• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Afghan Detainee Mega Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter rceme_rat
  • Start date Start date
Although I took a course involving the Geneva convention last year I am a little fuzzy on the details of it but I believe they are rough, as follows.  
 I believe that the Geneva convention only applies to armed combatants of another military and should the "war" take place so fast that the country is not able to properly organize a defensive military then it must apply to armed combatants (guerrillas).  Since the AL-queda is not a military but a terrorist organization this would mean that it does not have to apply to them.  The other rule is that the convention technically only applies to those countries who agree "formally" that both sides will adhere to the convention.  As a convention it is not a Law as no one country has the right to force it's laws upon another sovereign power (other than the fact the US continuously attempts to do.....but that is a topic for another forum).  That all being said I would hope that the US would try and follow it but who is to say that sometimes a little rough love is not necessary.  I will look through my notes and see if I can find the more specific details and if I need to I will correct my statement but at the present time I thought that I would interject my $0.02 since I don't think everyone should try and think that everyone should live in a spot thinking that everyone always has to be nice to their enemies........
 
I never said it was right or wrong just that it all depends on your goals and your perspective.
 
If anyone thinks that the detainees are being mistreated, we'll let them out. Then they can come and live with you. You can take care of them your way. Just not in my neighbourhood, Mr Rogers has moved. ;)
 
Recceguy

Just for you:

Although this was sent to me as a joke, it does hold some relevance in a discussion such as this and our dealings with the Liberal Left:


The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20016

Dear Concerned Citizen:

Thank you for your recent letter roundly criticizing our treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.   Our administration takes these matters seriously, and your opinion was heard loud and clear here in Washington. You'll be pleased to learn that thanks to the concerns of citizens like you, we are creating a new division of the Terrorist Retraining Program, to be called the "Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers" program, or LARK for short.

In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to place one   terrorist under your personal care.Your personal detainee has been selected and scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence next Monday.

Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of admonishment.   It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant caretakers.   We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommended in your letter.

Although Ahmed is sociopathic and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his "attitudinal problem" will help him overcome these character flaws.   Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences. He will bite you, given the chance.   We understand that you plan to offer counseling and home schooling.   Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers.   We suggest you do not ask him to demonstrate these skills at your next yoga group.

He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.   Ahmed will not wish to interact with your wife or daughters (except sexually) since he views females as a subhuman form of property.   This is a particularly sensitive subject for him, and he has been known to show violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the dress code that he will undoubtedly recommend as appropriate attire.   I'm sure your wife and daughters will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the bhurka over time.   Just remind them that it is all part of "respecting his culture and his religious beliefs" - wasn't that how you put it?

Thanks again for your letter.   We truly appreciate it when folks like you, who know so much, keep us informed of   the proper way to do our job.   You take good care of Ahmed - and remember...we'll be watching.   Good luck!

Cordially...Your Buddy,
Don Rumsfeld
GW
 
1) It would actually be *against* the geneva conventions to grant prisoner of war status to these illegal combatants. They are not uniformed, no markings and no dog tags. With many cases of perfidy and other such war crimnes (as defined in the geneva conventions), they certainly are less than honourable and not deserving of any privliaged treatment.
2) See #1.
3) No. I do not. The United States is being exceedingly generous to these terrorists, feeding them better than their own soldiers. There is no requirement for them to do a lot of what they are doing under any law.

4) Read the Geneva Conventions.

My points and questions here are: 

-  Why did the United States choose not to apply the Geneva Convention to these particular prisoners?
-  What is the difference between a prisoner of war, and a detainee, when detainees are captured in the same manner and under the same circumstances as a POW?
-  Does anybody find it hypocritical that the United States demands all of its captured soldiers are treated to all the provisions under the Geneva Convention, even though it chooses only to apply those same provisions on a case by case basis?

I'm not trying to sound anti-American, but am I'm not a blind supporter of her either.  Any thoughts?
 
to many bleeding hearts in the government and NDHQ, at least there not shooting, car bombing canadian or any other troops. Also i agree they are getting better treated in cuba! i wish i could have a all expensied paided trip to cuba! :blotto:
 
MP 00161 said:
So what are you advocating as the alternative?

Michael Dorosh said:
This is revoltingly stupid, in my opinion.   We don't torture prisoners because "we" are BETTER than "them." Period.   Since when do two wrongs make a right?

