M.Dancer Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 The conventions apply to both combatants and non-combatants. Correct. Civilians are covered....But the definition of combatants does not include terrorists or bandits. And the Taliban are both. They do not fall within the legally accepted definition and so aren't covered by the convention. But cheer up...they are covered by Afgani law.... Try googling "geneva convention articles on the treatment of bandits and terrorists. Eyeball hasn't written it yet. 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 Correct. Civilians are covered....But the definition of combatants does not include terrorists or bandits. And the Taliban are both. They do not fall within the legally accepted definition and so aren't covered by the convention. But cheer up...they are covered by Afgani law.... Try googling "geneva convention articles on the treatment of bandits and terrorists. Eyeball hasn't written it yet. It calls for their humane treatment as under civilian law. For someone who claims that he's so intellecutally superior, I thought you would've at least gotten that. Nope, just ignored it. Why? Proved you wrong. Move on. Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 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. Correct..in fact I would argue that the afghans treat the Taliban better than their common criminals. In other words, we can't claim to treat detainees differently than people in our own civilian court. We don't. We take them prisoner and hand them over to the government of Afghanistan. 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. 1) I see no evidence of that 2) The red cross doesn't get to define how the convention, nor did they write it. Hoew it is applied, that is up to the signatories. You still continue to amaze with the level of your stupidity. I'm sure shinely bright objects amaze you too so I don't feel so special. 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 It calls for their humane treatment as under civilian law. For someone who claims that he's so intellecutally superior, I thought you would've at least gotten that. Nope, just ignored it. Why? Proved you wrong. Move on. Gee..if I ignored it, how is it you responded to me answer? http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16006&view=findpost&p=518212 Maybe it wasn't shiney enough? 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 Gee..if I ignored it, how is it you responded to me answer? http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16006&view=findpost&p=518212 Maybe it wasn't shiney enough? No, it was completely wrong. How can someone read something that simple and get it THAT wrong? Are purposefully trying to be dense? Quote
Army Guy Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 CDS lied about it and then when documents came out proving him wrong, only then did he change his story that this person had been abused. As I posted above, the EU, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch our own diplomatic corps and NATO have all warned that torture was taking place. If we're handing over people who are tortured for information and the government knew about it, it's a crime. I've said this at least twice. I want to be wrong, but we won't know until the documents are made public. Are you sure he lied about it, or was misinformed, or did not have all the facts at the time...He did after all make the correction, i mean lets give the guy some credit, his correction was not holding the party line but based on facts that where presented to him after the fact.... I want to clear something about torture and abuse they are not the same, there is a clear difference between them...So while the CDS has admitted this detainee in question was abused while in Afghan police custody, he also made it clear once the Canadian military found out about the abuse they retrieved the detainee ASAP...keeping in line with our Laws and conventions we have signed... As for being warned that torture does happen your right we as a nation have been warned, hundreds of Taliban prisoners have claimed to have been tortured, under care and control of the Afghan government...Foreign affairs and Dept of corrections have policies in place along with personal, and a long list of check lists items they perform to ensure that any Candian captured detainee is not tortured or abused while in Afghan custody...and while this system is not infalable there has not been any hard proof that it has happened... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
M.Dancer Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 No, it was completely wrong. How can someone read something that simple and get it THAT wrong? Are purposefully trying to be dense? 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 Explain what is wrong...if you can. 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) Explain what is wrong...if you can. This blatantly says that governments have to treat all detainees like common criminals in that they should be afforded every right under due process under the geneva convention be they a prisoner of war or just a combatant. The fact that you continue to deny this is just mind boggling. Edited March 9, 2010 by nicky10013 Quote
Army Guy Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 Actually Morris is right...The convention is sub divided into many parts, first you have to find the part that suits this situation ....IE you can't be using the part of the convention dealing with the sick and wounded and apply it to a terrorist organization.... That being said all the conventions do have a common theme , that all Prisoners, detainees or what ever the politically correct word of the day is...all must be treated humanily...no where does it state they must be afforded the same rights and freedoms as our criminals....it states humanly.... It was the UN that introduced and confirmed that the Taliban and others combatants in Afghan be classified as terrorists, and are not afforded any rights under the convention...with one exception, they will be treated humanily...and since this topic is about Canada where have we not done that... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
