Afghan Detainee Mega Thread

[CBH99]

Nobody else worried that provisions under the Geneva Convention are maybe not being followed?  Nobody else cares that our soldiers captured these detainees, and are expected under law to keep tabs on them once they are turned over to a foreign country?  Pity.   

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"In August 2003, a Canadian military intelligence officer reminded colleagues that Canada had an obligation under the law of armed conflict, as well as a national obligation, to track the detainees its troops captured even after they were handed over to another country."

 

[CBH99]

CFL - what was the point of that last post?  You just quoted something that had already been quoted -

 

[bgpipes]

How do you keep someone from defecating on themselves??.....A cork up the bum eh?? :blotto: :blotto: :blotto:

 

[Blakey]

CFL - what was the point of that last post?   You just quoted something that had already been quoted -

Well, your post above that one says "nobody else worried..."....so draw your own conclusions...  

"In August 2003,

obviously somebody was worried.....

 

[CBH99]

I was referring to this particular topic in this forum, sorry - I should have put two and two together.

Is nobody ON THIS FORUM concerned about the lack of transparency from the United States in regards to his matter?  Is nobody else on this forum concerned that Canadian troops raided several locations and carried out several dangerous missions to capture these individuals, and are now denied access to information that is supposed to be supplied under law?  Is nobody else concerned about the increasingly bold trend of the United States to bend the rules and laws to fit their political agenda?

What if the situation were reversed (It would never happen, but lets pretend for a minute) - that American troops raided several locations, and captured suspected terrorists - then turned them over to Canadian authorities.  Then, when the American government requested information about those suspects, such as their location and general well-being, they were swiftly denied any information whatsoever, even though by law they are required to keep tabs on their suspects to ensure they are being treated fairly.  They would blow their casket.  Yet somehow, because it is the opposite, its okay?

Thats what I meant by my original post.  Sorry CFL - when I first saw your quote, I must have had a blonde moment.  (If only I had hair).

 

[CBH99]

One more thing about this article confuses and concerns me - if anybody out there can explain to me the reasoning behind it, I would very much appreciate it.

"The United States declared it would not apply the laws given under the Geneva Convention, but assured the prisoners would be taken care of humanely".

The suspects were captured during a military operation, and are now being detained in a typical prisoner-of-war scenario (Detained at a facility with other persons captured during similar military operations, during the same campaign - Operation Enduring Freedom).  So why is the Geneva Convention not being applied?  And, isn't the whole point of the Geneva Convention to assure that prisoners of war are treated humanely in the first place?  What purpose does it serve to state that you won't apply the Geneva Convention to "people detained during military operations" (But lets not call them prisoners of war, lets call them detainees) - but yet still state you will treat them humanely?

Also, just to stir the pot and give anybody out there who's eager to jump down someone's throat on here the opportunity...why should other countries follow every rule and regulation provided under the Geneva Convention to a T, when the United States, in this instance, declared it would not?  I'm just adding food for thought here, don't attach your bayonettes just yet.  But if you were a party that is hostile towards the United States, or at the very least, not friendly - why would you bother to apply the Geneva Convention to captured American soldiers when the United States declared it would not apply the Geneva Convention either, under all circumstances.

My points and questions here are: 

-  Why did the United States choose not to apply the Geneva Convention to these particular prisoners?
-  What is the difference between a prisoner of war, and a detainee, when detainees are captured in the same manner and under the same circumstances as a POW?
-  Does anybody find it hypocritical that the United States demands all of its captured soldiers are treated to all the provisions under the Geneva Convention, even though it chooses only to apply those same provisions on a case by case basis?

I'm not trying to sound anti-American, but am I'm not a blind supporter of her either.  Any thoughts?

 

[CBH99]

Bah crap, last post them I'm going to bed.

"Under all circumstances" should read "Under some circumstances".

Time for bed, can't even think straight now.

 

[kincanucks]

Lets see, if we make sure that these people are treated properly under the Geneva Conventions then we will be treated properly under the Geneva Conventions if they capture us? Yes that makes sense now.  I feel better knowing that because I wouldn't want to think I would be tortured, degraded or multilated because we didn't make sure that these detainees were not being mistreated.

We live in such an insulated world here in Canada and we think our perfect little sprinkle fairy dust on all problems approach can be translated to whatever we do or whereever we go in the world and at the same time we expect other countries and societies to think and act along the same lines.  Perhaps we should pull our heads from our anal cavities and see that the world has dramatically changed and maybe the old way of doing things just doesn't work anymore.  While the Geneva Conventions may have had a place in the world during the last century -  but I highly doubt that because few nations actually adhered to them anyway - I would say that they have little relevance to what goes on now.  Perhaps a code of conduct for terrorists should be developed and maybe Canada can work on that and at the same time improve our international creditability albeit only with a select group of people but we done that it that way before too.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Good post, Canuck,
All the GC has become is a club to be brought out as a weapon when required to make a political point[ usually in the form of a news clipping ]
....think for a second, a military prison on an island that itself is guarded, if things were really that evil and devious there, does ANYONE think for a second that{a] any visitors at all would be allowed or any info of ANY kind would be given out?  You would hear NOTHING and lots of it, so, once again having a shred of decency in an indecent situation gives the media[et al] cause to shout something about the sky falling.

edit: cause "here" does not mean hear :

 

[CBH99]

True, good points from both of you.  I guess I was thinking moreso along the lines of the moral highground - and what is done "officially", and namely for the press.  Good points.

