Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Pity, but if Harper hadn't been busy on his knees to the Americans, we might have avoided this, and he would be in a Canadian prison.

Or in Trudeau's cabinet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
But that claim is simply wrong. Article 3, the one about POWs specifically, makes a point of explicitly stating the protections apply regardless of the status of the prisoner as part of a state's military or not, it doesn't even matter if they're recognised as a citizen of any nation. The plain and simple requirement of article 3 is any combatant who surrenders to the military of a state that is a signatory to the Geneva convention, that person must be given the protections owed to a POW.

That's incorrect.

You're either a POW covered by the Third Geneva Convention, or a civilian covered by the Fourth. There is no requirement to treat the latter category exactly as you would the former; as ICRC analysis from 1958 puts it, "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action."

Seaward wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Pity, but if Harper hadn't been busy on his knees to the Americans, we might have avoided this, and he would be in a Canadian prison.

Or in Trudeau's cabinet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
But that claim is simply wrong. Article 3, the one about POWs specifically, makes a point of explicitly stating the protections apply regardless of the status of the prisoner as part of a state's military or not, it doesn't even matter if they're recognised as a citizen of any nation. The plain and simple requirement of article 3 is any combatant who surrenders to the military of a state that is a signatory to the Geneva convention, that person must be given the protections owed to a POW.

That's incorrect.

You're either a POW covered by the Third Geneva Convention, or a civilian covered by the Fourth. There is no requirement to treat the latter category exactly as you would the former; as ICRC analysis from 1958 puts it, "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action."

Yeah. The act does not cover iregular fighters. They have basic human rights but no support from the legal POW rights, cannot have respect bearing rank etc.
They are protected but under different legal framework,

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Besides, the label "terrorist" seems pretty absurd in this case. The guy he is accused of killing was a legitimate military target in the middle of a war, calling that "terrorism" is purely propaganda justification for stripping rights from people we have declared to be our enemies.

That is also a point, shouldn't he have been treated with the same deference as POWs?

Actually, no, at least not legally.

The Geneva Convention only dealt with soldiers of nations, not insurgents. And there lies the problem. He was not a soldier following orders, nor fighting for a country. It would be about the same if some 15-year-old follower of Clive Bundy decided to go to Mexico and murder some Federalis.

Which, somehow, justifies torturing a minor?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
The wife of the man he killed and the soldier he injured were awarded a $130 settlement vs Omar for wrongful death (this was a US court judgement). Those people have filed to get the money Canada is awarding Omar.

In other words, he probably won't see any of the money, and he's still $120 millon in debt to the people in the USA.

Good. He doesn't need the money.

Agreed.

She's not going to get any, tho. The american judgement was illegaly pronounced in absentia, with no defense, and in a court which normal proceedings violates essential principles of canadian Law. No Canadian court will ever sign up on this.