Troops Told Geneva Rules Don't Apply To Taliban

[supercanuk]

Link!

 

"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. "

 

Okay, so Harper has taken a page out of the Bush book, and is doing the "enemy combatants" don't have rights. Well, what the fuck were the Geneva Convention's regulations trying to prevent. Tortue of anyone's troops. I don't care if the Taliban doesnt have a soverign nation, it has troops, and if you dont want our soldiers to be treated inhumanely, then follow the rules of the convention, at least your in the ethical higher ground. Anyway, this really bugs me because at one point Canada had a reputation, albiet tenious one, for Human Rights and Peacekeeping, now we've looseing one and lost the other. Discuss.

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

I read the opposite, that Canada will abide by the Geneva Conventions.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...c541383&k=39028

 

Technically speaking, however, Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners don't qualify for POW status:

 

(Article 4) "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"

 

* "Members of the armed forces"

* "militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"

* "Persons who accompany the armed forces"

* "Members of crews...of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft"

* "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms"

[supercanuk]

It's one of those "the spirit or the letter" of the law. So i mean it's breaking the Geneva Convention to torture inhumanely, well if we are sending over these prisoners to the Karzai government they will almost definetely be tortured. I understand, literally speaking, that the GC does not protect them, but in these situations it ought to be extended to them for protection. I know that, well it is the way it is, but it can change, and i think if we protect these people from torture its showing good faith for occupying their country in the very least.

[Guest apsham]

I don't think this is a "we can torture them now" thing, more of a "we can charge them for their actions" type of thing.

[ecnarf]

Technically speaking, however, Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners don't qualify for POW status: * "militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"

Last time I checked, the Taliban was a militia, although I'm uncertain as to any "fixed distinctive sign" or "in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

[supercanuk]

I don't think this is a "we can torture them now" thing, more of a "we can charge them for their actions" type of thing.

Thats just it, when the U.S. said it wasnt going to follow international law and the Geneva Convention they were saying this doesnt mean we're going to torture it just means we're not going to follow it. And we aren't necessarily going to torture, nor necessarily ( although id say likely) is the Karzai government going to. But if it does occur we or the Karzai government or the U.S. gov't will not be held liable simply because we just dont recognize it.

EDIT: I think there must be some confusion over this whole thing, i have an article saying we wont be following the Geneva Convention and Cherry Poppin' Daddy has one that says the opposite, and i am for one comppletely friggin confused. Maybe it's that we will follow the GC in the actual apprehension and then hand the prisoner to the Karzai gov't? weird.

Edited June 2, 2006 by supercanuk

[ecnarf]

Let me get this straight...

 

Not following the rules that say "Don't torture" doesn't mean we're going to torture?

 

Then what, exactly, does it mean? We're not going to follow the rules but we're not going to break them anyways?

 

I have a hard time believing that. We either are following international law or we are not. They wouldn't say that they aren't going to follow the Geneva convention if they weren't going to take advantage of the fact.

[supercanuk]

I totally agree, i was saying for more of the sake of argument that it wont necesarily happen, although it is likely. Its doublespeak.

[Ravenous itchy]

I think what both articles are saying is that Canada IS following the Geneva convention. It is just that these people are not legally covered by the GC. The GC could perhaps be modified to include these types of organizations as able to become POWs, but I really doubt many countries would go for it.

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

Technically speaking, however, Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners don't qualify for POW status:    * "militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"

Last time I checked, the Taliban was a militia, although I'm uncertain as to any "fixed distinctive sign" or "in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

They don't wear uniforms, and target civilians... so that's a no to both.

[Bizud]

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the militias our forces are fighting in Afghanistan target civilians.

 

As for charging them for their actions, isn't it a bit fucked up that if a Canadian soldier shoots an Afghani militant, and he shoots back and kills the Canadian, he could be charged with murder? That's not murder, that's war. Afghanis have every right to kill Canadian soldiers on their soil. We have no rights in Afghanistan.

Edited June 4, 2006 by Bizud

[ecnarf]

As for charging them for their actions, isn't it a bit fucked up that if a Canadian soldier shoots an Afghani militant, and he shoots back and kills the Canadian, he could be charged with murder? That's not murder, that's war. Afghanis have every right to kill Canadian soldiers on their soil. We have no rights in Afghanistan.

Are you aware of the laws of military engagement?

 

Nothing restrains an individual's right to protect himself or his comrades should any threat be placed under his or their lives. Planting a roadside bomb is none of that. It's fucking cowardly is what it is. The last time I checked, Canadian soldiers weren't planting roadside bombs in the hope of killing a group of people.

