Yes, if true. The rules of engagement should be changed. I wouldn't be suprised if the rules were handed down from the UN or NATO.
BTW, who was Prime Minister during the Bosnian conflict?
That would have been Chretien. Were our allies doing this sort of thing there? I don't recall we had boots on the ground, but maybe someone will correct me.
Your linked Redstar article (i.e. last two paragraphs). I'm ASSuming the "some soldiers" were Canadian.
The Canadians were there as peacekeepers, as I recall, not as active combat soldiers.
Read "Ghosts of Medak Pocket", sounds like combat to me.
Alleged.
Also, and this is one where I understand that I diverge with most of the left: Where were we to put the prisoners?
It's a lose lose. Either we become prison guards (and get the CF branded as running it's own GitMo) or we hand them over to someone. If we hand them over to the US well... if we hand them over to the people who's country it is..
The Afghans are not "allied soldiers". They are the domestic forces of a sovereign state in which Canada has intervened with their lawful (under international law)consent under NATO auspices. They answer to Afghan law in the same way a Canadian soldier who commits a rape in Halifax answers to Canadian law. As you have not even hinted at evidence that child-rape is the policy of the Afghan government or the Afghan senior command, you are in the tricky position of arguing the Canadians may be guilty of a war crime for failing to intervene in a domestic crime that is not in itself a war crime. And if you are right, you are left with the question of what is the duty of a Canadian soldier who witnesses a crime like this. I doubt you would be satisfied with the answer that the soldier should dutifully fill out form 256b and send it up the chain of command so the matter can be raised at next month's NATO/Afghan generals meeting, so I can only presume you are suggesting he/she has a duty to shoot the perp. Kind of like how the Brits handled suttee in India. Be careful, once you get a taste for that colonial authority based on superior values, it's hard to let go. That is really where your argument that it is an omission in the sense the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act means leads you.
Seriously, why all this dubious legal legerdemain to find the Forces guilty of war crimes when you could have just called for public opinion to demand the issue be raised with the Afghans and got a lot of support for it across the board? And how about a word of credit to these junior ranks who are complaining about this rather than parading how ashamed they make you feel?
Peter:
This isn't a "domestic crime." The definition of a crime against humanity applies to this practice of sexual assault by uniformed Afghan soldiers. And to their allies who are told that they must pretend they saw nothing.
Credit, of course, to the whistle blowers in the ranks. And, yes, our government should be demanding of Afghanistan that they apply international conventions to the behaviour of their own troops. But in the meantime, I don't think that the Act I quoted lets us off the hook as easily as you suggest.
I'm not trying to let anyone off the hook. The outrage is just as outrageous whatever you call it. This isn't my area, but surely for something to be a war crime there has to be some nexus to orders from on high or general war policy. If an individual Canadian soldier rapes someone, presumably he is court-martialed, not sent to The Hague. I just do not think your broad definition of omission is correct. Surely it refers to soldiers directly causing hardship by failing to do something they have a positive duty to do, not the failure to report that another army is engaged in crimes. Don't you think the first step is to establish something is indeed a war crime before deciding whether failure to report could be as well? And I note you ducked my question as to what you expected the Canadians witnesses to do.
All you are doing is debasing the notion of a war crime.
Peter:
I provided the definition of a "crime against humanity," not a "war crime." The two have distinct definitions. I believe you are technically correct in using the term "war crime." The definition from the same section:
"war crime" means an act or omission committed during an armed conflict that, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes a war crime according to customary international law or conventional international law applicable to armed conflicts, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.
A "crime against humanity" really has to be broadly sanctioned and a prevailing practice to meet the bar.
I don't think that orders to commit a war crime are required for it to be a war crime. Failure to control one's troops, I recall, can make a commander liable. My Lai was a war crime. Wholesale rape in Afghanistan is a war crime.
I think that things get trickier when there is a multilateral force engaged. Here I am admittedly out of my depth (hence the question-mark in the title): perhaps a lawyer in this area could answer the question definitively. But my reading of the Act indicates that our responsibility extends beyond not committing crimes, all the way to not passively condoning them. And to make that condonation the subject of an order goes a step or two beyond that.
To tell our troops officially to say nothing, report nothing and not interfere strikes this layman as pretty dodgy from an international law perspective.
You know what I don't get, Dawg? It's your painstaking (if not downright tortuous) efforts to place the alleged actions or omissions of this Canadian soldier in a legal framework. Is the idea of watching a child get sexually assaulted and not intervening—whether under orders or not—not appalling enough on its own? Or is there some larger goal you're hoping to accomplish, armed with these indictments?
Chris:
It's the revelation that orders have come down from on high to let this sort of thing go on unimpeded, and to fuggedaboutit. Official orders.
Does this not appall you? If not, why not? Why does my alleged "tortuous" look at the legalities cause you more concern than that?
"Why does my alleged 'tortuous' look at the legalities cause you more concern than that?"
