Gabriel

You're playing the CTV semantics game. I remember watching that EXACT clip immediately after the question period and being so frustrated how ALL the correspondents/reporter at CTV were micharacterizing MacKay's and the government's treatment of Colvin. Saying that Colvin has been duped isn't the same as calling him a dupe. That Graeme Smith guy is very biased, as well. On that segment he led the charge that the government was attacking Colvin personally, which is absolutely untrue. I'm not going to repeat myself, neither MacKay nor the government engaged in character assassination of Colvin, no matter how much the opposition or left-wing media can suggest so. There's a huge difference between attacking someone's assertions and attacking their character, but you're unable or unwilling to see that difference. Here's a challenge you will be unable to fulfill. Find REAL quotes that disparage Colvin and are akin to character assassination made by MacKay or other members of the government. This last line of yours, "Ergo Mackay is a thug in shining armour who is simply trying to emulate Harpers style.." really tells us all we need to know about your ideological leanings, for those of us who couldn't already decipher it.

That's not character assassination, though. MacKay is suggesting that Colvin was too quick to believe what he had been told by former detainees (whom MacKay is alleging are Taliban) who are aware of our system and concern for fair treatment and intend to exploit these characteristics of ours. Again, that isn't character assassination, it's speculation which I believe is accurate. My impression is that Colvin is a bleeding heart leftie who isn't concerned with obtaining the truth, and is ideologically predisposed to think that we're the erring party in this conflict. Or at the very least, he's anti-military and thinks of considers military servicepersons to be brutes incapable to ascertaining the nuances of detainee legalties... or maybe he's just a partisan Liberal. Either way, I didn't hesitate to do character assassination on Colvin in the original threads when this story began, but the government never did.

What the hell? Where the hell did that come from? Turn down your sensitivity meter and don't be a drama queen.

Hi there Michael, I agree with the statement. Of course things will never be perfect, but the vast majority of people I know seem to accept gays as deserving equal rights like the rest of us. I've seen and met quite a few gays who didn't seem too subtle about their sexual orientation, which suggests to me that many feel comfortable enough to be open about these things. That's obviously a good thing. Of course gays can still be discriminated against, like any other group (including WASPs, believe it or not), and they've got protections under the CCRF to correct wrongs they may experience. We've got pretty gay TV shows, movies featuring gay protagonists, etc. We've definitely come a long way. One thing I'd like to see disappear from our vernacular is the whole "that's gay" comment - with "gay" being synonymous with "lame". I never say it. I'm always surprised when I hear educated people use that phrase. Reminds me of people saying "that's Jewish" with respect to something they find as a poor value or a rip-off. It's just so ignorant. Once people stop saying "that's gay" I'll agree that equality's been reached :-) With respect to overly out-there gays, yes that is definitely lame. Just like an overly macho dude or skanky chick. It reeks of insecurity and a desire for attention, it's just plain obnoxious. I'm certain some gays also play the whole "I'm being abused 'cuz I'm gay" card when they are inept or incompetent, but that's life. I bet the people who are most annoyed at that phenomenon are reasonable gays who don't want people exploiting any of their plight for equality. Anyways I'll stop rambling I think I've made my position clear.

Seriously, this is a disaster. Might I advise exercising a bit of self-control on thread derailments? Although I'm guilty of contributing to the derailment process with what I'm about to say, it's painfully dishonest and incorrect to suggest that the assertions of Iraq maintaining and procuring WMDs were "bullshit". I don't want to get into why, but any honest examination of matters will reveal that Iraq obviously possessed WMDs and being obstructionist with respect to inspections and continual pressure from the Western World (even the UN) to come clean.

Just in case anyone hadn't noticed.... this thread was intended to be about the military conducting an internal inquiry into the treatment of Afghan detainees transferred to the custody of the Afghan security forces.... and by extension to broader Afghan detainee controversy.... but it's turned into a one-liner exchange about WMDs in Iraq?

