Afghan prisoner abuse trial

[Sir Bandelot]

Pearlman?

Let me get this straight. It's OK for bleeding hearts to bring up Abu Graib (you the thing about the penis electrocution), to make their point about Afghanistan but it's not OK for any one else to make references to torture in other countries?

You make it sound like anyone here is saying, Pearlmans death is ok, but no one is saying it was ok. Everyone likely agrees it was a monstrous death, murder plain and simple.

So that is not really a relevant counterpoint. At least I don't see how it is... please explain more clearly if I have missed the point.

[ToadBrother]

Pearlman?

Let me get this straight. It's OK for bleeding hearts to bring up Abu Graib (you the thing about the penis electrocution), to make their point about Afghanistan but it's not OK for any one else to make references to torture in other countries?

If the reference to Pearlman had any kind of relevance, it might, but it has no relevance, other than as a sort of twisted apologism; "they're really bad, so we're okay because we're not as bad". Yes, if my kid just stole candy from the corner store, rather than holding it up at gunpoint, I'd see it as a lesser evil, but it would still be an evil.

[capricorn]

If the reference to Pearlman had any kind of relevance, it might, but it has no relevance, other than as a sort of twisted apologism; "they're really bad, so we're okay because we're not as bad".

Referring to Daniel Pearl as "Pearlman" reflects insensitivity to the atrocities this victim endured.

Yes, if my kid just stole candy from the corner store, rather than holding it up at gunpoint, I'd see it as a lesser evil, but it would still be an evil.

I see you're a student of Ignatieff's writings.

[ToadBrother]

Referring to Daniel Pearl as "Pearlman" reflects insensitivity to the atrocities this victim endured.

Ah yes, the spelling flame. In the absense of any substantive to say, you can always rely on someone who is losing an argument to start going for that. Here, I'll help you feel like a man and throw in'''' some !,!useless' "?punctuation!

I see you're a student of Ignatieff's writings.

Okay, I'm going to ask you directly, what does the execution of Western hostages by Islamist nutcases have to do with Canadian soldiers sending detainees to be tortured? Treat me like the idiot you think I am and make your points clearly.

[Topaz]

Here's a timeline of abuse to prisoners and you will also see how the US has tortured also in Afghanistan at Bagram. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Afghan_detainee_abuse_scandal

[capricorn]

Ah yes, the spelling flame. In the absense of any substantive to say, you can always rely on someone who is losing an argument to start going for that.

Spelling has nothing to do it. It has to do with purposely altering the name of an individual such as Pearl who made headlines worldwide. Sir Bandalot was first to call him Pearlman. Perhaps you were unaware of the Pearl incident and consequently simply repeated the surname used by Sir Bandalot. How would I know? I only have your words in your posts to guide my interpretation of them.

Here, I'll help you feel like a man and throw in'''' some !,!useless' "?punctuation!

I'm not a man. I am female so you have not helped one bit to make me feel better about my gender.

Okay, I'm going to ask you directly, what does the execution of Western hostages by Islamist nutcases have to do with Canadian soldiers sending detainees to be tortured?

You should address that question to Sir Bandalot who dragged Abu Graib into this discussion when he asked "What about the pictures of the guy with the bag on his head, and the electic cord tied to his pee-pee?". That's what preceded my reference to Pearl.

Treat me like the idiot you think I am and make your points clearly.

If I thought you were an idiot, I wouldn't waste my time responding to you. If my points are not clear to you, perhaps you should just ignore my posts.

[Sir Bandelot]

Yeah sorry, I got the name mixed up there. A faux pas. Oh well, we all make mistakes. That's what Peter Mackay says all the time, so...

if it works for him it works for me.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

According to todays papers it seems there are hundreds of case of abuse. This gets more ugly by the minute. Somebody is going to look very bad.

[Gabriel]

Capricorn's point is simple - those that suggest that we are behaving similarly to our enemies are idiotic. Bringing up the case of Daniel Pearl is entirely relevant, as it is one of COUNTLESS examples of the type of barbarism we're fighting against. The few incidents where those on our side have behaved dishonourably (i.e. the Abu Ghraib scandal) have been addressed and dealt with. Contrast that with the widespread support that terrorists and murderers receive among segments of their home populations (i.e. the Lockerbie bombing terrorist receiving a hero's welcome in Libya). There is no comparison between the honourable conduct that we exhibit (our people, our government, and our military) and the barbaric conduct of our enemies and their supporters. To suggest any commonality while ignoring the immeasurable differences illustrates supreme idiocy (i.e. eyeball and jaysfan). This stupidity may apply to other posters in here, as well. I cannot recall.

