- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
I am reading a lot of crap on this thread that doesn’t make this country great. I hope it has nothing to do with the fact these people aren‘t the same as you and I. I didn‘t hear this much bulls**** when Yugoslavia blewup and thousands were slaughtered by non-soldiers. Interestingly enough, they were put in front of an international court for crimes against there own, whereas 9/11 was international with multi-countries involved. Proves who ever has the biggest stick gets to make the rules. (as an aside, the US did not sign an international treaty in regards to war crimes because of the possibility of US citizens being tried by foreigners, but obviously they have no qualms about doing the same to others.
The unilateral declaration of “unlawful combatants” is just a ploy to try the persons under secret military tribunals. And why is it subject to some and not others. (ie Walker) Is the actual crime linked to Sept 11. or is it backing the wrong side. Basically the US declared war on Afghanistan, and for those who chose to fight back and defend their territory can’t be declared “unlawful combatants”. Otherwise the same could have applied to VC or Iraqis.
Regardless of circumstances, reason and logic dictate and we d follow the Geneva Convention. As to turning prisoners over, it is a non-issue. The PPCLI will do so under US command. The US treatment however is suspect. Open air cages and the shaving of beards is strictly punitive and will cause problems latter on by its short –sightedness. The shaving of beards is a direct insult to Muslims and done for no other reason then humiliation. For that ignorant member who suggested that they might conceal a weapon in there. Give your head a shake dopey. It like saying they are going to take your crucifix away because you can sharpen it into a knife. Give me a break.
For those who think their treatment is better then they deserve, I’m surprised you didn’t suggest saving the expense of flying them at all, and just take them behind the wall and shooting them. Hasn’t Somalia taught us anything. If any of you are in the CF, god help us all. Because you are neither ethical nor professional, and I sure wouldn’t want you beside me, because to you get emotional carried away, and are blinded to what is right and wrong.
The means does not justify the ends
The unilateral declaration of “unlawful combatants” is just a ploy to try the persons under secret military tribunals. And why is it subject to some and not others. (ie Walker) Is the actual crime linked to Sept 11. or is it backing the wrong side. Basically the US declared war on Afghanistan, and for those who chose to fight back and defend their territory can’t be declared “unlawful combatants”. Otherwise the same could have applied to VC or Iraqis.
Regardless of circumstances, reason and logic dictate and we d follow the Geneva Convention. As to turning prisoners over, it is a non-issue. The PPCLI will do so under US command. The US treatment however is suspect. Open air cages and the shaving of beards is strictly punitive and will cause problems latter on by its short –sightedness. The shaving of beards is a direct insult to Muslims and done for no other reason then humiliation. For that ignorant member who suggested that they might conceal a weapon in there. Give your head a shake dopey. It like saying they are going to take your crucifix away because you can sharpen it into a knife. Give me a break.
For those who think their treatment is better then they deserve, I’m surprised you didn’t suggest saving the expense of flying them at all, and just take them behind the wall and shooting them. Hasn’t Somalia taught us anything. If any of you are in the CF, god help us all. Because you are neither ethical nor professional, and I sure wouldn’t want you beside me, because to you get emotional carried away, and are blinded to what is right and wrong.
The means does not justify the ends
Y
Yard Ape
Guest
We may find out soon what the US legal system thinks of the detentions.
Prison camp faces rights challenge
By JOHN IBBITSON
With reports from Reuters, AP and The Guardian
Tuesday, January 22, 2002 – Page A1
Globe and Mail
WASHINGTON -- Civil libertarians launched the first legal challenge yesterday to the U.S. government‘s handling of al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, even as British Prime Minister Tony Blair dismissed concerns about alleged mistreatment of the detainees.
Former U.S. attorney-general Ramsey Clark and other civil-rights advocates have petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the murky legal status of the prisoners at the Cuban military base-turned-penitentiary.
U.S. District Court Judge A. Howard Matz has agreed to hear their petition this morning.
If granted, the writ would force Washington to bring the prisoners before a court and list the charges against them. Thirty-four more detainees arrived at the base from internment camps in Afghanistan on Sunday and 14 more arrived yesterday, bringing the total to 158.
"These individuals were brought out of their country in shackles, drugged, gagged and blindfolded, and are being held in open-air cages in Cuba," said coalition member Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at the University of Southern California. "Someone should be asserting their rights under international law."
The first question Judge Matz must answer is whether the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, where the petition was filed, has jurisdiction over prisoners held at a military base outside the United States.
It is to frustrate such legal challenges that President George W. Bush‘s government chose Guantanamo. The administration has refused to classify the captured Taliban and al-Qaeda as prisoners of war, which would qualify them for the protections of the Geneva Convention, or as civilian arrests, which would bring them within the scope of civilian courts.
Instead, while observing most of the strictures of the Geneva Convention, U.S. officials want the freedom to question the prisoners without benefit of counsel and to choose whether to deport them to their country of origin, to refer them to the civil courts or try them under special military tribunals that Mr. Bush created late last year.
...
Prison camp faces rights challenge
By JOHN IBBITSON
With reports from Reuters, AP and The Guardian
Tuesday, January 22, 2002 – Page A1
Globe and Mail
WASHINGTON -- Civil libertarians launched the first legal challenge yesterday to the U.S. government‘s handling of al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, even as British Prime Minister Tony Blair dismissed concerns about alleged mistreatment of the detainees.
Former U.S. attorney-general Ramsey Clark and other civil-rights advocates have petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the murky legal status of the prisoners at the Cuban military base-turned-penitentiary.
U.S. District Court Judge A. Howard Matz has agreed to hear their petition this morning.
If granted, the writ would force Washington to bring the prisoners before a court and list the charges against them. Thirty-four more detainees arrived at the base from internment camps in Afghanistan on Sunday and 14 more arrived yesterday, bringing the total to 158.
"These individuals were brought out of their country in shackles, drugged, gagged and blindfolded, and are being held in open-air cages in Cuba," said coalition member Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at the University of Southern California. "Someone should be asserting their rights under international law."
The first question Judge Matz must answer is whether the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, where the petition was filed, has jurisdiction over prisoners held at a military base outside the United States.
It is to frustrate such legal challenges that President George W. Bush‘s government chose Guantanamo. The administration has refused to classify the captured Taliban and al-Qaeda as prisoners of war, which would qualify them for the protections of the Geneva Convention, or as civilian arrests, which would bring them within the scope of civilian courts.
Instead, while observing most of the strictures of the Geneva Convention, U.S. officials want the freedom to question the prisoners without benefit of counsel and to choose whether to deport them to their country of origin, to refer them to the civil courts or try them under special military tribunals that Mr. Bush created late last year.
...
- Reaction score
- 9,243
- Points
- 1,260
Unfortunatly, "right and wrong" can be very relative to the situation and to the participants involved. This preaching of morality that appears in the articles (and on this page) appears to have the same bent as Lloyd Axworthy‘s "pulpit diplomacy". How can Canadians sit back and declare what (or who) is right or wrong, just or unjust, legal or illegal?
To me, all this arguement is besides the point, as we have no choice but to accept American actions, for "the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak must accept what they have to accept."
To me, all this arguement is besides the point, as we have no choice but to accept American actions, for "the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak must accept what they have to accept."
R
rceme_rat
Guest
Canadians not only can but must decide if these actions are appropriate if they are going to be a major player in the on-going actions.
Otherwise, it shows that Canada is merely an American pawn without the ability to assert its own values. Worse, if western democracies look the other way at their allies‘ questionable conduct, it would only serve to reinforce the position of those who would like to destroy those democracies.
We may not have the clout to force the US to do anything, but our investigation (which seems to be called for) and eventual dissent (if it is called for after investigation) displays the strength of democracy -- the inability of the state to run ramshod over the individual.
Otherwise, it shows that Canada is merely an American pawn without the ability to assert its own values. Worse, if western democracies look the other way at their allies‘ questionable conduct, it would only serve to reinforce the position of those who would like to destroy those democracies.
We may not have the clout to force the US to do anything, but our investigation (which seems to be called for) and eventual dissent (if it is called for after investigation) displays the strength of democracy -- the inability of the state to run ramshod over the individual.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I thought we had become pawns to America long ago...
There is an air hypocritism here. "Legal Experts" "Canadian MP" - none of these people will EVER have to face the results of their recommendations. If the USMC says they need to do what they do, I‘ll believe it - they‘re professionals doing their job, and they are the ones who must face the consequences - and I‘d rather face a Human Rights Tribunal than 300 fanatical terrorists.
Canada has no right to preach to the Americans. We signed over our Defense a long time ago. They defend us, secure our position, and keep North America and our interets safe. If we want to start telling the Americans how to handle massive numbers of extremely dangerous prisoners, maybe we should start paying our own bills on the world stage.
Right now we‘re no better than movies critics who have never made a movie telling directors what they did wrong and how bad they were.
There is an air hypocritism here. "Legal Experts" "Canadian MP" - none of these people will EVER have to face the results of their recommendations. If the USMC says they need to do what they do, I‘ll believe it - they‘re professionals doing their job, and they are the ones who must face the consequences - and I‘d rather face a Human Rights Tribunal than 300 fanatical terrorists.
Canada has no right to preach to the Americans. We signed over our Defense a long time ago. They defend us, secure our position, and keep North America and our interets safe. If we want to start telling the Americans how to handle massive numbers of extremely dangerous prisoners, maybe we should start paying our own bills on the world stage.
Right now we‘re no better than movies critics who have never made a movie telling directors what they did wrong and how bad they were.
Y
Yard Ape
Guest
Maybe we should start paying . . . or at the very least stop blaming the US for not providing what we need to do our part.
I wonder should this discusion make distinction between al-Qaeda and the Taliban? One is a terrorist group and could arguably be excluded from the rules of war, the other is the former military government of Afghanistan (and did clearly carry arms in the open and engage in operations).
Al-Qaeda fails Geneva Convention test
Jonathan Kay
23 Jan 02
National Post
Read the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and several anachronisms jump out. Article 26 says "The use of tobacco shall be permitted." Article 60 says the detaining power must provide each prisoner ranking below sergeant a monthly pay advance of "eight Swiss francs." Article 74 says prisoners must be offered cut-rate telegrams.
These oddities reflect the context in which the Geneva Convention was adopted. It was 1949, a time when wars were massive conflicts between major powers. The drafters had fresh memories of the Germans‘ treatment of millions of Russian prisoners taken in 1941 and 1942, and the hellish conditions of GIs captured by Japan. It would have been regarded as absurd then to suggest that the treaty would be applied to protect a group such as al-Qaeda, a nihilistic, ununiformed terrorist organization with no concrete territorial ambitions. Article 4 stipulates that "organized resistance movements" are covered by the treaty only insofar as their members brandish their arms openly, wear uniforms and conduct operations "in accordance with the laws and customs of war." Al-Qaeda fails each and every test.
