Legal expert sees trouble in Canadian war role

[rceme_rat]

Brad, the determination of status is a matter for the courts, not a matter for the state to determine arbitrarily. I suppose that will be one of the first issues dealt with by the defence team. I would expect such an issue would be dealt with promptly, much as with detention upon arrest. Of course, questions have been raised about the arbitrariness of other related detentions.

The more interesting legal question is whether liability arises under the detention system - i.e., where a soldier turns over the captured combatant to a higher formation, does he bear any liability for the treatment of that combatant?

It is interesting because at first glance, it would seem that since the soldier has no control over the treatment, he couldn‘t be liable. However, the concern arises that the soldier, being aware of an illegal detention policy, becomes liable if he turns over the combatant to be subjected to it.

Personally, I would think that individual soldiers in this case would be shielded from liability, unless the policy is clearly illegal. This doesn‘t resolve the issue of Canada‘s adoption of the U.S. policy -- while an individual Canadian soldier on exchange might be directly subject to U.S. command, the senior Canadian formation commander will have responsibilty to both the Canadian government and to his American operation commander. If the Canadian analysis differs from the U.S. one, then a Canadian detention policy would be required.

My other observation is that the thread really has two discussions - the first is roughly along the lines of "do we really have to follow the Geneva Convention, even if we don‘t like the other guys?" and the second is"are the captured combatants being treated appropriately?".

Given that the answer to the first is clearly "Yes", the military problem is solved. The problem posed by the second question is much more a political one. In essence, the question revolves around civil rights. The short answer is that governments - particularly large, powerful, democratic governments - ignore civil rights at their peril. Here, I don‘t think it would be terribly difficult for the U.S. to treat these combatants as PW rather than as unlawful combatants until their status is resolved. Taking the high road should be the preferred option.

Finally, to suggest that the U.S. government isn‘t a bunch of thugs and therefore what they do can‘t be that bad, is to be incredibly naive. Not because they are hugs, but because the development of the U.S. Constitution, and of our own (including the Charter), is based on the opposite premise - that governments should not infringe on personal liberties except to the extent reasonably necessary.

As for certain comments made by others, I am really dismayed at the underlying tone. E.g., to suggest a Rambo-esque "don‘t take prisoners" approach is to forget the experience of the Gulf War (where whole battalions surrendered) or the long lines of prisoners being marched to detention in WW II. The reality is that professional, well-disciplined soldiers will take prisoners. Cut and dried, to shoot a combatant who has surrendered is murder.

 

[Yard Ape]

American avoids fate of foreign Taliban detainees
Wednesday, January 16
By PAUL KORING and ALAN FREEMAN
From Wednesday‘s Globe and Mail

The U.S. Justice Department unveiled plans Tuesday to prosecute its only American captive from Afghanistan in a civilian court while non-American detainees face different standards and are consigned to a military prison in Cuba that is coming under growing international criticism.

U.S. Attorney-General John Ashcroft said Tuesday his government plans to charge John Walker, the Californian who took up arms with the Taliban, with abetting terrorism and conspiring to kill U.S. soldiers. If convicted, the 20-year-old could face life in prison.

But he was spared a possible death sentence, Mr. Ashcroft said, because he will not be charged with treason.

...

But the same legal process will not be applied to scores of other pro-Taliban fighters, possibly including three Britons, who have been captured in recent weeks and sent to a controversial prison at a U.S. military base in Cuba, Mr. Ashcroft said.

He said Mr. Walker, unlike his fellow fighters, will not be tried in the military tribunals established by President George W. Bush because "according to the military order issued by the President, it‘s for dealing with non-citizens of the United States."

There is growing concern that the military tribunals to be held at Guantanamo Bay will not be subject to international law, and could order the execution of some prisoners. The U.S. military has been criticized for its treatment of prisoners, who have been manacled, hooded and shackled en route to Guantanamo Bay, where they are to be housed in cage-like enclosures.

The tribunals may also compromise Canadian soldiers who will join U.S. combat forces in Afghanistan, legal experts said Tuesday.

Toronto criminal lawyer Clayton Ruby said Canadian soldiers are bound to abide by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, even if they are involved in operations outside the country.

...

Michael Byers, a Canadian who teaches international law at Duke University, believes the death penalty poses a serious legal problem to Canadian troops because of a landmark Canadian Supreme Court ruling last year. The court said Canada could not extradite two men in Vancouver accused in a triple slaying in the United States, unless U.S. authorities guaranteed that the accused would not face execution if convicted.

