 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / July 2008Canada Deports U.S. Deserter Who Opposes Iraq War
Excellent! Now, prosecute him to the full extent of the law in the United States.  SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor ---------------------------------------------- Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War 15 Jul 2008 Source: Reuters By Allan Dowd VANCOUVER, British Columbia, July 15 (Reuters) - Canada deported on Tuesday the first of some 200 Americans who deserted the U.S. military and sought refugee status to protest against the Iraq War. Now, let's do the same with the other 199 scum-bag deserters. -- DSH Robin Long, 25, was removed a day after a Federal Court judge in Vancouver rejected his claim that he would suffer irreparable harm if returned to the United States. He fled across the border in 2005 as his army tank unit was preparing to deploy to Iraq. The Canada Border Services Agency confirmed Long's removal, but declined to give other details, citing privacy laws. Long's refugee claim had already been rejected and he could not appeal Monday's court ruling. The issue of U.S. deserters has evoked memories of Canada's acceptance of tens of thousands of draft dodgers and deserters during the Vietnam War. But it has also exposed a political split in the country -- even within its courts -- over what role it should play today. Ottawa has deployed soldiers in Afghanistan but has refused to participate in the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Long's supporters staged a small demonstration on Tuesday at the Peace Arch border crossing south of Vancouver. "We may be small, but we represent a large body of people who disagree with what happened," said Sarah Bjorknas of the War Resisters Support Campaign. Hilarious! Why, then, can you turn out so few "protesters"? -- DSH Opponents of granting refugee status to deserters argue that, unlike during the Vietnam War, the United States does not now have a military draft and members of its military are volunteers who know the potential risks. PRECISELY! -- DSH Prime Minister Stephen Harper's minority Conservative government has ignored a nonbinding motion passed by opposition parties in the House of Commons last month that would have allowed the Iraq deserters to stay. Long and others have argued it was only after they had joined the military that they decided the U.S. government had lied to the public about the reasons for the Iraq War, and they were refusing to fight in an illegal conflict. The Supreme Court of Canada refused last year to hear the appeals of two U.S. deserters whose applications for refugee status were turned down by immigration authorities. But Federal Courts in Ontario this month temporarily blocked the removal of two deserters, including Joshua Key who the court said did not get a proper immigration hearing on his claim that the Iraq War was unjust. Long's supporters had argued he should not be deported until the conflicting court rulings were resolved. It is unknown how many Iraq War deserters have moved to Canada, but peace groups have said they know of about 200 people seeking refugee status. It is estimated that more than 50,000 war resisters moved to Canada during the Vietnam era. Long fled to Nelson, British Columbia, an area of the Pacific Coast province where many Vietnam War resisters decided to remain even after Washington granted amnesty in 1977. (Editing by Rob Wilson) > Excellent! > > Now, prosecute him to the full extent of the law in the United States. Ditto! If you take the oath & the check? Then you do the job that we pay you for. I'm sure Leavenworth will have space for all 200. Bingo! SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor >> Excellent! >> >> Now, prosecute him to the full extent of the law in the United States. > > Ditto! If you take the oath & the check? Then you do the job that we pay > you for. I'm sure Leavenworth will have space for all 200. http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/369.html >> Excellent! >> >> Now, prosecute him to the full extent of the law in the United States. > > Ditto! If you take the oath & the check? Then you do the job that we pay > you for. I'm sure Leavenworth will have space for all 200. Offer a choice, prison time followed by a dishonourable discharge or remuster as a combat medic. He joined of his own free will, I agree that he isn't a refugee and should be snet back. Now if you guys still had the draft I can see a case for allowing him to stay. SignatureRich Enfield NS Canada >>> Excellent! >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > should be snet back. Now if you guys still had the draft I can see a case > for allowing him to stay. I feel for them up to the point where they whinge about how they were not told about fighting the enemy wherever they be and that they joined for the educational bennies -- then I think, "fugg 'em!" When we let the draft evaders and deserters stay during Viet Nam, it was because they met the criteria for status as landed immigrants, not because they were avoiding serving in Indochina or anywhere else. The current crop generally do not meet the criteria for immigration (we upped them in '77 and made them more stringent in 2001 or so) and there is not the capacity to allow them to jump the line. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) >>>> Excellent! >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >made them more stringent in 2001 or so) and there is not the capacity to allow >them to jump the line. There are two other things. First these folks chose to join, the Nam era guys did not, for the most part. It makes a difference. Second, the US didn't really seem to want the Nam era people back. They could have tried much harder to get them than they did. Possibly they were glad to have the safety valve, it was a lot quieter than a series of court cases would have been. Peter Skelton >>>>> Excellent! >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Peter Skelton I thought everything had been said about this, but maybe not. On the unit side, the unit commander is informed that a returnee is now assigned to his unit. He says the appropriate, "Oh, sh.t!" and tells the first sergeant to be on the watch. The guy shows up sporting a peace sign on his uniform (happened) posts a pic of Che on his locker (happened) writes his lawyer, congressman, chaplain, etc. every day (happened) and generally makes a big nuisance, just this side of the law so that he can either get out, or get the assignment he wants (he is always the most important person in the world.) So the other side of the story is the unit does not want him, even if he volunteers to return. And as I have related, when in Vietnam, I served with SF and MACV who were all volunteers, and we agreed that we did not want anyone around who might either cut out or be so scared they froze. Anyway, I did know a person who knew a person who was in Canada (all I'll say about that) and I admitted that that was probably the right place for that person. And under my breath said it was the best thing for the army too. >>>>>> Excellent! >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >that) and I admitted that that was probably the right place for that person. >And under my breath said it was the best thing for the army too. Concur. I've wondered whether an American volunteer effort would have done better in Vietnam. Volunteers certainly wdo better work. The draft, and its incredible corruption before the reforms, certainly helped mobilize anti-war sentiment. Peter Skelton Please give us the specifics. SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor > When we let the draft evaders and deserters stay during Viet Nam, it was > because they met the criteria for status as landed immigrants, not because > they were avoiding serving in Indochina or anywhere else. The current crop > generally do not meet the criteria for immigration (we upped them in '77 > and made them more stringent in 2001 or so) and there is not the capacity > to allow them to jump the line. > Excellent! > > Now, prosecute him to the full extent of the law in the United States. A short sentence - tied to the front of a AFV in a hot zone. >> Excellent! >> >> Now, prosecute him to the full extent of the law in the United States. > > A short sentence - tied to the front of a AFV in a hot zone. How unAmerican can you get. You guys are pathetic. Let him go home to his family. Dan >>> Excellent! >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Dan The army *is* his family. And his family wants to put him in "Time Out." > How unAmerican can you get. You guys are pathetic. Let him go home to > his family. > > Dan UnAmerican???? These guys are as low down the Cops in New Orleans who just upped and ran away when needed. They joined the Army, not Burger King or Home Depot. If you are a pacifist, thats fine. Many are.... But joining, living off Uncle Sam and then like Moses one day talking to a bush you decide: "Oh, I like to only fight on thursdays vs xyz nations?" That does not fly...... He can go home after his stint in prison & his discharge. > >> Excellent! > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > How unAmerican can you get. You guys are pathetic. Let him go home to > his family. let him serve his time first SignatureWar is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself. John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher. Spot On! SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor > War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. > The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher. >>>> Excellent! >>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > let him serve his time first In front of a Marine with a fixed bayonet. > >> Excellent! > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Dan Hi, An interesting point to consider, is how many in this newgroup served in vietnam and came back to the US, after going to Canada to protest the war, then in the late 1970's when President Carter granted amnesty to those who went to Canada during that time? I though during the vietnam war many went to Canada, worked, and no special status was needed. Believe it or not, even in this area which has the great lakes naval base, the discussion about going to Canada has become more prevalent even more so that in 2003 after the war started. The discussion is not the son/daughter deciding to go, it is their family planning and saving to give them money to go. So, it is not unalateral -- someone in the high level command should consider this. >>> Excellent! >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Dan Sure he should go home to his family but only after he pays for his crime. BTW. What decent parents would allow this person back into their home? > A short sentence - tied to the front of a AFV in a hot zone. Not good. Some-one will have to clean the blood off. Better use the fingers in ears foot stomping mine detecting corp Tell us all about "landed immigrant" status and how it's evolved. SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor > Excellent! > > Now, prosecute him to the full extent of the law in the United States. [ SNIP ] The Canadian position on this and other deserters is that they are not operating at the "policy level". That is, neither Long nor Jeremy Hinzman nor anyone else so far has a rank high enough where, under the Nuremberg Principles, they can seriously claim that they have personal responsibility, provided that they themselves do not actually engage in criminal conduct. In other words, your bureaucrats and generals are responsible for an illegal war, not the grunt in the trenches, and hence the grunt in the trenches cannot make a personal assessment of what's illegal and what's not. The key point from the US perspective is that true conscientious objection requires that an individual object to *all* wars, period. You cannot cherrypick which ones you think are OK and which ones are not. I personally am a bit dubious about this one, since I can see that a person would willingly fight if his country was attacked, but would not fight if his country were an aggressor. Be that as it may, the fact is that that is US law, and someone joining the US military ought to be aware of it. As to the related point, can someone develop a set of conscientious objection beliefs after joining up, in theory sure. The UN says this is OK. I myself think that recruit training is where a person makes that gut call, and I hold no animus against someone who says during Week 8 of boot camp that they just can't participate in organized violence. I'd think they were mixed up, but at least they made the decision in time. But someone who voluntarily then proceeds through combat arms training, and perhaps chooses more specialized combat trades, and/or ships over once or more, I'm pretty dubious about their sudden "conversions". AHS > Excellent! > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Canada deports U.S. deserter who opposes Iraq War Unfortunately, it's the only recourse for those trapped in harm's way for no good reason, when their government misuses the military and sends young men to die an war of bad choice. Of course, to be in the military in the first place with the kind of political system we have, it's nuts. Another crime against humanity is that of the 19 year old Canadian in Guantanamo Bay. He is charged with war crimes for throwing a grenade that killed an American during a battle in Afghanistan. Is he is not a POW, what is? Well, no. The Bush administration has it that it is legal for Americans to shoot anyone they deem to be Taliban right or wrong, in Afghanistan but it's illegal for anyone to shoot back. Another page of American injustice. Another corridor in the hell war is. And yet another reason for not starting one lightly. Nonsense... He's charged as an... UNAUTHORIZED COMBATANT and does NOT fall under the rights granted by the Geneva Conventions SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor >> Excellent! >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Is he is not a POW, what is? > Nonsense... > > He's charged as an... > > UNAUTHORIZED COMBATANT and does NOT fall under the rights granted by the > Geneva Conventions Says who? Mr. Hines years of Bush/Cheney Kool-Aid drinking prevents him from seeing the nonsense of his statement. The United States has no authority to decide who is an authorized combatant outside the United States, it's a totally arbitrary prescription. The man was fighting foreign invaders in his country of residence, and the Taliban were the government of Aghanistan with the inherent authority to defend their country before any other considerations. The Taliban, detestable as they are, were no less legitimate rulers of Afghanistan than any other non-democratic rulers of the world. That man is no less of a POW than any Nazi soldier who killed an American in Germany and was captured. What do you know about the Geneva Convention anyway other than how wet it gets when you piss on it? > -- > DSH [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > Is he is not a POW, what is? [snip] > The man was fighting foreign invaders in his country of residence, and > the Taliban were the government of Aghanistan with the inherent [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > What do you know about the Geneva Convention anyway other than how wet > it gets when you piss on it? If he was a serving soldier his officers should have issued him with an identity card (Geneva article 17) and a uniform [=To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance] (Hague article 1 appendix). <http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument> <http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm> Andrew Swallow >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] ><http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument> ><http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm> But he does not have to be a serving soldier to be a legal combatant. Being caught in combat does that for you. There's no case against this fellow in a remotely honest hearing. Peter Skelton >>[snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > combatant. Being caught in combat does that for you. There's no > case against this fellow in a remotely honest hearing. This showed up in Canadian newspapers this past week: http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q122/nilita2004/Gitmo-1.jpg - nilita > > This showed up in Canadian newspapers this past week: > > http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q122/nilita2004/Gitmo-1.jpg > > - nilita btw, the airline mentioned in the cartoon relates to this story, for those who are out of the loop: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=27f3a1df-8b2f-4144-bd73-e b3a661c375e - nilita >>>[snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q122/nilita2004/Gitmo-1.jpg For our American friends, the airliner reference is to Air India not WTC. The only convicted perp got out on time served recently. Peter Skelton >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Peter Skelton He is not a local and civilian support staff are meant to have ID cards as well. If he is not a combatant he can only use weapons for self defence. Andrew Swallow >>> [snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >He is not a local and civilian support staff are meant to have ID cards >as well. Utter bullshit >If he is not a combatant he can only use weapons for self >defence. Which is all he is thought to have done, (although that cannot be proven). Not that it matters, he's a combatant by the definitions. Peter Skelton >>>> [snip] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Utter bullshit I strongly suggest you read the Geneva Convention before using such words. >> If he is not a combatant he can only use weapons for self >> defence. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Peter Skelton >>>>> [snip] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >I strongly suggest you read the Geneva Convention before using such words. That's a bloody stupid thing to say. It's your claim, go ahead and post the part of the Genevca conventions that says " civilian support staff are meant to have ID cards" Peter Skelton >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > and post the part of the Genevca conventions that says " civilian > support staff are meant to have ID cards" Vince, many times, has provided the relevant legal interpretation of the Geneva Convention to Mr. Swallow in the past. And, btw, where *is* Vince these days? - nilita > >>>>>> te...@tiglath.net wrote: > >>>>>> [snip] [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > - nilita Hi I've been traveling, teaching, dealing with some difficult family healthissues and sending my normal computer in for repairs Back soon Vince >> >>>>>> te...@tiglath.net wrote: >> >>>>>> [snip] [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Back soon Good to see you, Vince. I'm sorry, though, about the "difficult family health issues" ..:(. Hope everything turns out okay. - nilita [ SNIP ] >>I strongly suggest you read the Geneva Convention before using such words. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Peter Skelton GC III Art 4 A.4 "Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model." I'd say that pretty much covers it. AHS >[ SNIP ] >>>I strongly suggest you read the Geneva Convention before using such words. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >I'd say that pretty much covers it. That would be what the idjit read OK, and I've read often enough before. There's an obvious problems with it in context. We've been discussing irregular forces, people who don't need uniforms because of how war came upon them - would you say that a claim that people tarvelling with them need an ID card is supported by that section? Come off it. Peter Skelton >> [ SNIP ] >>>> I strongly suggest you read the Geneva Convention before using such words. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Peter Skelton That makes the granting of POW status to irregular forces voluntary by the USA and can be cancelled any time the USA wants to. Andrew Swallow Your words were: [quote] > But he does not have to be a serving soldier to be a legal > combatant. Being caught in combat does that for you. There's no > case against this fellow in a remotely honest hearing. > > Peter Skelton [/quote] >>> [ SNIP ] >>>>> I strongly suggest you read the Geneva Convention before using such words. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >That makes the granting of POW status to irregular forces voluntary >by the USA and can be cancelled any time the USA wants to. That so clearly does not follow from the content that I am at a loss to reply. >Andrew Swallow > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Peter Skelton >[/quote] Which is absolutely true. Have you a problem with it? Peter Skelton >>>> [ SNIP ] >>>>>> I strongly suggest you read the Geneva Convention before using such words. [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Peter Skelton Whether he is legal or not depends on the date he started fighting. Andrew Swallow >>>>> [ SNIP ] >>>>>>> I strongly suggest you read the Geneva Convention before using such words. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > >Whether he is legal or not depends on the date he started fighting. That would be the day they shot at him wouldn't it? Peter Skelton > [ SNIP ] >>>I strongly suggest you read the Geneva Convention before using such words. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I'd say that pretty much covers it. Here's how we comply with the article: http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/026-05_e.asp. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Peter Skelton That is easy. Article 4.A.4 of the 1949 Geneva Convention [quote] (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as *civilian* members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an *identity card* similar to the annexed model. [/quote] <http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument> Andrew Swallow Hilarious! Pogue Skelton gets outflanked and roundly flummoxed, then kicked in the arse for good measure... Again. 'Nuff Said. SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor >>>>> He is not a local and civilian support staff are meant to have ID >>>>> cards >>>>> as well. >>>> Utter bullshit >>> I strongly suggest you read the Geneva Convention before using such >>> words. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Article 4.A.4 of the 1949 Geneva Convention > [quote] > (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being > members thereof, such as *civilian* members of military aircraft crews, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with an *identity card* similar to the annexed model. > [/quote] <http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument> > Andrew Swallow It is something of a shame that you have not been following the thread. Mr. Swallow is not quite on it here. >Hilarious! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >'Nuff Said. Peter Skelton >>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > ><http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument> OFCS Arved already posted that, I've already reacted and he's answered. Do try to keep up. Peter Skelton > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > identity card (Geneva article 17) and a uniform [=To have a fixed > distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance] (Hague article 1 appendix). But engaging in combat in a combat zone makes him a combatant. That's it, no arguments, he's a soldier because he was openly fighting the invaders... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > That's it, no arguments, he's a soldier because he was openly fighting > the invaders... Bullshit. They're supposed to be in some form of uniform so they can't hide among civilians. "Geneva" was developed in the context of standard warfare. In the law of land warfare, a combatant cuahgt in civilian clothes has always been in trouble, Otherwise, you could argue that suicide bombers, and regular bombers, like have been caught in Britain, should be treated as POWs rather than as criminal terrorists. I think the regular Taliban captured in Afghanistan do fall within a gray zone between al Qaeda who are pure criminal terrorists, and uniformed troops who have full rights under Geneva. The real problem is maybe 1/3 of the prisoners the US took in Afghanistan, were innocent noncomBATANTS sold for bounties, compunded with miltary "tribunals" that have been corrupted by Bush stooges. >>> [snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >have been caught in Britain, should be treated as POWs rather than as >criminal terrorists. To get away with being a combatant in civies, you have to be caught in combat as this lad was. <s> Peter Skelton >>>> [snip] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >>have been caught in Britain, should be treated as POWs rather than as >>criminal terrorists. > To get away with being a combatant in civies, you have to be > caught in combat as this lad was. I assume your joking. > <s> > > Peter Skelton >>>>> [snip] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > I assume your joking. No he's not.. have a read of the GC.. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm The boy qualifies under article 4 A(6). Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. The identifying mark (Usually taken by some as "uniform") is another part of Article 4 A 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. Note that: A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: Qualifying under 4A6 means 4A2 is not applicable... >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of > war. I though he was Canadian? What was he doing in Afghanistan? Did he join the Taliban? Did he suddenly become an Afghani fighting an invader? The Taliban had been in power for several years in Afghanistan. If they should be considered a formal military, why didn't they have uniforms? Why wasn't he in one? > The identifying mark (Usually taken by some as "uniform") is another part > of Article 4 A [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Qualifying under 4A6 means 4A2 is not applicable... <SNIP> >> The boy qualifies under >> article 4 A(6). Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I though he was Canadian? *** It says "inhabitant" not "citizen" > What was he doing in Afghanistan? *** I don't know.. But maybe he supported the Taliban.. That wasn't illegal.. He could have just been visiting family... > Did he join the Taliban? Did he suddenly become an Afghani fighting an > invader? *** Anybody can join the Taliban... It might have been the only semi organized organization capable of "mounting a defence against the invasion".. He might not even have "joined" the Taliban.. Just been with them when the American forces attacked... He doesn't have to be Afghani.. He just has to be in the country http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inhabitant one that occupies a particular place regularly, routinely, or for a period of time > The Taliban had been in power for several years in Afghanistan. If they > should be considered a formal military, why didn't they have uniforms? Why > wasn't he in one? *** The culture doesn't extend to buying uniforms.. And uniforms are not a legal requirement of the GC... He might not have been in the armed forces of the Taliban pre invasion. He then "spontaneously" took up arms to assist in the defence as he is legally entitled to do <SNIP> > <SNIP> >>> The boy qualifies under [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > then "spontaneously" took up arms to assist in the defence as he is > legally entitled to do In the spirit of all this crap , the US should return the little cocksucker in the same condition as the guy he killed with the gernade. My sympathy goes to innocent people stuck in cutody for years, and I think the regular Taliban fighters should get most of the regular POW rights. Al Qaeda and this little wanabe a.shole have a right to a shallow hole in the ground. > <SNIP> > respect the laws and customs of war. Did the Taliban conform to this clause in the convention ? SignatureWar is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself. John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher. >> respect the laws and customs of war. > > Did the Taliban conform to this clause in the convention ? So a scumbag like you would lower yourself to that of the Taliban, eh jackass? > >> respect the laws and customs of war. > > > > Did the Taliban conform to this clause in the convention ? > > So a scumbag like you would lower yourself to that of the Taliban, eh > jackass? No, and you didn't answer the question. Did the taliban conform to that portion of the clause in the GC ? SignatureWar is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself. John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher. >>>> respect the laws and customs of war. >>> Did the Taliban conform to this clause in the convention ? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, and you didn't answer the question. > Did the taliban conform to that portion of the clause in the GC ? They probably were doing so (By local standards of laws and customs of war) Taliban wasn't a terrorist organization it wasn't just the "military" it was the community which had a military arm A bit like "Americans" doesn't mean teh American army, although the American army is made up of Americans. > although the >American army is made up of Americans. Wow! Why isn't this on all the newspapers? Why doesn't Mr. Obvious tell us this information? Horvath@Horvath.net My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the ultimate power in the universe." > >>>> respect the laws and customs of war. > >>> Did the Taliban conform to this clause in the convention ? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > They probably were doing so (By local standards of laws and customs of war) That could be true. But can we apply those same local standards to the coalition forces too ? No, not really, they have to comply with the GC. > Taliban wasn't a terrorist organization it wasn't just the "military" it > was the community which had a military arm I'm not sure that's an accurate description of the Taliban. It was/is more of a military force that attempted to impose it's version of Islam on Afghanistan. > A bit like "Americans" doesn't mean teh American army, although the > American army is made up of Americans. SignatureWar is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself. John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher. >>>>>> respect the laws and customs of war. >>>>> Did the Taliban conform to this clause in the convention ? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > coalition forces too ? > No, not really, they have to comply with the GC. *** If they are the only rules of warfare they know.... But has anybody seen anything that suggests that when the Taliban forces were fighting to take control of the whole country (And then the Americans came in paying lots of warlords to switch sides) that they weren't fighting according to the rules of war? >> Taliban wasn't a terrorist organization it wasn't just the "military" it >> was the community which had a military arm > > I'm not sure that's an accurate description of the Taliban. It was/is > more of a military force that attempted to impose it's version of Islam > on Afghanistan. It was a religious movement. Not all members of the movement would have been fighters... And then there were all the warlords committing forces to whichever side paid best... > >>>>>> respect the laws and customs of war. > >>>>> Did the Taliban conform to this clause in the convention ? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Americans came in paying lots of warlords to switch sides) that they > weren't fighting according to the rules of war? Executing civilians as reprisals ? Blowing up religious sites of other religions > >> Taliban wasn't a terrorist organization it wasn't just the "military" it > >> was the community which had a military arm [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And then there were all the warlords committing forces to whichever side > paid best... SignatureWar is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself. John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher. >>>>>>>> respect the laws and customs of war. >>>>>>> Did the Taliban conform to this clause in the convention ? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Executing civilians as reprisals ? > Blowing up religious sites of other religions Systematic breach of the rules of warfare rendering the entire organisation ineligible for legal combatant status? Or just a few Taliban commanders that need courts marshalling? Andrew Swallow >>>> Taliban wasn't a terrorist organization it wasn't just the "military" it >>>> was the community which had a military arm [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> And then there were all the warlords committing forces to whichever side >> paid best... >>>>>>>>> respect the laws and customs of war. >>>>>>>> Did the Taliban conform to this clause in the convention ? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > organisation ineligible for legal combatant status? Or just a few > Taliban commanders that need courts marshalling? In a railway marshalling yard? SignatureJohn Briggs > >>>>>>>> respect the laws and customs of war. > >>>>>>> Did the Taliban conform to this clause in the convention ? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > organisation ineligible for legal combatant status? Or just a few > Taliban commanders that need courts marshalling? They seemed to be engaged in an attempt to eradicate any other belief system in Afganistan. That implies a top down mandate. SignatureWar is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself. John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher. >>>>>>> respect the laws and customs of war. >>>>>> Did the Taliban conform to this clause in the convention ? [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > And then there were all the warlords committing forces to whichever side > paid best... Or *all* sides simultaneously ... >>>>>> respect the laws and customs of war. >>>>> Did the Taliban conform to this clause in the convention ? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > The Taliban may count as "Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps ...". Andrew Swallow [ SNIP ] >> I'm not sure that's an accurate description of the Taliban. It was/is >> more of a military force that attempted to impose it's version of Islam [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Andrew Swallow To put it in perspective, imagine the Bolshevik Revolution happening again, with another Allied intervention. But now we've got the current Geneva Conventions. I won't even try to dissect that in detail, please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War But in any case, imagine the basic players - Russian Reds (various factions), Russian Whites (various factions), Central powers, Allies, various new national militaries, non-state nationalist groups. Main question being, how would you classify the groups above? There are some parallels here. Think of the Reds as being the Taliban. Think of the Whites as being the Northern Alliance. The main difference is that now in Afghanistan it's as if we were looking at a hypothetical Russia in the mid to late 1920's, with the Allies still maintaining a presence and doing most of the fighting, the Whites having produced a legitimized government, and the Reds still holding out in strongholds. Note that GC III, Part I, General Provisions, Article 3 addresses civil wars as "cases of armed conflict not of an international character". This would be on a signatory's territory, of course. Afghanistan is one, as of 1949 (ratified 1956). The parties to such an internal conflict might very possibly be classified as the first group in Article 4, since they are in effect the "primary" players. AHS > [ SNIP ] >>> I'm not sure that's an accurate description of the Taliban. It was/is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > To put it in perspective, imagine the Bolshevik Revolution happening > again, No. >> [ SNIP ] >>>> I'm not sure that's an accurate description of the Taliban. It was/is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > No. Is the "No." a reply to the Taliban or the Bolsheviks? Andrew Swallow > >>>>>> respect the laws and customs of war. > >>>>> Did the Taliban conform to this clause in the convention ? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > The Taliban may count as "Members of other militias and members of other > volunteer corps ...". They can. The discussion was if thier bad actions prelucde giving them GC protection. SignatureWar is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself. John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher. [ SNIP ] >> But engaging in combat in a combat zone makes him a combatant. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > hide > among civilians. Well, no. Members of militias and organized resistance movements must have a chain of command, display a fixed distinctive sign, fight openly, and follow the laws and customs of war. Inhabitants who spontaneously take up arms against an invader - a different category - don't even have to have a commander or a fixed distinctive sign, but must still carry arms openly and abide by the laws of war. These are both GCIII categories that are considered to be lawful combatants. To put it into context, if Russian paratroopers landed in Illinois, you and three of your buddies would be lawful combatants if you all grabbed your hunting rifles, set up a defensive position, and waited for the enemy. You could wear anything you liked and not have to have a commander. But you'd probably be on thin ice if a month down the road you're still not organized and don't have a modicum of a uniform, and are still shooting at Russians, because the element of spontaneity is no longer there. > "Geneva" was developed in the context of standard warfare. > > In the law of land warfare, a combatant cuahgt in civilian clothes has > always been in trouble, And usually they ought to be. There is a very narrow set of circumstances where you can be a lawful combatant and not have a uniform of some kind (distinctive sign(s)). > Otherwise, you could argue that suicide bombers, and regular bombers, like > have been caught in Britain, should be treated as POWs rather than as > criminal terrorists. They wouldn't be POWs because they do not fall under any of the provisions of Art.4 of GCIII anyway. Even if they did they'd likely lose their POW protections because of a breach of the laws of war. Note that the experiences of WW2, with respect to national resistance movements, led to a great deal of discussion before the wording of Article 4 of GC III was agreed. Strictly speaking, though, the Geneva Conventions apply to conflicts between states, a state being a group with effective sovereignty over a territory (i.e the Taliban). Resistance movements are covered because they are clearly fighting for one side or another. Note that this does not mean that a Party to the conflict needs to approve of the organized resistance movement, merely that the organized resistance movement is clearly fighting against an occupier. Strictly speaking an AQ member fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan is probably legally OK, not that the US sees it that way, provided that he's fighting openly. If on the other hand he's planting bombs in shopping malls in the UK that's against the laws of war anyhow. > I think the regular Taliban captured in Afghanistan do fall within a gray > zone between al Qaeda who are pure criminal terrorists, and uniformed > troops > who have full rights under Geneva. I don't think there is a gray zone for the regular Taliban. They were a state in the GC III sense through most of 2001, they still are a rump state in the sense that they control terrain, and they can legitimately operate forces in the occupied zone. That there now happens to be another Afghan government is irrelevant. Combatants for both sides enjoy (or should enjoy) POW protections. AHS >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > That's it, no arguments, he's a soldier because he was openly fighting the > invaders... A person needs more than that because mercenaries for example are not entitled to POW status. If there is doubt about his status then under Article 5 a competent tribunal would have to determine if Article 4.A.(2) or 4.A.(6) applies. He can then be interned as a POW under Article 21. Note Article 4.A.(6) is time limited and he would have had to be in Afghanistan before the Americans invaded. <http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument> If he is not a legal combatant then he may be open to a murder charge in Canada. A British man could be charged under Article 9 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Canada may have an equivalent. <http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/UKlaw/oap1861> Depending on the dates Article 3.74 (Terrorism Offence committed outside Canada) of the Canadian Criminal Code may allegedly apply. Since Canadian troops are fighting in Afghanistan the man may be open to an alleged High Treason charge under Article 46.(1).(c) of the Canadian Criminal Code. <http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46//20080718> Andrew Swallow >>> [snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > A person needs more than that because mercenaries for example are not > entitled to POW status. *** Where does it say mercenaries aren't covered? Does that mean Gurkhas aren't covered? Or is there some special meaning of mercenary somewhere? <SNIP> >>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message [snip] >> A person needs more than that because mercenaries for example are not >> entitled to POW status. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > <SNIP> It is in the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977." Britain and Canada have ratified the Protocol but the USA has not. <http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc12 5641e0052b079> [quote] Art 47. Mercenaries 1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. 2. A mercenary is any person who: (a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces. [/quote] I would recommend any captured Gurkha hire a good lawyer who will argue that he swore an Oath of Loyalty to Britain, is not paid more than British soldiers and is a member of the British armed forces. Andrew Swallow >>>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message > [snip] [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Andrew Swallow And *all* of the conditions (a) through (f) must hold for a person to be a mercenary. I think the Gurkhas are OK. Private military contractors are on shakier ground. The UN held in October of last year that these PMCs basically amount to a new form of mercenary activity (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-10-17-3392316246_x.htm) The US doesn't much care, since she is not signatory to the 1989 Mercenary Convention. Some of the criteria are rather odd anyway. By definition, if you were a German citizen living in Britain, and hired out to the Petrostani Peoples Liberation Army (which was a guerilla group fighting the legitimate government of Petrostan), if the UK then became a party to the conflict (on the side of the legit govt even) you wouldn't be a mercenary anymore...mind you, you wouldn't be going home to the UK either. AHS >>>> [snip] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Does that mean Gurkhas aren't covered? Or is there some special meaning of > mercenary somewhere? Why not extend this to people doing bomb attacks on, say, buses and trains? >>>>> [snip] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Why not extend this to people doing bomb attacks on, say, buses and trains? Point of grammar "this" is ambiguous since it could apply to several different points. The people who attacked the buses etc were not members of any country's armed forces, they were not wearing a uniform and hid their weapons. Also attacking civilians is a war crime. Andrew Swallow >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> Why not extend this to people doing bomb attacks on, say, buses and >> trains? > Point of grammar "this" is ambiguous since it could apply to several > different points. > > The people who attacked the buses etc were not members of any country's > armed forces, they were not wearing a uniform and hid their weapons. > Also attacking civilians is a war crime. Points of grammar aside, the "Taliban" have a history of systematically not wearing a uniform, hiding their weapons, attacking civilians, plus supporting a terroist group (al Qaeda), and it's questionable as to whether they ever constituted the formal military of Afghanistan. > Andrew Swallow > "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message <snip> > Points of grammar aside, the "Taliban" have a history of systematically not > wearing a uniform, hiding their weapons, attacking civilians, plus > supporting a terroist group (al Qaeda), and it's questionable as to whether > they ever constituted the formal military of Afghanistan. Isn't that an adaptation *to* the Geneva Convention, though? it's calculated to undermine the rules set up in such a system. After all, if you were a "spy" in say, the American Civil War, who used mufti or a Union uniform to disguise yourself, you got a drumhead execution. Back to the topic - I think it's becoming pretty clear that extending POW status to noncombatants was known (by some) to be in the USA's enlightened self-interest, and that Abu Grahib and other little messes have illustrated just how much this is so. We need the discipline of a good categorization of how to treat captives more than the captives need the improved treatment. Otherwise, people are improvising policy in the field and Bad Things happen. "Telephone games" and the fog of war conspire to raise the noise floor and make lots of trouble. The problem is that back home bureaucrats can't say that they didn't do *everything* to identify The Terrirsts in certain panicked political climates. I am not 100% sure why nobody responsible pushed back for this. They left the field open for rather hysterical people filling in the blanks. We can posit venal motives, but also in a post-Clinton political climate, it's probably known that transparency at this level is very likely a liability. I hope the Orwellian explanations are not the real story. <snip> -- Les Cargill > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Andrew Swallow One group described in Article 4 almost certainly would not have identity cards or uniforms, namely "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war." This is Art.4 A.6. Where commanders and fixed distinctive signs get mentioned is in Art.4 A.2, namely members of militias or volunteer corps, including organized resistance movements (read partisans), that belong to a Party to the conflict. Clearly there is not much leeway for Art.4 A.6 - one would have to assume that it provides protections (designation as a lawful combatant, POW protections) for a very short period of time, after which such inhabitants would have to become members of organized resistance movements. One thing is quite clear - people are either described by Article 4 of GCIII (they are afforded POW protections; are lawful combatants IOW) *or* they are civilians. Unlawful combatants are, by definition, civilians. However, the US screwed up in saying that any and all Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan were illegal enemy combatants (i.e. unlawful). On a case-by-case basis, perhaps, but as a blanket provision this is a mistake. It's effectively a dismissal of the Geneva Conventions. AHS Pogue Sandstrom doesn't understand how to fight Global Islamofascist Jihadist Terrorism. Terrorists are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor > One thing is quite clear - people are either described by Article 4 of > GCIII (they are afforded POW protections; are lawful combatants IOW) *or* [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > AHS > Pogue Sandstrom doesn't understand how to fight Global Islamofascist > Jihadist Terrorism. > > Terrorists are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. My point was, and is, that the only way you can call many of these characters "terrorists" is because they are members of, or affiliated with, an organization (or organizations) labelled as terrorist. In more than a few cases such labelling is overly broad, and often questionable. Designating the Taliban as terrorist is effectively the same as designating the Waffen-SS a criminal organization...while part of both was/is terrorist/criminal, another part was/is not. Explain to me why a Pashtun fighter, who happens to be a member of the Taliban, but has only ever participated in combat with US, NATO or Afghan government troops, is an honest-to-God terrorist? How about the hundreds of Taliban who attacked the US/Afghan outpost at Wanat, Nuristan...was that a "terrorist" act, in your opinion? From my perspective it looks like a legitimate military operation against a strongpoint. Maybe it's just me, but I consider terrorists to be people (including support personnnel), who have conducted, or will conduct, actual terrorist attacks, not just anyone who happens to be lumped in by virtue of a simplistic and overly general description. AHS >> One thing is quite clear - people are either described by Article 4 of >> GCIII (they are afforded POW protections; are lawful combatants IOW) *or* [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> AHS Red Herring Strawmen Rejected. SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor >> Pogue Sandstrom doesn't understand how to fight Global Islamofascist >> Jihadist Terrorism. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >>> >>> AHS > Red Herring Strawmen Rejected. Thus demonstrating that DSH is ignorant of common English expressions. Dan >> Red Herring Strawmen Rejected. > > Thus demonstrating that DSH is ignorant of common English expressions. > > Dan Does he still see Red Herrings under every bed? Cheers CJA > My point was, and is, that the only way you can call many of these > characters "terrorists" is because they are members of, or affiliated [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > same as designating the Waffen-SS a criminal organization...while > part of both was/is terrorist/criminal, another part was/is not. Just out of interest, which part of the Waffen-SS was not a criminal organisation? SignatureJohn Briggs >> My point was, and is, that the only way you can call many of these >> characters "terrorists" is because they are members of, or affiliated [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Just out of interest, which part of the Waffen-SS was not a criminal > organisation? There were probably some that weren't any worse than normal ground units. Maybe 12? Division, Hitler Youth. >>> My point was, and is, that the only way you can call many of these >>> characters "terrorists" is because they are members of, or [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > There were probably some that weren't any worse than normal ground > units. On the Eastern Front all ground units committed atrocities - in other theatres, it was normally the Waffen-SS. > Maybe 12? Division, Hitler Youth. They were accused of committing atrocities against Canadian soldiers, and their commanding general was convicted of war crimes. Their officers and NCOs were drawn from units that had served on the Eastern Front. SignatureJohn Briggs >>>> My point was, and is, that the only way you can call many of these >>>> characters "terrorists" is because they are members of, or [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > On the Eastern Front all ground units committed atrocities - in other > theatres, it was normally the Waffen-SS. I do hope you included the Russians in those atrocities? Perhaps you would like to inspect the American troop behavior in crossing Italy and a lot of other places. In the heat of battle Morality can and does get lost. >> Maybe 12? Division, Hitler Youth. > > They were accused of committing atrocities against Canadian soldiers, and > their commanding general was convicted of war crimes. Their officers and > NCOs were drawn from units that had served on the Eastern Front. The winners always claim atrocities of the losers. After all, there is no way for the Losers to try the winners for their crimes. America committed us to that war by acts of war in not maintaining neutrality by shipping arms disguised very crudely as food and medicine relief. If we had stepped up to the plate when Germany got raped by the Versailles treaty and the breaking of it by France.. It is doubtful a war would have been required. The English sucked us into their stupidity. Poland was one of the English's dumbest tactical moves. >>>>> My point was, and is, that the only way you can call |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message