He didn’t say that. He couldn’t have. Nobody could be that stupid. Not even Jack Layton is that stupid.
h/t
(Oh, and in case you were wondering – I really don’t care what Afghans do with Taliban prisoners, and I suspect I hold the majority opinion on that subject.)
Maybe we could give the the same rights as Canadian citizens?
I dunno. It’s an interesting idea. The comparison may not be entirely accurate, but the Americans sent there Nazi war criminals to the farms in the Midwest. Maybe the same idea could work? But it’s probably wishful thinking. Taliban on the Praries?
“I really don’t care what Afghans do with Taliban prisoners, and I suspect I hold the majority opinion on that subject.”
Well of course you don’t care what happens to them and I expected nothing less from you. The fact is we have this little international agreement called the Geneva Convention that outlines how we are to treat prisoners of war, and anything less is a war crime. I do understand how you cons have nothing but contempt for international agreements unless it’s something that benefits the US, but agreements are agreements and we have to live up to what we have agreed to do. You see when others believe that the convention can be brushed aside any time that’s convenient, it puts our soldiers at risk in future conflicts. That’s when our soldiers who are unfortunately captured are lined up against a wall and shot by the enemy, just like in what the cons affectionately refer to as the good old days before human rights.
So it appears war crimes have been committed and covered up so not just O’Connor should be fired, but he should be taking his buddy Hillier down with him.
Thats all we need Taliban + NDP. I think we in the “colonies” have enough to deal with already.
“I dunno. It’s an interesting idea. The comparison may not be entirely accurate, but the Americans sent there Nazi war criminals to the farms in the Midwest. Maybe the same idea could work? But it’s probably wishful thinking. Taliban on the Praries?”
Fort McMurry is still looking for workers aren’t they?
Remind me once again why we are in Afghanistan. Ah, yes…to bring “freedom and democracy” to the Afghanis. Isn’t it ironic that people have to be tortured for freedom to prevail.
albatros39a… Can you please show me where in the Geneva Convention that outlines how we are to treat terrorists. The Taliban are not members of the “armed forces” as described in the convention, nor are they civilians NOT taking part in hostilities.
Albatross, how does the Geneva Convention apply to terrorists that don’t recognize the Geneva Convention themselves? Next time you’re talking to your good buddies, you may want to ask them where their uniforms identifying themselves as soldiers are.
albatros thinks like a liberal, bring any foreign sleaze bag into the country and hand them a job before a local. That’s how the liberals ran this country for 30 of the past 40 years, giving immigrants what they want and in return they dutibly run to the polls for them.
Yea, cause you know the Taliban are telling the suicide bombers before they send them on their merry way, “Make sure you read the GC rules and regs before you blow yourself and all those innocents up” or ” Are you sure cutting this guys head off is in the Geneva Convention”
I’m pretty sure “albatros” is actually Scott Reid. Is that you, oh master of disaster?
You know,it might not be a bad idea to bring the prisoners to Canada. We can put them all up at albatros39’s place. Then he can read them to sleep every night, “And on page 14 of the Geneva Convention…”
Albatross, we also have an international agreement with the gov’t of Afghanistan to hand over captured operatives. Afghanistan hasn’t signed the Geneva Conventions (none of the four), nor have our courts ruled on the status of the Taliban operatives.
Sorry.
Cheers,
lance
Iberia: did it ever occur to you that the so called “tortured” people are the very ones trying to prevent the freedom of the ones we are fighting for,or are they just trying to uphold the democractic regime that was in place before NATO arrived on the scene?
Ask the UN bureaucrats in Kabul why they’re not offering better guidance to the Afghan government with regards to their criminal justice and penal system.
This is a multinational UN and NATO sanctioned project. Canada is part of a large team from many countries and I was not aware that Canada was responsible for some kind of oversight of Afghan prisons and Afghan treatment of extremely violent criminals.
The Liberals and the NDP should maybe do a little research before they blame Canada. Their complaints might be more accurately directed to the United Nations.
“Fort McMurry is still looking for workers aren’t they?”
Well, if Kyoto won’t shut down the oilsands, by yimminy, let’s try the Taliban.
Brilliant. We are desperate, but not yet that desperate.
This preoccupation with the fate of captured taliban is curious. Even more curious is the lack of concern shown regarding how Taliban treat any soldiers they capture.
