Afghan prisoner abuse trial

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I am not sure about that. They need police, but they need an army as well. Let the cops take care of the civil issues, let the army take care of the military issues.

Before anything can happen in that nation they need a functional revenue stream for government operations. The only thing they can and have grown there that will provide that revenue stream is the poppy. The world uses mega tons of the stuff for medical purposes every year and it is time to recognize that little fact. There is a way for them to go forward and look after themselves.

They need power and water and water treatment plants. They need schools and hospitals too. Now how are these things going to be paid for? Lets start thinking outside of the box.

[eyeball]

Is "our side" accused of torturing prisoners to death by the bus load? The problem with you people is you have no sense of proportion. You think of a term you believe will cause outrage - like Torture - and then apply it indiscriminately to every regime you don't like including the Americans - who don't treat their prisoners with the utmost respect and courtesy. So America, which does things like sleep deprivation is in the same boat as North Korea, which skins people alive then disembowells them in front of relatives. It's just all "torture" to you.

Its also all just torture according the laws and international conventions against war crimes that we've signed onto. The treatment that most if not all captives are alleged to have received in Afghanistan's prison system is considered torture and against the law and we're not supposed to be complicit in it, period. If our officials knowingly allowed our soldiers to hand captives over to our allies to be tortured we're guilty of war crimes, its just that simple.

What the Americans do should be their business, unfortunately we've gone and made their business ours through our military treaties and agreements with them.

Sad to say we're probably in harm's way, and fairly deeply.

You know I've suggested we publicly review all our military alliances and treaties and put them to a national referendum. As such I we suggest we also vote on whether to keep our agreements on war crimes too. What do you think the majority of Canadians would say?

Edited November 24, 2009 by eyeball

[Oleg Bach]

All conflicts are crimminal - all war contains war crimes - It's the very nature of killing and invading..Iraq was a crimminal event...Saddam was a crimminal as were his American counter parts - as long as we allow crimminals to take the highest office - then we are bound to suffer crime- in time of war there is no difference - crimminals create crime..To expect other wise is like asking a snake why he bit you..the snake will say "what do you expect? I am a snake and this is what snakes do."

[ToadBrother]

Its also all just torture according the laws and international conventions against war crimes that we've signed onto. The treatment that most if not all captives are alleged to have received in Afghanistan's prison system is considered torture and against the law and we're not supposed to be complicit in it, period. If our officials knowingly allowed our soldiers to hand captives over to our allies to be tortured we're guilty of war crimes, its just that simple.

What the Americans do should be their business, unfortunately we've gone and made their business ours through our military treaties and agreements with them.

You sound like the worst of fair weather friends. The US kept us (and Western Europe) pretty damned safe during the Cold War via NATO.

Sad to say we're probably in harm's way, and fairly deeply.

We,

You know I've suggested we publicly review all our military alliances and treaties and put them to a national referendum. As such I we suggest we also vote on whether to keep our agreements on war crimes too. What do you think the majority of Canadians would say?

Who knows. We've become a coddled society largely ignorant of the past, conned into ludicrous nonsense like "peace keeping" to the point that we probably would toss out NATO under some idiotic belief that military alliances are a thing of the past.

[Oleg Bach]

You sound like the worst of fair weather friends. The US kept us (and Western Europe) pretty damned safe during the Cold War via NATO.

Who knows. We've become a coddled society largely ignorant of the past, conned into ludicrous nonsense like "peace keeping" to the point that we probably would toss out NATO under some idiotic belief that military alliances are a thing of the past.

How can I take you seriously. When you look at the system of things in the last 60 years you would realize that the whole thing is corrupt and stinks to high heaven..Look at the grandfather of George W Bush - who sold weapons to the Nazis which in turn killed American soldiers that were Amerian VOTERS....The grand father then took those profits and used them to socially and economically establish his family - He got one President out of this action and there was enough left over loot to install another family member as President - GEORGE W BUSH.>. It is bizzare when you have a system that profits by killing it's own people and then has those same stupid people that surive VOTE your son into office...What a joke..the whole thing is a joke.

[ToadBrother]

How can I take you seriously. When you look at the system of things in the last 60 years you would realize that the whole thing is corrupt and stinks to high heaven..Look at the grandfather of George W Bush - who sold weapons to the Nazis which in turn killed American soldiers that were Amerian VOTERS....The grand father then took those profits and used them to socially and economically establish his family - He got one President out of this action and there was enough left over loot to install another family member as President - GEORGE W BUSH.>. It is bizzare when you have a system that profits by killing it's own people and then has those same stupid people that surive VOTE your son into office...What a joke..the whole thing is a joke.

