JIB, i apologize, i am sorry, for some reason i’m unable to access that cdi.org link you gave in your second-last post - do you mind if i inquire this organization’s full name?
ah. True words (applies to all of us, not just the US government).
Here’s a letter from the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture:
Your report on the indefinite detention of three adolescents at Guantanamo Bay points to the blurring of legal boundaries by the US government in what it terms the “war against terrorists of global reach”. Besides the detention of under-16s, which is contrary to the convention on the rights of the child, the US has placed all these detainees, of whatever age, outside the legal protections of the Geneva conventions, by categorising them as “enemy combatants”.
Claiming instead to treat them only “in conformity” with the conventions, it lessens the obligatory standards. By holding detainees outside US territorial boundaries it has placed them beyond the legal constraints of the US constitution and judiciary.
The US does not deny that it is using other types of sensory deprivation, which are similar to the “interrogation in depth” techniques banned in 1972 by the British government during its war against terrorists. Used intensely and together, such techniques can amount to torture. If the US government wants to address seriously the complaints about its mistreatment of detainees, it must stop playing with words. It should release minors from detention, give full access to all detainees by the International Committee of the Red Cross, allow independent investigation of the serious allegations of torture and mistreatment, publish the results of those investigations, and stop the “rendering” of detainees to other countries’ security forces who can torture them outside any legal boundaries whatsoever.
So what does the U.S. do with the 13 year old kids that carry out shootings in schools? You know that the U.S is world famous for shootings in schools.
Why are they not also sent to the Bay?
Oh........I forgot, they are American 'children'!
Just for the record, brandishing a pistol does not attain adulthood for children otherwise all toddlers can become adults and bypass the natural biological process. Just give them a gun and they will become adults!
Only Americans can use this logic and try and make a child with a weapon an adult. One rule for Americans and 20 for others. Hypocrites.
I suppose, 'like leader, like follower'. No wonder Bush is like Einstein to the Americans.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sholay: *
So what does the U.S. do with the 13 year old kids that carry out shootings in schools? You know that the U.S is world famous for shootings in schools.
Why are they not also sent to the Bay?
Oh........I forgot, they are American 'children'!
Just for the record, brandishing a pistol does not attain adulthood for children otherwise all toddlers can become adults and bypass the natural biological process. Just give them a gun and they will become adults!
Only Americans can use this logic and try and make a child with a weapon an adult. One rule for Americans and 20 for others. Hypocrites.
I suppose, 'like leader, like follower'. No wonder Bush is like Einstein to the Americans.
[/QUOTE]
If you check your news on the teenagers in America that carry out school shootings, most of them kill themselves. If they are taken alive they are put through the court system.
Putting a gun in a child hand does not make them an adult. I don't recall implying that combatant meant adult. Funny how noone opposeing me here wants to answer had you would react to a 13 year old boy pointing an AK-47 rifle at you or better yet, shooting at you. Would you question defending yourself because this poor militant is merely a child?
[QUOTE]
Putting a gun in a child hand does not make them an adult. I don't recall implying that combatant meant adult. Funny how noone opposeing me here wants to answer had you would react to a 13 year old boy pointing an AK-47 rifle at you or better yet, shooting at you. Would you question defending yourself because this poor militant is merely a child
[/QUOTE]
I am not sure of my reaction if a 13-year-old were to point an AK-47 at me. But I am certain that for one thing I wouldn’t hold that child indefinitely without a shred of legal justification. Oh and another thing, my feelings about what to do with that child would remain the same regardless of the child’s ethnicity or religion. Unfortunately you can't say the same about American viewpoints.
I am not sure of my reaction if a 13-year-old were to point an AK-47 at me. But I am certain that for one thing I wouldn’t hold that child indefinitely without a shred of legal justification. Oh and another thing, my feelings about what to do with that child would remain the same regardless of the child’s ethnicity or religion. Unfortunately you can't say the same about American viewpoints.
[/QUOTE]
My reaction would be the same if a 13 year old caucasian, black, arab, asian, hispanic or whatever threatened me with a weapon. Could you please tell me where you found your all inclusive idea of American viewpoints.
if you read reports of the "children" held at Guantanamo Bay from several sources, you will find that they report
probably only 3 are there. That there are held seperate from the other combatants. Even that one of the 3 boys is from Canada.
by the way, believe it or not, caucasian Americans are not the only people capable of racism.
