November 11, 2007

My grandfather, Arthur Earl Kitson, survived about 3 years in the trenches in World War I, serving with the Canadian Signal Corps. When the Armistice was declared, he spend a further 24 hours in a shell hole, refusing to come out, on the grounds that he had survived the war up until then, and he didn't want to get killed by some lunatic when the war was over. My grandfather was a sane man. I'm quite sure he would have regarded Canada's Afghan involvement as lunacy.

It's time to ask the hard and obvious questions.

1. What, exactly, is Canada doing in Afghanistan?

2. What is the legal justification for NATO's presence in Afghanistan?

3. What, exactly, is NATO's plan?

4. Who is paying for NATO's plan?

Executive Summary - Canadian Prisoners of War in Afghanistan

This is the story of an attempt to get information from the Canadian government. The basic questions are:

1. What is the legal basis for Canadian troops being posted to Afghanistan?

2. What is the legal basis for Canadian troops taking prisoners in Afghanistan?

3. What is the legal status of prisoners taken by Canadian troops in Afghanistan?

DND's "Best effort" reply, Sept 17, 2007 (exactly one year after NATO announced it had captured 136 Taliban in "Operation Medusa")....

All 73 pages are posted here: http://picasaweb.google.com/nkitson/DNDBestEffort17Sep07

None of the information I requested is in this response. For Kafka fans and others who have been driven mad dealing with large organizations, I point out that the complete lack of information in this response is of three types:

1. The letter from Julie Jansen stating that the attached is their "best effort" response, and that some information may have been omitted pursuant to Sections 15 (security) and 19 (privacy) of the Access to Information Act. The letter contains no other information.

2. The attached 73 pages of operational reports from the field, excepting page 53 which has been omitted pursuant to Sections 15 and 19 of the Access to Information Act, from which all information other than headings has been redacted.

3. Page 53, which has been omitted altogether, pursuant to Sections 15 and 19 of the Access to Information Act.

You have to admire the ruthless efficiency. It's not clear to me why page 53 was singled out for particular attention, maybe it contained information that the DND believes is even more secret than in the other 72 pages that were merely whited out. It's a distinction that only a few of us Kafka enthusiasts would make.

Appeal to Information Commissioner, 22 Sep 07

I apologize for the spelling mistakes in people's names, but after 9 months of waiting for 73 pages of .... nothing.....I wasn't in a mood to be too particular.

Agreement for transfer of prisoners between Canada and Afghanistan

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/operations/archer/agreement_e.asp

I note that Afghanistan was a party to the Geneva conventions as of 1936. Since there is a new government in Afghanistan (not to be confused with The New Government of Canada), which has a new constitution (again, not to be confused with the existing Canadian constitution), the Afghan government is presumably not bound by any of International Humanitarian Law. I'm only saying.

__________________________________________________________

"No derogation from the preceding provisions shall be made by special agreements between Powers one of which is restricted, even temporarily, in its freedom to negotiate with the other Power or its allies by reason of military events, more particularly where the whole, or a substantial part, of the territory of the said Power is occupied."

--Third Geneva Convention with respect to Prisoners of War, 1949

Legal status of Canadian prisoners in Afghanistan

This is the view of Michael Byers, a professor of international law at the University of British Columbia.

http://www.ligi.ubc.ca/?p2=modules/liu/publications/view.jsp&id=25

http://www.ceasefire.ca/atf/cf/%7B0A14BA6C-BE4F-445B-8C13-51BED95A5CF3%7D/Michael%20Byers%20Opinion%20Canada-Afghanistan%20Arrangement%207%20April%202006.pdf

Prisoners of War when they aren't......

"It is impossible to complete this account without referring to a terrible decision of policy adopted by Hitler towards his new foes, and enforced under all the pressure of the mortal struggle in vast barren or ruined land and winter horrors. Verbal orders were given by him at a conference on June 14, 1941, which to a large extent governed the conduct of the German Army towards the Russian troops and people, and led to many ruthless and barbarous deeds. According to the Nuremberg documents, General Halder testified:

Prior to the attack on Russia the Fuehrer called a conference of all the commanders and persons connected with the Supreme Command on the question of the forthcoming attack on Russia.....At this conference the Fuehrer stated that the methods used in the war against the Russians would have to be different from those used against the West....He stated that since the Russians were not signatories of the Hague Convention the treatment of their prisoners of war did not have to follow the Articles of the Convention.....

And according to Keitel:

Hitler's main theme was that this was the decisive battle between the two ideologies and that this fact made it impossible to use in this war [with Russia] methods, as we soldiers knew them, which were considered to be the only correct ones under international law."

Winston Churchill, The Grand Alliance, 1950, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, pg. 368

Wilhelm Keitel was hung at Nuremberg, 16 Oct 1946