JTF2 & AFG (merged)

[Scoobie Newbie]

Those that need to know their capabilities to deploy them know what their capabilities are.

 

[KevinB]

There are advisors that know what the capabilities are...

As well, they do Dog and Ponies for MND etc.

 

[Hockeycaper]

JTF2 has killed, captured enemy fighters in Afghanistan, says general
 

Canadian Press


Tuesday, September 20, 2005


ADVERTISEMENT

Iam sure more will follow on this subject


OTTAWA (CP) - The head of defence operations says Canadian special forces soldiers have killed and captured Taliban and al-Qaida fighters in Afghanistan.

Brig.-Gen. Mike Ward won't confirm any numbers, but says Joint Task Force 2 has been involved in operations with U.S. and other coalition forces throughout Afghanistan.

Ward says prisoners have been taken, questioned and turned over to U.S. or Afghan authorities with assurances that they will be treated humanely and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

Ward says intelligence officials are trying to piece together the chain of command that is directing the enemy insurgency in Afghanistan and hope to determine who's in the country and who is out.

But Ward adds it's safe to assume that Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and some other key al-Qaida leaders are not anywhere near the coalition operations.

© The Canadian Press 2005

 

[McG]

Same story from the Globe & Mail on today's news conference.    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050920.wafghn0920/BNStory/International/

 

[2 Cdo]

Wow, pretty amazing news. Troops have been in Afghanistan for almost FOUR years now and they might have actually killed some dirt bag or captured some loser! How does this even qualify as news, oh wait, the average Canadian thinks all we do is hand out candy and rebuild homes! :

 

[sheikyerbouti]

This is the first place I have come across that report and unfortunately it serves little to clarify our role. I do have a question though, how can we receive assurances of the application of the Geneva convention when the U.S. government refuses to classify their detainees as true prisoners of war?

I understand there is some housecleaning going on in Guantanamo but there are still men who have been there for years without the full representation of the Red Cross.

 

[Marauder]

I understand there is some housecleaning going on in Guantanamo but there are still men who have been there for years without the full representation of the Red Cross.

And? So? But? However? Yet? Therefore? The only housecleaning that should be done in Gitmo is cleaning the blood and grey matter out of the ditch they make the "prisoners" face before sending them to Allah. I think the myth of poor little Yousef the misunderstood goatherd being held unjustly in Gitmo by the big bad Imperialist Yankees is long dispelled.

 

[George Wallace]

This is the first place I have come across that report and unfortunately it serves little to clarify our role. I do have a question though, how can we receive assurances of the application of the Geneva convention when the U.S. government refuses to classify their detainees as true prisoners of war?

You can't.  You have to have faith that they are treating them humanly.  Prisoners of War and Non-Combatants are covered by the Geneva Conventions.  Murdering Thugs and Criminals are not.

 

[paracowboy]

there are still men who have been there for years without the full representation of the Red Cross.

bollocks! Poppycock and balderdash! Stuff and nonsense!
One of the instructors on my Law of Armed Conflict Course was a woman from the Red Cross. She explained quite clearly that the IRC had made several visits to Gitmo, and had no issues with the treatment of the scumbag murderers detained there (well she didn't call them scumbags. She's far too nice a lady for that. Sweet frame on her, too. But, I digress.) She, personally, had spoken with the dude who'd gone in.


p.s. I'm with Marauder on this. Kneel 'em down, facing a ditch, expend all ammo.

 

[armyvern]

Giddy Uppp!!

 

[sheikyerbouti]

On a personal level if you maybe gave these guys an alternative to working for a warlord in order to fill their belly, then we might see less of them.

The ICRC has very strict rules of confidentiality so I cannot place any merit on the second hand remarks of an individual to categorically define their status.

see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3400461.stm for an example of what I was driving at.

By housing prisoners extra-territorially,  refusing full legal representation and by constraining the judicial process the US administration has demonstrated that they are not fully conforming to a reasonable definition of the geneva convention.

