Bruce vs. Alex
Bruce wins with this one line:
Do we need rules to govern the way we fight? Absolutely. Do those rules need to be realistic? Absolutely.
You think we had our own jails in Cyprus or Suez?
Do we need rules to govern the way we fight? Absolutely. Do those rules need to be realistic? Absolutely.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 1:41 p.m.
13 Comments:
Neve knows this. He just wants Canada out of Afghanistan altogether. That's why I cancelled my Amnesty membership.
Does anyone from the Torch have a suggestion as to a reasonable solution to the Afghan detainee problem which would involve partial guarantee Canadians won't be held responsible for complicity in torture, whilst able to continue the importance of this mission unhindered by human rights organizations?
Since we have a number of NATO Allies located in the calm parts of Afghanistan, Allies with time on their hands because they have mission caveats saying they can't shoot or go out after dark, perhaps NATO should set up a POW camp under the control of one of the previously described NATO Allies.
Held responsible by whom? Read the Geneva Conventions, and it is perfectly clear that a) Taliban are not POWs, and therefore b) they do not have the full POW protections, and therefore c) we can hand them over to the Afghan government.
So, we should transfer, and do our best to help the Afghan government get their act together and prevent torture. In the meantime, if some prisoners are tortured by Afghans, we should not get our knickers in a knot - just deal with it on a case by case basis.
markch, there have been fierce debate over "a" or "b", but I agree with you that "c" should be logical.
Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 states:
Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.
Additional remarks:
Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.
Raphael - to be honest, this is a political problem, not a military problem. The military is responsible for ensuring the Geneva convention is respected. Anything else is a political decision. Once given direction, the military will determine issues such as how and when to accomplish the task.
When Corrections Canada transfers a prisoner to the United States, one destined for a Super Max prison, are they then complicit in torture? These prisoners can be subjected to long periods of isolation, shackled hand and foot, denied access to visitors amongst other things. Is Corrections Canada and the Canadian government responsible for that prisoner for the remainder of his sentence in the US prison?
Take a few minutes and read Rosie DiManno's article in today's Toronto Star.
I believe you would all have read Rosie DiManno's column of today on the detainee/torture allegation issue.
I would remind you that allegations of torture, abuse and corruption are levelled at our own society with disturbing frequency.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/stonechild/timeline.html
Why do we seek to set the bar in Afghanistan so impossibly high for a country still mired in conflict, and possessing an ideology much different both in time and substance from our own?
I do not condone torture Raphael, but nor would I expect any suggestions from erudite Torchists to pull Afghan bureaucrats forward by a few centuries.
Apart from insisting on a standard of humane treatment from the fledgling and struggling Afghan system, I would also strongly encourage Canadians to take a look at our own impossibly unrealistic set of expectations for the process currently at work in Kandahar Province.
Rosie gets right what so many at home get wrong. We insist on seeing through the Afghan glass clearly and quickly, but the reality is we will only be able to see through it darkly and slowly, at least for a few more decades.
We would be well served to get used to that.
We all know what Dostoevsky said about the state of a country and its prisons.
Why are we shocked by what Graeme Smith revealed to us last year? Because we are naive, and worse, we believe our constant bitching and whining affirms our own dubious moral superiority.
Natives reserves in Saskatchewan or prisons in Afghanistan? Pick an issue and beat your chest until you feel satisfied enough to sleep soundly, but rest assured this imperfect world keeps relentlessly spinning on its wobbly axis.
I am with Fred, soldier on case by case, don't let the fear of legal action deter you from doing as much good as you can. For those less inclined to take action outside of a courtroom, please take Rosie's advice and back of the power of your microscope a few orders of magnification while examining injustice in Kandahar and oft ignoring it at home. Trust me, you'll miss the salacious Afghan headlines much less than you think, and better yet, you could replace them with a myriad of homegrown Canadian social issues that our highly evolved government is supposed to be able to fix much more quickly and effectively than Mr. Karzai and Mr. Khalid.
bbs, I did read her article, and I fisked it on my blog. It sounded to me like she's trying to downplay the torture allegations because she thinks Governor Khalid is a nice guy. Maybe she has a crush on him. I don't know. But her article didn't sound researched or thoughtful. Just kind of biased, and like someone who thinks the problem should just go away without actually offering any insight.
I'm not accusing the military of complicity in torture, but I think NATO and the Afghan government need to come together on a policy which suits them in order to get on with normal transfers. And she's right, Harper does need to talk about this. But he won't. So where that leave us?
northtea, I appreciate what you're saying entirely. But this sort of all hinges on the fact that Mr.Khalid isn't a liar. Right?
Or are you saying that whether torture is a systemic problem in Kandahar, shouldn't be a focus at all? Because I can live with occasional allegations and aberrant cases. But I don't know whether Canadians will tolerate clear and systemic evidence.
Raphael Alexander: If one is to be consistent perhaps one should urge a ban on Canadian politicians visting the Punjab, if not all of India.
After all, one never knows what the local authorities might get up to in that part of the world--and many other parts too.
Sorry for the cynicism but there's a real world out there. And it's not Canada; if we can't face up to that maybe we must just withdraw into our home and Charter land.
Mark
Ottawa
raphael alexander, the convention distinguishes between the treatment accorded POWs (art. 12, I believe), and that accorded to illegal combatants (art. 3). The responsibility to transfer only to states who extend POW rights is clearly applicable only to POWs. For non-POWs, there is no such prohibition. So, we may not torture, and Afghanistan may not torture. But we have no obligation to ensure that they don't torture.
I don't think there is any _serious_ debate on whether captured Taliban qualify as POWs. If you would like me to cite the convention articles, let me know - I am in a hurry now. In any event, the Torch authors would no doubt explain the case better.
In any event, we need to accept that virtually all Third World countries practice torture to some degree and by our standards. If the concern is whether Canadians will be accused of war crimes, that is one thing. But if we simply refuse to associate with any states which engage in torture, we will need to eliminate almost any international presence or even the bulk of our foreign aid program.
mark,ottawa's point, while tendentious, is actually quite reasonable: is it legitimate to report a crime in jurisdictions where torture is practiced?
If the concern is whether Canadians will be accused of war crimes, that is one thing.
Well yes, it's a two-fold concern:
1. Canada gets accused of various war crimes [which is total nonsense, but you know how things get]
2. Canadian public loses stomach for mission
Anyway, thanks for the thoughts to all involved...
"northtea, I appreciate what you're saying entirely. But this sort of all hinges on the fact that Mr.Khalid isn't a liar. Right?"
Wrong, Raphael. Like Rosie, I have met Governor Khalid. Is he a charming man? Yes.
Would I bet my house he is completely innocent? No.
To me the issue is not at all whether Mr. Khalid is a liar, in fact I am sure he is. After all he is in politics, but certainly no less a liar than many fine Canadian politicians.
The issue is whether the Afghan Government in Kabul can, or will investigate Mr. Khalid, for he is the GOVERNMENT in Kandahar and cannot be relied upon to investigate himself. The other issue is to what extent we Canadians will lend credence to these allegations by excessively pondering their veracity. Remember, the Taliban are equally as good at undermining public opinion in Canada as they are at torture.
If you trust the Government of Canada then believe that our Diplomats will pursue this quietly and appropriately with the Government of Afghanistan who pays Mr. Khalid's salary, without further dragging Mr. Khalid's reputation through the mud pubicly. This is what I think Rosie was driving at.
I should also remind you that in Kandahar the locals find that saying torture happens in prison is like reporting that Mohammed was muslim. Allegations against the Governor would also not be seen as overly surprising since the Taliban makes every effort to discredit government officials.
Post a Comment
<< Home