News

"The civilized world condemns the recruitment of child soldiers. Yet Canada sits quietly by as one of its citizens, Omar Khadr, is prosecuted by the United States for war crimes he allegedly committed at age 15 as a member of al-Qaeda," Sean Fine wrote Saturday in his Globe essay A most peculiar young offender

"It is impossible to square. Al-Qaeda's recruitment of child soldiers is immoral and abusive; consequently, it is immoral and abusive to prosecute as a war criminal a child recruited by al-Qaeda, and punish him accordingly. We can't have it both ways . . .

"And what has Canada done to help Mr. Khadr? It sent intelligence officers to interrogate him without counsel, and passed summaries of the interrogations to the Americans. Some help. (The Supreme Court of Canada is hearing Mr. Khadr's request next week for access to Canada's files from those visits.)"

Mr. Fine quotes experts as saying the recruitment and use of child soldiers is "one of the most flagrant violations of international norms.

Why?

"Because children are not to be made a mere instrument of the state or terror group. Because children are manipulable. Because children cannot assess risk as adults can. To prosecute children as if they were fully responsible for war crimes is to legitimize their recruitment.

"As other Western countries have repatriated adult suspected terrorists — several, in Britain's case — it seems strange that Canada would not bring a lone 21-year-old home to face fair processes that would take into account his age and background, and his long incarceration at Guantanamo.

"Omar Khadr, child soldier, has been dehumanized enough. Bring him home."

Whether you agree or not, it's a provocative argument.

That's why we're glad that Mr. Fine took your questions on his essay and on the Omar Khadr case.

Your questions and Mr. Fine's answers appear at the bottom of this page.

Sean Fine is an editorial writer with The Globe and Mail who specializes in legal issues, civil liberties and human rights. He received a National Newspaper Award citation of merit in each of the last four years.

He's a father of three children and hopes none of them wind up in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Welcome, Sean, and thanks for joining us today to take questions from the readers of globeandmail.com about your Saturday essay on Omar Khadr.

He's a controversial figure, from a controversial family, and doesn't appear to arouse much sympathy from the Canadian public.

Can you elaborate a bit on why you and The Globe chose at this stage to make the argument that he should be tried in Canada as a juvenile for whatever actions he took in Afghanistan?

Sean Fine: Jim, I've long felt troubled by Omar Khadr's situation.

To be placed into the black hole at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, at 15 and treated as if your chance at any kind of a life is over is plain wrong. Not only wrong but a violation of civilized norms.

It amazes me that Canada has let this child rot in a situation of utter rightslessness for most of those six years and we treat him as if what he has endured he somehow deserved. No one deserves to be beyond the reach of the law, especially not a kid.

Why write now? It's timely, given the revelations from his pre-trial proceedings at the U.S. Military Commission in Guantanamo.

Let's clarify something. You said I want him tried here as a juvenile. I've argued he's a child soldier who lacked the ability to consent to joining al-Qaeda, and I've said he should be brought back here and receive fair processes.

What those processes should be I'm not sure. There's no recent precedent for trying a 15-year-old for war crimes, and while a group of University of Ottawa law students has taken an exhaustive look at options for trying him under a variety of statutes here, I'm not convinced that any of them make sense if we acknowlege he's a child soldier.

The notion of a trial here has been floated by the Canadian Bar Association and others as a way to offer the Americans (and the Harper government) a face-saving exit.

Maybe a plea bargain like the Australian at Guantanamo, Hicks, received is a better idea. It could involve a long period of probation back home.

Albin Forone: I certainly believe that Omar Khadr should get civilized legal rights and that Guantanamo doesn't measure up to the civilized standard. So, to that extent, I would agree to dealing with him here.

I feel the same way about Willie Pickton's legal entitlements, for that matter.

What I don't share is any knee-jerk empathy for a "child soldier," who apparently -- unlike the real abducted and abused children forced to fight in Africa, etc. -- was in his dad's care and seems to have carried "the faith" forward to the present day.

He's no kid now, and like his famously unlovely parents, seems to be claiming Canadian entitlements opportunistically and cynically

So, has he relented in his adult age and wisdom, and what do you think of his claim to human sympathy super-added to any hard legal claims he might have?

Sean Fine: Albin, you may wish to dole out your supply of empathy with an eye-dropper. Perhaps you feel there's too much empathy in the world already. In the world I live in, there's not enough.

And there's a consensus embodied in a variety of international laws and statements of principle that those under 18 in a war are child soldiers. The protocol I referred to in my article mandates that, while children between 15 and 17 may join state armies if they choose to do so, they are not to fight, and the state that recruits them must have safeguards to show that the enrolment was voluntary.