The bottom line - there is no meaningful parallel to be drawn between our conduct and the conduct of our enemies. It is absurd to suggest such a thing.

With respect to the Pearl/Pearlman typo, it seems strange to me that you two would make a mistake and use a seemingly common Jewish "suffix" to the name. Ah well, I won't make much of it. Otherwise, it is shocking that capricorn's simple point has been twisted into something she didn't even imply in the slightest - that she was somehow justifying any misdeeds done by our side. She's just putting some context in there, and squashing the silly "we're just like them" line of argumentation that often seems to come from the left on such matters.

[capricorn]

Yeah sorry, I got the name mixed up there. A faux pas. Oh well, we all make mistakes.

Thank you. Yes, we all make mistakes. Notice how I misspelled your name in 2 of my posts to ToadBrother? Sorry about that. Now we're even.

[Gabriel]

Capricorn - Feel free to correct me if I'm mischaracterizing your posts. I'm quite certain I understood the point you were conveying, though. I still cannot see how Sir Bandelot or Toad Brother or Topaz interpreted your posts as some sort of justification for any abuses that have occurred (or have allegedly occurred) as a direct or indirect result of the actions of us or our allies.

[Keepitsimple]

I think it might be a good idea to wait and hear from the other witnesses - Mulroney, Hillier, Gauthier.....and whoever else is on the list.

[capricorn]

Capricorn - Feel free to correct me if I'm mischaracterizing your posts.

Not at all. I'm quite comfortable with your interpretation of what I was getting at.

[ToadBrother]

Capricorn - Feel free to correct me if I'm mischaracterizing your posts. I'm quite certain I understood the point you were conveying, though. I still cannot see how Sir Bandelot or Toad Brother or Topaz interpreted your posts as some sort of justification for any abuses that have occurred (or have allegedly occurred) as a direct or indirect result of the actions of us or our allies.

Read my posts very carefully. Where in it did I ever say that any abuses on our side were as bad as those practiced by the Islamists? I'm not stating that at all, because it would be ludicrous. But my point is simple, we do not judge our behaviors based upon the behavior of our enemies, but on our own standards, and by our standards of conduct, sending off detainees to be tortured by someone else so we don't get our fingers bloody ourselves and to maintain some illusion of deniability is simply wrong. What's more, whatever government is in Afghanistan, once you dispense with all the feel-goodisms which the West now seems to need to pile on top of things to sleep at night, is there because we pay for it and protect it, and if that's the case, we shouldn't shy away from dictating how it will behave. Otherwise, what the hell is the point? Let them choose a pack of Taliban maniacs, but we keep a military presence which blows anyone into oblivion who looks about ready to start a terrorist training camp.

Edited November 24, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Gabriel]

Read my posts very carefully. Where in it did I ever say that any abuses on our side were as bad as those practiced by the Islamists? I'm not stating that at all, because it would be ludicrous. But my point is simple, we do not judge our behaviors based upon the behavior of our enemies, but on our own standards, and by our standards of conduct, sending off detainees to be tortured by someone else so we don't get our fingers bloody ourselves and to maintain some illusion of deniability is simply wrong. What's more, whatever government is in Afghanistan, once you dispense with all the feel-goodisms which the West now seems to need to pile on top of things to sleep at night, is there because we pay for it and protect it, and if that's the case, we shouldn't shy away from dictating how it will behave. Otherwise, what the hell is the point? Let them choose a pack of Taliban maniacs, but we keep a military presence which blows anyone into oblivion who looks about ready to start a terrorist training camp.

My apologies if I implied that you had compared us to the enemy with respect to conduct or morality. It has been an idea I've heard in these forums from several people, though. Yes, such a suggestion is absolutely ludicrous. I agree with you that our behaviour must be judged by our own standards. Neither capricorn or I have suggested otherwise. I disagree with your assertion that we are outsourcing detainee management in order to wash our hands of difficult work. It simply isn't practical to install a full prison infrastructure in Afghanistan or anywhere else to deal with this problem, so Canada (and our allies) has decided to work with the existing infrastructure in Afghanistan to deal with the very real problem of managing detainees. I agree that we must be firm with the Afghanistan government. Since I'm certainly no expert on the inner working of the conflict, I am unsure if Canada and our allies are making strong efforts shape the Afghan government into what it should be. I am sure you would concede that although certain values are universal (values which are apparently non-existent in countries like Afghanistan), it can and does take time for these values to take hold in a culture and its institutions. Clearly freedom and democracy cannot bloom overnight. Perhaps positive changes in Afghanistan at the cultural and institutional levels are occurring at a reasonable rate. I do like your idea of severe consequences for terrorists, though.

