http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/05/guantanamo-film-rights-child-soldier That is a total fucking disgrace. Bang up a 15 year old for ten years until he confesses? Someone has lost their way in a massive fashion.
I'm sure he was just out frolicking in the hills picking daisies when coalition forces ran over his puppy with an Abrams tank and threw him in a cell, too.
Our super-max prisons hold in brain eating maniacs, what's so scary and super-villainous about a fucking 15 year old?
Did you read the article? If not, heres a nice extract for starters........... "Firstly, it asks, why did the US try a child, captured in Afghanistan aged just 15, when UN treaties decree underage combatants be treated as victims?"
I don't know, and neither does PhilGheyT up there. I'm not defending the practices at Guantanimo Bay at all.
It doesn't matter what the kid was doing in the hillsides. That's the point. he should never have been kidnapped to another country and held for 10 years in military detention. So, unless you accept that, which UA seems unwilling to, then you are defending the whole concept and practice of Guantanamo.
Unless he has the power to make swarms of bees arrange into the form of nuclear documents subconsciously against his will, I don't particularly buy this "he's too dangerous to come near the mainland", horseshit. I just don't, and won't.
Uncle Albert doesn't buy it either. He says he's a libertarian, and no libertarian would ever defend such a position because it's completely antithetical to their claimed values. Right?
Sure, there are many bad people in Guantanamo (no, I wont call it "Gitmo" like the linguistically challenged) there are also many that never should have been there.
He was charged with throwing a grenade that killed a US army medic. His case is pretty common knowledge in Canada. I'm no fan of Gitmo, and I agree that he's been treated poorly over the years, but let's not say it doesn't matter what the kid was doing in the hillsides.
Oh and let me just say, if a country like China or Iran or somewhere else was doing what America did with Guantanamo and extraordinary rendition and other such practices, nobody here would condone it If its wrong, its wrong whoever does it
Correct. And had this happened in the 'states, he would likely have been tried and sentenced as an adult. Probably the only real problem with this particular situation. And finally... Fuck that corrupt entity and its treaties. Not the least bit interested in what the UN has to say, independent of all other considerations.
In the context of what happened to him, it really doesn't matter, because he should not have been treated like that.
If this kid was really detained at the age of 15 than this is unacceptable. we would then be dealing with a case that is unacceptable, handlers to the case who acted unacceptably, and a lot of bad luck for the kid. His situation should be fixed. In no way does this invalidate the concept of Gitmo. You don't shut the prison down because someone who is not guilty was sentenced by the court system; likewise you don't shut down the facility designed the house enemy combatants because someone who is technically not a combatant under treaty was falsely assigned to said facility. I will go on record as saying that this kid getting off on a technicality would be pretty lame. If he was running with the Taliban as a foot soldier or suicide bomber, then it sucks to be him, but it should not mean that he gets a free pass. A lot of countries would just put a bullet in his head in a situation like that. If he is a Canadian citizen, I do think special consideration should be given to him. In other words, I have mixed feelings and do not think that this is as cut and dry as PGT is trying to make it. Also, I am highly amused that closet gay, super tolerant Uncle Albert used homosexuality as a slur against PGT.
Listen fucknuts. It's international law that you are signed up to. According to your own domestic law any ratified treaty is also to be regarded as domestic US law. Ergo, it is illegal to try a child, plain and simple. No debate. No wriggling out of this one. It was illegal. Full stop. Still, I think you already know that already and this is yet another one of your "look at me, the tough call centre man with his big internet voice" posts.
How so? Don't get me wrong, the kids been treated terribly, but why should a 15 year old caught on a battlefield not be detained? Agreed. He didn't get off. He pled guilty in exchange for a deal. He's serving out his time in the US awaiting transfer to Canada. He didn't sign up on his own. His father took him to Afghanistan.
I was actually drafting something along similar lines that its usually informed judges and policy makers who get to make judgements on what age people are considered child soldiers, rather than a guy on the internet from a call centre.
Just to play devil's advocate, the treaties aforementioned only pertain to children UNDER the age of 15, not those age 15 to 18.
He threw a fucking grenade and killed a fucking soldier. You want to let every 15 year old you find on the battlefield go free? Fine. but the next battle, every one of the enemy soldiers is gonna be 15 or under, because the enemy will you wont detain them. Good luck with that.
He don't have a grenade anymore, he ain't got super powers, and he ain't got magic secrets, try him, and and put him in prison.
Oh come on, there are far greater issues here then simply this kids. The rubbishing of the doctrines of habaes corpus and the right to a fair trial (both contained within the UDHR and your own Sixth Amendment). Detaining indefinately without trial flies in the face of these laws. Furthermore this idea of "enemy combatant" has always been a bullshit term. An enemy combatant under the rules of war is a representative of the state with whom you are at war. That does not include non-alligned representatives of non-state ideological groups such as Al-Qaeda. What in actual fact they are under various international laws of war (based on treaties that, again, the US has ratified) are unlawful combatants. Under these laws an unlawful combatant must be tried under the domestic laws of the country he is captured by. This is because an unlawful combatant cannot be treated as a prisoner of war, ergo prisoner of war laws do not apply. Therefore the US was compelled legally to try any people captured as unlawful combatants in the state or federal courts, under normal law, instead of using a military tribunal and doing away with the restrictions on indefinite detention that exist under US and internetional law. So, clearly, there are very serious questions of overall legality here. It is not just a question of the legality of trying a 15 year old child. And, of course, none of this even touches on the rumours of human rights abuses that are alledged to have taken place by many former, freed detainees which, after what happened at Abu Gharib, must at least be considered to be something that might be a possibility and worthy of investigation. Clearly there are many, many issues of concern here.
And I'm totally fine with that. I'm arguing against the "he shouldn't even be detained because of his age" folks.
