# Rules of War Controversy



## big bad john (12 Feb 2005)

From the Ottawa Citizen:

Soldiers violating rules of war, major argues
DND insists use of hoods, plastic handcuffs is OK since Afghan mission is a peacekeeping operation
   
a journalist 
The Ottawa Citizen 
February 12, 2005

Last January, soldiers from Third Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment Battalion Group, captured suspects from a residential compound in Kabul and put them in plastic handcuffs and covered their faces with hoods. A senior Canadian officer raised the alarm over the treatment. 
  
The Canadian Forces' practice of covering the heads of Afghan prisoners with hoods and using plastic handcuffs is an outdated way to handle captives and could violate the Geneva Convention, a senior military police officer warned last year.

But Department of National Defence officials say since that the Afghan mission is a peacekeeping operation, any prisoners taken by Canadian troops are not subject to the convention.

Maj. J.M. Wilson, commandant of the Canadian Forces Service Prison and Detention Barracks in Edmonton, raised concerns about the way detainees were being handled after he saw television footage last January of Canadian troops with Afghan captives. Sandbag covers had been put over the heads of the prisoners and they had been restrained using plastic ties known as flex-cuffs.

"I thought we had long outgrown this method of handling prisoners, and arguably, such treatment is contrary to the Geneva Convention," the commandant wrote in an e-mail to National Defence headquarters in Ottawa.

"Moreover, the flex-cuffs are known to cut off the circulation, must be checked regularly, and should normally only be used when other more appropriate restraints are unavailable."

Maj. Wilson suggested changes might be in order in the handling of prisoners, noting that soldiers instead should use proper handcuffs, belly chains or ankle restraints.

The response at headquarters to the commandant's concerns, however, was that since the Afghanistan operation was a peacekeeping mission, the detainees "are not subject to the Geneva Convention."

The records detailing the discussions between military officials were obtained by the Citizen under the Access to Information law.

The day before Maj. Wilson wrote his e-mail, paratroopers from the Third Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment Battalion Group, captured detainees from a residential compound in southwest Kabul.

The raid, dubbed Operation Tsunami, took 17 people into custody. According to a Canadian military news release issued at the time, the soldiers assisted Kabul city police in seizing a suspected narcotics distribution site that also may have had connections with the Hezb-i-Islami-Gulbuddin terrorist group.

The use of hoods is one of several techniques that has been singled out by human rights groups who are concerned about abuses among U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and at the American detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

But Capt. Mark Giles, a spokesman for the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, said the use of hoods and flex-cuffs are options open to troops in handling detainees. While he couldn't specifically speak about international missions, Capt. Giles said in some cases the use of particular devices is based on what equipment is available at the time and the circumstances of a situation.

"The use of that equipment is for everyone's safety and security," he said. "While we have to take proper care of prisoners, we also have to make sure our own troops are safe.

"The Canadian Forces military police and the Canadian Forces in general do subscribe to the Geneva Convention and we do think they are important and that detainees should be treated in accordance with them," he added.


Capt. Giles said he did not believe that the use of hoods or flex-cuffs are against the Geneva Convention and such equipment is not designed to harm detainees. "The use of hoods is there as an option, but it doesn't mean that detainees need to be hooded. The use of handcuffs or flex-cuffs is an option."

He said there have been few cases in the Canadian Forces where detainees have been taken into custody, and fewer in which they have been hooded. Canadian military police are sent on all international operations to provide expertise in the handling and proper treatment of detainees, he added.

The treatment of prisoners by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan has been a particularly controversial issue over the last several years. American news agencies, citing leaked memos, reported that in 2002, U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued orders allowing harsh interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay, including: Forcing prisoners into "stress positions"; interrogating them for 20 hours at a time; intimidating them with dogs; and forcing them to wear hoods during transportation and interrogation.

Pentagon officials, however, said that order was later rescinded. In April 2003, W. Hays Parks, special assistant to the U.S. army's Judge Advocate General, defended the use of hoods on prisoners, saying it was a method to prevent escape and prevent captives from gathering information. "They obviously can still breathe," he said. "It's not a matter of trying to abuse them in any way, it's a standard security procedure for most militaries, if not all, upon capture."

The Canadian Forces has re-emphasized training in the handling of prisoners in the wake of several high-profile incidents in the 1990s. During the 1993 mission to Somalia, Canadian paratroopers tortured and killed a 16-year-old Somali who was in their custody. There were other allegations of abuse of Somali detainees by soldiers on that operation.

In 1997, the military's National Investigation Service sent a team to Haiti to probe allegations that Canadian peacekeepers verbally abused and intimidated Haitians who had infiltrated the Canadian camp.

Canada expects to expand its presence in Afghanistan in the coming year, Defence Minister Bill Graham said on Thursday.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2005


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Feb 2005)

Quote,
"_Moreover, the flex-cuffs are known to cut off the circulation, must be checked regularly, and should normally only be used when other more appropriate restraints are unavailable."

Maj. Wilson suggested changes might be in order in the handling of prisoners, noting that soldiers instead should use proper handcuffs, belly chains or ankle restraints._

...well heres an example of someone in a position that does not have a clue, except maybe from a book, about handcuffing techniques when it comes to large un-happy groups.  I guess that one can assume this post is a staffing position and no previously experience necessary?


----------



## George Wallace (12 Feb 2005)

I can see it now.....on Maj Wilson's suggestion the Defence Budget will be increased so that we can purchase more long wheel base GWagens to carry all the Handcuffs and Dark Glasses we will now use to restrain future POWs and incarcerated Terrorist suspects.   :

GW


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Feb 2005)

I'd like to here from some of our MP members on this one.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Feb 2005)

I'm going to agree with Big Bad John, there is no point to denigrating the guy simply by his appearance in the article.   For all we know, he could have been a JTF2 assaulter.   Let's pretend he is here and do him the professional courtesy of attacking his points rather then his person (we save that for government officials).

