Further to Adrian’s post,
Omar Khadr Is A Murderer, A Terrorist And A War Criminal
I simply do not see how Khadr, at 15, qualified as a “child soldier”. From the “Convention on the Rights of the Child“:
…
Article 381. States Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for rules of international humanitarian law applicable to them in armed conflicts which are relevant to the child.
2. States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years [emphasis added, Khadr had attained that age] do not take a direct part in hostilities.
3. States Parties shall refrain from recruiting any person who has not attained the age of fifteen years into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, States Parties shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.
4. In accordance with their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect the civilian population in armed conflicts, States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure protection and care of children who are affected by an armed conflict.
…
Moreover the “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict” hardly seems to cover Khadr:
…
Article 1States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that members of their armed forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do not take a direct part in hostilities [Khadr was not fighting for the US but for al Qaeda--hardly a state party to the Protocol].
Article 2
States Parties shall ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 18 years are not compulsorily recruited into their armed forces.
Article 3
1. States Parties shall raise the minimum age for the voluntary recruitment of persons into their national armed forces from that set out in article 38, paragraph 3, of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, taking account of the principles contained in that article and recognizing that under the Convention persons under the age of 18 years are entitled to special protection.
2. Each State Party shall deposit a binding declaration upon ratification of or accession to the present Protocol that sets forth the minimum age at which it will permit voluntary recruitment into its national armed forces and a description of the safeguards it has adopted to ensure that such recruitment is not forced or coerced.
3. States Parties that permit voluntary recruitment into their national armed forces under the age of 18 years shall maintain safeguards to ensure, as a minimum, that:
(a) Such recruitment is genuinely voluntary;
(b) Such recruitment is carried out with the informed consent of the person’s parents or legal guardians [emphasis added, see the irony?];
(c) Such persons are fully informed of the duties involved in such military service;
(d) Such persons provide reliable proof of age prior to acceptance into national military service…
I think we’ve been sold a bill of goods. Though I really don’t see how Mr Khadr could be charged with murder for an action in the heat of combat. In war soldiers kill soldiers legally–unless a soldier has clearly surrendered in which case he must cease fighting, or unless, on the other side, a soldier kills a PoW.
Mark
Ottawa
“how Mr Khadr could be charged with murder for an action in the heat of combat”
a)because he threw a grenade at a medic trying to assist him,killing him and injuring an American soldier
b) because he has just pleaded guilty
c)because if he was innocent and could PROVE IT, he wouldn’t have pleaded guilty
d)he didn’t and couldn’t
The whole ‘child soldier’ thing is pathetic and I wish that the bleeding hearts would stop trying to sell it.
When I was 15, I would still be in jail had I done something that even came close to this CRIME in another country, to a citizen of another country.
That is the threshold imo.
There is no Geneva Convention criteria applicable in this case. There was no identifiable military or uniform. Those that say there was, get over it.
The MURDERED, U.S medic and injured soldier would have identified this terrorist twerp as a civilian initially.
That would have been what he presented as and likely what terrorists that attempt to blend in to the countryside, intend, including this Canadian of convenience.
Dont go bringing up facts and evidence, that only makes things dull
smirk
The fact he sought out and participated in a non classified combat (hard to call it a ‘war’ on paper) as a non sanctioned soldier, means he does not have the protection or nor suits appropriate definition under the law.
If he is not a soldier and kills someone in the theatre of war, as he has done, he is a murderer. Not a police officer, not a soldier, not a sanctioned ‘combatant’ or whatever politically correct pabulum description people want to label it, but a murderer. Full stop.
Khadr was a civilian. He is not entitled to participate in hostilities under the Laws of Armed Conflict. As a result, he was an illegal combatant. That is a crime. But this was made all the more serious by trhrowing a grenade and killing a US medic. Killing medics wearing a red cross arm band is a war crime.
There are 2 legal paradigms at play. First, there is the armed conflict paradigm and second there is the law enforcement paradigm. When combatants fight they are entitled to be repatriated at the end of the conflict and they are not criminals. For example, at the end of world war 2 the german soldiers and allies soldiers went home and faced no prosecution for killing each other. BUT, where soldiers or civilians commit war crimes then they are dealt with in a criminal law paradigm. So you see Nuremberg trials for killing POWs or killing civilians. Or in Khadr’s case for killing a medic wearing a red cross arm band.
Khadr is a war criminal. He had his chance for a trial and he pleaded guilty. He was 15 years old when he committed his war crimes. But age by itself is irrelevant. He needed to prove that he was brainwashed by his father and that is why he joined Al Queada. Khadr had his chance to do that and did not present any eveidence.
He desreves the jail time he is going to get.
I just hope that he serves the time where he committed the crime…in Afghansitan. I will be very disappointed in the Conservatives if they let this murderous scumbag back into Canada.
In fact, I would like to see the renewal of the petition to deport his terrorist family the hell out of Canada. The first one many years ago was erased from all trace by the special interest groups, killing our freedom of speech and marring the purpose of a petition in the first place.
Yet that dog of a mother of his arrogantly knows she can spout violence, murder and death to the west and openly admit supporting the Al Q. motive every way she can, including her breeding terrorist-Omar’s as fast as she can, and without being illegally muzzled like the Canadian citizens have been on their landed status.
[...] As to whether he was a kid… [...]
“because if he was innocent and could PROVE IT, he wouldn’t have pleaded guilty”
You don’t prove you’re innocent; the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you’re guilty. Not knowing this basic truth gives a lot of insight into how useless anything you say is. The prosecution didn’t prove that he killed anyone, but you won’t be convinced of that.
Of course, that’s a simpler fact to understand than the whole “he was tortured and held illegally for years without due process while evidence which hurt the prosecution’s case was deemed ‘classified’ to prevent its admittance into the trial” thing, but we’ll start you slow on your path to common sense.