Widow Testifies at a Military Court

[ShadowHM]

By 15, he could have rejected the constraints of his religion, his culture, and his parents.

Hi Pete

While it is possible that he could have rejected the constraints of his religion, culture and upbringing, I think is not at all likely. We are both speculating, though. Or do you have stats on this topic that you can share?

What started this little sideshow contretemps was Occhi's assertion that the kid deserves 'no sympathy', regardless of his age. Occhi didn't like my assessment of that response. I have invited him to give me an opportunity to revise it.

What bothers me more is the behavior of the prosecution(s).

Agreed. Hence my post to start this thread.

[Occhidiangela]

What started this little sideshow contretemps was Occhi's assertion that the kid deserves 'no sympathy', regardless of his age. Occhi didn't like my assessment of that response. I have invited him to give me an opportunity to revise it.

Once again, age is no excuse for participation in violent acts, to include war, guerilla wars, and whatever it is one calls what goes on of late. Child soldiers all over Africa are killing just as adults do. Their age is a data point, their capability and capacity for violence defies your (or if you prefer, "society's") arbitrary boundary of childhood. THe same is true for the violent criminals in my nation''s fine cities who take part in manslaughter and murder.

To attempt to excuse this person's actions via the argument of 'he really didn't want to be involved' is about the same as attempting to excuse any conscript for violent action in a war, or to excuse those whose recruiter lied to them in a war ... they didn't really want to be involved.

You appear to choose to excuse the participation on the arbitraty basis of age, and an asserted lack of agency on the part of this person. I am not sure if you assume truthfulness on his part or not, but I do not.

You have yet to satisfy me that you have a valid argument for excusing his participation in warlike/violent acts.

I repeat, I am not convinced that a courtroom is where his disposition belongs, but that is an outcome, and result, of the policy that brought a number of people to Gitmo ... and quite frankly, I am not interested in diverging in that direction, at all.

Cheers.

Occhi

---

@ Deebye:

All I was implying was that a 15 year old kid does not belong in a warzone or in a military prison

Sadly, he belongs in the latter due to what he did in the former, and he was there, doing, whether he belonged there or not.

Life's a bitch.

[--Pete]

Hi,

While it is possible that he could have rejected the constraints of his religion, culture and upbringing, I think is not at all likely.

I agree. Highly improbable. But not impossible. It's that difference that lets me keep buying lottery tickets.

We are both speculating, though. Or do you have stats on this topic that you can share?

Nope. No stats. Just gut feel and the fact that the story is newsworthy. More unexpected than 'dog bites man'.

What started this little sideshow contretemps was Occhi's assertion that the kid deserves 'no sympathy', regardless of his age.

I happen to agree with him. If Achilles deserves eternal fame for what he did at about the same age, I think sympathy in this case is a double standard. I regret the situation, the culture that fosters that kind of behavior, but I have no sympathy for those who embrace that culture. And 15 is two years past 'adulthood' in many cultures and religions. The present tendency to consider people 'children' until the age of retirement may comfort parents, but it does do damned all to instill self discipline and responsibility in those 'children'.

--Pete

[ShadowHM]

You have yet to satisfy me that you have a valid argument for excusing his participation in warlike/violent acts.

Occhi, I have tried to use plain English in my responses. Where did I say he should be excused for his participation? I said (repeatedly) that he deserves my sympathy - that I 'feel bad' for him. And I still do. I firmly believe that his decisions were not what brought him to that firefight.

Please don't conflate that with 'he should be excused for any action he has undertaken'.

I did say that I felt that he had limited responsibility for them, because he was a minor. If you have a problem with that, I am sorry to know it.

In this case, the criminal who put him there (his father) is dead already. And the 'victim' he is convicted of killing was there because he was an adult who volunteered for duty. But Omar was there because he was forced to be there by his family, his education and his culture. Frankly, your insistence that a military prison is the appropriate place for a child soldier seems like continued penalization of the victim.

Life's a bitch.

Life is a bitch. I quite agree.

