Former boy soldier, youngest Guantanamo detainee, heads toward military tribunal

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Washington Post

Former boy soldier, youngest Guantanamo detainee, heads toward military tribunal



Omar Khadr, who grew up in part
in an al-Qaeda camp, was 15 when
he was captured after a firefight
in Afghanistan. (Rick Eglinton -
Toronto Star)

By Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Omar Khadr, the youngest detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was 15 when he allegedly threw a grenade that killed a U.S. Special Forces medic in Afghanistan. Now, more than seven years later, Khadr is drawing the Obama administration into a fierce debate over the propriety of putting a child soldier on trial.

The struggle against al-Qaeda has thrown up few detainees with as baleful and unlikely a background as Khadr's -- a father who moved his family to Afghanistan and inside Osama bin Laden's circle of intimates when Omar was 10; a mother and sister who said the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were deserved; and a brother, the black sheep of the clan, who said he became a CIA asset after his capture in Afghanistan.

This background has convinced U.N. officials, human rights advocates and defense lawyers that Khadr, a Canadian citizen, was an indoctrinated child soldier and, in line with international practice in other conflicts, should be rehabilitated, not prosecuted.

"The U.N. position is that children should not be prosecuted for war crimes," said Radhika Coomaraswamy, the U.N. special representative for children and armed conflict, after meeting administration officials in October.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/09/AR2010020904020.html?hpid=topnews

[HeresyLives]

1. Now if someone could just convince our PM of that,

we'd get some movement on this prisoner. PM Harper has been the holdup all along. Even our Supreme Court has ruled on it.

[Robb]

2. I'm of two minds on this.

I don't think the line can so easily be drawn at age of responsibility for your actions.

I know 15 year-olds who have every understanding of what they're up to. And 30 year-olds who shouldn't be allowed out of the house. "Indoctrination" is a difficult thing to pinpoint. That said, if a bunch of people who should know have come to the conclusion he didn't know what was up, then yes, treat him as a child.

[Arctic Dave]

4. I don't think his age has as much to do with it as much as he was

sent to gitmo. After all he killed a soldier who would had no problem with killing him if he felt threated. If anythinjg, he should be a POW and treated as such.

[Green_Lantern]

12. POW requires being a member of

A legitimate military force.

[Arctic Dave]

16. How do you know he wasn't?

If the Taliban was considered the de facto government then it would be logical to say any one under their arms, no matter how disorganized, is part of their military force.

[Green_Lantern]

18. he was a member of Al Qaeda...

Not the Taliban.

[Arctic Dave]

20. How do you know this? Was he wearing his AQ uniform?

[Green_Lantern]

21. read the article...

Nothing even suggests he was in the Taliban.

[DissedByBush]

90. It doesn't matter,

Geneva Convention III, Art. 2,

"...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

The Taliban never accepted nor applied the provisions of the GCs, so the US is not bound by it in relation to the Taliban.

The same applies with the Hague Conventions.

Our treatment of these people is not covered by the rules of war.

It is covered by our Constitution, our laws, and our morals.

[happyslug]

120. You cite the right Treaty but misinterpret it complete,

Whether the Taliban sign the treaty or NOT is unimportant, the US HAS and as such it is binding on the US. Just re-read what you cite "...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

Translated into simpler terms "...Although the ... not be a party to the present Convention, the ...shall remain bound ... by the Convention in relation to the , if the {Taliban] ... accepts and applies the provisions thereof." There is no evidence that the Taliban have NOT followed the Geneva Convention and as such the US is bound by the Geneva Convention. Just because the Taliban have no US POW does not mean they have rejected it. The law makes certain presumptions one of which is acceptance unless they is clear evidence of non-acceptance. i.e. the burden is on the US that the Taliban would NOT treat US POWs under the Geneva Convention.

Please note, the Geneva Convention does recognize that Guerrillas and other irregular forces have limitations as to care of POWS, thus all the Convention calls for its the same treatment as their own troops. If the Taliban are subject to US Air Attacks and have no safe havens, the POWS can NOT expect anything better. If the Taliban are sleeping in the snow, the POWS can not expect anything better.

