I don't really care who set out the policy that says that Taliban and al Qaeda members that are captured in Afghanistan aren't "really POWs" - it sophistry at it's worst:
Captured fighters don't deserve these rights because this isn't a war between countries, says Lieutenant-General Michel Gauthier, who commands the Canadian Expeditionary Forces Command and thus oversees all Canadian Forces deployed abroad.
“They are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status but they are entitled to prisoner-of-war treatment,” he said, asserting that all detainees are humanely treated.
“The regulations apply in an armed conflict between states, and what's happening in Afghanistan is not an armed conflict between states. And therefore there is no basis for making a determination of individuals being prisoners of war,” he said.
You know what? That distinction is such a farce it's not even funny. Using that same logic, anyone captured in a warzone that isn't wearing a recognizable uniform isn't _really_ a POW. Horsefeathers!
That's just playing semantics with language so you can do things that would otherwise result in court martials being convened. Along with George Bush's bullshit designation of "enemy combatant", this is nothing more than people hiding behind wording to justify actions that would otherwise violate numerous treaties around the world.
The notion that the Geneva Conventions don't apply in Afghanistan because we haven't declared war on that nation per se is a complete cop-out. Afghanistan is a warzone - anybody who has listened to the news has known that for a long time. Canada at the very least should show itself as being able to rise above the moronic sophistry that the White House has been using since 9/11.
5 comments:
I read this article in the paper and was totally nauseated. Then I saw that the Minister of Defence says that what is happening in Afghanistan is not "war" but declined to clarify his remarks. All of this is pure semantics for political purposes. It is totally disgusting but then what do you expect from the Conservatives. When faced with telling the truth they become evasive, just like Klein.
Another point if I may. Harper goes to Afghanistan and comes home saying "it's our war too". O'Connor says it isn't a war. Perhaps some kind soul can tell me what it is, then.
Being a prisoner of war entitles the prisoner to certain rights and duties. For example, he is still subject to military rules and regulations. Once captured, the POW becomes a non-combatant. Agreements can be made between governments on the repatriation of prisoners. Prisoners can be kept until the cessation of hostilities between the governments.
Granting POW status to non-government prisoners raises many questions. Who do you negotiate with to repatriate the prisoners?
Do the prisoners consider themselves as non-combatants or are they waiting their chance to take up the fight again? Who do you negotiate with for a cessation of hostilities? Will the prisoners honour such an agreement or just join another band of insurgents if they are released?
The reason for the strict definition of who is a combatant is to allow governmental forces the latitude to deal with bandits.
-Bungle Lord
I'd argue that those objections are mostly political problems, and as such are problems that can be resolved.
There are other aspects of POW rights that are important - such as guarantees around interrogation and torture, and must be respected.
The black hole of calling someone an "enemy combatant" is simply a bit of sophistry for putting them into a legal limbo which can wind up in Guano Bay (one of the more egregious abuses of human rights ever perpetrated) or in worse places.
Canada can, and should, do better than that.
Just as a point of info, under the Geneva convention, any combatant who carries his arms openly and is under the command of an officer or other person responsible for their actions has the benefit of the convention.
Just some grist for the mill.
JN
www.evilscientist.ca
Post a Comment