U.S. says no one too young for Guantanamo court

Post Reply New Topic

U.S. says no one too young for Guantanamo court

Is this what they mean by 'no child left behind'?

Ok, to some this may seem horrible but I dont care I am going to speak my mind.

Age 15, tho still legally a child, many of this age are tried as adults, the kid obviously knew what he was doing and has multyple war crime charges on him. Now I dont nessissarily beleive in the so called 'illegal combatant' thing. To me if you are fighting you are in the war. All I can say is if I was the guy who had the final authority I would take him and his father to the nearest ditch and shoot them both in the head and be proud I have done my duty as an American and as someone who thinks scum like this should be shot rather then taken captive. They want to kill others and fight, now they get to be killed in their fight.

"no child left behind" refers to schooling in the United States... not battle. Last time I checked, it had nothing to do with court, nore does it involved children in other countries....

US citizens can now be declared enemy combatants. The definition will probably keep expanding. A few years from now anyone who speaks out against the government will probably be considered a threat to national security and be detained indefinitely without a trial.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=6167856

This thread is more philosophy politics religion...

Well, they did shoot him, but he survived. As for taking people off to ditches and shooting them, once you start down that track then the US really becomes what most of the world is accusing it of. In fact, you're some way down that road now, as it appears torture is routinely used against enemies of the state by the leader of the "free" world.

As for "war crimes", I think you Yanks should just accept that if you go shooting-up someone elses country then they, or their relatives from abroad, may just end up shooting back. That's not to say that you're not justified in shooting-up their country, just don't frame people as criminals who are probably acting for the same reasons as you: patriotism, revenge or religion.

Going back to the chap in that link (whose Canadian citizenship belies his real origin), perhaps you should just deport him to Canada and let them deal with it, unless you think he's still a danger to your country, in which case call a spade a spade and lock him up until he's not.

As for the Khadr case, I have this to add to it:

What happens when reasonable doubt exists
that the 15-year-old boy in question may not
have thrown the fatal grenade?


http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/02/0 ... count.html

I was pretty pissed when I read that story, and perhapse after having time to think about things a little more I guess doing that would be pretty bad. Indeed the US has many problems and torture is not cool. Captives in any war SHOULD be treated as POW's and have POW rights. He was fighting just as much as we were fighting and in war people die. I am glad he was caught, and I hope he gets a fair trial and he spends the rest of his life behind bars or is exicuted.

There is some sense to labeling them 'enemy combatants' instead of POWs... during WWII, an enemy soldier captured wearing a uniform was considered a POW and (supposedly) treated humanely... enemy soldiers caught without uniforms, attempting to pose as civilians, would be tortured and shot as spies.

Someone fighting a war dressed as a civilian attempts to take advantage of rules that say civilians should not be harmed, and in doing so they endanger the real civilians.

Like the CIA?

Hmm... as for those "rules" in general, they didn't help the civilian inhabitants of Dresden, Coventry or Hiroshima much, did they? The US, as well as the rest of the western world, apply those "rules" very selectively to suit themselves.

Thst isnt relevant in asymettrical warfare, where one 'side' doesnt even have an official uniform.