The allegations against Prescott Bush were BS. When he was selling to the Nazis, it was not yet illegal, and lots of companies in the US, the UK and Russia were selling goods to them. I can't stand the Bush's, myself, and Dubya was a moron of such great proportions that you probably have to go back to prior to the Civil War to find a more inept, clueless and ultimately idiotic president. But the whole thing about the Bush family being Nazi supporters is BS.

[Oleg Bach]

The allegations against Prescott Bush were BS. When he was selling to the Nazis, it was not yet illegal, and lots of companies in the US, the UK and Russia were selling goods to them. I can't stand the Bush's, myself, and Dubya was a moron of such great proportions that you probably have to go back to prior to the Civil War to find a more inept, clueless and ultimately idiotic president. But the whole thing about the Bush family being Nazi supporters is BS.

He this buisness about being a supporter of anything makes no sense - Canada and America are supposedly in support of Israel....Yet - they let people reside and operate as arms dealers within the confines and safety of Canada...when it comes to money and war there are no loyalties..so give it up buddy. If I as so much give one single bullet to an enemy for two bucks I am a supporter...and so are you...apparently you like the idea of big buisness running the world while running rough shod over civilians.

[eyeball]

You sound like the worst of fair weather friends. The US kept us (and Western Europe) pretty damned safe during the Cold War via NATO.

At the cost of the increasingly dangerous world we still have today. We do sound like the worst of fair weather friends considering who our Cold War enemy once was. Its not surprising we sold out our principles via the various dictators we supported to beat them.

Who knows. We've become a coddled society largely ignorant of the past, conned into ludicrous nonsense like "peace keeping" to the point that we probably would toss out NATO under some idiotic belief that military alliances are a thing of the past.

I think we've become a society that's less ignorant of how our actions in the present will likely affect the future, not willing to be conned into ludicrous nonsense like real politic to the point we begin to ignore human rights under some idiotic belief our military alliances should trump our principles.

[wyly]

At the cost of the increasingly dangerous world we still have today. We do sound like the worst of fair weather friends considering who our Cold War enemy once was. Its not surprising we sold out our principles via the various dictators we supported to beat them.

we never beat them, they defeated themselves it was an internal reformation...those dictators we supported did nothing to advance our cause, we soldout our principles for profit...

[Gabriel]

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?

You're taking away any element of context. On a case by case basis, military operations must be evaluated by comparing the potential collateral damage to persons and property against the potential benefit of securing a military objective. There is no doubt that civilian deaths CAN be justified in the theatre of war. Are you disputing this? Are you suggesting that there are no circumstances under which collateral damage can be justified? A simple yes or no answer, please. I am not advocating wholesale destruction of all civilians. I have specifically said otherwise. I have said, however, that we appear to be MUCH too hesitant to engage in activities that are likely to cause collateral damage, and as result of this resistance, we are compromising the security of our military and of our broader objectives. For you to suggest that I am no different than our enemies illustrates you absurdity. You just put me in the same bin as the filth that we are fighting - as if I am anti-democracy, anti-freedom, anti-woman, anti-education, pro-fundamentalist Islam, pro-suicide bombings, etc, etc, etc. If you cannot discern the difference between my positions and the positions of our enemies, why are you even in this thread?

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.

I'd reply if I thought you were worth the time.

[Gabriel]

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.

Yet here we are, decades later, and the USSR has dissolved and we've seen strengthening trends of democracy and economic liberalization occurring throughout Eastern Europe. Over time, their standards of living are growing. Not to shabby considering they were all bankrupt in the 90s. Describing it as an "abysmal failure" is inaccurate considering the situation and circumstances we see today.

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.

I'm sure this is correct.

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.

It's more of a cohesive government than has ever been seen in Afghanistan's recent history. Progress is being made. You know we can't see great changes happen overnight. It's a gradual and arduous procedure to remake the country.

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.

I agree, there is no doubt that the success of our operations in Afghanistan hinges on the political will of all stakeholders involved, primarily Canada, America, the UK, and Australia.

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.

Looks like you're elaborating on your earlier point - the necessity of the political will of the coalition in order for success to be achieved in Afghanistan.

[Gabriel]

Oleg Bach - Why do all of your posts on foreign policy always boil down to Alex Jones-esque conspiracy theories about some New World Order and the corporate elite and the military industrial complex and Israeli/Zionist secret evil agendas? You are in another dimension. Ridiculous.

[ToadBrother]

At the cost of the increasingly dangerous world we still have today.

Oh BS. The world is a significantly safer place today than it was twenty five years ago. I grew up in the 1980s, when everyone was still very much spooked by the thought of a mushroom cloud. The world we live in ain't perfect, but it's a helluva lot better than it was. Russia and China may not be the kindly gentle liberal states we'd like, but we have a significantly more constructive dialog with them now than we did during much of the Cold War.

We do sound like the worst of fair weather friends considering who our Cold War enemy once was. Its not surprising we sold out our principles via the various dictators we supported to beat them.

