Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Detainees do not have Charter rights: judge

MURRAY BREWSTER

The Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 3:20 PM EST 12/03/08

Prisoners captured by Canadian troops have rights under the Afghan constitution and international law – but not Canadian law ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: I agree. I also feel that our military should do whatever it takes to gain information that will protect our soldiers in the field.
  2. Two Cents from Toronto, Canada writes: Why would Amnesty International think that POWs in Afghanistan should be protected by the Canadian Charter? Their not on Canadian soil so they're not. It's the exact same logic with Guantanamo Bay.
  3. M Nolz from Toronto, Canada writes: This must be a watershed moment in Canadian Justice. Why just the other week, a judge in Ontario ruled against the turban equipped motorcyclist and now this! The bleeding hearts must be up in a tizzy!

    Of couse the detainees should not get Charter protection! Another warm breath of common sense!
  4. The Religious Left from Kingston, Canada writes:
    Why would people think that charter applied to detainees? I'm not proud of how Canada has treated detainees and I think they should be awarded legal protections, but I don't see why the charter would apply to them.

    There's certainly an issue about the legal status of detainees, but the charter is clear in that it applies to persons living in Canada.
  5. Carl C. from Montreal, Canada writes: I fully agree with the judge on this. The Charter should not apply on foreign soil, and especially in regards to foreign prisoners. On the other hand, as the judge has probably stated, the Geneva convention should fully apply. In no way should we accept torture.
  6. F H from Ottawa, Canada writes: Sounds reasonable. It also makes it clear that if this is so, that International Law and the Geneva Conventions which protect detainees MUST be followed.
  7. Diane Schweik from EDMONTON, Canada writes: .

    At last a glimmer of sense/reality.Poor Louise Arbour.What next,reverse the Singh decision ?
  8. Michael B from Canada writes: Shawn Bull from Canada writes: I agree. I also feel that our military should do whatever it takes to gain information that will protect our soldiers in the field.

    Way to go Shawn. The ends do not justify the means. If we torture, we are no better than them. Bad enough that we are willing to trade with the US and China whose human rights abuses are deplorable... one can only hope we won't take the next step and start condoning torture. Even the majority of Americans are against that (only reason they haven't banned torture is a presidential veto), and Americans are not squeemish about doing what has to be done to protect themselves.
  9. Buddy Canada from Toronto, Canada writes: I agree with the posters that the Geneva Convention would apply but it makes no sense that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada would apply.
  10. Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: How on earth would anyone assume a detainee would be afforded rights in the Canadian Charter?

    There are international treaties and laws that apply; but the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Give me a break.
  11. Bill C. O'llector from Canada writes: What - no flood of comments from Interested Observer et al accusing CF of rape and torture and killing women and babies?

    Of course it's only early!
  12. James Tod from Vancouver, Canada writes: This ruling is correct, in my view.
  13. M Poland from Calgary, Canada writes: Wow! Common sense from the court. Nice to see.
  14. J M from Realityville, Canada writes: So Harper is suspending the rights of detainees, but for what purpose. The only reason can because of what they are doing to detainees or what they plan on doing to detainees.
  15. Michael B from Canada writes: Shawn Bull from Canada writes: Michael B from Canada: Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
    **********
    Don't bother responding again. Your banality wears thin.
  16. Mike Sumners from Toronto, Canada writes: These terrorists are Prisoners Of War. They are at war with the people of Afghanistan. They should be treated as such.
  17. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: Bravo Judge McTavish.

    Now here is the real clincher from Judge McTavish's bio ....

    She is the past chairperson of the The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, 1998.

    A sensible judgement from a rights based judge!!

    Has the Earth moved?
  18. M Nolz from Toronto, Canada writes: J M from Realityville, Canada writes: So Harper is suspending the rights of detainees, but for what purpose. The only reason can because of what they are doing to detainees or what they plan on doing to detainees.

