Chapter 17 deals with rights issues during war. One of the most controversial parts of the war on terrorism is the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Read one of the two following articles:
Ellison's feelings on Guantanamo mixed from the Star Tribune
Child Soldier Case at Guantanamo Bay from the Associated Press
In your post address the following points:
1. What are the human rights concerns expressed in the article?
2. Do you think that the potential harm from terrorism out weighs these human rights concerns? What should the U.S. do?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
58 comments:
1. What are the human rights concerns expressed in the article?
2. Do you think that the potential harm from terrorism out weighs these human rights concerns? What should the U.S. do
1. It concerns the right to counsel, right to lawyer-client privacy.
2. I think if the person is suspected to be a threat to thousands of people, Guantanamo can be beneficial. I definitely don't think torture is moral, but if they have information that could prevent terrorist attacks, the appropriate actions should be taken to get it.
Some human concerns are if the 21 year old should be tried as an adult or as a juvenile, since he was 15 when he did the crime. I believe he should be tried as a juvenile, it is the courts fault for waiting for so long to get him to trial, there was really nothing he could do. The part that disturbs the court is that he was part of al-Qaida's group of terrorists and should be be put on trial as a terrorist. Even though he lived in a compound with women and children and was not in rolled in the military. His attornys point makes so much sense when she said "Soldiers are not protected targets. that is part of what war is about, killing soldiers."
The human rights issue in his case is that a small child who was living with other women and children killed a soldier. As a soldier they are suppose to protect women and children and not kill innocents. While the soldiers probably believed that he was an innocent bystander, he was not and made an attack on a soldier which ended up killing one. Another issue is that he was 15 when the crime occurred and now that he is 21 he should still be tried as a child because it is not his fault it took them so long to process and start his case.
I do not believe the human rights issue of protecting women and children in a war area out weighs that of terrorism, we cannot kill women and children. The US should not change anything when it comes to fighting in a civilian compound.
Haley Winckler
I read the atricle "Child Soldier Case at Guantanamo Bay." The human rights that are being expressed in this article is that the child in question is being treated unfairly because he allegedly killed a U.S. soldier and is now being held by American forces in a high ranked prison. Khadr was fifteen when he was captured and has been held for six years.
I think that in times of war and terrorism the rules of human rights does not have a heavy impact. If holding this boy, an al-Qaida soldier, is helping the military with catching Bin Laden then we should keep him. We should also charge him as an adult because he was a soldier in the Afganistan's military and was considered an adult there. Human rights is very controversial in which different countries and religions have different standards and the United States should not make exceptions to under-aged terrorists.
I have a comment that supports both the U.S and the child that is being held. For the U.S, Yes I think the captive should be held because he was fighting against us and if we let him out there might be another attack. But in term s for thee soldier he was told that the U.S opposed Islam. He was just protecting his country anyone else would do the same. In a war people get killed what do they expect him to o if his enemy is right before his eye's.
The article I read was on the U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison's feelings on Guantanamo Bay. Their were many human rights disobeyed that were listed. Detainees have no guarantee of a trial, and attorneys representing some of the detainees are not allowed to have private communications with their clients. Also, many are help at this detention camp not because they're suspected of terrorist activity, but simply because of the information they may or may not have said. I believe these human rights that are being disobeyed outweigh the potential harm of terrorism. The U.S. in my view is helping change this, but I think more could be done.
The human rights concerned in this article is mainly whether or not Omar Khadr should be tried as an adult for a crime he committed as a juvenile. The potential harm from terrorism does not outweigh the rights. The United States should have tried him when he was arrested. However, he should be tried as an adult. There's not much that can be done anymore. He's too old now to receive any punishment that would be given to a juvenile. They should just give him the punishment that adults would be given.
Khadr, who is now 21 years old, deserves a lengthy jail sentence. However, I don't think that he should have to serve a life sentence. The sentence should be somewhere between 10-20 years so that he can get straightened out. He should not be sentenced to life in jail for a crime that he committed when he was just 15 years old. The lawyers for Omar Khadr, claim that he was not eligible to be tried for murder as a war crime because the alleged offense occured during a firefight under traditional laws of war. This defense is wrong, it was a murder. I believe Khadr committed this crime because he didn't know better. It is a very serious crime, and should he should be punished harsly, but, with the conditions at Guantanamo Bay, how do we not know this is the way he was taught, the way he was raised.
I believe that in times of war with terrorism, certain extenuating circumstances should be made for captured suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Depending on the situation, the suspect's rights should be violated in some aspects because in our world today we can't afford anymore terroristic attacks and tactics against us. If we would've had this plan in 2001, the severity of 9/11 could've been less serious. Whether the attack would've happened or not, we could've still been more prepared for such an act, and then maybe more U.S. citizen's lives would be salvaged. So, depending on the issue, with certain probable causes of some sort, the plan of restricting rights from certain people is not such a bad idea. After all, should we be more concerned about foreigner's rights, some of which may have plans and strategies of killing us, or should we be more concerned about the overall well-being of our citizens of our own country, the United States of America. These were the ways in which things were handled back in the old days, and a lot less of severe things happened back then. We need to stop worrying so much about other people, like certain foreigners, and start worrying about our own people for once. If things were changed now and if things were done and handled the way they were back in the old days, the world would be a much safer and a much better place to live in. One last thing, Guantanamo Bay, is our base, so as U.S. citizens we have the right to handle certain things as we please. After all, we were the country that had the most devastating attack in years, so we have a good reason for why we do things.
The rights that have become a concern in Guantanamo are the right to counsel and the right to a speedy and fair trial. I think the idea of this prison is a good idea but some of the tactics are not morally correct and do not follow the American way. And i do not believe any situation out weighs human rights concerns.
In the Star Tribune article, the rights concerned are whether or not the prisoners are being detained lawfully.
I think some of the prisoners should be let out because some of them are being held because they don't know the whole story, or the prisoner just said something potentially harmful. I think they need to reevaluate the conditions under which someone is held there.
I think that Omar Khadr should be released, because he killed a soldier in a legitimate combat situation. soldiers are not tried for killing other soldiers. At least two of the three charges against Omar should be thrown out-murder and providing material support to terrorism. Murder is not an applicable crime in a defined war zone, and Omar, even if he did follow his father around to talk to terrorist bosses, did not do any financing of any terrorist groups. It is good, though, that he is actually going on trial, and not just rotting in prison anymore.
In response to Jenny33.
I do not think that it would necessarily be the courts responsibility to get the boy to court on time. He is being charged by the American government and we have different standards in which we convict people. He should be tried as an adult because he made a decision that was criminal and killed an adult. In my opinion, if someone of an opposing military kills someone in ours, then they should always be tried as an adult and should get the most harsh punishment. It's not just as simple as soldiers killing soldiers.
In response to Haley Winckler:
I disagree with you when you said that human rights do not have an impact in times of war and terrorism. Whether or not there is war going on, we still deserve human rights. I agree with you when you said that he should be charged as and adult, though not for the very same reasons.
1) The human rights concerns that are expressed in the article are generally things that have long been on the international mind. Things such as holding without charges, trial or reason. Also, many may not be granted a lawyer or even a trial. If they do get a lawyer, they may not get any private conversations with their client.
2)Yes, I think the “potential” for harm out weighs the rights of the people being held. I do think however that a person who is being held should be held under some sort of charges and face a judge, possibly military or something similar. They should be allowed a lawyer and other rights to that effect and should at least be considered for a trial.
I read the article "Child Soldier Case at Guantanamo Bay". The issues that are addressed in the article are first the courts lack jurisdiction to prosecute him for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed an American soldier. Second, the military tribunals should not apply to Khadr because the alleged offenses occurred before the court was created in 2006. Third, He is being held in Guantanamo Bay prison and that already has a debate going on right now around it and when he was put in there he was only about 15 and should be charged as a minor.