If Achilles deserves eternal fame for what he did at about the same age, I think sympathy in this case is a double standard. I regret the situation, the culture that fosters that kind of behavior, but I have no sympathy for those who embrace that culture.

Huh? When did Achilles fate become relevant to this discussion?

And just how, exactly, does one decide (before the age of 15) not to embrace the culture you were reared in? How are you supposed to even notice that there might be another one?

P.S. Did you even bother to read the time line I gave you?

[kandrathe]

And just how, exactly, does one decide (before the age of 15) not to embrace the culture you were reared in? How are you supposed to even notice that there might be another one?

There are 9 to 13 year old girls being forced into prostitution by Somalian "terrorist" aligned gangs living in the Mpls/St. Paul metro area.

In that a US special forces squad went off to Afghanistan, attacked an armed compound where known "enemies" were hanging out, and in the process had a soldier killed by a grenade is also tragic.

That there happened to be a 15 year old boy caught up in the conflict, whether or not he lobbed the grenade is also tragic. If he is the face of our enemies, then we've lost already.

I just question our priorities in exacting justice. Who will face harsher justice? The 30 probable terrorists in our own back yard caught in a heinous slavery scheme, or the 15 year old we've spent many millions, transporting from Afghanistan, incarcerating, interrogating, and putting on trial. He's served 8 years of hell already, and will probably spend another 8 years on his 40 year sentence. If this is what we consider justice, then we've lost all sense of our priorities.

Perhaps we might send the IRS after 916 fraudsters in North Africa, that too might be a colossal waste of time and resources. It's legalistic insanity. Heretofore, on our foreign battlefields, I'd say either kill em in the fight, put them in a POW camp in the country they are in, or let them go if they are no longer a threat.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Huh? When did Achilles fate become relevant to this discussion?

Achilles was about 14 to 16 when he was (a) considered the greatest warrior of the Achaeans and (b) the leader of the Myrmidons, the fiercest fighters among the Achaeans, and © killed by Paris. I doubt that he was considered a child by his contemporaries. And, yes, he's not exactly an historical figure, but the more the archaeologist dig, the more Homer seems to be vindicated.

And just how, exactly, does one decide (before the age of 15) not to embrace the culture you were reared in? How are you supposed to even notice that there might be another one?

How? The same as you would at any age. You see the violence, the death, the suffering and you turn away from it. At 8 or 10 or 15. If you do a search with bing on {"war zone" children refugee}, you'll get over 150,000 links. Pick them pretty much at random, and you find the recurring motif of children some quite young, abandoning everything to get out of their culture. My guess is that the hopelessness of thinking that there's nothing better probably keeps that large number from being enormous.

P.S. Did you even bother to read the time line I gave you?

Yeah, I did. I didn't see much pertinent to this discussion or any surprise revelation. Children half his age all over the world have made it out of war zones to refuge camps. Many are orphans, but many are not and simply left their homes and villages to escape the violence.

As I said before, his prosecution bothers me because, as nominal defenders of rights and equality, we should have given him his fair and speedy trial with suitable representation some time ago. The way a large number of things were handled were unjust. However, that does not speak to his guilt or innocence nor to his responsibility for his actions.

--Pete

[ShadowHM]

Hi Pete

Achilles was about 14 to 16 when he was (a) considered the greatest warrior of the Achaeans and (b) the leader of the Myrmidons, the fiercest fighters among the Achaeans, and © killed by Paris. I doubt that he was considered a child by his contemporaries. And, yes, he's not exactly an historical figure, but the more the archaeologist dig, the more Homer seems to be vindicated.

Right. So the warrior who sulked for days before actually joining in the battle and then dragged the corpse of his fallen enemy around for nine days is a revered warrior whose exploits are relevant today and who we should still admire. And we would reward that behaviour today with songs and fame instead of military prison.