    So, Harper now has control over the Federal Court? I didn't realize this - I knew Harper was in control but didn't imagine he had control over the judiciary. Exactly where is Realityville - somewhere in Middle Earth next to the Frodo and the Shire?
  19. Ed Lewis from Sanityville, Canada writes: HALLELUJAH!!!! Thank goodness someone in this country has enough sense to not extend Charter rights to terrorists and other persons not on Canadian soil!!!
  20. Canadian in Canada from Toronto, Canada writes: Good news, Atlast.

    We all know this court case was a political case by an agency who closes eyes when it comes to terrorists.
  21. Joe Bloggins from Canada writes: Finally a realization that Canada is not the moral authority for the entire globe.
  22. Ziggy . from Canada writes: Will anyone be surprised when the first Afghanistan POW receives refugee status in Canada because of persecution by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan?
  23. Johnny Canuck from Canada writes: I think anyone with, a full load, knew this. Why Tal i ban Jack and the Liberals could not understand that Afghanistan is a soverign nation and Afghan laws apply within their borders is beyond belief.
  24. Michael Manning from Mississauga, Canada writes: Two Cents from Toronto, Canada writes: Why would Amnesty International think that POWs in Afghanistan should be protected by the Canadian Charter? Their not on Canadian soil so they're not. It's the exact same logic with Guantanamo Bay.

    Well, actually the Guantanamo Bay logic is pretty twisted. The American Military usually like to claim that their foreign bases are actually U.S. soil, which is why they have steadfastly refused to surrender Guantanamo to the Cuban government. The claim that U.S. law doesn't apply to the prisoners at Guantanamo is a legal nicety designed to allow the CIA, security 'contractors' and the bully-boy arm of the U.S. military to contravene U.S. and international law by applying interrogation techniques any thinking person would classify as torture.

    I wish John McCain had beat George Bush in the 2000 primaries. Perhaps the reputation of the U.S. would not have been so unnecesarrily sullied.
  25. Mike B from Canada writes: What? A foreigner does not have Canadian rights. Don't worry fellow socialists the Supreme Court shall fix this.
  26. William Ross from Victoria BC, Canada writes: Franky speaking the detainees once they are transfered to the authorities in their own country or at the least next door to their own country are simply not our responsibility as we are there to help the Afghan's just as the Conservatives have been saying since day one and in point of fact this whole non issue is not only irrelevant but a waste of time and energy. Keep up the good work Steven H.
  27. John Fedup from Canada writes: I sure the leftists are planning an appeal to the Supreme Court. Imagine the disappointment they must feel in not having these detainees pampered by Canadian taxpayers.
  28. The Religious Left from Kingston, Canada writes:
    John Fedup from Canada writes: I sure the leftists are planning an appeal to the Supreme Court. Imagine the disappointment they must feel in not having these detainees pampered by Canadian taxpayers.

    Actually most 'leftists' on this board have said they agree with the judge's decision. Nice strawman.
  29. John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: This is a very strange suggestion from Amnesty International. Does this mean that the soldiers of other nations act according to their laws or is it that AI does not seem to thing that international law and the Geneva Convention code have any significance? The rules of international law and the Geneva Convention code are really good and solid. They have their problems, but generally they follow in proper order of law. What a strange suggestion from Amnesty International. They, more than anyone, should know better.
  30. Nick Bernards from Canada writes: Theoretically, this doesn't change a thing as to how prisoners should be treated. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for the most part, is copied almost word for word from the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
    In practice, a ruling that the Charter did apply to detainees would give them more solid grounds for legal recourse to protect those rights, as opposed to international standards, which apparently don't apply to rich western countries.
    Ultimately, regardless of legal status, prisoners of war are still in fact people, which really ought to be enough that we should have at least some respect for their rights.
  31. The Religious Left from Kingston, Canada writes:
    John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: The rules of international law and the Geneva Convention code are really good and solid. They have their problems, but generally they follow in proper order of law. What a strange suggestion from Amnesty International. They, more than anyone, should know better.

