What happens to detainees?

[gerryhatrick]

Will detainees our soldiers have captured ever be turned over to the Americans?

And if so, will there be any assurances about thier treatment?

Supporting the troops means watching out for thier honor, something perhaps Harper is overlooking in his zeal to use them as a political backdrop.

[cybercoma]

Will detainees our soldiers have captured ever be turned over to the Americans?

And if so, will there be any assurances about thier treatment?

Supporting the troops means watching out for thier honor, something perhaps Harper is overlooking in his zeal to use them as a political backdrop.

Who cares what happens to detainees....they're murderers and terrorists bent on disrupting diplomacy and democracy.

[gerryhatrick]

Who cares what happens to detainees....they're murderers and terrorists bent on disrupting diplomacy and democracy.

You cannot assume that someone is a terrorist just because they are detained by the Canadian (or American) military. That is a foolish notion.

You seemingly don't care that our Country might be shamed as the USA has been shamed by it's torture scandal. You are in the minority, of that I'm sure.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Who cares what happens to detainees....they're murderers and terrorists bent on disrupting diplomacy and democracy.

You cannot assume that someone is a terrorist just because they are detained by the Canadian (or American) military. That is a foolish notion.

You seemingly don't care that our Country might be shamed as the USA has been shamed by it's torture scandal. You are in the minority, of that I'm sure.

Prisoners have probably been abused and treated wrongly in every war that has ever existed. We simply now have CNN to show the whole world when on incident happens.

Get over the tears for the "detainees". This is war dude.

[geoffrey]

It doesn't matter. Inhumane treatment isn't US policy, unless the terrorist is withholding information that could save lives. Tough shit. Shouldn't have been there throwing rocks or shooting.

[cybercoma]

Who cares what happens to detainees....they're murderers and terrorists bent on disrupting diplomacy and democracy.

You cannot assume that someone is a terrorist just because they are detained by the Canadian (or American) military. That is a foolish notion.

You seemingly don't care that our Country might be shamed as the USA has been shamed by it's torture scandal. You are in the minority, of that I'm sure.

Nope. I don't much care what happens to detainees that are fighting in a war against our troops. And I don't much care how they extract information from them either.

[JerrySeinfeld]

It doesn't matter. Inhumane treatment isn't US policy, unless the terrorist is withholding information that could save lives. Tough shit. Shouldn't have been there throwing rocks or shooting.

Totally!

I love Canadians - go to war then worry about whats gonna happen to the enemy. That's almost as brilliant as appointing a separatist citizen of france to the highest office in the land.

[Montgomery Burns]

Will detainees our soldiers have captured ever be turned over to the Americans?

And if so, will there be any assurances about thier treatment?

Supporting the troops means watching out for thier honor, something perhaps Harper is overlooking in his zeal to use them as a political backdrop.

Why are you so worried about the treatment of the enemy who is trying to kill Canadian men and women? Who cares? I can't believe that we are even paying for that now-disabled scumbag Al Qaeda terrorist who was shooting at Canada's soldiers!

These dirtbags are lucky when they are detained by Canadian or American soldiers. They know they will generally be treated well. The Abu Ghraib incident was not indicitave of the US military, nor was that Somalian teen getting beaten to death by Canadian soldiers indicitave of our military. It's unfair to smear the entire military for the criminal acts of a few.

I wish Gerry would show one-tenth the concern for our soldiers who could possibly become detainees...

Ahhh, but Harper is being politically zealous for taking a strong stand and boosting the morale of our troops...

Get real, Gerry!

[Black Dog]

Get over the tears for the "detainees". This is war dude.

There are rules, even in war. Dude.

It doesn't matter. Inhumane treatment isn't US policy, unless the terrorist is withholding information that could save lives. Tough shit. Shouldn't have been there throwing rocks or shooting.

So if a Canadian soldier falls into the hands of the "enemy", any mistreatment is justified. Got your head lopped off? Tough shit, shouldn't have been occupying another country.

Oh and mistreatment of prisoners is U.S. policy. See the Gonzales memo.

[geoffrey]

It doesn't matter. Inhumane treatment isn't US policy, unless the terrorist is withholding information that could save lives. Tough shit. Shouldn't have been there throwing rocks or shooting.

So if a Canadian soldier falls into the hands of the "enemy", any mistreatment is justified. Got your head lopped off? Tough shit, shouldn't have been occupying another country.

Oh and mistreatment of prisoners is U.S. policy. See the Gonzales memo.

Mistreatment in order to extricate information. Which is fine with me. Just general mistreatment is not however. But theres nothing we can do about that besides just keep the prisioners ourselves, which is fine too.

