Afghan prisoner abuse trial

[Sir Bandelot]

Handling of Afghan prisoners covered up: report

November 17, 2009

In an affidavit filed before the Military Police Complaints Commission, Colvin said he told officials in Ottawa about allegations of abuse and torture of Afghan detainees as early as May 2006. At the time, the government denied there were any credible allegations of torture.

Colvin's first memo on the issue was sent to senior military and foreign affairs officials and described what he thought were "serious imminent and alarming" problems in the handling of detainees.

Colvin wrote at least 16 more memos about the detainee issue, over the next year and a half. In October, CBC News reported the contents of one of those memos, written by Colvin in June 2007.

The report was widely circulated at the senior levels of the Defence and Foreign Affairs departments. It was also sent to one of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's senior security advisers.

The sources told the news agency there was a fear that graphic reports, even in censored form, could be uncovered by opposition parties and the media through access-to-information laws, leading to revelations that would further erode already-tenuous public support for the Afghan mission.

The controversy was seen as "detracting from the narrative" the Harper government was trying to weave around the mission, said one official.

"It is my contention that if this matter is properly unearthed and investigated you would see that the knowledge of these allegations of torture go right up to the prime minister and various ministers, at that time." Dosanjh told the CBC in an interview.

---------------

It appears that the Conservative government ignored certain facts coming from the front lines and tried to cover up all evidence of these crimes,while portraying this war as a fight to create a just and free society in Afghanistan. How is that working out?

Edited November 18, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[Gabriel]

Another article here.

Clearly this Richard Colvin guy is a traitor on a mission to damage Canada's reputation during a time of conservative leadership. I guarantee you this guy is a Liberal party member. Anyone else watch his ridiculous testimony? He made absurd claims that the decision made by Canada's military to hand over certain detainees to Afghan security forces damaged our mission to win the hearts and minds of the Afghani people. Laughably, he claims that these decisions fuel the terrorists (a treasonous Liberal talking point we've all been hearing for years, that our presence there causes these "people" to become terrorists). Just more of the usual exaggeration of the truth - notice how he says nothing about any of the positive operations of the Canadian military. No mention is made of the Canadian soldiers protecting civilians from Taliban terrorism. No mention is made of Canadian military and civilian efforts to help build Afghani civilian infrastructure. No mention is made of any positive Canadian endeavour that perhaps has contributed towards winning the hearts and minds of certain Afghani populations. Of course the hearts and minds of Afghanistan are only affected by how the detainees are treated by internal Afghani security forces once handed over from Canadian forces. Clearly Canada's legitimacy in the eyes of the Afghani people hinges only on how terrorist detainees are treated by other Afghanis. Ridiculous.

I suppose Colvin would prefer that Canadian forces release all detainees! He provides no alternative to the problem faced by the military - what to do with terrorist detainees? He suggested something along the lines of establishing some "rigorous and aggressive" monitoring system for how detainees are treated - AS IF WE DON'T HAVE MORE PRESSING MILITARY PRIORITIES THAT ARE YET UNFULFILLED! Let's not be naive, Afghanistan is a territory of barbarians. Who is naive enough to suspect that there is some sort of internal Afghanistan agency that can manage detainees in accordance with the highest standards? This is a country where it is common to sell daughters off for goats at age 9. Who is naive enough to expect that high levels of human rights can be established in a country of savages? Colvin is suggesting that detainees be treated better than ordinary Afghanis in their ordinary lives! If he had his way it'd be an UPGRADE in lifestyle to be captured by Canadian forces! Pure insanity.

Just more absurdity in the name of naive idealism. All Colvin did was weaken Canada today in order to advance his partisan agenda. He is a traitor. Maybe he'll get a book deal and a few nice gigs with the Liberal Party out of it all. Just another case of a left-winger riding the "human rights train" in order to advance his own personal interests at the expense of Canadian national security.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Gabriel

[GostHacked]

I suppose Colvin would prefer that Canadian forces release all detainees! He provides no alternative to the problem faced by the military - what to do with terrorist detainees? Let's not be naive, Afghanistan is a territory of barbarians. Who is naive enough to suspect that there is some sort of agency that can manage detainees in accordance with the highest standards? This is a country where it is common to sell daughters off for goats at age 9. Who is naive enough to expect that high levels of human rights can be established in a country of savages?

So, why are we in Afghanistan? We should just GTFO, right?