    It's possible that this is just a ploy by AI to bring the issue of detainees to the public attention. It's important to note that the judge did reinforce AI's original position that the Geneva Conventions apply to detainees. Even though the judge ruled against AI, maybe they still consider it a positive step toward granting detainees some sort of protection.
  32. John Fedup from Canada writes: Religious Left....the 'appeal' is being prepared as we blog.
  33. bob london from Canada writes: No Sh*t. Really?
  34. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: AI lost some credibility on this file.

    I used to support them in my student days but I have questioned the logic and waste of resources on this case from day one.
  35. Iain Scott from Canada writes: Finally some sanity. Taliban Jack must be fuming though!
  36. Michael Motorcycle from Thunder Bay, Canada writes: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects enough criminals and terrorists in our own country, why would we want to use it to protect criminals and terrorists in other countries?
  37. The Religious Left from Kingston, Canada writes:
    John Fedup from Canada writes: Religious Left....the 'appeal' is being prepared as we blog.

    By who? AI? I didn't realize they spoke for all leftists.
  38. Jake The Snake from Canada writes: John Fedup from Canada writes: Religious Left....the 'appeal' is being prepared as we blog.

    =========================

    Wow, lawyers and/or activists appealing a decision. I think you may be on to something new here.
  39. Joe Bloggins from Canada writes: F H from Ottawa, Canada says 'Sounds reasonable. It also makes it clear that if this is so, that International Law and the Geneva Conventions which protect detainees MUST be followed.' Yeah....insofar as they apply. Many of these fighters could legally be shot on sight given that they are not in uniform nor part of a legitimate army of a nation.
  40. Darth Bobo from Canada writes: Good! A bit of common sense for a change. And the Geneva Convention does not apply either. Read the requirements of the convention to see for yourself.
  41. Sean L. from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Detainees do not have Charter rights: judge'

    But your local Liberal MPP will be happy to help them apply to Canada as a refugee!!

    Here's the bottom line folks - the Taliban is not a signatory to the Geneva conventions, and terrorists are not entitled to get the protections that non-combatants and prisoners of war do under this treaty.

    I suggest we just beat them with a stick and them hand them over to the local Afghan authorities for execution. The bleeding hearts can go screw themselves.
  42. John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: Bravo Judge McTavish. Now here is the real clincher from Judge McTavish's bio...She is the past chairperson of the The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, 1998. A sensible judgement from a rights based judge!! Has the Earth moved?

    She is a judge. She knows the wherewithal regarding human rights and where they are properly applied. The Charter of Rights is meant for Canadians and it is meant for Canada. And being a chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal she knows where the laws should be placed and enacted. The silly thing about this Amnesty International proposal is that it applies in the situation of Afghanistan, a nation whose politics is different from ours. Face it, these people have less liberties that we do. Now what would happen if Canada was to occupy, say, Great Britain? Here is a country that has more liberty and more of a history of liberty than Canada, and Canadian rights and liberties are copies and modifications of British rights and Scottish and English laws. Under the AI proposal, would we treat British prisoners with our accord, with the thought that it fritters away at the liberties of the British subject? What is good for the goose would be good for the gander. AI should really leave the negotiations to international laws body in the Hague. Clumsy, it still works and changes when necessary. We can hope thatall sides live by the rules that it presents.
  43. Jody Greening from Burlington, Canada writes: Quote: [Paul Jones from kitchener, Canada writes: Fight your own d@mn wars if you don't like how we do things - it'll shorten the suffering before your empire finally collapses do to your corrupt system, politicians, policies, etc. etc. etc.]

    I am certainly no war supporter... but where do you think Canada will be if this truely happens? I would guess up s*** creek right there beside them, do you have some paddles? ;-)
  44. B L from Canada writes: Torture is prohibited by the Afghan Constitution.

    Canadians serving in Afghanistan have an OBLIGATION to protect the constitution of the country that they are serving. I don't care whether the detainees are 'terrorists' or little old grandmothers. They are people who have rights under their own constitution and the Geneva convention.