IIRC, the Geneva convention applies only to soldiers in uniform. In WWII I believe that the standard means of dealing with combatents not in uniform was to execute them on the spot. The fact that there are ex-taliban around to complain about their treatment after they were captured suggests that they are very lucky. Thus far I don’t think that any soldiers on our side catured by the Taliban have made it back alive.
Dealing with terrorists is a messy business and the military should simply get on with doing its job without interference by clueless morons such as Dion and Taliban Jack. I too don’t really care what the Afghani army does with captured taliban. Some of them may be fit for release, but the only way to deal with islamic fanatics is to kill them.
I care what the Afgans do with the Taliban!!! They let them go.
Sometimes when I hear crap spouted about Geneva Conventions and their applications to this theatre of operations, it makes me think of two little kids having a fight and one guy quitting by saying “I didn’t know that you’d punch in the face.” Rules of engagement in Afstan? In a pigs A$$!!
Might be wishful thinking, but maybe Mr Dion would consider making that his election slogan.
And would somebody pass the troll hammer, please?
I would suggest we be real nice to the Taliban detainees and give them a free helicopter ride. Once at a suitable altitude tell them to talk or walk……..Problem solved….
Alby
You seem to hang out around here playing the role of agent provocatour. Whatever fills yer pants.
That said, any idiot that uses a community as a icon for generalizations is leaking like a stuck pig. Where do you get yer info from? Introspection? Intuition? Indoctrination?
Have you ever been within 1500 miles of Fort Mac?
I grew up there you candyass,leftard,chickenshit, know nothing/know everything,couchbound, authority.
Fuck off!
Syncro
P.S. Sorry Kate, but not that sorry.
Platty, I think albatross would rather go over to Afghanistan to watch over the prisoners. We could give him a pink plastic sword to banish around to intimidate the captured beheaders of innocent civilians. I wonder how long he would last…? ‘And in his last breath the albatross fell from his neck as he recited the Geneva Convention….’
more from cbcpravda
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_mallick/20060616.html
oh oh cbcpravda missed that quote from Borat Dion- “may we bring them here”
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/04/23/afghan-torture.html
but they did manage to get in the talibanjack quote and get O’connor and abuse into the headline.
Bring the Taliban to Canada and then spend 30 years trying, unsuccessfully, to get rid of them again. They will of course go the the supreme court to demand their rights … and their welfare check.
Is Dijon insane?
On a serious note, why are the Liberals playing the Taliban tune? Does it not occour to them that the Taliban may well have operatives in this country informing them on military and propaganda issues?
Does Dijon et al not realise we are at war?
Of course, in the Liberals mind, Canada is the occupier, so it stands to reason, that Dion wants the Taliban prisoners in Canada.
He should realize that Canada is there at the bequest of the UN and the Afghan government. So it’s upto Afghanistan to deal with its prisoners. And it’s their responsibility and accountable for human rights.
2) did anyone catch Keith Martin (Liberal) on CPAC, where he stated that in December 2005, Canada didn’t have a government, so Hillier was the only to sign the first agreement? Someone should tell him, that during an election campaign, Canada still has a government until election day, where the current may or may not be replaced. Paul Martin was still our Prime Minister until January 23, 2006!!!!
3) Someone should tell these NDPers (Dawn Black – an ex-executive assistant), that they can’t blame our military on the ALLEGED misconduct of the prisoners by extension. Because Canada still sends foreign aid to China and China violates human rights, can Canada be held accountable for human rights violations in China?
Need a troll hammer around here…
With bringing the prisoners here, we could bring the troops and equipment home, to fight them here. I am sure all their supporters here would join them. Codere could lead them. Imagine, beheadings, in our cities, in our streets, choose your Canada. Some of them could get roles on little mosque on the prairie.
Is that show still on the air?
Captured enemy combatants not in uniform have no rights under the Geneva conventions. I nominate albatross’s post as the dumbest of the year.
Do I care what the Afghans do to their Taliban prisoners? Not really. It’s their country and their laws that we are there to help protect. Who are we to judge what’s best for them? Their society is older than ours and knows what’s best for them.
Would the Taliban offer the same protect to any of our soldiers they held captive? I doubt it. They would behead them live if they had the change. So much for the Geneva Convention and their support of it.
As for the cowards who want to bring them here.. forget it. Most of the insurgents in Afghanistan are foreigners who entered that country illegally. How the Afghans deal with such people is their business. Just as it’s non of their business how we handle ours. Of course, if you’re a socialist everyone’s business is your business. They may be enjoying themselves with their newly found freedoms.
