canada is/was more secure because of his imprisonment.
Characterizing Khadr as a [b]child[/b] when he was detained (which is completely factual and undisputed) is not going to attract any less sympathy for him than characterizing him as a [b]child soldier[/b] (which immediately begs the question of whether he was participating in the fire fight against the invading US forces at the time). People who might be disposed to say a [b]child[/b] should not be imprisoned without trial for 7 years and tortured might not be equally sympathetic to someone characterized as a [b]child soldier[/b] who is alleged to have been participating [b]as a soldier[/b] in a fire fight with US troops.
I'm surprised that I actually have to spell that out.
John Yoo was a lawyer in the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. He is not, and has never been, a "Chief Justice".
John Yoo was a lawyer in the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. He is not, and has never been, a "Chief Justice".
O.K., I'll correct my mistake.
"He [Omar Khadr] is the only child in modern times ever to be charged with murder for his participation in a battle."
Ignoring for the moment that Khadr was a child soldier, the argument that those detained in Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002 who killed U.S. soldiers are being held for alleged murder revolves around the notion that the detainees were not soldiers but "enemy combatants" - a term created by Presidential decree and argued for by, among others, Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo.
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/24/ex-gitmo-inmates-ask-supreme-cour...
"The Supreme Court's decision to remand the D.C. court's first ruling was a legal rebuke to the extraordinary military justice system set up by President George W. Bush to try 'enemy combatants' seized as part of the government's 'war on terrorism.'
The Justice Department has since dropped the term 'enemy combatant' from all its legal documentation."
There are no - repeat no - international laws, agreements and protocols that mandate special treatment for captured child soldiers as distinct from mere children.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/1815223.stm
I did not say that his being a child soldier therefore "mandates special treatment".
Omar Khadr never should have been abused by being turned into a child soldier, period.
As a child soldier, Omar Khadr should never have been detained but should have instead, been put through rehabilitation to try to overcome the trauma and abuse he was forced to undergo, period.
I don't know about you, but I'm not making a mealey-mouthed argument about whether Mr. Khadr should have been treated better or not while incarcerated.
I am making the all or nothing proposition about his incarceration. I am making the argument that he should not have been incarcerated, period.
Characterizing Khadr as a [b]child[/b] when he was detained (which is completely factual and undisputed) is not going to attract any less sympathy for him than characterizing him as a [b]child soldier[/b] (which immediately begs the question of whether he was participating in the fire fight against the invading US forces at the time). People who might be disposed to say a [b]child[/b] should not be imprisoned without trial for 7 years and tortured might not be equally sympathetic to someone characterized as a [b]child soldier[/b] who is alleged to have been participating [b]as a soldier[/b] in a fire fight with US troops.
I'm surprised that I actually have to spell that out.
"Characterizing Khadr as a child when he was detained (which is completely factual and undisputed)..." His parents took him from Canada to Pakistan. What was he doing in Afghanistan? What was he doing in a fort in Afghanistan? The unit of U.S. Marines stormed the fort with their weapons firing and had one member killed that we know of. Why would this have happened if they received no hostile fire from the fort? What was Khadr doing with weapons within his reach? Why did he receive a near fatal chest wound from one of the Marines?
Until very recently, I was a soldier. I can tell you what being trained as a soldier is like. In most people's minds when they find out what training an adult to maim and murder other human beings on a mass scale is like, they find it horrible and repulsive.
Imagine how much more vile, repugnant, revolting, horrific, obscene most people will find it when they are explained that a child (because a child is not fully mentally competent and therefore cannot enter legal contracts, etc.,) has been trained to maim and murder on a mass scale, in other words, has been forced to be a soldier.
All of these are equally vile and obscene:
Child abandonment.
Child abduction.
Child abuse.
Child assault.
Child labor.
Child murder.
Child neglect.
Child pornography.
Child prostitution.
Child rape.
Child sexual assault.
Child soldier.
Child torture.
There are no - repeat no - international laws, agreements and protocols that mandate special treatment for captured child soldiers as distinct from mere children.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/1815223.stm[/quote]
Is that link supposed to be an answer to my statement? Because it isn't. It's an old article referring to the Convention I linked to at #5 above, which has nothing - repeat, nothing - to say about the treatment of captured child soldiers.