[Arctic Dave]

3. This kid should at the most be a POW.

He killed an aggressors soldier, he had nothing to do with being a "terr'ist" as the excuse for gitmo was suggested for.

[DissedByBush]

5. POW? Then there's no trial

He stays in our custody until the end of the conflict. Which means probably forever.

[Arctic Dave]

8. Yes, but under extremely different conditions.

That is why the GC are there, so we don't become some third rate torture state like we have become.

[RaleighNCDUer]

93. No, he stays in our custody until the end of the conflict OR until we release him.

There is no rule that says we can't release he before the end of the conflict.

The people who insist on calling this conflict a war should allow that captured troops be treated as POWs. If there is evidence the captured person is also a war criminal, THEN they get a military tribunal. Otherwise, they are just common POWs. And throwing a grenade at a soldier who is part of a force attacking you is NOT a war crime.

[Green_Lantern]

103. he's not a POW because...

That only applies to legitimate soldiers and not members of unlawful groups like Al Qaeda. This was put into law by the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

[RaleighNCDUer]

105. If this is an 'unlawful group' rather than a legitimate military, then he

should be tried in civilian court, not in some jumped up kangaroo court invented by the bushies to cover up their crimes.

WE went THERE and attacked THEM. He fought back. Wouldn't YOU?

[Green_Lantern]

106. I don't know...

My family aren't religious fanatic nutcases.

[Art_from_Ark]

141. So what you're saying is

You wouldn't defend your family unless they were "religious fanatic nutcases"?

[fascisthunter]

108. I Agree with You...

a think this new approach is not only confusing and lawless, it is stupid. Laws don't need to change for terrorism... I think our legal system could handle this.

[Green_Lantern]

110. civilian courts may not be able to handle...

War crimes.

[RaleighNCDUer]

112. But, you keep saying they are not soldiers. If they are not soldiers they

cannot, by definition, commit war crimes.

[Green_Lantern]

113. I'm just using that to differentiate between a crime commited...

Against a civilian and one against a soldier. Khadr was a combatant still but not part of a legal military unit for his act to be considered just a legitimate part of war.

The govt. has a monopoly on the use of military force, AQ doesn't.

[DissedByBush]

116. We've had such courts before

They were always considered legal.

Whether it's civilian or military I just say it's about time.

If he's not a POW then he has a right to a speedy and fair trial.

Letting him rot in Gitmo for years does not fit that definition.

[Green_Lantern]

117. he is being tried...

In a military court.

[Green_Lantern]

10. that's not a legitimate defense or his lawyer would've

Used it. Being part of Al Qaeda isn't considered as a legitimate military force so when they kill other soldiers it's basically considered like killing a cop coming to arrest you.

[Arctic Dave]

15. Your arguement doesn't hold water.

Hoiw would react if a cop from Medxico came to your house to arrest you? The fact is he has no legal authority to do so, so if you shot him in your house you would be justified.

Also, if he was a criminal then why isn't under international law authority?

[Green_Lantern]

19. if that was a legitimate defense...

His lawyer would be using it. Why would a cop from Mexico arrest me...apples to oranges.

[Arctic Dave]

22. Why would cops from Mexico arrest you, easy.

A couple of guys murdered a Mexican national and they were sent to "arrest" him and you were in contact with them. You being a good red blooded American when confronted with a person holding a gun in a threatening way killed one of the people who came to arrest the people who committed murder. Well, obviosly you are one of the people who commited the murder then, right?

[Green_Lantern]

23. no unlike Al Qaeda members...

If I knew the authorities were arresting an alleged murderer I wouldn't fight them.

If some American murdered a Mexican person the US authorities would arrest them anyway.

[Arctic Dave]

42. 23 CIA people were tried and found guilty in abstentia in Italy, have they

been arrested yet?

CIA, also a nonmilitary group, can they be held indefinately without trial?

[Green_Lantern]

45. I don't know the case of the CIA agents you're talking about

In order to make a judgment. And I didn't say terrorist suspects should be held indefinitely without trial.

