Agreed. Locking up this 15 year old casualty for a long time insures that society is protected from him.
This kid’s a fucking Canadian.
Edit: And fine, let’s say he was defending his homeland: He’s now a POW. 
Door #1. It is a truism that the brain (and mind) of a child (and 15 is a child) are different than those of an adult. Both psychological and anatomic disparities exist. Of course, this raises the question of when is the cut-off for being a child. But, even the most reactionary societies tend to accept that it is past the age of 15. SCOTUS even acknowledged this recently when it ruled that application of the death penalty to minors is unconstitutional.
Much of my ‘outrage’ originates with my obviously mistaken belief that my country’s (Canada) approach to dealing with youth and crime was, and would be, more universally held. In particular, I assumed (inappropriately) that the spirit of its Youth Criminal Justice Act would hold sway with our good friends south of the 49th parallel. Evidently not. I took for granted that a 15-year-old Canadian boy would not be tried by them as an adult, and certainly not subjected to the same penalties as an adult. As I said, I assumed that the maximum penalty would be similar to what our YCJ act would impose - imprisonment until age 21 or three years (I think)*
*for especially violent and/or egregious crimes, the child can be tried, and thence sentenced, as an adult. This is not done very often, especially when the child is not close to the age of 18, i.e. it’s more likely to be done for a 17 year old.
In any case, my bottom line is that I think it’s ‘obvious’ that this kid was exactly that - a kid - and not deserving an adult trial or sentence. I thought this was particularly the case given that he had been raised in an environment where violence against the US and western society in general was greatly encouraged, if not considered an absolute duty.
I don’t think he does. He was fighting invaders, I would too, I hope you will too.
Sometimes I wonder if things like this trial are deliberately conducted to provoke more anger and reaction from the Jihadists. (Remember Abu-gharib?)
Him getting shot at the time would’ve been a non-event.
They did shoot him. At least twice.
And then they saved his life. Would you have rather they left him there to bleed to death?
Yes, we judge them by our standards. And by the UN standards.
“Fighting an invasion?” He was on the battlefield in Afghanistan, not sitting at home sipping tea. Our military was legitimately in Afghanistan. If you want to take Al Qaeda or the Taliban’s side on the war there, by all means, do so. Me, I think you’ve gotta be seriously fucked in the head to take their side, but I guess someone’s gotta do it.
Not really. Nobody was invading Canada.
He was taken from his country (Canada) by his crazed parents, and then taught how to kill in a training camp in Afghanistan. He was fighting against Americans (and Canadians - his own country) in a foreign (to him) land.
He should have been returned to Canada for trial shortly after his capture. The fact that he was not is a black mark on both countries. An article in the Globe and Mail has it right - “Khadr is Canada’s problem now.” It should have been our problem to deal with 8 years ago.
The US screwed up, and is making this move now (40 year sentence, but punt him to Canada) in order to save face: “we sentenced him to 40 years, but those pussy Canadians let him go”
So you’ve been to Afghanistan to fight US forces? That may explain your opinion that the kids head isn’t fucked up. It helps me form an opinion of you though.
Did you miss the part about the fact that the kid is a Canadian? Again - traveling halfway around the world to defend the homeland and training ground of terrorists really doesn’t push the needle on the Canadian noble cause meter very far.
Doesn’t matter. He considered his duty to fight invaders in Afghanistan even though he is a Canadian. Is it hard to understand?
Yes, it is hard for me to understand.
“fighting invaders” says to me that someone is invading the space where you live and reside.
IMO, If I need to travel a long distance in order to engage an “enemy”, I am not fighting invaders.
I do see your point - I guess you are saying that he identified with the Taliban, and considered them to be his “true” countrymen.
I don’t agree that this gave him the ability to defend himself with the “I was only fighting off invaders” line, as he was forced to TRAVEL there in the first place (by his parents) to put himself in harms way.
ETA: Let me put it this way. If there was an armed standoff in your town, with bank robbers holed up in a store… and you snuck out of your house and managed to get into the store with a gun, and subsequently shot at the police… I don’t think you could claim self defense, in that you were only repulsing the “invaders” of the store.
The whole uniform BS is yet another highly polished turd.
What the hell do uniforms matter? Did the Iraqis trying to surrender get to see the uniforms of the US soldiers who shot them from a few miles away in their helicopter gunship?
Do predator drones have “uniforms”?
What happens if s US base gets attacked and some soldier’s don’t have time to put on a uniform and go out to fight in their plaid shorts? Can they be treated as “Enemy combatants”?
So not being held criminally accountable for the heinous acts one commits as a child soldier is ok as long as its African child soldiers against other Africans, but when its a 15 year old in Afghanistan against an American Marine, suddenly it’s a whole different ball game?
I would if I was an Afghan. Your opinion is worthless to me.
I don’t think he cares much about the “Canadian noble cause meter”, just like most Canadian politicians.
You’ve said this a number of times but I think the issue of his involvement in a combat fatality meant that the US had to take some action.
Did they overdo it? Possibly. But that’s what the prosecutors are charged with doing - Addressing the most serious charges that they think they can successfully prove. They did that and the process returned the appropriate sentence.
I can’t tell what the 40 year sentence means since he’s returning to Canada. Is it possible it also acts as a strong deterrent to keeping him out of the US for that time?
My guess is that he will disappear from Canada and show up in Pakistan in a few years when we can then read about his adventures.
OK, I’ll type slowly for you just to help you out.
H.E…I.S…N.O.T…A.N…A.F.G.H.A.N!
My opinion of you now includes “very stupid”. Not that you should care
Americans living overseas might disagree with that.
Or maybe he just identified with the common Afghan people.
Are you sure he was forced?
Americans are not like cops and Taliban are not like bank robbers. Sorry.
The Geneva Conventions, the Law of War, and all the different rules adn regulations involved in “War” are attempts to civilize something that isn’t very civilized at all. It’s an attempt to find rules that will work to minimize the collateral damage to war, and to add incentives to people and countries to act in accordance with the rules.
Al Qaeda, and this guy, don’t do that. If they want to be treated like a soldier, it’s pretty clear what they have to do.
And if Khadr was treated like a soldier, he could be locked up until the end of hostility in Afghanistan, if not longer. Figuring out what to do instead, say like have trials, is a step in the right direction to stop infinte detentions and try and add some kind of sense of justice and fairness to war.
Comparison fail. Khadr was not an Afghani living overseas in Canada who returned to his country of origin to fight invaders.
No he’s not but he’s part of the “coalition of the willing”, defending afghans. (I put it in language you can identify with)
Translation: He didn’t lie down and die before American soldiers like he was supposed to.
Since when is shooting at an invading army a criminal matter?
Garbage. Why should anyone accept the word of a bunch of torturers and thugs about what he was doing? And again; since when did shooting at an invading army count as a crime?
I’m not sure I understand. You concede in this last paragraph that even in Canada, the law does not definitively forbid a fifteen-year-old being tried and sentenced as an adult.
Here is a quote from the Canadian Department of Justice web page:
So it appears to me the result here is at least possible under Canadian law.
OK. But these arguments go to the evidence showing what, if anything, the accused did, and not his age.