[M.Dancer]

I'm sure they did all sorts of horrifying things. But that still doesn't make it torture in the context we're talking about. They knew who Pearl was. They knew he had no information of any particular use. His murder was meant to terrifying, shocking and horrible.

I believe the mistake being made is that there is an assumption that the Afghan detainees were/are being tirtured for information.

Not only is there no evidnce of this, if they are being tortured it is far more likely they are being tortured for revenge or simply sadistic entertainment.

I believe that is why most of the allegations use the word "abuse".

Which make the comparissom to Pearl apt. He wasn't tortured/murdered for information but for sadistic pleasure and shock.

Edited November 24, 2009 by M.Dancer

[M.Dancer]

Okay, I think we need to define some context here. Torture, in the context I thought this thread was about, was about the use of violence and pain (or at least the threat thereof) to gain intelligence information.

In that case we can conclude that there was no torture of Afghan foot soldiers.

It wouldn't surprise me though if they were abused..

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There is a fine line that the Americans drew to define torture, that line has been almost accepted as fact. To my mind it is not just physical pain that constitutes torture. Please keep in mind that old line do unto other because our folks can be taken captive as well. Especially in times of conflict we need to hold ourselves to an almost impossible standard just to protect our own troops.

[Argus]

According to todays papers it seems there are hundreds of case of abuse. This gets more ugly by the minute. Somebody is going to look very bad.

Only to the idiots who care.

And they're not likely to have ever voted Tory anyway.

Were the prisoners living in crappy, miserable conditions, and sometimes being beaten? Probably. But you could say the same about most of the children in Afghanistan.

[Argus]

I think it might be a good idea to wait and hear from the other witnesses - Mulroney, Hillier, Gauthier.....and whoever else is on the list.

The opposition doesn't want to hear from them. Apparently they like the message they got from Colvert and don't want anyone contradicting it.

[Oleg Bach]

If hooligans and thugs like Cheney continue to have a trickle down effect of loathing and hate for all Muslims that are non-compliant to the American corporate agenda...If this trickle down continues - it will continue to effect our marshall class - polluting what is left of honour..You do not beat on a helpless captured man - nor do you torture them - Those that do are the same little bastards that pulled the wings off of flys as young boys..the same ones that would stomp on a leopard frog - the same ones that get a sense of preverse glee though killing other human beings indirectly. They are cowards - and if they influence the armed forces they will continue to create a vast group of cowards that will become useless in time for military service - a war needs an ending - you can not end war if you are a sadist - tormenting people becomes your drug - this addiction serves no real purpose.

[Dave_ON]

It's a war. There is a greater good to be considered. I am not advocating absolute reckless abandon when attacking the enemy, but I am absolutely opposed to putting our soldiers at extreme risk in order to preserve fantasy ideals. When I see images and videos of American soldiers conducting urban warfare in Iraq, going house to house, risking being killed around every corner from subhumans that embed themselves within the civilian population and hide their weapons and pretend to be civilians when captured... my blood boils. We have soldiers who aren't permitted to engage the enemy until they've been shot at. The entire area should simply be carpet bombed. Stop letting our soldiers get killed in order to reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties. We send soldiers in to kill the enemy, and then we criticize them for doing their jobs. You don't think our soldiers are nervous when they advance on towns and villages in Afghanistan? You want them to give all of these people the ebenfit of the doubt, assume that they are non-combatants, and then get shot in the back? Let's not be naive to the EXTREME treachery of the enemy. And let's stop romanticizing the civilians! They are more than likely supporters of the enemy.

Well there now you've admitted it. You're ok with killing civilians because they happen to occupy the same geographic space as the enemy. But please spare us the self righteous diatribe that you are God's own defender of truth, freedom and democracy. You are an extremist, to you the ends justifies the means. I honestly see little difference between you and the extremists you claim to oppose. Blanket bombings, really? You think you actually have the right to criticize the actions of extremists with a hard-line like that?

Let's be frank shall we? The war isn't about bringing freedom to women, children or even democracy. It's about ensuring the state is a stable one that will not support terrorism or allow these organizations to operate within their borders. Their form of government, the religion they choose to follow, how they treat women, children, gays or puppies is not at issue. That is for them to choose or fight for as they see fit. Democracy and freedom cannot be foisted upon a people; it needs to be fought for. The cost is often paid for in their blood, sweat and tears. Our purpose is to give them the tools they need to ensure that their country is not a haven for terroists; the rest is really up to them and frankly not for us to judge or choose regardless of how much we may dislike it.

