Canadian soldiers capture suspected Taliban fighters

[big bad john]

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060503/afghan_prisoners_060511

Cdn soldiers capture suspected Taliban fighters
CTV.ca News

A company of Canadian soldiers acting on coalition intelligence captured 10 suspected Taliban fighters in a volatile area north of Kandahar.

This is the largest capture of detainees by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, reported CTV's Janis Mackey Frayer in Kandahar Thursday.

The troops, members of the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, have been part of bigger operations that have netted more prisoners. But this is the first such capture for an all-Canadian unit.

The prisoners were apprehended in a compound and all are suspected to be related to a known group in the area.

Soldiers found large sums of money and equipment for "military operations" including batteries, wires and communications devices used to make improvised explosive devices (IEDs), according a military spokesman.

The nationalities of the detainees are unknown.

Meanwhile, military lawyers in Ottawa debated for hours whether photographs of the operation and detainees should be allowed to be published.

A news photographer from Agence France Presse (AFP) was embedded with the unit during the operation. The concern, said a Canadian Forces spokesman, is the violation of the Geneva Conventions Article 13, which states:

"Prisoners of war must at all time be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."

Officials claim they were not trying to suppress the photos, but simply giving the photographer and his agency advice that publication would violate the Geneva Convention. That was the decision of two military lawyers, although the Canadian military will not pursue prosecution or otherwise if the photos are published.

"Our concern is to make sure we respect the Geneva Convention, and this is why we voiced our concern to this photographer," Canadian Forces spokesman Maj. Marc Theriault told reporters.

"We are not banning, we are not seizing anything . . . Not at all. We voiced our concerns."

The photos show detainees with plastic ties around their wrists and blindfolds. The photographer says they were treated well, there was no evidence of mistreatment, they were given water and were neither manhandled nor shoved around.

Theriault said the soldiers followed "to the letter" the rules pertaining to the capture of detainees.

"So from that perspective, it is not a matter of trying to hide pictures of detainees because it would be compromising for us. Not at all. It is a matter that detainees are allowed to a certain level of protection -- and we're trying hard to implement the Geneva convention to provide them this protection."

With a report from CTV's Janis Mackey Frayer in Kandahar, Afghanistan

http://sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/05/11/taliban05112006.html

Canadian troops capture Taliban suspects
Last Updated Thu, 11 May 2006 19:25:44 EDT
CBC News
Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan have captured 10 suspected Taliban fighters.

 
GUMBAD, AFGHANISTAN: A suspected Taliban prisoner is searched, handcuffed and processed by members of the 1st Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, after a raid on a compound in northern Kandahar. (JOHN D MCHUGH/AFP/Getty Images) 

INDEPTH: Afghanistan

The capture came as Canadian troops were escorting a convoy to Gumbad, north of Kandahar, where Canada maintains a forward operating base.

The soldiers noticed two groups apparently conducting a reconnaissance of the area.


PHOTO GALLERY: Afghan Detainees

CBC correspondent Peter Armstrong reported from Kandahar that Canadian units had been scouring the hills trying to flush out Taliban fighters.

The Canadians were given a tip that a group was hiding in a compound, "so troops moved in and essentially, without firing a shot," captured the men, Armstrong reported.

Members of 1st Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry carried out the raid. Ten suspects were subsequently handed over to the Afghan National Police.

"We've taken some bad guys off the street," Maj. Marc Theriault told a news briefing in Kandahar.

A photographer with Agence France-Presse was embedded with the unit and captured images of Canadian troops processing the detainees and taking them into custody.

At first, the Canadian military asked the photographer not to publish the images. Military officials said their lawyers reviewed the photos and thought they might be in violation of the Geneva Conventions, which says that a picture holding up a prisoner to ridicule may not be released.

Article 13 of the convention states: "Prisoners of war must at all time be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."

However, the military later said it was up to the various news agencies to decide whether they wanted to publish the images.

 

[George Wallace]

I find it interesting that we give 'suspected' Terrorists more rights under the Geneva Conventions than the Police do here in Canada, when it comes to Photographers and photographing 'suspects' captured in the commission of criminal acts.

 

[TMM]

"a picture holding up a prisoner to ridicule may not be released."

This might be considered a loaded question, but is ther some official/de facto definition of "ridicule?"

 

[Armymedic]

This might be considered a loaded question, but is ther some official/de facto definition of "ridicule?"

I am not sure. But if you have ever seen the Brown/Matchee pictures from Somalia or those from the US prison in Iraq, those shots would be a good example of "ridicule".

 

[vonGarvin]

If these guys are deemed to be "Prisoners of War", then they have the same rights as other PWs throughout history.  If they are "detainees", then they don't have the same rights.  What status do they have?

 

[big bad john]

Good work to the Troops involved, a job well done!

 

[Kirkhill]

I thought PWs were uniformed personnel, or people with badges, with an identified chain of command that would be detained for the duration of hostilities.  They are not detained as a punishment but just to keep them off the battlefield.

If these guys, or the guys at Guantanamo, are to be treated as PWs why can't they be detained for the duration like any other PW?  Who decides that hostilities are at an end so that they can be repatriated?  In that case the duration may be indefinite.

Did somebody say war wasn't declared?  Then they can't be PWs can they?  If they aren't PWs then they are rebels acting in violation of various nations' criminal codes and can be detained for punishment after a fair trial - but that has nothing to do with Geneva or the Hague.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Turned over to the locals and then released most likely.

 

[scm77]

Some more pictures here.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/photogalleries/flash/cdn-afghandetainees.html?gallery=cdn-afghandetainees

 

[darmil]

Well good job troops!!Hopefully they can capture more taliban fighters,especially these IED making places.

 

[couchcommander]

Re: The PW thing...

I don't want to get into the debate, but the part of the geneva convention that applies is as follows (Article 5, it's availible on the UNHCR website):

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Take from that what you will. I, myself, and IMHO, don't have any issues with Canadian treatment of prisoners as it seems to be in line with the entire convention.

However, to my knowledge, the Americans did not afford their detainee's the protection of the Convention until they were determined by a competent tribunal to not be prisoners of war.

This is the basis of much opposition to the US treatment of prisoners - not they are prisoners of war, just that there is a way of determining this which the US did not undertake immediately (once again, to my knowledge, feel free to correct me).

But yea, FYI.

Oh, and great job on the initiative boys!

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Yes, but look at how the press is spinning this today (headlines only):

PHOTOS A NO-GO, Winnipeg Sun

MILITARY LOOKS TO QUASH PHOTOS, Ottawa Sun

PHOTO BAN URGED, Edmonton Sun

and the worst...

FORCES TRY TO SUPRESS PHOTOS OF PRISONERS, Globe and Mail

There are other, milder, headlines, but you get the drift.  No where in the lead is the fact that the "suppression" was simply an advisory to the AFP photographer that he may be breaking international law.  That little fact was buried in the story, along with this little gem:

The incident seems to be a sign of the government's extreme sensitivity to past criticism of the military's handling of prisoners. Military officials were taken to task over photos showing the torture of a prisoner by Canadian soldiers in Somalia in 1993, and another photo in 2002 showing Canadian soldiers handing over three prisoners to the U.S. military in Afghanistan.

.  Globe and Mail, 12 May 06, page A14.

and this one:

It's the first time the Canadian Forces have had to deal with the issue of suppressing photos of detainees. Although there is no evidence the prisoners were mistreated, the military's position echoes an American attempt to use the Geneva Convention to block some pictures of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuses.

  Ottawa Sun, 12 May 06, page 27

The media outlets quoted above should be ashamed of themselves.  At no time were photos actually seized or "suppressed".  Indeed, there are photos of the prisoners on the CBC website as I write.  What is the matter with these people?  I traditionally don't buy into the idea that there's an alternative political agenda within the media, but headlines like these and shoddy reporting like this really make me question what's at work here.

TR

 

[Hot Lips]

I believe CTV news is saying that the concern was with breaking the GC if the photos were posted (violating the rights of the detainees) and that the photos indeed show that the Canadians are in no way shape or form handling detainees in an abusive manner...stating they had given them water...

HL

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

HL:  Very true, as do many of stories quoted above - at the end of the item and well after the reader's attention has been diverted by misleading headlines and tales harkening to Abu Ghraib...  As (IIRC) Kirkhill pointed out in another thread, it's the headline that generates the attention.

 

[Old Sweat]

I once had a lengthy discussion about this sort of thing with an experienced journalist. He described it as 'pack journalism' and likened it to a combination of follow the leader and a feeding frenzy. He also admitted that many in his profession were mentally lazy and would juggle someone else's words rather than produce an original story.

If you then throw in a natural tendency to see a cover up or conspiracy hidig behind every tree, the result is exactly what we see over the story about the photographs. It is a classic case of the reporters separating the wheat from the chaff, and then writing about the chaff.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Heaven alone knows I’m not one to defend journalists – we could tidy up the gene pool by getting rid of 90% of them.  That being said we need to recognize that reporters do not write their own headlines; they are rarely even consulted.

The headline writer is a key ‘salesperson’ for the newspaper.  (S)he is responsible to get casual passers-by to pick up the paper at a newsstand or from a sidewalk box by writing an exciting, enticing headline.  It ought to be related to the story, however remotely, but headline writers are never required to let facts get in the way of sales.

 

[Lost_Warrior]

Very true, as do many of stories quoted above - at the end of the item and well after the reader's attention has been diverted by misleading headlines and tales harkening to Abu Ghraib...

We're just going to have to hope the readers of these papers have the attention span longer than that of a peanut then...