"Any transfer that could involve the death penalty would have to be subject to judicial review before it could go ahead," Prof. Byers said of the situation for Canadian troops.

...

So far, U.S. authorities have identified at least three Britons among the 50 men being held at Guantanamo Bay. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Tuesday he raised the question of their fate in a weekend conversation with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and was assured they would enjoy "rights customary to national law."

Mr. Straw refused to criticize the Americans for their treatment of the prisoners, telling the British Broadcasting Corp. that they are "potentially profoundly dangerous" men who may have played important roles in the Sept. 11 attacks.

...

 

[Yard Ape]

When is a PoW not a PoW?
By MARCUS GEE
Tuesday, January 15, 2002
Print Edition, Page A11

The third Geneva Convention, concluded in 1949 and signed by the United States, Canada and more than 180 other countries, sets out international standards for the treatment of prisoners of war.

Known formally as the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, it says belligerents must treat prisoners humanely, providing them with adequate shelter, food, clothing and medical care; must supply information about them; must permit them to correspond with their relatives, receive relief supplies and be visited by neutral groups such as the Red Cross, and must not pressure them to reveal more than a minimum of information.

The United States argues that the prisoners it has taken in Afghanistan are not PoWs under the convention but "unlawful combatants."

Some legal scholars challenge that judgment. They point out that the convention has a broad definition of PoW. According to Article 4 (1), the term refers to "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."

It can also apply to irregular militias and resistance fighters provided that they are commanded by a "a person responsible for his subordinates;" that they have a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance," such as a uniform or other identifiable marking; that they carry their arms openly; and that they "conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

If that were not enough, Article 5 of the convention says that if there is any doubt that a captured person fits those criteria, "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Jordan Paust, who teaches international law at the University of Houston, says the prisoners from Afghanistan qualify as PoWs under the law, and Washington should treat them as such. "These may be nasty folks, but even nasty folks are entitled to the basic protections of international law," he said.

There is no immediate penalty for countries that break the Geneva Conventions. No tribunal enforces the conventions, which rely on the shame or the good faith of the signatories for their force.

But countries that break the convention could conceivably be taken to the World Court in The Hague. Thus, if Canada were to take part in the seizure of "unlawful combatants" in Afghanistan, it could technically be guilty of complicity in war crimes, Prof. Paust said.

"Canada has an obligation not to turn people over to another country when there is a risk they will be deprived of their rights under the laws of war," he added.

Ottawa could also face prosecution under Canada‘s own war-crimes law, said Prof. Michael Mandel of York University.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A quick skim of our own QR&O "Prisoner-of-War Status Determination Regulations" (on-line, "unofficial")
http://www.dnd.ca/admfincs/subjects/qr_o/vol4/appx15_e.asp
seems to indicate that determination of status is _not_ a matter for "the courts". I must suppose Canada has determined we are within our rights to make the determination independently within the military chain of command, and I must also suppose the US and other countries may feel the same way within the LOAC as written. As near as I can tell, a status tribunal consists of a sole appointed JAG lawyer.

It is clear that when doubt exists, a detainee is to be treated as a lawful combatant (ie. PW) until explicitly determined to be unlawful. If the US has not undertaken determination procedures, they are in the wrong. If the US has undertaken such procedures, there is only a difference of legal opinion. I agree it would cost the US nothing to treat the prisoners better - perhaps tents inside a wire compound rather than individual cages. As for the manner of transport, when the prisoners are part of a gang that has a demonstrated propensity for self-disregard, it is simple prudence to restrain them. The LOAC constantly evolves; the 1949 drafters probably didn‘t foresee the custody problem of dealing with fanatics who would cheerfully die if they could take a few enemies with them. Manacles seem in order. Maybe for the same reason, individual enclosures are in order.

I didn‘t think Canadian non-military law had any jurisdiction on military persons serving outside Canada. Comments?

I can‘t imagine why a combatant should be subject to risk of death or injury in war, and then by virtue of being a PW should suddenly be immune to execution because a nation‘s civil law doesn‘t permit it. PW status should not be a "get-out-of-execution" free card for those who have committed grave crimes. Rehabilitation is irrelevant. Retribution and deterrence are relevant.

We can have an "angels on the head of a pin" discussion, but in practical terms I can‘t imagine a Canadian soldier being tried for turning over PWs to a superior US commander when the alleged mistreatment is such small beer. It hasn‘t escaped my attention that crimes either need to be committed on a vast scale (eg. Milosevic) or of exceptional brutality (Somalia) to merit the effort of a trial. I trust the well-meaning souls (lawyers, professors, and journalists) will first devote their efforts to the much larger crime against humanity of destruction of cultural artifacts (those large Buddha statues), or the fight for civil rights in places like Afghanistan, Tibet, China, etc. Surely they‘re above plain old US-bashing and publicity posing.

 

[Disturbance]

rceme_rat: I am trying not to sound "incredibly naive" but that fact is that the world is watching the states right now and how they handle this prisoner deal. If the poopoo goes sour there could be serious reprecutions(sp), so based on that I am going to infer that the states will not shove bamboo slivers under their fingernails.

And again I will restate, from what I see it just looks like a maximum security prison. Of course it sucks but its not suppose to be fun. We cant comment on what we dont know and who knows what is happening behind closed doors so I am not going to guess.

And we are still sane here, just because we have different opinions doesnt mean marauder is going to kill someone when a guy waves a white flag. Well I guess I can only speak for myself.

 

[Yard Ape]

Canada defies U.S. on PWs
By DANIEL LEBLANC
From Thursday‘s Globe and Mail
Thursday, January 17

Ottawa — The first Canadian troops have arrived in Kandahar to find their freedom of movement could be limited by a looming dispute with the United States over the treatment of prisoners.

The federal government said Wednesday that Canada will treat all prisoners of war in Afghanistan according to international law. Growing criticism around the world accuses the United States of ignoring Geneva Convention rules on PoW treatment as it moves the men it captured to a U.S. naval base in Cuba.

"All the individuals...captured or detained will be afforded humane treatments, according to the standards that are applicable to PoWs, and that‘s according to international law," Canadian Defence Department spokesman Sub-Lieutenant Pierrette LeDrew said Wednesday.

U.S. officials do not call the captured Taliban and al-Qaeda supporters PoWs but "unlawful combatants." Lt. LeDrew said Canada‘s policy will be different.

"If there is any doubt as to whether or not they are entitled to that [PoW] treatment, they will be treated as such until a special tribunal, or a properly constituted tribunal, has determined that this person is or isn‘t a PoW," she said.

The Americans, who are leading the military campaign in Afghanistan, have said that the combat troops of other countries are expected to hand over prisoners; if they don‘t, the troops will be positioned in areas where they will not come in contact with potential detainees.

"Either a country will indicate that they will turn them over to us — quite apart from whether or not their laws may be different with respect to the death penalty — or they will be positioned in places where they‘re unlikely to come in contact with someone that we would like to have control over," U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last month.

...

Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said Wednesday that most legal experts disagree with Washington‘s view that the fighters are "illegal combatants" and therefore not protected by the Geneva Convention on prisoners‘ rights.

Ms. Robinson noted that if there were any doubts about their status, the Geneva protocols, which the United States and Canada have signed, call for the question to be decided by a tribunal.

The issue is expected to be in the spotlight Thursday when Defence Minister Art Eggleton and General Ray Henault, Chief of the Defence Staff, appear before a joint meeting of the defence and foreign-affairs committees of the House of Commons.

...

 

[rceme_rat]

The tribunal ordered to determine the status of a prisoner is not a court of law ("Court") - in the same way that other tribunals in Canada are not Courts. Trbunals are designated as the responsible agency for certain matters and may be thought of as "small-c" courts, however, since their decisions are ultimately reviewable by Courts. Your career, for example, may be terminated by a Career Medical Review Board, a specific example of a tribunal.

As the regulation notes, the tribunal is a single JAG officer. JAG officers are not under the chain-of-command but are independent, specifically to avoid influence from the chain-of-command. The decision is reviewable, likely though a military judge, the Court Martial Appeal Court, and ultimately the Supreme Court. There are also provisions regarding representation. All in all, it is a pretty standard form of tribunal and is far from an arbitrary determination by the state.

As for the point regarding the detention centre being a maximum security prison -- when was the last time you were in one? I have been in both a maximum and a medium, and have had the opportunity to fly over the Kingston Pen (strange, but true), and I didn‘t note any open-to-the-weather cages. They were not particularly pleasant places to be in - too many murders and rapists for my liking - but they were not brutal by their very existence.

I‘m glad the article regarding the effect of the Burns decision was added. The extradition question is interesting - does the Charter apply outside Canada? Particularly to non-Canadians?
While it would to Canadian soldiers charged under the Code, there is argument for and against its application to RCMP actions taken outside the country against Canadians.

As for when Canadian law applies to Canadian soldiers serving outside Canada, two quick observations. The first is that all Canadian law, including Canadian military law, is subject to the Constitution. The second is that little proviso in the code about acts that would be offences under the Criminal Code. So, things you do outside the country might get you charged the same as if in the country, but civil actions might be under the law of the host country (it opens up a very specialized area of law referred to as Private International Law, or Conflicts -- not to be confused with the Law of Armed Conflict!).

Finally, we should always remind ourselves that these prisoners, regardless of status, have yet to be convicted of anything. Being accused of something, no matter what it is, does not justify the exclusion of rights without proper legal proceedings. For example, the shearing of the prisoners beards is an assault and a violation of religious freedoms. It can serve only to degrade and humiliate. It is not justifiable.

 

[centurion]

All the legal mumbo jumbo aside. I suppose the Cretin, our learned legal sytem, and our fifth estate will not be satisfied until these "TERRORISTS" are esconded within the low wire obstacles of Canada‘s minimum security facilities. They can go to BC, and enjoy golf, horseback riding and 12 hr passes to downtown Vancouver while they await trial.

 

[Infanteer]

ROTFLMAO!!!
Finally, someone has brought this thread back to Earth....

 

[rceme_rat]

I wonder whether there will be places for any criminals in BC. Recent news is that 24 courthouses and 8 jails are being closed. No details as to whether the 8 are local lock-ups or if they include more serious institutions. Perhaps it will all be conditional sentences and electronic monitoring from now on.

For what it‘s worth, I can‘t imagine the DB is classed as anything more than a minimum security facility. Of course, the daily schedule is a little more straining than it would be anywhere else.

 

[rceme_rat]

It looks like the point has been decided - and one would assume it was well-considered. Then again, I‘m a little skeptical of the Minister‘s credibility in the press recently. Btw, the land mines issue introduced at the end of the article is interesting. If the U.S. troops lay the land mines, Canadian troops could rely on their protection -- a loophole in the mines treaty.

...........

From the National Post, online edition, 18 Jan 02

Canadians will turn Afghan prisoners over to the U.S., says defence minister

JOHN WARD
Canadian Press

Defence Minister Art Eggleton (right) and Chief of National Defence Staff General Ray Henault in Ottawa. (CP/Fred Chartrand)


OTTAWA (CP) - Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan will hand over any prisoners they take to the Americans, Defence Minister Art Eggleton said Thursday.

The minister, answering questions after appearing at a Commons committee, said Canadian troops won‘t have detention facilities for prisoners. However, soldiers will follow Canadian and international law in taking prisoners, the minister told the committee earlier. The Americans have flown some prisoners - blindfolded and shackled - to a camp at the U.S. base in Guantanamo, Cuba. Their treatment has raised an outcry in some circles.

But Eggleton told the committee earlier Thursday the U.S. military is treating prisoners in accordance with international law.

Outside committee he said he has "no reason to believe that they are not being handled in accordance with international law."

"I understand the concerns of people who have seen people hooded and taken away in airplanes to another area of operations," he said. "It is part of the responsibility of the United States to ensure that it follows international law.

"It is up to the International Committee of the Red Cross as a designated party to monitor that situation and to determine in fact whether these people have been treated fairly."

He said he has no evidence that prisoners have been mistreated.

Jim Wright, assistant deputy minister of foreign affairs for global and security policy, told the MPs later that Red Cross officials were in Ottawa on Monday and had no complaints about U.S. methods.

The officials were on their way to Guantanamo to inspect the facilities and talk to detained Taliban and al Qaida fighters.

"At no point in these discussions did they turn around and say that the Americans were not living up to their obligations," Wright said.

Darcy Christen, a Red Cross spokesman in Geneva, said the organization will comment publicly after inspecting the Guantanamo prison.

Human rights campaigners have criticized a decision to house prisoners in cramped cells open to the elements.

As of Thursday, 110 prisoners had been flown to Guantanamo from a holding centre at a Marines base in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar.

