StoneMtn Posted April 10, 2006 Report Share Posted April 10, 2006 Hmmmm. Do ya suppose that it was to avoid having to deal with a recognized court, that the U.S. decided not to sign on to the agreement creating the International Criminal Court in the Hague? [color:purple]Unfortunately, Canada has more of a conscience, and we DID sign on, so we are now under the gun...Canadian soldiers may be subject to war crimes chargesCanWest News ServiceMon 10 Apr 2006Byline: Dave PuglieseDateline: OTTAWASource: CanWest News Service; Ottawa CitizenOTTAWA - Canadian soldiers could be charged with war crimes in theInternational Criminal Court because of an agreement the government approvedon the handling of detainees captured in Afghanistan, warns a report to bereleased today.The legal opinion on the arrangement regarding prisoners, captured byCanadian troops and then turned over to the Afghan government, raises anumber of red flags about the lack of safeguards to protect soldiers againstprosecution."Whoever negotiated this agreement did our soldiers a great disservice,"said Michael Byers, an international law professor at the University ofBritish Columbia, who wrote the opinion.That report is one of two to be released today at a press conferenceinvolving Amnesty International, the Polaris Institute, an Ottawa-basedthink-tank, and legal experts.The second report by University of Ottawa Prof. Amir Attaran, aconstitutional human rights law specialist, also questions the detaineeagreement that Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier signed in Kabulin December."The mere fact there is a possibility for Canadian troops to be chargeddemonstrates how fundamentally flawed this detainee transfer arrangementis," added Byers, author of the book War Law: Understanding InternationalLaw and Armed Conflict.Conservative government and Liberal party officials, however, have dismissedany concerns about the agreement.Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said last week he is satisfied with thepact and noted it met international law standards. "There is nothing in theagreement that prevents Canada from determining the fate of prisoners sothere is no need to make any change in the agreement," O'Connor said.Opposition leader Bill Graham, who was the Liberal's defence minister whenthe agreement was signed, approves the arrangement.Under international law Canada has an obligation to ensure any detainee isprotected against torture, not only when they are transferred into Afghancustody but if they are sent onwards to a third nation, such as the U.S.Under a statute of the International Criminal Court, if soldiers transferredprisoners to another party knowing or even suspecting those individualswould be abused or tortured, then the troops, including their commanders whoordered the transfer, could one day face war crimes charges, according toByers.Unlike the Canadian Forces, the Dutch military has negotiated a morestricter agreement, Byers said.The Dutch military's agreement with the Afghan government provides itsofficers and diplomats the right to check on the condition of thoseoriginally captured by Dutch soldiers. The Dutch government would also beinformed if the detainees are transferred to a third party. Canada'sagreement does not provide for that.Attaran said Hillier signed the agreement even though the Afghangovernment's own human rights commission warned in 2004 that the torture ofprisoners is "routine."That agency, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, monitors theconditions of detainees, a role recognized under the arrangement signed byHillier. But in its report the AIHRC wrote: "Torture continues to take placeas a routine part of police procedures. The AIHRC has found torture to occurparticularly at the investigation stage in order to extort confessions fromdetainees."Louise Arbour, a Canadian who is currently the UN's high commissioner forhuman rights, reached similar conclusions in her report in March. Inaddition, the U.S. State Department warned in March that Afghan localauthorities "routinely" torture detainees, Attaran noted.Byers said the agreement fails to safeguard Canada's obligations under theGeneva Conventions, the 1984 UN Torture Convention and a statute of theInternational Criminal Court.However, the U.S.-based agency, Human Rights Watch, has noted there arenumerous safeguards in the International Criminal Court to prevent frivolousor politically motivated cases from being brought against western troops. Inaddition, the UN Security Council can adopt a resolution suspending thecourt from investigating or prosecuting any crime, according to the agency.Byers said while some may consider the likelihood of Canadian soldiers beingcharged by the international court as remote, he noted any organizationcould petition the chief war crimes prosecutor to look into the actions ofthe soldiers.The court has so far focused on abuses in wars in Africa.The U.S. government opted out of supporting the court for fear its troops orpolitical leaders may one day be charged with war crimes. Canada, however,played a key role in the development of the court.Byers said he believes the agreement Hillier signed allows Canada "topretend to do a better job" in handling detainees while at the same timeallowing for important prisoners that may be captured by Canadian troops toeventually end up in U.S. hands.Canadian military officers, however, have continually said they areconfident any detainees turned over to the U.S. would be treated humanely.So far, more than 100 detainees from Iraq and Afghanistan have died in U.S.custody. The Pentagon acknowledges 27 of those cases are suspected orconfirmed homicides. Some of the individuals died while being interrogated.Byers said Canada should operate its own detention facility, allowing U.S.officials access to detainees but with interrogations conducted in thepresence of an RCMP officer.Ottawa Citizen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badams Posted April 10, 2006 Report Share Posted April 10, 2006 I've always thought the idea of 'war crimes' was a little weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted April 10, 2006 Report Share Posted April 10, 2006 You can almost see the question on the poll - "Under which international treaty would you prefer to be blown to little bits?"Not to be too glib; these treaties can spare some even worse atrocities, if only everyone would abide by them. The US still seems to fail to see the point - by abiding by conventions like Geneva, etc., it's a way of better guaranteeing that their own soldiers who are captured are treated more or less decently. Meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts