I had this thought, and I felt I should share it with this community. What if there are voluntary child soldiers? Should they be treated as regular enemy combatants, or should they be given a higher status because they are children?

Keep in mind that millions of kids join groups like Young Marines, Sea Cadets, Civil Air Patrol, J.R.O.T.C. in the United States. I know the British and Canadians have their own equivalents.

So, move down to areas where child soldiers are deployed. If someone joins any government (I'm not saying any do, this is a hypothetical scenario) and decides to fight, should they be granted special protection such as "Shoot to wound" or should they still fall under normal circumstances, which may or may not make them priority targets for air strikes, snipers, etc?

If you think about how child soldiers are run, they are essentially a micro-version of an insurgency. They're given the job of a light infantryman, and put out in the field. It's possible they could do everything from manning machine guns, to using RPG's.

An invading force to stabilize the region, if it ever happens, would be given an ethical dilemma. You have a child soldier with an old soviet Strela launcher, who is about to shoot down your gunship. Do you blast him into the ground, or do you risk losing your gunship, and it's crew, and possibly the troops that rely on said gunship?

Being an ex-member of the above organizations gives me enough insight to know that there are 10 and 11 year olds, who do not know better, and would gladly fire a stinger missile in the name of the U.S.

So back to my original question: I am really wondering if in all of these hotspots, if there are child soldiers who support the cause that they fight for, and granted that they do, should they be given special privilege during war, or should they be treated as an enemy combatant?

quote:

Scrath my last post.

quote:

You should really spend more time reading my posts if you are going to respond to them. Zing.

I assume you understood that I was showing them the outlandish conclusions one must draw if you consider children to be responsible enough to make their own decisions? Not arguing that parental power is actually tyrannical.

Scrath my last post.

Child soldiers, for example in Uganda are kidnapped from their families during the raidin and looting of their towns by rebel forces like the LRA. When they are kidnapped by these rebel forces they are forced to march long diatances carrying the lootd goods. If a child refuses to join or is too sick, weak or tired the other children are forced to kill that child with machetes or clubs. There have been reports of these children having to drink URINE to stay alive due to the lack of food and water.
Often children join to avenge the slaughter of their familes and friends.
One report in Uganda states that a rebel force went to a school, killed the headmaster, cooked him, and forced the children to eat him.
impoverished children often join to escape poverty and to survive as thet see it as a means to get food, clothes and medical treatment.
how is this any way just??

children as young as 8, holding guns, killing people, being the commanders wives, being raped, beaten??
extreme example but still!

quote:

Once more, if self determination for those who are able is a human right (all liberal governments recognize that it is), and you believe kids are capable of full self determination, how is parental power not a violation of their human rights?

Give me a break. This is absurd and requires no response from anyone. FML's theory suggests parents should do nothing for their kids because it violates "human rights".

Well, this got way too philosophical for me. Chaos would probably be better suited to answer those questions.

quote:

Because United States law says that a minor does not have the full rights of an adult, there's no violation of human rights

Human rights have nothing to do with civil rights. US law used to say a black person did not have the same rights as a White person. While black people had no civil rights, their human rights were still being violated.

Liberal governments are all constructed on the foundation of inherent human rights.

quote:

However, children are still capable of making choices.

Once more, if self determination for those who are able is a human right (all liberal governments recognize that it is), and you believe kids are capable of full self determination, how is parental power not a violation of their human rights?

There's a difference between being able to make a choice and being legally able to make a choice. Because United States law says that a minor does not have the full rights of an adult, there's no violation of human rights, at least not as far as I'm concerned. However, children are still capable of making choices. Their choices are often overruled as allowed by the law, but they can still make the choices.

quote:

So, are they physically incapable of making choices

For you to say that a child can make that choice, you would have to conclude that parental rule was illegitimate. Parental power is only justified by the inability of a child to make safe and thorough decisions for his/herself. If a ten year old has the capacity to make safe and rational decisions, than the parental power over that child would violate his human rights.