How? The same as you would at any age. You see the violence, the death, the suffering and you turn away from it. At 8 or 10 or 15. If you do a search with bing on {"war zone" children refugee}, you'll get over 150,000 links. Pick them pretty much at random, and you find the recurring motif of children some quite young, abandoning everything to get out of their culture. My guess is that the hopelessness of thinking that there's nothing better probably keeps that large number from being enormous.

My google-fu is weak. That particular search brought me many cases of children fleeing with the help of others - primarily family. That 'large number' of self-motivated children successfully escaping their own cultures and families looks to me like wishful thinking on your part.

I suspect that our own cultural meme of 'free will' has you believing that it applies to all people at all ages and stages of life, including the very young.

As I said before, his prosecution bothers me because, as nominal defenders of rights and equality, we should have given him his fair and speedy trial with suitable representation some time ago. The way a large number of things were handled were unjust. However, that does not speak to his guilt or innocence nor to his responsibility for his actions.

And, as I have said before, I do agree on that point. We shall have to agree to disagree on the the extent of the responsibility. You have yet to present a compelling argument that child soldiers have anything like meaningful choices to avoid participation in battle.

[Occhidiangela]

Shadow:
I will not waste my time discussing the "victim" who the prosecutor is allegedly standing in for as, it isn't germane to my disagreement with using age as a defense.
[quote='ShadowHM' pid='182644' dateline='1289527604']
But Omar was there because he was forced to be there by his family, his education and his culture. [/quote[
See my point above in re conscripts. See also LBJ's 100,000, who were well below 100 IQ draftees/recruits.

"Society is to blame" is a non defense.

[quote] Frankly, your insistence that a military prison is the appropriate place for a child soldier seems like continued penalization of the victim. [/quote]
Yet again you throw in the arbitrary issue of age/child. Captured while one is participating in a war, and in his case quite possibly as an unlawful combatant, gets one behind the wire.

That is one of many facets of war, good, bad, and ugly. The bomb doesn't care how old you are when it blows you to bits. If you participate in the war, you are subject to its down side. Protesting relative innocence, which appears to be your argument, takes us back to the relative innocence of conscripts, who don't really want to be there ... non starter.

I do not believe that he was dragged kicking and screaming into participation, though he may have been reluctant. I find the assertion/defense that he was forced to fight less than credible.

If this lad is in fact an unlawful combatant, then treatment as other unlawful combatants is appropriate. If that means "go to court" then that is where he is. If he was a lawful combatant, he has to my view no business going to trial over participation in a war and trying to blow somebody up. That's what one does in a war ...

Occhi

[Jester]

Protesting relative innocence, which appears to be your argument, takes us back to the relative innocence of conscripts, who don't really want to be there ... non starter.

This does not address the core of the argument. A conscript is (somehow) a full member of a state entity. (These days, a citizen.) They participated in the state, and thus, run the risks of being conscripted. Their participation is "voluntary" in the broad sense, if not a specifically narrow one. An analogy would be taxes, which nobody really wants to pay, but they implicitly accept by being a member of the public, and can therefore be held responsible for.

A 15-year-old is not in the same category. They are legally unable to make the decisions that would lead to their implicit acceptance of being a combatant. Whether a 15 year old can practically make such a decision is less clear. I think they probably can, and by that point, their history might be sad, but it is irrelevant, just as a poor upbringing is not an excuse for carjacking. But we can't mix our legal standards - if there was no rule in place to say he was legally competent, then we can't retroactively declare it.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Not in reply to anyone in particular, just a general comment:

To quote one of Occhi's favorites, "Where you sit determines what you see."

In this case, I think those of us that have been in situations where being blown up by a grenade tossed by an eight year old was a real concern will have a different perspective than those who've never had that privilege. The veneer of civilization which is stripped off in war never fully regrows.

Just my 2 đồng's worth.

--Pete

[DeeBye]

Just my 2 đồng's worth.

Wait, what? You have 2 of them?

[ShadowHM]

This topic is still troubling me.

Yet again you throw in the arbitrary issue of age/child. Captured while one is participating in a war, and in his case quite possibly as an unlawful combatant, gets one behind the wire.