Then tell me why in the US justice system Minors who commit murder are not treated the same way as an adult who commits the same crime. Your justice system makes a difference between the two types.
John Lee Malvo is the Washington area sniper. He was 17 at the time of his crimes and is being tried as an adult, and subject to the death penalty:
"Arif also argued a motion that asked Roush to declare the death penalty unconstitutional for juveniles. Virginia allows capital punishment for defendants 16 and older. Malvo was 17 when Franklin was killed. "
But if i remember the 17 year old is not actually the sniper. But rather the son right? Also the 17 year old is only being tried as it is an exceptional circumstance. You are going to tell me every 17 year old in the US is tried like an adult. I doubt it. Also we are speaking of 13 year olds. 17 is one year against legal adulthood in the US. So he could rot in prision for 1 year and then be tried as an adult. This way saves money. The cruel irony of that.
It is VERY common for children as young as 13 or 14 to be tried as adults, if it can be proved tthat they know and understand the consequences of their actions. Let's face it, in many cultures around the world, people in their teens are parents raising families.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by JusticeIsBlind: *
Funny how noone opposeing me here wants to answer had you would react to a 13 year old boy pointing an AK-47 rifle at you or better yet, shooting at you. Would you question defending yourself because this poor militant is merely a child?
[/QUOTE]
Immobilize the person by whatever means available; if he/she persists, aim to kill.
However, we are not talking about the battlefield. This story is 1½ year+ removed from that imaginary scenario.
Why are these children in limbo? Why now after all this time has elapsed?
It is not common. I dont think it is common in the US system to try 13 year old kids who committed murder as adults. There have been rare exceptional cases. But it aint the norm. Anyway International law deems child combantants as non-enemies or prisioners of war. You cant hold them as POWs.
II. Status and treatment of child combatants captured in international armed conflicts
Child combatants who become prisoners of war
A. STATUS
Children between ages fifteen and eighteen. Notwithstanding the recommendation that priority be given in enrolment to the oldest - an indication that humanitarian law deems their participation in hostilities abnormal - children between ages fifteen and eighteen, enrolled in the armed forces or taking part in a mass uprising of the population (levée en masse), do in fact have combatant status [10] and are ipso facto entitled to prisoner-of-war status if captured [11].
Children under fifteen years of age who, notwithstanding the injunctions in Article 77, paragraph 2. of Protocol I, are recruited or are enrolled as volunteers in the armed forces, also have combatant status and will if captured have prisoner-of-war. status. Although the participation of children in hostilities is prohibited, it was nonetheless necessary to ensure that they are protected if captured. There is for that matter no age limit for entitlement to prisoner-of-war status [12]; age may simply- be a factor justifying privileged treatment. However, a child combatant under age fifteen who is captured cannot be sentenced for having borne arms. Since the prohibition contained in Article 77, paragraph 2, of Protocol I is addressed to the Parties to the conflict and not to the children, the participation of the latter in hostilities does not constitute a breach of the law by them. Responsibility for such a breach lies with the Party to the conflict which recruited and enrolled the children.
Ohioguy, well and good the Red cross says this. But it is not a law. You dont see countries saying that a child is a POW. Imagine if that were the case. Any child with the ability to use a weapon can be classified as a pow.
Plus your same link at the bottom:
[quote]
IV. Child combatants detained during non-international armed conflicts
It should be remembered that in non-international armed conflicts the status of combatant does not exist, and consequently that of prisoner of war, which derives from it, does not exist either. Equally, there are no categories of protected civilians or of civilian internees.
[/quote]
The problem of children in combat is an awful one. I believe that the quote you used is for non-international conflicts. Certainly the facts and circumstances surrounding the detention of teens this young must be extraordinary. We can only guess at why these kids were kept. Certainly the US had to know that is was very unusual. Beyond that we are just guessing. These kids could be foreign nationals, sons of OBL, anything?!
If the facts were not unusual the ICRC would be raising a holy stink, and so far that has not happened. The citation I gave you is a discussion of the Geneva Convention, to which the US is a signatory.
Well your link basically states that the US cant keep those 2 kids no matter what. It is a violation of international law. Even the US agrees its violating the Geneva convention. I just dont see how can you defend such acts by the US govt.