[Oleg Bach]

Nothing worth fighting for is worth having. The only time you kill is to sustain your own life if you are attacked - If you have the option of that choice. To go over seas into some rocky peasant goat herders family lands and kill them when they are of no danger to you- smacks of adventurism and a very crude under-developed mind set. No one has bothered going to the route of the problem - to those that financed terror - those sitting in high places in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia etc.. and America and now Canada indirectly. Honestly - someone should do a poll in Afghanistan and ask the average person if they want to harm the west..I would say that 90 percent are not interested - and the ones that are- are the dumb peasants who's loved ones were killed by the west - maybe we should compensate those families and cut off weapons funding...?

Perhaps if their was a concerted effort to disarm Afhanistan - guns and amo only last so long unless replenished - cut off the supply and stop messing with the peasants - I am sure our intelligence people know who arms them - talk to the arms dealers - and put them on the hunted list if they are not compliant.

[ToadBrother]

Well there now you've admitted it. You're ok with killing civilians because they happen to occupy the same Let's be frank shall we? The war isn't about bringing freedom to women, children or even democracy. It's about ensuring the state is a stable one that will not support terrorism or allow these organizations to operate within their borders. Their form of government, the religion they choose to follow, how they treat women, children, gays or puppies is not at issue. That is for them to choose or fight for as they see fit. Democracy and freedom cannot be foisted upon a people; it needs to be fought for. The cost is often paid for in their blood, sweat and tears. Our purpose is to give them the tools they need to ensure that their country is not a haven for terroists; the rest is really up to them and frankly not for us to judge or choose regardless of how much we may dislike it.

That's really my point. We are attempting, as we did in post-Imperial Germany in 1919 to create a liberal democracy where none existed. That was an abysmal failure, and this will be too. Karzai is looking every bit the part of the crooked ruler who will, with the help of his cronies, milk as much as he can for as long as he can until we either throw him out or we leave and the whole thing falls.

The problems in Afghanistan are numerous but they boil down to two things:

1. Pakistan - Until Pakistan can lock down its borders, the Taliban can move back and forth with few worries, making chasing these guys incredibly difficult, and actually beating them all but impossible.

2. Even with NATO's military backing and tons of money rolling in, the Afghan "government" can barely control fifty miles of territory around Kabul and the Taliban and their allies can still launch attacks even within the city.

Clearly there are serious tactical and strategic issues, which get muddied by trying to make believe that what we've installed as a government in Afghanistan is even meaningfully a government or that it has any sort of longevity beyond our will or capacity to support it.

The humanitarian side is all very noble, but at the end of the day, it cannot be sustained, not with Canada and other NATO partners now beginning to tremble at the thought that the ultimate occupation may be many many years. That being the case, the humanitarian aspect is going to need to be scaled back, and the creation of a stable state, regardless of whether it recognizes the niceties of Western liberalism and equity or not, is going to be of key importance.

It really boils down to two things. Either we continue this fantasy of ours, and ultimately, one way or the other, the Taliban or whoever succeeds them seizes control as we're flying the last people out in helicopters, or we accept that a truly useful government is going to have to include the very people that we're trying to blow to smitherines. Alternatively, I guess, we could say "we're staying forever", and maybe there's even some legitimacy in that, if the politicians in the NATO countries would simply have the courage to tell their collective citizenry that that's the way it's got to be. But there seems little appetite anywhere in NATO for what would essentially be an open-ended occupation.

If it were up to me, I'd be pretty much kicking the chair out from under Karzai. He's a crooked bastard who clearly does not have the support of his people. What's more, I'd be working a helluva lot harder to produce a native Afghani army, and screw the police force crapola. The Afghani Army, under our guidance (this formula worked well for the Brits in India), has been a lot less troublesome than the Afghani police, which are crooked bunch at best. What Afghanistan needs right now is large, well equipped army, and not cops.

[Oleg Bach]

To have rule of law in effect you need a standing army. Here domestically a law maker or political has no real power to speak off without a standing army - laws are useless unless you have law enforcement. We have a standing army in Canada to keep order - it's called the police. The problem with Afghanistan is that they understand the idea of law enforcement all to well - that you don't really need a government - just more weapons and people to use them. In the west we actually do not realize that our politicals have no power - that unless the cop with the gun who can kill you is doing the bidding of the politicians and judicary..Those in Afhanistan are so in tune with reality that they will need to be brain washed for a generation or two to actually believe that politicians and judges have power - in reality they do not - power comes from the barrel of a gun...I wonder who said that?