Seems the US has finally admitted it is holding minors under the age of 16 as "Enemy Combatants" in Quantanamo bay. They are giving the usual excuses and I've confirmed this in a number of sources but the only complete write up on it i've found on the Net, i am not writing out the whole article by hand from a neutral paper, don't have the time today, is from the WSWS. When your done rolling your eyes post your comments and other sources pls. Cheers.
While I have made my feelings known about the indefinate detention of anyone without representation or charges being filed, it is important to make a distinction between "children"and "minors". Being under the age of 18, an individual is still able to commit adult actions. These individuals, aged 13 to 15, may or may not have committed "adult" crimes, but I am always wary of the word "children" in a news report, as it evokes an emotional response that may not be justified. As far as information on the web, just enter "Guantanamo" and "children" into Google and you'll get thousands of hits. :m: Peace.
I agree that it can be seen as sensationalitst to call maybe 17, 16 children etc but the children aged 13-15 as far as i'm concered are children, maybe Minor would be a less emotional term.
As far as I'm concerned the term "child" has nothing to do with a person's age (Michael Jackson's 40 or 50 years old and he's a child). The question is whether or not the U.S. is obeying any laws concerning the imprisonment of what U.S. and the international comunity considers a "minor".
Well, let's bring out some links - Human Rights Watch - letter to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld regarding child prisoners at Guantanamo, 24 April, 2003 - Children held at Guantanamo Bay (Guardian UK, 24 April, 2003) - The aforementioned World Socialist Web Site article, which tells it as such: - The Daily Telegraph (26 April, 2003) covers the response of General Richard Meyers: - Amnesty International sounds off. - The San Francisco Chronicle, 23 March, 2003 ... the story seems to be out there. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Arent children over 13 considered adults under islam? Anyway it is a lot better at guantanamo than what the children of their enemies could expect from the taliban or iraq.
If I shoot someone in the head and you shoot someone else in the chest, is it valid to say you're a more moral person than me? Give it up Clockwood, Guantanamo is just wrong.
Clockwood, Actually, I'd rather you either declare them prisoners of war or criminals. That way, they'd have legal rights and due process. Right now, those prisoners have no legal status and in fact could be executed tomorrow morning if Bush decided to give the order - and noone in or out of the US could object short of military action. They are being tortured, beaten to death, and in some cases fathers are being tortured by having their children threatened, as if someone had spent too much time watching 24's sequel. Hell, even the ICRC have said you're wrong! I'm not asking that you say they're all innocent or had a bad childhood or whatever. Just follow the damn rules! Feck's sake, they took over a century of hard work to put in place and the US signed up to them!
Grow up dude ! Rules are for peacetime, in a war situation like this we really should go the extra mile and lock up all the pregnant muslim females of the world in guantamo bay, you never know wich one will give birth to a future combatant...
I have no problem with them locking up 'whoever' as an enemy combatant. 15-16 year olds can hold guns too. What I have a problem with is that these individuals have NO course of action to prove themselves innocent... and it is doubtful that everyone there deserves to be.
Persol, I agree - with a provisio that there is a minimum standard of care that the US has to adhere to (ie. not torturing prisoners, not beating them to death, not starving them, not threatening their children, not preventing the ICRC from inspections, etc.) Why adhere to this? Because US troops are taken prisoner as well, and if the US pisses on the conventions, they have no right to expect a minimum standard of care for their troops either.
I agree with you. I'm thinking that if they classify them as either war prisoners or criminal prisoners they'd have to maintain the minimum rights of those classifications. On the good side, Powell seems to be pushing the issue and Rumsfield has agreed to speed up the process. Unfortunately they ownly seem worried about prisoners who are citizens of allies.
