You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Great White North
Canadian Troops May Be 'Subject to War Crimes Charges' in ICC
2006-04-11
Canadian soldiers could be charged with war crimes in the International Criminal Court because of an agreement the government approved on the handling of detainees captured in Afghanistan, warns a report to be released today.

The legal opinion on the arrangement regarding prisoners, captured by Canadian troops and then turned over to the Afghan government, raises a number of red flags about the lack of safeguards to protect soldiers against prosecution. "Whoever negotiated this agreement did our soldiers a great disservice," said Michael Byers, an international law professor at the University of British Columbia, who wrote the opinion.
Read on, it wasn't the new government.
That report is one of two to be released today at a press conference involving Amnesty International, the Polaris Institute, an Ottawa-based think-tank, and legal experts.

The second report by University of Ottawa Prof. Amir Attaran, a constitutional human rights law specialist, also questions the detainee agreement that Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier signed in Kabul in December. "The mere fact there is a possibility for Canadian troops to be charged demonstrates how fundamentally flawed this detainee transfer arrangement is," added Byers, author of the book War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict.

Conservative government and Liberal party officials, however, have dismissed any concerns about the agreement. Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said last week he is satisfied with the pact and noted it met international law standards. "There is nothing in the agreement that prevents Canada from determining the fate of prisoners so there is no need to make any change in the agreement," O'Connor said.

Opposition leader Bill Graham, who was the Liberal's defence minister when the agreement was signed, approves the arrangement.
Of course he does.
Under international law Canada has an obligation to ensure any detainee is protected against torture, not only when they are transferred into Afghan custody 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 transferred prisoners to another party knowing or even suspecting those individuals would be abused or tortured, then the troops, including their commanders who ordered the transfer, could one day face war crimes charges, according to Byers.

Unlike the Canadian Forces, the Dutch military has negotiated a more stricter agreement, Byers said. The Dutch military's agreement with the Afghan government provides its officers and diplomats the right to check on the condition of those originally captured by Dutch soldiers. The Dutch government would also be informed if the detainees are transferred to a third party. Canada's agreement does not provide for that.
more at link.
Posted by:lotp

#7  Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said last week he is satisfied with the pact and noted it met international law standards.

I first read this as "international low standards".
Posted by: Angie Schultz   2006-04-11 21:35  

#6  "International Law"

What a joke. Who's going to enforce that so-called law, Belguim?

If you don't have the wherewithall to enforce a law, you effectively ain't got a law.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2006-04-11 14:41  

#5  3) The only people who may nbe subject to War crimes charges are the jihadists.

No, no, no, JFM, you don't understand, you don't understand at all! What are you, some kind of weirdo who thinks common sense and morality should rule the day? Next thing, you'll say that the Un should interverne in Sudan, if it had any decency, or something.

The only people who may be subject to war crimes charges are troops and officials from western armies and gvt.
To the Enlightened Elites, the only goal of the "international law" (scare quotes as explained by you) is to entangle the Nation-States and their actions, not to concern itself with such petty matters as actual war crimes (except when they're comitted by an unfashionable, IE white and rightwing/nationalist, dictator).
This is transnational progressism in action, here.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2006-04-11 08:39  

#4  1) Thre is NO international law. Laws are thingies who are voted by the ELECTED represntives of the people.

2) The name you are trying to find is treaties and ac cording to the Geneva convedntion irregumlars are NOT protected be it aginst summary execution or torture

3) The only people who may nbe subject to War crimes charges are the jihadists.
Posted by: JFM   2006-04-11 08:25  

#3  Future generations, or the 1.2Bilyuhn or less that survive, to includ 100Milyuhn or less Americans, must be saved and protected from the damnable, sheer unmitigated horrors of Christina and Glaze-gate. ITS FOR THE CHILDREN, D*** YOU!?

Archived into the Classic CrossOver Files.
Posted by: RD   2006-04-11 04:03  

#2  Oops.
Posted by: badanov   2006-04-11 02:53  

#1  Future generations, or the 1.2Bilyuhn or less that survive, to includ 100Milyuhn or less Americans, must be saved and protected from the damnable, sheer unmitigated horrors of Christina and Glaze-gate. ITS FOR THE CHILDREN, D*** YOU!?
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-04-11 00:37  

00:00