This is the promise we made to child soldiers:
We will be ready for the children. We will meet them and get them to safety. We will take care of the physical needs. We will address their emotional needs. We will help them, their families, and their communities to heal. We will also help them to rebuild their lives and create a culture of peace. Whatever it takes, we will be there.
I don’t think Khadr is a good kid. I think he’s a rotten kid [warning:graphic], made so by rotten parents. But he is a kid – a child soldier – and we made a promise to these child soldiers.
Gaffes, stumbling around and looking bad – it doesn’t happen when a government sticks to our principles, keeps our promises, and behaves honourably.
Don’t think I’m just talking about our Prime Minister – the harshest criticism I have is for Bob Rae and the Liberals:
Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae called for Khadr’s return, saying the previous Liberal government’s decision was in line with what was then known about the case.
There are two essential facts about the Khadr case that were always known: 1.He is a Canadian citizen 2.he is a child. I don’t know what sophistry the Liberals are employing to excuse themselves for abandoning this kid to the fates, but they have absolutely no credibility hiding in opposition and calling for his repatriation.
Just wait until tonight – watch them on the news feigning outrage – but remember this: the interrogation you are watching was done under a LIBERAL government, by a LIBERAL-controlled CSIS, and of a kid who was abandoned in Guantanamo by a LIBERAL Prime Minister.
Related: Jonathan Kay lists the reasons Khadr should be brought home
And it’s things like this that will make the next Liberal government very frustrating, if not only a welcome relief from Harper and his cronies. We desperately need a third line to come off the bench, and give the Liberals and Conservatives some time to think about what they’ve done.
[...] The Khadr Interrogation Video [...]
Of course, the key question here is if Khadr is, or is not, a ‘child solder’.
IF he is a ‘child soldier’, as his defence team asserts, then yes, it is our duty to bring him home.
However, the whole US justification for holding these people in Cuba is that they are not, indeed, soldiers. Describing Khadr as ’soldier’ – child or otherwise – would rather undercut this whole thing….
I am not saying he is, or that he is not….just pointing out that there is more to the story. And the reaction by the government will have to be dictated by whether or not we (as in, Canada) recognize the detainees as ’soldiers’. If we do not, then Khadr will not be a ‘child soldier’, but – at best – a youth offender, who is alleged to have committed a crime outside of Canada, and is awaiting trial outside of Canada for this crime. If that is the case, it would not be appropriate for Canada to intervene.
And what if he is an ‘enemy combatant’?
The Geneva convention is very clear on the treatment of ‘enemy combatants’ and ‘hostile poplulations’ in areas of combat. These are allowed to be ‘held’, regardless of their age, until the conflict will have been resolved. This section of the Geneva convention was specifically written in to protect civilian populations from being used as human shields by non-uniformed fighting forces hiding among the populace – therefore, if one does not wear a uniform that distinguishes one from the general populace, one does not enjoy the status ’soldier’ and the POW protections (which are actually quite considerable).
While I am moved by the plight of this man (then a youth), I am also moved by the plight of civilian populations which are indistinguishable from the hostile fighting forces hiding among them.
Where the balance lies – I don’t know.
But there is much more to consider here than just Khadr’s age at that time…
I don’t think there is any doubt that Khadr is a combatant – there are photos of him holding severed hands, of planting land mines, of him being treated for injuries on a battle field.
Getting to the definition of child soldier – uniforms are important for protecting civilians and any ’soldier’ that doesn’t wear one is a terrorist – but for children we seem to make exceptions. The quote at the top of the page – I think – was made in reference to the child veterans of the Lord’s Resistance Army.
Here’s a picture of a ’soldier’ of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda – no uniform besides the gun:
http://fsulawlibraryblog.typepad.com/fsu_college_of_law_librar/images/20030723_sierraleonechild.jpg
[...] ROBERT JAGO ONThe Khadr Interrogation Video; Jonathan Kay lists the reasons Khadr should be brought home; From [...]
Point well taken.
However, it does not resolve the difficulty of the terminology applied here, nor the deeper principles behind them.
I will freely admit, I am not as educated on the Uganda issue as I ought to be. However, if Khadr is an enemy combattant, not a soldier, then – regardless of his age – then he may be held in detention for the duration of the conflict, as per the Geneva convention…
I thought (and I may be wrong here) that the ‘child soldier’ thing was developed specifically in order to deal compassionately with kids who were born in war-torn areas, taken FROM their parents, and forced into combat – yet who were now ’status-less’ (in that they did not ‘fit’ into any other existing category). That is clearly not so in the case of Mr. Khadr.
Please, don’t misunderstand – I have not reached a conclusion as to whether Omar Khadr should, or should not, be considered a ‘child soldier’.
Just that there is a lot more to consider here than just his age.
For example, IF Canada were to officially recognize Omar Khadr as a ‘child soldier’, what would the legal implications be for the rest of the detainees?
“IF Canada were to officially recognize Omar Khadr as a ‘child soldier’, what would the legal implications be for the rest of the detainees?”
That’s a good point, I hadn’t actually thought of that. So if we say that Khadr is a child soldier than we say that he is a ’soldier’ and not an unlawful combatant, which by extension implies that the other detainees in Guantanamo are also ’soldiers’ and not just terrorists.
Super. It took almost a day to find this info. Thanks! Good job. :)