Non-state armies, militias, terror groups, etc., are not allowed under any circumstances to use anyone under 18, because they are not signatories to the protocol and therefore can't be trusted to have those safeguards. The protocol also talks about demobilizing child soldiers and rehabilitating them.

You make a distinction between Africa's child soldiers and Khadr that I've heard from many people. That distinction is found nowhere in any of the international laws.

Even in Africa, I would imagine there is not simply one model of child soldier; certainly there are many types around the globe. Yet the civilized world has decided that they are all to be protected.

If we pick and choose which children deserve protection -- or empathy -- we've weakened the defences around children beyond repair.

Henry B., Galt, Ont.: Omar Khadr could have been a child suicide bomber just as likely as a child soldier. We would not be gnashing our teeth about his fate today if the brainwashing administered by his father led Omar to his houris instead of Guantanamo.

Isn't it about time Canada stripped citizenship from those who take up arms in international conflict like the Khadrs and leave them to their fate? If not, would you be willing to put him up at your house after he has been "rehabilitated?"

Sean Fine: Actually, Henry, now that you mention it, I am looking for a tenant.

But I couldn't disagree more with your first point.

If he had been a child suicide bomber, we would have asked all those questions that we should have asked already.

We would understand how terrible it is to allow a family to inculculate a child with an ideology so warped that the child blows himself up for purposes he can't possibly comprehend.

And isn't that similar to what happened here? One brother became permanently disabled at 14. Omar was shot and severely wounded and came within a hair of a battlefield execution.

These kids were exposed to catastrophic risk by the cynical actions of their parents.

As for stripping citizenship, unless they obtained that citizenship fraudulently, I don't think it's a good precedent to start taking away citizenship. The Khadr father has already paid the ultimately price. He's dead.

Jim Smith: Why haven't Omar and his family been charged with high treason?

Sean Fine:High treason includes the offence of waging war against Canada, so in theory Omar could be charged.

But would you charge a 15-year-old with high treason? That would be priceless.

Canada had a child protection issue -- a family training its children for deadly battle -- and was oblivious to it.

So after failing the Khadr children, to turn around and charge one of them would be a bit rich.

Craig Scott, Newfoundland: Mr. Fine, I understand that this young man is a Canadian citizen but the problem is his citizenship should have been revoked along with the rest of his family a long time ago.

Only in Canada do we allow known terrorists back in the country after they have left.

I would like our government to intervene on his behalf because I don't agree with him being held in Cuba. Get him released, then deport the whole family to Afghanistan and let them fend for themselves.

I suspect that in short time they would all be dead and the world would be a better place.

Sean Fine: Have you checked the Canadian Constitution? We don't deport citizens.

Citizens who abuse their citizenship, as the Khadrs did, should be charged and punished.

If they're unlucky enough to be caught by some other nation that believes in sterner punishments than ours does, that's their problem.

But Canada does have a role in ensuring that they receive due process abroad and are treated with a basic level of justice -- no torture, a fair hearing, and so on.

In this case, what the family did was terrible. But to make the kid bear the brunt of that seems unjust. That would make the family's abuse of their children complete.

Harry Potter, Toronto: If I am not wrong, his brother acknowledged on camera that they have participated in fights against American forces in Afghanistan and yet we seem to think he is innocent.

Is it because he has been captured by the Americans? How does one determine in the prevailing situation in Afghanistan as to who is innocent or not?

We are so blindly claiming that he and his family members were innocent and were there only because their father choose to be there.

Sean Fine: I don't think those who raise questions about Khadr's rights say he wasn't involved with al-Qaeda. They do question whether the U.S. has a case on the most serious charges against Khadr.

They also ask whether the U.S. essentially tricked Canada into standing back from the case by insisting he had to have been the one who murdered a U.S. soldier.

What the case is really about is whether we throw away a kid's life because, at the behest of his family, he joined al-Qaeda. And I don't think we do.

Ian B.: What criteria of a soldier do you personally believe Mr. Kadhr fits?

Sean Fine: I think you're probably asking about the definition of child soldier, which includes terrorists.

It's a criteria based on age. He's under 18. He was put in the line of fire. He was given training with serious arms. Those who recruit children under 15 can be prosecuted for war crimes, and have been, successfully, in Sierra Leone.

There were no known safeguards to ensure that his recruitment into al-Qaeda was voluntary.

Pascal Zamprelli, Montreal: Especially given the current minority situation, is there any method by which Parliament could formally compel the government to take a specific position or undertake a specific action with respect to Omar Khadr's repatriation?

Sean Fine:I would think Parliament could pass a motion that would have a symbolic meaning, but that would be the extent of it.

