Secret world of Cuba’s boy captives

The Sunday Times (U.K.) ^ | 06/22/03 | Sarah Baxter

[MizSterious]

Sheesh, here we go with the "children prisoners" again. These are not children. They would spit on anyone calling them children.

[FairOpinion]

These are no children, these are TERRORISTS and 13 year olds would just as happily kill us, as any of their older "brothers".

Trying to drum up sympathy for these terrorists is ludicrous. Maybe the writer of the article would like to adopt them?

[concentric circles]

Sounds like they're doing better than the residents of any big city juvenile hall.

What I really want to know is, does the flag still wave proudly to the east of the camp?

[FairOpinion]

"they can see waves crash against the cliff through the 30ft by 7ft gap that is protected by the chicken wire. "
---

They even have ocean view and they are complaining?!

[netmilsmom]

>>But I saw two neat little beds in a heart-breaking parody of a real home at the centre of their camp. Behind the apartment wall, I was told, was a mirror image of the same tiny home, so there could be four detainees. <<

Uh, excuse me? These are 13 to 15 year old boys. They make it sound like they are my 5 & 3 year olds. "Neat little beds in a heart-breaking parody of a real home"?!? Cut me a break.
These are delinquents who fought our troops. If one had a weapon, they would be killing any one of those guards, praising Allah all the way.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

The Viet Cong used kids that were literally as young as 4 to kill Americans in suicide attacks. They would carry a bomb inside a shoe-shine box, walk up to a group of American soldiers, ask them if anybody wanted a shoe-shine, then detonate the bomb killing himself, the soldiers, and anybody else around.

The enemy is turning their kids into mindless psycho terrorists. That is not our problem. We have to fight the enemy wherever they slither. If they choose to send their kids into the buzzsaw, that is not our problem and I deeply resent the media's attempt to drum up sympathy for terrorists.

[razorbak]

I remember one of our first casualties in Afghanistan was an American serviceman killed by a shot fired by a 13 year old.

[PhilDragoo]

Thirteen to fifteen?
Oh, we start much earlier.

[Imal]

[backhoe]

Pokey, when I was the age of those kids, I could shoot better than a lot of adults.

[The Energizer]

When I read the title of this article, I thought I was finally going to read about the concentration camp Castro has for children as young as six years of age, according to "The Black Book of Communism."

Guess I'll have to keep waiting to read about that in the press . . .

[ChemistCat]

I'm not afraid to disagree with you all. Caveat: I'm making this statement assuming the boys did little more than carry arms for the Taliban. We can't know, but it's something I strongly suspect. (If their bullets happened to hit American soldiers, that doesn't change the fact that the Taliban forced boys to fight.)

We're the United States of America and these boys couldn't have been important in their organizations. They can't know anything and they can't be any more dangerous than the thousands of juvenile combatants we DIDN'T take to Gitmo. I think it makes us look weak and afraid, to keep juveniles locked up for the crime of being child soldiers. They didn't instigate that crime, by the way--their leaders did.

It's as pathetic as if we took Osama Bin Laden's hamsters and called them prisoners. Let them go...watch them afterward, sure, but let them go.

[Pukka Puck]

Caveat: I'm making this statement assuming the boys did little more than carry arms for the Taliban.

You are dead wrong.

[Rollee]

The fact that a UK paper wrote this makes me laugh. I know of several individuals who were held at the Maze in Northern Ireland through their teenage years. One guy was held from 15 to 35. They didn't get a trial either. These people in Northern Ireland were child terrorists also. They committed violent murderous acts and deserved to be where they were. European hypocrisy is utterly laughable.

[bjcintennessee]

"We're not trying to Americanise anyone," said Wodushek.

Why the hell not?! Have we allowed world opinion to make us hestitant to promote our values? Have we become so caught up in "respecting other peoples views and religions" that we hesitate to influence or persuade our enemies to behave in a civil manner?

These young soldiers have most likely been thoroughly indoctrinated with the extremes of the Taliban religious codes, which is basically: women are worthless except for childbirth, and can be raped, murdered or beaten on the whims of religious men; Anyone who does not adhere to their extremist views of Islam is to be killed.

And this man makes an effort not to "Americanise" them? Give me a break!

[Pontiac]

Caveat: I'm making this statement assuming the boys did little more than carry arms for the Taliban. We can't know, but it's something I strongly suspect. (If their bullets happened to hit American soldiers, that doesn't change the fact that the Taliban forced boys to fight.)

These are unfounded assumptions. These young soldiers could well be the sons of high-ranking Taliban or Al Quida officers. If they are they could have been privy to a great deal of useful intelligence.

If the CIA or Army intelligence think it prudent to expend the resources to detain them (and it sounds like they are going to a great deal of expense) I believe they must have a great deal of intelligence value.

[Cate]

I wouldn't want to be a foster mom for any of these little 'misguided' teens. The 'misguided' liberals in our country can take them to France and foster them there. It should be a delightful eyeopener for most.

[MizSterious]

It would seem the author thinks a better remedy would have been to give the lads a time out, sit them around a circle to sing kumbayah, have a big group hug, then send them home to their mums. (Where they would immediately take up arms, bombs or other implements of destruction and come after U.S. troops again--or who knows, maybe one day they can pilot their own death planes?)

Or perhaps the critics could provide foster care for these rosey-cheeked "wee ones." That would, at the very least, have an educating effect.

...although perhaps not quite the education they had in mind...

[ErnBatavia]

Yes, we do start them earlier...