I just don't believe that 30% of women in the military are rapes. A survey may say one thing, but it isn't necessarily the truth. This is American military we're talking about, not the Taliban. An uncited survey for such a strong claim needs more support. I also don't understand the point of the OP - naomiglover, do you have anything to add to your weakly cited statistics?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6XMIldkRU Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Anyone know where I can find transcripts or even video records of question period? Is there an online database somewhere? CPAC's archives don't seem to go back too far. I'm looking for the question period records from around the time of the beginning of the Colvin affair. It's sad how much difficulty I'm having finding specific information about efforts Canada has made towards ensuring proper treatment of detainees transferred to Afghan custody.

I'm not going to continue exchanging posts with you. You're clearly not here to have a serious exchange or you're incapable of it for whatever reason(s). Colvin's character was never attacked by the government. I watched the testimony and subsequent question periods. All the claims from the Liberal party, NDP, etc about the government attacking Colvin are absolutely false. There is a big difference between attacking someone's statements and attacking someone's character. MacKay and others from the cabinet were always extremely careful in their statements regarding Colvin, and nothing they said ever crossed the line towards character assassination. They simply attacked the credibility of his statements, which deserved to be attacked. Anyways, I'm done wasting my time with you.

Natynczyk's testimony doesn't really corroborate Colvin's testimony. It's misleading to suggest they are both on the same page of this matter with respect to their claims. Colvin suggested widespread prisoner abuse, going to far as to say that all detainees apprehended by Canadian forces transferred to Afghan security forces were "likely tortured". Natynczyk's claims are of evidence that one detainee was tortured. Here's the video, actually. I think it actually reflects well on Canada, from top to bottom, that Canada is able to correct its errors and works towards improving its operations continually. Now, I'm not naive, I don't think this is the only situation where abuse is likely to have happened. Given the circumstances, I think Canada is conducting itself as well as it reasonably can. Let's not be stupid, Afghanistan is not a country with rich traditions of human rights and civil liberties. We have to work with the existing infrastructure and make reasonable efforts to improve it. It would be naive to think we can expect Canadian or international standards to be consistently applied in Afghanistan. What we can do is take reasonable steps towards bringing up the standards of prisoner treatment in Afghanistan over time. We have cases of abuse of prisoners in Canada, how can we expect the Afghan system to operate flawlessly. We need to balance this problem with our military and security concerns. We cannot do nothing and release detainees because we aren't guaranteed that they won't be mistreated. Let's be clear that Natynczyk and Colvin are not on the same side of this issue, which your statement seems to suggest.

That's not relevant to what I said, unless your intention is to do character assassination on MacKay (who I like) in order to discredit any statements he's ever made that contradict your assertions that Canada didn't do a thing to ensure that transferred detainees weren't mistreated. Is that how you intend to argue your position - attack MacKay or any other government official with information contrary to your assertion? Do you think it'd difficult to discredit Colvin on his testimony? Just watch the Hillier testimony (which I'm guessing you haven't seen), he really took Colvin's allegations to task. Anyways, I'd like to stay more focused as I feel this thread derailing into the broader subject of the entire Afghan detainee story - is Canada complicit/negligent in its responsibilities or not? I guess that's an unavoidable evolution of the subject matter, though...

Its difficult to find the information regarding the efforts that Canada undertook to ensure that detainees transferred to the custody of Afghan security forces weren't mistreated - because it's a Canadian story and Canadian news is left-leaning. I wish I had a better memory, because then I could recollect what I heard MacKay had said regarding these matters. I do remember him stating that Canad has spent some millions of dollars towards maintaining the prison infrastructure, and that there was some sort of system in place for Canada to monitor prison conditions. I'll try to find some tangible information, though.

We already know he will face trial in the USA. Consult this timeline of events. He's not coming to Canada. The SCOC didn't order the government to try to repatriate Khadr, and the government has been clear since day one that they have no intention of trying to bring Khadr back to Canada. Some of your questions have already been answered.

That's not true. I'm guessing you didn't watch the hearings with Colvin or Hillier and company. During several question period I remember McKay describing some of the lengths to which Canada went towards ensuring appropriate treatment of prisoners transferred to Afghan custody. You need to lose the habit of stating misinformation. Anyways, I'll get back to this thread later with details as I'm sure some people are genuinely interested in learning about these things rather than preaching from an e-soapbox.