[DesertDiamond]

6. This SO!!!! not right!!!! Child soldiers should be given love and rehab, NOT punishment!!

[WhiteTara]

7. it will be interesting to see what the DOJ does in this

case. Child soldiers should be rehabilitated, not punished.

[bitchkitty]

60. That is interesting.

Rehabilitated how? And after rehabilitation takes place then what? Citizenship? College? American Idol?

It's a messy situation that should never have happened in the first place. I hate this fucking war.

[WhiteTara]

81. It is terrible

I read of some of the child soldiers in the Congo who had been helped. I doubt if those young people would ever be able to be frivolous and be part of something like American Idol, but maybe somehow they could have a life. Usually it would be in fields of helping others who had been used and abused as they had been.

[gratuitous]

9. Applying the Opposite Test

Let's say, and why not, that the United States has finally been invaded. By terrorists! With all kinds of weapons and armaments. The terrorist army is moving through, oh, Virginia. Or North Carolina. They've already cleared and they hold Chesapeake and Richmond, and they're moving west towards Charlottesville. The plucky Virginians, originally stunned to be the focus of a terrorist army invasion, have caught their collective breath, and organize a resistance. It's kind of rag-tag, but it's what they've got to defend themselves. They engage a terrorist squad and in the give-and-take of combat, a sophomore at Murray High School, tosses a grenade that takes out one of the terrorist army personnel. The kid is captured by the terrorists.

The terrorists hold the kid incommunicado for seven years. They claim he's one of the worst of the worst of Americans, one of the reasons the terrorists had to invade America. And now, they want to put this kid, now 22, on trial for his actions when he was 15.

I'm sure we'd be just fine with that, wouldn't we?

[Green_Lantern]

11. well does this American group...

Have the same record Al Qaeda does?

[gratuitous]

14. Let's apply the Opposite Test again

Let's say, and why not, that the United States isn't a superpower nation, bristling with armaments and exercising economic hegemony over large portions of the world. Instead, let's say that the considerable natural resource wealth of the United States is routinely plundered from it by another nation that is bristling with armaments and that exercises economic hegemony over the country and the surrounding region. Let’s further assume, just for the sake of argument, that this country of economic occupation (call it Evilistan) observes a religion other than Christianity, and is generally hostile to Christians, if not outright persecuting of them. In addition to looting the United States of its wealth, it also impoverishes huge swaths of the population, and works to install political leadership in the United States that oppresses Americans while remaining friendly to Evilistan. This leadership gets paid off handsomely for its quisling ways.

While Evilistan robs our country, impoverishes our population, oppresses us with its dictatorial leaders, it also influences our popular culture, importing movies, games, and other entertainments that glorify Evilistan while condemning America, its history and its culture. This influence extends even into the very crops we grow, the food we eat, and the restaurants, which serve Evilistan ethnic provender mass-produced to an America that could feed itself, but which is systematically starved to the benefit of Evilistan.

I’m confident that every citizen of the United States would passively accept this as a status quo, without grumbling or resentment. Now, what was that about al Qaeda's record? I forgot the question.

[Green_Lantern]

17. we did have all of those things happen...

When we were a British colony. I don't recall us mass murdering civilians.

Secondly, I'm more concerned about how we deal with actual groups like Al Qaeda than hypothetical terrorist groups and situations.

[gratuitous]

24. I suppose

I suppose that if the means had existed in the 18th century to efficiently, directly and suddenly affect British citizens thousands of miles away, no doubt some folks in the colonies would have done that. And there's nothing hypothetical about the oppressive military, economic and political policies and practices of the United States since World War II (which have, in their own way, mass murdered civilians). The fact that we have had any number of folks murderously upset with us since the 1950s isn't an indication of some irrational contagion affecting various people in impoverished countries; it's a natural and normal human response.

[Green_Lantern]

26. I agree but I differentiate between...

How to stop future terrorists and dealing with current terrorism. I don't consider captured Al Qaeda to be POWs, it doesn't matter if US policies suck at times.

