Afghan prisoner abuse trial

[M.Dancer]

If you care that much about their safety extend refugee status to any Afghans and their families that are subpoenaed to testify before a judicial inquiry.

Right after a full report and referendum.

Then we can use the opposition for a prisoner exchange

[wyly]

I remember watching Parliament and the questions of torture of then Defense Minister O'Connor, and he kept saying, there's is no torturing going on we have the word of the Afghanistan government. Everyday, of every week O'Connor would say the same thing until the election came up and Harper replaced him with McKay. I also know that the President's of Afg. was killed by the Taliban so the emotions are there to kill and torture the Taliban. Also, remember the US upper brass said the same thing, no torturing go on. I don't know if these 3 guys know anything, but I think its safe to say, that if they did they know international law and like anyone else would try to cover it up. They were also given the opportunity to look at the documents to refresh their memories,the same documents the committee is trying to get from the government.

prisoners have been tortured to death by americans there but no one has ever been charged...it's impossible to believe that no one knew, so there are cover ups

until our government releases the info we should assume something is being hidden from us...I don't think that the public has to know directly what was in the censored reports, the committee looking into can judge for themselves and make that decision...

[M.Dancer]

I remember watching Parliament and the questions of torture of then Defense Minister O'Connor, ...

I find claims that you can remember anything later than last night to be highly suspect.

[capricorn]

I also know that the President's of Afg. was killed by the Taliban so the emotions are there to kill and torture the Taliban.

Afghans have assassinated many of their leaders over the last 90 years or so.

Afghanistan

* Habibullah Khan, (1919), emir of Afghanistan

* Mohammed Nadir Shah, (1933 November 8), king of Afghanistan [10]

* Mohammed Daoud Khan, (1978), president of Afghanistan killed in communist coup

* Adolph Dubs, (1979 February 14), U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan [1]

* Nur Mohammad Taraki, (1979), communist president

* Hafizullah Amin, (1979), communist Prime Minister of Afghanistan killed during Soviet invasion

* Meena Keshwar Kamal, (1987), Afghan founder of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan

* Mohammed Najibullah, (1996), president of Afghanistan from 1986 to 1992, killed by the Taliban during the capture of Kabul

* Ahmed Shah Massoud, (2001), leader of the Afghan Northern Alliance

* Abdul Haq, (2001), Afghan Northern Alliance commander killed by remnants of the Taliban

* Abdul Qadir, (2002 July 6), vice-president of Afghanistan [1]

* Abdul Rahman, (2002 February 14), Afghan Minister for Civil Aviation and Tourism [1]

* Abdul Sabur Farid Kuhestani, (2007), former Prime Minister of Afghanistan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinated_people#Afghanistan

I doubt retribution for assassinations is high on the list of priorities for Afghans. They simply have a different justice system than ours.

They were also given the opportunity to look at the documents to refresh their memories,the same documents the committee is trying to get from the government.

Top secret information is much safer in the hands of those 3 generals than in the hands of political hacks.

[Keepitsimple]

I'm looking forward to David Mulroney's testimony. Much has been made about him "ordering" people to stop putting things in writing and talk on the phone. I'll bet like many other things - that was taken out of context along the partisan trail....I'll just bet that he said the Detainee issue was too important to write a report and have it get lost in the bureaucracy. He probably said - if something's important, pick up the darn phone and call me. We'll soon see.

[Gabriel]

I'm looking forward to David Mulroney's testimony. Much has been made about him "ordering" people to stop putting things in writing and talk on the phone. I'll bet like many other things - that was taken out of context along the partisan trail....I'll just bet that he said the Detainee issue was too important to write a report and have it get lost in the bureaucracy. He probably said - if something's important, pick up the darn phone and call me. We'll soon see.

I agree. Seems awful quiet in here from some of the critics. I was lucky enough to catch most of this afternoon's testimony. Three level-headed high-ranking military folks setting the record straight. Did anyone else in here laugh when the Liberal defense critic Ujjal Dosanjh made a point to mention that since he didn't have 'the documentation' that he was ill-equipped to ask questions? What a joke. The Bloc Quebecois defense critic Claude Bachand also made a similar statement after the testimony was completed to the press - suggesting that he was unarmed and couldn't ask the right questions without 'the documents' he required prior to the questioning. As if he doesn't have enough of a brain to conceive of some questions to ask based on Colvin's detailed allegations. What a silly country we live in sometimes - where a party that openly espouses its desire to destroy the federation is given political legitimacy.... but that's of course a tangent we don't need to go down.

My prediction - the whole debacle will damage the leftist parties of Canada. If they're trying to win independent voters (which is clearly their sole objective, regardless of the cost), they're failing miserably. Fake controversy after fake controversy won't build support among Canadian independents.

Let me just say that Keepitsimple and capricorn are two of my favourite posters in here.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Gabriel

[Gabriel]

One more obvious observation of mine that I'd like to share - I found the difference in between the opposition defense critics' tone in question period and during the questioning of the military officials striking. Their behaviour during question was typical - raucous, fake outrage, outright lies, disrespectful, etc... and then when questioning the military officials they suddenly were able to appear as if they were human beings. Clearly the leftist opposition needs to be careful not to appear TOO anti-military. Clearly they are politically savvy enough to recognize at least that much.

[Gabriel]

Ahh but there in lies the rub doesn't it? I can say what I want and advocate any number of atrocities I want simply because I'm doing so for the "greater good" and in the name of democracy, women, freedom and baby Jesus. My actions are justified despite their dispicable nature because my intentions are "good". Anyone who advocates extreme measures is an extremist, I'm not sure why you're utterly unable to grasp this very fundamental truth.

I find it quite amusing that you only want one word yes or no asnwers, but you yourself feel the need to qualify the mass destruction of a culturr because you perceive they can't "become civilized". Come now, be frank with us or are you afraid to say what you really think? Too busy hiding behind your straw man defense that you're doing it all for democracy, freedom, insert popular ideological buzz word here ad nauseum as you are want to do.

You're not advocating collateral damage that happens in a war, that's unavoidable unfortunately. You're advocating wide scale blanket bombing, which is no different than systematic summary execution of suspected terrorist villages.

In other words you lack the wherewithal to engage in intelligent debate, and are unable to back up any of your statements with little more than s series of buzz words that your post here seem to indicate you don't really believe. Don't throw down son if you're not prepared to defend your views.

I've explained myself quite thoroughly in this thread. If you are comfortable with the degree of extra risk that Canadian forces and our allies undertake every minute of every day in order to reduce the likelihood of collateral damage, then good for you. I am deeply disturbed by just how far we go to reduce collateral damage, which very often compromises our military objectives in order to satisfy the strong mercy we feel for those who just might not be guilty enough to deserve being hurt or killed. It bothers me that we send soldiers in to check houses, one by one, putting themselves at extreme risk in order to reduce the likelihood of harming civilians rather than simply destroying the entire area that is known to be an operational point for the enemy. It angers me when Canadian soldiers or our allies are hurt or killed because they didn't shoot an unknown person who approached them because they didn't know for certain that he was a suicide bomber - just one of countless situations where our mercy for the enemy and benefit of the doubt being extended to an unknown results in casualty. I value the lives of our Canadian forces and our allies more than the lives of Afghan civilians, and I won't apologize for that.

Lastly - freedom, democracy, the right to private property, equality, opportunity, and all other strong Western values aren't buzz words to me. They may mean little or nothing to you, but they mean a lot to me. These words are not simply rhetoric. I will never be shy or embarrassed to be ideological on these values. There is no shame in standing up strongly for these values.

[myata]

I don't blame the government for hesitating to release top secret information to the commons committee.

...

Our military's lives are at risk enough as is without cluing in our enemies any more than they are now about our operations and strategy in Afghanistan.

"Strategy and Operations" such as what we're doing with the prisoners, and whether it complies with the internatinal law?

Indeed, now we only need to figure out whether it's wrong to question the government in principle, or only technically impossible for the lack of documentation on it (government's) actions?

All welcome the new age of transparent democracy, we'll see more (and better) of it when Harper's folks finally get their coveted majority.

[Argus]

Who is this "we" you're talking about? I get the sense from reading these sorts of posts that there is a fairly strong belief that when it comes to deciding where Canadians will go to war that our officials have a better understanding of history and of what's practical and impractical and of what's just and what isn't, than ordinary Canadians do. I definitely get the sense that many people think Canadians cannot and should not have much if any say in these matters lest our tender sensitivities blind us to reality and lead us on a misguided path into harm's way.

I like to consider a journalist fresh out of Toronto (completely with spiffy, fashionable haircut and sporty clothing from Mountain Equipment Coop, being shown a dank prison cell in Afghanistan, and the slop which passes for food, and running, horrified, back to her satellite phone to dictate a story on the appalling conditions the prisoners are being subjected to -- without a clue that children throughout Afghanistan are living in similar conditions and eating worse food.

How do you judge such conditions when you don't grow up in a village made of stone huts without water or electricity, ten people to a room and half-starving most of the year?

Similarly, how do you judge violence when you've never been subjected to it, never encountered it except on a video game or a movie? In a nation where violence is endemic from cradle to grave, where men routinely beat their wives, where children can be beaten at will, where employers can beat employees, men settle disputes by gunfire if not fists, and where poverty, ignorance and illiteracy make society backward, brutal and desperate, just how much protection of "human rights" do you honestly think we can require the locals provide to prisoners? We are a soft, spoiled, fastidious people with the wealth to become settled and comfortable in our safe, pristine existence looking down our noses on a world where there is neither the time, money nor ability to live that style of life.

[Argus]

The answer to this, just as the coverage of the committee hearing stopped, seemed to indicate that it wasn't our armed force's job to know that... Right, we already knew it was Colvin's job so what the hell was the point of Hillier testifying to the obvious?

Maybe it was so he and the other generals could say, categorically, that there was nothing whatsoever in Colvert's memos or emails indicating torture was going on, that they had each gone over them repeatedly, and found not one mention of torture, and nothing which would stir anyone to action.

[Dave_ON]

Lastly - freedom, democracy, the right to private property, equality, opportunity, and all other strong Western values aren't buzz words to me.

As you should value these, however you should also respect the rights of others to have these. That includes the Afghan civilians. It is not up to us to force these ideals on them that is for them to fight for if they so choose. All the same they too are every bit as human as you or I, not sub-human as one poster who shall remain nameless called them. As such they have basic human rights. As I mentioned collateral damage happens, but there is an enormous difference between a civilians getting caught in the cross fire when engaging enemy combatants, and intentionally killing civilians along with the enemy combatants indiscriminately.

They may mean little or nothing to you.

Just chalk it up to the fact that I'm an extreme leftist I suppose or whatever other pejorative term you feel necessary to assign me.

Either way I think we've veered a little too far off the thread topic so I will end here.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Dave_ON

[Keepitsimple]

I like to consider a journalist fresh out of Toronto (completely with spiffy, fashionable haircut and sporty clothing from Mountain Equipment Coop, being shown a dank prison cell in Afghanistan, and the slop which passes for food, and running, horrified, back to her satellite phone to dictate a story on the appalling conditions the prisoners are being subjected to -- without a clue that children throughout Afghanistan are living in similar conditions and eating worse food.

How do you judge such conditions when you don't grow up in a village made of stone huts without water or electricity, ten people to a room and half-starving most of the year?

Similarly, how do you judge violence when you've never been subjected to it, never encountered it except on a video game or a movie? In a nation where violence is endemic from cradle to grave, where men routinely beat their wives, where children can be beaten at will, where employers can beat employees, men settle disputes by gunfire if not fists, and where poverty, ignorance and illiteracy make society backward, brutal and desperate, just how much protection of "human rights" do you honestly think we can require the locals provide to prisoners? We are a soft, spoiled, fastidious people with the wealth to become settled and comfortable in our safe, pristine existence looking down our noses on a world where there is neither the time, money nor ability to live that style of life.

Well said. And that's part of what Hillier means when he says he has to balance all the information. As he said yesterday, there's no shortage of people who yell "the sky is falling". Why is it that the Left - when it suits their purposes - uses "moral relevancy" - that we can't expect "them" to be as humane as we are - that we must be better. But in the case of detainees, we expect Afghans to be pristine in their actions? Even in Canada, we have prisoners being killed by other prisoners and reports of guards and police beating prisoners.....and as I've said before - what about Syria, Iran, African countries?

[eyeball]

Lastly - freedom, democracy, the right to private property, equality, opportunity, and all other strong Western values aren't buzz words to me. They may mean little or nothing to you, but they mean a lot to me. These words are not simply rhetoric. I will never be shy or embarrassed to be ideological on these values. There is no shame in standing up strongly for these values.

No, the shame is in sacrificing values to maintain them. Like the first two you mention but above all else, fundamental human rights.

[Gabriel]

As you should value these, however you should also respect the rights of others to have these. That includes the Afghan civilians. It is not up to us to force these ideals on them that is for them to fight for if they so choose. All the same they too are every bit as human as you or I, not sub-human as one poster who shall remain nameless called them. As such they have basic human rights. As I mentioned collateral damage happens, but there is an enormous difference between a civilians getting caught in the cross fire when engaging enemy combatants, and intentionally killing civilians along with the enemy combatants indiscriminately.

