BBC: Judge Orders Guantanamo Release (12 year old)..

[Popeman38]

So we execute children on the battle field but we continue to take adults prisoners? Or are you for executing all prisoners on the battle field regardless of age?... Or haven't you thought that deeply on the subject?

Umm, if they are firing at you, or lobbing grenades at you, you return fire. When you return fire, you shoot to kill. It can't matter if it is a 12 year old, a woman or a man. If it matters, your brothers in arms can die from your hesitation.

[DirtyBird]

So we execute children on the battle field but we continue to take adults prisoners? Or are you for executing all prisoners on the battle field regardless of age?... Or haven't you thought that deeply on the subject?

you know in our legal system if this kid pulled out a machetti and chopped you into little pieces in front of a cop, he would have gotten out of jail with a clean record when he turned 18 or 21. Cause in many states in the county we don't measure childrens crimes with the same yardsticks as adults.

Maybe we should be putting kindengardeners who throw rocks in federal lock up for hate crimes and assult charges; and charging kids with libel for taunting one another too.

This kid did not commit a crime, he commited an act of War and if I were there and in a position I would have fired upon the kid as soon at it was obvious he decided to become a combatant against our military.

[DirtyBird]

Umm, if they are firing at you, or lobbing grenades at you, you return fire. When you return fire, you shoot to kill. It can't matter if it is a 12 year old, a woman or a man. If it matters, your brothers in arms can die from your hesitation.

He doesn't seem to understand the difference between war and citizens commiting crime.

[JMS]

Umm, if they are firing at you, or lobbing grenades at you, you return fire. When you return fire, you shoot to kill. It can't matter if it is a 12 year old, a woman or a man. If it matters, your brothers in arms can die from your hesitation.

Granted. But the facts are that even following those rules of engagement; we still take prisoners. Helpless combatants still fall under our control. Have in every war we've ever fought.

Advocating for the killing of POW's frankly is contrary to United States Law, Tradition, and international agreements which we ourselves helped author. Advocating doing so to children is just not very bright, or thought out...

[Predicto]

He doesn't seem to understand the difference between war and citizens committing crimes.

But they did capture him. So why are you talking about killing him?

Do we kill all prisoners of war? Or maybe you were making a different point?

[DirtyBird]

You took my statement and morphed it into killing prisoners. Congratulations.

[JMS]

This kid did not commit a crime, he commited an act of War and if I were there and in a position I would have fired upon the kid as soon at it was obvious he decided to become a combatant against our military.

Oh now it's an act of war. I wasn't sure because the Bush administration argued for 7 years it wasn't an act of war. If it is indeed an act of war then it's a done deal. By international agreement 4th Geneva convention children under the age of 15 do recieve special rights as protected status, even when used as soldiers against a signatory force.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[DirtyBird]

But they did capture him. So why are you talking about killing him?

Do we kill all prisoners of war? Or maybe you were making a different point?

My point was that best case this kid should have been killed in the act of attacking our soldiers. Unfortunately that didn't happen and now we are stuck in the position of holding him as a prisoner.

[DirtyBird]

Oh now it's an act of war. I wasn't sure because the Bush administration argued for 7 years it wasn't an act of war. If it is indeed an act of war then it's a done deal. By international agreement 4th Geneva convention children under the age of 15 do recieve special rights as protected status, even when used as soldiers against a signatory force.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Bush was wrong IMO, on a great many things. And the kid doesn't receive special treatment DURING the act. Which is the ONLY time I've promoted killing him.

[JMS]

You took my statement and morphed it into killing prisoners. Congratulations.

Unless I misread the article this kid threw a grenade at our soldiers injuring two. He should have never left the battle field, this shouldn't be an issue.

So exactly how did I "morph" your intended meaning?

[Predicto]

You took my statement and morphed it into killing prisoners. Congratulations.

Well, that was kind of what your post looked like. That's why I asked if you were making a different point.

[Predicto]

My point was that best case this kid should have been killed in the act of attacking our soldiers. Unfortunately that didn't happen and now we are stuck in the position of holding him as a prisoner.

Fair enough. He is a prisoner of war. We get lots of those.

I thought GITMO was for terrorists.

[DirtyBird]

I think my point is pretty clear.

Kid commited act of war and should have been killed doing it. Unfortunately that didn't happen so now we have another prisoner to deal with.

[DirtyBird]

Fair enough. He is a prisoner of war. We get lots of those.

I thought GITMO was for terrorists.

GITMO is a joke and so was Bush's whole "illegal combatant" BS.

[JMS]

Yeah because liberals know preteens don't have an evil bone in their body including the 9 year old who offed his dad with a gun who was living with a male companion instead of the boy's mom. He was just confused but an excellent shooter.

Or the 13 year old carjacker arrested a couple of weeks ago.

Well before you knock liberals I would just state that most of our best wartime leaders have been liberals. From Washington, to Lincoln, to Wilson, to the Roosevelt Boys. So before you go knocking liberals on ability to comprehend wartime issues I would just check that nonsense at the door.

To your broader point, so is that an argument to execute all children found on the battlefield? Because some children have done some messed up things?

What's your point? you want to renegotiate the Geneva convention, or do you just want to rewrite the constitution which requires us to actually adhere to our international agreements? What's your point?

What does "conservatism" mean to you. Never having to uphold your laws or international agreements?