Only Dion could think up such a stupid thing. Imagine, worrying more about the welfare of our enemies than of our soldiers. This is the same crowd who sent our soldiers to Afghanistan with green uniforms and poor equipment in the first place.
Perhaps we shouldn’t be so hard on dubious citizen dion; this represents some growth for him. Minutes after saying this dumb thing, he said perhaps it wasn’t realistic. yes, that’s right, he’s discovered reality! What’s next for the amazing tin tin?
BTW, wouldn’t it be sort of imperialist to interfere with the afghans and their treatment of prisoners? And not at all multicultural.
On second thought, maybe we should. Bring them here, I mean. Provide each Taliban prisoner a chain link enclosure, a prayer mat and three square meals a day. Call it “Frobisher Bay”.
No thanks, no way we can allow be-headers into this Country under any circumstances.
Can’t you just imagine,Jack the Dipper would then be demanding they be released from prison here on a daily basis and Dawn Black would be wearing herself thin baking cookies for the poor things. God knows what Alexa McDodo would do for them, certainly tea and sympathy would be in her order.
Under our Charter they couldn’t be sent back because they’d be tortured so we’d have them here for life.
KATE-“I really don’t care what Afghans do with Taliban prisoners, and I suspect I hold the majority opinion on that subject.”
ALBATROSS-“Well of course you don’t care what happens to them and I expected nothing less from you. The fact is we have this little international agreement called the Geneva Convention that outlines how we are to treat prisoners of war, and anything less is a war crime.”
Albatross, you might want to read those Geneva Conventions so that you know what you’re talking about.
Among other things, the Conventions state there are three legal categories of persons, with very specific definitions:
1. lawful combatants
2. civilians
3. unlawful combatants
In category 3 are spies, saboteurs AND terrorists. And guess what? According to these Geneva Conventions, it isn’t even required to take unlawful combatants prisoner. In fact, it is quite legal to summarily execute them.
Personally, I think that were it not for the intelligence value that SOME of the Taliban and Al Qaeda might have, we’d all be better off if we did just that.
It is a pretty good indication of the lack of a poster’s knowledge when he or she uses the term “Geneva Convention” as a singular term. You usually don’t have to dig much further to know they are stupid.
I do find it interesting that Dion and Layton, et. al. want Canada to pull out of Afghanistan totally.
Wonder what will happen to Taliban prisoners then?
Oh, sorry, that would be hypocritical to point out that our Opposition politicians are only using the prisoner question to batter the government. They don’t care about what happens to the prisoners. If they did, they wouldn’t want Canada to leave.
Its that simple.
“You see when others believe that the convention can be brushed aside any time that’s convenient, it puts our soldiers at risk in future conflicts. That’s when our soldiers who are unfortunately captured are lined up against a wall and shot by the enemy”
As opposed to being beheaded on the internet?
Methinks alby should stay away from revising the Geneva Conventions and stick to inventing fake weather patterns.
Well, here’s a lot of right-wing nutbars saying of Afghanistan, “It’s their country” (and therefore they can torture anyone they like).
Right, … and Castro is an abomination who must be removed because …..?
If it’s “their country” why are Canadian soldiers running around shooting at people?
Oh yeah, that’s right, … our puppet government is unpopular, to the extent that the dreadful Taliban is making a comeback.
Let me repeat that for you: The government that we’re propping up is so bad that the Taliban is actually rising in popular opinion over there.
The welfare of our prisoners becomes Canada’s business when we get ourselves into the position where we have captured people and have to turn them over to someone.
Regarding the general tendency of right-wing scumbags to cherry-pick international law in a desperate attempt to justify torture and murder, only forces that obey the laws of war merit the consideration of human rights.
By your logic, US soldiers attacking hospitals, raping civilians, etc., … actually, engaged in the entire illegal invasion of Iraq, are therefore not lawful combatants and have no human rights that need to be respected.
I’ll repeat: That is according to YOUR logic.
You people are ridiculous. You cannot hold Canada up as an example of “civilization” on the one hand, and then dismiss allegations of torture and violations of human rights with the other.
It’s really high time that you all realized your monkey-brained limitations, lowered your heads in shame, and renounced all claims on our political discussions. Because you truly are revolting.
You are cut from the same cloth as the Taliban fanatics.
just take the prisoners to kabul and put them in the nato compound and then the french and germans can look after them seeing their troops are not allowed out in the combat zone.