That being said, I think that the good Major's seat in DB doesn't give him the perspective that the guys on the ground in Kabul had.   His two chief concerns were really not valid in the environment that the soldiers were in:

1)   Flexcuffs were used due to the operational necessity required on the ground.   You couldn't have guys getting caught up lugging more cumbersome implements around for the sake of the comfort of a few detainees.   As Bruce, who uses them on a day-to-day basis, alludes to, the things aren't as technical as the Major seems to be making them out to be.

2)   Hoods were placed over the heads of the detainees.   The Major cited this as a violation of the Geneva Convention.   Last I checked, the Geneva Convention was aimed at uniformed PW's in war, not narco-warlords running their gang in Kabul.   As we've discussed before, the enemy of this "4th Generation War" does not fall into our nice and clear Westphalian preconceptions, so we can't put the blinders on and stick to methods which may be inappropriate.   As well, I'm sure the on-scene commander had a good operational justification for sand-bagging these guys, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not sure what the real issue is - we did no harm to these guys with plastic cuffs and a sandbag hood.   Other then that, it appears we've hurt nothing but the Major's sensibilities, which I'm sure is the last thing on the mind of the guy at the pointy-end.   I think HQ realized that as well when they (appropriately) said "thanks" and binned the paper.

I agree with John.   Most likely armchair quarterbacking, "OK Sir", File 13, and back to the war.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Feb 2005)

The Geneva Conventions are written in reasonably plain text, not lawyerese, and can be understood by reasonable people.  They will tell anyone - soldier, civilian - all there is to know about when, where, and to whom the protections apply.

Then, of course, there is the bedrock intent: laws of war exist to minimize suffering and unnecessary violence, not be a straitjacket for operations.


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Feb 2005)

Use of the flexicuffs is not illegal .. using the flexi cuffs to intentionally* cause injury is illegal. There's a measure of due diligence here. As for hoods, they are akin to blindfolds, perfectly acceptable under the laws of armed conflict while prisoners are in transit and may be exposed to sensitive locations, equipment and personnel. 

I think the counter points to the issues raised by the Major could have been better explained, but my problem with happened here is as follows: unless he was asked for an opinion what the heck is he doing throwing his 2cents into it. One thing the army has a lot of access to are legal opinions on the laws of armed conflict. If NDHQ solicited an unqualified opinion from the CO of a prison, [and it really would be unqualified unless he's got a legal ticket] then one has to ask the question: what were they thinking? Now there's a story.     

edit *knowingly, wilfully blind or recklessly and without lawful authority.


----------



## MG34 (12 Feb 2005)

The treatment was in accordance with establshed SOPs on Roto 0 and in fact POW handling within the CF,period. The prisioners were being transported to a location which they were not allowed to see for security reasons,hence the bags,flexicuff are an accepted method of restraint used world wide,even right here in Canada. The detainees were closely monitored during transport and when they reached their destination,provided with water and medical attention if required throughout the duration of captivity,they were fed the same food as the soldiers guarding them.There is nothing against any convention or protocal here,the entire mission was video taped and photographed by members of Combat Camera and records kept. 
 The Major's comments although seemingly well intentioned are off the mark and the headline is confusing as to the content of the article.There was no wrong doing here.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (12 Feb 2005)

MG34... a perfect response. Rational, professional and gets the point across.

Thanks
Mike


----------



## Infanteer (13 Feb 2005)

Ok, I've cleaned up the thread, removing the silly bunfight that came out of it.

Note, there is no references to the articles author (a journalist) because he is the messenger (if you have questions, PM him - he is a member here).  As well, there are no personal attacks on the Major in question - attack his arguement, not his character.

If anyone wishes to add anything to this (as it certainly is an important topic to consider) by all means go ahead - be warned now that any barbs chucked at Major Wilson or issues with a journalist's journalistic approach will be taken down.


----------



## big bad john (13 Feb 2005)

UK Forces certainly use plastic cuffs and hoods.  We point our weapons at them as well.


----------



## winchable (13 Feb 2005)

> We point our weapons at them as well.



Good god no...


----------



## DBA (13 Feb 2005)

Most police tactical teams use flex cuffs. It's just not practical to carry 10+ sets of normal metal handcuffs. As well in the US for mass arrest from civil disobedience flex cuffs are commonly used. For violent detainees who might collude to try and escape and/or harm the captors using hoods can lessen the opportunities they have to act. Again also used by some police forces but not as often since violent struggle by a group once in custody is fairly rare. 

I don't see the problem using such on operations overseas and the convention reference just seems like dropping pollitical words to try and stengthen an arguement or viewpoint.


----------



## big bad john (13 Feb 2005)

Wars and situations are different.  In the First Gulf War, we used flexi cuffs and hoods on some prisoners.  During the South Atlantic War, the POWs were completely defeated and did not need to be restrained.  See the photos of the Argentinian POWs that I have posted as an example.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Feb 2005)

Flex-cuffs are standard equipment along with regular handcuffs for every member on the NLBPs as well, this major sounded like he was shocked they were in use by the CF.


----------



## Marauder (13 Feb 2005)

I think the Major should go over to Kabul to personally supervise the detention, handling, and transport of all the violent murdering scumbags Afghanistan has to offer. Either that or refrain for sharpshooting soldiers on an op halfway round the world from the sheltered comfort of a desk in Edmonton.


----------



## Armymedic (13 Feb 2005)

The CDS was asked the very question about how we detain prisoners on CTV Question Period

Video here click link at left of article: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1108319442830_11?hub=Canada#

He says its is done properly with the safety of CF and anyone like the Afghan police we may work with. He also says they way we do it is the right way.

Guess it doesn't get more official then that.


----------



## Poppa (13 Feb 2005)

As someone who does this sort of thing on a regular basis...there is nothing illegal about the use of flex cuffs and blindfolds/bags over the heads.
Not everyone carries handcuff keys with them...flex cuffs are lighter than belly chains and you can carry more.

I've served with with Maj Wilson before in the early 90's in 2 MPPl (he was the CO). This article kind of surprises me as he came over from the PPCLI or RCR (can't remember sorry) and at the time was the most aggressive MPO I've ever meet. 

Wonder what happened?


----------



## big bad john (14 Feb 2005)

The other side.

Top general defends bagging of captives' heads
  
Andrew McIntosh 
National Post 


Monday, February 14, 2005








Canada's chief of defence staff denied yesterday that Canadian peacekeepers serving in Afghanistan are mistreating prisoners when they pull bags over their heads and handcuff them when they're taken into custody.

Gen. Rick Hillier defended peacekeepers and their practice of either bagging the heads of Afghans or blindfolding them and restraining them with plastic handcuffs as entirely "appropriate" for security reasons.

The Citizen revealed Saturday that a senior Canadian military official had questioned the practices in an e-mail last year, suggesting that such handling of captives was outdated and could violate the Geneva Convention.

Gen. Hillier defended his troops during an appearance yesterday on CTV's Question Period.

Gen. Hillier said the concerns outlined in the 2004 e-mail by Maj. J.M. Wilson, commandant of the Canadian Forces Service Prison and Detention Barracks in Edmonton, were unfounded.

"If there's any country whose soldiers -- men and women -- treat detainees in the appropriate manner, I guarantee you it's ours," Gen. Hillier said.

"When we put something over someone's head or blindfold them, it's for the protection of other folks to ensure that, in this case, that the individual does not see the Afghan police, or security personnel, who were involved in his detention and therefore perhaps prevent him from taking out some harm on them later on in life.

"We try to protect everybody involved. We do it with reasonable precautions and we look after the individuals we're involved with. We do it right," Gen. Hillier added.

Maj. Wilson raised concerns after he saw television footage last January of Canadian troops with their Afghan captives. Sandbag covers had been pulled over their heads. They were also restrained using plastic ties known as "flex-cuffs."

"I thought we had long outgrown this method of handling prisoners, and arguably, such treatment is contrary to the Geneva Convention," the commandant stated in his e-mail to Defence Headquarters in Ottawa.

Military commanders told him since the Afghanistan operation was a peacekeeping mission, the detainees "are not subject to the Geneva Convention." The documents detailing discussions between military officials were obtained by the Citizen under the Access to Information Act.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2005


----------



## 043 (14 Feb 2005)

*As someone who does this sort of thing on a regular basis...there is nothing illegal about the use of flex cuffs and blindfolds/bags over the heads.
Not everyone carries handcuff keys with them...flex cuffs are lighter than belly chains and you can carry more.

I've served with with Maj Wilson before in the early 90's in 2 MPPl (he was the CO). This article kind of surprises me as he came over from the PPCLI or RCR (can't remember sorry) and at the time was the most aggressive MPO I've ever meet. 

Wonder what happened?*   That's faily obvious isn't it??????


----------



## big bad john (14 Feb 2005)

None of us should be on the defensive over this.  This is just one segments point of view.  It does not mean they are right.  Experience is what counts.  The "Fleet Protection Group" of the Royal Marines handles captives in the UK with flexicuffs and hoods as they are removing them from certain facilities.  

It works and makes everyone, prisoner included safer.


----------



## GGboy (14 Feb 2005)

Asked this before and it got edited out for some reason ...  :-\
But wasn't there a platoon/coy of MPs as part of ISAF in Roto 1 (in Roto 0 the Provost Marshall was a Cdn major)? If so, why weren't they involved in handling these prisoners? Or was it a case of most of them getting turned over to the Kabul police almost immediately ... whom I presume don't fuss over niceties like flexicuffs and hoods ...


----------



## S McKee (14 Feb 2005)

OK now let's put this whole thing in perspective gents!! I spoke with Maj Wilson this morning and no one was more surprise than he that his e-mail found it's way into the paper. He was a member of the Somalia investigation team (and we all know what happened over there with PW handling) a former infantry officer with the RCR and a member of the AB Regt. He was also the CO of 2 MPPL so any questions about his qualifications to comment on PW handling are a moot point, he is infinitely qualified. In fact he voiced his concerns because as a former infantrymen he knew the feelings that soldiers can have towards PWs especially in a cbt zone. In regards to the flex cuffs and sand bag issue: he did not disagree with the fact that detainees can be blindfolded and cuffed for security reasons, he suggested that they be blindfolded with fieldressings instead of sand bags and for short terms only. He related to me this morning that during WW2 the Germans started to hood and tie their PWs only after they found out that we were doing it. Under the GC, a PW is suppose to have access to his gas mask and life saving equipment how can a PW dawn a gasmask if his hands are tied?  His comments were directed towards the JTF2 members who were seen by the media escorting PWs of an aircraft who had there PWs hooded and flexcuffed. He raised the issue because we are signatories of the GC and the CF has categorically stated that it will treat any enemy combantant REGARDLESS OF STATUS in a manner that MEETS AND EXCEEDS the GC.   He was merely pionting out the possible legal ramifications of keeping PWs or whatever they are classified as, hooded and cuffed for indefinite periods, and that units should have detailed SOs on PW handling.  So here you have a seasoned officer forwarding his concerns, based on his experience to NDHQ. You may agree/disagree with him however he is far from an armchair QB.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Feb 2005)

I hope jumper that you gave our side and the tone in which it was meant as to why we were a little worrisome.  I also assume that the guys holding the prisoners would put their gas masks on them.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Feb 2005)

Quote,
_Under the GC, a PW is suppose to have access to his gas mask and life saving equipment how can a PW dawn a gasmask if his hands are tied_? 

...I thought that gas/nerve agents were illegal under the GC, so why, if its worth the paper its written on, would they require a section dealing with POW's gasmasks?..........worth the paper its written on??....hmmm...update, maybe?


----------



## S McKee (14 Feb 2005)

Ok ok the gasmask thing was just a point, I know that there is no threat, however if one were to go strictly by the GC.. Anyway I see your point and yes I know what happens to our people when they get captured..however remember we live in a legalistic nation which is full of people that think Khadr was mistreated. I'm not saying I agree with it, all I'm saying is that the man raised some points to his superiors that he thought might cause some problems. J


----------



## big bad john (14 Feb 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> Ok ok the gasmask thing was just a point, I know that there is no threat, however if one were to go strictly by the GC.. Anyway I see your point and yes I know what happens to our people when they get captured..however remember we live in a legalistic nation which is full of people that think Khadr was mistreated. I'm not saying I agree with it, all I'm saying is that the man raised some points to his superiors that he thought might cause some problems. J



Isn't that what an Officer is supposed to do?  At least I was told to point out problems and find solutions to them.


----------



## S McKee (14 Feb 2005)

big bad john said:
			
		

> Isn't that what an Officer is supposed to do?   At least I was told to point out problems and find solutions to them.



Yes I agree wholeheartedly.  I may not always agree with the solution to a problem, however in this case, considering at the time the media frenzy around Canadian troops taking prisoners and what would happen to them if they did? It was right of the Maj to at least put the issue on the NDHQ Radar, even if some may not agree with his conclusions.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (14 Feb 2005)

Jumper,

Thanks for taking the time to get the other side of the story for us. Providing the background context for how these comments were made (and their intended audience) certainly helps put them into perspective. Much appreciated.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Feb 2005)

What I find disagreeable is that someone brought this e-mail to the media's attention, a little bit of a backstab maybe?

..and, yes I am disturbed by the fact he would write this,
"I thought we had long outgrown this method of handling prisoners"

I sure would like for everyone to be able to see that E-mail and be able to judge for themselves whether a "slant" was put on it in the article, or not.


----------



## S McKee (14 Feb 2005)

I thing the spin that was put on it was that there was a bun fight between NDHQ and Major Wilson, when this was just not the case.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Feb 2005)

Good stuff jumper - going right to the source helps out.

As much as we may disagree with the perspective that the Major approached the issue from - I still don't - the nature of a 4GW opponent means that they have no access to the GC - we can treat them decently as a professional army of a democratic country, but we don't have to be dogmatic in our approaches to war.  

However, it's obvious that from what Jumper has told us that his intent wasn't to point fingers, only to cover all the bases.  As BBJ pointed out, any Staff Officer worth his salt would bring things like this up in the planning phase to ensure that the Commander can make his orders without the worry of stuff getting FUBAR'd.


----------



## garb811 (15 Feb 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> What I find disagreeable is that someone brought this e-mail to the media's attention, a little bit of a backstab maybe?
> 
> ...
> 
> I sure would like for everyone to be able to see that E-mail and be able to judge for themselves whether a "slant" was put on it in the article, or not.


My hunch is the email surface via this ATI request:



> A-2004-00300 All records regarding the involvement of Canadian personnel, including but not limited to Military Police and the Joint Task Force 2 in the detention and interrogation of prisoners, detainees or other persons in Afghanistan, from 1 Oct 2001 to 27 July 2004



Like most ATI requests put in, this one is very broadly worded to gain the maximum amount of information and no doubt netted quite a few other documents that may, or may not, have been germane to what the requestor was initially looking for.   In this specific instance it appears to not only have netted a second story item, but also provided a nice, controversy generating, intro for the next story published two days later by the same writer which is covered in this thread  Canada's JTF2 captives vanish at Guantanamo.   If anyone is in Ottawa and so desires, they should be able to go down and review all of the material released via the ATI at the reading room.

Email has become the defacto method of communicating amongst ourselves and things which we would have used the telephone for not so long ago are now committed to the corporate databank for eternity because it is so much easier to dash off a quick email rather than make the phone call and subsequently record it via a record of conversation.   In most instances, this includes the retention of the informal tone we use when speaking to each other as opposed to the formal tone required when you actually drafted a message in the past and this can lead to poor optics if/when that email is subsequently released.   We are all thoroughly briefed on what to do for a in person interview but we all need to be aware that our email may also end up in the news one day and while I don't advocate being paranoid, we always need to keep in mind that all email we generate via the DWAN is liable for release â Å“as isâ ? if someone submits an appropriately worded ATI request.

As for the flex-cuffs and hooding, it is my belief from my own experience, research and numerous conversations with pers who have attended the LOAC course and MP Use of Force instructors, that:

Hoods are an acceptable, although not preferred, method of depriving someone of their sight in a tactical situation, although their use needs to be carefully controlled and monitored with them being removed as soon as practicable.   

For flex-cuffing, I haven't really considered the use of some of the solutions presented by Maj Wilson as these are not generally available outside of a correctional institution.   When given the option of using standard handcuffs or flex-cuffs by non-MP personnel it is my belief flex-cuffs are preferable for a number of reasons, provided they are actual double loop flex-cuffs and not just two zap straps looped together...   Again, due diligence must be applied and an appropriate tool (ASP Scarab or similar) must be available to remove them.   It's important to note that these devices are acceptable for use here in mass arrest situations, if they're good enough for Canadian perps they're good enough for <insert country here> perps in my book.

Sorry for the tardy and verbose (as always) reply.


----------



## big bad john (15 Feb 2005)

This seems to be a follow up story by a journalist from todays Ottawa Citizen:

Hooding prisoners a possible breach of Geneva Convention
experts
  
a journalist 
The Ottawa Citizen 


February 15, 2005


1 | 2 | NEXT >> 





Canadian troops who hooded and handcuffed prisoners in Afghanistan last year did potentially violate the Geneva Convention, say human rights and international law specialists.

International law expert Michael Byers and Amnesty International Canada chief Alex Neve say it is a mistake for Canada's top soldier to dismiss concerns raised by a military police officer last year about the way prisoners were treated during a raid in Afghanistan.

Mr. Byers, a University of British Columbia international law professor, also suggested photographing of the captives and putting those images on the Defence Department's website is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Concerns were raised last January by Maj. J.M. Wilson, commandant of the Canadian Forces Service Prison and Detention Barracks in Edmonton, who saw images of the troops with Afghan detainees. Sandbag covers had been put over the heads of the prisoners and they had been restrained using plastic ties known as flex-cuffs.

"I thought we had long outgrown this method of handling prisoners and, arguably, such treatment is contrary to the Geneva Convention," the commandant wrote in an e-mail to National Defence headquarters.

"Moreover, the flex-cuffs cut off blood circulation, must be checked regularly, and should normally only be used when other more appropriate restraints are unavailable."

The response at headquarters to the commandant's concerns, however, was that since the Afghanistan operation was a peacekeeping mission, the detainees "are not subject to the Geneva Convention."

On Sunday, Gen. Rick Hillier, Chief of Defence Staff, said Maj. Wilson's concerns were unfounded. "If there's any country whose soldiers -- men and women -- treat detainees in the appropriate manner, I guarantee you it's ours," Gen. Hillier said on CTV's Question Period.

"When we put something over someone's head or blindfold them, it's for the protection of other folks to ensure that, in this case, that the individual does not see the Afghan police, or security personnel, who were involved in his detention and therefore perhaps prevent him from taking out some harm on them later on in life."

The use of sandbag covers over a captive's face appears to have become a more common tactic among some western militaries.

Canadian troops in the Second World War did not generally restrain German prisoners or place hoods or blindfolds over their faces.

Amnesty International's Mr. Neve said: "Certainly there are concerns that hooding, for instance, may very well constitute cruel and inhumane treatment."

There are many factors to look at, including how long the person was kept hooded, the nature of hooding and the reasons for it, he added.

"What we need from Hillier is a commitment to look into these reports, ensure there is an independent investigation, and then make a determination as whether the concerns are groundless," said Mr. Neve.

Defence officials did not respond to the comments by Mr. Neve and Mr. Byers.

Mr. Neve said he was particularly troubled that anyone in the military would suggest the Geneva Convention did not apply in a peacekeeping mission.

"To think that anyone is giving them advice that something as fundamental as the Geneva Convention doesn't apply is very worrying," he added.

Mr. Byers, author of three books on international law and human rights, said the use of restraints and hoods appears to be unnecessary in this case since Canadian troops had overwhelming control of the situation, involving a small number of prisoners.

"We have the luxury of doing the job properly. In that instance, to be pushing the envelope with sandbag covers over their heads and using the flex-cuffs when we don't need to do so is certainly contrary to the spirit of (the Geneva Convention)."

Mr. Byers also questioned the Canadian Forces' practice of putting the photographs of the detainees on its Internet site.

"Certainly the U.S. argued that the distribution of photographs of some of its own troops captured in Iraq was a violation of that provision," said Mr. Byers.

"What's good for the goose has to be good for the gander here."

© The Ottawa Citizen 2005


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Feb 2005)

Maybe we should send Mr. Byers over there as an imbeded journalist.  He's talking out of his ass when he says this: 

"Mr. Byers, author of three books on international law and human rights, said the use of restraints and hoods appears to be unnecessary in this case since Canadian troops had overwhelming control of the situation, involving a small number of prisoners.

"We have the luxury of doing the job properly. In that instance, to be pushing the envelope with sandbag covers over their heads and using the flex-cuffs when we don't need to do so is certainly contrary to the spirit of (the Geneva Convention)."

Give me a break.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (15 Feb 2005)

> Canadian troops in the Second World War did not generally restrain German prisoners or place hoods or blindfolds over their faces.



Not after Dieppe we didn't.  At Dieppe, it was in the operations order that all prisoners would have their hands tied.  The Germans captured a copy of the order (which was, against orders, taken onto the beach), and submitted Canadian prisoners of war in Germany to daily handcuffing in retaliation.  It was a big deal, politically, at the time.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Feb 2005)

My God!   In the Second and First World Wars, when large numbers of prisoners were being captured, there were not enough means to handcuff or blind fold them.   The same for the First Gulf War, where Bdes surrendered enmasse.   Let's keep our perspective here.

When we capture/detain personnel and hood them it is for good reason.   The oportunity for escape is during the first moments of capture and lessen as time progresses.   If the prisoner is hooded he is easier to control, less likely to run, less likely to see sensitive materials, information, or locations, and can be handled by fewer personnel.   Restraints used must be strong, light and easily carried by 'captureing troops'.   I suppose we could resort to "kneecapping" and see what comes out of that....   :

Photos?   I wonder what the press and Dr Byers, and for that matter Maj Wilson, have to say about the use of cameras and video recorders in our Police interview rooms and cells?

It seems that some of these people are saying that what we are doing is wrong, but they can do as they please......."Do as I say, not as I do" type of logic here.GW


----------



## Infanteer (15 Feb 2005)

big bad john said:
			
		

> "We have the luxury of doing the job properly. In that instance, to be pushing the envelope with sandbag covers over their heads and using the flex-cuffs when we don't need to do so is certainly contrary to the spirit of (the Geneva Convention)."



I'm failing to understand the "we" part of this.

Mr Byers can certainly have the luxury of making the comments from his cushion (at least the MP Officer was experienced as a soldier and with dealing with the issue of PW detainment).   Unlike Mr Byers, the soldiers who were involved in this (some who post here) did not have the luxury of knowing whether the men they detained could prove to be dangerous if they were permitted to see their captors and their location.   Unlike Mr Byers, the on-scene commander did not have the luxury of resorting to three books on international human rights when determining what Force Protection Measures where necessary to protect the soldiers under his command.

These men were not EPW's, so it is already a stretch saying that they are entitled to Geneva Convetion protection.   As well, claiming that this was "cruel and inhumane treatment" is ridiculous - they were cuffed and hooded.   If you can show how this is cruel and inhumane, then be my guest.


----------



## mdh (15 Feb 2005)

This incident shows what the CF could do if it was more proactive about getting ahead of an issue like this one.   

General Hillier sounded very effective, sensible, and responsible putting forward the reasons why the troops on the ground operated in this fashion.   I would argue, in fact, he has far more credility as a serving soldier than a rather obscure human rights "expert" - and I would further suggest that the general public would tend to agree with Hillier.

But instead of continuing to stay ahead of the story, the CF has provided no additional communication - at least I have seen nothing on the CF web site to put some context on the controversy from its point of view.   

Why not put out a statement -- backed up by an expert in addition to Hillier - who supports the General's argument - it shouldn't be that difficult to find a third-party legal opinion which would support the CF's point of view, then call up the reporters covering this story and offer up an alternate argument?

They may not necessarily write up the story in response, but at least the reporters would know that there is another viewpoint that has equal credibility.

By way of contrast, the Department of Defense in the US takes these issues head on - here is an example, taken from their web site, when a negative story produced by Seymour Hersh:


Statement from Pentagon Spokesman Lawrence DiRita on Latest Seymour Hersh Article 
                  The Iranian regime's apparent nuclear ambitions and its demonstrated support for terrorist organizations is a global challenge that deserves much more serious treatment than Seymour Hersh provides in the New Yorker article titled â Å“The Coming Wars.â ? 
                  Mr. Hersh's article is so riddled with errors of fundamental fact that the credibility of his entire piece is destroyed.   
                  Mr. Hersh's source(s) feed him with rumor, innuendo, and assertions about meetings that never happened, programs that do not exist, and statements by officials that were never made.

                  A sampling from this article alone includes:

The post-election meeting he describes between the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not happen. 

The only civilians in the chain-of-command are the President and the Secretary of Defense, despite Mr. Hersh's confident assertion that the chain of command now includes two Department policy officials.   His assertion is outrageous, and constitutionally specious. 

Arrangements Mr. Hersh alleges between Under Secretary Douglas Feith and Israel, government or non-government, do not exist.   Here, Mr. Hersh is building on links created by the soft bigotry of some conspiracy theorists.   This reflects poorly on Mr. Hersh and the New Yorker. 

Mr. Hersh cannot even keep track of his own wanderings.   At one point in his article, he makes the outlandish assertion that the military operations he describes are so secret that the operations are being kept secret even from U.S. military Combatant Commanders.   Mr. Hersh later states, though, that the locus of this super-secret activity is at the U.S. Central Command headquarters, evidently without the knowledge of the commander if Mr. Hersh is to be believed.

                  By his own admission, Mr. Hersh evidently is working on an â Å“alternative historyâ ? novel.   He is well along in that work, given the high quality of â Å“alternative presentâ ? that he has developed in several recent articles.
                  Mr. Hersh's preference for single, anonymous, unofficial sources for his most fantastic claims makes it difficult to parse his discussion of Defense Department operations. 
                  Finally, the views and policies Mr. Hersh ascribes to Secretary Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, Under Secretary Feith, and other Department of Defense officials do not reflect their public or private comments or administration policy.


What was the CF's response to the Citizen piece?: "Defence officials did not respond to the comments by Mr. Neve and Mr. Byers."
Perhaps it's time that the CF stopped hoping these types of stories just disappeared.

cheers, all, mdh


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Feb 2005)

How many times does the CF have to say this isn't an issue?  Maybe everyone would like the PM to say his bit too.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Feb 2005)

To compare the prisoners of today to the taking of prisoners in either World War is stupid, chances were these prisoners would not be freed untill the war was over, hence not quite the fuss needed to be made about "sensitive" areas, etc.. 
 Now,how many of these prisoners are back "there" spelling out in great detail any SOP's, etc.,that they picked up on?

Different world, different ball game, if anyone can't grasp that, well.......


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Feb 2005)

Different world, different ball game

different rules


----------



## camochick (15 Feb 2005)

I dont see the big deal with flex cuffs, i mean has anyone ever  been handcuffed for real by cops, I am not going to go into details but the handcuffs cops in Canada use cut off circulation and leave alot of bruises. What's the difference?


----------



## big bad john (16 Feb 2005)

Letter to the Editor from todays Ottawa Citizen:

Troops must obey rules of civility
  

The Ottawa Citizen 


Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Retired colonel Jim Rycroft says Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan need unambiguous and useful directions, not statements that could be interpreted as a licence to abuse detainees.  


Re: Soldiers violating rules of war, Feb. 12.

a journalist quotes Department of National Defence officials as saying that, since the Afghan mission is a peacekeeping operation, any prisoners taken by Canadian troops are not subject to the Geneva Convention. In the context of the article, that statement is alarming.

I retired from the Judge Advocate General Branch of the Canadian Forces 10 years ago and no doubt things have changed since then. However, I am certain that Canadian citizens still expect that members of the forces deployed on operations will behave appropriately. It would be easy to pick apart the quote. For example, are we talking about detainees or prisoners?

There is not a single Geneva Convention but rather several, as well as protocols, customary laws of armed conflict, the 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatments or punishments -- and so on.

It is a neat academic point whether the UN, not being a state, is strictly bound by the conventions and protocols. But Canada as a nation is, and individual members of the Canadian Forces are.

Deployed soldiers need unambiguous and useful directions, not statements that could be interpreted as a licence to abuse detainees.

To quote Lt.-Col. Mathieu, from his evidence to the Somalia inquiry a decade ago: "You may have fallen victim to the soldier's first defence: When in doubt, play the fool. Because when you go into the army, you learn to treat prisoners with dignity. Because prisoners are pretty simple. You capture them, you secure them. If they are injured, you take care of them ... It's as simple as that."

Officers such as Maj. J.M. Wilson, commandant of the Canadian Forces Service Prison and Detention Barracks in Edmonton, are quite right to raise the propriety of procedures for handling detainees. The plastic cuffs and hoods may be justified in the circumstances, but to imply that international law does not apply to such missions is not.

I urge a journalist to write more on this important subject. We do not need another Somalia incident.

Jim Rycroft,

Orleans

Lt.-Col. (ret'd)


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 Feb 2005)

The American Response to Prisoner Treatment from Donald Rumsfeld:

A person wrote a letter to the White House complaining about the
treatment of a captive taken during the Afghanistan war. Attached is a
copy of a letter they received back:



Matthew.      



> The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, D.C. ,20016
> 
> 
> Dear Concerned Citizen:
> ...


----------



## MOOO! (16 Feb 2005)

Now Ive been on a few instances were the need for multiple restraints have been needed.  Also the ability to stop belligerents from increasing hostilities within their groups needed to be stopped with available materials.  Now I let the rule makers make up what they will in these regards, but its what we have to (as always) work with what we have.  Each day brings us into those unfortunate situations in a hostile environment were we cant determine how many handcuffs or silk blindfolds to bring.  I believe bags over a individuals heads have a place and there are in some instances the need to do this as Ive said to stop the unruly.

Flex cuffs do hurt, granted but! its a way to secure a person till handed over to the next level.  Security of the situation is needed and to ensure this, if the on site commander deems this a need and they don't abuse their authority over the prisoners what is the issue.  There have been many quotes linking our methods to instances of abuse with the U.S. troops, I for one, do not follow the U.S. method of detention and I know not intentionally these comments were brought out.  

We all have our methods and like some have stated rules are not followed by the opposite side, so we should use what we have to complete our mission.  Until the military hands out bags and bags of tactical handcuffs and MPs in the sections we have to adapt.   

MOOO!! "i like individuals, its the masses that are the cattle"


----------



## Infanteer (16 Feb 2005)

This story isn't about the author - doing so will only lead to an off-topic bunfight.   I've cleaned this thread up once before, so keep on target (hence, prior statements were removed).

As for the Rumsfeld Letter - *False*.   Always check Snopes with these kinds of things:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/lark.asp

Again, as I stressed on another thread, I don't see how Mr Rycroft can highlight the need "to obey the rules of civility" (implying that we weren't).

The Geneva Conventions do not define the "Rules of Civility", they are an agreement on how to "play the game" that were written in another time for another type of war.   By choosing to handle the prisoners or detainees in a different manner (that may not fly for the GC's treatment of an Enemy Soldier) does not mean we've automatically overstepped the bounds of decency.

As those who *WERE ON THE GROUND* can testify, these men were not mistreated and were handled in a professional manner.   Mr Rycroft's attempt to draw some sort of connection to Somalia is unfounded and I suspect that those who were involved might take it as a slight on how they carried out their mission that day (and I don't blame them).

Here's a solution - instead of crowing that Canada, by failing to carry out, to the letter, the Geneva Conventions when it comes to terrorists and thugs, how about we see some recommendations on how to make the Geneva Conventions more relevent to the War we are fighting today (or have generally been fighting for the last 30 years).   War has changed with society in the last 100 years, maybe it is time for the Geneva and Hague conventions to catch up, less they become irrelevant and ignored down the road (like the Kellogg Briand Pact or - for the most part - the UN).


----------



## mdh (16 Feb 2005)

Infanteer makes an excellent suggestion in terms of some kind of constructive response - but I am still baffled by the supine reaction of NDHQ. (again compare this to the Pentagon response I highlighted above regarding Seymour Hersh).   

There is still nothing addressing the controversy on the main CF website - and although Gen. Hillier's response on CTV's Question Period was very good - no attempt at follow up has been made (at least I haven't seen any).   

Unless there are some behind-the-scenes politics at NDHQ that we don't know about - you have to wonder why there isn't a more concerted strategy to manage an issue like this one.   

It reminds - in terms of a PA response - of the allegations made against the Navy that it had engaged in a coverup of information when the fire broke out on HMCS Chicoutimi - that story was allowed to run for about a week and half, IIRC, before the Navy finally responded forcefully - a tactic which put the controversy to rest, 

cheers, mdh


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 Feb 2005)

False - well duh.   ;D

L.A.R.K. - Liberals Against Responsibility for Killers.



Matthew.


----------



## big bad john (21 Feb 2005)

More on the subject from todays Halifax Herald:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, February 21, 2005 Back The Halifax Herald Limited 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beware giving troops OK to abuse detainees 

By Scott Taylor ON TARGET

RECENTLY, there has been some public discussion about the manner in which Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan have handled prisoners. The discussion was sparked by the revelation of an internal memorandum written last year by Maj. J.M. Wilson - a military policeman - to his superiors at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa. 

What concerned Maj. Wilson was the televised images of Afghan captives being herded about with sandbags over their heads and hands bound by plastic cuffs. 

"I thought we had outgrown this method of handling prisoners, and arguably such treatment is contrary to the Geneva Convention," Wilson wrote. 

When the story broke, DND officials didn't challenge Wilson's initial assumption. They simply advised reporters that "since the Afghan mission is a peacekeeping operation, any prisoners taken by Canadian troops are not subject to the (Geneva) Convention." 

While such a statement is obviously nonsense (why would soldiers be regulated in their humanity in a wartime situation but be absolved of such restrictions in a less hostile environment?), the most startling comments on this issue were attributed to W. Hays Parks. 

As a special assistant to the U.S. army's Judge Advocate General, Parks claimed that the hooding and handcuffing of prisoners is "a standard security procedure for most militaries, if not all, upon capture." 

The response to Parks would have to be a big "What the hell are you talking about?" Other than post 9-11 images of U.S. soldiers herding prisoners into their detention facilities in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan or Iraq, there are not too many instances that come to mind in which military captives endure such dehumanizing treatment. 

Looking back at films and photographs of all the wars in the previous century, Parks would be hard pressed to find any evidence to support his assertion. It is a fact that during World War II, Canadian survivors of the 1942 raid at Dieppe were shackled on Hitler's direct orders for one year and 44 days. The reason for this mistreatment was that the Germans discovered from captured documents that the Canadians were ordered to "manacle their prisoners," which they expected to capture at Dieppe. The Canadians then shackled German prisoners held in Canadian camps, until the Red Cross intervened on behalf of both sides to stop the abuse. 

