Article

2006-05-31 Great White North

Canadian troops told Geneva rules don't apply to Taliban

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by lotp 2006-05-31 08:26|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Sounds like Harper is no longer willing to live in Howard's shadow. Good. This is the kind of leadership we need from a broader swath of our "allies", eh.

Now if we could coordinate our immigration and entry policies...

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-31 08:42|| 2006-05-31 08:42|| Front Page Top

#2 How is the GC status of the 'Afghan' Talibs affected if Perv starts recognizing the 'Pak' Talibs currently running Wazooistan?

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2006-05-31 08:56|| 2006-05-31 08:56|| Front Page Top

#3 I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not. If they are to be tried a criminals and not combatants then where do our soldiers stand when it comes to colateral damage. Say a soldier kills and innocent in a gunbattle or mistaken identity.

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-05-31 08:58|| 2006-05-31 08:58|| Front Page Top

#4 Just cause Perv recognizes them doesn't mean we do. And if combatants don't act as soldiers are obliged to under the GC, they don't deserve GC protection, even if they are in an "army".

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-31 09:07|| 2006-05-31 09:07|| Front Page Top

#5 I think the moral of the story is 'Take no prisoners.'

Posted by glenmore">glenmore 2006-05-31 09:13|| 2006-05-31 09:13|| Front Page Top

#6 If they don't have a recognizable uniform, they don't fall under the Geneva protection. I am glad to see this since most of them are terrorist loosers anyway.

Posted by DarthVader 2006-05-31 09:21|| 2006-05-31 09:21|| Front Page Top

#7 They do fall under Geneva Conventions: as illegal combatants what may be shot without trial.

Posted by gromgoru 2006-05-31 10:16|| 2006-05-31 10:16|| Front Page Top

#8 And the phueching Taliban and other terrorists were signatores of the Geneva Convention on what date ?

Posted by Besoeker 2006-05-31 10:37|| 2006-05-31 10:37|| Front Page Top

#9 A whiff of sanity from up North. However, General Gauthier's comment warranted further comment, which I do at my website.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2006-05-31 11:53|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2006-05-31 11:53|| Front Page Top

#10 Let mook season commence.

Posted by Howard UK 2006-05-31 14:07|| 2006-05-31 14:07|| Front Page Top

#11 Only the ones who fire at us first, mind.

Posted by Howard UK 2006-05-31 14:07|| 2006-05-31 14:07|| Front Page Top

#12 It's all in the ROE... somewhere...

Posted by Chang Ominesing2659 2006-05-31 14:14|| 2006-05-31 14:14|| Front Page Top

#13 Howard exemplifies British sportsmanship.

Posted by 6 2006-05-31 15:54|| 2006-05-31 15:54|| Front Page Top

#14 Howard, can one hunt mooks from a mount?

Posted by Besoeker 2006-05-31 15:56|| 2006-05-31 15:56|| Front Page Top

#15 Mooks have to be flushed, so it's unlikely. But who knows, Brits have odd rules.

Posted by 6 2006-05-31 16:50|| 2006-05-31 16:50|| Front Page Top

#16 They do fall under Geneva Conventions: as illegal combatants what may be shot without trial.

Do any of the post-geneva human rights conventions prohibit summary execution?

Posted by john 2006-05-31 17:37|| 2006-05-31 17:37|| Front Page Top

#17 Ummm .... let's let that "mook" talk die, okay?

Posted by lotp 2006-05-31 17:52|| 2006-05-31 17:52|| Front Page Top

#18 M00ks have to be flushed

Twice please. It's a long way to Hell.

Posted by Zenster 2006-05-31 22:14|| 2006-05-31 22:14|| Front Page Top

#19 Geneva applies mainly to armed conflicts fought between internationally or diplomatically recognized, sovereign, protractive, organized national Governments, i.e. and the organized linear uniformed armies therefrom. Armed groups not recognized as such, outlawed, nor recognized as de facto "government(s)-in-exile" or "government(s)-in-being" do not fall under Geneva. At Gitmo, the Army can hold detainees potentially forever until such time the Army is satisfied of that person's role, or in the alt the Fed mandates the Army to release or turn over to other legal authority.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-05-31 22:18|| 2006-05-31 22:18|| Front Page Top

00:02 JosephMendiola
23:48 Pappy
23:48 Silentbrick
23:47 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:47 CrazyFool
23:40 Glains Threrese9277
23:28 borgboy
23:27 Barbara Skolaut
23:20 anonymous2u
23:15 RWV
23:15 JosephMendiola
23:10 Anonymoose
23:05 JosephMendiola
22:54 Cyber Sarge
22:52 Frank G
22:51 Frank G
22:51 bombay
22:28 JosephMendiola
22:18 JosephMendiola
22:15 Zenster
22:15 Scooter McGruder
22:14 Zenster
22:13 Old Patriot
22:12 Broadhead6