A step too far

Victor

While I understand that children can be among the most violent of killers (they don't fully appreciate the repercussions), I think this is very much a step (or ten) too far. Soldiering by under 18's is discouraged (UN convenytion of the Child), by under 15's is, I believe a war crime.

http://home.eircom.net/content/reuters/worldnews/2358346?view=Eircomnet

U.S. still holds children at Guantanamo
From:Reuters
Friday, 16th January, 2004
By Sue Pleming

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has held three child detainees at its military base in Guantanamo Bay for more than a year and the Pentagon says it has no plans to move or free them, despite international pressure.

A defence official said doctors estimated the boys were 13-15 years old and were deemed "enemy combatants" along with about 660 prisoners being held at the base in Cuba after the U.S. invasion in Afghanistan in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks on America.

"There has been lots of media speculation they were going to be moved out but that's all it has been, just speculation," the official told Reuters on Thursday when asked if there were plans to move or release the teenage detainees any time soon.

A spokeswoman for the military task force holding the prisoners told Reuters last August that prison camp commander, Brigadier-General Geoffrey Miller, would recommend the three boys be sent home, and this was confirmed by Miller a month later.

The detentions without trial at Guantanamo Bay have drawn worldwide criticism from governments and human rights groups who have urged the United States to file charges against the prisoners and to send the children home to their families.

The military official said the three were being kept separately from older prisoners in a refurbished house. They shared a large bedroom and there was also a dayroom, a kitchen and a facility where the teens received daily lessons.

"They are being tutored in their own language and are learning other skills. They are being taught to read and mathematics."

The official said there was a large yard around the house where the teens played soccer, volleyball and other games.

NO FAMILY CONTACT

He did not know whether family members had been informed of the teen-agers whereabouts but said they had been given access to Red Cross officials who visited the base.

"None of the detainees has had direct contact with their families except for one," he said, referring to an Australian man David Hicks who was allowed to speak to his father on the telephone.

In the past, senior Pentagon officials described the children as "enemy combatants" who despite their age were "very, very dangerous people" who "have stated they have killed and will kill again."

Asked whether there had been any incidents involving the children, the official said he did not believe so.

"The conditions they are being held in are humane. There have been very many media down there who have seen the conditions they live in," he said, adding that the media had not seen the children themselves.

"We are not going to hold them up for public scrutiny or ridicule," he said.

Jo Becker, advocacy director for children's rights at Human Rights Watch, voiced deep concern the children were still being held and called for their release.

"They have been in detention since the early part of last year without any direct contact with their families or knowledge about what is going to happen to them," said Becker.

She appealed to the military to free the detainees so they could be re-integrated with their communities and said there was particular worry about them being separated and detained during the vulnerable teen years.

She said other teen-agers, aged between 16-18, were also being held at the U.S. base along with the older prisoners. The military official declined to provide any details on detainees aged between 16-18.

Victor

http://home.eircom.net/content/reuters/worldnews/2436783?view=Eircomnet

U.S. releases Guantanamo Bay juveniles
From:Reuters
Thursday, 29th January, 2004
By Charles Aldinger

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States says it has released three juvenile "enemy combatants" held at the U.S. military prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and flown them to their home country.

The three, ranging from 13 to 15 years old, were the only juveniles among 660 suspected Taliban and al Qaeda guerrillas being held without charge at the U.S. naval base.

Detention of the prisoners, especially the youngsters, has drawn major criticism from human rights groups and governments who have urged the United States to file charges against the detainees or release them.

The Pentagon did not say where the three juveniles were flown, but one U.S. official told Reuters the youngsters were returned to Afghanistan -- where they were arrested more than a year ago -- to be set free.

"With the assistance of non-governmental organisations, the juveniles will be resettled in their home country. It is our goal to return them to an environment where they have an opportunity to re-integrate into civil society," the Defence Department said in a statement on Thursday.

It said that senior U.S. officials had decided to free the three because they were no longer a threat to America in the terror war sparked by September 2001 attacks on America.

Most of the prisoners at Guantanamo were captured in the war in Afghanistan following the attacks that Washington blames on fugitive Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda guerrilla network.