It didn't take the Nuremberg trials this long to  wrap up, and that was a trial for men who killed millions. Why is it taking so long to render a decision on their fate?

 

[George Wallace]

By housing prisoners extra-territorially,   refusing full legal representation and by constraining the judicial process the US administration has demonstrated that they are not fully conforming to a reasonable definition of the geneva convention.

The US has declared them not to be PWs.  You stated that:

This is the first place I have come across that report and unfortunately it serves little to clarify our role. I do have a question though, how can we receive assurances of the application of the Geneva convention when the U.S. government refuses to classify their detainees as true prisoners of war?

As they are not PWs, they do not fall under the Geneva Conventions.  If they do not fall under the Geneva Conventions, those Conventions do not apply. 

Why do you believe a BBC Reporter who has not been there and not a Red Cross Official?   

 

[paracowboy]

The ICRC has very strict rules of confidentiality so I cannot place any merit on the second hand remarks of an individual to categorically define their status.

she's IN the Red Cross. Very high up in their food chain. That's why she was teaching Colonels, down to MWO's (with some WO's and a single, solitary jack).

They ain't PWs, they's detainees. They aren't subject,

never mind, George beat me to it.

 

[sheikyerbouti]

To paracowboy: The ICRC has an understood code of conduct with respect to the information they publicly disclose. This lady, especially since she is so high up the food chain should have known this all along. They are only classed as detainees in order to fill a political motivation. "A rose by any other name" seems to fit these circumstances quite well.

Frankly George, I don't believe either one completely but I do believe that a half-dozen lawyers for 400-600 prisoners is certainly non-representative.

These "detainees" were apprehended as a direct result of military operations by military personnel who have subsequently been used to extract intelligence to better aid their efforts (military) on the ground. This sounds to me like a classic military operation.

The Geneva convention is a baseline for the application of military justice, if you like it is a broad code of conduct, not some document subject to re-definition whenever a new threat arrives.

This is truly a battle of semantics, but when it involves my country potentially contravening the expectation of human rights then I feel it is important. For chrissakes, the merde hit the fan for Maher Arar how much worse could the situation become if the public found out that Canadian prisoners were being mis-treated as a result of third party hands.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The only "merde" in the Maher Arar case is in the media, and its driving them nuts that most Canadians could care less, hell send him again....

 

[paracowboy]

To paracowboy: The ICRC has an understood code of conduct with respect to the information they publicly disclose. This lady, especially since she is so high up the food chain should have known this all along.

she did, or she wouldn't have told us. She didn't get where she is by being stupid. She got there by being intelligent, generous, and braver than any human has a right to be. Everything she told us was open-source, and readily available. The ICRC has gone on record as stating they have no issues with the treatment of Gitmo detainees. (Shoulda copied that stuff down, but it wasn't grade material, so I flushed it.) I relayed my info as it's first-hand.

Amnesty Int'l is the one with the problem with Gitmo. And I couldn't care less what they think about much of anything.

 

[sheikyerbouti]

Given the ICRC's position as an observer not intervenor, there is little they can do in terms of advocacy. They are essentially required to work within the parameters given.

Let me straighten one thing out, I don't object to the detention of threats to National security but I am averse to our complicity in certain practices. If we take Canadian prisoners they should never go to the Yanks but rather to our own detention facilities or into the hands of the Afghan government as they see fit. Just a guess, but Club Ed probably has some space.

Basically if we don't want the blood on our hands we shouldn't become involved.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

To rid the world of those who would prey upon the weakest, hey, send some blood my way.....

 

[George Wallace]

  These "detainees" were apprehended as a direct result of military operations by military personnel who have subsequently been used to extract intelligence to better aid their efforts (military) on the ground. This sounds to me like a classic military operation.

The military has on numerous occasions apprehended persons as a result of criminal investigations conducted by military personnel (MPs....so I suppose they can be considered military operations.) and information has been gained from them.  They were not treated as PWs, but as criminals.  

The Geneva convention is a baseline for the application of military justice, if you like it is a broad code of conduct, not some document subject to re-definition whenever a new threat arrives.

