Source: https://army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=1003.msg389711
Timestamp: 2020-02-26 23:11:58
Document Index: 430110213

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 13', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 87', 'Art. 64', 'Art. 44', 'Art. 44']

Author Topic: Afghan Detainee Mega Thread (Read 263416 times)
Re: Canada's JTF2 captives vanish at Guantanamo
« Reply #50 on: February 19, 2005, 07:42:31 »
Canada has moral obligation to captives
professor: Fate of prisoners turned over to U.S. should be probed
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.
« Reply #51 on: February 20, 2005, 05:16:22 »
Canada has a moral obligation to Canadians. Not Johnny Jihad the genocidal illegal combatant.
Quote from: big bad john on February 19, 2005, 07:42:31
« Reply #52 on: February 20, 2005, 16:07:24 »
Quote from: Dare on February 20, 2005, 05:16:22
Your absolutely right, but I think you will not find too much support, because its not PC or sounds too
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.
« Reply #53 on: February 20, 2005, 16:34:15 »
Quote from: FastEddy on February 20, 2005, 16:07:24
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.
« Reply #54 on: February 20, 2005, 21:45:47 »
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.)
« Reply #55 on: February 20, 2005, 21:53:16 »
Quote from: Acorn on February 20, 2005, 21:45:47
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...
P.S. I am not losing any sleep over the detainees in Cuba. they should be happy that they didn't receive much worse!
« Last Edit: February 20, 2005, 21:59:36 by Slim »
Canadian's in Afghanistan have been told Geneva Rules don't apply to Taliban
« Reply #56 on: May 31, 2006, 10:53:32 »
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.
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.
“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
Re: Canadian's in Afghanistan have been told Geneva Rules don't apply to Taliban
« Reply #57 on: May 31, 2006, 11:15:43 »
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.
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.
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)
« Reply #58 on: May 31, 2006, 11:18:11 »
This has been hashed to death in previous threads...
« Reply #59 on: May 31, 2006, 11:22:34 »
Yep. We're not going through all this again. Go do a 'search' if really interested.
« Reply #60 on: June 02, 2006, 23:36:57 »
http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060602/afghanistan_prisoners_060602
As Canadian military brass take fire at home for the policy of handing over prisoners to the Afghan army, Canadian forces on the ground are dealing with the sometimes grim reality of the agreement.
Canadian troops have been aggressively patrolling Afghanistan in recent months, engaging the enemy, raiding suspected hideouts and taking prisoners.
On a recent patrol with Canadian forces "outside the wire" in the Panjwai region of Afghanistan, CTV's Middle East Bureau Chief Janis Mackey Frayer watched the scenario play out as soldiers tried to decide what to do with a suspected Taliban insurgent they captured.
"By law, they are handed over to Afghan authorities," Mackey Frayer said.
"But in this case, during a raid at a compound where a Canadian vehicle had been ambushed, Afghan soldiers threatened summary execution. They were adamant he was Taliban and should be forced to pay."
CTV cameras captured the discussion as it unfolded.
"They want to execute him here. I am obviously not for that. Recommend pickup or holding," says one soldier, speaking over a radio.
"He's probably of low intel value but either we take him or he gets executed. I need you to manage that. Over."
Under the tense circumstances, the Canadian soldiers decide to hold onto the prisoner until he can be delivered to less agitated Afghan authorities -- contravening the current policy on prisoners.
But eventually, the Canadians hand him back to the Afghan soldiers.
For the next 24-hours he remains handcuffed in the back of a pickup truck.
Then he disappears, his whereabouts, and fate, unknown.
When Canadian soldiers first arrived in Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, they handed detainees over to the United States.
Under a new agreement brokered in December however, captured fighters are now handed over to the Afghan military.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he doesn't expect the agreement to change any time soon.
"Well, we have a firm agreement with the Afghan government, and that agreement protects Canada's obligation, Canada's international obligations, and obviously we will stay in touch with Afghan authorities to ensure that that agreement is being honoured," he said.
A recent report in The Globe and Mail claims prisoners captured in Afghanistan are not subject to the protection of the Geneva Convention, because Canada does not consider them to be legal combatants.
Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor refuted the reports this week, however.
"When they take prisoners, they will always follow the rules of the Geneva Convention, no lower standard than that," he told the Commons.
The 1949 Geneva Conventions provide protections and rights to prisoners of war, including the right to be released at the end of a conflict, and to not face criminal charges.
Canadian regulations updated in 1991 allow for tribunals to be held in order to determine the status of detainees under the Conventions when there is doubt.
O'Connor also said the Afghan government allows the Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations to monitor prisoners.
Other coalition countries, such as Britain and the Netherlands have prisoner agreements similar with the Afghan government.
The Dutch government, however, takes the agreement one stop further by reserving the right to actually visit the detainees their soldiers take.
The United States is the only country under no obligation to turn over suspected militants to local authorities.
While official numbers are difficult to obtain, it is believed there are at least two hundred suspected Taliban prisoners in Kandahar's three jails.
With a report by CTV's Middle East Bureau Chief Janis Mackey Frayer
So we can't give them to the US and we can't give them to the locals so what do they want us to do?
