(Canadian) Troops told Geneva rules don't apply to Taliban

[Newsjock]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060530.wxdetainee30/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

WASHINGTON — Canadian troops in Afghanistan have been told the Geneva Conventions and Canadian regulations regarding the rights of prisoners of war don't apply to Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters captured on the battlefield.

That decision strips detainees of key rights and protections under the rules of war, including the right to be released at the end of the conflict and not to be held criminally liable for lawful combat.

“The whole purpose of those regulations is to know if Geneva applies,” said Amir Attaran, a law professor at the University of Ottawa who has been pressing the Defence Department for details of its detainee policy for months.

... Captured fighters don't deserve these rights because this isn't a war between countries, says Lieutenant-General Michel Gauthier, who commands the Canadian Expeditionary Forces Command and thus oversees all Canadian Forces deployed abroad.

[TomInTib]

1. 'because this isn't a war between countries'

Then just WTF is it between?

Cultures?

Religions?

Industries (oil)?

Skin tone?

Rich/poor?

[Nostradammit]

2. A handful of rich, rich bastards and the rest of us

Pity the rich bastards.

[Kagemusha]

3. Between uniformed soldiers and CIVILIANS.

There's more than one Geneva Convention. If the one re: POW's doesn't apply, the one re: captured civilians does.

Edit: The Lt-Gen. says that in spite of these people not having a right to POW status, they are still to be treated humanely. Assuming he actually means it, this stance is FAR, FAR more humane than the first few paragraphs presented it as.

[lumpy]

6. I guess this explains why Indians

were exterminatd in the US during the 'Indian wars',the Japanese rape of Nanking or the torture and assination of the French underground 'insurgents' etc.

[Kagemusha]

7. You need to split off the last example from the rest.

French underground were criminals under the Nazi occupation. The Nazi war of aggression was deemed illegitimate, but the idea of civilians having a legitimate right to wage war against an occupying force is a post-WWII, communist and anti-communist concept. At the time it was without question that if caught, there was a legal right to execute French underground. The slaughter of non-warrior 'Indians' or civilian Chinese at Nanking are poor comparisons, though the US has never and will never concede that 'Indians' were protected by international law in any form. OTOH, the Chinese civilians very clearly were, and Japan simply did not ensure that they were protected as their obligations demanded.

[AngryAmish]

13. You hang spies, but maintain POW camps

That is the western way, codified in the Geneva Convention.

[Spazito]

11. His words mean jack-shit, he doesn't know nor care what

happens to those transferred as is shown further down in the article:

Canada has provided few details on the fate of detainees its forces have handed over to U.S. authorities since 2002; neither the number nor the names have been made public. All the government has said is that none are currently at Guantanamo Bay. But it's unknown whether they have been released, or are being held at the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan or in secret prisons in Eastern Europe.

Similar secrecy cloaks what happens to detainees handed over to Afghan authorities by Canadian Forces fighting in Kandahar province. Gen. Gauthier indicated such transfers occur regularly, if not daily then several times a week. But no numbers are publicly available.

“Our default setting is transfer,” he said. “We haven't held anybody for more than a few hours and we would prefer not to.”

Unlike the US, Canada is a member of the ICC and war crime charges can be laid because transferring prisoners into other hands does NOT absolve us of the responsibility of what happens to them after the transfer.

[lumpy]

4. As you sow so shall you reap.

So all is fair in war and love after all. Let the torture and killing continue unabated.

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. Don't forget, two can play that game Lieutenant-General Michel Gauthier

Just hope they don't capture your ass someday.

[Vidar]

8. I hope Canada gets rid of Harper before it's too late.

[Judi Lynn]

9. Surely. He's a profound disappointment. n/t

[Amonester]

18. Moi aussi (Me too.).

I am certain Lieutenant-General Michel Gauthier received these criminal orders from higher ups (and since that sleazy "oiler" Harper is a really sick BU$H admirer...).

Put their names on the list of criminals for greed, and then, we need to send them to The Hague.

I'm sick of these killers by delegation of the BFEE.