Our principles were containment. I won't defend all we did, and some of it probably was unnecessary and some of it even depraved. But I look at how places like Poland and Hungary suffered under the Soviet sphere and I've got to think "I'm glad we didn't end up like them."

I think we've become a society that's less ignorant of how our actions in the present will likely affect the future, not willing to be conned into ludicrous nonsense like real politic to the point we begin to ignore human rights under some idiotic belief our military alliances should trump our principles.

If the Soviets had gained the upper hand, there wouldn't have been any sort of reflection of this kind. The Free World very much owes the US a favor, since it the US who spent the most on keeping the Soviets from breaking out.

[M.Dancer]

...those dictators we supported did nothing to advance our cause, we soldout our principles for profit...

Every dictator we supported was a dictator they didn't support...and they supported as many or more...and certainly no one in the Soviet circles were hectoring the Soviets or their dictators over human rights abuses etc etc.

Not only is it all good, it's bloody fantastic.

[ToadBrother]

Every dictator we supported was a dictator they didn't support...and they supported as many or more...and certainly no one in the Soviet circles were hectoring the Soviets or their dictators over human rights abuses etc etc.

Not only is it all good, it's bloody fantastic.

It's not like there were a lot of choices. The Soviets were doing everything in their power to push into Latin America. Some places are still feeling the long-term effects of that one (ie. Shining Path Geurillas). The long term security of the First World was dependent on doing everything possible to keep the Soviets from enlarging their sphere of influence.

Whenever I hear this "we're so bad because we propped up dictators" I think to myself "you're right, we were bad, but if we hadn't, then what would have happened?" Sometimes, particularly in politics, and most particularly in geopolitics, you don't have a choice between good and evil, you have a choice between lesser evils.

[Gabriel]

It's not like there were a lot of choices. The Soviets were doing everything in their power to push into Latin America. Some places are still feeling the long-term effects of that one (ie. Shining Path Geurillas). The long term security of the First World was dependent on doing everything possible to keep the Soviets from enlarging their sphere of influence.

Whenever I hear this "we're so bad because we propped up dictators" I think to myself "you're right, we were bad, but if we hadn't, then what would have happened?" Sometimes, particularly in politics, and most particularly in geopolitics, you don't have a choice between good and evil, you have a choice between lesser evils.

Agreed. I also think the degree of Western involvement with dictators is highly exaggerated. It often seems like these critics seem to blame the entirety of contemporary problems on a perceived American imperialism. It's like the Spiderman comic, "with great power comes great responsibility".

EDIT - Look at Hungary and Poland TODAY and you'll say the same thing! Thank GOD we didn't end up like them!

Edited November 25, 2009 by Gabriel

[capricorn]

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.

The opposition is insisting on receiving extensive documentation prior to David Mulroney's testimony.

"The diplomat in question, as everyone knows, has a right to his opinion and has given us his opinion," Harper told the House of Commons. "We also know that a large number of his colleagues didn't agree with those opinions and … they have asked for their right to speak, so I’d encourage the opposition not to muzzle them."

But Opposition MPs have said they do not want to hear from Mulroney yet, saying they want the government to first release documents related to the torture allegations before he appears.

MPs are seeking cabinet minutes from that time period, all memos sent from Colvin and returned to him and human rights reports given to the Defence Department.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/11/24/mulroney-colvin-detainee-committee.html

What I find interesting is that the opposition did not request that Colvin submit supporting documentation at any point prior, during or after he testified. Yet, they are pressing the government to release background documents before other witnesses are heard. They want the information in order to cross-examine the witnesses who are expected to disprove Colvin's allegations. This looks an awful lot like a double standard.

Another thing. Why is the opposition limiting their request for documents to the years since the Conservatives are in government? The answer is this. Colvin began his reports on Afghan detainees in April or May 2006, so necessarily his early reports cover a period where the Liberals were in charge of the file. Pretty cagey move by the Liberals.

[Topaz]

The allegations against Prescott Bush were BS. When he was selling to the Nazis, it was not yet illegal, and lots of companies in the US, the UK and Russia were selling goods to them. I can't stand the Bush's, myself, and Dubya was a moron of such great proportions that you probably have to go back to prior to the Civil War to find a more inept, clueless and ultimately idiotic president. But the whole thing about the Bush family being Nazi supporters is BS.

Hey, no one is prefect but I think you should read the following and you may change your mind on Prescott. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

[eyeball]

It's not like there were a lot of choices. The Soviets were doing everything in their power to push into Latin America. Some places are still feeling the long-term effects of that one (ie. Shining Path Geurillas). The long term security of the First World was dependent on doing everything possible to keep the Soviets from enlarging their sphere of influence.

