(no subject)

[theweaselking]

A man serving a life sentence for murdering his wife is asking a federal judge to order the state to pay for a sex-change operation, arguing that denying him the surgery amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.

Also,
"Canadian troops in Afghanistan have been told the Geneva Conventions and Canadian regulations regarding the rights of prisoners of war don't apply to Taliban and al-Qaeda"

This change appears to date from December, after Martin's government folded and before Harper's government stepped in - meaning that this is a decision made, by the military, completely without oversight.

Quoth the Defence Minister, correcting said military sorts: Whether it applies or not, you're following it, dumbshits. We're not the USA and have no desire to become them.

Comments

[takhisis.livejournal.com]

Yeah. that inmate? I'd like to tell him that his claim is perfectly valid. And as soon as the administration forces all my friends who have been fighting for reassignment surgery for DECADES get their procedures covered by insurance? He's next in line after them.

Oh yeah, and tell him to hold his breath.

[aimisdirty.livejournal.com]

They aren't prisoners of war. Saying that they aren't prisoners of war is not making us more like the US. It is stating fact.

Whether they deserve humane treatment, is another issue entirely.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I hope you'll forgive me for, when someone goes out of their way to say "they're not POWs and so we don't have to treat them humanely or follow any of the rules", being skeptical about how they plan to actually treat said people.

Whether they deserve humane treatment, is another issue entirely.

Whether or not they "deserve" it, we're legally obligated to give it to them, POW or not. The statement "they are not POWs" may be true. The coda "so there are no rules on how we treat them" is not true, no matter what.

Even if you're not a POW, there are still rules that apply to you, (just not the POW rules) and Canada is obligated to follow them as a signatory to the Conventions.

And I'm happy to see the government correct the military when it says "deserved or not, they get POW status, because we're not morons and we'd someday like to be able to stop having troops there."

[aimisdirty.livejournal.com]

I don't think that you fully comprehend the seriousness of deeming someone to be a 'prisoner of war'. I've been trained in the taking of POWs, and I can assure you that none of the procedures or rules are designed to be applied to terrorists and insurgents.

They don't wear uniforms.

They have no specific chain of command.

They specifically target civilians.

They will not cease hostilities, until they are dead or incarcerated.

Are the Taliban or Al-Qaeda abiding by the laws of armed conflict? Fuck no. Does that mean that we should treat them inhumanely? Nope. And that isn't happening with Canadian troops. But treating them like POWs is doing a serious disservice to the efforts of Canadian troops who are exposing themselves to danger daily.

Treating them like criminals, is entirely appropriate. You arrest them, and lock them up.

[ryusen.livejournal.com]

Yeah, i've been thinking about that question myself. As i understand it, the Geneva convention on treament only covers uniformed soliders right? Like plain clothes spies can actually just be shot?

Still, they you capture them, i would imagine some kind of basic humanitarian rights should be accorded. Maybe consider them to be criminals instead of POWs?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

> As i understand it, the Geneva convention on treament only covers uniformed
> soliders right?

You understand incorrectly.

The Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war only covers uniformed soldiers.

THEY (plural) are called the Geneva ConventionS (plural) because there are more than one of them.