I did not say that his being a child soldier therefore "mandates special treatment".You have been pushing this "child soldier" meme here and elsewhere as an argument for the repatriatrion of Omar Khadr. It doesn't support his claim for release any more than the mere fact that he was a "child" - period - when arrested, as I have repeatedly explained.
Omar Khadr never should have been abused by being turned into a child soldier, period.That's not an argument for his repatriation. That's an argument for prosecuting those who allegedly turned him into a child soldier, including, according to you, his mother. That's what the international convention on child soldiers is all about. It has nothing to say about treating child soldiers any different from ordinary children - or ordinary soldiers - after they are captured by the enemy.
As a child soldier, Omar Khadr should never have been detained but should have instead, been put through rehabilitation to try to overcome the trauma and abuse he was forced to undergo, period.The trauma and abuse he was forced to undergo as a child soldier is nothing - nothing - compared to the trauma and abuse he was forced to undergo for seven years of imprisonment and torture at Bagram and Guantanamo. Where are your fucking priorities?
I don't know about you, but I'm not making a mealey-mouthed argument about whether Mr. Khadr should have been treated better or not while incarcerated.And that's exactly why your position is ridiculous. To take no position on Khadr's torture, interrogation, psychological abuse, and lack of access to legal counsel or the courts as a child prisoner for seven years, and at the same time rail against his mother and father and some unknown Afghans who allegedly turned him into a child soldier before his imprisonment and torture is a serious dereliction of moral responsibility.
I am making the all or nothing proposition about his incarceration. I am making the argument that he should not have been incarcerated, period.You are making a piss poor argument by focussing on the allegation that Khadr was a child soldier. The relevant facts are that a) he was a [b]child[/b], and b) even if he were an adult his incarceration was illegal.
As I have said many times before, calling him a child soldier doesn't enhance his claim for release, and could actually hurt it - because insofar as he may have been a child soldier he was, from the point of view of the Canadian and US governments and their supporters, an [b]enemy[/b] soldier!
Is that link supposed to be an answer to my statement? Because it isn't. It's an old article referring to the Convention I linked to at #5 above, which has nothing - repeat, nothing - to say about the treatment of captured child soldiers.
I did not say that his being a child soldier therefore "mandates special treatment".
As a child soldier, Omar Khadr should never have been detained but should have instead, been put through rehabilitation to try to overcome the trauma and abuse he was forced to undergo, period.The trauma and abuse he was forced to undergo as a child soldier is nothing - nothing - compared to the trauma and abuse he was forced to undergo for seven years of imprisonment and torture at Bagram and Guantanamo. Where are your fucking priorities?
I don't know about you, but I'm not making a mealey-mouthed argument about whether Mr. Khadr should have been treated better or not while incarcerated.And that's exactly why your position is ridiculous. To take no position on Khadr's torture, interrogation, psychological abuse, and lack of access to legal counsel or the courts as a child prisoner for seven years, and at the same time rail against his mother and father and some unknown Afghans who allegedly turned him into a child soldier before his imprisonment and torture is a serious dereliction of moral responsibility.
I am making the all or nothing proposition about his incarceration. I am making the argument that he should not have been incarcerated, period.You are making a piss poor argument by focussing on the allegation that Khadr was a child soldier. The relevant facts are that a) he was a [b]child[/b], and b) even if he were an adult his incarceration was illegal.
As I have said many times before, calling him a child soldier doesn't enhance his claim for release, and could actually hurt it - because insofar as he may have been a child soldier he was, from the point of view of the Canadian and US governments and their supporters, an [b]enemy[/b] soldier!
[/quote]
"Child soldiers banned by UN law.
A United Nations treaty which bans children from being drafted into combat, comes into force on Tuesday, following its ratification by the required number of signatory states....
Ninety-four countries have now signed the optional protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits governments and rebel groups from deploying children under the age of 18 in any form of armed conflict.
With 14 countries ratifying the treaty since it was adopted by the UN General Assembly in May 2000, the protocol is now no longer optional, but enforceable." Bolding and underscoring added.
You are right, the child soldier protocols to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child do not address how child soldiers ought to be treated if incarcerated. It does address the practice of recruiting, inducting, conscripting, abducting, etc., children into military service. It says this practice must be banned. In other words, there should be no child soldiers. Look, here's an analogy you should understand: Country A has laws which ban or make child prostitution illegal. In country A, a number of children are taken off the street for solicitation (for prostitution). Now child prostitution was banned (made illegal) in this country, so therefore it doesn't exist, yet here we have children who were in the sex trade. What do we do? Do we incarcerate them? Do we punish ('torture') them for their 'wrongdoing'? No, right? RIGHT?....
