Rules of War Controversy

[big bad john]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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.