Blacks in the US were treated like chattle and yet the civil rights movement was mostly non-violent. I think the same can be expected from Muslims.

[Mithreal]

35. Wow, can't believe you said that.

[Green_Lantern]

37. said what?

nt

[Mithreal]

61. If I didn't think your were oblivious to understanding how what you said could be interpreted,

I would go to the trouble of explaining.

Might do yourself a favor trying to see how others might misread your intent. I have already read a bunch of your comments and think I have a good feel for the conversation.

[Green_Lantern]

65. well we were talking about

US policy in the Muslim world right?

[Mithreal]

66. Uh huh

[Green_Lantern]

69. I really want to know

What you took offense to. I hate mind games.

[Mithreal]

72. I was trying to focus, not play mind games. Look at what you wrote again.

"Blacks in the US were treated like chattle and yet the civil rights movement was mostly non-violent. I think the same can be expected from Muslims."

If I have to explain how this can be interpreted, I risk the whole focus of the discussion going places I do not want to go. Maybe you could elaborate? Maybe I am misreading into your statements.

[Green_Lantern]

74. well we were talking about

US treatment of Muslims and I'm simply saying that if the civil rights movement was mostly non-violent then Muslims responding to injustice don't need to respond with violence.

Many already are non-violent.

[Mithreal]

79. Is there some Muslim civil rights movement happening in the US now?

This is only part of the reason I took offense btw.

[winyanstaz]

87. That is a valid arguement...

Not all the germans were nazis either.
We are painting ALL muslims with a broad brush for the actions of radicals.

[WriteDown]

27. Fun game. What if you're a German citizen in WWII and American forces are invading your country?

Or how about you're on American soil, but helping to intern Japanese Americans. Is it then okay to kill?

[Green_Lantern]

28. I don't understand the comparison

nt

[gratuitous]

29. I guess it just helps me

When I hear about "terrorists" and how they have this blind, unreasoning hatred of the United States and its freedom, I try this little thought experiment to see if that hatred really is blind and unreasoning. And it turns out that by failing to understand some of the history of our interactions with other countries, it makes it almost effortless to reduce people to caricatures and justify whatever we do in "retaliation" for being so heinously wronged. Now, there might indeed be blindly hating psychopaths running around out there, but they have a lot of support from a lot of people in other countries, and I don't think all of those people are blindly hating psychopaths. So maybe there's another reason for such hostility that isn't reduced to blind psychopathic hatred.

I'm probably way off base, because after all, what has the United States ever done to merit such a violent reaction that a 15-year-old would lob a grenade in a pitched battle instead of going to the hop with Cindy Lou?

[Green_Lantern]

32. even if they are doing it because they are poor...

They are still committing acts of terrorism. Yes we should address the root causes but when they are captured I don't expect the government to treat them like victims.

I do support following the Constitution when dealing with them.

[Mithreal]

38. Terrorism is a tactic of people who can't defend themselves or get a response

any other way, can be vengeance and murder as well. Really depends who is doing it though whether we even condemn and prosecute it. AlQaeda sure got the response they wanted from Bushie, no?

[Green_Lantern]

39. maybe maybe not...

But I did expect a response, didn't you?

[Mithreal]

41. What does maybe maybe not mean? And why sqirm away with that second comment?

[Green_Lantern]

43. what I mean is Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11

And after that I expected we would declare war on them and respond as we did. I was appalled when it was extended to Iraq.

[Mithreal]

49. That's somewhat of a diversion from what I said.

[Green_Lantern]

52. How so?

You asked about our response to Al Qaeda.

[Mithreal]

57. "AlQaeda sure got the response they wanted from Bushie, no?"

My question isn't of response or no, it is a question of what the "vicious terrorists" aims were.

[winyanstaz]

54. I have seen no actual proof it was Al Qaeda that attacked us...

If you have some...please post a link?
Because if over half of the 9-11 commission itself says it was not allowed to really investigate...all we have is cheney and bush's word that it was "Al toilet".

[Green_Lantern]

56. I'm not even getting into that....

I don't play that game.