M.Dancer Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 This blatantly says that governments have to treat all detainees like common criminals in that they should be afforded every right under due process under the geneva convention be they a prisoner of war or just a combatant. The fact that you continue to deny this is just mind boggling. Actually the fact you you don't acknowledge that I agree that they should be treated as common criminals is mind boggling. I guess that comes part in parcel with the iraon blinkers you sport. As to whether common crimianls should be treated under the Geneva convention, you have already said you do not agree and for that matter, neither does the Red Cross. 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 Are you sure he lied about it, or was misinformed, or did not have all the facts at the time...He did after all make the correction, i mean lets give the guy some credit, his correction was not holding the party line but based on facts that where presented to him after the fact.... I want to clear something about torture and abuse they are not the same, there is a clear difference between them...So while the CDS has admitted this detainee in question was abused while in Afghan police custody, he also made it clear once the Canadian military found out about the abuse they retrieved the detainee ASAP...keeping in line with our Laws and conventions we have signed... As for being warned that torture does happen your right we as a nation have been warned, hundreds of Taliban prisoners have claimed to have been tortured, under care and control of the Afghan government...Foreign affairs and Dept of corrections have policies in place along with personal, and a long list of check lists items they perform to ensure that any Candian captured detainee is not tortured or abused while in Afghan custody...and while this system is not infalable there has not been any hard proof that it has happened... You know, he could've been misniformed. However, I'd like to think that he isn't when it comes to such serious issues. While there are legal definitions of abuse and torture, what'st he point in distinguish them? This one man was beaten while in police custody. Does it really matter all that much whether it was during questioning or not? Finally, though I'm usually optimistic about most things, the fact that there were so many warnings from many different sources, including members of our own bureaucracy, there are too many signs here that systematic abuse has taken place. Pretty much everyone but the government has been screaming at the top of their lungs that something was going on yet nothing was done. I'm under the impression that the CF doesn't inspect prison facilities, so really, no proof from the military end could be as much a lack of will to investigate or inability to investigate due to operational demands. This leads me to the impression that agencies that actually do investigate Afghan prisons such as other NATO Allies, the EU or Human Rights Watch may very well know what's going on more than the Canadian Military. I could be completely wrong, and if I am, please let me know. Either way, the only way to get to the bottom of this is an investigation and a release of the documents. Is this blown out of proportion? Sure, but the government straining this hard against demands from parliament pretty much deems that there's something big in there that isn't being fessed up to. If the documents had no value to them whatsoever they would've been released the moment the opposition asked for them. Quote
nicky10013 Posted March 9, 2010 Author Report Posted March 9, 2010 Actually Morris is right...The convention is sub divided into many parts, first you have to find the part that suits this situation ....IE you can't be using the part of the convention dealing with the sick and wounded and apply it to a terrorist organization.... That being said all the conventions do have a common theme , that all Prisoners, detainees or what ever the politically correct word of the day is...all must be treated humanily...no where does it state they must be afforded the same rights and freedoms as our criminals....it states humanly.... It was the UN that introduced and confirmed that the Taliban and others combatants in Afghan be classified as terrorists, and are not afforded any rights under the convention...with one exception, they will be treated humanily...and since this topic is about Canada where have we not done that... Are the Taliban terrorists? Or are they a sub-national group? I'd argue the latter. Law applies to everything. No person or activity falls outside the rule of law. Therefore, even if the Geneva Convention does not cover terrorists, it's because it falls under civil jurisdiction where they would be afforded the rights of the geneva convention anyway just under a different name. Furthermore, handing over people to be tortured despite their classification under the geneva convention anyway is still a violation of international law and a war crime as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Even though I still contend that these people are still covered by Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, it still doesn't really matter. As for Canada, the soldiers may not have abused anyone themselves, the act of handing them over is illegal. It's not the troops that are at fault, it's the government and their inability to fix this problem. Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 Are the Taliban terrorists? Or are they a sub-national group? I'd argue the latter. There are without question terrorists. They can be terrorists and be a sub-national group...the terms are not exclusive. The IRA were/are a sub antional group and were/are terrorists http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=95049 http://www.osac.gov/Reports/report.cfm?contentID=112729 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2008/01/14/2008-01-14_terrorist_attack_on_afghanistan_hotel-1.html http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/database/afganistanindianattack.htm and so on ad infinitum... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Topaz Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 I do believe up until the Tories took over, the prisoners were turned over to the US. The Tories changed that and turned them over to the Afghan government. Now the President of that country had lost his father to the Taliban and just like GW wouldn't you want revenge? So of course they were torturing Taliban men, even if they weren't the people they were fighting against. It looks lke the CSIS is no better than the CIA, when they are conducting business. I'll tired of the game sthis government play when they make mistakes. They should have out come and made it public and say that made a mistakes and gotten over with, instead they try a cover up thats blowing up in their faces. Quote
eyeball Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 Morris has got you beat. Mr. Canada had Morris beat long before that though. Why have the left started calling them "detainees"? Call them what they are, POW's. They are not prisoners of war. I can only assume that Mr Canada must be convinced that Morris is a raging left-wing loon so it's very curious why he hasn't set him straight on this point. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
M.Dancer Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 I do believe up until the Tories took over, the prisoners were turned over to the US. The Tories changed that and turned them over to the Afghan government. You believe wrong. Of course you have been corrected numerous times about this but your ability to hold on to erroneous thoughts is pretty amazing. So one more time. The policy was changed under the Liberals. 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 We both know that the only thing they don't conform to is that they don't wear a uniform. Don't bear arms openly...they attack then blend in with the civilians They flaunt the rules of war by acts of terrorism. Why do you choose to overlook thse war crimes? 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 I can only assume that Mr Canada must be convinced that Morris is a raging left-wing loon so it's very curious why he hasn't set him straight on this point. Who care what he thinks, if at all. 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 Don't bear arms openly...they attack then blend in with the civilians They flaunt the rules of war by acts of terrorism. Why do you choose to overlook thse war crimes? I don't. I think they should be prosecuted. The only point is that they should be treated humanely and no matter what you say it's still illegal under Canadian and International Law for them to be transferred to an abusive party. Quote
eyeball Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 Who care what he thinks, if at all. Mr Canada said something in the 4th post of the thread that's so in tune with your own thinking it almost looks like he plagiarized you. I doubt that the average Canadian cares if the enemies of Canada who have killed Canadian soldiers were tortured or not. Only people that seem to care are the socialists who seem to place more value of the lives of foriegners then they do their own countrymen. You two are joined at the ideological hip in such a profoundly fundamental way on your arguments for shrugging this issue off and yet one the most important linchpins holding them together is just dangling there. The irony is downright Freudian. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
scorpio Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 My intellectual prowess is unquestioned! And my learned and bitingly insightful pearls of wisdom are always impressive. Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 I don't. I think they should be prosecuted. The only point is that they should be treated humanely and no matter what you say it's still illegal under Canadian and International Law for them to be transferred to an abusive party. One imcident of sandal whacking does not constitute proof that the afghans are am abuisve party. But since your title of the thread is a blatant lie, I assume you don't need proof... 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 Mr Canada said something in the 4th post of the thread that's so in tune with your own thinking it almost looks like he plagiarized you. You barely know what you even think day to day and I sincerely doubt you are capable of knowing what I think. 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 One imcident of sandal whacking does not constitute proof that the afghans are am abuisve party. But since your title of the thread is a blatant lie, I assume you don't need proof... If you would've read the article you would've realized it's not a blatant lie. Then again, you clearly don't have a firm grip on reality so expecting anyting from you that resembles rational thought is stupid on my part. Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 9, 2010 Report Posted March 9, 2010 If you would've read the article you would've realized it's not a blatant lie. Then again, you clearly don't have a firm grip on reality so expecting anyting from you that resembles rational thought is stupid on my part. Well perhaps you would be so kind to prove you are not posting falsehoods and quote in the article where it says CSIS interogated tortured afghan detainees. I look forward to your proof. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
.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.