Afghan prisoner abuse trial

[Argus]

If you don't think its possible, take a look at the pictures taken from Abu Graib, this is how the US was deling with the prisoners there in Iraq.

What the US did in Abu Graib did not constitute torture. The word has been stretched out of all recognitioin by efforts of Leftists to villify the Americans and their allies.

[Sir Bandelot]

What the US did in Abu Graib did not constitute torture. The word has been stretched out of all recognitioin by efforts of Leftists to villify the Americans and their allies.

What about the pictures of the guy with the bag on his head, and the electic cord tied to his pee-pee?

Do you find that a little disturbing? Or just another Friday night at your place...

[capricorn]

What about the pictures of the guy with the bag on his head, and the electic cord tied to his pee-pee?

What about the graphic picture of Daniel Pearl being decapitated.

Do you find that a little disturbing?

You should really look at the picture of Daniel Pearl, before, during and after he was beheaded, recorded for the internet by his executioners. Kinda puts things in perspective.

[Sir Bandelot]

What about the graphic picture of Daniel Pearl being decapitated.

You should really look at the picture of Daniel Pearl, before, during and after he was beheaded, recorded for the internet by his executioners. Kinda puts things in perspective.

Are you saying this to imply we should do the same? In order to fight the Taliban, we must become the Taliban.

And most importantly, are you saying that if such a thing ever happens, torture permitted or condoned, tolerated by Canada, that it's acceptable that the Minister Peter Mackay should cover it up?

What if crimes were committed by our government, should we cover that up too?

[ToadBrother]

What about the graphic picture of Daniel Pearl being decapitated.

You should really look at the picture of Daniel Pearl, before, during and after he was beheaded, recorded for the internet by his executioners. Kinda puts things in perspective.

This is an odd defense. Are you saying that because the enemy is a bunch of murderous lunatics, it's okay for us to behave in a similar fashion? Where would you draw the line? Or do you feel because someone is suspected of being an enemy, it's okay to get medieval on their buttocks?

Torture is bad for two reasons. One is moral. The other is simply logistical. It's the latter that, in a way, is more important for intelligence purposes. Tortured people will give you the answer they think you want. It is and always has been an outrageously unreliable means of gathering information.

And lopping peoples' heads off isn't torture. It's simply execution. It isn't the same thing, so ultimately, your point is pretty much a non sequitur anyways.

[Guest Gregory Thompson]

I always believe in a balance and I feel that even if nothing happened I believe that in good faith a public inquiry has to be called so the truth can be found out relating to this issue. I just want to know if you guys believe if this is a good idea. Also, we cannot go around and accuse of the military of things that could have happened. Remember that they protect us and they keep us safe so we must always believe their word as well. I know that I want to have it both ways but the neutral way creates a much more peaceful dialogue than bickering at each other all the time. Just want to know what everyone thinks about this and if they believe that the Conservatives will call a public inquiry or will they continue to say that Richard Colvin was using second or third-hand information. I believe that both sides are wrong since they are just arguing and nothing reasonable is coming about from all this arguing except divisions being created. This is Canada's reputation at stake and the truth must be heard.

[Army Guy]

And lopping peoples' heads off isn't torture. It's simply execution. It isn't the same thing, so ultimately, your point is pretty much a non sequitur anyways.

So slowing cutting ones head off is not torture, but execution, but listening to loud music for extended times is ....Just so i get this right it is also not torture if i take a chain saw and slowly saw off each of your limbs until you bleed out....but i can't make you listen to rap music, deprieve you of your bible, or Koran, ....No wonder this topic is so confusing.

[M.Dancer]

And lopping peoples' heads off isn't torture. It's simply execution. It isn't the same thing, so ultimately, your point is pretty much a non sequitur anyways.

I take it you didn't see the Pearl video. His head wasn't lopped off...it was brutally carved off, bit by bit.

If the time it took for him to die (minutes) wasn't the absolute extreme torture....

[wyly]

I take it you didn't see the Pearl video. His head wasn't lopped off...it was brutally carved off, bit by bit.

If the time it took for him to die (minutes) wasn't the absolute extreme torture....

cutting off a head is more dramatic but still quicker than being tortured to death over several days or weeks...neither is appealing but dead is still dead regardless how it's done...

[Argus]

What about the pictures of the guy with the bag on his head, and the electic cord tied to his pee-pee?

Do you find that a little disturbing? Or just another Friday night at your place...

None of those prisoners was harmed. Do I find it disturbing? I've heard of fraternity initiations which were worse, and saw worse pictures and videos back in the airborne initiation scandal.

Now how about I heat up a spoon and slowly gouge your eyes out of your skull?

That's exactly the same thing as being made to form a naked pyramid, right?

[Gabriel]

What about the pictures of the guy with the bag on his head, and the electic cord tied to his pee-pee?

Do you find that a little disturbing? Or just another Friday night at your place...

I don't find it nearly as disturbing as 9/11, Daniel Pearl (or the many other vicious decapitations of various prisoners), the Bali bombings, the Beslan hostage crisis, the London and Madrid bombings, the Mumbai shootings, the USS Cole, the endless suicide bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, etc, etc, etc.

Leftists like you have selective (and entirely fake) outrage: throwing a fit when there are allegations of abuse in Afghan prisons (as if that's shocking to you), but not caring at all about much more severe human rights abuses taking place all the time, being perpetrated by our enemies.

[ToadBrother]

I take it you didn't see the Pearl video. His head wasn't lopped off...it was brutally carved off, bit by bit.

If the time it took for him to die (minutes) wasn't the absolute extreme torture....

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. If you wish to include the vast number of ways that nasty people inflict lethal pain on other people for pleasure or shock value or to threaten others (or whatever turns these crazy peoples' cranks) then we're dealing with a whole different issue; which is execution.

I'm not saying Pearl died quickly. I'm saying they didn't take him in to extract information from him. They knew he was a journalist and a Jew, and that seemed to be the entirety of the whole kidnapping. If they had captured, say, a CIA operative or informant and used harsh and even lethal methods to extract information, then we could talk about torture. Yes, Pearl was tortured, but for the purposes of discussing what happens to detainees in Afghanistan, other than the individuals having some sort of abuse on them, it isn't the same thing.

Bringing up Pearlman is simply a red herring. It has nothing to do with the allegations of Canadians turning detainees over to Afghani officials for torture, other than being some sort of bizarre justification. "See what crazy Islamists do in Pakistan, well that makes sending crazy Islamists in Afghanistan to be beaten or who knows what A-okay!" It always amuses me that the guys who would on any other thread be decrying any sort of moral relativism are the first ones in a thread like this to declare this sort of thing okay, because the other guy does it.

[Gabriel]

Are you saying this to imply we should do the same? In order to fight the Taliban, we must become the Taliban.

And most importantly, are you saying that if such a thing ever happens, torture permitted or condoned, tolerated by Canada, that it's acceptable that the Minister Peter Mackay should cover it up?

What if crimes were committed by our government, should we cover that up too?

Wow. I mean wow. How can you NOT understand the point that capricorn is making? She NEVER suggested or implied that we need to behave as our enemies do. Let me spell it out for you: what capricorn is clearly stating is that wrongs done by our side are never even a fraction as gruesome as those done by our enemies. Canadians and our allies don't butcher people. Our leaders don't call for the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, and all Muslims. We don't rip out finger nails and round up the families of our political opponents. We don't saw off the heads of journalists. We don't fly planes into centres of commerce. It is sickening to me when I see extremists in here (who don't need to be named) suggesting that we are morally equivalent to our enemies. This type of rhetoric is treasonous and completely anti-Canadian. It angers me when Canadians who should appreciate our values and way of life denigrate us and draw a moral equivalence between us and our enemies. Capricorn's point is clear - we are superior to our enemies in every way, especially morally. She's clearly saying that comparisons between the morality of us and our enemies are ridiculous, as we are infinitely superior to our enemies in that regard (and every other regard).

Your entire post is irrelevant. Either you are a very simple person or you an extremely dishonest person obsessed with spin.

[ToadBrother]

I don't find it nearly as disturbing as 9/11, Daniel Pearl (or the many other vicious decapitations of various prisoners), the Bali bombings, the Beslan hostage crisis, the London and Madrid bombings, the Mumbai shootings, the USS Cole, the endless suicide bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, etc, etc, etc.

Leftists like you have selective (and entirely fake) outrage: throwing a fit when there are allegations of abuse in Afghan prisons (as if that's shocking to you), but not caring at all about much more severe human rights abuses taking place all the time, being perpetrated by our enemies.

First of all, that's an abominably unfair accusation, but par for the course for your worldview, which seems to be summed up with "They're bad, so we can be bad too, because we're better!"

I'm not exactly crying tears for Taliban getting tortured. They're bad guys who would do the same or worse if they could. At the same time, Canada has agreed on the international stage not to torture people, and the commitment is meaningless if we practice some form of rendition (this is precisely the point that was brought up in the Arar affair, that simply removing yourself a degree from the actual torture in some sort of disingenuous attempt at plausible deniability doesn't really cut much mustard).

We can't control what the enemy does. If we could meaningfully prevent abductions and horrifying executions, we would, but it isn't practical. To some degree, we can't even prevent these crazies from striking at us (heck, China can't even prevent Islamist attacks even with no particular concern for civil liberties or human rights). A guy sufficiently brainwashed or insane (is there a difference?) to believe he's got a room full of virgins waiting for him on the other side if he blows himself up in a Israeli pizzeria or flies an airplane full of people into an office building is going to find a way to do it regardless of the extent of our security. If he can't hit us, he'll hit targets close to us (ie. the Bali bombing).

We can, however, control what we do and at least try to set an example. Maybe it won't do any good, but if it isn't going to do any good, then we might as well pull out of Afghanistan right now, or at least redefine the whole mission in much different terms. I'm for the latter myself. I think we should stop fooling ourselves that we can ever set up a regime that in any meaningful way resembles a liberal Western government. I think our sole purpose there should be to stop the Taliban from regaining ground and thus making the country once again an Al Qaeda-friendly chunk of territory. But regardless of the nature of our mission, we are bound by international agreements and domestic law not to torture prisoners, period. If we're just going to drop them off with someone who will do the job, and we pretend like we don't know what's going on, then we're violating the spirit of those covenants.

[Gabriel]

This is an odd defense. Are you saying that because the enemy is a bunch of murderous lunatics, it's okay for us to behave in a similar fashion? Where would you draw the line? Or do you feel because someone is suspected of being an enemy, it's okay to get medieval on their buttocks?

Torture is bad for two reasons. One is moral. The other is simply logistical. It's the latter that, in a way, is more important for intelligence purposes. Tortured people will give you the answer they think you want. It is and always has been an outrageously unreliable means of gathering information.

And lopping peoples' heads off isn't torture. It's simply execution. It isn't the same thing, so ultimately, your point is pretty much a non sequitur anyways.

Great. Sir Bandelot has found a fellow fool who cannot understand capricorn's SIMPLE point - that despite immoral behaviors that have been revealed by those on our side (Abu Ghraib, for example), they are ever a fraction as disturbing as those crimes committed by our enemies. Nobody is denying that torture is wrong, but some extremists on the left intentionally ignore that there are degrees of abuse. Being deprived of sleep isn't comparable to being beaten. Being forced to listen to loud music isn't comparable to being electrocuted. We address the wrongs when they occur. Our enemies do not. If anything, we OVERZEALOUSLY attack our own - the three American soldiers who were convicted of first-degree murder comes to mind. The soldiers should be revered as heroes, yet are now serving long sentences in prison. Our enemies treat murderers as heroes - the recent Lockerbie bombing murderer receiving a hero's welcome in Libya comes to mind. All capricorn is saying, which you are unwilling or unable to understand, is that it is absurd for anyone to ever even suggest that there is a remote similarity between our conduct and the conduct of our enemies. We are light, and they are darkness.

STOP COMPARING US TO OUR ENEMIES. WE ARE NOTHING LIKE THEM.

[ToadBrother]

Great. Sir Bandelot has found a fellow fool who cannot understand capricorn's SIMPLE point - that despite immoral behaviors that have been revealed by those on our side (Abu Ghraib, for example),

Abu Grhaib was pure abuse. It wasn't even apparently done most of the time for the purposes of information gathering, but simply because some sick sons-of-bitches got their rocks off sexually humiliating prisoners. I don't know about you, but I don't think people like that should be in the armed forces. Regardless of any abuse allegations, it was certainly disorderly and dishonorable conduct, demonstrating an extreme lack of discipline on the part of the abusers, and a busted chain of command in those higher up. The only effective kind of army is a disciplined army, and a disciplined army doesn't go around taking naught pictures of prisoners' penises with things hooked on to them. Can you imagine someone like Patton or Montgomery tolerating that kind of treatment? Are you kidding? Someone like that under their command would have been courtmartialled.

they are ever a fraction as disturbing as those crimes committed by our enemies.

Which is completely irrelevant.

Nobody is denying that torture is wrong, but some extremists on the left intentionally ignore that there are degrees of abuse. Being deprived of sleep isn't comparable to being beaten.

Being deprived of sleep for long stretches of time is incredibly harmful.

Being forced to listen to loud music isn't comparable to being electrocuted.

Probably not, but that doesn't necessarily mean extreme uses of it are justifiable.

We address the wrongs when they occur.

Sometimes. Other times we do exactly what you do, white wash everything or talk about how bad the other guy is.

Our enemies do not. If anything, we OVERZEALOUSLY attack our own - the three American soldiers who were convicted of first-degree murder comes to mind. The soldiers should be revered as heroes, yet are now serving long sentences in prison.

I assume you're talking about those American soldiers who took disarmed and bound Iraqi prisoners, shot them, and threw them in a canal. You have a strange definition of heroes.

Our enemies treat murderers as heroes - the recent Lockerbie bombing murderer receiving a hero's welcome in Libya comes to mind.

And it was abominable. But that hardly means I'd take three murderers and put medals on them, just because Gadafhi did it to one of his.

All capricorn is saying, which you are unwilling or unable to understand, is that it is absurd for anyone to ever even suggest that there is a remote similarity between our conduct and the conduct of our enemies. We are light, and they are darkness.

Not if we torture, we're not. Maybe we're not as bad, but not being as bad does not make one good.

STOP COMPARING US TO OUR ENEMIES. WE ARE NOTHING LIKE THEM.

I'm not comparing us to them, I'm comparing us to the standards of conduct we've set up for ourselves.

Edited November 23, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Gabriel]

First of all, that's an abominably unfair accusation, but par for the course for your worldview, which seems to be summed up with "They're bad, so we can be bad too, because we're better!"

I'm not exactly crying tears for Taliban getting tortured. They're bad guys who would do the same or worse if they could. At the same time, Canada has agreed on the international stage not to torture people, and the commitment is meaningless if we practice some form of rendition (this is precisely the point that was brought up in the Arar affair, that simply removing yourself a degree from the actual torture in some sort of disingenuous attempt at plausible deniability doesn't really cut much mustard).

We can't control what the enemy does. If we could meaningfully prevent abductions and horrifying executions, we would, but it isn't practical. To some degree, we can't even prevent these crazies from striking at us (heck, China can't even prevent Islamist attacks even with no particular concern for civil liberties or human rights). A guy sufficiently brainwashed or insane (is there a difference?) to believe he's got a room full of virgins waiting for him on the other side if he blows himself up in a Israeli pizzeria or flies an airplane full of people into an office building is going to find a way to do it regardless of the extent of our security. If he can't hit us, he'll hit targets close to us (ie. the Bali bombing).