Concerning Omar Khadr's torture and successive Canadian governments' knowledge, complicity and acceptance of it since 2004, read my other blogs and those on Mohammed Jawad, which you have 'claimed' to have done, and you will see where my priorities are.
"The relevant facts are that... b) even if he were an adult his incarceration was illegal." Read my post again. That is precisely what I say.
"As I have said many times before, calling him a child soldier doesn't enhance his claim for release, and could actually hurt it - because as insofar as he may have been a child soldier he was, from the point of view of the Canadian and US governments and their supporters, an 'enemy soldier!'"
WRONG! The term cooked up by Bush and the White House legal defense team was "enemy combatant". The purpose of this U.S. national legal term was to circumvent the Geneva Conventions. A(n) (enemy) "combatant" is not a soldier. Unlike a "soldier", a(n) (enemy) "combatant" is not covered by the Geneva Conventions, does not have human rights - under the Geneva Conventions and international and national laws (the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, for instance) and may be tortured - but as I've argued elsewhere, the Bush and now Obama administrations, don't torture - according to their narrowest of definitions of "torture".
Has it occurred to you that if one takes your premises to their logical conclusion, then you agree with the title of this post; Harper (via Lawrence Cannon) ought to ban the term "child soldier"?
You have selective perceptions my friend.
"Child soldiers banned by UN law.
A United Nations treaty which bans children from being drafted into combat, comes into force on Tuesday, following its ratification by the required number of signatory states....
Ninety-four countries have now signed the optional protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits governments and rebel groups from deploying children under the age of 18 in any form of armed conflict.
With 14 countries ratifying the treaty since it was adopted by the UN General Assembly in May 2000, the protocol is now no longer optional, but enforceable." Bolding and underscoring added.
Now tell me where the optional protocol says anything about the obligations of a signatory state towards the captured child soldiers of other states.
Assuming for the moment that Omar Khadr was a child soldier, the only country in violation of the optional protocol was Afghanistan.
Concerning Omar Khadr's torture and successive Canadian governments' knowledge, complicity and acceptance of it since 2004, read my other blogs and those on Mohammed Jawad, which you have 'claimed' to have done, and you will see where my priorities are.
Your priorities as reflected in [b]this thread[/b] clearly do not concern the conditions of Khadr's detention and torture. You're the guy who is "not making a mealey-mouthed argument about whether Mr. Khadr should have been treated better or not while incarcerated", remember?
"The relevant facts are that... b) even if he were an adult his incarceration was illegal." Read my post again. That is precisely what I say.
No, it isn't. Your position is that Khadr should be released because he was a [b]child soldier[/b] when he was arrested. You seem to think that such a status is crucial to his claim to being illegally held in Guantanamo. I, on the other hand, maintain that calling him a child soldier does nothing to enhance his claim to being released.
"As I have said many times before, calling him a child soldier doesn't enhance his claim for release, and could actually hurt it - because as insofar as he may have been a child soldier he was, from the point of view of the Canadian and US governments and their supporters, an 'enemy soldier!'"WRONG! The term cooked up by Bush and the White House legal defense team was "enemy combatant".
Actually, the term was "illegal enemy combatant".
The purpose of this U.S. national legal term was to circumvent the Geneva Conventions. A(n) (enemy) "combatant" is not a soldier. Unlike a "soldier", a(n) (enemy) "combatant" is not covered by the Geneva Conventions, does not have human rights - under the Geneva Conventions and international and national laws (the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, for instance) and may be tortured - but as I've argued elsewhere, the Bush and now Obama administrations, don't torture - according to their narrowest of definitions of "torture".
First of all, calling Khadr a child soldier may invoke the Geneva Conventions, but the Geneva Conventions do not say that captured child soldiers - or any captured soldiers for that matter - must be released and repatriated, rather than being detained for the duration of the conflict. The Geneva Conventions, in this context, only pertain to the manner in which captured soldiers are to be treated by their captors while in custody - something which you say you are not interested in making "mealey-mouthed" arguments about, remember?
Secondly, have you really "argued elsewhere" that Bush and Obama administrations don't torture? I'd like to read those arguments.