Edit: spelling (sorry for bad grammar) + I'm feeling ashamed of my country (I'm MAD.)

[TrogL]

23. This is pre-Harper

It's been going on atleast since 2002, if not earlier.

[rock]

10. How conveeenient!

(thanks church lady)

[tuvor]

12. Kicking and recommending.

This is going to bite us in the ass.

[leesa]

14. Remember this the next time someone pulls the "We're at war"crap on you

Dubya has insisted forever that we don't have to follow the rules because we aren't at war.

[Igel]

15. The Taliban have executed

soldiers they've captured, whether before they were deposed or after. Nobody cared, really. They're violating no convention, because they haven't signed it, and, indeed, can no longer sign it. At least when they were in charge of the government they had a formal military. Now they don't.

Kagemusha was right: Insurgencies have no coverage under the Geneva Convention. They're not civilians (otherwise one simply could never fight them with a military force, because to shoot at any and kill any would be killing civilians). But they're also not part of a military. They are non-state actors. The Geneva Conventions were never intended to cover this sort of situation, they govern warfare between states; things like Iraq and Afghanistan or even the S. Philipines or Somalia--fighting insurgencies and conducting civil wars--were strictly internal affairs (although others certainly interfered), whether or not they were genocide or 'fair' according to some NGO based in London.

Human rights groups argue that anybody in an insurgency must be considered part of a military. That means they should also want the insurgencies to sign the Geneva Conventions (after they're altered so that de facto NGOs can sign). But they don't ever say that, and there's little outrage when insurgencies violate what would clearly be banned under the Geneva Convention, were they signatories, unless the public outrage is so palpable that they have to say they share our outrage.

[Bridget Burke]

16. If 9/11 had been treated as a Great Crime,

Your argument might be valid.

But Bush & his allies chose to go to War. To avoid being arrested as accessories to murder.

[jayfish]

17. No, He Really Wasn't Right.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Jay

[Ghost Dog]

24. Very many thanks for that, Jay.

Very simple, clear language. That nevertheless provokes deep thought.

Muchísimas gracias.

[jayfish]

33. Your Welcome...

the fights not over though on this thread. You'll still see people come along to pick and choose what portions of the Conventions they think apply. The thing is, it doesn't matter. We (and Canada) shouldn't be torturing people or holding them, without charge, indefinitely, whether they are protected by the Geneva Conventions or not. We're supposed to be better than that.

Jay

[Karmakaze]

38. Geneva doesn't matter!

This whole thing is a con! The Geneva Conventions do not do what people think they do - the Geneva Conventions are NOT the international law that protects against torture of captives. Human rights law is what protects people from such acts, and NO ONE is excluded, not even mass murdering criminals.

Human Rights law is also what protects against indefinate detention without charge - NOT Geneva. In fact the only thing Geneva adds is that Prisoners of War may not be tried as criminals and must be released when hostilitites ceases.

So every time these guys point at Geneva, remember they are only trying to distract from their abuses of Human Rights law - abuses that amount to crimes against humanity.

[Spazito]

39. You are right, what may not be covered specifically under the

Geneva Conventions are covered under the HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE: PROTECTION OF PERSONS SUBJECTED TO DETENTION OR IMPRISONMENT :

Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment


Adopted by General Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988
Scope of the Body of Principles
These principles apply for the protection of all persons under any form of detention or imprisonment.

Use of Terms
For the purposes of the Body of Principles:

( a ) "Arrest" means the act of apprehending a person for the alleged commission of an offence or by the action of an authority;

( b ) "Detained person" means any person deprived of personal liberty except as a result of conviction for an offence;

( c ) "Imprisoned person" means any person deprived of personal liberty as a result of conviction for an offence;

( d ) "Detention" means the condition of detained persons as defined above;

( e ) "Imprisonment" means the condition of imprisoned persons as defined above;

( f ) The words "a judicial or other authority" means a judicial or other authority under the law whose status and tenure should afford the strongest possible guarantees of competence, impartiality and independence.