The three opposition parties held a news conference a while back in which they admitted they'd been slow to recognize the violation of Khadr's rights, but now wished that something be done.

Michael B.: Mr. Fine, I just want to say that I appreciate your points of view and find them very informative.

To all of those who want to deprive Omar Khadr of his rights and/or Canadian citizenship, I ask you this: Should all those who were involved in the wrongful deportation and who were thus complicit in the torture of Maher Arar be stripped of their Canadian/U.S. citizenship and sent to an illegal jail for over half a decade without any sign of hope for their release or fair trial?

Why does it seem that many Canadians feel it is OK for us and our allies to break the international laws we claim to uphold when it serves our interest?

Sean Fine: Thank you, Michael. Yes, it's a slippery slope when you start yanking citizenship out from under people.

I don't quite understand why we're prepared to denounce African groups for their use of child soldiers, but when a child soldier appears from our midst, we want that child punished as if he were fully responsible for his actions.

Jim Sheppard: Of the many comments on your essay, some of them raised the issue of Canada's Youth Criminal Justice Act, which you mention in the piece.

For example, Duncan Gibson from The Big Easy: "Mr. Fine apparently misunderstands the operation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

"The act does not relieve young offenders (or child soldiers/ war criminals for that matter) of liability.

"Rather, the YCJA provides several alternatives for the punishment of young offenders. Their substantive guilt is still determined under the Criminal Code of Canada and/or other statutes."

Sean Fine: Nowhere did I say the YCJA excuses youths from liability.

The purpose is to hold young people accountable, within a separate framework from that used for adults.

The idea is that they are responsible (if not to an adult standard) for their actions, but the emphasis is on a second chance.

If the U.S. had given a proper hearing to Omar Khadr using juvenile justice principles, that would have been legitimate.

Instead, it subjected him to indefinite detention, denied him legal counsel for more than two years, and exposed him to some very rough treatment -- how rough we don't know, but I suspect when we found out we will be, as Canadians, quite upset at what we allowed the Americans to do.

For instance, one cell in which he was held was roughly the size of the cell in which Maher Arar was held for 10 months and 10 days in Syria, and the special rapporteur to the O'Connor Commission said that cell of Arar's fit the legal definition of torture.

Orville Murphy posted this comment on your essay: "I've no sympathy for him or his family but how can he be tried in Canada for something he was alleged to have done in another country? He did not break any Canadian laws.

"The last thing this country needs is the circus of a 'trial' and the incredible expense that will surely be involved."

Sean Fine: There are several laws under which he could be tried here, including treason, high treason and the anti-terrorism provisions of the Criminal Code, which includes a variety of terrorism offences committed in Canada or outside of it. Assisting an enemy at war with Canada is also against Canadian law.

But as I say, if we believe he is a child soldier, he is entitled to processes that recognize his limited culpability, and his need for rehabilitation. I was going to say a second chance, but growing up a Khadr, did he ever have a first chance?

Des McMurchy, Sointula: My question is this: How can you call this youth a "terrorist" when he is alleged to have shot an American soldier?

Surely actions against military targets are hardly "terrorism" by anyone's definition of the term.

I believe it is important to use this much-abused word in its strictly defined sense.

When UAVs from the aggressor side kill innocent civilians on the ground in Afghanistan or elsewhere, that is "terrorism."

What Khadr is alleged to have done is not.

Sean Fine: I would agree to this extent: Painting a 15-year-old as a war criminal for allegedly throwing a grenade in what was clearly a battle is a stretch.

The U.S. argues in its brief to the military commission that it had the right to execute Khadr on the spot because he wasn't from a legal army.

It's another reason why the world generally grants some leeway to children who commit terrible acts in wars all over the globe.

They are entering adult enterprises in which they have little chance of survival. No one informs them before the fact.

Jim Sheppard: Thanks for joining us today, Sean. Before we close, is there anything you'd like to add to the discussion?

Sean Fine: People often ask: Do we excuse young people in Canada for their crimes on account of their age?

(Cynics say that under the Youth Criminal Justice Act and its predecessor, the Young Offenders Act, we do just that.)

Of course we don't. But war is an adult enterprise.

Imagine a child whose family was involved in a criminal enterprise and who was used as a part of that enterprise. Wouldn't the state seek to punish the parents and adults in that family?

To the extent that there was an interest in punishing the minor, wouldn't there be an onus on the state to show that the child's participation was voluntary?

Wouldn't the goal be to rescue that child and find a way to rehabilitate him?

And war is far more serious than almost any criminal enterprise you could name, and the exploitation of children far more common than that of the use by adults of children for crime.

That is why we shouldn't leave Khadr twisting in the wind, and allow him to bear the brunt of the terrorist madness.