I think that Khadr was raised to kill and have no mercy for Americans or anyone unlike him so if he was to get off without any charges he would go and kill again. Like it stated in the article 'from the time he was 10, he traveled through Afghanistan and Pakistan with his father, an alleged al-Qaida financier, and visited terrorist leaders including Osama bin Laden..." Also since the Americans have him in prison this will probably just make him hate the Americans even more. I think the U.S. should still hold him but not in Guantanamo Bay in a less harsh prison.
1. What are the human rights concerns expressed in the article?
- The young boy who hurled a grenade at american soldiers an killed people when he was in “the war”, so he claims it is not a crime if it was during war. Older officials were telling they boy false information about americans and just making stuff up to make him hate americans.
2. Do you think that the potential harm from terrorism out weighs these human rights concerns? What should the O.S. do?
- I think that maybe what he did was wrong but he was still too young to realize what he was doing. If other people were telling you that all the white people were here to kill you and your families and older people told you it’s okay to kill them, wouldn’t you think that’s what needed to be done? I don't think he did this as an act of terrorism because he didn’t quite know it was wrong. I think the U.S. should better publicize in countries we’re at war with, making sure they know why we are at war to eliminate false evidence etc.
I don't think he should be tried as an adult because he was 15 when he was captured.Yes I think terrorism outweighs the human rights because it's not like he came to America and just started throwing bombs.
The issues regarding G Bay are connected to humanitarian rights such as the pursuit of happiness. All persons should be guaranteed certain rights and liberties as well as correct due process of law. I believe that no person should be subject to the denial of rights in order to protect a greater whole. One might argue that by sacrificing a single individuals rights we can gain information that could save a thousand people but we must remember that what good is it in protecting those thousand people if they are just as vulnerable to the same denial of liberty that was set upon the first individual. If we permit small denials of liberties it will only be a matter of time before torture is guaranteed legal by the constitution with judges signing torture warrants.
In the one about Omar Khadr, the human rights are not fair at all, first of all he was only fifteen years old when he commited the crime. They held him responsible in prison for what six years? Aren't you innocent until proven guilty? In this case he was also a juvenile when he commited the crime, he should be charged the same as any other juvenile. No. I don't think that terrorism should effect the way this case is handled because terrorism or not we are all just people. It should be handled with the same right's.
The human rights concerns in the article are about prisoners being held unconstitutionally without a trail. Ellison was also worried about the situation of prisoners and their living conditions.
In no way do I think the threat from terrorists outweighs our basic human rights. Once we start forfeiting our constitutional rights it may never stop. I don't understand how holding Sami al-Haj is going to prevent terrorism, when he is a journalist and camera man for Al Jazeera. Ellison said the prison conditions looked good, but I don't think we can necessarily believe all of these reports. When we see that Ellison wasn't even allowed to talk to any inmates, how are we supposed to believe that all of the activities that are going on are being revealed.
In the Child Soldier Case at Guantanamo Bay, I believe that there are some human rights being violated here. I believe that he is being held for no reason. No one has proven that this guy has done anything, and they are keeping him locked up. I also believe that this could be considered cruel and unusual punishment because he has not been proven guilty so they are keeping him against his will. Just because Khadr's father is an alleged al-Qaida financier doesn't give them the right to hold him captive. I believe the U.S. needs do to something. Guantanamo Bay is one of the worst places in the world. If we could do something about this issue, it would be a step in the right direction to getting rid of the concern for terrorism and the concern for human rights in America.
I dont think that Omar Khadr should be prosecuted for murder because he is fifteen years old and that is a normal thing to do when your country is at war. When you are fifteen I dont think you know the consequences of killing someone, especially when you are at war. Holding him until he is 21 years old should be enough because I think anyone who has been kept in jail from 15 to 21 in an adult prison would learn their lesson.
Some people are being held without being committed of a crime, and some don't get a trial. Also, private visits with lawyers are not allowed.
I feel that the potential harm from terrorism does out weigh human rights concerns. Anyone who is linked to terrorism or any terrorist organizations has violated the sanctity of life and has therefore given up their rights. We haven't had another 9/11, so whatever we're doing must be working.
I read the article "Child Soldier Case at Guantanamo Bay", by Michael Melia. In this case it describes a man, Omar Kdhar, who is facing life in prison due to throwing a grenade that killed an American soldier. Omar was captured at the age of 15, and now at the age of 21 is still sitting in Guantanamo bay without a jurisdiction. Just recently, the law authorizing U.S. Military tribunals was created. Some claim that it is not fair to trial him under this penalty when his crime was convicted prior to this law.
This is a very controversial issue, and it is really hard for me to pinpoint exactly how I feel about it. I am strongly again immortality, but when it comes in threat with our country it's hard for me to determine where I stand. I think because the crime was committed before 2006, and was a minor, he should be given a little slack compared to an adult committing the crime after 2006. I don't think that he should be sentenced to death, but I do believe he should not be placed back into society.
The human rights concerns that were expressed in the articles are primarily the right to counsel. The prisoners being held at Guantanomo Bay have been givin zero rights to a fair trial and most of them haven't been charged. They also question whether or not the 21 year old should be tried as an adult or a juvenile since he was 15 when he was brought to Guantanomo.
I think that protecting ourselves from terrorism is important but we should strive to do it without lowering the morale of our country. The suspects should still recieve their basic human rights and if we are correct about them being a terrorist we would be able to prove it in court. I don't agree with the reasons the 15 year old was taken to Guantanomo and I believe he should have recieved a fair trial and given the opportunity to defend himself.
I agree and disagree with Mason's comment. He should be prosecuted for murder, but under juvenile laws. The five years he has already sent should be taken out of the sentence he has received though. As Mason said "I think anyone who has been kept in jail from 15 to 21 in an adult prison would learn their lesson" I think that is partially correct. Someone being held in such a prison as Guantanamo bay for that long they would learn a great lesson. But at least in my opinion 5 years in prison is not long enough for someone who killed a soldier, whether under the age of 18 or not they must pay for their crime. Im not saying the death penalty, life in prison, or even 25 years is appropriate, but I think a light sentence with the 5 years he has already spent taken out of it would be punishment enough.
I agree and disagree with Mason's comment. He should be prosecuted for murder, but under juvenile laws. The five years he has already sent should be taken out of the sentence he has received though. As Mason said "I think anyone who has been kept in jail from 15 to 21 in an adult prison would learn their lesson" I think that is partially correct. Someone being held in such a prison as Guantanamo bay for that long they would learn a great lesson. But at least in my opinion 5 years in prison is not long enough for someone who killed a soldier, whether under the age of 18 or not they must pay for their crime. Im not saying the death penalty, life in prison, or even 25 years is appropriate, but I think a light sentence with the 5 years he has already spent taken out of it would be punishment enough.
I read the article, “Child Soldier Case at Guantanamo Bay” By Micheal Melia. The author questioned the rights of a alleged terrorist held at Guantanamo. Omar Khadr used the following arguments to support his case:
A:It was at a time of war so he was not at fault ( both sides fighting)
B:The tribunal court had not even been established when Khadr was detained
C:Held as a minor for more than 5 years ( violation of rights)
I believe that the potential harm from terrorism out weighs these concerns to an extent. Though it is horrible of the government to hold Khadr for such a long time the government is simply protecting it's own. The government has a responsibility to protect its soldiers and were doing so in this case. Khadr threw a grenade and killed soldiers of the United States, and the government was doing its best to put a stop to this action. I see nothing wrong with protecting the citizens at all costs. Its one of the government's top priorities.
In response to Haley
I beleive that you are incorrect in thinking that holding Omar is helping the US catch bin Laden. Also, if you call someone an al-Qaida soldier, then you have no reason to charge him with a crime, since what soldiers do is kill other soldiers. Obviously, both points you make in your arguement can not be true because they contridict each other. In your response, you are incorrect in saying that it is not the court's responsiblity to ensure that Omar goes to trial in a timely manner. Everyone is guaranteed the right to a "fair and speedy" trial. You are also incorrect in saying that it is not as simple as soldiers killing soldiers. It is. Ergo, either he should not be tried as an adult, or should not be tried at all.
In response to Niles,
I agree with your statement on the fact that the prison system down in Cuba is a good idea. Although, I must disagree with you on the following argument which deals with rights and concerns of the captive people's overall well-being. The fact is, is that most of the people we hunt down and hold captive are usually the right suspect and/or the person that did the deed. We don't just capture people for no apparent reason, otherwise this issue would be a whole bigger and a much different debate. Those people who committed the acts deserve to be punished to the fullest extent and deserve to be restricted of certain rights because these are the same people that coincide with others who kill our people and conspire with others to plan attacks against us. So, on the issue of those citizen's rights violations I must say that I disagree with you. Our country is hated and attacked and plotted against so many times, and it seems that our number one priority and concern is to help these sick individuals, I really don't understand it. People can be so ignorrant in this world, and it's their very ignorrance that costs lives and put them in danger. Hopefully someday our country will wake up and start caring about what's more important which is our people and our safety, not the well-being and consideration for those that jeopardize our very safety every day of every moment for the rest of our lives.
Im not sure exactly but maybe figuring out weather or not to try him as an adult or why it wouldnt be considered a war crime,maybe.
I think that if a person like this that was raised the way he was and introduced to people like osama bin laden that he would be watched by the government becuase of the threat that he presents.In his case i think the risk he presents outways his human rights and because he is not a u.s. citizen he does not have the constitutional rights that we do.
to jenny..
I agree with you on the fact that he should be tried as a juvenile and that it is the court's fault for taking that many years for him to get to trial. I don't think it's fair because he wasn't purposely trying to be a terrorist, but that was the way he was raised and had no idea it was right from wrong probably until he realized it on his own.
In response to Karl.
I feel that our rights are more of privileges, and when you don’t follow the rules your privileges should start to get limited or taken away. You said “The issues regarding G Bay are connected to humanitarian rights such as the pursuit of happiness.” But the problem is that when someone is involved with terrorism they take away many others abilities to pursue happiness, whether they do it directly or are involved in some other way. Also you talk about giving up one person’s rights to save 1000 people, and how it wouldn’t be worth it if those 1000 people are just as vulnerable to the same denial of liberty. I doubt that their liberties or rights would be denied unless they are somehow linked with terrorist activity. Also, I’m pretty sure that all of the people that were saved would be very grateful even if someone’s rights got violated.
In response to Haley I do not agree with your opinion that human rights are suspended during times of war. I believe it is important to do our very best to fight against terrorism but if we go about it without upholding our countries morals how do we know if we are capturing the right people. I also don't think he should be convicted as an adult. I personally don't think that he should have been taken to such a harsh prison as a child in the first place. The crimes he committed were during a time of war. I don’t believe that the crime he committed fit the punishment of being held at Guantanamo at such a young age without the right to a trial.
In this case some of the prisoners have their right to a counsel taken away and some of them also don’t have certain privacy rights. Although these rights are taken from them I think that Guantanamo has a good reason for keeping them imprisoned. I think that if they have terroristic threats towards any country that it is ok for them to be held. Also if they have information that they are not telling and that would get them out of prison then, if their freedom is so important to them, they should just tell them what they need to know. I think that the U.S is doing what it can do. Like what Keith Ellison, from the Star Tribune, said about how he thought at first it should be shut down, but then after he visited it he thought that it was ok.
The human rights that are concerns that are expressed are the right to trial, being held with out charges.
Yes, I think the potential harm from terrorism out weighs these human rights concerns. I think the Us should continue to investigate the people they have captured to find out if they are terrorist and if they plan to attack the US.