So it is strange to see human rights pressure groups brushing off the United States‘ contention that al-Qaeda suspects held at Guantanamo are "illegal combatants" not covered by the Geneva Convention. In 1942, seven years before the Geneva Convention was adopted, the U.S. Supreme Court declared, in a case involving German saboteurs: "The law of war draws a distinction between ... those who are lawful and unlawful combatants." The latter category was said to include "an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property." He is "generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoner [of] war." And if, as the court found, a German soldier ferried in a U-boat to blow up a U.S. aluminum plant is an illegal combatant, it is hard (not to mention ridiculous) to argue that the same description does not apply to a terrorist cabal striving to rain upon us -- to quote al-Qaeda‘s October boast -- "a storm of airplanes."
So why do the Red Cross, the UN Human Rights Commission and numerous international NGOs insist that the Geneva Convention applies to al-Qaeda? There are two reasons. First, these organizations are dominated by activists who see the expansion of human rights law as inherently beneficial. Second, they have an inborn hostility to what they consider American "hegemony." Nothing makes their leaders madder than when supposedly hegemonistic operations go down beautifully, as did the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. Henpecking Uncle Sam over his treatment of al-Qaeda prisoners is a way to blow off steam, demonize America and humanize its enemies.
This is why Amnesty International lectures us that security on prisoner transport flights from Kandahar to Guantanamo "may violate international standards prohibiting ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading‘ treatment." (I am curious to know how Amnesty squares this complaint with the Geneva Convention, for the U.S. military is merely making sure the passengers do not crash the plane, and Article 20 of the Convention requires captors "take all suitable precautions to ensure [prisoners‘] safety during evacuation.")
It is tempting to see the question of whether the Geneva Convention applies to al-Qaeda as a political sideshow. But it is not. The greatest dividend captured terror suspects might yield is information about future terror attacks. If the UN and the Red Cross have their wish, the U.S. military will not be permitted to get this information: Effective interrogation is verboten under Article 17 of the Convention, which says "Prisoners of war who refuse to answer [questions] may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
Such a prohibition might be sensible as applied to the sort of rank-and-file military grunts who are actually covered by the Geneva Convention; in a conventional war between sovereign nations, the battle-lines are clear, and most soldiers have little intelligence to offer. But al-Qaeda is different. It is a network of free-ranging, one-man human bombs that threaten to strike all over the world. It is foolish to suggest America should be prevented from sniffing out some of the at-large bombs by interrogating the hundreds it has in captivity.
Jungle
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 12
- Points
- 430
I agree with Enfield... there is a saying I like: "I‘d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six". Says it all. None of these lawyers, judges etc... ever had to make a split second decision that could make the difference between life and death, yours and others around you. It‘s very easy for a JAG officer to brief us about ROE‘s here, they have a textbook answer for every situation... theoretically!!! Now, when we captured pro-indonesian militiamen in East-Timor, we turned them over to the Kiwi Battalion, who turned them over to the Aussie Brigade, and they were finally sent to an INTERFET compound in Dili to await future trial. And you know what ? I never cared how they were treated, and it was not my problem. When they were in my hands, I treated them to the best of my knowledge that the situation permitted, then... out of sight, out of mind. 
R
rceme_rat
Guest
Jungle -
there are really two different points here. The first is what do you do as the soldier on the ground. I think its pretty clear that you follow the SOPs detailed for the situation. Those SOPs are not outrageous from your perspective, especially when you consider that they have been reviewed at every level, including legal, before being issued.
The second level, though, is more political and/or academic for those of us here. It only becomes a pressing concern to those drafting and reviewing the SOPs.
I think the question posed about the difference between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban is an interesting one. If the prisoners being held are charged with events prior to the US declaration of war, are they "unlawful combatants" or just common criminals? Is the Taliban immune as a government, or not, since it was never recognized by the majority of legitimate nations?
there are really two different points here. The first is what do you do as the soldier on the ground. I think its pretty clear that you follow the SOPs detailed for the situation. Those SOPs are not outrageous from your perspective, especially when you consider that they have been reviewed at every level, including legal, before being issued.
The second level, though, is more political and/or academic for those of us here. It only becomes a pressing concern to those drafting and reviewing the SOPs.
I think the question posed about the difference between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban is an interesting one. If the prisoners being held are charged with events prior to the US declaration of war, are they "unlawful combatants" or just common criminals? Is the Taliban immune as a government, or not, since it was never recognized by the majority of legitimate nations?
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,374
- Points
- 1,160
I think that despite the different perspectives, the answer comes out to be the same. We cannot deny prisoners the basic rights entitled to them, we must not deny a human the same rights we would demand our soldiers be treated with. Even in combat, it is not acceptable to shoot enemy soldiers as they surrender (and it frightens me that some of my fellow soldiers seem to be suggesting, here, that they would not think twice before doing it).
The argument that "they do worse, so we can do this," would be quickly thrown out by even the greenest of kindergarden teachers. Some people have put forward the conduct of the Axis powers of WW II or the Norht Vietnamese as justification that the other side never treats our side aswell as we treat theres. I suggest the people making these arguments consider the their contempt the atrocities that they use to justify lowering our morals. Do they want others to look on us, as we look on the governments and people who were responsible for these events?
