JTF2 & AFG (merged)

[KevinB]

sheikyerbouti,

Dude your WAY out of your lane.

You are interpolating data from VERY shakey source and processing it into fact.  Garbage in = Garbage Out

1) We could have shot them all as they have ZERO LEGAL STANDING.  We chose to treat them as PW's while in our possession however we are NOT bound to do so.

2) Blood on our Hands  :  Once again your showing your ***.  Canadian has ZERO capability to hold these people - plus can you just imagine whathappens to the young soccer mom when Achmed Mohameds brother decided to wipe out her young little Timmy's school to presusre us into releasing his brother...   No Canadians want them here.

3) Get back into reality - Para was QUITE clear in his above references.  

 

[Slim]

sheikyerbouti,

We're at war.

We're at war with people who have decided not to play by the rules of the Geneva convention.

They cut the heads off of their prisoners. They blow up non-combatants. They have broken every major rule against this sort of thing that there is.

You can't have it both ways.

Also...please realize that you are speaking to people here who have BTDT and know what they're talking about from first hand experience...Not a book! Please try and remember that.

Thanks

 

[paracowboy]

In any case, the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the majority of our enemies. This does:

9. Fight chivalrously against an honourable foe; fifth columnists and civilian snipers deserve no quarter.

They have not met the pre-reqs. They're getting better treatment than the Geneva Conventions call for. But, we're good that way. Trust me, there are whole bus-loads of people who specialize in the Laws of Armed Conflict, really high-priced help, who are taking care that the whole show is above-board. Despite what those who don't have their understanding of War and Law might think.

 

[KevinB]

Ah the creed  ;D

 

[paracowboy]

Ah the creed  

I try hard to live it. Or at least, live up to it.

 

[KevinB]

BTW - I am sure some of the lesser noble but flamboyant Lawyers in the US of A would have taken the cases pro bono if they thought there was a case -- even to the Int Criminal Court (yes I know th US feeling on it but...)


Remember we held German PW's for years with ZILCH... c'est la vie

 

[paracowboy]

"If the ski-mask doesn't fit, you must aquit!"

 

[KevinB]

"If the ski-mask doesn't fit, you must aquit!"

BWAHAHAHAHA

Too true

 

[sheikyerbouti]

I think my position is being somewhat mis-construed. My original question was what guarantees do we have that our will is being exercised judiciously if we are handing over detainees to a power outside of our control. All it seems we have is trust in our allies, which is a  very powerful thing but this acts as no permanent guarantee.

My reference to blood on our hands was meant to imply that if we are involved to the degree which we are currently committed, then we should act accordingly and provide all resources necessary to our troops to carry the fight to the enemy. If this means building a "Cantanamo" then so be it.

In the face of a changing climate of warfare, there should be some rules that are held sacrosanct. What I am asserting is that we are in the moral majority and as such we need to conduct ourselves to the highest possible standards in order to remove ourselves from faulted associations that can be exploited by our opponents.

I am steadfast in my support for the troops overseas and am very much in favour of expanding our capabilities. I am not some hippy who wants to see you guys walking around with flowers in the barrels of your guns. In fact I resent such assertions very much. My lack of participation does not preclude my concerns for all parties involved although my preferences lie with supporting the mandate of the CF wherever they may be sent and however they see fit to excercise their orders.

 

[paracowboy]

I think my position is being somewhat mis-construed

possibly.

My original question was what guarantees do we have that our will is being exercised judiciously if we are handing over detainees to a power outside of our control.

this:

trust in our allies,

which is a  very powerful thing but this acts as no permanent guarantee

no such animal in politics, war, or horse-trading. We've decided to rely on our allies, while proving ourselves unreliable allies. We prefer to let others do the dirty work and then snipe at them for doing so.

My reference to blood on our hands was meant to imply that if we are involved to the degree which we are currently committed, then we should act accordingly and provide all resources necessary to our troops to carry the fight to the enemy. If this means building a "Cantanamo" then so be it.

very true, but that would entail expenditures that our Leadership has deemed unnecessary. Our public evidently agrees since they will not vote that Leadership out of power.

In the face of a changing climate of warfare, there should be some rules that are held sacrosanct.

and there are. They are taught to every recruit, they are re-inforced at every briefing prior to departure on a tour. They are continually expanded upon as you go up the rank structure. There are many people whose entire job revolves around ensuring this happens.

What I am asserting is that we are in the moral majority and as such we need to conduct ourselves to the highest possible standards in order to remove ourselves from faulted associations that can be exploited by our opponents.

and we do. Which is why the detainees we take are treated better than they have to be according to the strict letter of the Law.

I am steadfast in my support for the troops overseas and am very much in favour of expanding our capabilities.

glad to hear it. Are you a girl? If so, are you hot? If not, can I borrow some money?  ;D

 

[KevinB]

LOL,


Other than Para's funnier quips it is 110% bang on.

The Brits and others seem content to allow the US to administer the detainees as well...

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

couple questions here bfore I leave my  humble comments.

1) before your covered by the convention, do you not have to sign and agree to it as a country  or as a group?
no treaty  signed not covered by it.

2) do they  give the same level of care to our guys ( good guys)  who they capture?
i have not seen anyone behanded in the US detention center on line or reported in the news. guess they  do not report that  news out of Cuba . Western News Services would ahvea  great day  if they had proof any one was killed and beheaded while under guard of US soldiers

3) where else do you store them?
I am sure good thought was given to this question by  pay grades way  beyond any one who reads this message board, do not mean in to insult the owners and  people who post here. Do not see anyone from the NSA, CIA, JOINT CHIEFS, FBI andother various  groups here. they  decided where to house these people not the soldiers who captured and risked everything to bring them in.

as for housing them at Club ED, CLUB FED in Canada, no thanks,  no way  no how.  we do not have the man power, money or the resources to safe guard the locals from these people and the people who might try  to break them out of  any of our jails or compounds.
Cuba was picked for many  reasons, some of them I am sure you can all think about, but i will list some of them in no special order

a) it is on an island nation, that has strict entery rules, one nice thing about being a communist country, you do not allow just anyone in or anyone out. 

b) who wants to upset Castro, he has more terrorism connections and old friends ,you  do not mess in his country

c) americans have a controlled base, with their own secuirty  watching for people coming in and going, the Cubans have the same sort of thing, so having two forces watching each other  who do not trust one another already, very  unlikely  of getthing thru  both layers of secruity to remove the detainees.

d) as long as they not on US soil they are not covered by  most US civil laws, they are not protected by international treaties because they are not a government control group and they are not waging war but waging terror. Genva Conventions covers uniformed soldiers. see posts above for more details on coverage of soldiers

e) detain the detainees away from home lesser the chances of escape. long swim back to the middle east, lesser the chances of armed force being used to remove them.

they have no real complaints, they  get 3 meals a day, medical care more then likely  better then average person living in the US or Canada, and it is free medical.
  they have freedom of religion, not something people had where they were  captured

they have air conditioned cells and building, show me a cave with that?

they choose to be what  they are, not forced to join, not forced to be anything but detainees now.

they get to play  sports, not allowed under their leaders

they started the war, NATO countries and other nations have decided to end it. 


And my  favorite reason

There are 2 sets of rules during and after war or war like operations.

there is one set for the losers and that  set is created by the winners

because you win the war you get to make the rules for the next one.

 

[HollywoodHitman]

The Americants wanna spend the cake to detain the people our guys capture, then let 'er rip! Better they pay for it than us right? I'm all for it.....Continuity of care......We pass them along to the Yanks and they're intact, then our responsibility is met. They break the agreements  between countries, then it's up to the JAG types to sort out.

 

[paracowboy]

1) before your covered by the convention, do you not have to sign and agree to it as a country  or as a group?

no. WE signed, so we agreed to follow it. We are bound to follow the guidelines. Non-signatories are not. But, the International Community still considers it to be binding on non-signatories (when it's politically expedient), and will take steps to pressure non-signatories into following the "Rules".

2) do they  give the same level of care to our guys ( good guys)  who they capture?

no, but irrelevent. It doesn't matter what THEY do. WE signed, so we follow the guidelines. At least, those we've ratified. We haven't all of them, by the way.

 

[George Wallace]

couple questions here bfore I leave my   humble comments.

1) before your covered by the convention, do you not have to sign and agree to it as a country   or as a group?
no treaty   signed not covered by it.

 Canada did sign them and abides by their rules.

2) do they   give the same level of care to our guys ( good guys)   who they capture?
i have not seen anyone behanded in the US detention center on line or reported in the news. guess they   do not report that   news out of Cuba . Western News Services would ahvea   great day   if they had proof any one was killed and beheaded while under guard of US soldiers

We will not lower ourselves to their levels.  We will treat our prisoners within the limits of our laws.  No revenge.  No beheadings.

3) where else do you store them?

 We have the cold Canadian Winters which I am sure may be construed as Cruel and Unusual Punishment.   ;D

d) as long as they not on US soil they are not covered by   most US civil laws, they are not protected by international treaties because they are not a government control group and they are not waging war but waging terror. Genva Conventions covers uniformed soldiers. see posts above for more details on coverage of soldiers

  Gitmo is considered US soil.


I see Para and I have been posting the same thing.

 

[paracowboy]

  Gitmo is considered US soil.

technically, that one's "iffy". Papa Fidel doesn't consider it U.S. soil. Neither do some other nations and speak out about it, but nobody listens to them (*coughNorthKoreacough*). Others agree with El Jefe, but don't speak up, 'cause it ain't worth it, unless you're trying to get something from El Grande Beardo. Most don't give a crap.
I believe that it was addressed some time ago, and the UN said (and I quote) "What-eveeer!

 

[armyvern]

Perhaps all branchs of the CF should at least once (this means Reg F, Primary Res F and that Res F entity known as the CIC) have to undergo pre-deployment trg for an actual hostile operational theatre so that they could learn that indeed...the true experts in the subject are brought in to tell us how it really is...that is why we have the security clearance we do....so they can tell us (Insert Expert Red Cross Official's name of your choice here).
They would also then receive real education as to what is actually contained within the Geneva Conventions and the Gentlemen's Rules of War that we Canadian soldier's do follow.
This of course, would be without the little University Acadaemia twist that so often accompanied anything (god forbid) warlike covered during the period of my own University education.
...then I went out into the real world... experienced the locals and was overwhelminigly blessed to learn from them that 99% of them back us up and totally support what we are doing for their country....despite what the CBC and other media outlets choose to air.
I choose -as any sane person would- to go with sentiments of the overwhelming percentage of the local  population (of every tour I've been on now) over Mr. Galloway and his ill-informed, mis-educated,  expert ilk any day of the week.

 

[paracowboy]

Perhaps all branchs of the CF should at least once (this means Reg F, Primary Res F and that Res F entity known as the CIC) have to undergo pre-deployment trg for an actual hostile operational theatre so that they could learn that indeed...the true experts in the subject are brought in to tell us how it really is...that is why we have the security clearance we do....so they can tell us (Insert Expert Red Cross Official's name of your choice here).
They would also then receive real education as to what is actually contained within the Geneva Conventions and the Gentlemen's Rules of War that we Canadian soldier's do follow.

done. It's being taken care of at the lowest levels, and it's always done prior to, and on, tour. The Law Of Armed Conflict Course is intended to function as a 'trickle-down' thang. The OC's and CSM's get taught by the JAG and civvie specialists, and then teach it to the troops, in troopie lingo. On my last li'l trip, we did weekly ROE lessons in-theatre. 

 

[armyvern]

Welcome to Cantanamo

Perfect solution!! My thoughts? Let's put it in Alert!!
Cruel and unusual?? Extremely cold? What no sunlight? What do you mean the lawyer's can only pop in once a week if the weather happens to be good?? Limited medical care?? ZERO access to the Red Cross?? Cruel and unusual?? I think not...after all we lock up our own soldier's there who may I point out have committed no crime for 6 months with no access to Timmie's, MacDonald's, KFC, good shopping (or none really), or family. Ooooops I forgot though, those are all things only we western evil infidels are interested in!!

Yep...You're propbably right, it is cruel and unusal....they wouldn't have access to their bomb making supplies or be able to try to blow the *#%$@ out of us. Poor poor poor fellas....  

 

[KevinB]

Recently they are giving the troops good access to an AJAG for Q&A after the lectures...

However many still don't know the dif between the Hague Conventions/Rules of Landwarfare and the Geneva...

Irregardless in some respects since the standard we are holding ourselves to, is much higher, and THAT is being explained.