Whenever I hear this "we're so bad because we propped up dictators" I think to myself "you're right, we were bad, but if we hadn't, then what would have happened?" Sometimes, particularly in politics, and most particularly in geopolitics, you don't have a choice between good and evil, you have a choice between lesser evils.

Is that Canada's official policy? I recall appeals to Canadians to sacrifice their lives if need be for our ideals but not our ideals.

If we truly had no choice, that we were forced to behave the way we did, our government should have no problem openly saying so to the public. At the very least our government should be capable of calmly and rationally explaining to Canadians that the cost of protecting our freedoms requires that we align ourselves with some really bad people from time to time.

It should be every bit as easy for Stephan Harper to tell Canadians "you're right, we were bad, but if we hadn't, then what would have happened?" as it was for you to tell me.

So why doesn't he?

[Gabriel]

Is that Canada's official policy? I recall appeals to Canadians to sacrifice their lives if need be for our ideals but not our ideals.

If we truly had no choice, that we were forced to behave the way we did, our government should have no problem openly saying so to the public. At the very least our government should be capable of calmly and rationally explaining to Canadians that the cost of protecting our freedoms requires that we align ourselves with some really bad people from time to time.

It should be every bit as easy for Stephan Harper to tell Canadians "you're right, we were bad, but if we hadn't, then what would have happened?" as it was for you to tell me.

So why doesn't he?

Once again, instead of directly addressing the issue with your own opinion, you respond with, "why doesn't Harper say exactly what you're saying?" We're not here to be spokespersons for Harper or the Conservatives. I speak for myself and myself alone (generally speaking). Toad Brother speaks for himself and himself alone (generally speaking). What the hell does Harper have to do with our little history review? Why are you such a compulsive deflector? You try so hard to derail every single thread. Did you think nobody would notice or not call you out on it?

We'll speak for ourselves, and you can speak for yourself. Nobody gives a shit about Harper with respect to this history review.

[eyeball]

Once again, instead of directly addressing the issue with your own opinion, you respond with, "why doesn't Harper say exactly what you're saying?" We're not here to be spokespersons for Harper or the Conservatives. I speak for myself and myself alone (generally speaking). Toad Brother speaks for himself and himself alone (generally speaking). What the hell does Harper have to do with our little history review?

Harper speaks for Canada so it matters what he says. I suspect Harper speaks to the concerns Canadians have about the morality of our involvement in this war with all the sincerity he puts into comments on climate change.

[Dave_ON]

You're taking away any element of context. On a case by case basis, military operations must be evaluated by comparing the potential collateral damage to persons and property against the potential benefit of securing a military objective. There is no doubt that civilian deaths CAN be justified in the theatre of war. Are you disputing this? Are you suggesting that there are no circumstances under which collateral damage can be justified? A simple yes or no answer, please. I am not advocating wholesale destruction of all civilians. I have specifically said otherwise. I have said, however, that we appear to be MUCH too hesitant to engage in activities that are likely to cause collateral damage, and as result of this resistance, we are compromising the security of our military and of our broader objectives. For you to suggest that I am no different than our enemies illustrates you absurdity. You just put me in the same bin as the filth that we are fighting - as if I am anti-democracy, anti-freedom, anti-woman, anti-education, pro-fundamentalist Islam, pro-suicide bombings, etc, etc, etc. If you cannot discern the difference between my positions and the positions of our enemies, why are you even in this thread?

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.

I'd reply if I thought you were worth the time.

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.

[Argus]

Its also all just torture according the laws and international conventions against war crimes that we've signed onto.

Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't sound like this was done in any organized fashion nor even at the government's instigation. And in any case, while I care quite a bit about fundamental human rights and justice, the laws written by prissy lawyers in three-piece suits with their expensive manicures really have little connection with the real world out there in places like Afghanistan.

You know I've suggested we publicly review all our military alliances and treaties and put them to a national referendum. As such I we suggest we also vote on whether to keep our agreements on war crimes too. What do you think the majority of Canadians would say?

Canadians are a generally ignorant lot when it comes to what life is like beyond our shiny, perfect borders, but I think if there were enough people with your warped view of reality the NDP would be into its third succesive majority by now.

[Argus]

I think we've become a society that's less ignorant of how our actions in the present will likely affect the future, not willing to be conned into ludicrous nonsense like real politic to the point we begin to ignore human rights under some idiotic belief our military alliances should trump our principles.

We tend to try and keep our real world attitudes practical. Your starry-eyed notions that we should shun anyone who doesn't meet our noble moral standards is interesting, but hopelessly naive and unrealistic.

We are rich and at peace. Remove those conditions and even WE wouldn't meet your standards.

[Topaz]

When it comes down to who and what is believable, the Canadians public isn't believing in the Tories either and the public opinion does matter. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091125/national/afghan_cda_abuse_poll_2