Has it occurred to you that if one takes your premises to their logical conclusion, then you agree with the title of this post; Harper (via Lawrence Cannon) ought to ban the term "child soldier"?
Is that really what you consider a "logical conclusion"? That explains a lot.
My position that calling Omar Khadr a child soldier adds nothing to his claim to be released and repatriated immediately does not lead to the logical conclusion that I am in favour of a general ban on the term "child soldier". I wholeheartedly support the optional protocol, but since Canada does not use child soldiers in combat, the Harper government can claim to be in full compliance with it.
I'd rather use real ammo against Harper, rather than firing blanks.
You have selective perceptions my friend.
Selective perceptions are better than none at all.
His parents took him from Canada to Pakistan. What was he doing in Afghanistan? What was he doing in a fort in Afghanistan? The unit of U.S. Marines stormed the fort with their weapons firing and had one member killed that we know of. Why would this have happened if they received no hostile fire from the fort? What was Khadr doing with weapons within his reach?
This reads like something out of the prosecutor's opening statement.
Disgusting.
His parents took him from Canada to Pakistan. What was he doing in Afghanistan? What was he doing in a fort in Afghanistan? The unit of U.S. Marines stormed the fort with their weapons firing and had one member killed that we know of. Why would this have happened if they received no hostile fire from the fort? What was Khadr doing with weapons within his reach?This reads like something out of the prosecutor's opening statement.
Disgusting.
Yeah, precisely. They are the arguments Khadr's legal team will have to rebut.
They are also the forensic evidence that have been released to the media that you ignore.
Has it occurred to you that if one takes your premises to their logical conclusion, then you agree with the title of this post; Harper (via Lawrence Cannon) ought to ban the term "child soldier"?
Is that really what you consider a "logical conclusion"? That explains a lot.
My position that calling Omar Khadr a child soldier adds nothing to his claim to be released and repatriated immediately does not lead to the logical conclusion that I am in favour of a general ban on the term "child soldier". I wholeheartedly support the optional protocol, but since Canada does not use child soldiers in combat, the Harper government can claim to be in full compliance with it.
That is a contradiction. The U.K. and other countries that have signed the protocol have U.N. soldiers in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Self styled "General" guerrilla leaders in the DRC have child soldiers in their armies. If the U.N. captures any of these leaders, they will be sent to the World Court in the Hague and tried for abuses against children and the other crimes they have committed.
As Harper has pointed out, our "mission" in Afghanistan is U.N. mandated, NATO led. If we are to take Harper's word on this, then it follows that when "U.N. mandated" American or Canadian soldiers capture commanders who have child soldiers in their units, these commanders should be sent to the World Court for prosecution.
"Child soldiers banned by UN law.
A United Nations treaty which bans children from being drafted into combat, comes into force on Tuesday, following its ratification by the required number of signatory states....
Ninety-four countries have now signed the optional protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits governments and rebel groups from deploying children under the age of 18 in any form of armed conflict.
With 14 countries ratifying the treaty since it was adopted by the UN General Assembly in May 2000, the protocol is now no longer optional, but enforceable." Bolding and underscoring added.
Now tell me where the optional protocol says anything about the obligations of a signatory state towards the captured child soldiers of other states.
It doesn't. I agreed with you on that point. Again, read what I wrote.
First of all, calling Khadr a child soldier may invoke the Geneva Conventions, but the Geneva Conventions do not say that captured child soldiers - or any captured soldiers for that matter - must be released and repatriated, rather than being detained for the duration of the conflict. The Geneva Conventions, in this context, only pertain to the manner in which captured soldiers are to be treated by their captors while in custody - something which you say you are not interested in making "mealey-mouthed" arguments about, remember?
The term you used was "special treatment". The problem with it is that it is too vague and 'warm and fuzzy' sounding. "Special treatment" could mean that he was fed turtle soup and other houte cuture meals every night. Not that there is anything wrong with that - but had you used the terms abuse and torture (which, no doubt, you had in mind), then we wouldn't be arguing this point.
Where, by the way, do you make the argument that GTMO is illegal, Khadr's detention is illegal and that he either should be freed or ought not to have been incarcerated in the first place?
Hate to interrupt, but am going to interject to say:
Hopefully, Gary Doer does get around to explaining to all us former NDPers, why he believes Khadr should stay in Gitmo. As there can be no doubt he does. And I would also like to know if he too in favour of torture, as he obviously is okay with Canadian children being abused, neglected and left to rot in jail for years in a situation against his human rights. Just as he must be okay with this Harper government conducting themselves in a racist manner and stranding Canadians across the globe. If he wasn't he would not have taken this appointment.
