CP Learns that CSIS interrogated tortured Afghan Detainees

[M.Dancer]

Not when he's quoting the wrong part of the convention.

How can it be the wrong part when the entire convention is is regarding the treatment of prisoners of war?

When in that convestion it clearly states who would be regarded as a prisoner of war?

It makes no distinction between the captured, the surrendered, the wounded or the non combatant attached to the belligerent, but it does set out clearly who can be given the rights of a POW.

Criminals need not apply.

End of story

[nicky10013]

Even then, why do we have to go through all this Geneva Convention stuff? Most people would agree that people detained should be treated fairly and with due process and shouldn't be subject to any mistreatment. Is it maybe because you know at least something happened and are trying to soften the blow when the government finally admits to it one way or another that there was torture going on that it was "legal" according to the geneva convention? (which is bullshit anyways as you're picking and chosing which articles of the convention to follow)

[M.Dancer]

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument

Fill yer boots...

[nicky10013]

How can it be the wrong part when the entire convention is is regarding the treatment of prisoners of war?

When in that convestion it clearly states who would be regarded as a prisoner of war?

It makes no distinction between the captured, the surrendered, the wounded or the non combatant attached to the belligerent, but it does set out clearly who can be given the rights of a POW.

Criminals need not apply.

End of story

You're still ignoring the 3rd article. It's a big ugly hole right in the middle of your argument.

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.

Here it is again. You studied it. You should know it. Something tells me, however, that you'll never even mention that these words exist. God forbid it contradict your version of reality.

Edited March 9, 2010 by nicky10013

[M.Dancer]

Even then, why do we have to go through all this Geneva Convention stuff?

To correct when people who don't know shit from shinola post crap.

Most people would agree that people detained should be treated fairly and with due process and shouldn't be subject to any mistreatment.

I agree. In an ideal world every nation should be canada.

Is it maybe because you know at least something happened and are trying to soften the blow when the government finally admits to it one way or another that there was torture going on that it was "legal" according to the geneva convention? (which is bullshit anyways as you're picking and chosing which articles of the convention to follow)

No. It's because know nothing spout off the Geneva convention when they should be citing NAFTA.

I don't pick and chose....how many Iraqi soldiers for instance, in Iraq, are still in POW camps?

[nicky10013]

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument

Fill yer boots...

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following

provisions:

(1) 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:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

( taking of hostages;

© outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

Where does it say POW, Articles of War, Mention uniforms? It doesn't. It plainly says that EVERYONE detained has the right to be treated humanely. Again, just ignoring reality. And I'm the one who should be citing NAFTA. You're a joke.

Edited March 9, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

.

I don't pick and chose....how many Iraqi soldiers for instance, in Iraq, are still in POW camps?

Clearly you do. You still have refused to recognized the most important part of the convention. Just like the evidence that people have been tortured doesn't exist. Yikes you need help.

[M.Dancer]

Where does it say POW, Articles of War, Mention uniforms? It doesn't. It plainly says that EVERYONE detained has the right to be treated humanely. Again, just ignoring reality. And I'm the one who should be citing NAFTA. You're a joke.

Here...

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:

and the title of the convention...

Print this page

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

and in article 4 of the convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, it defines who can be considered a POW.

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:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(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.

Criminals need not apply.

[M.Dancer]

It plainly says that EVERYONE detained has the right to be treated humanely.

Look again. It does not say everyone...in fact, everyone is not mentioned....only members of armed forces....

Can I dumb it down anymore for you?

[Argus]

Human Rights Watch, The EU, NATO, Amnesty International, our own diplomatic corps have all warned that this is happening and it isn't just a guy being smacked upside the head.

These are legal opinions, and as such are absolutist. You cannot expect rights groups which strive so earnestly for even-handedness (except about Israel of course) to have varying definitions of human rights. To them, any violence, in fact, even such things as sleep deprivation are torture because such things are unacceptable within the context of western legal rights codes. I.e., because cops hitting a guy in the West is a big deal, legally speaking, they have to make it a big deal everywhere, even if the people there don't consider it a big deal.

