But, aside from all of the rhetoric and hyperbole that flows both ways, here is my fundamental question - the answer to which I admit I don't have:
If a group of Canadian soldiers is attacked by an enemy group - for example, Taliban or Al Qaeda, and, the attack comes from a position of cover (which would, one suspects, normally be the case)such that we cannot in any sense identify any of the attackers individually. If, as a result of the battle, we suffer the death of a Canadian soldier, and members of the ambush group are captured, what do we do with them?
- do we hold them as prisoners of war, and if so, do we hold them in Afghanistan or bring them back to Canada, and for how long?
- do we turn them over to the domestic (Afghan) authorities, and let them worry about it?
- if we hold them, are we obligated to have hearings to determine which of them actually caused the death of the Canadian soldier - the reality being that such proof is an impossibility?
- does the process change if the captured party is a minor?
I'm open to your thoughts. This is Omar Khadr. This is probably a large number of Al Qaeda terrorists - and other persons committing war crimes (see current hearings at the Hague against Thomas Lubanga, who is alleged to have commandeered large numbers of children to commit genocide in Eastern Congo).
We live in a world were bad and evil people do exist - and difficult decisions do need to be made. How would you make them?
1 comments:
Rob:
This is not intended to be a complete answer to your question, but my immediate thought is that there is a difference between a prisoner of war and someone you propose to charge with a crime. Throughout history armies have captured prisoners, held them and released them at the conclusion of hostilities. I suspect the same applies in Iraq and Afghanistan and that there are hundreds of prisoners who do not get sent to Guantanamo.
Omar Khadr does not fit into that category. He has been sent to Guantanamo because he is suspected of having committed an offence -- namely the murder of an American soldier. He wasn't picked up because he just happened to be hanging around wearing the wrong uniform.
Guantanamo is a detention centre for people suspected of crimes...its not a camp for prisoners of war. In the civilized world, people suspected of crimes are entitled to due process and a trial to determine if they are guilty of the crimes they are accused of. If they are found guilty by an independent arbiter we imprison them...or worse. But they have the right to their day in Court. If we fail to recognize these rights we are not much better than our enemies.
So, the answer to your question is, in my view, no we don't have to hold a trial for every prisoner captured in time of war (although there are basic human rights that need to be adhered to). But if we hold someone because they are accused of a crime, we have the duty to afford that individual due process and a fair trial.
Post a Comment