I think too many people look at this as a Black/White statement.  Michael, your answer is a good example.  Just because we choose not to apply the specifics (putting a sandbag on a guys head, giving him to American detention) doesn't automatically mean that we resort to torture and beheading of these people.

As long as we act as a Western liberal democracy and treat these people with a modicum of decency (ie: feed them while they are in captivity, don't torture them, etc, etc) then I don't think we should get to wrapped around the axles about obeying EVERY point and article of a Treaty that clearly is antiquated when it comes to fighting an opponent in a global, "4th Generation" setting.

BTW, in general, don't confuse the Geneva Conventions (which deal with PWs) with the Hague Conventions on Armed Conflict.
 
This righteous sense of Arab victimhood--- which I believe, overlooks what Arab rulers do to others while lamenting its own condition-- emanates from a political tradition of belligerent self-pity.

Enjoy your 'holiday' in Cuba is what I say. How, and why, should we be even considering how these brain-washed fanatics are feeling ::) I think it's time an endeavor was put into place that would help modernize the Arab world. Our troops were only doing their job. out ;)
 
Canada has moral obligation to captives
professor: Fate of prisoners turned over to U.S. should be probed
 
a journalist
The Ottawa Citizen

Saturday, February 19, 2005


In the wake of the allegations of torture and abuse of prisoners by U.S. guards at Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq, the Canadian government has the moral obligation to inquire about the fate of captives it turned over to the U.S., says a former top U.S. military lawyer.

Law professor Scott Silliman said because of Canada's Charter of Rights and its signature on a 1984 convention prohibiting torture, the Martin government has the moral responsibility to ask the U.S. for an accounting of the prisoners the Joint Task Force 2 commando unit turned over to the Americans.

"If Canada stays mute, if you stay silent, then do you become a partner in what we are doing by your silence?" asked Mr. Silliman, who served 25 years in the U.S. air force's Judge Advocate General's office, and was in charge of that service's lawyers during the first Persian Gulf war.

"Because of your very strong Charter that emphasizes human rights, then I think what Canada needs to do is to stand on your Charter and say that this is an important matter."

But other international law and human rights specialists argue Canada's obligation goes beyond moral grounds. They say there is a legal obligation to ensure the prisoners turned over to the Americans are well treated, and, if that is not the case, then the government should ask for those individuals to be returned to Canadian custody.

A Canadian Forces spokesman, however, says the military continues to trust that the U.S. is treating detainees humanely, despite the ongoing allegations of abuse.

At issue is the fate of those captured in Afghanistan by the Ottawa-based commando team, JTF2, and turned over to the U.S.

At least three prisoners were sent to the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Another four were turned over to the U.S., but it is not clear what happened to them. In early 2002, the U.S. decided against applying the rules of the Geneva Convention to those captured in the war on terrorism. But, President George W. Bush said such prisoners would be treated humanely.

Mr. Silliman said Canada had good reason to accept those assurances at the time and turn over detainees to the U.S. But, with the release of FBI documents indicating abuse of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, as well as the investigation documenting abuse by U.S. military members at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, those claims of humane treatment have been put in doubt, added Mr. Silliman, who teaches national security law at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

The Canadian Forces doesn't agree. "We're confident our allies would stand up to the commitment of treating the detainees in a fashion consistent with the principles of the Geneva Convention," said military spokesman Lt.-Col. Roland Lavoie. "I would make the difference between the country and given individuals who might not do so."

Lt.-Col. Lavoie said the Canadian military is not in a position to follow the cases of individuals it turned over to the U.S. But he noted the International Committee of the Red Cross has checked on the welfare of the Guantamamo detainees. Other Canadian officials have also noted that the Martin government takes the U.S. at its word that prisoners are being treated properly.

But, Mr. Silliman points out Mr. Bush's statement about humane treatment for detainees only covers those individuals held by the U.S. military. Not covered are those being held in separate Central Intelligence Agency compound at Guantanamo Bay, he added.

Amnesty International Canada chief Alex Neve and international law professor Michael Byers say Canada has a legal obligation under the Geneva Convention to follow up on the well-being of the prisoners it turned over to the U.S. If the U.S. does not treat the prisoners humanely, then Canada should request the individuals be transferred back into Canadian custody, they add.

"It has been very clear throughout human rights law and in our own national level courts that you don't get to wash your hands of something simply because you sent an individual on to another country," said Mr. Neve.