 

[Kurhaus]

CouchCommander you beat me to the quote, but you are right on target with the GC III Art 5 comment and since no one else has done it yet, here is a  cut/paste directly from the 1949 GC III for Art 4 and 5 so there should be no questions on their PW status.  This has been edited for length but you should get the point.  You can view the actual document at the link provided;
   
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Art 4. A. 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:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own
territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil 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.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour
units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that
purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment
under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular
armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation. Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy,
belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

I am not aware of any other rules the US is following where POW's are concerned, but the US can afford scandals where they violate the GC, we can't. 

With all the attention on the A'fgan mission lately, you can rest assured that these detainees will be treated IAW the GC, CF Code of Conduct, LOAC, Hague Law etc. 

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

The frenzy appears to be on...CTV has altered its story (emphasis is mine):

Military effort to block photos sparks controversy
Updated Fri. May. 12 2006 12:40 PM ET

CTV.ca News

The Canadian military's attempts to block photos of the largest group of suspected Taliban insurgents yet captured by Canadian soldiers is sparking controversy.

The photographs were taken by Agence France-Presse wire service photographer John McHugh during a Monday raid near Gumbad, a tiny village about 70 kilometres north of Kandahar, where Canada maintains a forward operating base.

Asked about his position on the military's move to block pictures of the 10 suspected insurgents, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that his own view was that a military operation is a matter of national security.

"I think it's largely up to the discretion of national defence what information they do or do not release," Harper told reporters on Friday.

Members of A Company, third battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, were escorting a convoy to Gumbad when they noticed two groups apparently conducting a reconnaissance of the area. Acting on coalition intelligence, the soldiers conducted a raid on a compound housing the suspects.

"At first I thought it was pretty standard, but very quickly it became apparent to me this was a big deal, this was a big story," McHugh said Friday, appearing on CTV Newsnet.

"I shot it carefully. The rules that I have signed to embed with the Canadians are pretty strict, pretty rigid, pretty thorough and I'm clear on them."

Ten prisoners were taken in the raid, including three known to military authorities. Military spokesman Maj. Marc Theriault said the men were found with large sums of money and bomb-making materials, including batteries and wires.

Although there is no evidence the prisoners were mistreated,the military's position echoes an American attempt to use the Geneva Convention on the rights of prisoners to block some pictures of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuses.

"It is not a matter of trying to hide picture of detainees because it would be compromising to us," Theriault told The Canadian Press.

"We voiced our concern and now it is up to the reporter or to his organization to make his decision."

When McHugh called Kandahar base to determine if he would have to wait before releasing the photos, he was surprised to be told the pictures were classified.

"I was to do nothing with them or discuss them with anyone until I'd heard further from the Canadian military. I called them the next day, they said the same thing," McHugh said.

"I didn't want to jeopardize soldiers or military operations putting up pictures before they were cleared," he said.

Upon returning to the Kandahar Air Field base with his pictures, he was summoned to a meeting with deputy commander Col. Tom Putt and two military lawyers.

Although his camera was never confiscated, McHugh was told that publishing the pictures would violate the Geneva Convention.

Officials claim they were not trying to suppress the photos, but simply giving the photographer and his agency advice that publication could be in contravention of the convention.

Article 13 of the convention states: "Prisoners of war must at all time be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."

McHugh said his photos show no identifying details of the prisoners and that he believes they were being treated well.

Despite the warning, McHugh is under no threat of sanction from the Canadian military.

"I'm not being forced to leave -- my embed time is over. They said there is no problem that I will be able to come back," he said.

Canadian soldiers have taken prisoners before during their current mission in Afghanistan. Last week, coalition commanders announced that they had captured a high-ranking Taliban commander.

But Monday's capture was the most significant so far by an all-Canadian unit, reported CTV's Janis Mackey Frayer in Kandahar.

"This really is quite a coup for the Canadian military. This is the single biggest capture of Taliban fighters -- 10 detainees were taken into custody," Mackey Frayer told CTV's Canada AM on Friday.


"This is particularly good timing for Canadians because the Kandahar area has seen ramped up Taliban activity, a number of roadside bombs and suicide attacks over the past few weeks. The hope at this point is that if they now have 10 people who are perhaps integral to the operations in the area, that the arrests could curb Taliban activity," said Mackey Frayer.

CTV's military analyst, Scott Taylor of Esprit de Corps magazine, said the images portray a successful operation, and as a result the military could actually benefit from their release.

"In this case, being a successful mission, the military themselves would much rather see those images than another flag-draped coffin coming home," Taylor told Canada AM on Friday.

With a report from CTV's Janis Mackey Frayer and The Canadian Press

I continue to be perplexed at the choice of language and the inferences here.  The reporter was "summoned" to a meeting, the photos are "classified", the incident "echoes" Abu Gharib, "officials claim"...  Looking for a scandal where there certainly isn't one.

 

[Kurhaus]

The media has to try and create a scandal or at least a doubt in the minds of the public to keep them interested.

Can't wait for the bleeding hearts to start  :crybaby: that the hand restraints and blind folds on the "poor" detainess is a vilolation of their rights.