Widow Testifies at a Military Court

[ShadowHM]

All i have to say is, If kids right away know right from wrong, if they dont they are even more of a danger to society. I hate the lame argument of kids just dont know any better. Yes they do! Its just hard for most people to picture some one so young doing something so evil, in the 1920 women never faced murder trials because it was thought they were incapable of such a thing.

1) Children learn from their surroundings. I will readily agree that some do seem to be born without empathy. But that is a long way from 'knowing right from wrong' when born.

2) Citing past legal treatment of women is irrelevant in a discussion about child soldiers. Women were not legally persons in my country at that time. They were legally equivalent to children. It is a bit of a stretch to suggest that we should now move children up to adult legal treatment too.

---

I'm curious Shadow, what do you want to see happen in this case? You obviously feel he is guilty of his crimes, correct?

He is, as far as I understand, absolutely guilty of killing at least one American soldier.

Assuming this is the case, then based on what I've read thus far, you think he should face punishment, however as a child solider, correct?

Correct.

So my question is, what is the difference between tried as a "child solider" vs an adult solider? Are there any distinctions?

I strongly believe that all mitigating circumstances should be taken into consideration when sentencing anyone. Sometimes there are none. Sometimes there are many. Age is, in my opinion, certainly a mitigating factor.

Now I see what you've been saying, and I have to agree that it's an unfortunate situation, one this kid probably couldn't have gotten out of. He may have been born in Canada, but was raised ultimately as a solider and a fighter. His choice? Or all just part of "growing up"? Who's to say, and the morality of it will be argued for some time I presume, yet I cannot forget, even when acknowledging his possibly unavoidable past, that innocents die all the time, and rather this child was mentally innocent or not is irrelevant because the fact of the matter is he is a killer, and an enemy combatant. To me, it doesn't get much clearer than that. Should he be charged "as a child"? Sure, why not - if there are indeed rules for that sort of thing. But he must face judgment, mark my words!

You asked what I 'want to see happen in this case'.

This particular child soldier has spent eight years in Gitmo. He (according to sworn testimony by the man who did it) was told, on capture, that he was going to be sent to an American prison where he would be raped to death by black prison imates. Now, by all accounts Gitmo is not quite as luxurious as your standard prison where your standard murderer ends up, although he probably was not raped there. But, my opinion is that justice for Omar would be served at this point by sentencing him to time served.

However, there is much more to this case now than serving justice. And, frankly, I don't know what I want to see happen. I believe that his education at Gitmo is unlikely to have reversed that which he received before Gitmo. There is not much chance of any semblance of a 'normal life' in Canada for him, regardless of whether he returns to his family here. Additionally, he is likely to be perceived as both royalty and martyr by al-Qaida devotees. I suspect that his first move as a free man would be to return to them. And that could present a direct danger to many people if we do let him go. The flip side, of course, is that he is even more of a martyr if we continue to incarcerate him. I see no easy or completely right answer to your question.

For a FAQ-style review of the case and discussion of the ramifications of varying options, see here:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/1...s-faq.html