For those people who want to refer back to the dangers of combat and making the decision that will keep you alive, take a closer look at what we are talking about! These are prisoners who have been removed from combat and are a significantly reduced threat. For those who point to the prison riot as proof that even prisoners are not safe, give yourself\ves a smack. That situation was poorly orchestrated especially inview of the prisoners being half-heartedly checked for weapons. Avioding the same mistakes does not require jumping to some extreem.
RCA is ecactly right. I too am reading a lot of crap on this thread, and I hope that at least a few people will give their heads a shake.
That being said, I would not feel guilty about handing PWs to the US. Two protocols were signed in 1977 to add to the Geneva Convention. Article 75 (of the first protocol) outlines the rights to be given to a prissoner who does not meet the condition to be recognised as a PW. I am confident, givne the presecne of Red Cross observers, that the US will meet these requirment of human rights. I belive that the observation presented by Yard Ape is correct; Taliban are PWs and Al-Qaeda are not. I anticipate that this will be brought to light through the court challenge being launched in the US. Eventually, the US will have to resolve that issue, but untill then, I belive the prisoners will recieve humane (if not comfortable) treatment.
R
rceme_rat
Guest
I would expect you are correct when you suggest that the US will respect these rights (more or less, anyway) under the observation of the International Red Cross. The question is whether they would have without the outcry by human rights watchers. To simply trust that the US would is naive or hopeful - actions to date with the prisoners indicate this already.
However, any violations to date are unlikely to undermine the legal proceedings as long as they haven‘t infringed on right to counsel, etc. Other remedies may be possible to address minor violations -- and some violations may be found to have been unavoidable or reasonable in the circumstances. While the US application of the legal principle and ours is different, the effect is basically the same - rights are not absolute.
More important in the long run is whether the legal proceedings follow with due regard for fundamental legal rights -- as are expressed in the US Constitution, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN‘s declaration, or just under common law.
Given the attention the issue has addressed, the importance of presenting the world with a just resolution, and the fundamental imprtance of the issue under the law, I would hope that there really is more smoke than fire with this issue.
Throughout, my concern has been with the attitudes expressed in certain posts and not with any particular action taken by the US. I hope that my posts, and those of RCA, McG, and others at least cause people to reflect on their own ethics and responsibility.
That said, I think that this thread really should be wound down unless some startling new development hits the news.
However, any violations to date are unlikely to undermine the legal proceedings as long as they haven‘t infringed on right to counsel, etc. Other remedies may be possible to address minor violations -- and some violations may be found to have been unavoidable or reasonable in the circumstances. While the US application of the legal principle and ours is different, the effect is basically the same - rights are not absolute.
More important in the long run is whether the legal proceedings follow with due regard for fundamental legal rights -- as are expressed in the US Constitution, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN‘s declaration, or just under common law.
Given the attention the issue has addressed, the importance of presenting the world with a just resolution, and the fundamental imprtance of the issue under the law, I would hope that there really is more smoke than fire with this issue.
Throughout, my concern has been with the attitudes expressed in certain posts and not with any particular action taken by the US. I hope that my posts, and those of RCA, McG, and others at least cause people to reflect on their own ethics and responsibility.
That said, I think that this thread really should be wound down unless some startling new development hits the news.
Y
Yard Ape
Guest
US reviews Cuba prisoners‘ rights
Monday, 28 January, 2002, 17:54 GMT
BBC
Reports from Washington say a rift has developed in the US administration over the status of al-Qaeda and Taleban suspects held at the American military base in Cuba.
American newspapers say the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, is likely to urge colleagues to reconsider the status of the detainees sent to Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay.
He is arguing that a case-by-case assessment should be made of whether detainees should be declared prisoners of war, the reports say.
But US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insists they cannot be treated as POWs because they did not belong to an army, or wear distinguishable uniforms and insignia, but were people engaged in attacks on civilians.
...
US newspapers said the reason for the shift advocated by Mr Powell is that the State Department wants to ensure that any US irregular troops captured would also be covered by the convention.
The Washington Times quotes a memo from President Bush‘s legal adviser which says that Mr Powell wants Mr Bush to reconsider his 18 January decision to term the prisoners "illegal combatants" - a new term which is unknown in international law.
"Specifically, he has asked that you conclude that GPW - the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War - does apply to both al-Qaeda and the Taleban," the memo from White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales is quoted as saying.
...
The American authorities say the detainees are being treated humanely in spite of international criticism of the camp.
...
Monday, 28 January, 2002, 17:54 GMT
BBC
Reports from Washington say a rift has developed in the US administration over the status of al-Qaeda and Taleban suspects held at the American military base in Cuba.
American newspapers say the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, is likely to urge colleagues to reconsider the status of the detainees sent to Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay.
He is arguing that a case-by-case assessment should be made of whether detainees should be declared prisoners of war, the reports say.
But US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insists they cannot be treated as POWs because they did not belong to an army, or wear distinguishable uniforms and insignia, but were people engaged in attacks on civilians.
...
US newspapers said the reason for the shift advocated by Mr Powell is that the State Department wants to ensure that any US irregular troops captured would also be covered by the convention.
The Washington Times quotes a memo from President Bush‘s legal adviser which says that Mr Powell wants Mr Bush to reconsider his 18 January decision to term the prisoners "illegal combatants" - a new term which is unknown in international law.
"Specifically, he has asked that you conclude that GPW - the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War - does apply to both al-Qaeda and the Taleban," the memo from White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales is quoted as saying.
...
The American authorities say the detainees are being treated humanely in spite of international criticism of the camp.
