[Newsbot]

Title: OTTAWA: FLAUNTING GENEVA CONVENTION
Topic: Canadian Politics
Written By: Wayne Coady
Date: Friday, November 27 at 14:05
Peter MacKay, a proven inveterate liar with quite a track record, and Minister of Defence in Herr Harper’s government, testified during the war crimes trials that he “knew nothing” about the torture of prisoners who were turned over to the Afghan government by Canadian forces personnel who had captured them. He maintains this lie in spite of documentary evidence to the contrary ... that is being suppressed by Herr Harper under the "Secrecy Act".
read more

[Dr Caleb]

Ad Hominems aside - the title of this article is misleading. Your article doesn't discuss what section(s) of the Geneva Conventions you believe Ottawa is flaunting.

[RickW]

Not too sure about the Geneva Convention, but the part at Nuremburg that said "just following orders" was not sufficient reason, holds true for detainee transfers.

[Dr Caleb]

RickW RickW:

Not too sure about the Geneva Convention, but the part at Nuremburg that said "just following orders" was not sufficient reason, holds true for detainee transfers.

Not in this context. Firstly, under the Geneva Conventions relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, they are not likely to rights under it. But like good Canadians, we give them rights under it and treat them accordingly.

$1:

Article 4

Section 6

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

Article 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.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/prisonerwar.htm

As prisoners of war,

$1:

Part II

GENERAL PROTECTION OF PRISONERS OF WAR

Article 12

Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.

Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.

So, we have no power to keep them - we must remand them to the custody of the legal government of the country, unless :

$1:

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention

We have evidence they are not being treated well. Anytime we were not allowed to check on their conditions, we stopped transferring prisoners as a precaution.

Not one shred of evidence arose that prisoners were tortured after leaving our custody. None of the Geneva Conventions have been 'Flaunted'.

[RickW]

There is however, ample evidence that prisoners have been tortured. It is reasonable to assume that exceptions have not been made regarding those prisoners captured by Canadians.

This argument falls into the category of those such as banning the use of marijuana because it MIGHT harm someone - even though there is not one shred of hard evidence etc, etc.

The other issue here might well be: did the "host" country actually invite ISAF? Or did ISAF impose itself?

[Sir_Francis]

I cannot discern how the Taliban can be seen to fall outside the scope of the Convention. Surely, the Taliban--the warrior arm of the regime we ousted--are "persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country". Insofar as this contention is debateable but reasonable--thus subject to "doubt"--the Convention explicitly states that combatants whose status is unclear "shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention".

[Dave Ruston]

Bottom line is, we should all be outraged at any torture, done to anyone, friend or foe. Like Martin Luther King said, " An injustice that happens anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere." From what I see here, our allied forces are no better than the Nazi`s or the Stalin communists. And if we let torture happen 'over there' it`s only a matter of time before it happens here. But far too many people just sit back and say, " As long as its not me." Oh, and by the way, we`re not in Afghanistan to send little girls to school. We`re there as enforcers so that the pipelines run without disruption, and the opium-heroin trade keeps rockin.

[RickW]

MacKay NOW says he received e-mails about Afghan torture when he was foreign affairs minister -- but never read them............

[Dr Caleb]

RickW RickW:

There is however, ample evidence that prisoners have been tortured. It is reasonable to assume that exceptions have not been made regarding those prisoners captured by Canadians.

There is not. There are opinions, rumours and assumptions. There is no evidence. Which is why we check on their progress, and when we are not allowed to check, we stop prisoner transfers.

Sir_Francis Sir_Francis:

I cannot discern how the Taliban can be seen to fall outside the scope of the Convention. Surely, the Taliban--the warrior arm of the regime we ousted--are "persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country".

The Geneva conventions define 'armed forces'. The key part of the definition being 'insignias of rank' and 'wearing a common uniform or article of clothing'. The Taliban do not meet that requirement. They can be fighters by night, and farmers or taxi drivers by day. Many aren't even Afghan, but can be of different nationalities. But we still give them the protections of the convention because it is right to do so.

Dave Ruston Dave Ruston:

Bottom line is, we should all be outraged at any torture, done to anyone, friend or foe.

I'm with you there Dave. But we have to transfer them to Afghan control under the Conventions as well. We have no choice. The only reason we can stop the transfers is in the event they will be subject to torture.

[RickW]

Excuse me, Dr. C., but the Red Cross has verified instances of torture. This verification had been sent to the "honorable" Peter MacKay, who didn't bother to read such.

If you doubt this, then look it up. It's in the news.

[Dr Caleb]

RickW RickW:

Excuse me, Dr. C., but the Red Cross has verified instances of torture. This verification had been sent to the "honorable" Peter MacKay, who didn't bother to read such.

If you doubt this, then look it up. It's in the news.

[Citation Needed]

I looked it up. The closest I could find was:

$1:

On the matter of the treatment of detainees handed over to the Afghans, the minister told MPs that the International Committee of the Red Cross was monitoring the condition of these detainees. In May 2006, O'Connor declared in the Commons that "the Red Cross or the Red Crescent is responsible to supervise their treatment once the prisoners are in the hands of the Afghan authorities. If there is something wrong with their treatment, the Red Cross or Red Crescent would inform us and we would take action."

<snip>

On March 19, 2007, O'Connor apologized to the House of Commons for the misleading statements he had made on the issue. "I fully and without reservation apologize to the House for providing inaccurate information for members," he said, adding that "the International Red Cross Committee is under no obligation to share information with Canada on the treatment of detainees transferred by Canada to Afghan authorities."

