Report suggests federal government knew of prisoner abuse

[Sir Bandelot]

In the thread "Lest We Forget" I said that our government does not honour the Geneva Conventions, and in doing so they disrespect the memories and achievements of those who fought in the world wars. This article was published today and is exactly what I was talking about.

The government of Canada wants to cover this up by blocking these hearings. If they are guilty of knowingly breaking international law then they are not very different from the people for whom these laws were written. Letting someone else do the torturing doesn't absolve them from being guilty of crimes.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/14/...er.html#Scene_1

In February 2007, the MPCC received a complaint from Amnesty International and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Union over the treatment of transferred detainees, saying Ottawa was violating the Geneva Conventions.

Under the conventions, it is a war crime to turn over prisoners to a party who might abuse them.

In April 2007, the Globe published a report it had received under the Access to Information Act that suggested the government knew prisoners in Afghanistan jails could be subject to poor conditions.

Although parts were blacked out, the newspaper said it was able to confirm that these blacked-out sections showed that the Canadian Embassy in Kabul had alerted the government last year that prisoners could be tortured once transferred to Afghan detention centres.

Amnesty International and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Union alleged in their complaint the government authorized the transfer of prisoners on at least 18 occasions, knowing the detainees were likely to be tortured.

[Sir Bandelot]

More details on this story, which it seems few Canadians know much about-

Abbreviated excerpts from:

Canadian Afghan detainee abuse scandal

In April 2006, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor explained that "the process is that if Canadian soldiers capture insurgents or terrorists they hand them over to the Afghan authorities and then the International Red Cross or Red Crescent supervise the detainees. If there is any problem, the Red Cross or Red Crescent would inform us and then we would become involved." [4] O'Connor reiterated the same theme on May 31, 2006: "If there is something wrong with their treatment, the Red Cross or Red Crescent would inform us and we would take action."

...

On March 8, 2007, the International Committee of the Red Cross stated, in contradiction to O'Connor's earlier words, that it had no role in monitoring the Canada-Afghanistan detainee-transfer agreement. Its spokesman also indicated that following long-established operating procedure, the Red Cross would not reveal to any foreign government any abuses it might find in Afghan prisons. Following the Red Cross statement, O'Connor was heavily criticised by the opposition following this revelation. The same day, The Globe and Mail announced that it had discovered the three detainees discussed in the report had subsequently disappeared after being given into ANA custody.

On March 19, O'Connor apologised for previously misleading the House on the Red Cross issue.

On March 21, in response to continued criticism of O'Connor's earlier actions, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper intervened in the issue, stating in the House that "I can understand the passion that the leader of the Opposition and members of his party feel for the Taliban prisoners... I just wish occasionally they would show the same passion for Canadian soldiers."

...

On April 25, The Globe and Mail revealed that it had received an expurgated report by the government on human rights in Afghanistan through a freedom-of-information request, and also had obtained an intact copy through other means. In the official version "negative references to acts such as torture, abuse, and extra judicial killings were blacked out without an explanation."

On April 26, Michael Byers and William Schabas announced they had issued a request to the International Criminal Court to investigate "possible war crimes" by Gordon O'Connor and General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff, over the detainee-transfer issue.

There are many more details given there in the link, see for yourself.

Geez sounds like these people have no respect for international law.

Edited November 19, 2008 by Sir Bandelot
deleted re-copied article; link provided instead

[M.Dancer]

---

Sounds like these people have no understanding or respect for international law.

"Canada's military has no obligation to accord Afghan detainees Canadian-style legal rights."

What's more they don't fall under the Geneva Convention either.

You are right if you are refering to Michael Byers and William Schabas, that these people have no respect of international law.

[White Doors]

Exactly, they are not uniformed combatants, they are criminals and as such, the geneva conventions do not pally here - according to.... The Geneva Conventions!

[M.Dancer]

Exactly, they are not uniformed combatants, they are criminals and as such, the geneva conventions do not pally here - according to.... The Geneva Conventions!