And that Jack so quickly applauds this move by Doer, indicates much to us, about how human rights can just be thrown under the bus, when it comes to furthering that career path.
Are women's rights next to go?
After all it is always the women and children who suffer, for men's ill founded gain desires.
Secondly, have you really "argued elsewhere" that Bush and Obama administrations don't torture? I'd like to read those arguments.
Go to
1. "Bring Omar Khadr home and set him free! Part 2.": "3. Everything about GTMO violates international law, specifically;
... b. not having rights under the Geneva Conventions means we can torture them - not that what we are doing is torture (according to George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Chief Justice John [sic] Woo, waterboarding is not torture.)"
Please accept my apologies for misspelling John Yoo's last name and for indicating that he is a Chief Justice (which you have since corrected me on). You may also find the similar case of Mohammed Jawad interesting. Have you been keeping up on it? Although a child, he was a civilian. Like Omar, he could have faced murder charges. He has been recently repatriated to Afghanistan, where he is from - and is a reason why I think Harper is going to fail in his bid to have the Supreme Court overrule the Federal Appeals Court order that Harper request Omar Khadr's repatriation.
Secondly, have you really "argued elsewhere" that Bush and Obama administrations don't torture? I'd like to read those arguments.
Go to
1. "Bring Omar Khadr home and set him free! Part 2.": "3. Everything about GTMO violates international law, specifically;
... b. not having rights under the Geneva Conventions means we can torture them - not that what we are doing is torture (according to George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Chief Justice John [sic] Woo, waterboarding is not torture.)"
Please accept my apologies for misspelling John Yoo's last name and for indicating that he is a Chief Justice (which you have since corrected me on). You may also find the similar case of Mohammed Jawad interesting. Have you been keeping up on it? Although a child, he was a civilian. Like Omar, he could have faced murder charges. He has been recently repatriated to Afghanistan, where he is from - and is a reason why I think Harper is going to fail in his bid to have the Supreme Court overrule the Federal Appeals Court order that Harper request Omar Khadr's repatriation.
2. Also see "The case of Toronto woman stranded in Kenya."
As Harper has pointed out, our "mission" in Afghanistan is U.N. mandated, NATO led. If we are to take Harper's word on this, then it follows that when "U.N. mandated" American or Canadian soldiers capture commanders who have child soldiers in their units, these commanders should be sent to the World Court for prosecution.
None of which has anything to do with getting Omar Khadr out of Guantanamo.
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!
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?
"Now tell me where the optional protocol says anything about the obligations of a signatory state towards the captured child soldiers of other states".
It doesn't. I agreed with you on that point. Again, read what I wrote.
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.
The term you used was "special treatment". The problem with it is that it is too vague and 'warm and fuzzy' sounding. "Special treatment" could mean that he was fed turtle soup and other houte cuture meals every night. Not that there is anything wrong with that - but had you used the terms abuse and torture (which, no doubt, you had in mind), then we wouldn't be arguing this point.
Child prisoners are entitled to the protections of the [url=http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm]Convention on the Rights of the Child[/url]. That is to say that their status as children entitles them to be treated better than adult prisoners. In my vocabulary, that is special treatment.
Where, by the way, do you make the argument that GTMO is illegal, Khadr's detention is illegal and that he either should be freed or ought not to have been incarcerated in the first place?
I have made those arguments elsewhere, and it would be thread drift to repeat them here.
Liberals and Tories had the best chances early on to bring Toronto Omar home while other western countries were making the same case for their nationals abducted and held at Gitmo. And they blew it! The two dirty old line party leaders let so many years go by that the US inquisition had time to draft new kangaroo laws to hold him to at least the end of crazy George II's reign of terror.
And now dirty old line party number duh is still propping up dirty old line party numero uno in the frozen Puerto Rico, and poor Omar is still hung out to dry waiting for the banks to instruct Count Iggy as to when he can force a stooge-off between himself and Harper. Poor Omar's gonna be one fucked up kid by the time he's ever released from Gitmo. I hope his lawyers are real sharks and sue the pants off all those dumb-dumb Canadian taxpayers who voted for either of the two dirty-rotten old line parties.