    Our Canadian Military are simply not qualified to be judge and jury on these internal issues. That's why the Geneva convention was set up - to protect POWs.

    I don't see what the big deal is.
  45. Jon Butlin from Canada writes: The Religious Left from Kingston, Canada writes:
    Why would people think that charter applied to detainees? I'm not proud of how Canada has treated detainees and I think they should be awarded legal protections, but I don't see why the charter would apply to them.

    How has Canada treated the detainees that has caused you such shame,?
  46. Blaque Jacque Shallaque from Canada writes: Whoa! Our judges actually make a sensible decision.

    For all those Amnesty International idiots out there, just think how many more useful things you can do with the money you are wasting on these ridiculous court cases.
  47. Not right or left from Canada writes: It makes sense to me. Only Canadian citizens should be protected by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  48. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: I mean like what a surprise......big shock to the left wing that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not encompass the world's population! What a mess if it did.....!!
  49. Archie 1954 from Vancouver, Canada writes: Guantanamo is a U.S. military base and therefore potentially considered U.S. territory. Afghanistan is supposedly a sovereign country although that is up in the air at the moment. Canada is supporting militarily the present government there. That government practices torture. The question is why are we there? Why are we supporting torture? What has happened to everything we used to stand for? Is the Conservative Government really taking a page from the Bush Administration? Please tell me that isn't the case.
  50. Sean L. from Toronto, Canada writes: Good thing I am not still in the forces - my orders group to my troupers would make this issue a non-issue: assault through enemy positions and take no prisioners.
  51. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: John .... let me take the other side.

    The granting of rights and freedoms under the Charter to prisoners taken into custody by Canadians should also be extended to any persons taken into custody by Canadian agencies anywhere in the world.

    Not just Afghan prisoners, but Afghan women working in Canadian provincial reconstruction projects, Afghan children being taught in Canadian reconstructed schools, in fact our very being in Afghanistan means the Afghan government must accept our Charter as the definitive document of rights.

    And Canadian courts will protect those rights.

    Welcome to AI FantasyLand.
  52. Proctor Gamble from Inherently Interested, Canada writes: The judge ruled correctly, in my opinion.

    Canada's Charter is properly confined to Canada.
  53. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: It makes sense to me that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would not apply in this case. It would be a matter of our imposing our domestic arrangements on other nations/nationals. Oh, right, I forgot, that's what we're trying to do in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, all of the protections provided under international law (Geneva Convention, etc.), without the inapplicably strict interpretation as to uniforms, should be provided - they are what our Forces are well-trained to understand and respect.

    We should not match our own conduct to that of our so-called enemy, which really is what Guantanamo Bay is about (mindless revenge). Such conduct, whatever its convenient justification, would diminish us while also providing the so-called enemy with recruitment ammunition. How can we speak of rebuilding Afghan society why simultaneously dismantling our own? What is needed is transparency on the part of our own government, but that is a different and even more troubling issue (see Manley thread ;-)).
  54. harry potter from Toronto, Canada writes: Michael Motorcycle good one. At least we have some people with common sense in this country. We cry foul at every thing to do with human rights in other countries but what about our own rights. Our system is the most screwed up politically correct system. There are thousands of people (specially immigrants) in this coutry whose rights are being messed with every day. I am not saying immigrants are innocents but the fact is we have many issues in this country which need to be looked into. We think we have great system in place just because we have given equal status to gays and others.
  55. Rain Couver from Canada writes: Detainees are not Canadian citizens, but potentially executing fatal actions against Canadian citizens. They do not deserve to benefit from Charter rights especially since the aim is to destroy such freedoms.
  56. Kathleen Degelder from AberdeenUSA, Canada writes: I don't get it, honestly. Why isn't the Amnesty International and Civil Rights Union complaining about the road side bombings and casualties caused by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda?---Criminal rights versus victim's rights?---One can argue that by treating the prisoners a certain way will make us better: However I don't think that will stop the offensive of the Taliban. Will it be applauded or will it be seen as a weakness by the enemy combatants?
  57. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: I should have mentioned that those posters who seem to have such contempt for the process of court challenges, for the judiciary, etc., do not seem to have considered how we have arrived at the laws we have now. Our body of law, which forms the basis of the relative law and order we enjoy, is an accumulation of just such challenges. Various 'sides' to argument have made and do make their best case and those who have spent countless years studying the law make reasoned judgments. It beats fighting in the streets to arrive at common ground. Or, for that matter, simply accepting the tyranny of the mob - oops, majority.
  58. D K from Canada writes: Well duh! Otherwise they could start collecting welfare and expect free flights on behalf of the gov.
  59. Typical Toronto Voter from ONLY the Liberals will put again Ontario ahead of the rest of Canada!, Canada writes: As a Toronto Liberal I deplore this decision. The Judge should realize that this whole issue was never about detainee rights to begin with, it was an attempt to make Harper's government look bad. Maybe the G&M and CBC can revive this issue with blanket coverage.
  60. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Kathleen:-- It doesn't matter how others see us, it matters how we see ourselves. It's called having a moral compass and taking personal responsibility for consulting it once in awhile.
  61. Allan Eizinas from Simcoe, Canada writes: .
    The decision makes logical sense.

