This seems oddly familiar

[james_davis_nicoll]

Canadian Troops told Geneva rules don't apply to Taliban

Comments

[poeticalpanther.livejournal.com]

I don't like this. I didn't like it when the US decided it, and I don't like it now. I don't like what viewing the enemy as somehow undeserving of basic human rights will do to our soldiers.

I speak here as a former serving member myself. Part of how we make ourselves different, how we distinguish ourselves from those we are supposed to be fighting against, is by maintaining our respect for human rights. It's what we're supposed to be fighting for. What message do we send when we say, "You, you Afghans, you must be like western democracies, respect human rights, treat your prisoners honourably. We...well, we'll do whatever we feel like. But you should behave well, even if we don't. In your country. Do as we say, not as we do."

Bad choice.

[geniusofevil.livejournal.com]

boy, you guys should really try to follow the law up there in Canada.

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

I was so tempted to title this entry "But _you_ have a gambling problem."

This is far more serious than the official US attitude on this matter, since _we_ are a civilized nation and have a duty to set the cousins an example, however unlikely it is that they can benefit from it. This _is_ an example but it is the wrong example. If Canadians don't act like decent people, who will?

If I am reading the timing right, this change dates to December, after the Martin government folded. Perhaps no party can be held accountable of this and thus this policy can reversed without anyone in Ottawa having to admit responsibility.

[geniusofevil.livejournal.com]

still...you always have Romeo Dallaire.

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

That would be a lot more of a plus if he'd been given a free hand in Rwanda.

[dewline.livejournal.com]

Would that Gen. -- now Senator -- Dallaire had gotten that free hand in Rwanda...

[joenotcharles.livejournal.com]

I wish the article said how high that determination was coming from - in the US, it was clearly generated by the Attorney-General and Secretary of Defense. Is the Canadian order coming directly from Gordon O'Connor's office, or from the top ranks of the military?

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

If this is connected to the current government, they will be reluctant to change this policy, since that might be taken as admission that they made an error.

[felis-sidus.livejournal.com]

What lovecraftienne said.

This is very sad. I'd always hoped that the Canadian government was just a bit more enlightened than ours, and smart enough to learn from the blunders of your neighbor to the south.

It appears that someone this side of the border has been giving Lieutenant-General Michel Gauthier logic lessons. Otherwise, how can one explain this quotation: “They are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status but they are entitled to prisoner-of-war treatment.”? Seems to me that one either is or is not a prisoner of war.

[robertprior.livejournal.com]

The Geneva Convention applies between states and their lawful fighters. By not granting them POW status, we are saying that (a) the Taliban is not a lawful government, or (b) the prisoners aren't lawful fighters.

[felis-sidus.livejournal.com]

This much is obvious. But where is the logic in saying that they are not entitled to prisoner of war status, but are entitled to prisoner of war treatment? Either one meets the qualifications of "prisoner of war", or one does not.

[el-christador.livejournal.com]

I think the statement should be interpreted as "They are not legally entitled to prisoner of war status, but are morally entitled to be treated as humanely as the Convention requires prisoners of war to be treated."

Alternatively, there could be a distinction between the treatment of prisoners of war while held as prisoners, concerning such things as quality of accomodations, food, labour, etc., and their right to be released when the conflict ends and to not be charged with a crime for fighting. The meaning of the sentence could be that the Convention entitles them to this sort of humane treatment while held captive -- that is, there is no difference between the standards of humane treatment required for prisoners of war and captured combatants who do not meet the definition of prisoners of war* -- but since they are not prisoners of war they can be charged with crimes and imprisoned beyond the end of hostilities.

The sentence in the article, "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." leads me to conjecture that at least two of the relevant points are the right to be released at the end of the conflict and the right not to be held criminally liable for "lawful" [ ? -- that's got to be a typo for "unlawful" ] combat. Perhaps by the word "treatment" the speaker does not intend to include those rights but is only referring to things such as not being beaten, not being tortured, given reasonable accomodations and sufficient food, etc. And that would be one way one could say there is a distinction between having the status of a prisoner of war, and being treated like a prisoner of war.

*I don't know if the Convention actually says this or not.

[myrthe.livejournal.com]

...and the right not to be held criminally liable for "lawful" [ ? -- that's got to be a typo for "unlawful" ] combat.

I don't think so. As I read it that clause is to prevent me from capturing enemy soldiers and charging them with all the numerous counts of assault, b&e, gbh and murder 2 that they certainly committed as part of their job i.e. "lawful combat". On the other hand that doesn't give an enemy soldier carte blanche to engage in whatever combat they feel like, "unlawful combat" would be combat not covered by orders, stuff like personal vendetta, crimes for personal gain and war crimes et. al. which they are very much still criminally liable for.

[el-christador.livejournal.com]

I see your point. I think you are correct.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

I have never been in the military, but after reading the linked-to article, I don't see that our defacto position is now that the Taliban are not deserving of basic human rights.

Please help me to understand -- I thought that the Geneva convention governed primarily the code of conduct that participatory nations would agree to with respect to their duly represented combatants in times of war (i.e. it goverened their conduct over the other nation's soldiers). My understanding was that the Geneva convention was not intended to confer rights upon civilians who either (a) got caught in harms way, or (b) put themselves in harms way during a conflict. Is this not the case?

If this is the case, to what national authority are the Taliban command responsible? To which national authority should captured Taliban operatives be rendered? Should the Taliban be treated as, effectively, a nation-without-land? On what basis can this be done? Do they have a diplomatic presence that can be negotiated with? Does the Taliban command itself observe the Geneva convention (and does the answer to this question have any bearing on our own decision to treat them as lawful combatants or not)?