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:
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2007/02/08/afghanistan-eight-thousand-ch...
Outside of RAWA, have you ever heard the Canadian government, military and mainstream media discuss at length the issue of child soldiers in Afghanistan?
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/06/16/civilian-sex-assaults-by-afgh...
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?
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/03/08/in-afghanistan-8th-march-cele...
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?
"To replace child soldier with children in armed conflict is to erase the kinds of important distinctions," Audrey Macklin, a lawyer and law professor with the University of Toronto, referring to children as victims or perpetrators in an armed conflict."To dumb down our language in a way that erases all those differences and doesn't pay attention to the specificity is to limit rather than expand our capacity to think about this important issue."
Mendes, in fact, believes the move away from the term "child soldiers" is "clearly designed" by the government to back away from support of Khadr.
Under the international Convention on the Rights of the Child, a document championed by former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney, states are required to help children soldiers reintegrate in society, rather than prosecute them as criminals.
Story is titled: a conservative rephrasing.
Under the international Convention on the Rights of the Child, a document championed by former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney, states are required to help children soldiers reintegrate in society, rather than prosecute them as criminals.
What it actually says is this:
States Parties shall cooperate in the implementation of the present Protocol, including in the prevention of any activity contrary thereto and in the rehabilitation and social reintegration of persons who are victims of acts contrary thereto, including through technical cooperation and financial assistance. Such assistance and cooperation will be undertaken in consultation with the States Parties concerned and the relevant international organizations.
The protocol doesn't mention or even contemplate the criminal prosecution of child soldiers. And the obligation of "social reintegration" under the protocol lies with the state on whose behalf the child soldier was recruited, not that state's enemies who capture the child soldier. (How do you "reintegrate" a child into a foreign society and culture?)
The protocol doesn't mention or even contemplate the criminal prosecution of child soldiers. And the obligation of "social reintegration" under the protocol lies with the state on whose behalf the child soldier was recruited, not that state's enemies who capture the child soldier. (How do you "reintegrate" a child into a foreign society and culture?)
Of course it doesn't. Child soldiers = victims. Child soldier trainers (child abusers) = criminals. Criminal suspects are prosecuted, not their victims.
Let's go back, specifically, to Omar Khadr. Omar is a Canadian citizen. He was not born in "AfPak". His lawyer is ahead of the curve on you in this one:
http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/08/14/canada-court-wants-gitmo-detainees-re...
"Khadr is now 22, and his lawyer said he would be willing to face prosecution in Canada and undergo a transition period away from his relatives." Bolding and italics added.
Gee, I wonder if that last bit has anything to do with some statements Mrs. Khadr made before Canada's national media.
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2007/02/08/afghanistan-eight-thousand-ch...
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/07/200972914236661774.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/04/military_commissions/
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/73272.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/73758.html
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/24/ex-gitmo-inmates-ask-supreme-cour...
Far more damage, physically and psychologically, has been done to Omar Khadr by the United States than by the people who allegedly turned him into a child soldier those many years ago. It is therefore ludicrous in his case to talk about the rehabilitation of a child soldier rather than the rehabilitation of a child imprisoned and tortured for seven years in the Guantanamo dungeons.
Far more damage, physically and psychologically, has been done to Omar Khadr by the United States than by the people who allegedly turned him into a child soldier those many years ago. It is therefore ludicrous in his case to talk about the rehabilitation of a child soldier rather than the rehabilitation of a child imprisoned and tortured for seven years in the Guantanamo dungeons.
Rehabilitation, in this case, is based on the fact that a child was abused not on how the child was abused. How the child was abused would only (possibly) affect some of the specifics on how the child is rehabilitated.
"... the Convention [on the Rights of the Child] is a universally agreed set of non-negotiable standards and obligations. These standards are also called human rights - ... These standards are both interdependent and indivisible; we cannot ensure some rights without - or at the expense of - other rights."
Where does it say that some rights have greater "value" (moral and legal "value" or "strength") than others?
The passage of time does not lessen the criminality of the abuse or the criminality of the perpetrator.
Rehabilitation, in this case, is based on the fact that a child was abused not on how the child was abused. How the child was abused would only (possibly) affect some of the specifics on how the child is rehabilitated.
