" Troops in the battle said that the kid was in the firefight. "

Kind of. It appears consensus that he was in the area, but reports seem to have varied (and changed over time) regarding who lobbed the grenade he is charged with using. If this had happened in the US, and the only evidence was testimony that a grenade was lobbed over a wall (i.e. no one saw who tossed it), and they found several injured people on the other side of the wall after a firefight, and decided it was one kid (although there's really no way to prove that), it wouldn't stand up in court as anything other than conjecture.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You can be tried as an adult at 15 in the US

Doesn't count. We're talkin' 'bout terrorists. Not criminals.

See, who we deem to be terrorists are much more nefarious than your garden variety criminals. So their rights get thrown out the window.

That's how it works.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Blowhard because you jump into threads, clearly having no clue what you're talking about, and make loud brash declarative statements like "Kill and American, get $10million." Blowhard because you flap your gums about the choices at play for Canada, while demonstrating that you don't really understand what those choices were, but hey, you do so with gusto.


You should probably start, since we don't have a great record of being completely on the up and up with how we've treated terrorists. He pled guilty in what may or may not have been an appropriate venue after being held for a considerable time without trial and under what many describe as unconscionable conditions. Not quite the same as "he was convicted in an appropriate venue."


I'm not a lawyer, but I have not been convinced of the full legitimacy of the process we are putting some of these people through. We have criminal statutes covering international terrorism. So, I would assume, does Canada. I'm not convinced that somehow these men and boys couldn't or shouldn't be tried under those statutes, else why do we have them? I'm also not convinced that a 15 year old boy who may or may not have been engaged in a firefight with soldiers trying to kill him is guilty of terrorism. That's not what terrorism is.


Hard to argue it's legally a war zone if we, as a country, have not decided to declare war. It's the sovereign territory of another country, into which we have asserted ourselves to hunt and kill people we think might attack us. Not the same thing. That said, if we have decided to treat this as if it was a legitimate war zone, then we still have to treat prisoners in accordance with the appropriate processes, which includes how we try them for their crimes. That doesn't mean Miranda, but it does mean legitimate evidence and testimony regarding the offense with which they are charged, and it doesn't mean held without trial for years before we decide to get around to it.


I'm actually disappointed with your inability to read what I wrote, and your choice to instead assert your own poor reasoning instead of the arguments I actually made.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

If you take your 15 yrs old to a war zone and he gets injure/ captured/ tortured what are we looking at:
-His rights and freedoms only
-Your responsibility for taking him there in the first place

Awn an exception to the rule. Try harder.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Then why don't we hold his father/family responsible? Oh, yes, father is dead and the family doesn't have 10 mils. But the government does, so lets go after them.

Kill an American get 10MM. Thanks Canada


That's a gross simplification of the whole Khdar situation.

It's one of these extraordinary situations, where there really is no easy answer or solution. You CAN take a side straight-up, one way or the other, but to do so, you completely ignore some key information, that is legit, that fleshes out each other sides story.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog