Afghanistan, Still Losing the War, Part 11

Yep, it's a really low court precedent for limpus willius for sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Hall

Yes, my error, it was 1am when I happened across it, and I read 'allow the appeal', instead of that which was stated one scroll below...no excuse, i know.  Although they ruled that the section containing 'or other just cause' to be unconstitutional, they upheld the "maintian confidence in the administration of justice" section.  They tend to review these things against the confidence of the public as a whole, not just the confidence of any one individual with a particular view of participants in this war.

In R vs Pearson, the appeal was allowed.  It depends on the circumstances of each case.

Scummy creep or not..names indeed eh, the correct label will come out at trial.  Until then, an accused is entitled to rely on the law for protection against the impulses of the mob, regardless of yours or my thoughts on the war, both of which have been made public on the board, or your general view in particular, of soldiers.  It's not a question of arguing because of a perceived dislike for someone's views on particular issues.  I'm not so sure our views diverge to any substantial degree on certain issues, its more likely the approach.  I'm defending the right of a person to a fair trial, and not this particular individual, within the standard of precedent in Canadian law as I understand it, as opposed to taking up with the lynch mob mentality.  I don't know if he is guilty or not, as you've concluded.  The process is valid, and it should protect everyone equally, although there's a debate in itself as to the equal application of that principle within Canada.

What a load of crap.

Due process is never a load of crap. It should apply equally regardless of political spectrum viewpoints. Extremist scorched earth policies on any topic tend to create more problems than are solved, be it domestic justice issues, or international affairs. The Khadr case is a poor example of due process, because of the complete absence of it. We abhor the system that holds him as a hostage to support the political objectives of the extreme right. We should similarly abhor the impulsive influences of the extreme left in matters of judicial fairness. In each instance, the harmful effect on the rights of the individual, and to victims, is at risk because such inclinations create more victims. Instead, the moderate approach is necessary to achieve real solutions that do not create more enemies from the process. If this is what we can expect when emotional radicalism holds sway over policy, then perhaps that is a more appropriate role for an army than interference in foreign affairs, to prevent it from happening. A worthy cause to support and participate in, I believe.

Hey Fidel.

Well we beat them unmercilessly of course. When we go to hand them over to the US we ask "Are you going to abuse these men?" and if they say no, we don't hand them over until they agree to mistreat them of course =)

I'm kidding  with you Fidel.(Though Martin won't believe me I bet)

I'm not sure about your first question, to be honest.  That's a bit of my lanes (Prisoner transfers). If we do detain someone we immediately "push them to the rear". They don stay in the hands of front line guys for very long, it's more a military pilce/NIS show. I like how you threw in the tourture and abusing human rights comments, very leading, very subtle =)

When I say we treat them as a military force I am saying that we give them food, water, medical attention and what not. Quite frankly it's stupid to mistreat prisoners. VERY stupid, not just for humane and ethical reasons. From an "army point of  view- You play punchy face with someone and they're going to tell you WHATEVER they think you want to hear. It's stupid not to. Electrocute or burn or hit etc.. someone and their going to tell you THEY are Osama Binladden.

Sometimes it a catch 22 or paradox (am i using that word right?)

You're a Canadian soldier incharge of a platoon of guys. You catch someone planting an IED or lets just say his ID card says Jonny Taliban.

You want to hand the prisoner er to some local police (thus aiming to validate them as a professional police force) BUT your interputer says "if you hand him over they are going to kill him".

But your orders are to hand all detainee's over to the local police. Do you hand him over to the legal authority, the Afghanan police or keep them?  This is something that Canadian soldiers do encounter. very trick.  But to get back to my origional point Canada does infact apply the Geeneva convention and rules of land warefare etc.. to the Taliban, insurgents, suspected insurgents etc.. We do not treat them differently. I realise how the US views them with regards to Gitmo-bayand ther whole not treating them as a military force is a whole different bag of worms.

Agreed slumberjack, due process should NEVER be over looked. Innocent until proven guilty.

Though...I may not be 100% correct BUt I think in the Military justice system it MAY be different. If you are charged with a crime the onis is on you to prove that you're innocent. Webgear, Loretta, is that fairly accurate?

Realigned wrote:

Agreed slumberjack, due process should NEVER be over looked. Innocent until proven guilty.  Though...I may not be 100% correct BUt I think in the Military justice system it MAY be different. If you are charged with a crime the onis is on you to prove that you're innocent. Webgear, Loretta, is that fairly accurate?

No, it isn't accurate, although if you've ever witnessed a Summary Trial being conducted, it might appear that way.  Military trials, with a few exceptions built in from a purely military discipline consideration, must be conducted within the Charter and within the precedents set by similar cases within Canadian courts.  For instance, in the civilian context, people usually don't run the risk of loosing their liberty through a subsequent AWOL charge if they don't show up for work on time, yet this sanction is among the possible sentences in a military judicial proceeding.  So while the Charter guides military judges in the way that it does in civilian courts, there are allowances included in the military justice system for purely military offences.  Also, a charge of murder, if it was committed in Canada by a military person, would be handled by the civilian court system under the Criminal code, but the same offence in an operational theatre is handled by the Military system under the National Defence Act.  A review of some of the decisions at the Chief Military Judge website will show how the military conducts trials.

Closing for length, and is that sidescroll I see? Eek.