[Gabriel]

So, why are we in Afghanistan? We should just GTFO, right?

Good question. I'm unsure if it's worth being there. Annihilate the troublesome populations and leave seems to be the best solution. Kill the enemy and GTFO.

[GostHacked]

Good question. I'm unsure if it's worth being there. Annihilate the troublesome populations and leave seems to be the best solution. Kill the enemy and GTFO.

Why do you not think it is worth being there?

[punked]

This just as bad reflection on the Liberals as the Conservatives. NDP was right again the first time.

Edited November 18, 2009 by punked

[Gabriel]

Why do you not think it is worth being there?

I'm unconvinced the overall Afghani population can be civilized. Although perhaps I'm wrong, I've seen some inspiring stories. Perhaps the portion of the Afghani population that are subhumans is only 25%?

[eyeball]

I'm unconvinced the overall Afghani population can be civilized. Although perhaps I'm wrong, I've seen some inspiring stories. Perhaps the portion of the Afghani population that are subhumans is only 25%?

If they were even twice as humane as you, I'd still doubt it.

When I see the way you and more than a few others around here carry on I'm convinced a sizeable portion of our population is just as prone to being radicalised as any other group of human beings. Its getting to the point where its little different than watching a crowd of ululating people yelling bullseye.

[M.Dancer]

Meanwhile, in the old news department....

Hillier commented on this only a few weeks ago...we have known about for years and the process which saw prisoners handed over to the Afghans was changed accordingly.

[eyeball]

Meanwhile, in the old news department....

Hillier commented on this only a few weeks ago...we have known about for years and the process which saw prisoners handed over to the Afghans was changed accordingly.

Much to your chagrin as I recall.

[Gabriel]

If they were even twice as humane as you, I'd still doubt it.

When I see the way you and more than a few others around here carry on I'm convinced a sizeable portion of our population is just as prone to being radicalised as any other group of human beings. Its getting to the point where its little different than watching a crowd of ululating people yelling bullseye.

Yes of course, what an evil person I am to condemn cultures that sell their children for a few dollars. How ethnocentric I am to condemn as savages the very same people that throw acid into the faces of girls for daring to attend a school in the hope of becoming literate. How insensitive I must be to call religious fanatics who torture and kill any who transgress their religious laws subhumans. I must be a racist when I refer to suicide bombers are sub-human trash worthy only of extermination.

Unlike you, I'm unwilling to compromise democracy and freedom. You are a moral relativist, who thinks that it's inappropriate to judge child killers and religious extremists. In your view, all civilizations and societies are equal, just different.

The reality? I'm unafraid and unapologetic to label these animals for what they are - BARBARIANS and SAVAGES that are only worthy only of annihilation. Take no prisoners. Destroy them and crush their towns. The only people who would be offended by such a statement are the animals and savages themselves, and their moral supporters (you, for example).

[ToadBrother]

Unlike you, I'm unwilling to compromise democracy and freedom.

And basic human decency.

[Guest TrueMetis]

The reality? I'm unafraid and unapologetic to label these animals for what they are - BARBARIANS and SAVAGES that are only worthy only of annihilation. Take no prisoners. Destroy them and crush their towns. The only people who would be offended by such a statement are the animals and savages themselves, and their moral supporters (you, for example).

Something used to describe every peoples at one point or another. Depending on your backround your people could have been called that as little as 150 years ago.

Edited November 18, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Gabriel]

Something used to describe every peoples at one point or another. Depending on your backround your people could have been called that as little as 150 years ago.

First of all that's untrue. Second, it's irrelevant. Why don't you actually address my point - is it inappropriate to describe the Taliban and similar tribes as barbarians and savages? What terms would you prefer to use to describe a culture that sells off its children and adults as property, oppresses it women, and implements religious extremism (this is just the tip of the of the iceberg)? Perhaps I should refer to these subhumans as civilizationally challenged? How about freedom-deficient?

Explain to me, what is it with extremist left-wingers that compels them to be so terrified to villify those people and groups that need to be villified? Why do extremist left-wingers defend murderers and rapists? Why do they defend savage civilizations that run contrary to everything we stand for? Why are they so afraid to call a spade a spade?

[M.Dancer]

Much to your chagrin as I recall.

I don't recall any chagrin but you have a different take on reality than me.

[ToadBrother]

First of all that's untrue. Second, it's irrelevant. Why don't you actually address my point - is it inappropriate to describe the Taliban and similar tribes as barbarians and savages? What terms would you prefer to use to describe a culture that sells off its children and adults as property, oppresses it women, and implements religious extremism (this is just the tip of the of the iceberg)? Perhaps I should refer to these subhumans as civilizationally challenged? How about freedom-deficient?

That may be true (and to one degree or another it is). But wiping out whole groups of people seems like an evil far greater than the one it asserts to solve.

Explain to me, what is it with extremist left-wingers that compels them to be so terrified to villify those people and groups that need to be villified? Why do extremist left-wingers defend murderers and rapists? Why do they defend savage civilizations that run contrary to everything we stand for? Why are they so afraid to call a spade a spade?

I realize that your extreme hatreds have blinded you, but I challenge you to provide any evidence that anyone approves of what's going on over there.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That may be true (and to one degree or another it is). But wiping out whole groups of people seems like an evil far greater than the one it asserts to solve.

I realize that your extreme hatreds have blinded you, but I challenge you to provide any evidence that anyone approves of what's going on over there.

Get a freaking grip and start to try and make some sense.

[Gabriel]

That may be true (and to one degree or another it is). But wiping out whole groups of people seems like an evil far greater than the one it asserts to solve.

I realize that your extreme hatreds have blinded you, but I challenge you to provide any evidence that anyone approves of what's going on over there.

Why is it evil to want to annihilate evil? Was it evil to annihilate the Nazis? Is it evil to execute murderers and rapists and child predators? Why am I evil to suggest that Taliban, all of its supporters, and all similar groups of people be dispatched without mercy? I hold hatred for our enemies, and our enemies are not simple people far away with different political opinions on the degree to which government should be involved in our economy. Our enemies are animals who besmirch all of our fundamental values. They torture and execute people without any rule of law - convert to the wrong religion? Well, off with your head! Need a few dollars to but a machine gun? Well, sell off your 12-year-old daughter! Girls trying to learn to read and write when they're forbidden? Well, throw acid in their faces! Belong to the wrong tribe? Well, let's plant IEDs around community centres and schools and markets! These pieces of garbage reject fundamental freedoms, of speech, of religion, of association, of sexual orientation, and of everything in between. They reject gender equalities. They reject education. They reject democracy. They reject everything that makes us great and that we hold dear.

Only an extremist left-winger would refer to me as evil and hate-filled for wanting to EXTERMINATE these subhumans WITHOUT PREJUDICE. These barbarians (you dispute that they are barbarians!) should've been annihilated years ago. Unfortunately we always fight with our hands tied behind our backs - silly rules of engagements and absurd laws/rules of war that was always exploited by our enemies.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Gabriel

[Guest TrueMetis]

First of all that's untrue.

Many peoples have been called Savages and many in the last 150 years if you have any Irish/Ukrainian/Scandiavian/ETC in you your people were called savages and barbarians in the last 150 years.

Second, it's irrelevant.

How so?

Why don't you actually address my point - is it inappropriate to describe the Taliban and similar tribes as barbarians and savages? What terms would you prefer to use to describe a culture that sells off its children and adults as property, oppresses it women, and implements religious extremism (this is just the tip of the of the iceberg)? Perhaps I should refer to these subhumans as civilizationally challenged? How about freedom-deficient?

Well first off they are not "subhuman" there DNA is the same as your. Second your describing everyone from Afghanistan like that. Third the term barbarians and savages has always been used by holier than thou assholes who think they're better than a people, and generally the assholes get there asses kicked by the "barbrians and savages" like the Romans getting shit kicked by the Germanic tribes, or the medieval Europeans getting beat by Genghis Khan.

Explain to me, what is it with extremist left-wingers that compels them to be so terrified to villify those people and groups that need to be villified? Why do extremist left-wingers defend murderers and rapists? Why do they defend savage civilizations that run contrary to everything we stand for? Why are they so afraid to call a spade a spade?

I consider myself in the Centre I just don't like to make broad generalization about peoples or advacate genocide.

Edited November 18, 2009 by TrueMetis

[ToadBrother]

Why is it evil to want to annihilate evil? Was it evil to annihilate the Nazis?

We didn't annihilate them. We beat them, and then, at least so far as we are able to on our side of the Iron Curtain, rebuilt Germany. Did the same in Japan, too, and in the end had probably the West's most secure ally in East Asia.