Fast-forward to the March 2003 coalition forces' invasion of Iraq, and there is no example wherein American soldiers were bound or blindfolded after capture by Saddam's army. 

In fact, the opposite was true. When Pte. Jessica Lynch and her six comrades from the 507th Maintenance Company were taken prisoner following an ambush outside Nasiriyah, they were treated with comparative courtesy. Even more astounding was the example of an American aircrew shot down near Kerbala. When seen on television, these pilots were shown calmly drinking tea with their Iraqi guards. 

Nevertheless, both U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair immediately described the broadcasting of such embarrassing images to be a "war crime" and "in violation of the Geneva Convention." 

One can only imagine what Bush and Blair would have said were those soldiers displayed hooded and handcuffed. 

While it may have recently become common American practice to treat prisoners of war in this fashion, it is certainly not "standard" procedure elsewhere. 

Another questionable statement by Parks regarding the use of blindfolds and hoods was his claim this was "not a matter of trying to abuse (prisoners) in any way" because "they obviously still can breathe." 

What is obvious is that Hays Parks has never been on the receiving end of such treatment. I can speak from the personal experience of being held hostage by Iraqi insurgents last September, during which time I was frequently bound and hooded. Could I still breathe? Of course, but not without discomfort. The worst part of all was the heightened fear brought on by the sensory deprivation. Did I feel that I was being abused? Absolutely. 

But if Canadian soldiers are authorized to treat their prisoners and suspects in this same manner, we can no longer claim any moral high ground. 

One of the best arguments to surface regarding the Defence Department's liberal interpretation of the Geneva Convention in this instance was put forward by Jim Rycroft, a retired Canadian Forces Judge Advocate General lawyer. In a letter to the editor in the Ottawa Citizen, Rycroft wrote, "It is a neat academic point whether the UN, not being a state, is strictly bound by the (Geneva) conventions and protocols. But Canada as a nation is, and the individual members of the Canadian Forces are. Deployed soldiers need unambiguous and useful directions, not statements that could be interpreted as a licence to abuse detainees." I couldn't agree more.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Feb 2005)

So the US had Jane Fonda in North Vietnam, we now have Scott Taylor.

GW


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Feb 2005)

Quote,
Even more astounding was the example of an American aircrew shot down near Kerbala. When seen on television, these pilots were shown calmly drinking tea with their Iraqi guards.

Quote,
What concerned Maj. Wilson was the televised images of Afghan captives being herded about with sandbags over their heads and hands bound by plastic cuffs. 

DISCLAIMER: The following is my opinion only,
Hey Scott,
Did ya even think a nice little thing called "freedom of the press' might have something to do with this?
You are digging low for your journalistic professionalism here, did you actually bother checking to see if those airmen "having tea" were being threatened just off camera or not?
I mean come on lad, I supposed a machine that somehow looked just like the Governor of California actually came back from the future also..........


----------



## pbi (21 Feb 2005)

IMHO it depends on whether the people we arrest are PWs  who are clearly under the GC as enemy soldiers,or "detainees" who may be criminals, terrorists, etc. with no formal status. Restraining the latter so that they cannot get away or effect an attack on their captors, or blindfolding them for security reasons, do not seem excessive to me. ( A sandbag might be a bit much...) After all, if you or I are arrested by our own local civil police forces, they can handcuff or flex cuff us on reasonable grounds. 
IMHO we need the same abilty to handle the people we detain on ops, if for nothing other than force protection reasons. Maybe the GC needs to be brought up to date to reflect modern military ops not some European gentlemen's conception of conventional inter-state formal warfare from another century.

Cheers.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (21 Feb 2005)

This tweaked my interest, so I accessed the Geneva Convention on handling of PWs:

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

There are no specific references to restraints on detention - but there are some general guidelines:

Article 13 
*Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated*. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest. 
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. 
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited. 
Article 14 
*Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour.* 
Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men. 
Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires. 

I am not a lawyer, but I don't see a problem here... if in fact the detainees are subject to the Convention - and Article 5 has this to say:

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. * 

Dave


----------



## Kurhaus (21 Feb 2005)

Here is another source to clarify the point.   The following is a quote from the B-GG-005-027/AF-022, "Code of Conduct for CF Personnel" taken from the JAG home page: 
http://www.dnd.ca/jag/training/publications/code_of_conduct/Code_of_Conduct_e.pdf

SECURITY
8.	*Restraint devices (such as handcuffs, shackles, flex-cuffs, tie-wraps, etc.) will only be used on a case by case basis where individual PWs or detainees represent an immediate threat.* Those restraints will be removed as soon as the individual no longer poses a threat to security. *In exceptional circumstances a PW or a detainee may be blindfolded for security purposes*. However, in nearly all cases the nature of the operation and the lack of an opportunity to escape will mean there is no requirement to even consider the use of a blindfold. The Law of Armed Conflict permits the use of force to prevent the escape of PWs. In the case of detainees, however, force may only be used to stop an escape where it is authorized in your ROE. 
SOURCES 
9.   Hague Convention IV, Regulations, Art. 23.
Third Geneva Convention, Art. 18.
Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, Art. 40, 41, 44.

Unless you were there, I don't think you're qualified to say what was right or wrong in a given situation.


----------



## Too Poor (21 Feb 2005)

Kurhaus well put!!


----------



## Infanteer (21 Feb 2005)

The constant rallying call of opponents of this that we are "mistreating" enemy prisoners-of-war.  Please show me how restraining and blindfolding a suspected narco-terrorist is some grave abuse of human decency.  For Pete's sake, the way these journalists are portraying it, we've beheaded these guys with a rusty knife.  No news here, move along now.

Scott Taylor's examples of the 507 Maintenance and the Karbala pilots are comparing Apples to Oranges.  That was in a clear, interstate war were both Iraqi and Coalition soldiers were wearing uniforms, etc, etc.  I'm sure any Iraqi's who surrendered were treated by Americans and British in the same fashion.


----------