...
C
cagomez
Guest
IF you check out CBC.ca there is a story that the JTF already handed over prisoners to the US. Egglington didnt give much detail.
http://www.cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2002/01/29/prisoners_alqaeda020129.
Not sure how to link so I just copied the address. Hope it works
http://www.cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2002/01/29/prisoners_alqaeda020129.
Not sure how to link so I just copied the address. Hope it works
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
You know what, you guys are right. Screw giving them to the Americans. Lets do everything possible to make sure we kindly and gently apprehend them no matter the cost in our fellow soldiers‘ blood and tears, and then ship them back to Canada. We can "detain" them in some lmin sec uxury bungalow estate "correctional facilitiy" where they can enjoy golfing, sailing, horseback riding, and interpretive dance classes. We can even give them day passes to go roam the countryside to soak up some culture and scenery. (Surely that would disuade the poor misguided fellows from that minor yet unfortunate "slaughtering civilians" tendency of theirs into join the winning team over ‘eah, eh gov?) Meanwhile, their cases would have to go into the queue (sp) behind the child porn advocates and pot heads fighting for recreational legalization, dragging the procedings on for a few years, while Clayton Ruby and all the other commie, er sorry, socially consciouable lawyers mugged for the camera and pronouced that all their clients had done was be in the wrong place at the wrong time when those big bad soldiers of indiscriminante sex, race, age, physical ability, and intelligence unlawfully detained them over the minor matter of pointing loaded firearms (not guns, however; ‘guns‘ are evil things the common person couldn‘t be trusted with) and then had several hundred accidental discharges. All a misunderstanding you see. Then predictably, some quisling buffoon Supreme Court jurist looking for a seat in the Senate will suck a little political chub by dismissing the case and burying it so deep no reporter could ever see any govenrment bungling that might be involved. The unlawfully detained persons can then apply for welfare, suck the common taxpaying schmoe dry, and then hop the border to kill a couple American civilians for old times sake. It‘s now a "tradition" and part of their "heritage" , so it‘s okey-dokey that they grease a few innocent imperialist running dogs of The Great Satan.
Hey, we do it with every other cast off from a Third World **** hole, why not with these misunderstood gentlepersons?
Your quite correct I‘m giving my head a good firm shake, but it is far from the PC, adore thine enemy reasons you want me to.
As far as Somalia teaching me anything: damn right it did. It reminded me that a band of too-powerful politicians and noload toady senior military beauracrats have an infinitely easier time utterly decimating a revered and highly capable combat unit than any collection of drug crazed thugs with a decent armoury filled with AKs and RPGs.
Hey, we do it with every other cast off from a Third World **** hole, why not with these misunderstood gentlepersons?
Your quite correct I‘m giving my head a good firm shake, but it is far from the PC, adore thine enemy reasons you want me to.
As far as Somalia teaching me anything: damn right it did. It reminded me that a band of too-powerful politicians and noload toady senior military beauracrats have an infinitely easier time utterly decimating a revered and highly capable combat unit than any collection of drug crazed thugs with a decent armoury filled with AKs and RPGs.
Y
Yard Ape
Guest
Marauder, you seem to have the confused opinion that this war is about revenge. It is not about revenge, it is about ensuring that no similar incidents of terror are ever impossed on the world again. Tearing punishment out of the hides of men who may or may not have had innvolvment/prior knowledge of the terror attacks will not help this cause.
The issue is not how "kindly and gently" we can apprehend them. The issue is treating them like humans once we have apprehended them.
The issue is not how "kindly and gently" we can apprehend them. The issue is treating them like humans once we have apprehended them.
Y
Yard Ape
Guest
Ottawa proposes detainee deal
Liberals admit limitations of Geneva Conventions: In talks with U.S. about special tribunals to divide terrorists from prisoners of war
Robert Fife, Ottawa Bureau Chief and Sheldon Alberts
National Post, with files from The Associated Press
OTTAWA - Canada is negotiating with the United States to set up tribunals to determine whether prisoners being held in Afghanistan and Cuba are terrorists or legitimate prisoners of war, John Manley, the Deputy Prime Minister, said yesterday.
The Chrétien government also signalled, for the first time, that Canada believes the Geneva Conventions might be out of date and do not properly cover the treatment of "unlawful combatants" such as the al-Qaeda terrorists who planned the Sept. 11 attacks.
Mr. Manley said that in recent days Canada has held discussions with the Americans to establish a legal process -- either a civilian or military tribunal -- to distinguish whether some of the captured fighters are POWs or terrorists.
Art Eggleton, the Defence Minister, discussed the issue with Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. Secretary of Defence, last week.
"The fundamental principle is this: Do the Geneva Conventions apply? Everybody agrees on that and that hasn‘t changed," Mr. Manley said.
"Is there a process for determining who is a prisoner of war and who is an unlawful combatant? We need to be satisfied on that. It only really came into doubt in recent days and we are working with the United States to try to make sure that we see eye to eye on it. Does it require a civilian court or even a court martial proceeding [or] does it require some tribunal process that meets the requirements [of the convention]. That‘s what we seek to be satisfied on."
The United States calls the detainees "unlawful combatants" and says there is nothing for a court to consider.
"We are not going to call them prisoners of war," said George W. Bush, the U.S. President. "These are killers, these are terrorists, they know no countries." But, stung by criticism from European governments and human rights groups, he said he would further study the issue.