Is it evil to execute murderers and rapists and child predators?

This is a non sequitur.

Why am I evil to suggest that Taliban, all of its supporters, and all similar groups of people be dispatched without mercy?

Because it makes you the same as them.

I hold hatred for our enemies, and our enemies are not simple people far away with different political opinions on the degree to which government should be involved in our economy.

“In war, resolution; in defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity”

- Winston Churchill

Our enemies are animals who besmirch all of our fundamental values. They torture and execute people without any rule of law - convert to the wrong religion? Well, off with your head! Need a few dollars to but a machine gun? Well, sell off you 12-year-old daughter! Gurls trying to learn to read and write when they're forbidden? Well, throw acid in their faces! Belong to the wrong tribe? Well, let's plant IEDs around community centres and schools and markets! These pieces of garbage reject fundamental freedoms, of speech, of religion, of association, of sexual orientation. They reject gender equalities. They reject education. They reject democracy. They reject everything that makes us great and that we hold dear.

And your solution to this is to become as vile and depraved as they are.

Only an extremist left-winger would refer to me as evil and hate-filled for wanting to EXTERMINATE these subhumans WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Ah yes, and now some logical fallacies to back it all up. This is what is commonly known as the No True Scotsman fallacy. I am not an extreme left winger.

These barbarians (you dispute that they are barbarians!)

I don't recall doing that at all. It's odd how you learned how to write, but can't read.

should've been annihilated years ago.

The Soviets tried, and eventually fled for the border.

Unfortunately we always fight with our hands tied behind our backs - silly rules of engagements and absurd laws/rules of war that was always exploited by our enemies.

Again, you wish to become as depraved as they are. Maybe we should start be exterminating you, who seems to show so many of the same traits as the Taliban. It's a lot easier, you're a lot closer.

[ToadBrother]

Get a freaking grip and start to try and make some sense.

Well, thanks for that insightful post. Did you manage to pull the fork out of your forehead before you posted it, or are you still suffering grand mal seizures from it?

[Gabriel]

We didn't annihilate them. We beat them, and then, at least so far as we are able to on our side of the Iron Curtain, rebuilt Germany. Did the same in Japan, too, and in the end had probably the West's most secure ally in East Asia.

This is a non sequitur.

Because it makes you the same as them.

“In war, resolution; in defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity”

- Winston Churchill

And your solution to this is to become as vile and depraved as they are.

Ah yes, and now some logical fallacies to back it all up. This is what is commonly known as the No True Scotsman fallacy. I am not an extreme left winger.

I don't recall doing that at all. It's odd how you learned how to write, but can't read.

The Soviets tried, and eventually fled for the border.

Again, you wish to become as depraved as they are. Maybe we should start be exterminating you, who seems to show so many of the same traits as the Taliban. It's a lot easier, you're a lot closer.

Take a moment to reflect on the main theme of what your message - that my desire to annihilate evil makes me evil. Clearly you're unable to grasp how stupid that position is. If I am opposed to enemies of freedom and democracy, and want to rid the world of those who practise reprehensible acts that are barbaric and subhuman that I've described ad nauseum, then I have become like enemies I wish to destroy? At what point in this conversation did I become a tribal, mysogynistic, barbaric, anti-democratic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-Western, infidel-hating, suicide bomber supporting, religious extremist? I guess wanting to rid the world of evil is an evil desire, at least in your demented reality.

In other words, I must have missed the connection between me wanting to destroy our enemies and myself becoming an religious extremist who endorses the sale of children and human beings, who advocates suicide bombings in busy bazaars, who advocates for religious extremism, and every other sickening objective of the Taliban and other fundamentalist Islamic organizations. Please connect the dots for me - show me how my desire to rid the world of subhumans has made me a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist.

With respect to the Nazis not being annihilated, perhaps you need a history lesson. Having a few random Nazis rearing their heads from the dirt once in awhile is quite a distance away from what we saw in Nazi Germany. I'd consider that as close to annihilation as reasonably possible.

[ToadBrother]

Take a moment to reflect on the main theme of what your message - that my desire to annihilate evil makes me evil.

Except you're not talking about annilihating evil, you're talking about annihilating an entire people.

Clearly you're unable to grasp how stupid that position is. If I am opposed to enemies of freedom and democracy, and want to rid the world of those who practise reprehensible acts that are barbaric and subhuman that I've described ad nauseum, then I have become like enemies I wish to destroy?