RELEASE DECISION BY 'SENIOR LEADERSHIP'

The release of the three juveniles brought to 91 the number of detainees removed from the U.S. Navy Base prison since the expanded facility was built there after the attacks. Four of those were returned to Saudi Arabia for continued detention and the others to their home countries to be set free.

"Senior leadership, in consultation with other senior U.S. government officials, determined that the juvenile detainees no longer posed a threat to our nation, that they have no further intelligence value and are not going to be tried by the U.S. government for any crimes," the Pentagon said.

"Age is not a determining factor in detention. We detain enemy combatants who engaged in armed conflict against our forces or provided support to those fighting against us."

Two of the three were captured during raids by U.S. and allied forces on Taliban camps and a third was arrested while trying to obtain weapons to fight American troops, the announcement said.

Although none of the prisoners has been charged, U.S. Defence officials have said that some could soon be charged and tried by military commissions authorised by President George W. Bush.

In the face of criticism of the prisoner policy, a senior Pentagon official in the past described the juveniles as enemy combatants who despite their age were "very, very dangerous people" who "have stated they have killed and will kill again."

The Defence Department said on Thursday that after medical tests determined that all three were under the age of 16, the juveniles had been housed in a separate detention facility "modified to meet the special needs of juveniles" and were given access to the International Red Cross.

"In this facility, they were not restricted in the same manner as adult detainees and underwent assessments from medical, behavioural, educational, intelligence and detention specialists to address their unique needs," it said.

Éomer of Rohan

If I recall correctly, the US hasn't signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child because it contravenes some laws regarding the execution of children, so it's rather inapplicable. Not that I am an apologist for US arrogance and stupidity of course.

DadaKopf

I thought it was because they don't want to give children full labour rights because it'd "threaten the country's economic competitiveness" or some crap like that - i.e. employers would be obliged to pay child workers way more money.

Éomer of Rohan

I'm not SURE but I'd have thought if that was the case, then a whole rake of other developed countries wouldn't have signed up and AFAIK, most of Europe is signed up.

Piliger

Soldiering by under 18's is discouraged (UN convenytion of the Child), by under 15's is, I believe a war crime.

It is certainly against the UN regulations and immoral so I hope it is included in the coming indictment against the Al Quida prisoners.

bonkey

The official reason (as far as I know) that the US has not signedf the Convention for the Rights of the Child is because the convention would touch on areas which are not currently under federal control.

One example, working from memory, is the death penalty. This is decided on a state-by-state basis. For the federal government to sign up to the CRC, it would require it to then mandate certain limitations on how the death penalty could be applied in the individual states.

In short...its not gonna happen, even if it was desirable. The individual states are simply not going to hand over juristiction of the required areas to the federal govt.

I think this is perfectly understandable, and even correct to a degree....although I do think that some sort of "workaround" could be found if they really wanted...

jc

sovtek

Originally posted by bonkey
The official reason (as far as I know) that the US has not signedf the Convention for the Rights of the Child is because the convention would touch on areas which are not currently under federal control.

One example, working from memory, is the death penalty. This is decided on a state-by-state basis. For the federal government to sign up to the CRC, it would require it to then mandate certain limitations on how the death penalty could be applied in the individual states.

You are correct.

In short...its not gonna happen, even if it was desirable. The individual states are simply not going to hand over juristiction of the required areas to the federal govt.

I'm not so sure. The death penalty thing is getting very heated these days, and it was already ruled unconstitutional in 1976 by the Supreme Court. Should it come to that stage again it would then be a federal matter as it being a violation of human rights.
That's my understanding anyway.

I think this is perfectly understandable, and even correct to a degree....although I do think that some sort of "workaround" could be found if they really wanted...

I disagree on the first part because of the reason stated above, assuming it's correct of course...agree on the latter.

Just to be a bit on topic...
I find it interesting that a few weeks ago the kids being detained were "dangerous" and now they are innocent and being freed. The latter is a desirable outcome but it calls into question the other 600 and some odd detainees. Not to mention the other few hundred that have been released without so much as a charge or recommendation of being tried in their own country (that I'm aware of ). So one day they are terrorists and "bad people" (the child president's words) and now they are totally innocent.
It makes you wonder if anyone in the Pentagon, intelligence services or the military has the first clue about what's going on.
I feel really safe knowing they are out there keeping me safe from the evil terrorists.