The United States has faced international protest, including some in Canada from backbench Liberal and Opposition MPs, over its treatment of almost 160 al-Qaeda suspects in custody at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Another 300 are being detained in Afghanistan.
Under the plan proposed by Canada, detainees judged to be prisoners of war would be entitled to full protection under the 1949 Geneva Conventions -- a set of rules on the conduct of warfare, designed to protect civilians and wounded or captured fighters.
Under the proposed rules, the detained fighters would be protected from detailed interrogation and be required only to provide basic information to their captors, like their name, rank and serial number.
U.S. officials fear this might prevent them from interrogating the captives to learn about any future terrorist plots.
If any of the prisoners are determined by a tribunal to be terrorists, they would fall outside the legal protections provided to captured uniformed members of armed forces.
...
February 5, 2002
Ottawa proposes detainee deal
Liberals admit limitations of Geneva Conventions: In talks with U.S. about special tribunals to divide terrorists from prisoners of war
Robert Fife, Ottawa Bureau Chief and Sheldon Alberts
National Post, with files from The Associated Press
OTTAWA - Canada is negotiating with the United States to set up tribunals to determine whether prisoners being held in Afghanistan and Cuba are terrorists or legitimate prisoners of war, John Manley, the Deputy Prime Minister, said yesterday.
The Chrétien government also signalled, for the first time, that Canada believes the Geneva Conventions might be out of date and do not properly cover the treatment of "unlawful combatants" such as the al-Qaeda terrorists who planned the Sept. 11 attacks.
Mr. Manley said that in recent days Canada has held discussions with the Americans to establish a legal process -- either a civilian or military tribunal -- to distinguish whether some of the captured fighters are POWs or terrorists.
Art Eggleton, the Defence Minister, discussed the issue with Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. Secretary of Defence, last week.
"The fundamental principle is this: Do the Geneva Conventions apply? Everybody agrees on that and that hasn‘t changed," Mr. Manley said.
"Is there a process for determining who is a prisoner of war and who is an unlawful combatant? We need to be satisfied on that. It only really came into doubt in recent days and we are working with the United States to try to make sure that we see eye to eye on it. Does it require a civilian court or even a court martial proceeding [or] does it require some tribunal process that meets the requirements [of the convention]. That‘s what we seek to be satisfied on."
The United States calls the detainees "unlawful combatants" and says there is nothing for a court to consider.
"We are not going to call them prisoners of war," said George W. Bush, the U.S. President. "These are killers, these are terrorists, they know no countries." But, stung by criticism from European governments and human rights groups, he said he would further study the issue.
The United States has faced international protest, including some in Canada from backbench Liberal and Opposition MPs, over its treatment of almost 160 al-Qaeda suspects in custody at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Another 300 are being detained in Afghanistan.
Under the plan proposed by Canada, detainees judged to be prisoners of war would be entitled to full protection under the 1949 Geneva Conventions -- a set of rules on the conduct of warfare, designed to protect civilians and wounded or captured fighters.
Under the proposed rules, the detained fighters would be protected from detailed interrogation and be required only to provide basic information to their captors, like their name, rank and serial number.
U.S. officials fear this might prevent them from interrogating the captives to learn about any future terrorist plots.
If any of the prisoners are determined by a tribunal to be terrorists, they would fall outside the legal protections provided to captured uniformed members of armed forces.
The International Committee of the Red Cross, a neutral Swiss-run agency, insists the Guantanamo detainees be given POW status at least until a court considers the issue.
The capture of three suspected al-Qaeda fighters by Canadian forces in Afghanistan on Jan. 21 -- and their immediate handover to the American military -- has brought Ottawa under new pressure to intervene with the United States about their treatment.
Canada has accepted U.S. assurances the detainees are being treated humanely.
Meanwhile, Mr. Eggleton and Bill Graham, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, said the 53-year-old Geneva Conventions did not envision the threat posed by modern terrorists, who do not adhere to any conventional rules of warfare and have vowed to continue killing American civilians.
The Geneva Conventions "were written at an earlier time," Mr. Eggleton said. "Not all of them are easily applicable to the conditions that exist today."
Mr. Graham said the Sept. 11 hijackers, for example, would never have been classified as prisoners of war if they had been thwarted in their mission to destroy the Pentagon and World Trade Center towers.
"I think it is fair to say that the Geneva Conventions were not drafted with this type of situation in mind. That is not to say they don‘t apply. But it does mean we have to look at them in a certain light," Mr. Graham said.
"I think there would have to be more clarity as to what is the nature of nonconventional warfare?"
...
Liberals admit limitations of Geneva Conventions: In talks with U.S. about special tribunals to divide terrorists from prisoners of war
Robert Fife, Ottawa Bureau Chief and Sheldon Alberts
National Post, with files from The Associated Press
OTTAWA - Canada is negotiating with the United States to set up tribunals to determine whether prisoners being held in Afghanistan and Cuba are terrorists or legitimate prisoners of war, John Manley, the Deputy Prime Minister, said yesterday.
The Chrétien government also signalled, for the first time, that Canada believes the Geneva Conventions might be out of date and do not properly cover the treatment of "unlawful combatants" such as the al-Qaeda terrorists who planned the Sept. 11 attacks.
Mr. Manley said that in recent days Canada has held discussions with the Americans to establish a legal process -- either a civilian or military tribunal -- to distinguish whether some of the captured fighters are POWs or terrorists.
Art Eggleton, the Defence Minister, discussed the issue with Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. Secretary of Defence, last week.