Principle 1
All persons under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be treated in a humane manner and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

Principle 2
Arrest, detention or imprisonment shall only be carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and by competent officials or persons authorized for that purpose.

Principle 3
There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the human rights of persons under any form of detention or imprisonment recognized or existing in any State pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that this Body of Principles does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.

Principle 4
Any form of detention or imprisonment and all measures affecting the human rights of a person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be ordered by, or be subject to the effective control of, a judicial or other authority.

Principle 5
1. These principles shall be applied to all persons within the territory of any given State, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion or religious belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, birth or other status.

2. Measures applied under the law and designed solely to protect the rights and special status of women, especially pregnant women and nursing mothers, children and juveniles, aged, sick or handicapped persons shall not be deemed to be discriminatory. The need for, and the application of, such measures shall always be subject to review by a judicial or other authority.

Principle 6
No person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 1 No circumstance whatever may be invoked as a justification for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Principle 7
1. States should prohibit by law any act contrary to the rights and duties contained in these principles, make any such act subject to appropriate sanctions and conduct impartial investigations upon complaints.

2. Officials who have reason to believe that a violation of this Body of Principles has occurred or is about to occur shall report the matter to their superior authorities and, where necessary, to other appropriate authorities or organs vested with reviewing or remedial powers.

3. Any other person who has ground to believe that a violation of this Body of Principles has occurred or is about to occur shall have the right to report the matter to the superiors of the officials involved as well as to other appropriate authorities or organs vested with reviewing or remedial powers.


more

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/bodyprinciples.htm

[Ragin_mad]

25. That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance

what sign do they show ?

[Bridget Burke]

26. The same sign that identified them as....

Dangerous Terrorists?

[jayfish]

29. Dunno, Do You Read Arabic? -NT-

Jay

[MrPrax]

27. You saved me...

I was already to post it up and launch a 'shock and awe' tirade, but you are far more tactful than I...

Thanks...if your running for office you get my vote and hell you can have it even if you are not...

:toast:

[jayfish]

34. Short And (I Hope) Sweet...

is my motto. I like fire and brimstone too though. :evilgrin:

Jay

[Stella_Artois]

30. I don't think they qualify then

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

They don't have a flag insignia or sign that i am aware of, and they don't conduct their operations in accordance to the customs of war, as in i don't think anyone really under any illusion as to what would happen to any US solider who falls into their hands.

[jayfish]

31. Ok, So...

seeing that most of our service-members in Iraq don't speak or read Arabic how exactly would they recognize this "sign". And as far as the "laws and customs of war" is there a definition of those floating around somewhere. Do they include examples of the French Resistance, the Warsaw Ghetto or the American Revolution? I think it's a bit muddled so I look to Article 5:

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Seeing as you "don't think" they qualify, maybe you should too. You know, let a tribunal decide the status of these detainees rather than just going straight to torture or detention in perpetuity.

Jay

[Irreverend IX]

37. What does Arabic have to do with it?

A fixed sign recognizable from a distance means a uniform. The insurgents don't wear any kind of uniform, and they certainly don't wear labels written in Arabic that American soldiers can't read. If the members of a fighting force don't have some distinguishing characteristic visible from a distance they all share, like a uniform or even a brightly colored hat or something, they fail to meet the requirements for the conventions. And if the insurgents did adopt a uniform recognizable from a distance, it would be the end of them. Their effectiveness stems from their ability to blend into the crowd.

[jayfish]

41. Oh Really?

A "fixed sign" means uniform? In what dictionary? I love the uniform argument though so lets pretend that's what "fixed sign" means. Who's making these uniforms? Did the insurgents strike up a deal with a Chinese sweat-shop that I hadn't heard of? Oh and where are these fellas fixed signs?






I think I remember a show, a while back, on ABC where they followed some Spec Ops folks in Afghanistan. They all had beards and dressed in civilian clothes. I think they said it was... Oh yeah. it was so they could blend into the population. I hope they don't get captured.