In several places, one of which is:
http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/jam ... -and-bully

Again, I find references (opinions, blogs) to the likelihood of torture. But there is no PROOF of torture, and nothing at all involving the Red Cross or Red Crescent.

[RickW]

Ask MacKay. He made the reference.

[Sir_Francis]

Dr Caleb Dr Caleb:

The Geneva conventions define 'armed forces'. The key part of the definition being 'insignias of rank' and 'wearing a common uniform or article of clothing'. The Taliban do not meet that requirement. They can be fighters by night, and farmers or taxi drivers by day. Many aren't even Afghan, but can be of different nationalities. But we still give them the protections of the convention because it is right to do so.

What is fascinating is that the criteria you adduce--which has been used specifically by GWOT actors such as Dick Cheney to define the Taliban as "illegal enemy combatants"--are literally superficial, not essential: they address what a soldier wears rather than his active operational status and relationship to the occupied country. Defining combatants according to the superficial strictures of a legal document while ignoring the essential ones is juridically facile, in my view. The Conventions clearly state that the armed forces of occupied nations fall under its legal purview.

Many NATO special forces do not wear identifying insignia, and many of them wear non-standard uniforms in order to blend in with their operational theatres--the British SAS and the U.S. Delta Force come to mind. American National Guard units are full of part-time soldiers, like the "Taliban-by-night" fighters you mention. Civil contractors like Blackwater use personnel from many nations and do not wear standard uniforms (are not even "soldiers" in any meaningful sense of the term). Yet we expect all of the foregoing to be treated according to the Protocols.

There is hardly a stricture popularly used to exclude the Taliban from Convention protection that does not apply to some or all of the "allied" forces currently deployed in the GWOT. The only way to exclude them is through casuistry. Moreover, to extend Convention protection to the undeserving would be an even worse offence, as it would render the Convention's enabling assumption--that there is a difference between acts of war and acts of criminality--totally meaningless. Thus, extending such protection given the conditions under which you believe the Taliban to be operating would not be "right" but very wrong indeed.

[Dr Caleb]

Sir_Francis Sir_Francis:

What is fascinating is that the criteria you adduce--which has been used specifically by GWOT actors such as Dick Cheney to define the Taliban as "illegal enemy combatants"--are literally superficial, not essential: they address what a soldier wears rather than his active operational status and relationship to the occupied country. Defining combatants according to the superficial strictures of a legal document while ignoring the essential ones is juridically facile, in my view. The Conventions clearly state that the armed forces of occupied nations fall under its legal purview.

What I find fascinating, is how people can read their own bias into someone else's writing. As if I actually wrote the definition of 'armed forces' into the Geneva conventions or that I agree with anything advocated by 'Dick Cheney'. Or even how I didn't say that affording them the rights under the conventions was a bad thing.

Sir_Francis Sir_Francis:

Many NATO special forces do not wear identifying insignia, and many of them wear non-standard uniforms in order to blend in with their operational theatres--the British SAS and the U.S. Delta Force come to mind. American National Guard units are full of part-time soldiers, like the "Taliban-by-night" fighters you mention. Civil contractors like Blackwater use personnel from many nations and do not wear standard uniforms (are not even "soldiers" in any meaningful sense of the term). Yet we expect all of the foregoing to be treated according to the Protocols.

All NATO armed forces wear 'dog tags'. They include name, rank, blood type and serial number. Enough identification under the Geneva Conventions to qualify as 'armed forces'. Blackwater etc. fit the definition of 'mercenaries' under the conventions.

And no one expects the Taliban to respect the Geneva Conventions, even though they claimed to be the rightful government (that no one but Chechnya recognized) of a country that is a signatory to the Conventions.

Sir_Francis Sir_Francis:

There is hardly a stricture popularly used to exclude the Taliban from Convention protection that does not apply to some or all of the "allied" forces currently deployed in the GWOT. The only way to exclude them is through casuistry. Moreover, to extend Convention protection to the undeserving would be an even worse offence, as it would render the Convention's enabling assumption--that there is a difference between acts of war and acts of criminality--totally meaningless. Thus, extending such protection given the conditions under which you believe the Taliban to be operating would not be "right" but very wrong indeed.

To extend the Geneva Conventions to the 'undeserving' is only right. They are only fighting for what they believe to be fair and just, no different than we are; fighting for what we believe to be fair and just. They should not be punished for that by being treated like animals. It's more than they would afford our soldiers, and that is the difference between us.

[RickW]

$1:

It's more than they would afford our soldiers

Are you putting your own biases into your statements, Dr. C.? Doesn't every piece of propaganda assume the transgressions of the enemy are much worse than those of the "good guys"?

What you seem to be looking for are definitive findings through a court of law (such as the Nuremburg Trials I mentioned beforehand), before you are willing concede that torture of any sort has taken place at the hands of the Afghans.

Well, the Nuremburg Trials didn't take place until the conclusion of WWII, so I suppose we'll have to wait until the Afghan conflict is wrapped up.

But the trouble is, the Nuremburg Trails were staged by the ALLIES, and guess what? No allied war crimes were presented, such as Eisenhower's killing of German POWs.

So I suppose we'll have to (however reluctantly) hope the Taliban win the conflict, in order to see that justice prevails. At least, according to your sense of propriety.