    The problem is that we have to then remember that any Canadian detainees, be they military or civilian are subject to the rights that the Taliban give to them. What if that means trial on the spot and beheading those found guilty?

    Is this what we want?
  62. Diane Schweik from EDMONTON, Canada writes: .

    I miss the intellectual input of Imovern McPherson lately.Is it possible that he has been laid low by his sleep apnoea and has been sent south for urgent treatment not available in Canada.
  63. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Diane Schweik:-- All of your posts are about individuals and/or organizations - short-form for ideas you apparently hesitate to express. When hate and disapproval is focused, proxy-like, on the names of individuals and organizations, thinking and rational argument suffers. But, perhaps that's the idea.
  64. Angry West Coast Canuck from Canada writes: So much for ethics. I see a lot of people, led by S. Bull (an appropriate name) who feel that no rules apply in order to 'gain information' in time of war. To hell with the Geneva Convention. To hell with our own Charter of Rights. To hell with the international charter of human rights upon which our own charter is based.

    In the past, these types of torturers and their helpers have been called 'war criminals'. I can only hope that someday, the people responsible for the torture and killing of prisoners of war - from Guantanamo to Abu Grahib to whatever hellhole we use in Afghanistan - are made to pay for their crimes. Until then, I have a new understanding of how the Nazis, the Imperial Japanese Army, the Khmer Rouge and so many others were able to convince so many people that 'the enemy' was not human, and thus did not deserve any of the ethics that apply to humans.

    Also sad to see how many people have swallowed the propaganda that they are 'out to end our way of life'. Hey, THEY aren't the ones invading our country, killing our people, killing our children, and destroying our temples. THEY are the ones were are invaded and are defending their homes. A small group of outcasts killed 3000 people in the USA in a terror attack. Meanwhile, the USA and its allies, including Canada, Israel, the British and others, have killed well over a million of their people in the past 10 years alone. Who is really the terrorist here? Or is it not terrorism if tax dollars are paying for it?

    Sick, people. Really sick.
  65. Compos Mentis from Toronto, Canada writes: Expanding the charter of rights overseas would have been quite the trick, but I wonder why these clowns from Amnesty International didn't think to go to another country and convince their courts to grant real bona fide Canadian citizens our charter rights in their country! As the old commercial goes, 'Only in Canada eh, pity!'
  66. Joe Bloggins from Canada writes: Archie 1954 from Vancouver says 'Is the Conservative Government really taking a page from the Bush Administration? Please tell me that isn't the case. ' O....that isn't the case. By the way, your knee-jerk anti-American nonsense really doesn't add much to the discussion.
  67. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: I learned many years ago that the Law, as practiced in British Common Law countries, is an evolutionary societal structure for the protection of the status quo. When the Law makes a decision that is considered 'revolutionary', it is merely reflecting the present state of that society.

