M.Dancer Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 (edited) The geneva convention doesn't apply to civilian law you moron. Speaking of morons...what part of the Geneva convention applies to illegal combatants and detainees? Edited March 9, 2010 by M.Dancer Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
nicky10013 Posted March 9, 2010 Author Report Posted March 9, 2010 (edited) Such unenlightened silliness.... Canada is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions and thus are obliged to uphold them. Why you ask should we ensure that detainees are treated humanely.....? One – We believe that we are a humane culture and that by signing the Geneva Convention we are obligated to follow that rule of law. Occupying the moral high ground requires some effort. Two – It makes it easier for our government officials to discuss human rights issues with foreign governments, particularly as they apply to detained Canadians. Three – Abused detainees who were not particularly sympathetic to the Taliban faction will likely remuster to the Taliban and take some folks within their extended family and tribe with them. Those who were keen Taliban won’t likely have any useful attitude adjustment although abuse will no doubt add to their enthusiasm. If there is a “hearts and minds” effort in progress, the abuse of Afghans by Afghans is clearly counterproductive. Four – An enemy who knows that surrender means torture is more likely to fight than surrender. Live prisoners are better than enemies who won’t ever give up and would rather fight to the death. Generals should know this and act accordingly. Five – Negotiating the future of any NATO soldiers captured by the Taliban will not be enhanced by a record of detainee abuse by the NATO supported Afghan government. Six – Detainee abuse is simply unprofessional. If we say we don’t do it we need to ensure that it does not happen to people we detain. “ Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion. However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war. Edited March 9, 2010 by nicky10013 Quote
Alta4ever Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 Well, the evidence is being covered up. Wouldn't it be great if we could actually see it? Your tin foil hat may be wrapped a little tight. When Afganistan is found guilty of Human rights violations in regards to the prisoners abuse then we need to look at our transfer arrangement. If the International community is satisfied that these abuses are not happing and not looking to investigate and lay charges, then how could we be guilty of facilitating something that isn't happening? Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
M.Dancer Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 A simple "I don't know" would have sufficed... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Alta4ever Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 Speaking of morons...what part of the Geneva convention applies to illegal combatants and detainees? Thanks you beat me to it. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
nicky10013 Posted March 9, 2010 Author Report Posted March 9, 2010 A simple "I don't know" would have sufficed... It's in the piece from the convention I posted. If you can't or don't want to read, you can't blame me for that. Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 It's in the piece from the convention I posted. If you can't or don't want to read, you can't blame me for that. I read it and it is relevant to my question in the same way NAFTA would be. If you don't know what you are talking about, I can blame you. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Mr.Canada Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 It's against the law if we send them knowing there's a chance they could be abused. Doesn't matter what the agreement says. Ok great. So surely this means that human rights charges are coming against Afghanistan and Canada and we should see them in front of a human rights tribunal in The Hague right? Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
nicky10013 Posted March 9, 2010 Author Report Posted March 9, 2010 (edited) I read it and it is relevant to my question in the same way NAFTA would be. If you don't know what you are talking about, I can blame you. Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Combined with the fact that from article 3 of the 3rd Geneva Convention: Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. specifically referring to non-international combatants. If you can't understand that, there really is no hope for you. Edited March 9, 2010 by nicky10013 Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 A better quality poster would at least try to argue that detainees and illegal combatants are protected persons.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 A better quality poster would at least try to argue that detainees and illegal combatants are protected persons.... Oh my goodness....she did!!! Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Combined with the fact that from article 3 of the 3rd Geneva Convention: Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. specifically referring to non-international combatants. If you can't understand that, there really is no hope for you. So in otherwords you really really don't know.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
nicky10013 Posted March 9, 2010 Author Report Posted March 9, 2010 A better quality poster would at least try to argue that detainees and illegal combatants are protected persons.... A person who could actually read would've read the second paragraph and realized that it applies to all non-international combatants and makes no references to protected persons. Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 Do you think it would help her if she knew the title of the document she doesn't understand? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