Jay

[Irreverend IX]

42. Might want to downsize the third photo a bit.

If Spec Ops have decided to work undercover, they'll have to deal with the consequences of that choice. It's a well-known fact that troops in disguise are not covered by the conventions. Works the same for Americans and Iraqis. If a fixed sign isn't a uniform, than what is it in the case of these Special Operations guys?

[jayfish]

43. So In Attempting To Prove Your Point...

your going to throw our Spec Ops guys under the bus too? What a great supporter of the troops you are. Would you like to point out the section of the Conventions that covers troops in disguise? We're off track here and this is all a moot point anyway. The Taliban is a party to the conflict so Article 4, Section A) 1) applies.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

Uniforms or not.

[BrotherBuzz]

32. Did you read article 5?

Silly me, but a competent tribunal translates to a legal court in my mind, and until proven otherwise, prisoners should be presumed POW and treated as such. Be it Canada or the United States, it makes this old vet mad as a wet hen to think they are taking shortcuts just because it just easier - ain't right.
:shrug:

[Amonester]

21. The West Is (Now: Used To Be) The Best...

As We Can See Nowadays
The West The Best no longer
the W_est has been slippin' down
to their level... and became like them

To Be The Best Means To Respect All Human Rights
NOT To Become like them (especially in THEIR country!!)

the west today = shame

[Spazito]

22. Opting out of the Geneva Conventions at will is intolerable, imo

If the Geneva Conventions don't address this issue to the satisfaction of it's signatories, it is incumbent upon those signatories to work toward changing it to reflect the needed changes. UNTIL then, they should adhere to the convention as written, hold hearings to determine the status of the detainees based on the categories that presently exist.

[bemildred]

19. This will mean they don't apply to Canadian soldiers too.

But I don't expect the government gives a crap about that.

[coalition_unwilling]

20. Taliban told that Geneva Conventions don't apply to

Canadian and American troops :) (eom)

[Zhade]

28. Great. I'm about to move to Canada, and I read this.

Please tell me Canada is NOT turning out like the U.S.

PLEASE.

[PATRICK]

36. Chain of command

So tell me, this is the first time, by coincidence with the installment of a rightist government in Ottawa, that the military has scotched the Geneva conventions? On whose ultimate authority did this change come from after all these years in Afghanistan?

Are Canadians or their media asking if their wonderfuls in ottawa are doing the same fast back covering as Bush did when he was installed? If so, you can predict the rest and just ry to fight it. They have RUSHED to turn themselves into a carbon copy of the worst of Bush/Cheney. All other nations becoming conservative would likely be following the renegade rightie model- against the world and against their own population.

By the way, these issues came up when discussing the "lefty flight". Canada especially has been source and target of the same people destroying our nation. As the US goers, the rest of the world gets sucked down and it is our repsonsibility to fight and stay in place because there is no place else to go.

Unless you want to blast your way into the corporate mountain bunkers come the Armageddon they blunder us into.

[JVS]

35. have been told by whom? Fucking passive voice bullshit!

[Canuckistanian]

40. The HELL they don't

If one Canadian military person is caught abusing or torturing prisoners, they will be prosecuted.

It's happened before and the precedent has been set at Somalia with the case of Shidane Arone, a Somali teenager who died as a result of abuse by Canadian soldiers.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F02E1DC1230F934A15752C1A962958260

Nine soldiers were charged and a whole regiment was disbanded as a result.

And Somalia wasn't a war between countries, either.

Lt-Gen. Gauthier better get his legal facts straight.

[Spazito]

44. Well, it seems the Harper gov't backed off on this or, gasp, they are

lying:

Canadians following rules of war, O'Connor says

Prisoners captured in Afghanistan by Canadian forces will have the rights accorded to them by the Geneva Convention, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said Wednesday.

"When they take prisoners, they will always follow the rules of the Geneva Convention, no lower standard than that," he told the Commons.

snip

Canadian regulations updated in 1991 allow for tribunals to be held in order to determine the status of detainees under the Conventions when there is doubt.

But according to The Globe, Canada has already decreed that there are no lawful combatants in Afghanistan, and therefore no screening is required.

more

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060531/geneva_rules_canada_060531/20060531?hub=Canada