Being opposed to enemies of freedom and wanting them all dead is two different things.

At what point in this conversation did I become a tribal, mysogynistic, barbaric, anti-democratic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-Western, infidel-hating, suicide bomber supporting, religious extremist? I guess wanting to rid the world of evil is an evil desire, at least in your demented reality.

I never said you were an ideological equal. But your solution to them is much like their solution to you.

In other words, I must have missed the connection between me wanting to destroy our enemies and myself becoming an religious extremist who endorses the sale of children and human beings, who advocates suicide bombings in busy bazaars, who advocates for religious extremism, and every other sickening objective of the Taliban and other fundamentalist Islamic organizations. Please connect the dots for me - show me how my desire to rid the world of subhumans has made me a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist.

Your last sentence shows it clearly. "Subhuman"? They are people just like you and me.

With respect to the Nazis not being annihilated, perhaps you need a history lesson. Having a few random Nazis rearing their heads from the dirt once in awhile is quite a distance away from what we saw in Nazi Germany. I'd consider that as close to annihilation as reasonably possible.

I think you'd better look up the history books. Lots of Nazis remained in charge of various industries in the American, British and French sectors. Nuremberg got the worst ones, but plenty of party members were left. On the Eastern side, well, Stasi was populated by ex-SS types. Believe me, there were lots of Nazis left at the end of the day.

[capricorn]

One thing Colvin said raises a flag and this was alluded to on the CBC political show tonight.

"We kept hopeless records and apparently to prevent any scrutiny, the Canadian Forces leadership concealed all this behind walls of secrecy,"

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/11/18/11796716-sun.html

My question is, how much of Mr. Colvin's evaluation of the situation with regard to the transfer of prisoners to Afghan prisoners is based on what he himself calls "poor records"?

He told the committee that Canada took a staggering amount of prisoners, roughly six times more than British forces and 20 times more than the Dutch.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-handed-over-innocent-afghans-to-torture-diplomat/article1368631/

How do we know the British and Dutch records are accurate?

Another interesting aspect is his description of Afghan detainees.

The vast majority of them were not “high-value targets” such as Taliban commanders, Al-Qaeda operatives or bomb-makers, but rather ordinary Afghans, many with no connection to the insurgency.

Some of them may have occasionally carried a gun for the Taliban, either having been bought or coerced, he said, but many were farmers, truck drivers and peasants “in the wrong place at the wrong time.

“In other words, we detained and handed over for severe torture, a lot of innocent people.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-handed-over-innocent-afghans-to-torture-diplomat/article1368631/

To my understanding, masquerading as farmers and peasants is a ploy favoured by the Taliban. Isn't that how they retreat, regroup and re-arm themselves? I have no doubt innocents have been rounded up by mistake. But he says "the vast majority" which means almost all of them. How does Mr. Colvin know that for certain?

[Gabriel]

Except you're not talking about annilihating evil, you're talking about annihilating an entire people.

What "entire people" am I talking about annihilating?

Being opposed to enemies of freedom and wanting them all dead is two different things.

What do you propose we do with extremists like the Taliban rather than exterminate them?

I never said you were an ideological equal. But your solution to them is much like their solution to you.

You said I was the same as the enemy. You said it several times. I had to spoonfeed you just how stupid your statements were before you began to backtrack a little... There is no alternative solution to those groups who openly state their intentions. They make so secret of their desires and intentions. You, however, prefer to put your head in the sand and pretend that these subhumans aren't out there with their sickening machinations and crimes.

Your last sentence shows it clearly. "Subhuman"? They are people just like you and me.

The stupidity from you in non-stop! Did you really just say that these animals are like me? Say it again - tell me these animals are just like us. I will no longer respond to any of your posts.

I think you'd better look up the history books. Lots of Nazis remained in charge of various industries in the American, British and French sectors. Nuremberg got the worst ones, but plenty of party members were left. On the Eastern side, well, Stasi was populated by ex-SS types. Believe me, there were lots of Nazis left at the end of the day.

I've been learning about WWII since I was a young child, thank you very much. Having many remaining Nazis post-WWII is hardly the same as their numbers during their peak. They were largely exterminated. Regardless, have fun doing whatever it is you do. I'm done exchanging posts with you.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Gabriel