    We are maturing in our interpretations of the Charter.

    Diane M ... take away revenge/retribution and we would have very few wars.
  68. R L from Canada writes: Our Charter does not apply to detainees, true... but they do have human rights under International Law, including the prisoner rights afforded under the Geneva Conventions.

    This ruling on the Charter has no bearing on the status quo; Canada will not be party to a system of torture.
  69. True North from Canada writes: Harper keeps telling us we are fighting in Afghanistan for Canadian values; seems that we are not. Canadian soldiers are fighting and dying to uphold an Islamic constitution.
  70. Ely Sbrozzi from Toronto, Canada writes: From my understanding, our Charter of Rights does not cover prisoners anywhere else in the world either. Why would it? It protects the rights of Canadians.

    There is a moral obligation for civilized societies to act with compassion towards fellow human beings. I don't imagine anyone would dispute that. However, I find it interesting that only 'Western' countries are ever called on to live up to this standard.
  71. P Jones from NB, Canada writes: Amnesty International is out to lunch if they think that captured prisoners, in A'stan, should fall under the umbrella of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What a joke. It's too bad Amnesty International didn't feel so strongly about what these prisoners and their comrades would do to our soldiers if captured.
  72. The Truth from Regina, Canada writes: Sweet....A judge with common sense and the conviction to use it. This country could use more judges like this one.
  73. P Jones from NB, Canada writes: Angry West Coast Canuck from Canada writes: So much for ethics. I see a lot of people, led by S. Bull (an appropriate name) who feel that no rules apply in order to 'gain information' in time of war. To hell with the Geneva Convention. To hell with our own Charter of Rights. To hell with the international charter of human rights upon which our own charter is based.
    _____________

    The Geneva Convention does not apply to these prisoners.
  74. Slippery Slope from Canada writes: Now, the question is: Do the Canadian soldiers respect their Afghani rights?
  75. Christopher Watson from Burnaby, writes: Suicide bombers and terrorist actions by the Afghan enemy and yet there are still people who feel they deserve rights and protection. Support the troops not the enemy! There are too many feel-good people trying to put Canadian values and laws on some people who by their very actions lack any values.
  76. The Truth from Regina, Canada writes: Angry West Coast Canuck from Canada. Get stuffed.
    Be concerned for the Canadian soldiers' well-being, not those people who are trying to kill our troops.
    Whose side are you on traitor??
  77. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: Angry West Coast writes 'A small group of outcasts killed 3000 people in the USA in a terror attack.'

    A group of outcasts does not gain the expertise to plan a precise simultaneous attack involving at least four commercial aircraft including two that flew with precision at less than 1000 ft. with a last second course correction to hit two office towers precisely in their sweetspots without sponsorship from one or more states.

    It was an act of war and we are at war with the sponsoring states and insurgent groups, and there are others.

    BTW - Angry and West Coast?? Oxymoron in spring. What's wrong? Don't like daffodils, cherry blossoms? Go outside and get your Vitamin D.
  78. Fake Name from Canada writes: Michael B, the fact that you mention the US and China in the same sentence regarding human rights abuses is ridiculous. Mistreating some terrorism suspects does not equate with summary execution for getting on the nerves of the communist party leadership. If the US were anything like China, Obama and Hilary would already be in prison.
  79. Dana Cruickshank from Canada writes: Why would they get charter rights? If they do, then so does everyone else in the world. That doesn't make any sense at all. What a waste of time.
  80. Maggasy Renner from Vancouver, Canada writes: I do loathe to admit this, but the judge is right. Since they are technically Afghan prisoners of war (and we are just allies helping the Afghans with their war at this point), they are not subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights. However, Shawn Bull, the first poster is wrong if he thinks that we can nonetheless abuse other human beings to protect our soldiers from getting hurt without grossly violating international war crimes laws. And Two Cents (second posting) is wrong in assuming that Guantanamo is the same case. In that case, the prisoners are American prisoners of war, kept in an American prison, on American-controlled soil. That clearly makes them subject to American POW laws, no matter how to weasel out of giving them those rights. And if anyone wants to argue the 'enemy combatant' myth, I would challenge you to argue to me logically that 'enemy combatant' is not identical as 'enemy in a war' under any definition of the word. And, no, arguing that the Americans did not conduct a 'war' does not constitute an argument, because everyone in the world knows that it was, in fact, a 'war' in every sense of the word.
  81. Fake Name from Canada writes: ' True North from Canada writes: Harper keeps telling us we are fighting in Afghanistan for Canadian values; seems that we are not. Canadian soldiers are fighting and dying to uphold an Islamic constitution.'