[Mithreal]

58. A safer question may be about the origin of AlQaeda and our involvement in its creation.

Links to an excellent documentary, Power of Nightmares, from the BBC.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727#

[winyanstaz]

83. good link...ty

[Mithreal]

85. You're welcome

:hi:

[winyanstaz]

82. That is fine..that is your choice...

I,however dont think of the shoddy investigation of the murder of thousands of Americans as a "game." I think its a damn crime.

[RaleighNCDUer]

95. You do understand that this kid is Al Queda in the same way that

you might be Catholic (or Baptist or Jewish or whatever). HE made no decision about it. His father dragged him off to Afghanistan when he was TEN. He was living in a compound surrounded by terrorist ideologues for five years before it was attacked.

When did he make a choice be 'become' Al Queda?

He was a child soldier, brainwashed by his own father.

[Green_Lantern]

97. I understand but that doesn't make him...

Any less devoted to their cause. Many Al Qaeda members are brainwashed like this but I don't think it's the same as some delinquent kid.

[RaleighNCDUer]

100. So put a fucking bullet in the back of his head.

THAT'S the way to go.

[Green_Lantern]

102. that's a straw man..

I never said we should just kill him without a trial.

[RaleighNCDUer]

104. Why not? You've already determined not only that he was guilty, but

complicit in his own brainwashing.

You know, to be a terrorist you have to do more than live next door to a terrorist.

Hold it. Maybe there is an aspect not yet considered.

How do YOU define 'terrorist'?

[Green_Lantern]

107. his lawyer isn't disputing that he's in AQ....

But he still needs to be convicted to be imprisoned for a crime.

[Solly Mack]

13. ...

The Unending Torture of Omar Khadr
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11128331/follow_omar_khadr_from_an_al_qaeda_childhood_to_a_gitmo_cell/1

[Mithreal]

30. +1

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mithreal]

31. I come down on the side of mercy. Not that I expect my government to understand the concept

or even some "evil" DU'ers.

[Green_Lantern]

33. it depends on his attitude and behavior....

If he seems like he can be rehabilated than mercy is warranted.

[Mithreal]

34. What do you think is an honest attitude and behavior response to what the US has done?

[Green_Lantern]

36. well if he's still willing to kill Americans...

I'd be opposed to showing mercy, let's put it that way.

He needs to show signs that he could be rehabilitated.

[Mithreal]

40. “The quality of mercy is not strained; It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven

Upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed- It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes.”

Child, CHild, CHIld, CHILd, CHILD!

This was a child, just want to highlight that.

The focus of his detention was on humane treatment and rehabilitation wasn't it?

You ever known an angry child who grows up to be an angry young adult?

The US no longer even practices justice, how could I expect everyone to understand mercy.

[Green_Lantern]

48. I understand mercy but I also understand....

Children trained to be vicious terrorists don't exactly fit the normal angry teen psychology.

[Mithreal]

55. Did this child come here to attack us? This child is YOUR vicious terrorist?

Not only do I question your understanding of teenagers, I taught high school in an urban and rural areas suffering from crippling poverty and race tensions, I question your understanding of basic human responses. Others attempted to engage you in empathy or seeing things from an oppressed and occupied nation citizen perspective but that just slid off.

Here is what I see. I see an American Empire gripped in diminishing or threatened access to resources, rampaging on the other side of the planet looking for enemies of legendary significance. If they can't find them, they will invent them. This child threatens our image of the all powerful military. Why? For a warrior hero to truly be awesome, there must also be an enemy that looks equally as awesome and terrifying. Superman is nothing without Lex Luthor. If Superman's enemy is a child, now that is intriguing, no?

[Green_Lantern]

59. oh come on...

Others attempted to engage you in empathy or seeing things from an oppressed and occupied nation citizen perspective but that just slid off.

That's beside the point. Wouldn't that require mercy for every terrorist? I do empathize with oppressed but I don't think terrorism is remotely justified.

I'm not even going to compare this to a comic book.