Rule #1 for terrorist prisoners…
claim torture
Let’s just see how this plays out before we declare Canadian soldiers guilty of War Crimes.
If torture leads to saving Canadian soldier and Afghanistani civilian lives the problem is?
Let’s be generous. Mr. Dion has problems mangling the English language. Hence the dumbass comment when thinking on his feet.
I have friends and family that have socialist views like Heather Mallick and as many of you have mentioned it is impossible to change their view. As soon as Mallick wrote “Canada’s best newspaper is the Toronto Star” you know what part of the political spectrum she is from. If you present me with evidence on something and I can research it I will change my opinion yet leftists no matter what hard proof is provided never change their view. The fact that at least 30% of Canadians will always vote Liberal, theft, corruption, incompetence, no leadership, it just does not matter, should be evidence of this dead mindset.
When I read the posts of those on SDA that rise like trout to the bait of Albatross, Ted or Iberia I’m always incredulous. I have also fallen for that bait. These guys will never change their view no matter what facts or brilliant replies you make. I just wish Kate would put the “Posted by:” at the top of the post so I could skip their remarks.
Let us also not forget as part of the A-Q playbook, those captured by “Western” forces are to claim torture in order to sow doubt in the “western liberal weenies.” Given this, I take pretty much all reports of torture with a grain of salt. The only ones I really trust are the ones backed up by a report from our military.
“Among other things, the Conventions state there are three legal categories of persons, with very specific definitions:
1. lawful combatants
2. civilians
3. unlawful combatants
In category 3 are spies, saboteurs AND terrorists. And guess what? According to these Geneva Conventions, it isn’t even required to take unlawful combatants prisoner. In fact, it is quite legal to summarily execute them.
Personally, I think that were it not for the intelligence value that SOME of the Taliban and Al Qaeda might have, we’d all be better off if we did just that.
Posted by: Dave at April 24, 2007 9:15 AM”
Dave your ignorance is astounding. Perhaps you should go back and read the Geneva Convention again, then consider the ramifications for Canadian troops in future conflicts if we simply brush the convention aside at our whim.
Judging by the posts that followed my first post, It appears that my assessment that “cons have nothing but contempt for international agreements” was bang on.
I was away for a day & just getting caught up, Is Dion totaly Insane? Bring Taliban Prisoners here.
My gawd if i was in the Liberal Party & heard that I would demand a coup. I thought Layton was bad enough, but this just is beyond pale.
It took a whole 41 minutes before the Geneva convention was brought up and based on the reference, by someone clearly unfamiliar with it. In the context of actions in both Afganistan and Iraq it’s irrelevant and should be treated the same as calling someone a Nazi – whoever uses it first automatically loses the discussion.
The denial of protection for unlawful combatants is there to protect our troops. If you afford all the protections to everyone regardless of whether they comply with the dictates of the agreement, what’s the deterent for hiding amongst the civilian population. To use the Convention as designed, such parties should simply be shot.
Dave is absolutely right. The Taliban are unlawful combatants and not subject to the protections of the Geneva Convention. They are not part of a national army and they do not wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians.
Great stuff, all.
However, the problem is this:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Article 12 of the Convention states the fol:
Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power (in this case, Canada) to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.
If Afganistan is not a a party to the Convention, they they cannot be transferred. Although it clearly states that Afganistan would then be responsible to ensure prisoners are correctly treated, the next para states:
Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.
Now, at no point does it state that this is a war crime, so these professors are out of their mind stating that Canadian soldiers may have committed war crimes by transferring prisoners. However, you can see that we have some responsibility.
The real question is whether or not Taliban are covered by the Convention.
Article 4 states:
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;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
It is questionable if the Taliban fit this definition, however I think we can safely say they do not meet requirement (d).
The kicker is Article 5:
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
We also do not do ourselves any favours by seeming to treat them as legitimate prisoners, thereby granting them status as a legitimate party to this conflict.
It seems to be an all or nothing proposition: Treat them humanely and everyone will assume they are legitimate prisoners of war and entitled to all the protections of the Convention, which means we must ask for them back if Afganistan is not treating them accordingly.
The simple solution would be not to afford them the provision of the Convention, since it is doubtful they qualify. Although shooting them on the spot might be legal, it would probably not fly back here in Canada.
…don’t feed the trolls, let them die of natural starvation – attention.
I like the Frobisher Bay idea, actually I think all prisons should be up north. No need of a chain link fence, either the frozen tundra or polar bears escaping global warming will get to them first.