To me, those are pretty credible organizations. We can't make the place unviolent, you're right about that. However, we have a choice, obligated under the geneva convention and bound by international law, to ensure the saftey of the prisoners we take. We can't just skirt those obligations.

These prisoners do not fall under the geneva convention as they do not fulfill the definitions of a legal mlitary organization under that convention. And we do our best, given the circumstances.

As I mentioned above, who cares if a bunch of people have to eat crow. Release the documents to the proper committees and if it comes out that nothing has been happening, I'd much rather be wrong than to have our interntaional reputation ruined

I can only speculate, but I assume that some of the information in those reports would, if released publicly, cause anger among allies. I can see no other reason, really, to draw this silly business out. And if there were no security considerations I'm not really sure why they would ask Iacabucci to look at them because all he's going to say is "There are no security considerations"

[Argus]

Meh, I'm not the one sticking to the faithful party line.

I think that during the six years I've been on this site I have established my credentials as someone who is somewhat underwhelmed by the importance of legal niceities in dealing with vicious and violent people. I don't think I need a party line to shrug off violence in Afghan prisons.

[nicky10013]

Look again. It does not say everyone...in fact, everyone is not mentioned....only members of armed forces....

Can I dumb it down anymore for you?

You're taking the definition of "Armed Forces" too literally. It's meant to include pretty much any group that carries weapons. Why? You also ignored the title where it specifically stated that it was to deal with non-international conflicts. It was meant to deal with civil wars in africa where, like in Afghanistan people never wore uniforms.

We signed, it's applicable. Keep trying to spin it. Even then, if the government isn't complicit as you said, I don't even know why we need to downplay the geneva convention. If nothing is happening, why bring it up in the first place?

[Argus]

I'm not saying we should give the order. I still think the whole prisoner abuse thing is nothing more than a puff of smoke, a veritable mole hill being turned into a mountain. But still, the fact remains that Karzai's regime, the whole edifice really, is there because NATO blood is being shed. If we can't get anything more than a common criminal for a president in that country for the kind of coin we're spending, then I think we should abandon them to the crazies, and just routinely strafe their airspace and bomb their border to keep them from destabilizing Pakistan or allowing terrorists back in.

The West wanted a democratically elected regime - or at least one with that semblance. The West can not then openly dictate to that regime what it should be doing. I have no confidence in Karzai. He's only nominally in control of anything anyway, and has had to make deals with a variety of warlords to have any kind of indluence at all. Most of his "army" owe their primary allegience to one or more of those warlords, not to him, and that will be the case with any leader unless he's a real tough bastard who can crush his opponents and take over completely. but we won't allow that to happen either, so we're left trying to prop up this pathetic excuse for a regime with our soldiers. I see no way of that ending any time soon.

As for the bombing and strafing thing - forget it. Western public opinion, media and liberal groups would be aghast at us doing any such thing outside a 'war', unless you could absolutely positively guarantee that not one hair on one civilian head would ever be harmed.

[nicky10013]

I think that during the six years I've been on this site I have established my credentials as someone who is somewhat underwhelmed by the importance of legal niceities in dealing with vicious and violent people. I don't think I need a party line to shrug off violence in Afghan prisons.

Good for you. The problem is that's always been the Conservative position. Not like you've really been independent in those 6 years.

[Argus]

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.

Hell, every time we send someone to Millhaven there's a chance they will be abused - a pretty good chance, in fact.

Especially if they're young and purty.

[nicky10013]

Hell, every time we send someone to Millhaven there's a chance they will be abused - a pretty good chance, in fact.

Especially if they're young and purty.

Give credit where credit is due, that was pretty funny.

[Born Free]

Look again. It does not say everyone...in fact, everyone is not mentioned....only members of armed forces....

Can I dumb it down anymore for you?

Perhaps this is dumb enough for YOU.

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following

provisions:

(1) 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.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Born Free

[nicky10013]

Perhaps this is dumb enough for YOU.

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following

provisions:

(1) 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.

Yep. Legal analysis from the Red Cross itself.