The U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay has been steeped in controversy since its establishment shortly after the Afghanistan war began. There has been a steady stream of accusations of torture and sexual harassment of the prisoners, all denied by the Pentagon.

According to the FBI e-mails released in December by the American Civil Liberties Union, Guantanamo prisoners were chained to the floor for 24 hours at a time. No food or water was provided and prisoners were not allowed access to bathroom facilities. FBI officers also complained guards used snarling dogs to intimidate prisoners, a tactic the Pentagon had previously denied was being used. Prisoners who have been released alleged they were tortured. A U.S. translator who worked at Guantanamo has also come forward with information about abuse.

New documents released by the Pentagon this week also detail reports of torture of prisoners by American troops in Afghanistan.

U.S. army officials said yesterday that eight soldiers were disciplined last year for threatening to kill detainees in Afghanistan and taking photographs of the abuse in a series of incidents with parallels to the scandal at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The soldiers, assigned to Fort Drum, New York, were accused of dereliction of duty and were demoted in rank, ordered to forfeit some pay and given other "nonjudicial punishments" for their role in the events a year ago.

More than 500 people from 40 nations are being detained at Guantanamo Bay. A number have been at the prison for more than three years with no charges laid against them. They have also been denied legal representation. Another 208 prisoners have been released. Of those, 62 were transferred to the custody of their home countries.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2005
 
Canada has a moral obligation to Canadians. Not Johnny Jihad the genocidal illegal combatant.

big bad john said:
Canada has moral obligation to captives
professor: Fate of prisoners turned over to U.S. should be probed
 
 
Dare said:
Canada has a moral obligation to Canadians. Not Johnny Jihad the genocidal illegal combatant.


Your absolutely right, but I think you will not find too much support, because its not PC or sounds too
selfish.

I think your description of these SOB's is about the most accurate I've heard, of course I could add several additional choice words, but thats not allowed here.

One thing for sure, I think a lot of Canadians have very short memories, heaven forbid, but when  our
complacency has served its purpose and car bombs start going off, maybe the Oh! so Morally Correct and by the Book advocates might take off their Rose Colored Glasses.

The Terrorist's have declared total War on the West and its not going to be won playing by Gentlemans Rules or the Geneva Convention.

If you guys think they have it rough at GT-Bay, you've never done 90 days in a C Pro C Detention Barracks in the 50's. these SOB's deserve every-thing they get, right or wrong.

If Canada is so concerned about their welfare, lets bring them all here to one of Cda's Hilton Hotel Prisons
(of course don't forget the Colored T.V.s) Then our concerned patriots can go visit them every day.










 
FastEddy said:


The Terrorist's have declared total War on the West and its not going to be won playing by Gentlemans Rules or the Geneva Convention.
I see a lot of casualties coming from Middle Eastern countries too.  Let us remember that they have declared war on everybody who doesn't agree with them.  I've spent some time in the Gulf and I can tell you that there is no love for them in most places over there.
 
Reading this thread inspired a thought:

Perhaps we are spending too much time on SHARP and not enough time on the Laws of Armed Conflict (which include, but are not exclusively, the Geneva Conventions.)

Acorn
 
Acorn said:
Reading this thread inspired a thought:

Perhaps we are spending too much time on SHARP and not enough time on the Laws of Armed Conflict (which include, but are not exclusively, the Geneva Conventions.)

Acorn

Acorn

A very insightful statement...I believe that it sums up rather well how the majority of the top brass (until the new CDS that is) and the CDN public at large have come to regard the CF. If we are to have an effective army then certain things MUST CHANGE...This would be one of them.

the other thing that comes to mind is the way we have begun training this latest band of young soldiers. I know that the previous generation always says that they had it harder. Maybe so...I read exerts from a speech by Pat Strogren who was quoted as saysing that the only reason we have done so well overseas is due to the training of the cold war soldiers who are still occupying key positions in the units. If this is the case then something must change NOW! Before our army is reduced to a pack of mewling brats who can't soldier because there is no one left to teach them how...

Slim  

P.S. I am not losing any sleep over the detainees in Cuba. they should be happy that they didn't receive much worse!
 
Troops told Geneva rules don't apply to Taliban

PAUL KORING

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

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

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

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

The 1991 Canadian regulations — developed during the Persian Gulf war — included provisions to hold tribunals to determine a detainee's status under Geneva if there is any doubt.