I'm not saying that we're making the right decision here, but it's not clear to me, either, that (a) we're making the wrong decision or that (b) our decision de facto means we're committed to treating Taliban operatives as "undeserving of basic human rights".

As a non-Taliban example, suppose that some Afghani civilian teenager goes off his or her head and chops up his or her neighbour with an axe in the Kandihar market. Is this person supposed to be covered under the Geneva convention? What happens if the victim in this situation happens to be a Canadian soldier on foot patrol?

It seems to me that the Geneva convention gets awful dicey in situations where the theatre of operations overlaps with a civilan presence, and some of that civilian presence decides (for whatever reason) to act in a violent manner...

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

As a swift followup to my own comments -- how does the Geneva convention deal with agents of espionage? In times of peace? In times of war? Perhaps I'm wrong again, but wasn't one of the principles of the Geneva convention that lawful combatants had to be readily identifiable as such (and indeed were required to fully identify themselves if captured or confronted, as lawful combatants of a particular allegiance)?

[twoeleven.livejournal.com]

you are correct as the the question of identification, and to most other points you raise. as to the question of spies, the current amended geneva conventions explicitly say that they aren't covered (article 46). nor are mercenaries (article 47). terrorists aren't considered explicitly, but doesn't seem unreasonable to consider ones brought in from other countries as mercs.

i'm not sure how the taliban (if they can be distinguished from al qaeda at this point) would be covered, although "landless state" seems reasonable since they were the previous gov't of afghanistan.

otoh, protection of random civvies (part iv) is one of the main purposes of the geneva convention. but you are correct in your inference that civvies lose their protection as soon as they take up arms. (article 50, but note the presumption of innocence).

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan, though only recognized as such by three countries. I don't know if they ever surrendered when we attacked Afghanistan. I think they did wear some mark of distinction, though they might not now.

[el-christador.livejournal.com]

I have never been in the military, but after reading the linked-to article, I don't see that our defacto position is now that the Taliban are not deserving of basic human rights.

Yeah.

I must say I'm kind of puzzled by people being concerned when the US or Canadian governments say "The Geneva Convention says X", when the Geneva Convention really does say X. That is (at least at the time I am posting this), no one is saying, "well, if you actually read the text of the Geneva Convention in question, their position is clearly incorrect". And if you do go and look at the Geneva Convention regarding treatment of prisoners of war, it does spell out who's covered and who's not.

That is, I'm puzzled by the implication that it would somehow be more honorable and encouraging and reassuring if the Canadian government were to be lying about the content of the Convention.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

> And if you do go and look at the Geneva Convention regarding treatment of
> prisoners of war, it does spell out who's covered and who's not.

Absolutely, it does. It also specifies what you're not allowed to do to those who are NOT prisoners of war, whether it's because they are civilians or they are combatants who are denied POW status, explicitly and clearly, and the USA violates that, regularly.

This is why most of the world considers the USA to be scum and any sign of Canada imitating them to be a Very Bad Thing.

[el-christador.livejournal.com]

Yes, but the article in question is discussing explicitly the Geneva Convention regarding prisoners of war, not the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of civilians.

[ross-teneyck.livejournal.com]

In the case of the civilian teenager, he has committed a crime and should be tried by the civil authorities. If he happened to do this while in another nation, then either the laws of that nation apply, or he gets extradited and the laws of his home nation apply.

It seems to me that logically, people are either (a) combatants under the protection of the Geneva Convention, or (b) civilians entitled to due process according to the laws of some nation or other. What Bush & Co. have tried to do is to assert that bad people -- you know, terrorists, or people we think might be terrorists, or have talked to terrorists, or look kinda like terrorists -- are a third category, entitled to neither due process nor the Geneva Convention.

Whether or not the letter of the law agrees with him, I still say it's bollocks.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

Whether or not the letter of the law agrees with him, I still say it's bollocks.

In general, I agree with your assessment. But from reading the linked article it doesn't seem clear to me that our own government is necessarily interested in creating this third category, are they? I understood that all they are saying is that the Taliban are not lawful combatants and thus the protections granted to lawful combatants under the convention doesn't apply to them. I supposed that there was an indication in the article that our forces were attempting to deal with these folks as civilians who willfully got into harms way, and were thereby rendering them up to the Afghani authorities. Perhaps I am misreading the situation.

I can see how folks might assume that the implication of the linked article was that we were following the behaviour of our neighbours to the South, but I didn't gather that this was necessarily the case.

I could, of course, be wrong; the information in the article doesn't really give me enough to go on, in either direction. If there are other sources folks could point me towards, I'd be glad of it.

[el-christador.livejournal.com]

A newer story makes clear that the Canadian government proposes to give them the treatment required by the Geneva Convention regardless of the Convention's applicability.

[dewline.livejournal.com]

So long as they stick closer than Crazy Glue to that one, they're not going to have any problem from this voting citizen.

When it's over?

[(Anonymous)]

The main difference in practice wouild seem to be that POWs get to go home er make that 'leave custody' when the war they were captured in is over. Suggestions as to when this might happen for these individuals who clearly don't have GC rights?

Errol

[el-christador.livejournal.com]

Usually when you attack a government without being protected by a GC, don't you end up getting tried and sentenced for whatever the relevant crimes are? I don't know, do Timothy McVeigh and the Branch Davidians count as comparable examples? If so, I'd guess the answer would likely be "When, if ever, the resulting sentence is over."

[gareth-wilson.livejournal.com]

They don't. The rules would only apply if every Talib wore something that clearly identified them as a member.

Makes ME nervous as Hell

[dewline.livejournal.com]

This is our troops' honour the Harper Govt. is playing fast and loose with here!

Re: Makes ME nervous as Hell

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

It's not clear to me that this -can- be blamed on Harper, esp in light of more recent developments.