Where are you getting your information regarding Canada' higher immigration rates per capita? Even if Canada's per capita immigration rates ARE higher (which I find highly doubtful), it still does not necessarily mean we have a more ethnically diverse population. At least with respect to the various ethnicities/races which have lower life expectancies. In other words, if ethnicity A generally has a lower life expectancy that the overall average, and America has a significantly higher proportion of ethnicity A composing its total population, we'd expect that to lower the overal life expectancy of Americans. All in all, though, life expectancy is one of many variables when examining the overall quality of healthcare in a country. With respect to Canada and the USA, though, it's not a very useful tool as the life expectancies in both countries are very similar, as are our healthcare standards.

I wouldn't go so far to call the man an idiot, but I think he's being irresponsible by judging the entire Canadian healthcare system on his one experience. To somehow think one can have an informed opinion on the entire healthcare debate in the USA by experiencing health issues while vacationing in Canada and having a bad experience in a Canadian hospital makes no sense. I had no idea Lesnar considered himself to be a political guy. He wouldn't have made such a public statement if he didn't have strong feelings about this issue or about politics/partisanship in general. I don't know about other Canadians in here, but I have family and friends in the USA who've had their fair share of bad experiences in American hospitals and clinics. I wouldn't base an opinion on a complex debate based on that alone, though. At the end of the day, though, Canadians are receiving virtually the same quality of care as our American counterparts for about half the cost. This isn't happening without its problems, obviously. We all know of the long wait times for certain procedures and services. And for very rare illnesses of course America will offer better services in many cases.

I'd still like some serious alternatives from the critics of these stories on how to deal with Afghan detainees. When enemy combatants (fancy words to describe terrorists) are captured on the battlefield, what are the Canadian forces supposed to do? We can't be expecting to operate infrastructure to house these persons. In the real world, you need to work with what you have, and in Afghanistan there is existing infrastructure and a system in place to deal with these detainees. I'll look for more details regarding exactly what steps Canada took towards ensuring that the detainees apprehended by Canadian forces and then transferred over to Afghan custody weren't abused. Reasonable people will concede that a guarantee can never be made and shouldn't be expected. What should be expected are reasonable efforts were made by Canada to ensure our compliance with international agreements.

That's kinda what I was alluding to. I guess you and I simply have a different take on this funny story. Mind you, it's not something I'd do in a professional environment with someone I didn't know well, but I find that level of comfort from Bush an endearing quality. To me, it reinforces a down-to-earth image. I'm guessing you view it as building a perceived lack of judgment/lack of tact in Bush :-)

I think we've had a similar discussion before, eyeball. If I recall correctly, you seem to think that the West has brought this conflict on itself through imperialism and other mean things we've done to the Arab/Muslim world. I imagine you also thing that our support for Israel is misguided and further exacerbates this problem, as we are supporting the theft of Arab/Muslim land. I completely reject your position, and think that heading down that direction would be a fatal derailing of this thread.

Maybe she should relax a little, is all I'm saying. :-) To me it came across as way too uptight. Obviously I'm unfamiliar with the details of Bush's and Merkel's personal relationship and can't completely judge what is or isn't appropriate.

Why do you insist on framing everything I've said in a hyperbolic way? Just because the evidence that's out there is convincing to a rational person that Khadr was indeed supporting our enemies doesn't mean I'm being some extremist by recognizing that reality. Come on, he comes from a terrorist family, he was captured on the battlefield fighting alongside the terrorists when he should've been in high school learning basic algebra, and has confessed to being a terrorist. I as well as other reasonable people are convinced of his guilt. I am not some right-wing extremist know-it-all because I acknowledge this. Anyways, you're acting childish and you know it. I'm here to have a serious discussion, not bicker back and forth with little literary daggers.

Seriously, I thought that was an endearing moment for Bush. In my view, that awkward exchange made Merkel (sp?) look too uptight. Just because you're a world leader doesn't mean you can't lighten up for a moment with other world leaders.

I'm really unsure what it is I've said that'd making you so contentious. You asked me to speculate on a hypothetical scenario, so I indulged your request. Holla back at me when you're not so upset and aren't compelled to make little snide remarks in every post of yours.

Is Charles the guy who has sent me PM warnings when I got out of line? Does Charles ever contribute to the forum posts? I'd be interested in hearing his opinions.