About 750 Canadian soldiers will join a U.S. unit in Kandahar next month. The soldiers, from the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia‘s Light Infantry and Lord Strathcona‘s Horse (Royal Canadians) from Edmonton, are expected to leave Canada near the end of this month and be operational in Kandahar by Feb. 15.

Eggleton said their rules of engagement and for handling prisoners are still being fine-tuned. But he said they would be similar to those of the United States.

Asked what Canadian soldiers would do if their U.S. counterparts deployed land mines, Eggleton said: "Canadians will not be laying land mines. I don‘t anticipate the Americans will be laying land mines."

Canada has outlawed the use of such mines; the United States has not.

 

[Marauder]

Yeah, I‘m all about blowing away another trained soldier fighting for his country after he decides he‘s had enough and he‘d rather just sit the rest out so he can go back to banging the wife and looking after his kids.
I‘d much rather turn loose well-armed religious fanatics who pal around with someone who likes to get mindless numpties to fly planes full of women and kids into rather large buildings full of people whose crimes range from defending their country (huh, kinda like we want to) to making a buck to support the economy and keep their kids and partners housed and amused. Hey, I feel Al-Quada‘s pain.

"Finally, we should always remind ourselves that these prisoners, regardless of status, have yet to be convicted of anything. Being accused of something, no matter what it is, does not justify the exclusion of rights without proper legal proceedings."

Kinda like the 3000 or so that had their right to breathe taken away by these guys idealogical brothers?

"For example, the shearing of the prisoners beards is an assault and a violation of religious freedoms. It can serve only to degrade and humiliate. It is not justifiable."

Well, I can think of a thing or two that can be hidden in a big old "Taliban Brand" beard and then used to harm/maim/kill a soldier, Marine, or airman before they can be locked into an iso cell.
Wonder if Micheal Spann would still be an anonymous face in the crowd if the Northern Alliance stooges in that prison had been a little more careful in controlling the TERRORISTS under their watch.

 

[Gordon Angus Mackinlay]

Ladies and Gentlemen,
This abridged article from the London, Sunday Times, 20 Jan 2002, is of interest to this discussion.

Yours,
Jock in SYdney

Victors‘ justice helps revive the beaten monster
By John Simpson

YOU can sense the growing unease. From the International Red Cross to the British Foreign Office (though not yet, apparently, Downing Street) there is a feeling that the way the United States is dealing with its prisoners from Afghanistan is not right.

The White House formula for conditions at Guantanamo Bay - "humane but not comfortable" - may come to sound increasingly embarrassing in the coming months. And the danger is that, after dominating the moral high ground for months, Washington could now be shifting away from it without realising.

The latest critic is Judge Richard Goldstone, the South African who served as chief justice of the international tribunal at The Hague in the 1990s. He takes exception to US efforts to make out that the prisoners are illegal combatants and therefore not protected by the Geneva Convention. Either they are prisoners of war, says Mr Goldstone, or they are ordinary criminals who should be brought before the courts. There can be no third category. The International Red Cross agrees.

Washington, though, is in a mood to brush aside these complaints. Most Americans find it hard to understand why distinguished jurists, human rights groups or Anglican bishops should be so worried about the prison conditions of men who have wholeheartedly supported terrorism.

Yet, if the "illegal combatant" formula has no standing in international law, and the Geneva Convention applies to the prisoners from Afghanistan as it does to any every conflict, the US has a problem. The convention doesn‘t approve of drugging or shackling prisoners, and it contains provisions covering the forcible shaving of beards - one of the key evidences of obedience for a devout Muslim.

Tony Blair tried hard last week to shore up the "humane but uncomfortable" line by pointing out that the Taliban kept their prisoners in abominable conditions. However, the Geneva Convention doesn‘t say that if the other side has treated its prisoners badly, you are allowed to treat yours the same. The whole point of it is to stop that kind of thing by setting out civilised rules of behaviour in time of war; and a country that is defending the standards of civilisation ought surely to stick to the rules with particular care.

After any war, the victors‘ behaviour determines the future of the dispute. Generosity and forgiveness will eventually draw the poison; vengeance and harshness merely cause it to fester and spread.

The US was wiser and more generous than Britain in its approach to Germany after Hitler‘s defeat and, as a result, Europe and the entire world have benefited. Britain and much of American public opinion wanted the German state dismantled and de-industrialised; but Presidents Roosevelt and Truman became convinced that only a decent and properly run Germany could be a reliable partner. They have been proved right.