We can, however, control what we do and at least try to set an example. Maybe it won't do any good, but if it isn't going to do any good, then we might as well pull out of Afghanistan right now, or at least redefine the whole mission in much different terms. I'm for the latter myself. I think we should stop fooling ourselves that we can ever set up a regime that in any meaningful way resembles a liberal Western government. I think our sole purpose there should be to stop the Taliban from regaining ground and thus making the country once again an Al Qaeda-friendly chunk of territory. But regardless of the nature of our mission, we are bound by international agreements and domestic law not to torture prisoners, period. If we're just going to drop them off with someone who will do the job, and we pretend like we don't know what's going on, then we're violating the spirit of those covenants.

Nobody in here ever said torture was justified. So you're erecting a straw man. What some of us ARE saying is that in the broader context of human rights in some of these godforsaken countries, these allegations of abuse in Afghan prisons aren't the top priority. There are greater issues facing the Afghan people - disease, hunger, and security for starters. Of course, the liberal media in Canada would prefer to focus on this issue in an attempt to smear the government.

MacKay has already stated that efforts have bee taking place for years to address the concerns of conditions for detainees in Afghan prisons. He stated that over $100 million has been spent towards this issue. If he's telling the truth, this is hardly compatible with the left's assertions that the government was complicit in alleged abuses and sweeping the issue under the rug. It would also suggest that Colvin is either entirely ignorant of the government's efforts or intentionally omitting that information in order to strengthen his true agenda - to smear the government.

I believe Canada should make reasonable efforts to address this concern. That does NOT include constructing prisons in Afghanistan and offering HBO and correspondence education to detainees. Some monitoring, some workshops, some accountability. I'm not expecting Afghan prisons to adhere to rigorous standards. Let's put it in context, how are the prison conditions compared to last year? Two years ago? Five years ago? I'll be satisfied with improvements being made over time. Since I'm not an idiot, I'm not expecting Afghan prisons to adhere fully to our standards overnight.

At the end of the day, this is a concern but NOT top priority. For those pretending to care about the welfare of detainees, you should pull your heads out of the and and focus your efforts towards real problems facing the Afghan people - disease (hygiene infrastructure is necessary such as clean wells and water testing technology, waste removal, etc), education, security and protection from terrorists, etc. THIS is where our funds should go if we really care about Afghans. But of course the left prefer to express selective outrage, being outraged over allegations of mistreatment towards detainees. It's small potatoes - there are much bigger fish to fry.

[Gabriel]

Abu Grhaib was pure abuse. It wasn't even apparently done most of the time for the purposes of information gathering, but simply because some sick sons-of-bitches got their rocks off sexually humiliating prisoners. I don't know about you, but I don't think people like that should be in the armed forces. Regardless of any abuse allegations, it was certainly disorderly and dishonorable conduct, demonstrating an extreme lack of discipline on the part of the abusers, and a busted chain of command in those higher up. The only effective kind of army is a disciplined army, and a disciplined army doesn't go around taking naught pictures of prisoners' penises with things hooked on to them. Can you imagine someone like Patton or Montgomery tolerating that kind of treatment? Are you kidding? Someone like that under their command would have been courtmartialled.

Nobody ever defended the conduct of those soldiers. Of course it was wrong and contrary to our values. And the soldiers were dealt with. Just another example of the West living up to its values and leading by example. I'm quite certain the soldiers involved in the scandal were dishonorably discharged and charged with crimes. You're also making a pathetic attempt to denigrate higher levels of command. When the abuse was brought to the attention of higher ups, it was dealt with.

Being deprived of sleep for long stretches of time is incredibly harmful.

I'm sure I've dealt with worse. And I'm not even kidding. Spare me the sleep deprivation tears.

I assume you're talking about those American soldiers who took disarmed and bound Iraqi prisoners, shot them, and threw them in a canal. You have a strange definition of heroes.