« Reply #61 on: June 03, 2006, 04:54:26 »
I like what the Dutch have done, which is to reserve the right to inspect any prisoners they hand over to the Afghanis. Perhaps we should add that clause into our agreement, if it isn't there already, and exercise that right fully.
« Reply #62 on: June 03, 2006, 09:27:00 »
Maybe if we don't want the Afghanis to execute prisoners out of hand we should hand them over to the Americans!
Wait, the left wing socialist crowd in Canada would rather not turn in prisoners to the evil US, they would rather have these incidents with the local police forces every time we take prisoners!
Damned if you do and damned if you dont!
« Reply #63 on: June 03, 2006, 09:39:25 »
By the article, it did not seem to me that they struggled with the policy.
Hand them over to the Afghan authorities. Do not allow prisoners in your possesion to be abused or executed.
Pretty simple guidelines, mix with Law of Armed conflict, and a good chunk of human decency with some common sense, and they will make good decisions. Like they did in the article above.
The soldiers are not conflicted, it is the media who is making the politicians and public conflicted.
« Reply #64 on: June 03, 2006, 11:45:54 »
They shoud be summary execution's, the Taliban are not POW's, they are CRIMINAL'S
and MURDERER'S, that's fine the Canadians look after them but after they are turned over to the Afghan authorities if they want to execute them, that's fine! It's there country !
« Reply #65 on: June 03, 2006, 12:14:00 »
Quote from: bilton090 on June 03, 2006, 11:45:54
So by doing onto others as they would do onto us, make us a better people, better soldiers, a country Afghans and others respect...? Or would you rather have Canadian soldiers being tried at the World court?
Part of raising a professional army, which is what we are trying to do with the ANA is to show those soldiers that the only one who has a right to execute people is the gov't and its courts...not the military. To us they are prisioners, to the ANA they may be criminals, but its is not soldier who should be doing the executing.
« Reply #66 on: June 03, 2006, 12:20:09 »
While we all have our desires as to the outcome of these prisoners, they need to be handed over to the proper authority. Only by doing this do we set the example to ANA and ANP. It isn't always going to work out right, but remember we are training a group of people that for 30 years delivered justice immediately and think it is perfectly normal.
What we are not hearing at all, is the outcome of the courts in regards to these prisoners. Can't find anything at all..any links anyone??
« Reply #67 on: June 03, 2006, 12:20:29 »
+1 on that Ash.
I saw the footage as well....they didn't struggle with the policy at all.
The media are blowing things way out of proportion yet again.
« Reply #68 on: June 03, 2006, 12:30:59 »
Quote from: Armymedic on June 03, 2006, 12:14:00
Canadian solders being tried at the world court ?, BULL CRAP ! You do your job, you look after them, then turn the scum over to the Afghan authorities, end of story ! now your crying over scum that kill woman & children. ( public beheading )
« Last Edit: June 03, 2006, 12:56:28 by bilton090 »
« Reply #69 on: June 03, 2006, 12:36:58 »
Quote from: bilton090 on June 03, 2006, 12:30:59
Canadian solders being tried at the world court ?, BULL CRAP ! You do your job, you look after them, then turn the scum over to the Afghan authorities, end of story ! now your crying over scum that kill woman & children.
you recommend summary executions and think that we wouldn't hang for it? Of course we would! Use your friggin' head. Any Canadian soldier who conducted an execution would unquestionably be tried and sentenced in Canada, and quite possibly in the World Court.
Nobody is crying over criminals being punished, get a grip. Medic is saying that Canadian soldiers do their job properly, by following protocols and SOP, and by teaching the ANA (part of our role over there) how to be soldiers instead of thugs in uniform.
« Reply #70 on: June 03, 2006, 13:09:41 »
Quote from: paracowboy on June 03, 2006, 12:36:58
I'm not saying that Canada soldier's should do it, but if the Afghan's do it, crap happen's, ( live by the sword, die by the sword ).
« Last Edit: June 03, 2006, 13:16:11 by bilton090 »
« Reply #71 on: June 03, 2006, 13:21:11 »
Quote from: bilton090 on June 03, 2006, 13:09:41
guilt by association. We are training the ANA, we are working alongside the ANA. They commit atrocities and war crimes, we are guilty of allowing it, and in the eyes of the folks at home, we are guilty of teaching it. We lose the moral high ground, we lose the War, and we lose the reason we're fighting it.
When we're fighting, kill 'em all as efficiently as possible. Once the fight is over, patch 'em up, search 'em, silinece 'em, speed 'em to the rear, where they can then be processed according to our rules, and the Rule of Law. Do it right, or don't do it.
« Reply #72 on: June 03, 2006, 13:57:02 »
Quote from: paracowboy on June 03, 2006, 13:21:11
You are right Para, if after they get to the rear & are executed great, these cockroaches sould not get any right's ! , they should get exterminated like the rabbit dogs they are !
« Reply #73 on: June 03, 2006, 16:57:31 »
Quote from: bilton090 on June 03, 2006, 13:57:02
Obviously you failed the PO on the Geneva Convention and also didn't read Paracowboy's post properly....
He meant bag and tag...not silence as in to kill them
Someone needs to get a grip....
« Reply #74 on: June 03, 2006, 17:06:15 »
Quote from: Recce By Death on June 03, 2006, 16:57:31