The key to real, lasting success for President Bush after September 11 was not merely to destroy the Taliban and capture Osama bin Laden, it was to demonstrate to moderate Muslims around the world that the War on Terrorism wasn‘t a war against Islam.

An even-handed approach to the Palestinians would have done wonders. Instead, Washington has done almost nothing to stop Ariel Sharon‘s Israeli government from carrying on pretty much as it chooses. Increasingly, even middle-of-the-road Muslims feel anger and despair, and the extremists begin to sense a new opportunity.

When the Northern Alliance captured Kabul, it was clear there was no support for the Taliban in Afghanistan, and nothing but hatred for al-Qa‘eda‘s foreign volunteers. In places such as Pakistan, support for violent extremism fell away, but the way the US is treating its defeated enemies is helping to revive the monster.

A civilised country should behave according to the rules both during and after any war, or run the risk that it will have to fight again, perhaps with less success. At the moment, American public opinion seems to want revenge on al-Qa‘eda and the Taliban, rather as it wanted Germany to suffer in 1945. But a wise government consults more than the opinion polls - it looks to the future. And it should check out the international conventions it has signed.

John Simpson is the BBC world affairs editor.

 

[portcullisguy]

Originally posted by Enfield:
[qb]
These men are no real threat. Their war is over. They are controlled, they are essentially harmless. What possible reason is there to engage in barbaric treatment of them? Some sort of barbaric revenge? Half those guys have never been anywhere close to North America. They may be the enemy. They may be evil. But WE are still civilized.
[/qb]

I am almost positive that the Northern Alliance troops who were guarding the now infamous prison near Mazar-i-Sharif in November 2001 thought that their Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees were also "controlled" and "essentially no threat". And then they revolted, used smuggled arms to kill a CIA agent, among others, and fight a 3-day pitched battle.

No, I think blindfolds and strict control of movement of these prisoners now being brought to the Guat are the safest and most effective means of preventing any further revolt or disturbance, and therefore increasing the safety of the detainees as well as the detaining power.

 

[portcullisguy]

Originally posted by Yard Ape:
[qb]The tribunals may also compromise Canadian soldiers who will join U.S. combat forces in Afghanistan, legal experts said Tuesday.

Toronto criminal lawyer Clayton Ruby said Canadian soldiers are bound to abide by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, even if they are involved in operations outside the country.
[/qb]

This quoted news article should tell it like it is and not dance around the issue.

Clay Ruby is a noted Toronto civil rights lawyer who happens to do criminal cases. His bent is apparent to anyone familiar with him. Of course he will argue the Charter applies.

The Charter didn‘t exist in 1945, when Canadian soldiers fought in Europe, nor did it exist when Canadians were in Korea.

To assume the Charter should apply to foreign citizens on foreign soil during armed conflict is absolutely beyond the pale.

Canadian courts have no business, nor jurisdiction, accounting for anything that happens under such circumstances.

It is strictly for military laws and courts, and within the jurisdiction of International laws of armed conflict. Clay Ruby should go back to worrying about wrongfully arrested shoplifters.

[qb]Michael Byers, a Canadian who teaches international law at Duke University, believes the death penalty poses a serious legal problem to Canadian troops because of a landmark Canadian Supreme Court ruling last year. The court said Canada could not extradite two men in Vancouver accused in a triple slaying in the United States, unless U.S. authorities guaranteed that the accused would not face execution if convicted.

"Any transfer that could involve the death penalty would have to be subject to judicial review before it could go ahead," Prof. Byers said of the situation for Canadian troops.
[/qb]

Well, yet one more "opinion". I don‘t see how the circumstances compare. One is a triple-murder suspect not yet tried or convicted in a death penalty state, strictly a civilian criminal matter. The other circumstance involves armed combatants (lawful or not) captured or who surrendered to soldiers on a battlefield in a foreign country. I don‘t see the link.

[qb]
So far, U.S. authorities have identified at least three Britons among the 50 men being held at Guantanamo Bay. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Tuesday he raised the question of their fate in a weekend conversation with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and was assured they would enjoy "rights customary to national law."
[/qb]

I am really surprised that Britain should take such an interest.