I don't want to get into that story, especially not with someone like you. I'm certain anyone curious enough about the story will investigate it further not trust your one-liner NO CONTEXT summary. If it was as simple as you're describing it, it wouldn't be worth talking about. Unfortunate for you, the story isn't simply "American soldiers shoot unarmed Iraqis". Why do are you such a pathological liar?

And it was abominable. But that hardly means I'd take three murderers and put medals on them, just because Gadafhi did it to one of his.

You're twisted - describing heroes as murderers. Unsurprising.

[ToadBrother]

Nobody in here ever said torture was justified. So you're erecting a straw man. What some of us ARE saying is that in the broader context of human rights in some of these godforsaken countries, these allegations of abuse in Afghan prisons aren't the top priority. There are greater issues facing the Afghan people - disease, hunger, and security for starters. Of course, the liberal media in Canada would prefer to focus on this issue in an attempt to smear the government.

MacKay has already stated that efforts have bee taking place for years to address the concerns of conditions for detainees in Afghan prisons. He stated that over $100 million has been spent towards this issue. If he's telling the truth, this is hardly compatible with the left's assertions that the government was complicit in alleged abuses and sweeping the issue under the rug. It would also suggest that Colvin is either entirely ignorant of the government's efforts or intentionally omitting that information in order to strengthen his true agenda - to smear the government.

I believe Canada should make reasonable efforts to address this concern. That does NOT include constructing prisons in Afghanistan and offering HBO and correspondence education to detainees. Some monitoring, some workshops, some accountability. I'm not expecting Afghan prisons to adhere to rigorous standards. Let's put it in context, how are the prison conditions compared to last year? Two years ago? Five years ago? I'll be satisfied with improvements being made over time. Since I'm not an idiot, I'm not expecting Afghan prisons to adhere fully to our standards overnight.

At the end of the day, this is a concern but NOT top priority. For those pretending to care about the welfare of detainees, you should pull your heads out of the and and focus your efforts towards real problems facing the Afghan people - disease (hygiene infrastructure is necessary such as clean wells and water testing technology, waste removal, etc), education, security and protection from terrorists, etc. THIS is where our funds should go if we really care about Afghans. But of course the left prefer to express selective outrage, being outraged over allegations of mistreatment towards detainees. It's small potatoes - there are much bigger fish to fry.

The problem I have with all of this is that, for all intents and purposes, the only reason the current Afghani regime even exists is because of us. We can try to dress up the current government over there in any kind of legitimacy we want (and believe me, we've got to pairs of rose-colored glasses on over that crooked bastard Karzai right now), but what it all amounts to, when all the niceties are dispensed with, is that the Afghani government is at best a protectorate of NATO. We basically pay for the government, we're its security and the only reason most of those guys aren't either still in exile or receiving the niceties of the Taliban or the Northern Alliance. In essence, we own that damned government, and so far as I'm concerned, that makes us responsible. At the drop of a hat, we could walk out the door and all those make-believe trappings of a democratic liberal government would be swept away in a matter of days (if that long). So if we own that government, we own what it does. If it's torturing prisoners, it's because we are letting it. We can effectively name our terms over there. The NATO commander could walk up to Karzai right now and say "If one more prisoner is abused in your jails, we'll leave you to the dogs" and you know what, that SOB would have no choice, other than to leave Afghanistan (which is what we should have made him do after he stole the election, continuing to back him is farcical).

I'm afraid, Gabriel, you won't find me the sort of weak-kneed peacekeeper nation building type that you seem to typif left-wingers as (I'm not a left winger, but neither am I some violence-whoring far right winger either). So far as I'm concerned, if you're going to invade a country, any country, regardless of the intentions, then you do it right. You form governments that have some sort of relevance to the people of the country, but you prune out the elements that are going to destabilize it. That's what the Americans did in Japan, and it has to be the single greatest feat of nation rebuilding in all of history; we turned a potent, heavily industrialized enemy into a major ally, because we imposed, with recognition ot their customs and way of life, a system of government that functioned and assured a strong and permanent alliance.