[Mithreal]

62. It's alright, I didn't expect understanding.

[winyanstaz]

86. Well I hear you loud and clear...and I agree....

This is just a big bloody red shameful mark on our morality and a sin against God and man. This is not how a just and moral nation behaves.

[CLANG]

44. This man is not a terrorist:

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.<1> At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.<2><3> Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)."

He was fighting American soldiers on a battlefield. You can charge him with murder maybe, but not terrorism.

[Green_Lantern]

46. he's a member of Al Qaeda is he not?

nt

[CLANG]

47. That's not the question, it's whether he commited a terrorist act.

[Green_Lantern]

50. sure, as far as conviction and punishment...

But he's still part of a terrorist group and not just a normal soldier.

[CLANG]

53. I'll give you that much.

[RaleighNCDUer]

98. See my post #95 above. nt

[winyanstaz]

51. That kid has suffered enough...more than enough I am sure....

Those that imprison children and torture them should be in prison for war crimes themselves.

[Green_Lantern]

63. torture sure but not imprisonment...

It depends on their crime and age. What if a 15 year old neo-Nazi shot people at a synagogue?

[Mithreal]

68. Need to work on your metaphors. Not even close. Can you tell me why?

[Green_Lantern]

71. just tell me...

I prefer people to just say what they're thinking...

[Mithreal]

73. "What if a 15 year old neo-Nazi shot people at a synagogue?"

Where is this land where neo-Nazi's are being occupied by the Jewish people? Why did you choose synagogue as the place? The person in your metaphor went somewhere to do harm. There is no similarity. They cannot be compared. I know I am not stating every incongruent aspect of this poor comparison.

[Green_Lantern]

75. correction...

This guy did indeed travel to Afghanistan to kill American and Afghani soldiers. He wasn't living under occupation.

[Mithreal]

78. Correction it is not, if he went there to defend others.

I'll concede you are close on your correction. And the remainder you concede or have no response?

[RaleighNCDUer]

99. No, he didn't. His FATHER may have; he was just dragged along

with him.

[Green_Lantern]

101. that's not true at all...

He wasn't with his father when he killed this soldier. Nothing here says this guy was an unwilling participant. If this was the case why wouldn't his lawyer use it in his defense.

[winyanstaz]

84. Torture is always wrong...

Anyone will confess to ANYTHING if tortured.

[Green_Lantern]

94. I was talking about imprisonment...

Not torture.

[winyanstaz]

114. Throwing a child into prison like where he was is also wrong...and IS torture...

[Green_Lantern]

119. well I don't support anyone being held indefinitely wthout..

Trial. But putting people in prison isn't torture unless they're mistreated.

[Mithreal]

64. Absolutely

We have become our worst enemy. It was never AlQaeda.

[Green_Lantern]

67. no, our enemies are

1. Al Qaeda
2. us

[Mithreal]

70. Only America can destroy America. Sorry.

Go watch Power of Nightmares. Linked above.

[Freddie Stubbs]

76. If a teenager in the US threw a live grenade at someone, he would likely be prosecuted

[Green_Lantern]

77. would we care if he was oppressed?

nt

[Mithreal]

80. Yes, Freddie, and your response is no surprise. Too bad it is oversimplified to extreme.

And by that I just mean some of us are more conservative than others. No other slight meant.

[IndianaGreen]

91. unless that foreign someone had bombed his village

in which case the teenager would be hailed as an American hero.

Blue Dogs: Scoop Jackson is burning in Hell!

[The abyss]

92. Well stated!

[Green_Lantern]

96. if that was a legitimate defense than his lawyer...

Would've used it. Actually it'd just prove his understanding of what he did and willingness to do it again. It doesn't matter why he wants to kill Americans, the question is whether he's still dangerous.

[citizen snips]

88. Why is he considered a soldier?

If he was a solider he would have a uniform and be ranked. Also, he deliberately targeted a medic and killed him. He is lucky that his life was spared and taken as a prisoner than killed for attacking a medic.

[The abyss]

89. Excellent story Judi

Thanks for posting.

Also, I may add, interesting discussion that has developed here.

Recommend.