"The fundamental principle is this: Do the Geneva Conventions apply? Everybody agrees on that and that hasn‘t changed," Mr. Manley said.
"Is there a process for determining who is a prisoner of war and who is an unlawful combatant? We need to be satisfied on that. It only really came into doubt in recent days and we are working with the United States to try to make sure that we see eye to eye on it. Does it require a civilian court or even a court martial proceeding [or] does it require some tribunal process that meets the requirements [of the convention]. That‘s what we seek to be satisfied on."
The United States calls the detainees "unlawful combatants" and says there is nothing for a court to consider.
"We are not going to call them prisoners of war," said George W. Bush, the U.S. President. "These are killers, these are terrorists, they know no countries." But, stung by criticism from European governments and human rights groups, he said he would further study the issue.
The United States has faced international protest, including some in Canada from backbench Liberal and Opposition MPs, over its treatment of almost 160 al-Qaeda suspects in custody at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Another 300 are being detained in Afghanistan.
Under the plan proposed by Canada, detainees judged to be prisoners of war would be entitled to full protection under the 1949 Geneva Conventions -- a set of rules on the conduct of warfare, designed to protect civilians and wounded or captured fighters.
Under the proposed rules, the detained fighters would be protected from detailed interrogation and be required only to provide basic information to their captors, like their name, rank and serial number.
U.S. officials fear this might prevent them from interrogating the captives to learn about any future terrorist plots.
If any of the prisoners are determined by a tribunal to be terrorists, they would fall outside the legal protections provided to captured uniformed members of armed forces.
...
February 5, 2002
Ottawa proposes detainee deal
Liberals admit limitations of Geneva Conventions: In talks with U.S. about special tribunals to divide terrorists from prisoners of war
Robert Fife, Ottawa Bureau Chief and Sheldon Alberts
National Post, with files from The Associated Press
OTTAWA - Canada is negotiating with the United States to set up tribunals to determine whether prisoners being held in Afghanistan and Cuba are terrorists or legitimate prisoners of war, John Manley, the Deputy Prime Minister, said yesterday.
The Chrétien government also signalled, for the first time, that Canada believes the Geneva Conventions might be out of date and do not properly cover the treatment of "unlawful combatants" such as the al-Qaeda terrorists who planned the Sept. 11 attacks.
Mr. Manley said that in recent days Canada has held discussions with the Americans to establish a legal process -- either a civilian or military tribunal -- to distinguish whether some of the captured fighters are POWs or terrorists.
Art Eggleton, the Defence Minister, discussed the issue with Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. Secretary of Defence, last week.
"The fundamental principle is this: Do the Geneva Conventions apply? Everybody agrees on that and that hasn‘t changed," Mr. Manley said.
"Is there a process for determining who is a prisoner of war and who is an unlawful combatant? We need to be satisfied on that. It only really came into doubt in recent days and we are working with the United States to try to make sure that we see eye to eye on it. Does it require a civilian court or even a court martial proceeding [or] does it require some tribunal process that meets the requirements [of the convention]. That‘s what we seek to be satisfied on."
The United States calls the detainees "unlawful combatants" and says there is nothing for a court to consider.
"We are not going to call them prisoners of war," said George W. Bush, the U.S. President. "These are killers, these are terrorists, they know no countries." But, stung by criticism from European governments and human rights groups, he said he would further study the issue.
The United States has faced international protest, including some in Canada from backbench Liberal and Opposition MPs, over its treatment of almost 160 al-Qaeda suspects in custody at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Another 300 are being detained in Afghanistan.
Under the plan proposed by Canada, detainees judged to be prisoners of war would be entitled to full protection under the 1949 Geneva Conventions -- a set of rules on the conduct of warfare, designed to protect civilians and wounded or captured fighters.
Under the proposed rules, the detained fighters would be protected from detailed interrogation and be required only to provide basic information to their captors, like their name, rank and serial number.
U.S. officials fear this might prevent them from interrogating the captives to learn about any future terrorist plots.
If any of the prisoners are determined by a tribunal to be terrorists, they would fall outside the legal protections provided to captured uniformed members of armed forces.
The International Committee of the Red Cross, a neutral Swiss-run agency, insists the Guantanamo detainees be given POW status at least until a court considers the issue.
The capture of three suspected al-Qaeda fighters by Canadian forces in Afghanistan on Jan. 21 -- and their immediate handover to the American military -- has brought Ottawa under new pressure to intervene with the United States about their treatment.
Canada has accepted U.S. assurances the detainees are being treated humanely.
Meanwhile, Mr. Eggleton and Bill Graham, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, said the 53-year-old Geneva Conventions did not envision the threat posed by modern terrorists, who do not adhere to any conventional rules of warfare and have vowed to continue killing American civilians.
The Geneva Conventions "were written at an earlier time," Mr. Eggleton said. "Not all of them are easily applicable to the conditions that exist today."
Mr. Graham said the Sept. 11 hijackers, for example, would never have been classified as prisoners of war if they had been thwarted in their mission to destroy the Pentagon and World Trade Center towers.
"I think it is fair to say that the Geneva Conventions were not drafted with this type of situation in mind. That is not to say they don‘t apply. But it does mean we have to look at them in a certain light," Mr. Graham said.
"I think there would have to be more clarity as to what is the nature of nonconventional warfare?"
...
R
rceme_rat
Guest
Right -- they would have been classified as persons accused of criminal acts in the U.S., and would have been afforded the rights available to them under the jurisdiction of their capture - or of the US, if they were extradited.