Does this mean that Article 3 is not applicable in cases where armed strife breaks out in a country, but does not fulfil any of the above conditions? We do not subscribe to this view. We think, on the contrary, that the scope of application of the Article must be as wide as possible. There can be no drawbacks in this, since the Article in its reduced form, contrary to what might be thought, does not in any way limit the right of a State to put down rebellion, nor does it increase in the slightest the authority of the rebel party. It merely demands respect for certain rules, which were already recognized as essential in all civilized countries, and embodied in the national legislation of the States in question, long before the Convention was signed. What Government would dare to claim before the world, in a case of civil disturbances which could justly be described as mere acts of banditry, that, Article 3 not being applicable, it was entitled to leave the wounded uncared for, to torture and mutilate prisoners and take hostages? No Government can object to observing, in its dealings [p.37] with enemies, whatever the nature of the conflict between it and them, a few essential rules which it in fact observes daily, under its own laws, when dealing with common criminals.

Speaking generally, it must be recognized that the conflicts referred to in Article 3 are armed conflicts, with ' armed forces ' on either side engaged in ' hostilities ' -- conflicts, in short, which are in many respects similar to an international war, but take place within the confines of a single country.

Edited March 9, 2010 by nicky10013

[M.Dancer]

Perhaps this is dumb enough for YOU.

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following

provisions:

(1) 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.

Do you know what that means? (sorry, another rhetorical question, obviously you don't)

It means the camp cook, the medics....logistics officers, those who have surrendered, those who have been captured...etc etc of an armed force can be taken prisoner and be awarded POW status.

Come on BF, you know if I have to dumb it down for you I would need crayons to draw pictograms...

Edited March 9, 2010 by M.Dancer

[nicky10013]

Do you know what that means? (sorry, another rhetorical question, obviously you don't)

It means the camp cook, the medics....logistics officers, those who have surrendered, those who have been captured...etc etc of an armed force can be taken prisoner and be awarded POW status.

Come on BF, you know if I have to dumb it down for you I would need crayons to draw pictograms...

Still dodging and deflecting, eh? How sad.

[M.Dancer]

Yep. Legal analysis from the Red Cross itself.

Yes it confirms what I have been saying.

I will quote it for you because I nice that way.

No Government can object to observing, in its dealings [p.37] with enemies, whatever the nature of the conflict between it and them, a few essential rules which it in fact observes daily, under its own laws, when dealing with common criminals

.

and for good measure, I will incude the part you omitted.

Speaking generally, it must be recognized that the conflicts referred to in Article 3 are armed conflicts, with ' armed forces ' on either side engaged in ' hostilities ' -- conflicts, in short, which are in many respects similar to an international war, but take place within the confines of a single country.

Edited March 9, 2010 by M.Dancer

[Born Free]

Do you know what that means? (sorry, another rhetorical question, obviously you don't)

It means the camp cook, the medics....logistics officers, those who have surrendered, those who have been captured...etc etc of an armed force can be taken prisoner and be awarded POW status.

Come on BF, you know if I have to dumb it down for you I would need crayons to draw pictograms...

The Geneva Conventions apply to:-

-wounded or sick fighters

-prisoners of war

-civilians

-medical and religious personnel

Take a peek.....and then you can move on....

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following

provisions:

(1) 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.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Born Free

[M.Dancer]

Take a peek.....and then you can move on....

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following

provisions:

(1) 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.

Oh that's sweet....another non sequitor...

[nicky10013]

Yes it confirms what I have been saying.

I will quote it for you because I nice that way.

.

and for good measure, I will incude the part you omitted.

It says a government can't object to treating anyone detained in conflict in the same manner which it treats it's own common criminals. In other words, we can't claim to treat detainees differently than people in our own civilian court.

The second part, which I did add, (I omitted it because the article on the red cross web site was bad, bad paragraph break) states what I've been saying a long. Two "armed forces." According to the definition put in place by the red cross which you horribly butchered, the taliban would account for an armed force.

You still continue to amaze with the level of your stupidity.

[Born Free]

Oh that's sweet....another non sequitor...

The conventions apply to both combatants and non-combatants.