We aren't occupying the country. The democratically elected government is welcoming our troops with open arms. So no, try again.

[wellandboy]

Will detainees our soldiers have captured ever be turned over to the Americans?

And if so, will there be any assurances about thier treatment?

Supporting the troops means watching out for thier honor, something perhaps Harper is overlooking in his zeal to use them as a political backdrop.

Why don't you write or e-mail the Ministers (National Defence) office ot Foreign Affairs and inquire as to the the official policy. Post the answer here and we'll discuss it.

It sounds like your looking for an argument based on no information.

[Argus]

Will detainees our soldiers have captured ever be turned over to the Americans?

And if so, will there be any assurances about thier treatment?

Supporting the troops means watching out for thier honor, something perhaps Harper is overlooking in his zeal to use them as a political backdrop.

If I was detained for suspected anti-government activity anwhere in the Muslim world I would hope I'd be handed over to the Americans rather than to ANY Muslim nation. The treatment would unquestionably be more humane than I'd get from Muslim governments.

Odd how we never hear any concerns about that. Nobody cares about prisoners in some black hole of a Zambian prison, or one in China or North Korea or Morocco. No, the media is only concerned about the terrible rudeness the Americans often display towards suspected terrorists. Sometimes they even take pictures of them in embarrassing positions!

Oh, the humanity!

[gerryhatrick]

So if a Canadian soldier falls into the hands of the "enemy", any mistreatment is justified. Got your head lopped off? Tough shit, shouldn't have been occupying another country.

Exactly. The concept may be a little too deep for them, but there are reasons for the Geneva conventions.

[Argus]

So if a Canadian soldier falls into the hands of the "enemy", any mistreatment is justified. Got your head lopped off? Tough shit, shouldn't have been occupying another country.

Exactly. The concept may be a little too deep for them, but there are reasons for the Geneva conventions.

The enemy does not and never has followed the Geneva Convention. Most of them can't read. Any prisoners, civilian or military, have always faced torture and murder.

[cybercoma]

So if a Canadian soldier falls into the hands of the "enemy", any mistreatment is justified. Got your head lopped off? Tough shit, shouldn't have been occupying another country.

Exactly. The concept may be a little too deep for them, but there are reasons for the Geneva conventions.

What's too deep here is the concept of people like you and Black Dog being more concerned about ambiguous violations of the Geneva convention, while completely overlooking blatant mistreatment of prisoners by radicals. Apparently leftists like you two can't wrap your minds around that and would rather nitpick at the countries that our trying to free nations from those radicals.

[Black Dog]

Mistreatment in order to extricate information. Which is fine with me. Just general mistreatment is not however. But theres nothing we can do about that besides just keep the prisioners ourselves, which is fine too.

So torture is okay so long as its not just for kicks?

If I was detained for suspected anti-government activity anwhere in the Muslim world I would hope I'd be handed over to the Americans rather than to ANY Muslim nation. The treatment would unquestionably be more humane than I'd get from Muslim governments.

Odd how we never hear any concerns about that. Nobody cares about prisoners in some black hole of a Zambian prison, or one in China or North Korea or Morocco. No, the media is only concerned about the terrible rudeness the Americans often display towards suspected terrorists. Sometimes they even take pictures of them in embarrassing positions!

Oh, the humanity!

Not this tired horseshit again. There's lots of people out there trying to get attention to the misdeeds of various third world hell holes, but that's completely beside the point, which is we're suppossed to do better than those shitholes.

As for the trivialization of the actual treatment, I formally invite you to drop by for beatings, sodomization with brooms, hooding, starvation, and stress positioning. I dunno: maybe that's just how you get down on weekends?

The enemy does not and never has followed the Geneva Convention. Most of them can't read. Any prisoners, civilian or military, have always faced torture and murder.

Ah yes: the old "but he started it" routine, showing that some people just never got over the playground.

What's too deep here is the concept of people like you and Black Dog being more concerned about ambiguous violations of the Geneva convention, while completely overlooking blatant mistreatment of prisoners by radicals. Apparently leftists like you two can't wrap your minds around that and would rather nitpick at the countries that our trying to free nations from those radicals.

Um...that mistreatment of prisoners, be it torture or execution, is wrong is self-evident. I don't need to bother making ceremonial "tut tut" sounds when some religious whackjob cuts off some guys head because it is so obviously, unquestionably wrong, nor I do I expect much else from people who stone girls to death for walking around unveiled. However, I hold the people who claim to be such big fans of human rights and freedom and whatever other concept the right-wing is paying lip service to these days to a much higher standard. So when people who can talk about how great we are for digging wells and building schools for those poor benighted Afghanis on the one hand can, in the very next breat, apologize for behaviour straight out of Saddam Hussein's playbook, it's hard to take them seriously.