Quite right. The framers of the conventions had no intention of placing themselves in straight jackets with arms tied in dealing with groups or individuals that fall outside the clear definitions of the convention. As such, terrorists, banditti, insurgents and armed gangs are left to the laws of the land they are in.

The only responsibility which Canada has in this case is our moral duty, not a legal duty.

[Oleg Bach]

Reminds me of a quote "It may be immoral but it's legal" - Nothing was done in a legal or moral fashion regarding this issue.

[Sir Bandelot]

You people are only looking for excuses. They are classified as prisoners of war, and the Canadian government knows it. At no point has the minster said, they are not considered prisoners of war. The government calls this the war in Afghanistan. The fact that the minister apoligized for misleading the house speaks for itself. There's really not much you can say to argue it, but obfuscate all you want, if it makes you feel good.

Next you'll be tellin us that just because a shit sandwidge looks like shit, smells like shit and tastes like shit, Doesn't mean it's shit.

[M.Dancer]

You people are only looking for excuses. They are classified as prisoners of war, and the Canadian government knows it.

Feel free to point our where they have been classified as such, otherwise it's just your misinformed opinion.

[White Doors]

You people are only looking for excuses. They are classified as prisoners of war, and the Canadian government knows it. At no point has the minster said, they are not considered prisoners of war. The government calls this the war in Afghanistan. The fact that the minister apoligized for misleading the house speaks for itself. There's really not much you can say to argue it, but obfuscate all you want, if it makes you feel good.

Next you'll be tellin us that just because a shit sandwidge looks like shit, smells like shit and tastes like shit, Doesn't mean it's shit.

No need to make excuses when the facts are on my side. Feel free to 'correct' them if you can.

Otherwise you can just type for the sake of it I guess...

[Oleg Bach]

There is no war and their never was - Yes there is conflict - but never has their been a formal declaration of war on anyone - not on Iraq - and not on Afghanistan - these are not prisoners of war - they are simply prisoners. AND most of these prisoners are common hostages...that are created when our corporates engage the primative corporates (tribalists) and attempt to show the other who has bigger balls..This is a war of egos - the male ego of the primative middle east verses the ego of the boardroom...it's a joke.

[GostHacked]

You people are only looking for excuses. They are classified as prisoners of war, and the Canadian government knows it. At no point has the minster said, they are not considered prisoners of war. The government calls this the war in Afghanistan. The fact that the minister apoligized for misleading the house speaks for itself. There's really not much you can say to argue it, but obfuscate all you want, if it makes you feel good.

Next you'll be tellin us that just because a shit sandwidge looks like shit, smells like shit and tastes like shit, Doesn't mean it's shit.

This comes about with the context of a War on Terror, which declares war on an ideology rather than a country with borders and a military. Was there an official declaration of war on Iraq of Afghanistan? Some might not think this is important, but to claim the high road, you actually have to travel on it.

Those who capture and torture US/CAN/NATO soldiers are considered the scum of the earth. But when our soldiers do it to them, they are considered patriotic and fullfilling their duties. When it is the same on both sides. And we can continue to do this by using the classification of Illegal Enemy Combatant. The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal, so guess what. Our soldiers over there are considered Illegal Enemy Combatants by the yardstick the US pur forth as a so called standard.

Oleg

There is no war and their never was - Yes there is conflict - but never has their been a formal declaration of war on anyone - not on Iraq - and not on Afghanistan - these are not prisoners of war - they are simply prisoners..

Regardless of the US policy on the Middle East, no delcaration of war, no clear enemy, no clear plan, no chance of winning,

[M.Dancer]

But when our soldiers do it to them, they are considered patriotic and fullfilling their duties.

except they haven't and they wouldn't be. It's a small distinction, but to the point.

[Oleg Bach]

They say that the war on terror is a war on idealogy. I find that hard to believe. War is always economic. The west has simply been to cheap with those they use as servants. Even the most hard core zealot and idealog would rather sit down and have a nice supper with his family than wage war... we should have simply bribed them- it would have been more economic in the long run..You can not change idealogy with force. It would be like putting a gun to a mans head and saying "believe in this" - It may work in a temporal way - but it costs a lot of money and takes a lot of energy to hold that gun to his head for 100 years. --------OK I just hate quoting old writings some consider religious - but I will anyway "there are violent men who try to take heaven by force" - I believe this is a heaven - and violence works - but it is a choice and is that choice worth it? Fanatics exist in the western boardroom as well as in the caves of Afghanistan. Our violence is quiet but still violent.

[eyeball]

except they haven't and they wouldn't be. It's a small distinction, but to the point.

Our soldiers don't have to actually pour water down prisoners throats or connect wires to their testicles to render Canada guilty of these things, Canada merely has to 'be with' people who do. Unfortunately we are so whatever it is that we think distinguishes us from criminals is a moot point.

[Sir Bandelot]

Reminds me of a quote "It may be immoral but it's legal" - Nothing was done in a legal or moral fashion regarding this issue.

I had to edit and pare down the information in my second post. The moderator told me I must provide a link and not quote so much of the article. So that is not a problem I hope.

But anyway, I think if this case does go forward ,it could be some pretty serious stuff. Let the courts decide who is right.

[M.Dancer]

The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal, so guess what. Our soldiers over there are considered Illegal Enemy Combatants by the yardstick the US pur forth as a so called standard.

1) The war in Iraq was never considered illegal by any standing world court.

2) The war in Afghanistan is considered legal and sanctioned by the UN.

3) Our soldiers cannot be considered illegal enemy combatents by any legal definition, including the Geneva convention.

[White Doors]

1) The war in Iraq was never considered illegal by any standing world court.

2) The war in Afghanistan is considered legal and sanctioned by the UN.

3) Our soldiers cannot be considered illegal enemy combatents by any legal definition, including the Geneva convention.

Aww c'mon Dancer, you are ruining their fun.

It would behoove them, however, not to put their BS in point form, far too easily clearly refuted.

Better to ramble on in a wall of text and then end it with a Bushneoconfascisthitler at the end.

[eyeball]

1) We're

2) the

3) victims

Your post didn't quite get to the point so I thought I'd fix it for you.

[Argus]

Those who capture and torture US/CAN/NATO soldiers are considered the scum of the earth. But when our soldiers do it to them, they are considered patriotic and fullfilling their duties.

What the hell are you talking about? No one is even suggesting Canadian soldiers have tortured detainees. In fact, the only allegation, from the usual anti-militaristic wingnut whiners, is that detainees were handed over to their own government - which - SHOCKINGLY - does not provide the same standards of respect for human rights as exist in Canada.

[M.Dancer]

I'm an idiot.

There, I fixed yours

[eyeball]

In fact, the only allegation, from the usual anti-militaristic wingnut whiners, is that detainees were handed over to their own government - which - SHOCKINGLY - does not provide the same standards of respect for human rights as exist in Canada.

What's shocking is that we support this government and that is what makes us guilty by implication, assuming the allegations are true.

[eyeball]

There, I fixed yours

It is what you meant to say though isn't it, that Canada is utterly noble to a fault with regards to our involvement in the War on Terror?

[M.Dancer]

It is what you meant to say though isn't it, that Canada is utterly noble to a fault with regards to our involvement in the War on Terror?

No sorry, in the war on terror, nobility is a liability.

[eyeball]

No sorry, in the war on terror, nobility is a liability.

I know but unfortunately a good number, probably a majority, of Canadians don't share your pagan ethos. I'm sure it must piss you off no end when your favourite politicians have to pretend otherwise.

[Argus]

What's shocking is that we support this government and that is what makes us guilty by implication, assuming the allegations are true.

Oh one must always assume allegations are true, right?

The fact it's their own government, and that there really is no viable alternative other than spending tens of millions of dollars to bring them back here and give them refugee status has no impact, whatsoever, of course.

We have rapists and murderers walking our streets because the hand-wringers are worried that sending them home will cause their governments to treat them with less than total respect and admiration.