Of course the age distinction is arbitrary. See my response to Nystul above. An ‘arbitrary’ line is drawn in the sand for other matters. You seem to believe that activity in a war setting is categorically different but you have not conveyed to me why that should be so.

Please define 'lawful combatant', for purposes of this discussion about child soldiers. You seem to be placing a great deal of importance to the distinction.

That is one of many facets of war, good, bad, and ugly. The bomb doesn't care how old you are when it blows you to bits. If you participate in the war, you are subject to its down side.

No argument on that point. War is a nasty business, whether you bring it on or it is brought to you. However, we are talking about the aftermath, not the activity.

Protesting relative innocence, which appears to be your argument, takes us back to the relative innocence of conscripts, who don't really want to be there ... non starter.

Citizenship has both privileges and duties. And conscripts, at least in our respective countries, are legal adults – full citizens. It is the fate of child conscripts in other countries that we are discussing.

In this case, I think those of us that have been in situations where being blown up by a grenade tossed by an eight year old was a real concern will have a different perspective than those who've never had that privilege. The veneer of civilization which is stripped off in war never fully regrows.

I understand that in the heat of battle, many things are thrown out the window. But once the war is over and the warrior is home, there is time to re-consider, rather than remain frozen in the emotions of that time. Insisting that the child is completely blame-worthy smacks to me of the internal justification we are all prone to doing, wherein we decide that since we are good guys, the opposition must deserve what they got/get.

I am arguing in favour of a much more nuanced view, and, apparently, failing. I believe that the there is a spectrum of responsibility that can be expected from a child, depending on a combination of their age and maturity, before they get to that ‘arbitrary’ number wherein full adult responsibility is incurred. (And a parent’s job is to give them an ever-lengthening tether so they learn how to make responsible decisions on smaller things before that day arrives when they are held legally accountable for all actions.)

[--Pete]

Hi,

... a grenade tossed by an eight year old ...

I understand that in the heat of battle, ...

Let me clarify this point. Hardly the heat of battle. It was (literally) a trash run. A driver and three guys riding shotgun -- one in the cab and two in the back with a bunch of trash cans. Little kids running out to wave and yell and catch the candies we often brought just for the purpose. One eight year old, one grenade, three dead, one wounded that lasted about two days. And the only reason I wasn't there was because I'd won the flip and took guard duty rather than trash run.

Sometimes, battle can be cold. Ice cold.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Please define 'lawful combatant', for purposes of this discussion about child soldiers. You seem to be placing a great deal of importance to the distinction.

A lawful combatant is one entitled to the protections of a soldier under the Geneva accords, the rest are not. Partisan irregulars, for example, are not. Neither are saboteurs nor spies. One vacates one's protected status as "child" or "civilian" or "non combatant" when one chooses to engage in a military function, or a combat function, in a war. This young man did so. He is a combatant of some sort, lawful or otherwise, his age is utterly irrelevant. If unlawful, he is not afforded the protections that I would have been under Geneva and LOAC when I was on active duty.

You are invited to investigate further various arguments on what is or isn't a lawful combatant if you like, particularly as regards irregular and "unconventional" war. He was one.

Citizenship has both privileges and duties.

Agreed, but irrelevant to this case. I think you are aware that where he is from, women are second class citizens, at best, chattel at worst. Being underage makes him a likely candidate for use in pederasty until he reaches his culture's majority. Is that one of his responsibilities, to be "the bottom" in such a relationship?

I find it useless to apply your and my nation's norm to his "citizenship," but as it remains irrelevant to his actions as combatant, legal or otherwise, nothing further on that score.

He became a combatant through his actions. He joined in the fray. So, he gets to reap the consequences.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

Sometimes, battle can be cold. Ice cold.

More likely though, this is an asymmetric tactic.

If you shoot the kids who may or may not be carrying grenades, then you can be propagandized as criminal and cold blooded.

If you ignore the risks, you subject yourself and comrades to mortal danger, and they propagandize your weakness, and their small victories. Our own press then asks, "Why are we losing?"

If you pull back, and stop engaging the kiddies chasing the trucks for candies, and etc. Then again, you lose the opportunity to influence the hearts and minds of the next generation. Again, a propaganda win for them, and you are the hard hearted aloof invaders.

For example, the Vietcong intentionally intermingled themselves into seemingly harmless farming villages, where any retaliation by the Americans would seem heavy handed, barbaric, and an unprovoked attack on the unarmed populace. A huge propaganda victory.

From the CIA insurgency manuals, I've learned this: Whenever an innocent (and the more innocent the better) is killed, the tactic is to first make as big a propaganda splash immediately, hoping to mobilize more civilians to take to the streets (for more martyrs). Then, within a couple days, the funeral, which needs to be a long and loud procession through the streets, again, to attract the biggest crowds possible, and hopefully they will agitate a violent clash. Because what is better propaganda than a heavy handed opponent attacking a funeral procession? Then, finally, some kind of permanent list or role of martyrs in a very public place to constantly remind the populace of the growing cost of occupation.

We can talk about organized "lawful combatants" and soldiers, versus unorganized mujaheddin insurgents, but from the populaces point of view (Afghan, or Canadian) he was a boy who was used as a violent tool of a political movement.

Of course, this is entirely arm chair quarterbacking, but, from the asymmetric point of view... The way to have won that battle where only the boy survived would have been for the special forces unit to pull back, and if possible contain and wait for backup to surround the compound. Then, siege them until they surrender, or if necessary kill to prevent casualties. But, that is not really the military way. Generally, if your being shot at, you return maximum firepower until they stop shooting. Total victory in that scenario would have been to force them to capitulate, and capture them all for interrogation.

It's much like trying to convince the police not to engage in high speed chases were the public is in danger, or the officers themselves. Better to capture the evidence needed, then follow safely until they stop. We sometimes need to step back and ask ourselves what victory looks like.

[Jester]

Agreed, but irrelevant to this case. I think you are aware that where he is from, women are second class citizens, at best, chattel at worst. Being underage makes him a likely candidate for use in pederasty until he reaches his culture's majority. Is that one of his responsibilities, to be "the bottom" in such a relationship?

I find it useless to apply your and my nation's norm to his "citizenship," but as it remains irrelevant to his actions as combatant, legal or otherwise, nothing further on that score.

Er, this is still about Omar Khadr, right? He's "from" Toronto. That makes "my country's" citizenship rights and culture rather important.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

... the Vietcong intentionally intermingled themselves into seemingly harmless farming villages, ...

Actually, at first, many of the VC were from those villages. There was a lot of people in South Vietnam that were opposed to the occupation of their country by western powers, directly or through what they considered puppet governments. Some of them were actively pro communism, many just considered it the lesser of two evils.

Other than that nit, yeah. War can be very cold, especially if one side is willing to sacrifice everything and everyone for their cause.

Er, this is still about Omar Khadr, right? He's "from" Toronto. That makes "my country's" citizenship rights and culture rather important.

Two points:

While technically a citizen of Canada, he's hardly a Canadian by culture: "Because his father, Ahmed Said Khadr, had raised his family in Peshawar, Pakistan since 1985, Omar spent his life moving back and forth between Canada and Pakistan. His mother also wished to raise her family outside of Canada due to her animosity toward Western social influences. Khadr was enrolled in a school in Peshawar." But he at least was exposed to civilized behavior (and, yes, I meant that to be every bit as prejudiced as it sounds) and thus has even less excuse for his actions.

Second, if you are going to make a point of his Canadian citizenship, then perhaps you should make a point that Canada is one of the nations fighting in Afghanistan and thus he is technically a traitor.

--Pete

[ShadowHM]

This tangent started because I expressed my sympathy for a child soldier and Occhi expressed the opinion that said child soldier (and by extension, all of them) is not deserving of any particular sympathy or treatment other than that which would be meted to any enemy combatant.

Please define 'lawful combatant', for purposes of this discussion about child soldiers. You seem to be placing a great deal of importance to the distinction.

A lawful combatant is one entitled to the protections of a soldier under the Geneva accords, the rest are not. Partisan irregulars, for example, are not. Neither are saboteurs nor spies. One vacates one's protected status as "child" or "civilian" or "non combatant" when one chooses to engage in a military function, or a combat function, in a war. This young man did so. He is a combatant of some sort, lawful or otherwise, his age is utterly irrelevant. If unlawful, he is not afforded the protections that I would have been under Geneva and LOAC when I was on active duty.

Your reliance on a legalistic view of the issue of child soldiers versus an ethical view is troubling. (It also seems very convenient for a citizen of a country that sends 'legal combatants' all over the world, often to places where child soldiers are, to lean on an argument that that exonerates their own participation while permitting prosecution of the 'enemy', regardless of age.)

Using an (exceedingly murky) set of legal opinions as basis for one's ethical opinions is not what I would have expected from you.

And the fact that you have done so brings us right back to the post that started this whole side show.

I understand that from your viewpoint, he made his choice when he arranged to be born into that gawdawful family. However, most of the rest of us believe that minors have limited moral responsibility and no legal responsibility for their actions. Their parents do. That doesn't help anyone in a war zone, but it does, in my mind, temper my judgement of their actions.

Unfortunately, from my viewpoint, you have proved that my assessment above of your attitude was accurate. However, you needn't trouble to express your umbrage again. Bolty may have erased it, but I remember.

Since I find it hypocritical to judge a child anywhere by a standard other than that which applies to my own children, we shall have to agree to disagree.

Citizenship has both privileges and duties.

Agreed, but irrelevant to this case.
<excised irrelevant meandering>
I find it useless to apply your and my nation's norm to his "citizenship," but as it remains irrelevant to his actions as combatant, legal or otherwise, nothing further on that score.

See Jester's point above regarding citizenship in this specific case. At the generalized level for the rest of the world's child soldiers, citizenship is absolutely relevant, since it clearly impacts on whether one ends up a child soldier or not.

He became a combatant through his actions. He joined in the fray. So, he gets to reap the consequences.

Occhi

The immediate consequences of battle are, as already stipulated, reaped by all participants. However, deciding to prosecute children later for their participation, because they don't fit your criteria for a legal exemption, is repugnant to me. I am sorry to know you don't feel the same way.

if you are going to make a point of his Canadian citizenship, then perhaps you should make a point that Canada is one of the nations fighting in Afghanistan and thus he is technically a traitor.

--Pete

Technically, Canada has not declared war on anyone. So, technically AFAIK, he can't be a traitor, regardless of his age.

[Zenda]

A lawful combatant is one entitled to the protections of a soldier under the Geneva accords, the rest are not.

Yeah, when citizens resist being taken during a razzia it becomes a battlefield, so those that survive become unlawful combatants. Very convenient. You used that same argument in discussions on Gitmo and torture, is it not?

[kandrathe]

A lawful combatant is one entitled to the protections of a soldier under the Geneva accords, the rest are not.

Yeah, when citizens resist being taken during a razzia it becomes a battlefield, so those that survive become unlawful combatants.

Um, we can the debate the reasons for the US going to Afghanistan after paramilitary (terrorists) outfitted and trained there to hijack multiple planes and fly them into assorted buildings in the US. Probably a better cause for war than the assassination of a duke by a radical kook, or the outrage of having a battleship explode mysteriously(boiler failure) in a harbor.

Very convenient. You used that same argument in discussions on Gitmo and torture, is it not?

No. I recall he did not.

But, I'm on your side if you think it is illogical and unprecedented to cart POW's, enemy combatants, or rendition enemies of the state (or as it turns out any national we want) to an isolated Caribbean prison camp with little opportunity for oversight or appropriate use of US, or international laws.

Anyone else reminisce of Papillon? What are we defending if we throw away our laws, and our principles to act like the barbarians we are fighting against?