[supercanuk]

Although ecnarf, is it honourable to invade, and control a country killing thousands of civilians? I find it funny that people call guerilla warfare cowardly, it's not cowardly, its the sometimes futile resistance to a horrific occupation. Roadside bombs are no doubt horrifying, however bombing, raiding, is just as horrifying. I'd say whats more cowardly is not useing diplomatic options, when they are availible, and they always are.

[Ravenous itchy]

...and they always are.

I didn't think you were that ignorant.

[Bizud]

The diplomatic option exists, but it can't get us everything that force can. For example we can't get the Afghans to bargain away the right to grow opium poppies, so if this is something we want to achieve we're going to have to occupy Afghanistan to achieve it. If we want to help Americans build an oil pipeline and help them dictate the terms under which it will be built to the Afghans, then diplomacy can't help us do that either. None of this has anything to do with making Canada safer, though.

 

There is an implicit argument in Ecnarf's last post - that the people we are fighting are all terrorists who target civilians, and thus they are the "bad guys" and our forces the "good guys."

[supercanuk]

...and they always are.

I didn't think you were that ignorant.

How do you figure there wasnt the diplomatic approach to our current situation? I meant in this current situation. I just realize how my post sounded. I am not saying that with for example Hitler there was much of a diplomatic solution. However, if countries didnt support him and realized before the Rhineland something that was right infront of them ( his ambitions that is) then they probably could have stopped him with much less bloodshed. But i am not here to make what if's, i am here to explain what i meant by my post.

[Bizud]

Taliban warns Cdn. troops to leave Afghanistan

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads=

 

A top Taliban official says Canadian troops should get out of Afghanistan and stop acting like Americans, or face the insurgents' wrath at the same level the U.S. has experienced.

 

The military commander and Taliban spokesperson, known as Mullah Dadallah, appeared on the Al-Jazeera television network this week.

 

"Our main enemy is the United States. As for Canada and the other countries, we have no historical enmity with them," Dadallah said, according to a report in The Globe and Mail on Friday.

 

"But if they want to come here as fighting forces, we will view then just as we view the Americans. America is a big snake that wants to bite everybody."

 

The report came the same day as Canadian troops apparently avoided a suicide car bomb attack that killed the driver and three civilians, according to local police.

 

A Canadian convoy passed near the vehicle 25 kilometres north of the city of Kandahar before the explosives detonated, a spokesman for the governor of Kandahar told The Associated Press.

 

Canada currently has 2,300 soldiers in Afghanistan, and recently committed to remaining in the war-torn nation until at least 2009.

 

Since 2002, 16 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan.

 

Dadallah advised Canada and the other multi-national forces in Afghanistan to abandon both the nation, and any attempts to defend or side with the U.S.

 

"If they return to where they came from, and withdraw their forces from here, we will not view them like the Americans."

 

Dadallah said the U.S. is using Canada, and others, to fight its battles for it, according to a transcript of the interview prepared by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

 

"Our advice to Canada and Britain is to refrain from defending the American propaganda, and from standing by this historic American crime. America wants to get other countries entangled in the crimes it committed in Afghanistan.

 

"Our advice to these countries is to avoid the heat of battle, because we will wreak vengeance upon them one by one, like we are doing with the Americans, if they remain here when the Americans are gone."

 

The warning marks one of the few occasions the Taliban has specifically mentioned Canada directly. The comments seem intended to strike fear in the hearts of troops, and to provoke distrust in the Afghan population.

 

Meanwhile, the Canadian military has gone to great lengths to build bridges with Afghans, holding informal, sit down meetings with village elders around the country to determine the needs of locals, as well as working to help provide vital services.

 

The Taliban has kept a relatively low profile since the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001, but the insurgents appear to be stepping up efforts recently.

 

This week in Ottawa, Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier appeared before a Senate committee. He told members it is vital that Canadian troops strive for the support of locals, and said the work in Afghanistan will be accomplished by providing security and safety to Afghans.

 

"If they are still being terrorized by the Taliban, that terror might force them to vote with the Taliban," Gauthier said.

 

Jack Hooper, the deputy director of operations with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, told the committee that Canada's work in Afghanistan will have ramifications outside the nation's borders.

 

"In the here and now, terrorism and insurgency are being brought to Canadians in Afghanistan," Hooper said.

 

"At some future point, if we are to learn the lessons of history, their practitioners may bring violence to the streets of our cities."

 

Hands up - who believes terrorists hate us because we value freedom, democracy and the rule of law?

[supercanuk]

"Hands up - who believes terrorists hate us because we value freedom, democracy and the rule of law?"- Rest assured, my hand is down.

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

Taliban warns Cdn. troops to leave Afghanistan

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads=

 

A top Taliban official says Canadian troops should get out of Afghanistan and stop acting like Americans, or face the insurgents' wrath at the same level the U.S. has experienced.