1. The human rights that are concerned in these two articles are basically right to counsel. Another one would be whether to charge Omar Khadr as a juvenile or as an adult, because he committed the crime as a juvenile but is now an adult. Another concern would be the fact that only 4 of the 275 detainees have actually been charged with a crime, we shouldn't be holding all these people if we do not have the proof that they actually committed a crime.
2. I think if we actually have proof that these people committed a crime against the U.S., then by all means we should prosecute them, but if we are just holding them because they've spoken to someone involved with terrorist attacks or because of their name,ethnicity, or religion, then we need to realize that their is a likely chance that they have in fact, not committed a crime. All in all, I believe that the U.S. should focus on it's investigation of the people that have likely committed a crime, rather than continue to round up whoever looks suspicious.
I disagree with Josh responding to Carl. Our rights are not "privileges" that is why they are called rights. Our rights are always given to us unconditionally. We wouldn't need a constitution to protect our rights if it was only applicable to times of peace. The constitution was drafted in times of war and was supposed to protect us against the rescinding of our rights when stressful situations plague our country. Also, with torture there is no guarantee that we will actually be able to get information out of a terrorist using torture. Torture in the past has been ineffective so there is no reason to take away someone's rights for something that doesn't work
The human rights concerns are about Omar, a detainee who was only 15 years old when captured by U.S. forces. The debate is over if he should be tried as an adult or as a juvenile for an attack that killed one soldier.
I do not think that the potential harm from terrorism outweighs the human rights of others because we wouldn't want the terrorists taking away our rights, so we shouldn't let our own government do it for them. When it comes to the torture issue, even though the people being held are terrorists, they should not be subjected to horrible treatment. The fact that we speak out against the torture is not to directly protect the terrorists but also to protect the principles and ideas set up by the Constitution.
I disagree with Nick. When you talk about the old days, what are you referring to? If you are referring to something like World War II you would be wrong in saying that things were better back then. We were able to give Nazi war criminals fair trials back then for committing far worse crimes. These were the Nuremburg trials, you should look into it more.
I disagree with Wiseman when he said, "The fact is, is that most of the people we hunt down and hold captive are usually the right suspect and/or the person that did the deed. We don't just capture people for no apparent reason". If every person in Guantanamo Bay were actually the criminals we were looking for, then why haven't we tried to prosecute them? We've brought charges against 4 people, and the rest are left to rot in jail until they find out why it is that they are being held. This shows that we are unsure that they are actually criminals, there is no reason nor authority for us to lock these people up without actually charging them with some type of a crime.
The human rights that were expressed in these two articles were mainly the right to counsel. The people being held at Guantanomo Bay have been given no rights and most of them don’t have the chance to have a trail and some of them haven’t even been charged with anything yet. A question that came up in the article was wether or not the 21 year old boy should be tried in an adult court system of a juvenile court system since when he was brought to Guantanamo he was 15 years old. I think that we should protect our country from terrorism as much as possible but we should do this and still give people their rights. Otherwise we are simply going against what our country is about and being hypocrites. I think that these suspects should be taken into custody but given their basic rights. I don’t agree with the reasons that the 15 year old was taken into custody at Guantanamo I think that he should’ve been able to have a trial and had an opportunity to defend himself.
I agree with Megan about disagreeing with what Wiseman has said. He said, “The fact is, is that most of the people we hunt down and hold captive are usually the right suspect and/or the person that did the deed. We don’t just capture people for not apparent reason.” If these prisoners were the right suspect or person that did the crime we should have tried them in a court and given them all of the rights because we would know that we were right and there would be no point in keeping them in Guantanamo without them knowing what they have been accused of. Our government not telling people their charges and not giving them a right to a fair and speedy trial shows that we have no real evidence to show that these people are criminals. There is no reason for having all of these people locked up if there isn’t any charges against
I read the Omar Khadr post. The human rights issues at hand were whether or not we had the right to detain and charge this man for the killing of an american soldier. He was 15 at the time and allegedly threw a grenade that hit an american soldier.