Uh, it doesn't. Didn't say it did; didn't even remotely imply it. The allegations speak for themselves--if true, they strike me as unforgivable, even in the context of the many ethical compromises I think are necessary to succeed in Afghanistan. But I think the widespread tendency to focus on the minute legality, rather than the practical morality, of Canada's actions in a place that's pretty much the moral opposite of Canada makes it harder for reasonable people to get their heads around the real issues involved in helping Afghanistan. And in many cases, it's the refuge of people who've long-since decided we should Get the Hell Out, and will hyperbolically smear Canada if necessary to make it happen. You don't strike me as such a person. But in the spirit of your last response, I might suggest you seem far more concerned with the Canadian bystanders than the Afghan perpetrators.
ALLEGEDLY.
Also, by characterizing the problem as one of war crimes or crimes against humanity, you are actually calling for the grunts to be punished. Seriously, you may think your traget is the brass issuing orders you don't like, but the whole point of these crimes was to overcome the "following orders" defence. The crime is the crime itself, not the failure of the senior brass to process complaints about it. So what I assume you are saying is that a Canadian private should be hauled up before an international tribunal, not because he abused civilians, but because their own nationals did and he didn't respond by doing--what exactly? (again, you refuse to answer.)
C'mon, Dr Dawg, if you don't like this perfectly legal, UN sanctioned war, just say so, but don't try and shop the soldiers on the line who have done nothing and who you also demand demonstrate cultural sensitivity and respect for local ways.
So, Peter, if the brass gives orders that puts the lower ranks in the untenable position of either disobeying orders (and putting themselves at risk of harm) or being party to (alleged) war crimes, your response is that we should shut up lest we get those lower rank soldiers in trouble?
Forgive the run-on sentence, but it seems to me that we should be trying to protect our soldiers from this bullshit, not sweeping it under the carpet so they don't get blamed.
As to what to do, well, I'm not a military expert either. But I would say:
- have Canadian MPs take them into custody, if at all possible. I'll assume that rape is an actual crime in Afghanistan, which is not quite a "moral opposite"
- document and report it up the chain of command
- and yes, bring it up at the next NATO/Afghan meeting. I don't understand how this sort of thing would contribute to "victory" in Afghanistan. I don't see why we should be indefinitely propping up a regime that commits war crimes.
The binary up in this thread is making me drown in 1's and 0's.
I might suggest you seem far more concerned with the Canadian bystanders than the Afghan perpetrators.
Chris, I'm more concerned with direct orders being passed down the chain of command requiring the grunts to be complicit in war crimes. I thought I'd been clear.
I expect war crimes to happen in war. That doesn't mean I'm not appalled by them. And I do want us out of that situation; because our involvement in Afghanistan is ill-judged, in my view. I've never made a secret of that. But leaving that aside, there is a difference, I think, between what happens on the ground in the fog of war and the deliberate decision, made up the line, to condone what is happening in the fog.
Adam:
have Canadian MPs take them into custody, if at all possible. I'll assume that rape is an actual crime in Afghanistan, which is not quite a "moral opposite"
Do you know what tends to happen when soldiers of one army try to arrest soldiers of another? That's tantamount to calling for civil strife and dissention within the alliance. How would you expect our troops to react if the Afghans started trying to arrest Canadians for offences against Islam or some other breach of Afghan laws or values? It seems to me that what you and Dr. Dawg are trying to do is expand the notion of war crimes and crimes against humanity so widely that they become a pretext for Canada to assert general disciplinary authority over everybody.
This is one of the reasons Carla del Ponte and the ICC have proven to be so ineffective. One problem with international law is that it has lots of lawyers and hardly any courts, and so it runs on wonderfully abstract and ever-expanding (imagine the notion of repealing a war crime) principles that fewer and fewer take seriously when the guns start shooting, and that end up being more honoured in the breach because they treat war as a chess game between lawyers. When you start lumping mass genocide in with this sort of stuff, all you end up doing is debasing the currency. It reminds me a little bit of a few years back when legal activists insisted on expanding the definition of spousal abuse so widely that evidence of it could be found in almost all relationships. So cynical judges started hearing ten cases a day based on alleged abuse and lost the critical perspective necessary to distinguish the real ones who needed protection fast. Public opinion, domestic politics and internal discipline codes can handle this, and probably faster and more efficiently than international law.
BTW, Dr. Dawg, shouldn't we be calling for the Sec-Gen of the UN to be arrested by international warrant and charged with war crimes for the rampant child sex abuse among peacekeepers?
Do you know what tends to happen when soldiers of one army try to arrest soldiers of another?
No I don't, Peter, which is why I prefaced my remarks by saying that I'm not a military expert.
Are we back to this not being a war crime now? Does that mean we're finished with the "Don't talk about it or you'll hurt the troops" line of argument?
Does that mean we're finished with the "Don't talk about it or you'll hurt the troops" line of argument?
I don't know; I think Macleans needs to send over another journalist to establish the limits of acceptable thought.
I hope they send over Steyn the next time; now there's a scold you can be proud of.
Adam, I don't think anyone is taking that line of argument or ever was.
...you are actually calling for the grunts to be punished...
I assume you are saying is that a Canadian private should be hauled up before an international tribunal...