Where has Britain been when their citizens, many of them trained by their own government and with veteran service in Britain‘s armed forces, were fighting for various factions, governments, non-governments, and private companies in places like Africa during the 1970s and 1980s, who were captured as part of their mercenary activities?

Were they also fighting for the rights of these people, often deemed unlawful combatants and put to death by nations not so willing to accept the fundamental principles of international justice?

While it‘s fine that Britain should show some concern for the treatment of their citizens, anywhere in the world, let‘s put this into perspective: They are prisoners, who were captured armed, and fighting a war in a foreign country, completely unrelated to any interest beneficial to the British Crown. Regardless of whether they are treated as PWs or whatever, there are certain priorities here, adn the fact remains that it is the United States who has them in custody. Let them do their job.

Last but not least... I have this to say: All of this heady, political nonsense is for talking heads to sort out, not for soldiers to concern themselves with. As far as I am concerned, the troops should (and have been) following their lawful orders, which they know are not contrary to their conscience, and the end result will be the safe detention of potentially murderous has-been combatants.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Clayton Ruby is a feces stirring dink, plain and simple, has been for the last thirty years.

 

[enfield]

Personallyt, I think the US has taken the right step, but it needs clarification.
This is a war against Terrorism, not a nation or the mafia. They are criminals, but on such an internationla scale that nationla constitutions, laws, etc., cannot apply.
These men are suspected of being directly involved in a world wide terrorist organization. If they are treated as PW‘s, well, they can all go free - but they are not soldiers of a nation. They are criminals.
However, to treat them as criminals raises problems- should they be read their rights? Were they exposed to brutality in arrest? Were they truly "arrested" or "captured"?
The Military Tribunals are another expression of this. I think it‘s too much to expect all - what 300? - of them to go through an American court battle. Evidence and due process cannot exist in this situation.

There‘s a new extra-national entity out there.
I personally have no problem with them being shaved and locked up in a corner of the Caribbean in cages.

 

[rceme_rat]

The underlying theme of the last few posts seems to be that civil rights are not a concern as long as the violations are aimed at large numbers of non-citizens accused of heinous crimes.

Sorry, can‘t buy it. These prisoners may or may not be guilty of the crimes they‘ve been accused of. Most probably are, but this doesn‘t justify violating their rights. The ends does not justify the means when it comes to justice.

Large numbers of accused? It‘s been dealt with before; it can be dealt with here. They will either have a series of individual trials, or more likely a number of trials of groups of individuals involved in similar circumstances, events, etc.

Weapons hidden in beards? Did someone really suggest this?

As for personal attacks on lawyers -- I‘m sure Mr. Ruby has been called far worse things in far more imaginative terms. Nonetheless, he does a good job at protecting your rights by standing up for people who only deserve his help because they live in a society which recognizes that if you don‘t protect everyone‘s rights, you might as well return to lynch mobs.

Agian, for the common soldier, there probably is no problem with capturing people and turning them over to higher authority. Somewhere along the line, though, there will be an assessment of whether human rights were violated - and if so, what the remedy should be. In the U.S., Canada and elsewhere, confessed murderers have been allowed to go free because of such violations. Why allow the possibility here when it could be easily avoided?

 

[JRMACDONALD]

HEY EVERYBODY- how many Wehrmacht soldiers died under Allied control in Europe,( what conditions were they kept under, theres a book out , forget the name.) after war ceased? Were they sent home right away? not going to mention what the Soviets did. Geneva COnvetion is like a telephone- it works both ways!!!

 

[Spr Earl]

I posted on another thread but as I said there I‘m glad I‘m not one of our lad‘s over there due to the fact I would be thinking " Will I go To jail " if I carry out this order?Who is giving me this order a Yank or Canadian Officer?
Also this would I trhink it will effect operational
attitude of the our people there.

To one and all the Geneva Convetion and the U.N. Bill of Human right‘s applies to every one in the world but the Yank‘s don‘t seem to think so even there own CONSTITUTION seem‘s to only apply to them selve‘s?

Even at the Nuremberg Trial‘s all had due process and legal aid according to International Law wheather they were military or civilian and all were traeted better than those who are in Cuba now.

Those of us who have been over sea‘s and have had our course on how to treat prisoner‘s know right now as Canadian‘s if we treated prisoner‘s as the Yank‘s are now we would be in jail according to our own Military Law and cival law!

Two wrong‘s do not make it wright!