It is one thing to say that they are not being taken into the US for security concerns. E.g., it has been suggested that their holding facility could become a target in a release attempt.
It is another matter to keep them out of the US so that US rights don‘t apply to them. If the US thinks their rights afford these accused persons too much protection, they should recognise their hypocrisy and turn them over to someone else for trial.
In any case, all accused persons are to be afforded certain basic legal rights, and all people - accused or not - are entitled to certain civil rights. We expect as much for Canadians travelling outside Canada, and we should demand it for others.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I‘m wondering.... I don‘t have the text of the convention, but doesn‘t it say something to the effect of wearing a uniform/distinctive mark to be a POW? I don‘t remember seeing Taliban/Al Qaeda on TV wearing any kind of uniform. They looked more like civilian clothes, well for me anyway...
Just wondering
-Fred
Just wondering
-Fred
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Sorry for the double post
Y
Yard Ape
Guest
It takes two to Geneva
By WILLIAM JOHNSON
Thursday, February 7, 2002 The Globe and Mail – Page A17
Are those 180 prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay -- or 300 others still held by U.S. troops in Afghanistan -- entitled to treatment as "prisoners of war" under the Geneva Conventions? And should Canadians serving under U.S. command in Afghanistan take prisoners who will then come under U.S. control?
For some, this poses an existential dilemma worthy of Hamlet. Liberal MP John Godfrey agonized over it: "George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours."
The test of sovereignty, for Mr. Godfrey and others, is to challenge the U.S. pretension that prisoners taken in Afghanistan are "unlawful combatants" rather than "prisoners of war." He argues: "Article 4 of the Geneva Convention [Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War] has such an extensive and inclusive definition of who qualifies as a prisoner of war that it is difficult to imagine that most of the prisoners thus far taken by the Americans would not be included."
I beg to differ. As I read the convention, it clearly does not protect the prisoners retained by the Americans.
Consider. They hold about 500 prisoners. That small number proves they have no interest in holding former Taliban foot soldiers. They‘re after a worldwide conspiracy of terrorists. They‘re after those who were trained in camps run by al-Qaeda, numbering "tens of thousands," according to U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. They‘re interested only in Taliban militants who worked with the al-Qaeda leadership, who aided and abetted the network of terrorism.
But the text of the convention makes clear that, under Article 4, it does not protect terrorists, who, by definition, operate clandestinely and attack civilians: "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: . . .
"2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps . . . provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill 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."
Neither al-Qaeda nor the Taliban constituted a recognized government; neither constituted an army with a military chain of command, a uniform and arms openly carried. Yet these set the conditions for protection as prisoners of war.
Terrorist networks, including those who support and protect them, do not operate "in accordance with the laws and customs of war," and so cannot claim rights under the Geneva Conventions.
The issue is critical because "prisoners of war" may not be interrogated beyond establishing their "surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number." The U.S. needs to interrogate the detained terrorists and uncover the identities of all who were trained in the terrorist camps and, now disseminated in every country, are apt to set up sleeper terrorist cells.
The stakes are too high for dainty psycho-dramas. The cabinet ministers were wrong to evade and hide. Canada must turn over terrorists for detention and interrogation.
By WILLIAM JOHNSON
Thursday, February 7, 2002 The Globe and Mail – Page A17
Are those 180 prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay -- or 300 others still held by U.S. troops in Afghanistan -- entitled to treatment as "prisoners of war" under the Geneva Conventions? And should Canadians serving under U.S. command in Afghanistan take prisoners who will then come under U.S. control?
For some, this poses an existential dilemma worthy of Hamlet. Liberal MP John Godfrey agonized over it: "George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours."
The test of sovereignty, for Mr. Godfrey and others, is to challenge the U.S. pretension that prisoners taken in Afghanistan are "unlawful combatants" rather than "prisoners of war." He argues: "Article 4 of the Geneva Convention [Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War] has such an extensive and inclusive definition of who qualifies as a prisoner of war that it is difficult to imagine that most of the prisoners thus far taken by the Americans would not be included."
I beg to differ. As I read the convention, it clearly does not protect the prisoners retained by the Americans.
Consider. They hold about 500 prisoners. That small number proves they have no interest in holding former Taliban foot soldiers. They‘re after a worldwide conspiracy of terrorists. They‘re after those who were trained in camps run by al-Qaeda, numbering "tens of thousands," according to U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. They‘re interested only in Taliban militants who worked with the al-Qaeda leadership, who aided and abetted the network of terrorism.
But the text of the convention makes clear that, under Article 4, it does not protect terrorists, who, by definition, operate clandestinely and attack civilians: "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: . . .
"2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps . . . provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill 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."
Neither al-Qaeda nor the Taliban constituted a recognized government; neither constituted an army with a military chain of command, a uniform and arms openly carried. Yet these set the conditions for protection as prisoners of war.
Terrorist networks, including those who support and protect them, do not operate "in accordance with the laws and customs of war," and so cannot claim rights under the Geneva Conventions.
The issue is critical because "prisoners of war" may not be interrogated beyond establishing their "surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number." The U.S. needs to interrogate the detained terrorists and uncover the identities of all who were trained in the terrorist camps and, now disseminated in every country, are apt to set up sleeper terrorist cells.
The stakes are too high for dainty psycho-dramas. The cabinet ministers were wrong to evade and hide. Canada must turn over terrorists for detention and interrogation.
Similar threads