I'm not a psychologist, but I'm willing to bet you are completely wrong about that. Any rehabilitation program or treatment has to start with an appreciation of the specifics of the mistreatment. Khadr is no ordinary child soldier, if indeed he ever was a child soldier at all. His imprisonment and torture, as well as the realization that the people he trusted to help him get out of Guantanamo turned out to be in cahoots with his jailers and torturers, have traumatized him in ways you and I can't even imagine.
Where does it say that some rights have greater "value" (moral and legal "value" or "strength") than others?
It doesn't. So what's your point?
The passage of time does not lessen the criminality of the abuse or the criminality of the perpetrator.
If you're trying to say there is no statute of limitations in the child soldier protocol, I agree. Why are you talking about "criminality" when we're not talking about punishing the offenders but about rehabilitating the victim?
I'm willing to bet that any trauma suffered by Omar Khadr from being made a child soldier (if indeed he was made a child soldier) is now to him but a distant memory. Far more immediate and long-lasting is the trauma he has endured over the last seven years. No rehabilitation is possible without acknowledging that and dealing with it.
I'm not a psychologist, but I'm willing to bet you are completely wrong about that. Any rehabilitation program or treatment has to start with an appreciation of the specifics of the mistreatment. Khadr is no ordinary child soldier, if indeed he ever was a child soldier at all. His imprisonment and torture, as well as the realization that the people he trusted to help him get out of Guantanamo turned out to be in cahoots with his jailers and torturers, have traumatized him in ways you and I can't even imagine.
You are creating a faux disagreement between us. Let me reword my argument you are referring to without altering its meaning:
1) Omar Khadr's rights were violated.
2) Because Omar Khadr's rights were violated, he is going to receive rehabilitative treatment.
3) The nature of Omar Khadr's mistreatments may (possibly) affect some of the specifics on how he is rehabilitated - (in each case).
On all three points we agree. The only (insignificant) difference is on point 3. I make a weak case, whereas you make a strong case.
The day Omar Khadr's trust was first betrayed was when Pa Khadr handed him over to the mullah and said, "This is my son Omar. He is a boy. I want you to make him a man. I want you to make him a Warrior of God. Son, in the battle against the infidel, I want you to either be victorious or I want you to be dead. There is no other honorable way." When he left Omar, he slammed the door shut to Omar's right to family, friendship among peers, community and a [proper] education - all things identified as rights in the Convention on the Rights to the Child. After he had been betrayed by his parents - the most important (and formative to a child's development into adult) people in a child's life, who is there left whose betrayal could possibly cause him to suffer greater harm? What conceivable trust would he have in anyone else? Those CSIS agents would have lost his trust the instant they responded to his complaints of mistreatment at GTMO when they responded, "We'll make it better for you if you just cooperate and tell us what we want to know".
Where does it say that some rights have greater "value" (moral and legal "value" or "strength") than others?
It doesn't. So what's your point?
My point is this: The Convention on the Rights of the Child is a legal document that is grounded on what is called "rights based" law. Rights based law is different from (say) criminal law, which is punitive (punishment) based. Criminal law does make the distinction that some rights have greater legal "worth" (weight) than others; and conversely the violation of some rights is a more grievous wrong than others: For example, a person convicted of "eco terrorism"; destroying the property of an oil company by blowing it up (where no other harm was done) will get a lighter sentence than a person who committed murder. In the case of Omar Khadr, criminal and civil law will make distinctions (as you are doing) on the degree of harm done him. In the eyes of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, no such distinction is made. All parties (Omar's parents, his "AfPak" military trainers and commanders, the U.S. White House, the U.S. State Department, the Department of Juctice, a number of Canadian governments, CSIS, the CIA and the Bagram and GTMO detention authorities) are equally responsibile of violating Omar Khadr's rights.
The passage of time does not lessen the criminality of the abuse or the criminality of the perpetrator.
I'm willing to bet that any trauma suffered by Omar Khadr from being made a child soldier (if indeed he was made a child soldier) is now to him but a distant memory. Far more immediate and long-lasting is the trauma he has endured over the last seven years. No rehabilitation is possible without acknowledging that and dealing with it.
When Omar Khadr was put through his weapons handling training, he would have been told to view the enemy on the battlefield the same as the target he was shooting at. They may have said something like this, "The enemy is the same as your target on the rifle range: neither are human beings. You don't murder pigs. You kill them. You don't murder the enemy. You kill them." Remember former Gen. Rick Hillier's statement, "[The Taliban] ... are detestable murderous scumbags."? It's the same thing. "Bags of scum" are inanimate objects, not human beings. The enemy are not human beings. You don't murder the enemy. You "dispose" of them - like yesterday's "garbage". After Omar's forced military indoctrination, he was pressed into combat. As a result of the firefight that led to his detainment, Khadr was nearly rendered unconscious and buried alive as a result of the bombing and shelling the fort was subjected to, he sustained the injuries of: foreign particles in one of his eyes (in the audio tape of his interrogation by the CSIS agents, he indicates his eye was giving him pain and expresses the fear that his vision was permanently lost in that eye) and a near fatal gunshot to the chest that caused a gaping exit wound in his back.
The only thing we know (thus far) about his treatment at GTMO is that he was tortured through subjection to sleep deprivation (psychological torture). The method used was the "frequent flyer" programme: He was moved every two to three hours from one cell to another to only allow that amount of sleep. Apart from that, we have been told nothing else. Not how long he was subjected to this programme. Not whether he was subjected to stress positions (physical torture) as part of the sleep deprivation programme (stress positions are a physical "self regulating" means of ensuring the victim is kept awake). Not whether he was subjected to waterboarding. Not whether he was physically beaten.
As intelligent and rational adults it is pointless to engage in a "pissing contest" over whether it was his parents and the "AfPak" group on the one hand, or the Canadian and American GTMO group on the other, who traumatized Khadr more. If there is any difference in degree, it is slight. The best thing to do is to "logically" (so to speak) split the difference and agree that the amount of trauma caused in both cases was roughly equal.
Utter bullshit.
You are trying to equate the crimes of Bush, his military, and his Bagram and Guantanamo torturers (about which we have ample documented evidence) with the alleged crimes of his parents (about which we have nothing but speculation).
The net result is to trivialize his seven-year ordeal and play into the hands of those who seek to whitewash the imperialist assault on Afghanistan and blame Khadr's plight on the fanatical terrorists who teach their kids to use guns.
Omar Khadr doesn't need "allies" like you.
Why are you talking about "criminality" when we're not talking about punishing the offenders but about rehabilitating the victim?
A top UN official says the United States is leery of freeing Canadian Omar Khadr from Guantanamo Bay for fear he will return to al-Qaeda once he is released.
Radhika Coomaraswamy, the United Nations' Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict, has been meeting with the top-level White House committee reviewing the Toronto-born Khadr's file.
She said on Wednesday that of all the cases involving detainees remaining at the U.S. prison camp in Cuba, Khadr's file is the most troubling for the U.S.
"The issue is Mr. Khadr's family is quite closely linked to al-Qaeda, many of them in Pakistan, and there is this fear he will go back to that," said Coomaraswamy.
Khadr, now 22, is accused by the United States of killing a U.S. soldier with a hand grenade in Afghanistan in 2002, when he was 15. He has been held at Guantanamo Bay since then.
Pentagon prosecutors have suffered several setbacks in the case, including the revelation that nobody actually saw Khadr throw a grenade and the leak of a document last year revealing that another militant could have done it.
It is not clear what family members in Pakistan the U.S. is concerned about. Khadr's father, a close associate of Osama bin Laden and a reputed financier of al-Qaeda operations, was killed in October 2003 by Pakistani forces.
One of Omar's older brothers, Abdullah Khadr, is in Toronto and fighting a U.S. extradition request for alleged terrorism-related crimes. His mother, sister, younger brother and grandparents are also in Toronto.
His older brother, Adurahman, was arrested in Afghanistan as a suspected al-Qaeda member in 2001 and sent to Guantanamo Bay but was released and returned to Canada in 2003. He has claimed his father raised him to become a suicide bomber and has since distanced himself from his kin, referring to himself as the "black sheep" of the family.
Child soldiers are victims: UN official
Coomaraswamy, the UN's top advocate for child soldiers, has been pushing for the U.S. to stop Khadr's trial and release him, arguing his age at the time of the alleged incident makes it a unique case.
"The UN position is that children should not be prosecuted for war crimes," she said.
Coomaraswamy has argued child soldiers are victims who should be rehabilitated rather than jailed. She proposed working with an organization like UNICEF Canada to create a rehabilitation program for Khadr to reintegrate him into society.
She said the UN and UNICEF Canada have been pushing both Ottawa and Washington to free Khadr, the only Western citizen still being held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/10/15/khadr-un-coomaraswamy-release.html
