Combatant status
ETL took the lazy way out: instead of putting together a post of his own on the subject of combatant status and CF policy, he's chosen to task me with it by e-mail. Nice. Do I look like your aide-de-camp?
Enough with the bellyaching though, and down to the work.
Contrary to the impression left by some journalists, the CF has put some thought and effort into the question of combatant status. It's a safe bet that not all of that deliberation has been made public, but some of it is in the public sphere: JAG's Law of Armed Conflict Manual.
Of particular relevance to this discussion is Chapter 3, titled appropriately enough as "Combatant Status."
Note that there are only three major categories - everone in a combat situation falls into one of those three.
It has been argued by some that Taliban fighters in Afghanistan should be classified as Combatants, and that argument has been rebutted. They simply don't meet the conditions.
Neither are they Non-Combatants if they're attacking our forces.
The only category left for these thugs is Unlawful Combatant.
This version of the LOAC Manual was issued in 2004, so this policy is hardly brand-spanking-new. Furthermore, it was put out by JAG, not scratched up in a day by some power-mad generals or their political masters.
For those who worry that this determination of status opens captured insurgents in Afganistan up to abuse by CF personnel, Annex B - Code of Conduct for CF Personnel is instructive, especially item 6:
Note that the instruction pertains to all "detained persons" and not just those designated Prisoners of War.
Wonderdog, commenting elsewhere, has the right of it, I think:
Unfortunately, most people reading the press reports are not well-informed enough in such an arcane area of law to see that their strings are being pulled.
This isn't news, it's an agenda.
Update: Wonderdog trashes Koring more thoroughly than I do here. If only cross-posting wasn't beyond his humble abilities... ;)
Enough with the bellyaching though, and down to the work.
Contrary to the impression left by some journalists, the CF has put some thought and effort into the question of combatant status. It's a safe bet that not all of that deliberation has been made public, but some of it is in the public sphere: JAG's Law of Armed Conflict Manual.
Of particular relevance to this discussion is Chapter 3, titled appropriately enough as "Combatant Status."
The aim of this chapter is to summarize the law with regard to which persons are combatants, noncombatants, or unlawful combatants and to provide the background information necessary to determine their status.
Note that there are only three major categories - everone in a combat situation falls into one of those three.
1. “Combatant” is a term found in many treaties related to the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). Whether a person is a combatant is important because:
a. combatants are entitled to take a direct part in armed conflict and, in particular, to engage in hostilities;
b. combatants are legitimate military targets;
c. combatants who are captured by the enemy are prisoners of war (PWs); and
d. PWs, unlike other detained persons, must be released and repatriated without delay at the end of hostilities.
2. “Non-combatants”, on the other hand, are not entitled to take a direct part in hostilities. Generally speaking, non-combatants may not be targeted. Non-combatants may be punished for taking part in hostilities if convicted following a fair trial by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable under International law.
3. “Unlawful” combatants are those who take a direct part in hostilities without having the legal right to do so under the LOAC.
It has been argued by some that Taliban fighters in Afghanistan should be classified as Combatants, and that argument has been rebutted. They simply don't meet the conditions.
Neither are they Non-Combatants if they're attacking our forces.
The only category left for these thugs is Unlawful Combatant.
318. CIVILIANS ENGAGED IN HOSTILITIES
1. Civilians who take a direct part in hostilities (other than a levée en masse) are unlawful combatants. They lose their protection as civilians and become legitimate targets for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
2. If captured, civilians who take a direct part in hostilities are not entitled to PW status, but they must nevertheless be treated humanely. They may also be punished as unlawful combatants but only following a fair trial affording all judicial guarantees. (Babbler's emphasis)
This version of the LOAC Manual was issued in 2004, so this policy is hardly brand-spanking-new. Furthermore, it was put out by JAG, not scratched up in a day by some power-mad generals or their political masters.
For those who worry that this determination of status opens captured insurgents in Afganistan up to abuse by CF personnel, Annex B - Code of Conduct for CF Personnel is instructive, especially item 6:
6. Treat all detained persons humanely in accordance with the standard set by the Third Geneva Convention. Any form of abuse, including torture, is prohibited. (Babbler's emphasis)
Note that the instruction pertains to all "detained persons" and not just those designated Prisoners of War.
Wonderdog, commenting elsewhere, has the right of it, I think:
Having shaken loose the opinion that they don't apply using an FOI request, someone is trying to inflate the document into a news story. We are being encouraged to conflate two separate issues: the question of how Geneva applies, and the question of how detainees are actually treated.
In short, someone is jerking the marionette strings here.
Unfortunately, most people reading the press reports are not well-informed enough in such an arcane area of law to see that their strings are being pulled.
This isn't news, it's an agenda.
Update: Wonderdog trashes Koring more thoroughly than I do here. If only cross-posting wasn't beyond his humble abilities... ;)
posted by Babbling Brooks at 1:58 p.m.
8 Comments:
vThank you.
To be fair though, I have to say how totally unimpressed I am by the ability of the CF to effectively communicate their position on virtually anything.
I know that the prevailing theory is that the media is out to get the CF but my guess is that the real culprit is a lack of info mixed with a lack of expertise with a dash of lazy.
dave, could you show me where I said they were in uniform, signed the Geneva Convention, declared war and are nice (which, by the way is so irrelevant as to be nearly laughable)?
K. But I still think the CF/Government are doing a really crap job at managing the message and communications in general.
Cameron,
The CF isn't supposed to have to mollycoddle the public. It shouldn't have to have a media relations department.
That isn't it's job. It's job is to defend us and kill our enemies in battle when called upon to do so.
It's the media's job to get their fact straight and tell the public the truth.
It's the media who fail in their duties to the public not the CF.
Politicians are there to spin their agendas. The government is there to run the country and make decisions. These two (often conflicting) goals are what the media is supposed to sort out. The media isn't supposed to add their own agenda. They do. The public is unserved by these jackles.
Cameron,
As to the ability (or desire) of our media to report accurately, see this letter to the Ottawa Citizen (unpublished):
"Mike Blanchfield writes, in "Afghan mission isn't war, says defence minister" (May 31), that "So far, 17 Canadians, including one diplomat, have been killed in Afghanistan, while serving as part of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom, which is commonly referred to as a part of the 'war' on terrorism."
That is not accurate. Three Canadian soldiers--Cpl. Robbie Christopher Beerenfenger, Sgt. Robert Alan Short and Cpl. Jamie Brendan Murphy, were killed while serving as part of NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission based at Kabul. That mission was neither part of Operaton Enduring Freedom nor of the "war" on terrorism.
It should also be remembered that our troops based at Kandahar are scheduled to transfer from Operation Enduring Freedom to the command of a greatly expanded NATO ISAF around July 31 this year."
In recent articles both Geoffrey York and Graeme Smith of the Globe called the B-1 a "stealth bomber".
For the really big picture see this post:
"Afstan update: about four months late"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/03/afstan-update-about-four-months-late.html
Mark
Ottawa
"That isn't it's job. It's job is to defend us and kill our enemies in battle when called upon to do so.
It's the media's job to get their fact straight and tell the public the truth."
Warwick, that's not really true. There's a reason the military has public affairs officers.
As for the media getting its facts straight and telling the truth, if you look at the original Globe article on this subject you will not find a factual error. The reporting is factually correct.
It's the slant the reporting takes that's the problem. And there is no such thing as a "truthful" or even "neutral" slant, so there's no point in whining about that. All media is biased by its very nature; the notion of an "unbiased" media is a fairy story told to children.
In this case, the CF did accurately communicate its position. But the source of the story -- whose identity was omitted from the story -- has his own agenda, as does the Globe.
Ho ho, Damian. I just noticed your update.
Cross-posting ain't beyond my abilities. I just figgered you already covered the territory here, so why make a duplicate post?
warwick, then, following your paradigm, when someone in the media gets something wrong about the military, everyone in government, the CF and all of its supporters have to just shut up and suck it in.
Post a Comment
<< Home