Topaz Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 Here's 4 questions that Canada and the Tories should think about and the Tories answer. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/four-questions/article1376428/ Quote
Keepitsimple Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 What a complete crock......and I say this without partisanship. When we went into Afghanistan and into a theater of war, we knew - everyone knew - that we would be taking prisoners. Yes, the Liberals started our commitment and carried on for several years. We did not build our own jails and thanks to people and media with the like-minded attitude of some of our posters, it was political suicide to hand them over to the Americans because of a few rogue soldiers at Abu Ghraib.....and yes, everyone knew that some prisoners would likely be subjected to mistreatment. So what were the Liberals to do at the time? They handed them over to the Afghans with vague promises that we could check on them and they would not be mistreated. Then the Conservatives came into power and were concerned about the same things - allegations of mistreatment.....so they tightened up the rules and in some cases - stopped transfers altogether until things were addressed. There is still uneasiness....but Afghanistan is now a sovereign nation and they have to learn how to run their country - and their prison system - and we are helping to teach them to do so....and in the meantime, those prisoners who are transferred by Canadians are now monitored very closely. Again I ask, what should we have done - build our own jails staffed by Canadian prison guards? Turn them over to the Americans? Ship them back to Canada? Quote Back to Basics
M.Dancer Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 What a complete crock......and I say this without partisanship. When we went into Afghanistan and into a theater of war, we knew - everyone knew - that we would be taking prisoners. I seem to remember there was a question to the Liberal Governement about the taking of prisoners amd they denied it...then the picture surfaced of the JTF loading (or unloading?) prisoners... Then they said yes. Up to 2005 the Liberasl were handing prisoners to the US but concerns over Gitmo made the liberal decide that handing them over to the Afghans was much better.... http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/03/24/godfrey030324.html Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
capricorn Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 Again I ask, what should we have done - build our own jails staffed by Canadian prison guards? Turn them over to the Americans? Ship them back to Canada? If it is true that we were taking as many detainees as is alleged, that means that our soldiers were not shooting them in the back and let them live. It demonstrates that our military believes in the rule of law and the basic rights of suspects. Honourable conduct by a well trained force. It was correct to halt the transfer of detainees due to concerns about their treatment. But that came at a price because our troops would have had to free suspects that they knew could come back to plant IEDs to kill them. I'm sorrowful for the men and women serving serving in Afghanistan. Being that they are so committed and engaged, they must feel they are accused of war crimes, right along with their bosses. What a shame. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Keepitsimple Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) It's clear that Colvin's testimony lacked credibility - he said all detainees handed over by Canadians were tortured. An independent Afghan commission - cited by the Toronto Star (no friend of Conservatives) - found that there were 243 allegations levelled in 2006/2007 from all across Afghanistan - with 47 coming from Kandahar, where Canada was operating. Keep in mind that these were allegations - 47 of them. Now - consider how many detainees were captured by Canada, the Afghans, Americans, and the Afghan police in Kandahar throughout 2006/2007. Does it make sense that perhaps the number might be well over 1000? And yet we have but 47 "allegations" of abuse in Kandahar - an area that ranks third in abuse claims. And yet Colvin says every one of our detainees were tortured. That is why his testimony lacks credibility. However, the Afghan commission said it uncovered 47 cases of abuse in Kandahar, which was ranked third in terms of the number of abuse claims in Afghanistan. Canada's main operations, and most of its 2,800-strong force, are based in the province of Kandahar. Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/729402--evidence-of-afghan-torture-mounts As a final point....if Canada's Kandahar area ranks third in abuse claims....what other areas rank #1 and #2 and what other countries are apparently condoning torture. I'm sure Stephen Harper is involved in some way. Edited November 25, 2009 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
ToadBrother Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 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! There were enormous errors. The toppling of the democratically elected regime in Iran and the slavish support of the Shah was one stupidity on top of another, and ultimately transformed a relatively liberal country into a fundamentalist lunatic asylum. Support of dictators like Pinochet was also disastrous, and it's little wonder that the region eyes the US with great suspicion. I would if I was down there too. But at the end of the day, would any of these countries faired any better under Soviet puppets? Quote
eyeball Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 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. 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. 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. 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. Why can't our politicians talk to Canadians in a similar fashion? Why can't politicians honestly and forthrightly say, you can't trust your own senses and instincts so your wisest course of action is to trust us instead. If we're truly as naive as many believe we are, couldn't Canadians be expected to simply say "okay"? What's the matter with us? What do you think would happen if Harper told us our laws on human rights should be questioned and maybe ignored because they were written by prissy lawyers in three-piece suits with their expensive manicures and little connection with the real world? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
DrGreenthumb Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 The Conservative cover up machine is in full speed now, Corvin has been blocked form turning over the documents because the Conservatives don't want Canadians to have the facts. Quote
M.Dancer Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 The Conservative cover up machine is in full speed now, Corvin has been blocked form turning over the documents because the Conservatives don't want Canadians to have the facts. If they really want the facts, and not just some political points, why are the opposition trying to avoid having David Mulroney appear before the inquiry? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) It's pretty obvious a thick fog of moral ambiguity, doubt and political fear has finally settled over Capital Hill. I knew this is exactly what would happen and its fitting that it should attend the beginning of the end of our involvement in Afghanistan. With any luck it will be decades before Ottawa entertains any notion of our wading into any new quagmires. Perhaps this is why some military's in the world just get fed up with the bullshit and make a general the head of state. I suspect that might suit more than a few of the poster we have around here. Edited November 25, 2009 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
M.Dancer Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 It's pretty obvious a thick fog of moral ambiguity, doubt and political fear has finally settled over Capital Hill. What does moral ambiguity in washington have to do with any of this? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 What does moral ambiguity in washington have to do with any of this? Ah right...I meant Parliament Hill. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
myata Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 Wow! Look at this iron clad strategy from our majority-in-waiting government: first we accuse whistleblower of the lack of evidence; then, as he's ready to present the evidence, we block him from doing so (on any plausible pretext; "national security" is one great reason). CBC: Colvin prevented from handing evidence of prisoner abuse to parliamentary commettee (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091125/national/afghan_cda_abuse_documents). Get ready for more of this transparent democracy folks. With no real opposition to keep them in check, these people will show us the new meaning of "responsibility", "openness" and "transparency". Just what we wanted though, no complains, as long as lower taxes are assured (or at least promised). Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Jerry J. Fortin Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 I hope everyone expects to be either paying more tax or having a larger debt, and at the same time we better all get used to the idea of program funding cuts. Quote
eyeball Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 General Hillier's about to testify before the Parliamentary committee on the Afghan Mission. Will we see a Col Jessop moment? You fuckin' people, you have no idea how to defend a nation! Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
capricorn Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 If they really want the facts, and not just some political points, why are the opposition trying to avoid having David Mulroney appear before the inquiry? Someone in the opposition said the reason the committee called Colvin to testify is due to Colvin's complaint to the Military Complaints Commission. why did they not let the Military Complaints Commission process proceed unhindered by political considerations? Lew Mackenzie says let the Military Police Complaints Commission, an independent, quasi-judicial agency, investigate the charges. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/a-better-way-to-the-truth-of-the-detainee-matter/article1376169/ Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
DrGreenthumb Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 The Conservatives should stop trying to cover up their crimes and just hand over the documents. Quote
M.Dancer Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 The Conservatives should stop trying to cover up their crimes and just hand over the documents. So you have no problem with the opposition trying to muzzle other testimony or you just happen to like breachiung security? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 Well, no Col. Jessop moment. Hillier and his crew certainly took great lengths to testify that Canada had a well documented trail of ensuring everyone including the Afghan government knew how important the issue of torture was and that the means to track the Canadian Armed Forces side of the handling and transferring of detainees were in place...but so what? Its what happened after detainees were handed over to our allies that is at question. 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? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
wyly Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 The Conservatives should stop trying to cover up their crimes and just hand over the documents. because they want to avoid releasing top secret info the Taliban may use to hurt us...right lol...more like avoid releasing info that would hurt the government... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
eyeball Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 So you have no problem with the opposition trying to muzzle other testimony or you just happen to like breachiung security? What breach of security? How typically Canadian though...I recall the RCMP PR flacks who claim the same thing in the name of protecting the "privacy" of some poor sap who just died in their custody. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
M.Dancer Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) because they want to avoid releasing top secret info the Taliban may use to hurt us...right lol...more like avoid releasing info that would hurt the government... Well with cats like Eyeball to protect us I'm sure the Taliban will stay at a safe distance. Can't be so sure of the safety of any Afghans named in those reports...Eyeball has a strict policy of non interference and I'm pretty sure the Taliban bamks on the west adopting that policy. Edited November 25, 2009 by M.Dancer Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Topaz Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 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. Quote
eyeball Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 Can't be so sure of the safety of any Afghans named in those reports... 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. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
capricorn Posted November 25, 2009 Report Posted November 25, 2009 because they want to avoid releasing top secret info the Taliban may use to hurt us...right lol...more like avoid releasing info that would hurt the government... I don't blame the government for hesitating to release top secret information to the commons committee. First of all, the commons committee hearings are public. Secondly, sure as hell sensitive information would be leaked by political hacks within the opposition trying to score points against the government. 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. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.