    Quite true. It bugs me no end to see the lives and money spent by the canadian government to prop up a country that's so clueless that anyone who leaves the dominant local religion is subject to a death sentence. How can any of us support that?
  82. Sam Patel from Vancouver, Canada writes: Simple jursidictional.

    This has nothing to do with whether we like or dislike torture. It has to do with the effect and reach of our charter. Surprise surprise it does not apply in Afghanistan to non-resident non-citizens detained by Canadian operating under Nato at the behest of the local Afgahn government.

    What a waste of time and money.
  83. Carl C. from Montreal, Canada writes: @Ed Long from white Rock, Canada: That is the reason why i do not
    believe in Amnesty International... I prefer Humans Rights Watch
    which seems much more serious in its approach.
  84. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: If this decision makes it easier to torture people (whether or not they're terrorists/enemies/whatever else), the right-wingers will be happy, since torturing others is, for them, a way of addressing their own personal deficits. . . . 'a method of getting valuable intelligence' is a scam excuse.
  85. Freddie Fender from Canada writes: Angry West Coast Canuck from Canada writes: '...the USA and its allies, including Canada, Israel, the British and others, have killed well over a million of their people in the past 10 years alone. Who is really the terrorist here? Or is it not terrorism if tax dollars are paying for it?'

    In this case, you are the terrorist with the spreading of lies and disinformation. Quit spreading anti-Canadian and anti-peace propaganda. Shame on you. You probably aren't from Canada.
  86. Carl C. from Montreal, Canada writes: @Fake Name from Canada: You seem to have been brainwashed... The chinese do not execute political prisoners. They did do it BEFORE, but not anymore... So i think the sentence that China and the US abuse human rights IS true...
  87. George Hall from Canada writes: The Conservative government is a joke because they don't really care what happens to prisoner, and this is wrong because we are supposedly trying to bring civility to Afghanistan.
    Mike Duffy's coverage of this was appalling because he made it perfectly clear he agrees with the government and makes no attempt to at least pretend to being impartial. It is about time this guy gave it up.
  88. Repeatedly Censored from Bushland, Canada writes: So we're back to the Middle Ages and to casuistry: pray tell, how many angels can stand at the tip of a pin needle? -- This whole issue is a national disgrace, whichever way you look at it. It will remain so in History books for ever, no matter what all the casuists say. The Globe better take a decent stand on this, for History books will tell how Canadian media reacted, in this debate.
  89. Archie Wellford from Canada writes: Dear Editor; The consensus here is that there is little sympathy for the enemy's operatives and the Judge's ruling is appropriate. Further posts are would be repetitious and are superfluous.
  90. Craig Cooper from Toronto, writes: Finally -- common sense!
  91. Juan Valasquez from Canada writes: slowly but surely I am regaining faith in our judicial system.
    Uh oh I just said the F word.
    Is it possible that we are slowly turning the corner in the war against PC enforced
    judicial rulings?
    I can only hope so. For a moment there I was sure we were in Berkeley California.
    How long until The Taliban begin seeking refugee status on grounds of Canadian persecution?
  92. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: Good judgement.
  93. Kevin Desmoulin from Toronto, Canada writes: You people on the right may have misunderstood what I and some others were concerned about, I was concerned that our canadians soldiers were handing over the detainees and their human rights under international standards were not observed by the afghan government.
    I certainly never thought they should our rights as citizens or proxy by being detained by our armed forces.
    If we going uphold human rights this must achieved for all, as much as it is distasteful, we must make sure that human rights for detainees are upheld as well.

