eyeball Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 You're moving the goal-posts. Principles can be very different than the actual law. Its not the LAW law because we're pretending its not a WAR war. Its not TORTURE torture because the belligerents aren't SOLDIER soldiers. They're not PRINCIPLES principles because...we're a really lame excuse for a country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 (edited) That is from the 3rd GC on the treatment of prisoners of war. The taliban are not prisoners of war. If I say it a third time, will it sink in? Geneva Convention covers civilians...until someone is convicted in crime they are innocent even in wartime...4th GC Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. how many times can you read this before you comprehend it? I'm guessing a million times or never...Colvin didn't even mention it till After the Globe and Mail covered it,,,colvin is a johnny come lately.Further more, Colvin doesn't name one detainee...he in fact knew nothing. Colvin reported there was abuse in 2006...David Mulrony Canada's Ambassoador to China-"The fact that there were allegations of mistreatment in Afghan prisons was known to us," -"There was no doubt in anyone's mind that the Afghan system was riddled with problems."and who informed Mulroney? Richard Colvin The GC doesn't apply. Prisoners get beat up in jail. They get beat up in Canadian jails, usually by other prisiners. Should we invoke the 3rd GC as well. 4th GC Article 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances. 4th Geneva Convention-Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. because you have comprehension problems-it means even though both parties don't follow the GC the one that does must still follow the rules of the GC Art. 32. The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents. Having zero credibility is citing law that doesn't apply. Good luck with that.geneva convention- having no ability to read or understand doesn't help you..."Ignorance of the law is not an acceptable excuse"and now back to Canadian Zahra Kazemi "beaten" to death with a shoe in an Iranian prison, accused spy/non combatant...tortured or not... I'll bring this up forever until you answer there's no avoiding it... Shidane Arone-non combatant-beaten to death-tortured or not? answer... Edited December 12, 2009 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 Its not the LAW law because we're pretending its not a WAR war. Its not TORTURE torture because the belligerents aren't SOLDIER soldiers. They're not PRINCIPLES principles because...we're a really lame excuse for a country. it's like going to court on theft charges and your defense is "your Honor it wasn't theft, I "took" the item, and we all know theft is spelt differently than took" and as the 4th GC states whether one side or the other defines the conflict a war or not is irrelevant... and Zara Kazimi, wasn't really Spy spy, so it was ok to torture beat her to death... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 How smart or classy can any guy be that has fallen into the trap of that supified heiress - Belinda? You can judge a man by what company he has kept in the past. Mackay is not a striaght shooter in my opinion - nor does he have the brains to be honourable. If a woman that will have sex with a hockey thug..and then with any politcal that serves her agenda - then beware of the type of man that will devulge information to a chick that picks his brain and brawn then crosses the floor - Mackay should get it over with and resign - Like I said - If you do the Belinda dance then you must be totally superfical..which I believe he is...a light weight that is not fit to have the power of life and death over our troops. Yesterday,I saw Jean LaPierre say that the Con's were considering Maxime Bernier for the Minister of Defense portfolio... I guess we can infer that the Tories ain't too deep in intellectual talent. Somewhere David Orchard is laughing his a$$ off right about now.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 Yesterday,I saw Jean LaPierre say that the Con's were considering Maxime Bernier for the Minister of Defense portfolio... I too saw Lapierre on Power Play yesterday. Lapierre did allude to a cabinet post for Bernier but I don't recall Lapierre specifying he was considered for the Defence job. Set me straight if I'm wrong Jack. Bernier is well regarded in Quebec and I would bet Quebecers have already forgiven him for his dalliance. This might have had a different outcome if he had cheated on a spouse. But a single man falling for a femme fatale is altogether different. I guess we can infer that the Tories ain't too deep in intellectual talent. There are many bright politicians the world over who have poor taste in women. The Conservatives have to draw on available talent and they have to hold on to what little support they have in Quebec. Bernier was an effective minister but he had to pay for his lack of judgment. IMO Bernier would work very hard in any capacity to redeem himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 There are many bright politicians the world over who have poor taste in women. The Conservatives have to draw on available talent and they have to hold on to what little support they have in Quebec. Bernier was an effective minister but he had to pay for his lack of judgment. IMO Bernier would work very hard in any capacity to redeem himself. I don't care who is screwing who or who cheating on their spouse, it's none of my business nor anyone else...leaving secret documents behind is really careless and that matters... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 I don't care who is screwing who or who cheating on their spouse, it's none of my business nor anyone else...leaving secret documents behind is really careless and that matters... Yes, you're right it was careless and it does matter. The fact remains that Bernier's return to Cabinet could actually help the Conservatives in Quebec. That's the end game isn't it? Regaining lost ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 When he's been called to testify at a hearing then yes, he should know what it is he's talking about. Mundane crap? Should we all just *yawn* and say who gives a crap about that mundane stuff the next time a Canadian soldier gets killed? Oh come on and admit it. You already do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 It was Peter MacKay's job to ensure Canada's principles and high standards for human rights were being upheld. And they have been. Case closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 That's not the way it used to be in this country. In the not so distant past Ministers in similar circumstances would resign. No matter how obvious, how blatant the wrongdoing or stupidity, Chretien simply stonewalled through opposition and media complaints. And you people on the left were fine with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 handing over detainees to a third party who you know will torture or kill them is a war crime.. And there's damned little evidence of any torture or killing. There is some evidence of mistreatment, but in the context of Afghanistan it certainly doesn't qualify as "torture". And there is NO evidence the military or government knew it at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 Yeah its not a WAR war is it Whoopi? If it were a war they would be soldiers in uniform subject to certain standards of behaviour and law and abiding by the orders of the national authority over them. There is no such authority, and no such expected conduct of behaviour. Nor is there anyone to deal with or treat with on their behalf. They are religious fanatics representing a group of violent zealots. If the Moonies started blowing up department stores and setting off roadside bombs would we treat those we captured as prisoners of war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 In that case, send Mackay to Afghanistan to face charges, and do his jail time there. You want Mackay to go to AFghanistan to face charges - by er, the Afghan government? Because some Afghan prison guards trying to extract money from them may have beaten some Afghan prisoners? Wow. A whole new definition of insanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 Most Canadians want to know the truth, who knew what and when. Ninety nine point nine percent of Canadians would have to think long and hard to come up with a topic they cared less about than whether a few Taliban were beaten up three years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 No matter how obvious, how blatant the wrongdoing or stupidity, Chretien simply stonewalled through opposition and media complaints. And you people on the left were fine with that. Like hell I was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 (edited) You're moving the goal-posts. Principles can be very different than the actual law. According to Dworkin principles are law. Principles are different from rules, but they're both within the law. Edited December 12, 2009 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 And there's damned little evidence of any torture or killing. There is some evidence of mistreatment, but in the context of Afghanistan it certainly doesn't qualify as "torture".Zara Kazami-accused Canadian spy beaten to death, rough handling by your definition...by any rational person's definition she was tortured to death..."any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions." —UN Convention Against Torture[1] and Afghanistan and Canada have both agreed to this definition in the Convention against Torture And there is NO evidence the military or government knew it at the time.the miltitary knew and took steps to stop it...the Canadain Ambassador claimed it was common knowledge at the time...so who are we to believe you and the Harper government or the military and the ambassador to Afghanistan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted December 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Zara Kazami-accused Canadian spy beaten to death, rough handling by your definition...by any rational person's definition she was tortured to death... "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions." —UN Convention Against Torture[1] and Afghanistan and Canada have both agreed to this definition in the Convention against Torture the miltitary knew and took steps to stop it...the Canadain Ambassador claimed it was common knowledge at the time...so who are we to believe you and the Harper government or the military and the ambassador to Afghanistan? Harper, and his whole bunch are proven liars once again. It would be really stupid of Canadians to believe anything this government says, about anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 If you were the CEO of a company or a public service manager, should you be fired or resign because you didn't know an employee was suspected of stealing? What did he know and when did he know it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted December 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 What did he know and when did he know it... Oooooh more new info leaking out today......stay tuned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 You mean this? “The May, 2007, arrangement states that the government of Canada will be notified prior to the release of a Canadian-transferred detainee by Afghan authorities. However, notification has been a challenge,” Mr. Cannon conceded in a written and little-noticed answer delivered to Parliament's order paper last week, weeks after ministers had first faced and deflected questions on the subject at committee hearings.“There's this black hole here,” said Paul Dewar, the NDP's Foreign Affairs critic, who had posed some of the questions. He said a Canadian soldier, back from Afghanistan, telephoned him and asked him to seek answers from the government about the breakdowns in accounting for transferred detainees. “It's possible Canadians are being killed because transferred detainees are being freed; right now we don't even know if they are going back to laying IEDs [improvised explosives devices] or going back to combat.” Mr. Dewar acknowledges that it is impossible to point to specific casualties or attacks by released detainees. But military sources have admitted that at least some detainees have been captured multiple times. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/afghans-violating-detainee-transfer-agreement/article1399050/ If the Afghan jailers broke the terms of the agreement by failing to inform our soldiers that a detainee has been released, how is this the military's or the government's fault? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 But if there is torture going on, and the government is simply releasing it bit by bit to try to manage the response, then yes, we should do something. Sure, but don't call it a war crime which it ain't. In Canada they would call it disturbing the peace... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Sure, but don't call it a war crime which it ain't. In Canada they would call it disturbing the peace... Do you read what you write, or do you just sort of vomit out stock answers of the most idiotic kind? In Canada, beating the crap out of someone repeatedly isn't disturbing the peace, it's called assault. And whether it's a war crime or not is difficult to measure. We are in a hostile armed action against these guys. Maybe it doesn't meet a finer reading of the Conventions, but at the end of the day we ought not be a country that delivers anyone up to be abused, and if we do, have the honesty to admit it, rather than playing information release games and minimizing what we did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Do you read what you write, or do you just sort of vomit out stock answers of the most idiotic kind? In Canada, beating the crap out of someone repeatedly isn't disturbing the peace, it's called assault. From what I've read about the culture in Afghanistan virtually every man in the country would be in jail for assault if they were in Canada - and a big chunk of the women, too. It's funny how all you wild eyed lefties are all about accepting the differences in cultural standards except when you can find a reason to criticise a tory government. And whether it's a war crime or not is difficult to measure. Not the least bit difficult, actually, however far you try to desperately stretch the term. Maybe it doesn't meet a finer reading of the Conventions, but at the end of the day we ought not be a country that delivers anyone up to be abused, So once we take a prisoner we're responsible for them for the rest of their lives, and have to take them back to Canada when we go home lest they be abused? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 In Canada, beating the crap out of someone repeatedly isn't disturbing the peace, it's called assault. Initially but the lawyers would haggle with the crown and bargain for lessor charge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.