Do you think that making a child to clean their room against their will violates their human rights?

So, are they physically incapable of making choices, or are you still imposing reality on a hypothetical situation?

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
Explain what you mean by "kids can't make this choice". Are they incapable of making choices in general? Or are you imposing an American view, where a person legally can't make choices like this until they reach the age of majority?

This is a hypothetical situation (denoted by the all-important "what if..."), where a kid could simply say "I want to be a soldier" and that's that. It's certainly not realistic, but that's why it's hypothetical.

Kids say a lot of things. Kids say, "I wan't to wear shorts" when it is 30 degrees outside.
Kids say, "I want cake and ice cream for breakfast".
Kids say, "I want to play instead of going to school".
Kids say a lot of dumb things. It's OK, they're kids. They're supposed to do that, that is why they have parents.

Kids can barely dress themselves, much less make a choice about joining the military.

Explain what you mean by "kids can't make this choice". Are they incapable of making choices in general? Or are you imposing an American view, where a person legally can't make choices like this until they reach the age of majority?

This is a hypothetical situation (denoted by the all-important "what if..."), where a kid could simply say "I want to be a soldier" and that's that. It's certainly not realistic, but that's why it's hypothetical.

quote:

Kids cannot make this choice for themselves.

Absolutely right. To disagree would establish some anarchic principals.

quote:

voluntary child soldiers

No such thing. Kids cannot make this choice for themselves. I think that by "volunary child soldiers" you mean slaves.

It's not realistic to differentiate between non-voluntary and voluntary soldiers in war. Rules of war have been tried before, but all it takes is one rogue country to blow those out of the water.

Besides, even conscripts will have the motive to fight. A voluntary soldier will want to fight, while a non-voluntary soldier will have to fight or most likely face repercussions. The opposing force, therefore, can't afford to take it easy on conscripts, who will still be attacking.

quote:

how can you differentiate between someone who is doing it willingly, and someone who isn't?

The Red Army was all conscripts, NATO would have fried them all the same

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
I know that your argument centers around conscription, Chaos, but this thread is about voluntary child soldiers, so I'm not sure what the connection is.

At any rate, if it acts like a soldier, looks like a soldier, and shoots a weapon like a soldier, it is a soldier, no matter what the age.

Actually, it was a tangent to see your individual responses and I apologize for not making that clear enough.

However, there is a connection:

The connection is to illustrate the point that if it acts like a soldier, looks like a soldier, shoots a weapon and is like a soldier, how can you differentiate between someone who is doing it willingly, and someone who isn't?

It's to illustrate the inherent problem of treating "voluntary" child soldiers as enemy combatants while engaging possible non-voluntary enemy combatants.

I know that your argument centers around conscription, Chaos, but this thread is about voluntary child soldiers, so I'm not sure what the connection is.

At any rate, if it acts like a soldier, looks like a soldier, and shoots a weapon like a soldier, it is a soldier, no matter what the age.

quote:

Well we don't have to do that, we live in a country with a large, professional all volunteer military where we also have this whole "control of the goverment concept" and for that matter goverment at all which is sparse in many countries where child soldiers are utilized.

Ampmaster, stop right there. You're bringing in a straw man in to the discussion, because I explicitly spelled out the terms to make the situation similiar. Conscription has happened.

You can argue all you want that it "won't happen". That's fine and all, and I would tend to agree with you as there hasn't been a real "Children's Military" since the Hitler Youth Corps and the Civil Air Patrol bombing of a submarine.

However, I am not asking you any question regarding that.

I am asking you to volunteer the lives of the American teenagers and children populace to be considered enemy combatants due to conscription, as you would so volunteer the lives of children who's only option was to be conscripted, to ensure that you are on the same playing field.

It's a yes or no answer really.

Yes, you do volunteer the lives of American teenagers and children to conscription or no, you do not volunteer the lives of American teenagers and children to conscription.

If you do not, then I am going to ask you to differentiate between the American teenager/child and the African/Asian/European/Australian teenager/child.