Jawad, the terrorist should be spared?
-
The difference between what we allow and what generally are child-soldier is that we do not force children to be child soldiers; The US and Canada ( among others) allow minors of 17 year old to enlist (with parental approval), but will and should not be sent to war zones. from wikipedia : "In 2004 the Director of Military Personnel Policy for the US Army acknowledged in a letter to Human Rights Watch that nearly 60 17-year old US soldiers had been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 and 2004.[46] The Department of Defense subsequently stated that “the situations were immediately rectified and action taken to prevent recurrence”.[47] Human Rights Watch sent written requests in April and August 2007 for updated information regarding possible deployment of 17-year-old US troops to Iraq or Afghanistan, but as of October 2007 had not received a response.[48]" [46] "Brigadier General Sean J. Byrne, Director of Military Personnel Policy, US Army, letter to Human Rights Watch, 2 April 2004"
Maximilien wrote:
The US and Canada ( among others) allow minors of 17 year old to enlist (with parental approval), but will and should not be sent to war zones.
I never claimed that the U.S. and Canada weren't more enlightened than Afghanistan. I merely pointed out that the UN has defined child soldier as kids 14 and under. Personally I consider calling 17 year-olds "child soldiers" waters down the repunancy of what is going on in many parts of the world with the forced enlistment of 8 and 9 year-olds. Once people start thinking of "child soldiers" as 17 year-old punks, they will stop caring.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Maximilien wrote:
The US and Canada ( among others) allow minors of 17 year old to enlist (with parental approval), but will and should not be sent to war zones.
I never claimed that the U.S. and Canada weren't more enlightened than Afghanistan. I merely pointed out that the UN has defined child soldier as kids 14 and under. Personally I consider calling 17 year-olds "child soldiers" waters down the repunancy of what is going on in many parts of the world with the forced enlistment of 8 and 9 year-olds. Once people start thinking of "child soldiers" as 17 year-old punks, they will stop caring.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
one must put an age limit. whether it's 14, 15, 16, 17, or 18 is a matter of endless debate and no consensus will ever happen. I know 14 years old who are more mature than 30 year old persons; and I've seen 18 year old too dumb to live in society (and they were not mentally challenged, just dumb and immature).
-
one must put an age limit. whether it's 14, 15, 16, 17, or 18 is a matter of endless debate and no consensus will ever happen. I know 14 years old who are more mature than 30 year old persons; and I've seen 18 year old too dumb to live in society (and they were not mentally challenged, just dumb and immature).
Maximilien wrote:
whether it's 14, 15, 16, 17, or 18 is a matter of endless debate and no consensus will ever happen.
Anyone who gets confused between 14 years of age and 18 is in danger of committing statutory rape. Most adults know the difference. Anyone who doesn't should try real hard to learn. You can have the last word.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
http://www.kwch.com/Global/story.asp?S=9662716[^] Why would he be spared because of his age? 16/17 is no breast-feeding age. Lame.
ASP - AJAX is SEXY. PERIOD.
Reading the article, it seems that the issue before the court is one of a coerced confession, a fact that you have chosen to ignore in your confident declaration that the accused is in fact a terrorist.
John Carson
-
Depending on who you talk to (or what you read and/or what to believe), 16/17 years old is still considered a child-soldier and should not be in active service. The issue is not about being old enough to kill people, but too young (and uneducated) to resist the pressure of older person who use them to do things they dare not do.
This signature was proudly tested on animals.
Besides what you said, if he is found guilty, it could be argued that he has spent many years already incarcerated, so, is that time sufficient to suggest that time is served? And how long should he be subjected to rehabilitation and who should perform this task so that he can become a worthwhile member of society. Should he then be exiled from USA lands or assimilated into the American way of life by means of asylum as his life could possibly be at risk if he returns to his home country.
-
Maximilien wrote:
whether it's 14, 15, 16, 17, or 18 is a matter of endless debate and no consensus will ever happen.
Anyone who gets confused between 14 years of age and 18 is in danger of committing statutory rape. Most adults know the difference. Anyone who doesn't should try real hard to learn. You can have the last word.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Jon, you can go into a Pub here in UK and consume alcohol from the age of 18 upwards. But it truly is difficult to assess young peoples ages. They do tend to dress without regards for their true age, especially the fillies.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
But it truly is difficult to assess young peoples ages.
Sure. The arbitrary distinction between 17 years and 360 days and 18 years is extremely difficult to make and in some cases, the difference between 16 and 18 is just as hard. But it damn well behooves us who are over 21 to keep our pecker pantsed until we're sure. On the other hand, sometimes the onus to act like a kid is on the kid. When a 16-17 year old in the US attempts or succeeds in killing someone, he-she-it is usually tried as an adult. Certainly when a 16-17 year old grabs a grenade and throws it at a soldier, however unsuccessfully, he's damn lucky to be alive to stand trial. If he looks young, he's still lucky to be alive. If he's too stupid to understand what he's done, he's still lucky to be alive. If he does it only because his uncle Adnan told him to, he's still lucky to be alive. On the other hand, as Carson points out, this discussion is moot - the kid's defence is that his confession was coerced. And there's no age limit on that.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Besides what you said, if he is found guilty, it could be argued that he has spent many years already incarcerated, so, is that time sufficient to suggest that time is served? And how long should he be subjected to rehabilitation and who should perform this task so that he can become a worthwhile member of society. Should he then be exiled from USA lands or assimilated into the American way of life by means of asylum as his life could possibly be at risk if he returns to his home country.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
assimilated into the American way of life by means of asylum as his life could possibly be at risk if he returns to his home country.
Great, he tries to kill our soldiers for whatever reason and you expect us to give him a free pass to Disneyland? :doh:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
assimilated into the American way of life by means of asylum as his life could possibly be at risk if he returns to his home country.
Great, he tries to kill our soldiers for whatever reason and you expect us to give him a free pass to Disneyland? :doh:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
He is on your soil. So, for the time being he is your country's problem until such time that you decide what to do with him. You could just exile him, but as he already is claiming coercion by his home country's authorities, his life may be at risk if he is compelled to return to his home, this raises the question of (1) do you grant him asylum, or (2) find another country willing to take him, or (3) to hell with it and send him home washing your hands of him as you so do. However, by subjecting him to a proper rehabilitation, he may well turn into a model citizen and you may even be proud of his conversion to the ways of America values. Yet, you have suggested he tried to kill USA soldiers. As his confession was by coercion, that suggestion now becomes subject to doubt. And as you know, one of the finest aspects of our respective civilisations (Trial by Jury) is "Innocent until proven guilty" and "Not guilty or Not Proven" where doubt exists.
-
He is on your soil. So, for the time being he is your country's problem until such time that you decide what to do with him. You could just exile him, but as he already is claiming coercion by his home country's authorities, his life may be at risk if he is compelled to return to his home, this raises the question of (1) do you grant him asylum, or (2) find another country willing to take him, or (3) to hell with it and send him home washing your hands of him as you so do. However, by subjecting him to a proper rehabilitation, he may well turn into a model citizen and you may even be proud of his conversion to the ways of America values. Yet, you have suggested he tried to kill USA soldiers. As his confession was by coercion, that suggestion now becomes subject to doubt. And as you know, one of the finest aspects of our respective civilisations (Trial by Jury) is "Innocent until proven guilty" and "Not guilty or Not Proven" where doubt exists.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
do you grant him asylum
Maybe we could rename Gitmo, "Guantanamo Asylum." Of course, the three square meals, accomodations, etc. would come with a bill instead of being provided free of charge. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface