BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Terror
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
Terrorist or Child Soldier?
April 24, 2007 4:46 PM
Over the protest of human rights groups, the U.S. government has brought murder charges against a Canadian citizen, who was 15-years-old when he was accused of throwing a hand grenade at U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.
The Department of Defense said Omar Ahmed Khadr, who has been held as an adult by the U.S. at Guantanamo for five years, will be referred to a Military Tribunal there within 30 days.
Born in Toronto, Khadr's family moved to Peshawar, Pakistan, when he was four. He was arrested in Afghanistan in 2002 after the hand grenade he allegedly threw killed one U.S. soldier and injured three others.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other human rights groups say Khadr should be treated as a child soldier, not an adult enemy combatant.
"We have grave concerns for him," says Beth Britton Hunter of Amnesty International. "He's been in prison for five years without a fair trial."
Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.
Khadr's attorney, Kristine Husky, says Khadr has been abused and mistreated at Guantanamo.
"He's been treated much like the other detainees have been treated," she says. "He's been in and out of solitary confinement since he's been there. He's had no education since he's been there."
Khadr was raised in Afghanistan in an active Taliban family, and his father was killed in a 2003 gun battle.
Jo Becker, the Children's Rights advocate for Human Rights Watch, says it's alarming that Khadr's status as a child when charged has never been taken into consideration.
"The fact that he was recruited at a young age and that he was 15 when he allegedly committed these crimes, in our view, that's very relevant," says Becker.
In 2002, the U.S. ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which "prohibits the recruitment or use in hostilities of children under the age of 18 by rebel or other non-governmental armed groups and requires states to criminalize such practices." As part of the treaty, governments have the obligation to extend rehabilitation services to children who have been caught up in armed conflict.
Becker says the U.S. government's handling of Khadr's case is in direct conflict of the spirit of the treaty.
"It says that the U.S. has been very inconsistent in how it deals with this issue," says Becker. "For example, the U.S. has provided millions of dollars for rehabilitation programs for children in Africa and other countries," she says. "But if there's a situation where a child soldier may be engaging with U.S. troops, then all of the sudden the U.S. approach is different, and it starts taking a punitive rather than a rehabilitative approach."
A spokesman for the Department of Defense told ABCNews.com that age is not a factor when determining detention.
"We detain enemy combatants who engaged in armed conflict against our forces or provided support to those fighting against us. The fact that juveniles have been used as enemy combatants is an unfortunate reality in many parts of the world," the spokesman said.
Khadr's lawyers plan to appeal the charge and have filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the tribunal.
April 24, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (29)
Just a question:
What legal or other process was used to determine that this kid was an "Enemy Combatant"?
Posted by: johann | Apr 24, 2007 11:17:19 PM
johann, I think it was when he threw a grenade at the soldiers...although his situation pre-grenade-throw is pretty sad, he's lucky he wasn't shot dead.
Posted by: Jazz | Apr 25, 2007 9:25:06 AM
If he is old enough to learn how to use weapons to kill and mane people then he is old enough to take the punishment that goes with his actions. The problem we have with children killing and hurting people is because they know they will only get a slap on the wrist for their actions. It is time to say when it comes to killing some one then age does not apply to their detention or status. A soldier is a soldier reguardless of age they plan to kill and distroy whom they disagree with requardless how old they are.
Posted by: john smith | Apr 25, 2007 9:40:46 AM
Look at it this way,it has been 5 years since the Solders family has had to live with his Death. It will never end for them, Omar knew full well that someone was going to Die or be maimed when he threw that grenade. So lets stop careing abot Terrorist and show some Respect for our Brave Solders and Americans
Posted by: Andy Rhoads | Apr 25, 2007 10:05:45 AM
It's very disturbing what we(The U.S.)has choosen to do with this kid. I do feel that he does deserve to be punished for his actions as a terrorist against the U.S. military. However, if this was a U.S. juvinile being held in another country, all of America would be up in arms. The fact that the rest of world knows that this boy has been held for 5yrs with out trial and has been treated as an adult is only adding fuel to the fire against the hatred of American. His treatment as a detainee should be clearly seperated from the deaths of the U.S. soldiers that were killed. Of course the greatest respect should be given to all the men & women that have died fighting for our country but let us not forget how and why this country was founded.