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

“They are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status but they are entitled to prisoner-of-war treatment,” he said, asserting that all detainees are humanely treated.

“The regulations apply in an armed conflict between states, and what's happening in Afghanistan is not an armed conflict between states. And therefore there is no basis for making a determination of individuals being prisoners of war,” he said.

Since Ottawa first sent fighting forces to Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the government has said that anyone captured by Canadian Forces is treated humanely. For years, detainees were quickly turned over to the U.S. military. But, since last December, a new agreement with Kabul means Canadian troops now turn detainees over to the Afghan military, a move some have criticized because of the Afghans' uneven record of observing human rights.

The decision to ignore the regulations without a legal test of whether detainees in Afghanistan are entitled to PoW status puts Canada “in a very odd situation. It's completely irregular,” Prof. Attaran says.

He believes the government's position that Geneva doesn't apply may be correct but it needs to be tested in court.

According to Canada's Prisoner-of-War Status Determination Regulations, “the commanding officer of a unit or other element of the Canadian Forces shall ensure that each detainee is screened as soon as practicable after being taken into custody to determine whether or not the detainee is entitled to prisoner-of-war status.”

Last updated before Ottawa sent a field hospital to Saudi Arabia in the middle of the Persian Gulf war, the regulations are designed to make sure Canadian soldiers understand and correctly apply the 1949 Geneva Conventions with respect to detainees.

But Canada, following the Bush administration's lead in the United States, had decreed that there are no lawful combatants among the enemy in the current conflict and no screening was required.

Gen. Gauthier concedes that the change in policy could open the door to criminal charges being laid against Taliban fighters.

If a captured enemy fighter is implicated in killing a Canadian soldier — for instance, the Taliban fighter who launched the rocket-propelled grenade that killed Captain Nichola Goddard on May 17 — Ottawa might order him charged with murder and tried.

“I would seek guidance that clearly would come from outside the Defence Department if we wished to pursue this any further from a prosecutorial basis,” the general said.

The change aligns Canada's position on the criminal culpability for battlefield violence with that of the United States. Omar Khadr, the only Canadian held at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is charged with murder for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. Special Forces soldier.

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

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

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

Canadian troops do screen detainees — determining on the spot whether a captive poses a threat and should be handed over to the Afghan authorities or should be freed. Gen. Gauthier said the decision to release those not considered dangerous happens routinely. Both decisions are checked up the chain of command, he said.

Prof. Attaran says the military's policy on transfers doesn't absolve Canada if detainees are then mistreated, tortured or killed.

He argues that if the government wants to be involved in this conflict, then it should take responsibility for those its soldiers detain, at least until a court or tribunal determines it can properly transfer them.

“It seems like they want to treat them as though they are radioactive,” he said.

But Gen. Gauthier said there is no risk that ordinary soldiers or junior officers could face war-crimes charges, even if detainees handed over to the Afghans were tortured or killed.

“Our intention certainly isn't to leave junior folks hanging out to dry at all on this,” he said. “We are on firm legal ground we have no worries about the possibility of prosecution or allegations of criminal wrongdoing for having transferred detainees.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060530.wxdetainee30/BNStory/Afghanistan/home
 
You would need to bend the rules totally out of shape to consider the Taliban, Al Qaeda (or Hezbollah, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam, Sendero Luminoso, PIRA, the FLQ or any other terrorist organization) falling under the ambit of the Geneva convention. This is just applying a bit of common sense to the situation on the ground.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

combatant status

Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.

Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

See wounded combatants for a list of protections.

Convention II extends these same protections to those who have been shipwrecked (Convention II, Art. 13)

Convention III offers a wide range of protections to combatants who have become prisoners of war. (Convention III, Art. 4)

For example, captured combatants cannot be punished for acts of war except in the cases where the enemy’s own soldiers would also be punished, and to the same extent. (Convention III, Art. 87)

See prisoner of war for a list of additional protections.

However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)

The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren’t as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.

In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)

For more protections afforded the civilian population, see civilian immunity.

Although all combatants are required to comply with international laws, violations do not deprive the combatants of their status, or of their right to prisoner of war protections if they are captured. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 2)

A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37)
 
This has been hashed to death in previous threads...
 
Yep. We're not going through all this again. Go do a 'search' if really interested.
 
Back
Top