[laureloak]

109. Sad to think of young generation of haters and murderers.

Especially sad to think that these young men will never know how to love their mothers, sisters or wives.

[Green_Lantern]

111. they only know how to.

Dominate women.

[winyanstaz]

115. It is ridiculous to think these people do not love the women of their families...

They have a different culture but that doesn't mean they don't love them.
These people think that WE don't love our women and daughters because we don't "protect" them from the lusts of strange men...and we let them dress and act like harlots in their eyes...

When I see little girls as young as 8 and 9 wearing lipstick and makeup and dressing like a lady of the night...or when we constantly see young ladies as sex objects in advertisements or being murdered nightly on tv...it makes me also wonder if we are not going too far and are failing to protect the children and youth of America. We show them nightly scenes of lust and murder and then are appalled when it is acted out.

As to young generations of haters and murderers....it is OUR fault. WE are the invaders. They are not over here blowing up our mothers and fathers and children. We are the bad guys in this case...sad to say..and it is our violence and occupation they are fighting.

Would we not do the same if someone like say China came over here and started blowing us up? Would it be alright if our children who tried to fight the invaders were treated as this child was?

One nations "terrorists" are another nations "freedom fighters".

I am against all terrorists that actually do things here in America but it's hard to blame those that are fighting our invasion.

[Green_Lantern]

118. wow oh wow...

How can a progressive defend the way women are treated under the domination of Islamic fundamentalism? Women get acid thrown in their face if it's exposed and killed for dating men. Different culture or not people have certain human rights.

[winyanstaz]

121. I did not say I agree with the terrible way they punish women

for breaking their rules...I think it is horrible.

But I also don't condemn a whole nation as not loving their families because I dont agree with their religious beliefs and practices.
It was not so long ago that women in Europe and America were put into stocks and branded on their forheads.

That didn't mean that all Europeans and Americans didnt love their moms and sisters and daughters...it meant that religious fanatics were out of line and out of control that were making the laws and inforcing them.

[Green_Lantern]

122. I think you misunderstood me....

I was talking about Islamic fundamentalists, not all Muslims.

Secondly it's actually been quite a long time since Western women were treated slightly this bad.

[winyanstaz]

123. Thank you for setting me straight that you were not condeming them all...

However we still have a few religious cults that also still treat women badly and gangs that force women into prostitution and religions that want a woman to just die instead of getting the healthcare they need and are blowing up clinics (and women) etc.. so we are still not so great. However I believe we are moving more in the right direction.

[Green_Lantern]

124. we have religious cults but they don't have their

Treatment of women enforced as law like it is in Saudi Arabia. Women in the US have equality under law.

When was the last time a woman's clinic was blown up? Even then the Feds prosecuted the guy. The Taliban murders people practically daily and Pakistan security supports it.

[winyanstaz]

125. the taliban are an evil religious sect....

and their government is corrupt right now.

The violence against women is world wide...INCLUDING America.

May 31, 2009 was the last time a Doctor was murdered for helping women in this country but many women and children are murdered, beaten and or raped at home..by their husbands, boyfriends, families etc DAILY right here in America.

http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2005/presskit/factsheets/facts_vaw.htm

In 2005, 1,181 women were murdered by an intimate partner.1 That's an average of three women every day. Of all the women murdered in the U.S., about one-third were killed by an intimate partner.

According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, women experience about 4.8 million intimate partner-related physical assaults and rapes every year.

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, which includes crimes that were not reported to the police, 232,960 women in the U.S. were raped or sexually assaulted in 2006. That's more than 600 women EVERY DAY.

http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats.html

http://www.childbirthsolutions.com/articles/issues/violence/index.php

and I could post many many more statistics of the violence against women right here in America.

So please don't tell me, a victim of abuse in the past that woman are not equally abused right here or that we are any better than the Taliban when it comes to violence against women.

I understand how terrible it is for the women and girls there. It's dangerous to be a woman most anywhere in the world today.

[Green_Lantern]

127. I didn't say no woman in America is abused...

The difference is that it's not institutionalized and sanctioned by the government. The fact you think women in Afghanistan are treated the way Western women are is bizarre.