[uOttawaMan]

So if a Canadian soldier falls into the hands of the "enemy", any mistreatment is justified. Got your head lopped off? Tough shit, shouldn't have been occupying another country.

Exactly. The concept may be a little too deep for them, but there are reasons for the Geneva conventions.

What's too deep here is the concept of people like you and Black Dog being more concerned about ambiguous violations of the Geneva convention, while completely overlooking blatant mistreatment of prisoners by radicals. Apparently leftists like you two can't wrap your minds around that and would rather nitpick at the countries that our trying to free nations from those radicals.

I thought that Afghanistan was already free from "radicals" and we were there to help maintain order and re-build. After all, they have a democratically elected government.

I understand the need to get information from "detainees" i love that term instead of "prisoners of war" , my only concern is by using torture to get this information, does that not just make our methods the same as the "radicals" as you call them?

I know this probably doesn't make sense.. but if they are going to use "Aggressive interrogation" methods, then we shouldn't bitch and moan when the same thing happens to us. All's fair in love and war as it were.

So eye for an eye if thats what you feel will work, but just realise you lose some of your "moral high ground".

[Argus]

Odd how we never hear any concerns about that. Nobody cares about prisoners in some black hole of a Zambian prison, or one in China or North Korea or Morocco. No, the media is only concerned about the terrible rudeness the Americans often display towards suspected terrorists. Sometimes they even take pictures of them in embarrassing positions!

Oh, the humanity!

Not this tired horseshit again. There's lots of people out there trying to get attention to the misdeeds of various third world hell holes, but that's completely beside the point, which is we're suppossed to do better than those shitholes.

Lots of people - just no one on this forum...

And the Americans are a whole lot better than those "shitholes".

As for the trivialization of the actual treatment, I formally invite you to drop by for beatings, sodomization with brooms, hooding, starvation, and stress positioning. I dunno: maybe that's just how you get down on weekends?

I highly doubt broomsticksup are officially sanctioned. And I'll bet anything which IS is a helluva lot better than having your testicles fed into a meat grinder or a cattle prod jammed up your backside.

The enemy does not and never has followed the Geneva Convention. Most of them can't read. Any prisoners, civilian or military, have always faced torture and murder.

Ah yes: the old "but he started it" routine, showing that some people just never got over the playground.

So what you're saying is the point you made which I responded to was never a valid point anyway, is that right?

[GostHacked]

This thread has really irked me. And I have lost some respect for some of you.

'blah they are terrorists, they have no rights' <---this attitude sets a bad example/precident.

Maybe we should read the Geneva Convention to familiarize ourselves with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_convention

and we are really talking about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

You can strip their rights away just by deeming them an Enemy Combatant? Sorry no more rights for you. Does this make it right? Of course not. Eventhough the US is a major contributor as to why the Geneve Convention exists in the first place.

You could be in Afghanistan for whatever reason. 100% innocent. You are detained, not charged, and tortured. But to most of you this is ok, even without a fair trial. Just because you are in the wrong place at the wrong time and not even know it. Now before you jump all over me, this is not the case all the time, a good deal of the detainees are guilty of some terrorist action. But come on, be the better man and show respect for the uniform you wear and the conventions/agreements you are supposed to uphold.

To me it seems like alot of you support the conventions when it is convenient, otherwise I hear it blaring from the hiltops when one of these is violated from the other side.

Hypocracy abound.

[cybercoma]

The Geneva Convention pertains to recognized nations. Terrorism doesn't have a government or a nation, nor does it follow the Geneva Conventions. That agreement doesn't pertain to the current situation.

[GostHacked]

The Geneva Convention pertains to recognized nations. Terrorism doesn't have a government or a nation, nor does it follow the Geneva Conventions. That agreement doesn't pertain to the current situation.

So this means the validation of using torture? Does this validate holding people indefinately and without a charge brought against them? Eventhough you know you have innocents among the guilty? So the western world was brought up on 'Innocent until proven guilty' (from what I have learned). Looks like almost an old cold war USSR mentality where guilty untill proven innocent. This is a dangerous point of view.

If you want to be better than the terrorists, then BE better than them. You are now playing by their rules and not yours. They win.

[JerrySeinfeld]

The Geneva Convention pertains to recognized nations. Terrorism doesn't have a government or a nation, nor does it follow the Geneva Conventions. That agreement doesn't pertain to the current situation.