I think we have every right to detain and charge him. With the background it gives in the article it makes no sense to release khadr any time soon. You can definitely argue that it's not his fault that he followed his father around, meeting with Al Qeada. Also, you can argue it's not his fault that he felt compelled to throw a grenade at some Americans. But that's beside the point. Releasing him could endanger Americans and slightly empower terrorists and that's the opposite of what the U.S. is going for. You can't treat these people like every day criminals, they should be treated as prisoners of war. You don't release people that could harm your country.
In response to Melanies post, I don't think we owe these people a trial. The people at Guantanomo aren't U.S. citizens and aren't every day criminals that should follow the due process of law. They're terrorists fighting against the U.S. and I don't think we should need an excuse to detain people who oppose us or people who could greatly help our country.
I do agree with the article that there should be less regulations on probable cause of arresting , but not on detaining. If there is any reason to suspect someone for terrorism during a time of war that there should be less regulations to arrest them. I disagree on the fact that they have detained some prisoners for several years. They should still keep all their right, even if they arent American citizens, because we are the one detaining them.
In response to Marcus:
I agree with Marcus that holding non citizens of an extended period of time is undemocratic, however I believe that this is better than having that individual attack again. Also, as stated in the article the court they wished to prosecute Khabdr in had not even been set up at the time of his arrest. I believe that this in its own is a legality loophole and can be used to build his lawyer’s case. Marcus claims that one should “still keep all their rights, even if they aren't American citizens” and I believe that in times of war many of these rights are given up to protect the rest of society.
In response to Marcus:
I agree with Marcus that holding non citizens of an extended period of time is undemocratic, however I believe that this is better than having that individual attack again. Also, as stated in the article the court they wished to prosecute Khabdr in had not even been set up at the time of his arrest. I believe that this in its own is a legality loophole and can be used to build his lawyer’s case. Marcus claims that one should “still keep all their rights, even if they aren't American citizens” and I believe that in times of war many of these rights are given up to protect the rest of society.
In response to Haley:
I disagree with her stance on this. Human rights need to stay the same no matter what. Even if the boy is from another country, he still deserves to be treated fairly. Also, I don't believe capturing this young boy would in any way help to the leading in finding Bin Laden. 15-year-old kids do not know the true consequences of their actions, and just because he was in the military does not mean he wanted to be in it. No child should be kept captive with no human rights. Other countries look down on the U.S. for Guantanamo Bay, so I'm guessing many agree with my point when saying this is inhumane.
From Mason...I dont think that Omar Khadr should be prosecuted for murder because he is fifteen years old and that is a normal thing to do when your country is at war. When you are fifteen I dont think you know the consequences of killing someone, especially when you are at war. Holding him until he is 21 years old should be enough because I think anyone who has been kept in jail from 15 to 21 in an adult prison would learn their lesson.
Posted by Mason Heine at 2/25/2008 10:27:00 AM 0 comments
In response to Jenny’s post, I believe he should be tried as a juvenile too. I think that in order to give him a fair trial it is only right to try him as a juvenile. It is wrong of them to keep him locked up this long anyway, the least they can do at this point is give him the fairest trial possible. The court tries to make a point saying he was a terrorist, but his father was the financial provider for al-Qaida not him. It is not a proven fact that he has done anything that involves terrorism by himself. He was forced into throwing a grenade when he was young that’s it. I believe that he really hasn’t done anything wrong, and I think he deserves a fair trial soon.
I agree with Heather in that Guantanamo has a purpose to keep possible terrorists there. I think that they shouldn't be tortured, but being held there does prevent future attacks. However, if they do know the whole story they should be able to decide their punishment.
Rizzle makes a good point with "We should also charge him as an adult because he was a soldier in the Afganistan's military and was considered an adult there."
I didn't think about that before, this made me question what I thought about the situation. I still believe that he should be tried as an adult though, since he is in the hands of the U.S military, not somebody else. Our court system decided on how to trial children, even though he is an adult now, and we shouldn't change our ways.
I agree with niles' statement.although torture may be an effective way to prevent terrorism it is not moral and goes against the things that america is supposed to stand for.
Post a Comment