It is up to us to deliver on these ideals. Think of what you just said and how stupid it is: "force" freedom? Are you really suggesting that these values are relative and not to be "imposed" on anyone? How do you "impose" freedom? How do you "force" liberty? It's liberation. Of course it can't be done anywhere and everywhere at the same time - no doubt you will ask why we aren't making efforts to do the same in many other godforsaken parts of the world. It is especially our business when the complete lack of such ideals in a country like Afghanistan, combined with a sick and twisted anti-Western fundamentalist Islamic ideology, breeds terrorism and results in 9/11. Clearly we cannot afford to have Afghanistan continue on as a rogue nation housing terrorist organizations that threaten us.

You are also being dishonest by suggesting that I referred to Afghan civilians as subhuman. I specifically described the Taliban and other terrorist groups as sub-human and I will not apologize for it. I also think child-molesters and rapists are sub-human, there are many types of people out there who don't deserve the air they breathe. They definitely are not worth a damn thing. Of course you'd prefer to misrepresent what I said by ignoring the clear distinction I made between the Taliban (and other terrorist groups) and non-Taliban/non-terrorist Afghan civilians. Of course the line isn't black and white, as I imagine a significant portion of the Afghan population subscribes to barbarism and savagery, but the distinction still needs to be made.

We're going in circles here with respect to the collateral damage issue. I never think civilians should be killed just for the hell of it. What I am disturbed by is the extreme care we extend towards this issue, at great risk to our soldiers and mission objectives. Soldiers and killed and injured all the time because of our rules of engagement and methods of operation. Our soldiers literally are dying for Afghan civilians. You've completely ignored my point on this issue and not even addressed the real-life examples I listed where we out forces in extreme danger (unnecessarily) in order to reduce the likelihood of collateral damage.

Only a fool would have his or her sensibilities offended when terrorist groups like the Taliban are denigrated by being accurately described as human filth.

Just chalk it up to the fact that I'm an extreme leftist I suppose or whatever other pejorative term you feel necessary to assign me.

Either way I think we've veered a little too far off the thread topic so I will end here.

Good idea. What's the point in discussing these issues with someone bent on mischaracterizing what I've said? You blatantly lie about my statements. Or, possibly, you simply cannot understand what I'm saying.

[eyeball]

I like to consider a journalist fresh out of Toronto (completely with spiffy, fashionable haircut and sporty clothing from Mountain Equipment Coop, being shown a dank prison cell in Afghanistan, and the slop which passes for food, and running, horrified, back to her satellite phone to dictate a story on the appalling conditions the prisoners are being subjected to -- without a clue that children throughout Afghanistan are living in similar conditions and eating worse food.

How do you judge such conditions when you don't grow up in a village made of stone huts without water or electricity, ten people to a room and half-starving most of the year?

Similarly, how do you judge violence when you've never been subjected to it, never encountered it except on a video game or a movie? In a nation where violence is endemic from cradle to grave, where men routinely beat their wives, where children can be beaten at will, where employers can beat employees, men settle disputes by gunfire if not fists, and where poverty, ignorance and illiteracy make society backward, brutal and desperate, just how much protection of "human rights" do you honestly think we can require the locals provide to prisoners? We are a soft, spoiled, fastidious people with the wealth to become settled and comfortable in our safe, pristine existence looking down our noses on a world where there is neither the time, money nor ability to live that style of life.

These conditions are caused almost entirely by their being trapped in the Great Game the great powers have been playing in Central Eurasia and surrounding regions for too long now. If we are soft and spoiled its because our wealth has largely been built on the spoils of that Game and the backs of people very much like the one's we're supposedly trying to help.

We don't have the moral or ethical background that's required to do anything about our own sorry State let alone their's.

[eyeball]

Maybe it was so he and the other generals could say, categorically, that there was nothing whatsoever in Colvert's memos or emails indicating torture was going on, that they had each gone over them repeatedly, and found not one mention of torture, and nothing which would stir anyone to action.

If that's the case there should be no reason at all not to release everything Colvin wrote so the public can see for itself. This means there should be little if any reason for blacked out redacted papers if there was nothing whatsoever which would stir anyone to action in the originals.

[Sir Bandelot]

Much has been made about him "ordering" people to stop putting things in writing and talk on the phone. I'll just bet that he said the Detainee issue was too important to write a report and have it get lost in the bureaucracy. He probably said - if something's important, pick up the darn phone and call me.

I disagree because, some things have to have a paper trail. You need documents to keep certain things on the record. When a politician wants things kept "off the record" you can just surmise as to why.

[M.Dancer]

If that's the case there should be no reason at all not to release everything Colvin wrote so the public can see for itself. This means there should be little if any reason for blacked out redacted papers if there was nothing whatsoever which would stir anyone to action in the originals.

Well aside from names and other items that would be of interest to the Taliban.

[eyeball]

Well aside from names and other items that would be of interest to the Taliban.

What names, what items? You heard Hillier there was nothing in these memos at all. Nothing, he said.

[M.Dancer]

What names, what items? You heard Hillier there was nothing in these memos at all. Nothing, he said.

Are you that vacant that you would expect him to articulate what might be classified? You think it's okay to speak when something in print is censored?

[Dave_ON]

It is up to us to deliver on these ideals. Think of what you just said and how stupid it is: "force" freedom? Are you really suggesting that these values are relative and not to be "imposed" on anyone? How do you "impose" freedom? How do you "force" liberty? It's liberation. Of course it can't be done anywhere and everywhere at the same time - no doubt you will ask why we aren't making efforts to do the same in many other godforsaken parts of the world. It is especially our business when the complete lack of such ideals in a country like Afghanistan, combined with a sick and twisted anti-Western fundamentalist Islamic ideology, breeds terrorism and results in 9/11. Clearly we cannot afford to have Afghanistan continue on as a rogue nation housing terrorist organizations that threaten us.

You can't foist freedom and democracy onto a people and expect it to stick. If you honestly believe that is possible it is clear that you have never read a history book in your entire life. Iraq immediately comes to mind. The British attempted to transplant their values and system of government and it failed rather miserably, there are numerous other examples of this throughout history. Look at the nations that are considered free today, many of them had to fight very bloody revolutions to achieve those freedoms; France and the US come to mind. Because the people wanted these things, fought and died for them that is why they still persist today. Not because some foreign power came in and "liberated" them. Our interests in Afghanistan are and should only be the stabilization of the region. They need a stable government, a good standing army, a good domestic police force and the ability to enforce whatever laws they see fit to enact. Only then will the region be able to prevent terrorist groups from flourishing. Then they can undertake the task of ferreting out the terrorist organizations that threaten western security.

If that means they eventually evolve into a western style liberal democracy fantastic, but that's not a change that will happen over night or even in a decade of western support. If the citizens of Afghanistan do not want to fight for this, it will not happen. Most of them are too concerned with the basics at the moment to really worry about anything else.

Your assumptions on my expectations are ludicrous at best. I don't expect to "liberate" the world nor do I think it is even possible. God helps those who help themselves as it were. Those who seek freedom will eventually find it, but it's generally a long and bloody battle to get there.

Good idea. What's the point in discussing these issues with someone bent on mischaracterizing what I've said? You blatantly lie about my statements. Or, possibly, you simply cannot understand what I'm saying.

Clearly subtelty is lost on you. You're correct I see no further point in continuing a discussion with someone who needs to resort to aspersions and pejorative labeling. Anyone who calls any of your statements into question or disagrees with you is a "leftist extremist" a "terroist supporter" or a myriad of other terms you flippantly toss about.

[wyly]

agreed Dave...these people have no concept of what democracy is or what to do with it when they get it, it's not part of their culture...the greeks had democracy but it didn't extend to women or slaves...the USA had 200yrs of democracy before the last Americans were finally given the right to vote...

[Argus]

These conditions are caused almost entirely by their being trapped in the Great Game the great powers have been playing in Central Eurasia and surrounding regions for too long now. If we are soft and spoiled its because our wealth has largely been built on the spoils of that Game and the backs of people very much like the one's we're supposedly trying to help.

We don't have the moral or ethical background that's required to do anything about our own sorry State let alone their's.

This is nonsense. If left to their own devices you actually believe Afghanistan would settle its problems and become a bastion of enlightenment? Left to its own devices there would be continual warring between the various warlords and tribes, and the people would continue to live in poverty and ignorance. Do you think "great powers" have been working away at Somalia all these years? Does it look like life for the people there has improved much of late?

[eyeball]

Are you that vacant that you would expect him to articulate what might be classified? You think it's okay to speak when something in print is censored?

I'm prescient enough to know you'd be in here defending government opacity at every single turn of an official's word.

I think its incumbent of the government to print memos they say have absolutely nothing in them. Canada cannot afford this sort of black eye.

As for any dangers that disclosure might have to our Afghan allies (presumably the jailers who committed the alleged torture) I suggest we admit them and their families as refugees. The cost of more lost faith in anything our government says or does should be worth the price of absorbing at most a few hundred to maybe a thousand Afghans that, as I've pointed out, are allies of our's.

Wouldn't that be worth the complete destruction of the Liberals if this whole mess turns out to be nothing more than a slanderous Liberal plot to discredit the government not to mention our troops? I could certainly care less for the Liberals if this is the case. After all they're the morons who dragged us into Afghanistan in the first place.

Canadians just want the unvarnished uncut truth...aside from you it seems.