Bang on. Put on a uniform and show your face to your enemy soldiers instead if hiding behind masks and caves...then MAYBE we'll talk about geneva.

[Shady]

They know they will generally be treated well

Exactly. Case in point the menu at Gitmo.

Several hundred recipes prepared for the inmates at the camp are to be published next month in "The Gitmo Cookbook," including dishes such as mustard-and-dill baked fish and honey-and-ginger chicken breast.

The recipes -- most of which use fewer than eight ingredients and originally were created to feed up to 100 persons -- were developed by the U.S. Navy cooks in charge of the camp's kitchens.

They must serve food that meets the Islamic halal requirements of the 540 detainees, who mostly are from Afghanistan, Iraq and other Arab nations. A halal meal adheres to dietary practices mandated by Islamic law.

Link

There are rules, even in war. Dude

If you're referring to the Geneva Conventions, it doesn't apply to terrorists and enemy combatants. However, don't worry, it's a common mistake.

We aren't occupying the country. The democratically elected government is welcoming our troops with open arms. So no, try again

Exactly. There is no "occupation" of Afghanistan by Canadian troops. That's absolutely ridiculous, but doesn't suprise me coming from the kook-left.

What some people like to do is blur the line between torture and coerced interrogation. There's a big difference. However, I'm in favour of both when it comes to terrorists and enemy combatants who don't fall under the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Sometimes it may be necessary to saves lives, maybe millions of lives depending on the circumstances.

The Geneva Convention pertains to recognized nations. Terrorism doesn't have a government or a nation, nor does it follow the Geneva Conventions. That agreement doesn't pertain to the current situation

Exactly right. Members of the military wear uniforms in combat situations at great risk. They stick out from the civilian population. This is for a reason. To minimize civilian casualties during conflict. That's a large part of what the Geneva Convention is about. What do terrorists do? The exact opposite. They actually use the civilian backdrop as a means of warfare.

[cybercoma]

The Geneva Convention pertains to recognized nations. Terrorism doesn't have a government or a nation, nor does it follow the Geneva Conventions. That agreement doesn't pertain to the current situation.

So this means the validation of using torture? Does this validate holding people indefinately and without a charge brought against them? Eventhough you know you have innocents among the guilty? So the western world was brought up on 'Innocent until proven guilty' (from what I have learned). Looks like almost an old cold war USSR mentality where guilty untill proven innocent. This is a dangerous point of view.

If you want to be better than the terrorists, then BE better than them. You are now playing by their rules and not yours. They win.

They win when innocent people die.

We win when murderers who target civilians die.

Sorry if you don't understand the difference.

[Black Dog]

Lots of people - just no one on this forum...

Oh yeah because, logically, if someone is opposed to torture by the Americans, they must totally support its use by anyone else.

"I want my ritual denunciation and I want it now!!!"

And the Americans are a whole lot better than those "shitholes".

Relatively speaking, yes. But then, why are we having this discussion? You haven't attempted to deny the U.S mistreats its prisoners (minimized, yes, but not denied), so you clearly accept torture on principle. You just want to quibble over the methods.

So what you're saying is the point you made which I responded to was never a valid point anyway, is that right?

Uh. No. The Geneva Conventions and other international laws should be adhered to regardless of whether the opposition fllows the rules. It's called "setting the standard".

The Geneva Convention pertains to recognized nations. Terrorism doesn't have a government or a nation, nor does it follow the Geneva Conventions. That agreement doesn't pertain to the current situation.

Wrong. Regardles sof their status, detainees in an armed conflict or military occupation are protected by common article 3 to the Geneva Conventions. Article 3 prohibits “[v]iolence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”

And there's plenty of other laws regarding the treatment of prisoners that the United States is signatory to (such as the Convention against Torture) as well as domestic laws such as the federal anti-torture statute.

What some people like to do is blur the line between torture and coerced interrogation. There's a big difference. However, I'm in favour of both when it comes to terrorists and enemy combatants who don't fall under the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Sometimes it may be necessary to saves lives, maybe millions of lives depending on the circumstances.

"Coerced interregation" is merely a euphamism for torture. As for the rest, information extracted through physical coercion or mental/psycholgical tortue is notoriously unreliable: the ticking time bomb metaphor is flawed in many ways.

This essay by David Luban Liberalism, Torture and teh Ticking Timebomb is a great overview of the civil libertarian arguments against torture.

You guys are familiar with civil libertarianism, right? It's only one of the principles we're suppossed to be exporting to Middle East, after all...