 

The military commander and Taliban spokesperson, known as Mullah Dadallah, appeared on the Al-Jazeera television network this week.

 

"Our main enemy is the United States. As for Canada and the other countries, we have no historical enmity with them," Dadallah said, according to a report in The Globe and Mail on Friday.

 

"But if they want to come here as fighting forces, we will view then just as we view the Americans. America is a big snake that wants to bite everybody."

 

The report came the same day as Canadian troops apparently avoided a suicide car bomb attack that killed the driver and three civilians, according to local police.

 

A Canadian convoy passed near the vehicle 25 kilometres north of the city of Kandahar before the explosives detonated, a spokesman for the governor of Kandahar told The Associated Press.

 

Canada currently has 2,300 soldiers in Afghanistan, and recently committed to remaining in the war-torn nation until at least 2009.

 

Since 2002, 16 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan.

 

Dadallah advised Canada and the other multi-national forces in Afghanistan to abandon both the nation, and any attempts to defend or side with the U.S.

 

"If they return to where they came from, and withdraw their forces from here, we will not view them like the Americans."

 

Dadallah said the U.S. is using Canada, and others, to fight its battles for it, according to a transcript of the interview prepared by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

 

"Our advice to Canada and Britain is to refrain from defending the American propaganda, and from standing by this historic American crime. America wants to get other countries entangled in the crimes it committed in Afghanistan.

 

"Our advice to these countries is to avoid the heat of battle, because we will wreak vengeance upon them one by one, like we are doing with the Americans, if they remain here when the Americans are gone."

 

The warning marks one of the few occasions the Taliban has specifically mentioned Canada directly. The comments seem intended to strike fear in the hearts of troops, and to provoke distrust in the Afghan population.

 

Meanwhile, the Canadian military has gone to great lengths to build bridges with Afghans, holding informal, sit down meetings with village elders around the country to determine the needs of locals, as well as working to help provide vital services.

 

The Taliban has kept a relatively low profile since the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001, but the insurgents appear to be stepping up efforts recently.

 

This week in Ottawa, Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier appeared before a Senate committee. He told members it is vital that Canadian troops strive for the support of locals, and said the work in Afghanistan will be accomplished by providing security and safety to Afghans.

 

"If they are still being terrorized by the Taliban, that terror might force them to vote with the Taliban," Gauthier said.

 

Jack Hooper, the deputy director of operations with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, told the committee that Canada's work in Afghanistan will have ramifications outside the nation's borders.

 

"In the here and now, terrorism and insurgency are being brought to Canadians in Afghanistan," Hooper said.

 

"At some future point, if we are to learn the lessons of history, their practitioners may bring violence to the streets of our cities."

 

Hands up - who believes terrorists hate us because we value freedom, democracy and the rule of law?

;) Why is this even a news story? Of course he's going to say that... he's a freakin Taliban official.

[Bizud]

Because many seem to think that terrorism against the west stems from hatred of "freedom, democracy, and the rule of law," and this guy is explaining where it really comes from. Is what he's saying incorrect?

[Matt]

Give me a break, a lot of people don't believe that they hate democracy, mostly far-right wingers believe that, but there are people on the right who do not, a lot more than you probably think. However, Canada has every right to be in Afghanistan, the Afghan government has invited Canada to be there. Also, the Taliban supported the 9/11 attacks, they're hostile, and how can there be a diplomatic solution when the Taliban hates the Americans so very much? What really could have been resolved? Nothing.

[Bizud]

The government of Afghanistan would not be the government of Afghanistan if it weren't being propped up by NATO troops. The "President of Afghanistan" is basically just the mayor of Kabul. Yes, in a legal sense Canadian soldiers have been invited by the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan, but that doesn't make it less of an occupation, and that doesn't remove the rights of Afghans to resist occupation by killing occupiers.

 

Why do the Taliban hate Americans? For the same reason they hate the British and the Russians. Because Americans have been meddling in Afghan affairs. There is no other reason. And we all know the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.

Edited June 6, 2006 by Bizud

[garsk]

question? will al-Qaeda and the Taliban fallow the Geneva Convention? i sure hope that the wont uses led bullets.

Edited June 6, 2006 by garsk

[ecnarf]

question? will al-Qaeda and the Taliban fallow the Geneva Convention?

Considering that we claim to be more civilized and enlightened than the taliban and al-qaeda, I'd hope that question would be irrelevant.

[Matt]

By your standards Bizud, we shouldn't recognize the current German government, I mean the people picked the Nazi government back in the day, so it was up to them to overthrow them, not for us to meddle in their affairs. We still recognize the current German government in any event, why? Because the Nazis were a brutal regime of power hungry people. What's the difference between them and the Taliban?