The Geneva Conventions are not the baseline for the application of military justice.  Canadian Military Justice follows the Rules of Military Conduct, The Code of Service Discipline, Military Laws, The Criminal Code of Canada, etc.  The Geneva Convention is an add on to the Law of War.  

Now, not all countries of the World have signed on to the Geneva Conventions.  Canada and the US are signatories.  I don't believe Russia is.  Are Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon and a dozen more Mid East countries?   If you look into the Geneva Conventions, of which there are four, you will see that they started way back in 1864.

The first Geneva Convention was signed in 1864 to protect the sick and wounded in war time. This first Geneva Convention was inspired by Henri Dunant, founder of the Red Cross. Ever since then, the Red Cross has played an integral part in the drafting and enforcement of the Geneva Conventions.

These included the 1899 treaties, concerning asphyxiating gases and expanding bullets. In 1907, 13 separate treaties were signed, followed in 1925 by the Geneva Gas Protocol, which prohibited the use of poison gas and the practice of bacteriological warfare.

In 1929, two more Geneva Conventions dealt with the treatment of the wounded and prisoners of war. In 1949, four Geneva Conventions extended protections to those shipwrecked at sea and to civilians.

The Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property was signed in 1954, the United Nations Convention on Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Techniques followed in 1977, together with two Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, extending their protections to civil wars.

There is no one "Geneva Convention." Like any other body of law, the laws of war have been assembled piecemeal, and are, in fact, still under construction.

It is impossible to produce a complete and up-to-date list of war crimes. Even today, weapon systems such as land mines are being debated at the highest levels of international policy.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/ 

The Conventions

There are four Geneva Conventions, signed August 12, 1949, and the two additional Protocols of June 8, 1977.

Convention I

For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949: Sets forth the protections for members of the armed forces who become wounded or sick.

Convention II 

For the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea,Geneva, 12 August 1949: Extends these protections to wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of naval forces.

Convention III

Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949 lists the rights of prisoners of war.

Convention IV

Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949: Deals with the protection of the civilian population in times of war.

Protocol I

Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977: Eextends protection to victims of wars against racist regimes, wars of self determination, and against alien oppression.

Protocol II 

Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Proection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977: Extends protection to victims of internal conflicts in which an armed opposition controls enough territory to enable them to carry out sustained military operations.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

They do get ammended.  They do get updated.  They do change.
 

 

[enfield]

These "detainees" were apprehended as a direct result of military operations by military personnel who have subsequently been used to extract intelligence to better aid their efforts (military) on the ground. This sounds to me like a classic military operation.

The Geneva convention is a baseline for the application of military justice, if you like it is a broad code of conduct, not some document subject to re-definition whenever a new threat arrives.

The Geneva Convention is not the baseline for military justice - the QR&Os, UCMJ, and other codes are for their respective nations. The Geneva Convention, and other associated agreements, lay out definitions and codes of behaviour that are to be followed in a war by combatants.

They lay out strict definitions of a Prisoner of War:
First, they have to be uniformed or clearly marked as members of a national military force.
Second, PWs are not subject to trial. They are simply held until the end of hostilities. So, no need for lawyers, judges, tribunals, or anything else. A cage and the ICRC are all that is required.

Most of the controversy around Gitmo has been raised by Amnesty Int'l, and various political opponents of George Bush. I believe that Amnesty has expended whatever real credibility it had through several of its condemnations - such as referring to Gitmo as "the Gulag of our times".

While interesting, I have to say the debate - from the Canadian perspective - is academic. Since Canada has no facilities/ability to deal with prisoners, there is no alternative but to hand them over to the US. The only other viable alternative is to not take part in the conflict at all.

And frankly, worrying about a few hundred prisoners in a relatively nice prison camp seems out of place in the international stage. I'd prefer to be concerned with - and hope the int'l community will shift its focus too - the tens of thousands of people being held in hundreds of far larger facilities across the world, such as China, Syria, and North Korea.

Trading with China, in this perspective, is a larger crime than cooperating with the US.