 

[bgpipes]

If you are captured (or kidnapped),by the insurgents,the video cameras come out,and you are beheaded in front of God and everybody, that makes Guantanamo look more like Hawaii everyday eh?? ;D ;D ;D

 

[garb811]

While the Geneva Conventions may have had a place in the world during the last century -  but I highly doubt that because few nations actually adhered to them anyway - I would say that they have little relevance to what goes on now.

So what are you advocating as the alternative?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Lets see, if we make sure that these people are treated properly under the Geneva Conventions then we will be treated properly under the Geneva Conventions if they capture us? Yes that makes sense now.  I feel better knowing that because I wouldn't want to think I would be tortured, degraded or multilated because we didn't make sure that these detainees were not being mistreated.

This is revoltingly stupid, in my opinion.  We don't torture prisoners because "we" are BETTER than "them." Period.  Since when do two wrongs make a right?

 

[baboon6]

Absolutely right. This reminds me of a story related about Lt Col Mike Calvert in Charles Allen's book the Savage Wars of Peace. Calvert was commanding the Malayan Scouts (later 22SAS) in the early 1950s. A policeman visiting the SAS mess was regailing some of the officers with stories of how he had tortured captured terrorists. Col Calvert eventually grabbed the police officer and slung him straight out the room. He then told his officers a story from his Chindit days, when he had captured a Burmese who was working for the Japanese. Instead of torturing or killing him, he let the man go, after convincing him that the British were the ones fighting for his freedom, not the Japanese.

 

[rw4th]

So what are you advocating as the alternative?

I guess the problem here would be that there is no viable alternative in place, and I highly doubt that we will get the leaders of the various terror organizations to attend a conference to hammer out a new â Å“rules of warâ ? agreement. Besides, since its inception the Geneva Convention has never actually been respected by both sides in any war that I know of.

You can't try to fight â Å“by the rulesâ ? against an opponent who doesn't care about your rules; you will lose every time.

 

[the 48th regulator]

kincanucks

You summed it up perfectly mate. I could not have said it better.   but my favourite line was this;

We live in such an insulated world here in Canada and we think our perfect little sprinkle fairy dust on all problems approach can be translated to whatever we do or whereever we go in the world and at the same time we expect other countries and societies to think and act along the same lines

thanks mate, I think that there are too many people out there thinking that they can goad us "rough and tuff" types into a good debate, and then show us the wrong of our waremongering ways.   I am getting tired of it, TORTURE...MISTREATMENT...ISOLATION...how dare they...yep I am sure I need to plug away at another thread proving or disproving any of it....

I think some of our earlier post reflect that, at least mine did.

cheers

tess

btw, the part in yellow had me howling hehehehe fairy dust

 

[SeaKingTacco]

In my opinion, we follow the Geneva Convention, not because we have to, but because it is the right thing to do.   The people we fight from time to time may or may not live up to the same standard.   So what?   Descending to the level of torture and mistreatment of our opponent ultimately does us more damage:

1) It damages our soldiers morally and ethically;
2) It makes information we glean (from torture) from our enemy unreliable.   Someone being tortured will just give up what they think the torturer wants to hear;
3) It makes the enemy less likely to want to surrender
4) It is just plain wrong.   We are above it.

Sure, sometimes it appears easier not to follow the Geneva Convention, but in the long view, following it is always the right way to fight.   Winning a victory where you have to descend to absolute moral depravity (and display psychopathic behavior) is not much of a victory in my books.

Cheers.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"Winning a victory where you have to descend to absolute moral depravity (and display psychopathic behavior) is not much of a victory in my books."

It all depends on what you want to achieve and what situation your in (ie the Mongol Hordes are knocking on your doorstep) that will dictate how far you will go.

If someone invaded this country I would guarantee that the GC would go right out the window.

Besides shouldn't the GC be an on-going every changing document.  Progress with the times.

Who dictates what is inhumane and what is not.  Is Napalm allowed, targeting personal with a 25mm chain gun etc? 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

"Winning a victory where you have to descend to absolute moral depravity (and display psychopathic behavior) is not much of a victory in my books."

It all depends on what you want to achieve and what situation your in (ie the Mongol Hordes are knocking on your doorstep) that will dictate how far you will go.

If someone invaded this country I would guarantee that the GC would go right out the window.

Besides shouldn't the GC be an on-going every changing document.   Progress with the times.

Who dictates what is inhumane and what is not.   Is Napalm allowed, targeting personal with a 25mm chain gun etc?  

Find another way to win.   Seriously.   Training your soldiers to beat the crap out of, or kill defenseless prisoners is wrong.   Full stop.  

As for killing with either napalm vs a 25mm Chain gun, I don't recollect that the Geneva Convention has anything specifically to say on that subject.

I think that one should endeavour to defeat one's opponent with as little suffering as possible.   I don't imagine that you have time to suffer much if you get hit with a 25mm round...