...don't try and shop the soldiers on the line...
Sorry, Peter, maybe someone else was posting under your name.
Nice try. The argument is whether this is a war crime/crime against humanity or an issue that should be handled politically within Canadian Government/diplomatic/military circles. Nobody is backing the "don't ask, don't tell" option.
So, we should all stop talking about it, right Peter? Because, you know...The Taliban are all reading this and getting emboldened and everything.
To Taliban:
بازديد كننده گرامي !
به صفحۀ سفارتكبراي افغانستان در كاناداخوش آمديد.
مسروريم از اينكه با فراهم آوري اطلاعات و ساير منابع معلوماتي در مورد افغانستان، شما را با ن We *heart* Osama! ۀ عملكرد اين سفارتكبرا آشنا ساخته و از سوئي هم در ديگر موارد ذي علاقه و مفيد، در خدمت شما قرار داريم.
به منظور ارائة خدمات سودمند و گردآوري اطلاعات مفيد و جامع، مطالب سايت ما دائماً در Hugs from Canadian Liberals and Lefties حال تجديد مي باشد. اين كار شما را در نوعي ارتباط دو طرفه با ما و از اين طريق با ديگر منابع قرار مي دهد.
Nobody is backing the "don't ask, don't tell" option.
Isn't the whole issue about the CF enforcing a "don't ask, don't tell" policy? It's all about a TO Star report that "Canadian soldiers have been ordered to ignore sexual assaults."
Ordered to ignore = don't ask, don't tell
JB
JB:
Yes, that is the issue and Dr. Dawg suggested such would be a war crime/crime against humanity. To which I and others said that it was better seen as a political/diplomatic issue to be dealt with politically/diplomatically. I know that in addition to consuming raw meat and strong drink for breakfast, we on the right are supposed to think child rape is a giggle, but some of us are squeamish.
Well, Peter, I don't think it should be up to politicians and/or diplomats to decide whether or not to look the other way when atrocities are being committed. International Laws exist. The Geneva Conventions apply. A policy that requires our soldiers to clam up and ignore crimes, regardless of who is committing them, is a policy which defies International Law.
We shoot ourselves in the foot when we go to pains to weasel out of our obligations under International Law. We could not afford to have a physical presence at Sarposa because then we'd have to be witness to torture and bribery. By adopting a policy of enforced ignorance, we turned over our hard-won detainees to the Afghans and looked the other way while some were tortured and many more bribed their way out.
WE need to stay on the moral high ground. Asking our soldiers to ignore child rape is hardly what Canadians think our troops are there to do. We cannot ask our troops to put their lives on the line for rapists, torturers, opium merchants, warlords and powerful Imams who uphold the letter of the law in The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
JB
What JimBobby just said. Next time I'm off somewhere, remind me to include him in the guest-blogger pack.
JB:
A policy that requires our soldiers to clam up and ignore crimes, regardless of who is committing them, is a policy which defies International Law.
I really don't know if that is true or not. But if it is, I doubt very much that there is any conflict in this world where international law isn't being defied daily on all sides.
BTW, all this presupposes the Canadian command actually does have such a shut-up/cover-up policy.
BTW, all this presupposes the Canadian command actually does have such a shut-up/cover-up policy.
Well, why don't you find out and get back to us then?
Frankly, after seven years of néoconnerie, it's usually a safe bet to just assume the worst. I can't think of any instances when that assumption has led me astray.
Happy to oblige as always, Ti-Guy.
Per Hillier:
"Just in case there is any doubt of that, I have reconfirmed that direction through the entire chain of command into Kandahar province to make sure that the (chief of defence staff's) intent and our expectations as a nation are absolutely clear to all and sundry and they are."
Now, why would there have been any doubt about that?
1) Judging by the article, these are not war crimes. They are cases of criminal rape, to be tried under domestic Afghan law. A Canadian isn't guilty of any sort of war crime for observing rape, robbery, murder, whatever, and failing to do anything about it or to report it. His moral judgement is another question; it costs nothing to at least log the incident as a matter of record.
2) The UN routinely issues direct and clear orders that soldiers in its pay are to effectively ignore crimes, including actual crimes against humanity up to and including genocide, under certain circumstances. These direct and clear orders are popularly known as Rules of Engagement. I for one welcome any reassessment of our foreign policy which might lead to a ban on participating in any operations in which our forces might be asked to do anything less than the "right thing". I'm sure I can get all the supporters of the UN and interventionism on board for this.
>Now, why would there have been any doubt about that?
To the generation of middle and senior leaders who were junior soldiers and leaders in the Balkans, there would be plenty of doubt. The politicians and bureaucrats of several nations (including Canada) and the UN were in obfuscation and denial up to their necks, and it did not go unnoticed although it did manage to hide under the carpet for a while.
Further to that: as long as there are reasonably believable allegations that soldiers somewhere under UN command are continuing to commit crimes and little evidence that the UN is taking effective measures to halt and punish the misdeeds, we should decline to participate in UN operations. Substitute "US" for "UN" if it makes it easier for you.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