Posted by: Jason Zullo | Apr 25, 2007 11:39:38 AM
We need to find a way to stop the recruitment of children as "Freedom Fighters", "Terrorists" or "Enemy Combatants". Often the countries these children are from are poor and uneducated. The young men have nothing to do and no way to better themselves than to pick up a rifle. At least that way they get to eat.
I can't even imagine the horror of someone on the battlefield having to kill a child. That is one of the reasons that they recruite them.
Posted by: skidog | Apr 25, 2007 11:52:59 AM
I agree with Ski...there ARE groups that are fighting this, tho - see the 4th paragraph above.
His dead pops was a Taliban - the kid fought on in the same fight his dad did; against NATO and Afghan forces.
Kumbaya
Posted by: Jazz | Apr 25, 2007 12:31:07 PM
Mr. Zullo, saying that our detention of this terrorist only adds fuel to the fire of hatred of Americans is complete nonsense. Saying that is saying we have brought this hatred on ourselves from the very start. These people already hate us and will continue to hate us until every last one of us is dead. The detention of this terrorist is useful propaganda for radicals to divide America and people like you are letting it work for them.
Posted by: Spookyk | Apr 27, 2007 1:24:38 AM
Like it or not, he's a child soldier. Unfortunately the Bush Regime doesn't recognize the rights of children, and only follows the Geneve Conventions and UN resolutions when it is advantageous to the USA.
If another country detained a 15 year old american on a battlefield, Fox news would be screaming about it 24/7 and congress would be livid.
Posted by: Steve Savage | Apr 28, 2007 3:24:57 AM
HE WAS OLD ENOUGH TO DECIDE TO THROW A GRENADE SO HE SHOULD SIT IN JAIL FOR LIFE, HE COMMITTED MURDER, WHAT DID HE THINK THROWING A GRENADE AT AMERICAN SOLDIERS WOULD DO?
Posted by: MIKE | Apr 28, 2007 8:36:20 AM
His father was killed. Obviously he will hate whom killed his father. Only logical. Family comes first and he was defending that right. I understand how he feels. Although he made some bad choices about how to deal with his anger, I don't think he is a bad person. He only made some bad choices. He could have also been brain washed by the enemy at war now.
Posted by: Colleen | Apr 28, 2007 8:46:29 AM
Colleen,
Did you read the article? Omar killed the American soldier BEFORE his father was killed. How can his action be in revenge? If all these "insurgents" want us (US) out of Iraq and Afganhistan why don't they just quit killing us and each other. We'd be out of there the next day!
Posted by: Bohemy68 | Apr 28, 2007 1:21:06 PM
@Bohemy:
Actually, the idea that we are only there because they are fighting us is a total myth. We have been actively involved in keeping the poorer and less powerful nations of the world subjugated and preventing the spread of freedom and democracy for decades... not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but in virtually every nation in the region, as well as southeast asia, Africa, and Central & South America. Historical evidence for this is overwhelming and generally acknowledged by all players, including the State department. Armed resistance in these nations began in response to our attacks and affronts to democracy, and so is not an excuse for them.
Posted by: BuzzOrHowl | Apr 28, 2007 4:42:32 PM
There has been a lot coverage given this little terrorist here in Canada.
I don't want him back in my country!
God Bless America!
Posted by: George John Smith | Apr 28, 2007 7:38:26 PM
"Enemy combatant" is a superficial term to justify treating victims as criminals.
Lets say I do not gree with you, then I come to your house, kick your door in, terrorize your family, destroy your possessions, then charge you with a crime (calling you an enemy combatant")if you hit me in the head with a frying pan.
As Americans, what would be the expectioan of--even civilians--if a foreign country invaded and occupied America? (Hint: Ever seen the movie RED DAWN?)
Why do we arrogantly expect less from other people?
Posted by: falaq | Apr 30, 2007 11:11:26 AM
This is the kind of young fellow who one day if released will end up being president of a anti American country like Iran.
Posted by: Pali | Apr 30, 2007 11:16:27 AM
We have a lot of soldiers in war situations around the world, many are under 21 years old. Should they be tried as children if they commit a crime during war? Other countries are recruiting children and women, and they don't care about rights or the Geneva convention, so why should they be treated as children. There was just a story and video reported on the internet about a BOY cutting the head off an adult because of the war. Should he be tried as a child or adult?
Posted by: Michelle | Apr 30, 2007 12:15:33 PM
The us wont recognise this as we are not a signatory to the treaty on child soldiers. I guess the bush admin doesnt want to stop recruiting those under 18...much simpler to brain wash them.
Posted by: corey | Apr 30, 2007 2:06:02 PM
Under normal non-war circumstances I would agree, but there are many children who are suicide bombers and such, they have been manipulated and brainwashed to believe they are doing the right thing. They are dangerous and you can't just let that go.
Posted by: Jill | Apr 30, 2007 4:59:05 PM
Didn't I just see a taliban originated video of a "child" cutting off the head of an "American Collaborator"? Poor "child" - maybe we should educate him - possibly when he grows up he could work in a meat market as a butcher - put his "skills" to work !!
Or maybe - we don't really understand - or want to understand that culture.
Posted by: PaMike | May 1, 2007 8:24:26 AM
I agree that we need to take more time care about out soldiers; however, we must also remember that even though this boy did some horrible things he is that just a boy. His level of cognitive development (still being an impressionable teenager) made him the perfect target to brain wash and use as a tool for someone else's hate. Let's aim our anger at the people who brain wash their own children for their personal agendas.
Posted by: Tricia | May 1, 2007 2:13:57 PM
He's just a kid for Christ's sake. This country has got to stop throwing the book at babies.
Posted by: Rubydragon | May 1, 2007 3:23:04 PM
I can not believe the treason I hear being spouted. This little punk killed an American and Liberals want to rehabilitate him. I suppose if he used the "N" word, or spit on a Homosexual they would be calling for the maximum penalty. We must be a very rich country indeed that we can waste so many recourses making a simple case into a mountain.
Posted by: Thomas | May 2, 2007 8:45:01 AM
ok i am not against anyones opinion here, but this is how the whole world feels about you America...if you don't like the Afghans and Iraqis then get out and let them live....they were ok when you weren't there...if they fight, let them fight between them, WHY in the world would you put your face first america? Easy its the oil that you need not world peace. You started it the fire, now you have to face it.
Posted by: DUBAI UAE | May 2, 2007 10:47:20 AM
When a soldier attacks an enemy on the battlefield, it is not "murder". He should be held as a prisoner of war until hostilities are over, then released.
Unfortunately, this is a "war" that will not have a definable end, so how long should he be held? This dilemma is what comes of Bush's nonsensical approach of declaring war on "terror", which is not an identifiable enemy but a tactic. Probably this particular fighter should be held until he is 21 (that would be one more year), then sent home. Ditto for other captured "child soldiers". But what of the adults?
Endless war is unacceptable. Find a way to bring the conflict to an end, then release the fighters.
Posted by: Dan Schwartz | May 2, 2007 9:58:01 PM
Living in Canada we hear about this little terrorist all the time. The facts are that this guys whole family is a group of terrorists. One of his brother is in a wheelchair and his father killed in battle with Pakistani forces. His older brother is wanted by the US. I say lock him up and throw away the key, plain and simple. He should be lucky hes even getting a trial.
Posted by: Keith | May 2, 2007 9:59:45 PM
What are we gonna do? Let him go so he can go back to Afghanistan and throw some more grenades and kill more Americans??
Posted by: Linda | May 3, 2007 7:19:25 AM
this "kid" chose to do what he did. He joined in "combat opreations", and was taken prisoner. He should remain a prisoner until the "war" is OVER. If that time never comes,,,, too bad. He's lucky that he hasn't had his head cut off. Just like some of his "compatriots" have been doing. IF YOU ARE GOING TO FIGHT... YOU MUST FIGHT WITH EVERYTHING AT YOUR DISPOSAL...IF YOU CAN'T STOMACH THAT....THEN YOU HAD BETTER NOT FIGHT... JUST LIE DOWN, ROLL OVER, AND LET THEM TAKE CONTROL OUR DESTANY. Former US Marine,,, Korean War 1952-52
Posted by: Richard | May 3, 2007 11:02:12 AM
Some of the comments on this site are alarming, especially the ones coming from former soldiers like the one from Richard. It's not enough to say, "well, at least we're not as bad as those other guys over there, beheading people and all." It puts us on an incredibly slipery slope. What's the point of defending american freedoms and ideals (based on our own law) if our government is able to bypass those laws and ideals by holding enemies in overseas prisons? As soon as America compromises on its values, it is already destroyed.
Posted by: Mike | May 3, 2007 12:28:36 PM
Post a comment
