Omar Khadr’s fate leaves me with several questions. The first is why exactly is he being tried for war crimes? Is it because he has been labeled as an unlawful combatant who killed a U.S. soldier, or because he killed a medic? If it’s the last reason, that rather hinges on whether or not he knew the man he killed was a medic, because collateral damage is allowed. Since he allegedly threw a grenade from behind a wall, I doubt he intentionally injured a medic. I suspect, however, that the war crimes accusation hinges on Omar Khadr being an unlawful combatant.
This brings up a couple points. As a fifteen-year-old, he was a child soldier, so whether he was a translator or unlawful combatant is irrelevant; legally he should be rehabilitated and repatriated. As a fifteen-year-old, can he even be tried as an adult? Forgetting about international law, in the United States we have separate justice systems for juveniles and adults. All too frequently, however, children are being tried as adults based on the fact that they have committed “adult crimes”. This occurred famously in the case of Lionel Tate, who killed a playmate while imitating wrestling moves. He was only twelve when he committed the crime, but was tried as an adult. However, it seems to me that there are two primary reasons for dividing the justice system by age. The first is to keep adult offenders away from children. The second is that a child is by definition incompetent. If we don’t think they’re competent enough to vote, I certainly think we should not believe that they are competent enough to truly understand the ramifications of their actions. Especially teenagers, who are, essentially, hormones with skin, and should all be automatically Baker Acted until they have successfully completed puberty.
In my opinion, the prosecution of Omar Khadr is incorrect. He was, legally, not competent when he committed the crimes of which he was accused, and was a child soldier anyway, so most of this is a moot point. Whether or not he was an unlawful combatant by adult terms should not even enter the equation. I see this as part of the growing insensitivity of the United States to the question of mental competency as defined by a person’s age.
4 comments:
I disagree with the age limit. Certain countries 18 year olds are not U.S. 18 year olds. Moreover, there are times when a 15 year old may be completely responsible and more adult like than others. The best means of determining responsibility/culpability is to see the facts. Was the kid capable of knowing the results of his action AND the potential consequences for him/herself? If the answer is yes to both... then there is little reason to keep the child from facing the consequences.
So, to apply this, we ask, did Khadr know what he was doing? Few would say no, but if not, then sure, he's a child and should receive the protection afforded to children as combatants.
thing is; it takes more than age to be classified as a child soldier. you have be eligible to be classified as a soldier under some chosen definition; to get what amounts to legal protection as a child soldier, he'd have to be otherwise eligible to be a PoW, were he not also underage.
As posted on my personal blog, my thoughts are very "bi-polar" on this entire case. The kid's age is somewhat problematic and 15 strikes me as a gray area which is perhaps why I flip flop so much. I don't feel that 15 years old is too young to make a cognitive decision but I'm sure Omar wasn't exactly mature either. All of that being said, I'm less focused on his age unless age alone is sufficient to classify him as a child soldier. The whole grenade incident seems like circumstantial evidence at best. I mean, they found the boy nearly buried in the rubble of the building somewhat incapacitated, and I'm supposed to believe he had the strength and determination to grab a hand grenade and lob it over a wall? I'm curious about some of the other evidence surrounding the nearly demolished building, the injured boy, and the wall the grenade was thrown over. Let's say he did have a hand grenade on his person, how would he know there were US troops on the other side? Maybe there was a window or hole blown in the side which gave him a better vantage point? I would like to hear a little more of these pieces of evidence before casting judgment. Because I feel so "gray" on this whole case I'm glad I'm not a lawyer of any sort. I don't believe the boy is completely innocent; he was acting in association with some bad men even though Omar did so under the direction of his father. My conclusion: I don't think I would be comfortable with any murder/homicide-type charges brought against him but I would be in favor if he were put on trial for some of the less severe crimes he was initially charged with. No matter what any of us think, Omar is "screwed". Not that he hasn't suffered significantly from time served, but the current POW/detainee situation does not seem to be headed in a clear direction anytime soon. So, my guess is that Omar isn't going anywhere soon... prove me wrong.
I think this is an interesting topic because the US has not actually signed on the Convention of the Rights of the Child which spelled out who was considered a child soldier (at the time it was originally passed, the age of fifteen was used). Since that time an optional protocol has been passed that raises the age to eighteen. Oddly enough, the US has ratified this optional protocol. I'm not quite sure how they could ratify that and not the other. Regardless, if this is considered a period of war, I think the other posters have raised interesting questions about whether he should be considered a POW or not.
Post a Comment