I'm a student of history, and I'll say it now, what we're doing in Afghanistan and what the Americans have done in Iraq is precisely what the Allied Powers did at Versailles in 1919 to Germany, Austria and Hungary. We stripped them both of the traditional governing structures, we imposed wishy-washy constitutions that might work in the countries that formulated them, but were abysmal failures in those countries. What we should have done is forced the restoration of the monarchies but with more rigorous constitutions. And I'm thinking that in Iraq and Afghanistan we ought to have done similar things; and that ultimately means governments that we would find a lot less tolerant and a lot more brutal. People may find that an awful thought, but what we're doing is setting the whole thing up for failure, or at least for perpetual occupation to one degree or another. And if we are to be the occuping power, then damn it, we should impose our will where we see them going astray. If that means seizing the prisons out of their hands because they can't manage them or are torturing people, then we, as the occupying power, reserve that right.

Edited November 23, 2009 by ToadBrother

[eyeball]

The problem is you and the other far leftists have expanded the term "torture"...

Far leftists...you mean like Pol Pot or Stalin?

...all nations on Earth other than western democracies (and not all of them) can be painted as practicing it. That leaves us a pretty small selection group to be allied with, and excludes the US and Japan, among others.

I guess it really is lonely at the top. Are you suggesting we shouldn't set our sights so high or worse, we should lower our standards?

Actively participating sound imply Canadians soldiers took partin beating prisoners, something which I'm sure appeals to your sense of self righteousness, but for which there is no evidence.

I said actively participating in the process, which in our case involves rounding up Afghan people, and then handing them over to be tortured, by the Afghan government who we are allied with and providing funding to. I didn't say Canadian soldiers actually tortured anyone but I admit I fail to see why that distinction would matter much, especially to the people who end up being tortured.

Canada is no more guilty of the abuses of these prisoners than a citizen who makes a citizen's arrest is if the man he hands over to police later gets beaten in prison.

You sure as hell won't find me handing anyone over to the police if that's the case. I've already resolved that if I fear police might be compelled to use a Taser I quite likely won't be calling them until I have witnesses and a camera.

Most of the people who make up the "activist resistance movement" are those who find torture quite appealing as long as it's performed against "enemies". They just have a different list of enemies - namely anyone who disagrees with them.

They probably told the soldiers something quite similar before they stormed Tiananmen Square.

Edited November 23, 2009 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

You're twisted - describing heroes as murderers. Unsurprising.

They were murderers. They can cry the crocodile tears about how the bad guy was getting off easy, but anyone, and I mean anyone, who takes a disarmed and bound prisoner and shoots them dead ain't no damned hero.

[capricorn]

cutting off a head is more dramatic but still quicker than being tortured to death over several days or weeks...neither is appealing but dead is still dead regardless how it's done...

Quicker and more dramatic? Pearl was held for a week before they slowly sawed off his head. What do you suppose they did to him in that one week period? You come across as very naive on the matter under discussion.

http://cpj.org/reports/2006/05/pearl-da.php

edit to add link

Edited November 23, 2009 by capricorn

[ToadBrother]

Quicker and more dramatic? Pearl was held for a week before they slowly sawed off his head. What do you suppose they did to him in that one week period? You come across as very naive on the matter under discussion.

http://cpj.org/reports/2006/05/pearl-da.php

edit to add link

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.

[capricorn]

Bringing up Pearlman is simply a red herring. It has nothing to do with the allegations of Canadians turning detainees over to Afghani officials for torture, other than being some sort of bizarre justification.

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?

[Sir Bandelot]

It is sickening to me when I see extremists in here (who don't need to be named) suggesting that we are morally equivalent to our enemies. This type of rhetoric is treasonous and completely anti-Canadian. It angers me when Canadians who should appreciate our values and way of life denigrate us and draw a moral equivalence between us and our enemies.

Your entire post is irrelevant. Either you are a very simple person or you an extremely dishonest person obsessed with spin.

Oh take your medication.