nicky10013 Posted March 9, 2010 Author Report Posted March 9, 2010 So in otherwords you really really don't know.... According to this, these people aren't illegal combatants. Sorry. Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 A person who could actually read would've read the second paragraph and realized that it applies to all non-international combatants and makes no references to protected persons. I did read it. Matter of fact I studied it.... You might as well quote NAFTA.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
nicky10013 Posted March 9, 2010 Author Report Posted March 9, 2010 I did read it. Matter of fact I studied it.... You might as well quote NAFTA.... Well, then enlighten us, if you studied so hard. Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 According to this, these people aren't illegal combatants. Sorry. Really now? When did the requirements of a legal belligerenat change? Well...that's rhetorical...they haven't. Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. They are not prisoners of war. They do not conform to the articles of war. They are criminals subject to Afghani justice. The Geneva conventions apply as much as the do in Canada, as you so yourself admit. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 A person who could actually read would've read the second paragraph and realized that it applies to all non-international combatants and makes no references to protected persons. You should ask Mr. Canada for his shovel. The Third Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War clearly states who is to be considered a prisoner of war....all others are free to be treated as criminals. (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; © that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
nicky10013 Posted March 9, 2010 Author Report Posted March 9, 2010 Really now? When did the requirements of a legal belligerenat change? Well...that's rhetorical...they haven't. They are not prisoners of war. They do not conform to the articles of war. They are criminals subject to Afghani justice. The Geneva conventions apply as much as the do in Canada, as you so yourself admit. They were picked up on Canadian combat missions, according to the genevea convention despite whatever Afghan Law states or whether they've ratified the treaty or not, they must be subjected to the Geneva Convention. We both know that the only thing they don't conform to is that they don't wear a uniform. In any case, that doesn't even apply to article 3 as it states that all combatants will be treated with dignity and makes no reference to protected persons. All of what you said is made redundant anyways by the fact that the government during the last prisoner transfer problem declared that all detainees would be classified as prisoners and treated according to the Geneva Convention. Quote
nicky10013 Posted March 9, 2010 Author Report Posted March 9, 2010 (edited) You should ask Mr. Canada for his shovel. The Third Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War clearly states who is to be considered a prisoner of war....all others are free to be treated as criminals. No, that's article 4. Article 3 is something different completely and makes no mention of POW status. Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII. Though, this is the part which I might as well be quoting NAFTA, right? Even though it specifically refutes your argument? Edited March 9, 2010 by nicky10013 Quote
Alta4ever Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 They were picked up on Canadian combat missions, according to the genevea convention despite whatever Afghan Law states or whether they've ratified the treaty or not, they must be subjected to the Geneva Convention. We both know that the only thing they don't conform to is that they don't wear a uniform. In any case, that doesn't even apply to article 3 as it states that all combatants will be treated with dignity and makes no reference to protected persons. All of what you said is made redundant anyways by the fact that the government during the last prisoner transfer problem declared that all detainees would be classified as prisoners and treated according to the Geneva Convention. Morris has got you beat. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
nicky10013 Posted March 9, 2010 Author Report Posted March 9, 2010 Morris has got you beat. Not when he's quoting the wrong part of the convention. Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 No, that's article 4. Article 3 is something different completely and makes no mention of POW status. Though, this is the part which I might as well be quoting NAFTA, right? Even though it specifically refutes your argument? Indeed, NAFTA may be over your head... Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: Art 4. A. 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: Since they are not recognized as "members of armed forces" by reason of not following the articles of war, it does not apply to them. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
nicky10013 Posted March 9, 2010 Author Report Posted March 9, 2010 Indeed, NAFTA may be over your head... Since they are not recognized as "members of armed forces" by reason of not following the articles of war, it does not apply to them. You're completely ignoring what I posted. You're completely ignoring the 3rd article. But then again you "studied" this so you should know what the third article says. Right. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.