    Needless to say I highly doubt torture by the afghans has stopped They have most likely spirited it away to some hidden spot.
    Afghanistan is mess, we did more then our bit and time to get out now.
  94. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Well NO KIDDING. To have charter rights, I think you need to be IN CANADA. Isn't that common sense?
  95. F H from Canada writes: 'William Ross from Victoria BC, Canada writes: Franky speaking the detainees once they are transfered to the authorities in their own country or at the least next door to their own country are simply not our responsibility'

    They are in that International Law and the Geneva Conventions state that no detainees must be turned over if they stand a good chance of abuse and torture. If they are turned over then our forces can be charged with war crimes and I, for one, respect them too much to put them in that position.
  96. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: ps I don't mean to imply that just because they aren't in Canada they don't have rights, certainly we should treat them with respect, treat them according to the Geneva conventions, and act accordingly with Afghan law and International Law.

    However, to grant detainees in Afghanistan Charter rights including the taxpayer funded human rights lawyer is absurd, and let's chalk this ruling up to common sense.
  97. Rick McNaulty from CalgaryOttawa, Canada writes: Another loss for the incompetant self promoters at the BC Civil Idiots Association.

    These clowns are forced to pay Canada's legal bills after losing are they not?
  98. F H from Canada writes: 'Joe writes: Many of these fighters could legally be shot on sight given that they are not in uniform nor part of a legitimate army of a nation. '

    Completly immaterial as the subject of the article is detainees, who are accorded all the protections of POWs. Unfortunately, this leads to forces being judges and jury and murdering civilians without a trial.
  99. anderson Stevenson from Canada writes: How could anyone think that Canadian law should apply to Afghanis in Afghanistan.. That is really the height of arrogance or maybe even imperialism. But then again its an idea coming from amnesty international and the Canadian Civil Liberties association; explains why its so delusional and the mindlessness of it.
  100. bob saunders from Belleville Ontario, Canada writes: Angry West Coast Canuck from Canada writes: So much for ethics. I see a lot of people, led by S. Bull (an appropriate name)------------ I would say your name is more apropos. Canadian soldiers operate iaw the Geneva convention and also have further clarification with their ROEs, that outline exactly how they are to react to threatening situations, how to treat enemy combatants, POW...etc. I'm proud of how our boys are performing if if the odd detainee gets maltreated by the police of the country we were invited, actually plead with to help by the legitimate Afghan government, big deal.
  101. Anti Fascist from Canada writes:
    Argue about it all you want after the troops are brought home. The whole miserable exercise was immoral and foisted on the Canadian public by a bunch of liars.
    Canada has already spent more than a billion dollars beyond expectations, the majority of Canadians understand the criminal nature of this particular military debacle and want it ended.
    Bring the troops home.
  102. Rachelle W from Kirkland, United States writes: I respect both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. PLEASE Canada, do not sink to the level of this country.
  103. Sask Langer from Canada writes: To all the people shocked at how a 'judge' could make a 'sensible' decision:

    Just because this decision happens to technically coincide with your 'everyone who isn't exactly like me is worthless' world-view doesn't mean the judges are starting to see things your way. It's a case of someone looking at this thing called evidence and making an informed decision based on what they see and can reasonably gather from it. Of course, this was for totally different reasons than your favourite 'they wouldn't do the same to our soldiers' argument (and I use that word loosely). Maybe, just maybe, this has been happening all along with judicial decisions, but you haven't been able to see past your blind narrow-mindedness to think that it's you who's been misunderstanding the issues all this time.

    It's called thinking rationally. I suggest you idiots do it some time.

    And yeah, some extreme left-wing people may not like it, but the majority of left-leaning people know enough to ignore them anyway.
    • Posted 12/03/08 at 5:54 PM EST |