In this country women are just as free as men are according to the law.

Husbands who abuse their wives are arrested here. Under the Taliban he can kill his wife and not be arrested.

[winyanstaz]

128. In Texas..a man can legally kill his wife AND her lover

if he catches her in the act of cheating.
I don't know if there are other states that still allow it or not.

[Green_Lantern]

131. I doubt that's true...

I'd really like you to prove that.

[winyanstaz]

132. As far as I know it is still on the books but I am not certain of that..

At any rate if it was ever taken off the books it would have been not so long ago....It was a law when I was a child visiting there.

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/branlaj1&div=7&id=&page=

scroll down to the bottom of the page for the quote on the texas view on the matter...

Here is a more current case:

http://www.bernestinesingley.com/_murder_and_the_reasonable_man__31208.htm
as well as this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=zjHQWyttp6QC&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=Texas+laws+regarding+murder+of+a+spous+during+an+act+of+adultry&source=bl&ots=ehBb2Qy3U1&sig=eUw9KwnbCNueoTxXLxmR_-kgXxU&hl=en&ei=HWd4S8uIKI3mswOTrLy8Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false


I am not sure if that law was ever repelled after the trial of the woman who killed her husband for being caught in the act of adultry or not..
But I do know it was still the law there when I was a child.

And here is one on beating your wife:

http://www.idiotlaws.com/cant-beat-your-wife-more-then-once-a-month/

And in South Caroline:

It is legal to beat your wife on a Sunday morning on the steps of the state house.
• It is perfectly legal to beat your wife on the court house steps on Sundays.

[Green_Lantern]

135. that SC law is an urban legend....

And I doubt many wife beaters do it in public anyway.

[Green_Lantern]

136. The fact you're scrubbing the internet for even vague

Examples of women being systematically abused here shows it doesn't exist. Women can do anything men can here and no longer even need a man to do anything.

The Christian fundies even rallied around a woman to run for vp(not saying they're feminists but it would've put a woman in a very powerful position in their eyes).

[winyanstaz]

138. Not so many in public anymore...but plenty in private...

Just ask the wife of convicted GOP wife-beater Rep. Mark Olson or read the news about John Edwards beating on his sick wife who has cancer.

[Green_Lantern]

139. still not systematic..

I doubt Edwards beat his wife.

[lib_n_proud7650]

126. This is riduculous

[JonLP24]

129. I agree with him

There is no strict international prohibition against prosecuting child soldiers, but there is a general consensus on the issue. The U.N.-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone, for example -- which was set up to try people accused of grave human rights violations -- allowed the prosecution of people 15 and older, but no minors were put on trial.

"I could have prosecuted anyone under the age of 18 for war crimes and crimes against humanity, but I chose not to," said David M. Crane, the former chief prosecutor for the Sierra Leone court and a law professor at Syracuse University. "I didn't think any person under that age had the requisite mens rea, the evil-thinking mind, to commit a war crime. It's a rare thing, almost unheard of, that we prosecute children."

from the link

Also from reading the article living w/ Al-Qaeda since he was 10 he did not have much of a choice. Rehabilitated instead of imprisoned will be more beneficial.

[Blue_Tires]

130. what purpose has been served by holding him 7 years??

i'm not even sure i want to know...

[winyanstaz]

133. pedophile baby rapers don't serve that long in America...

[Green_Lantern]

134. I doubt that....

Rapists don't just get 7 years. When has this happened?

[winyanstaz]

137. It happens way too often....

l Average sentence of convicted rapists released from State prisons is about 10 years
l Average time SERVED has increased from about 3½ years to about 5 years
l Those released after serving time for sexual assault, the sentence has been a stable 6½ years
l Average time served grew about 6 months to just under 3 years.


http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~ejeglic/707Lecture5.htm

[Green_Lantern]

140. 10 years for rape is a pretty good sentence...

I'm betting that's a plea deal to avoid trial. In Saudi Arabia they execute the rapist and victim. Much better in the US.