Peter Mackay

[M.Dancer]

Afghanistan is a signatory to at least some of the Geneva Conventions and satisfying ones self is a very subjective term. Clearly, if there were war crimes committed, they were committed by Afghanis.

Of course, but terrorists and guerillas are not protected by the GC.

[blue]

My view

sadly most of Harpers choices have been very bad Peter is a little boy in a big world, he is what most real polaticians

would say "he is a real sissy," Most of us lost any respect for him during the Belinda Stronic era, he was seen as a down hearted wienny sitting in his neighbours Garden holding the dog. sad indeed. allowing him to stay on the job would only make it worst he has to be reasigned but this time make it a job that he can do . the liberals dont have to say a word about this he does enough making the party look silly, if you look back everytime Harper has left the country someone screws up, he should do as clinton and Raegan did leave their wife in charge.

Edited December 11, 2009 by blue

[blue]

No proof he was tortured. Only beaten. There's a difference.

I agree

No, as they suspected he was abused...again, a difference.

No proof the governement knew this one cat was beaten...one cat.

When the Liberals decides to stop transfering prisoners to the US, it was bound to happen. It's their culture, we should respect it.

[blue]

when you say there is a difference in a beating and torture.

have you ever had a beating that last for three months? i think you need a spanking

one that would last for three days would that be seen a just a simple spanking or turture?

[blue]

Was he lying, or was he genuinely unaware of what was going on? The problem with bureaucracy is the lack of accountability. You can't be accountable, though, for something you know nothing about.

[ToadBrother]

Certainly we don't know that he was lying and all of this is nothing but political opportunism. I see no reason to get of him because the opposition says we should

If ministers resigned every time the Opposition demanded it, we'd rarely have any kind of government.

[eyeball]

I think you're being a little cynical. I agree that he should resign if he knew that prisoners would be tortured if they were turned over. However, the goal of our presence in Afghanistan is to try and train the Afghanis to take care of their own country. One of the ways we can do that is by allowing them to handle the prisoners of war. It's a small but necessary step. This just goes to show that there is a lot of corruption in the Afghan government that also needs to be fixed. The problem here, however, is not with us or our politicians. The problem is with the Afghans and the way their current government is operating. We can't be over there forever, so they need to start picking up the ball. To say that "our country" is shrugging off and accepting torture is just ridiculous. You would be hard-pressed to find someone that would shrug off torture and the last person that would do so is the Minister of Defense. I believe he was genuine about what he was saying. No one wants to believe that we would knowingly hand over prisoners to be tortured, especially Mackay. He probalby honestly believed it wasn't true. However, if he did know the truth, did nothing about it, and tried to cover it up, the unacceptability of that goes without saying. He should resign and charges ought to be sought.

Fair enough if he didn't know but what about the point of whether he should have known? Who's job is it to ensure there were no holes in the transparency this party is supposed to be famous for? I'm reminded of Gen. Hillier's testifying that he questioned himself whether he had done his due diligence and if he'd missed something in the reports he was given. In similar fashion Peter MacKay should have been ensuring there was no opacity in the ministry he was responsible for overseeing. If this wasn't MacKay's job who's was it?

MacKay's alleged complicity in the torture of detainees is one thing, failing to ensure his own ministry was thoroughly transparent to him is another.

This issue underscores exactly why official transparency is so important. Without it ministers get themselves in trouble and our entire country by default. Pleading ignorance is no excuse for the ongoing chronic systemic failings of our country's institutions of accountability. Its unacceptable, especially when the Conservatives have staked so much of their reputation on establishing a more open, accountable and transparent government.

Like I said, if the Conservatives can't even ensure the government is transparent to themselves how can we have any confidence in their ability to make it more accountable to us?

[wyly]

No proof he was tortured. Only beaten. There's a difference.

what you wrote the Geneva convention....

from the Geneva Convention

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

B Taking of hostages;

c Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

d The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

beating is torture...when a Canadian women was beaten to death with a shoe in an Iranian prison that was ok by your standards? that was the same treatment the afghan detainee recieved before he was retrieved by Canadian soldiers

No, as they suspected he was abused...again, a difference.

the Geneva Convention defines it as torture...

No proof the governement knew this one cat was beaten...one cat.

the military knew it was happening, Colvin told his superior(the ambassador) it was happening, the americans knew it was happening, everyone knew and you expect people to believe our government didn't know? is that why they won't release the documentation?

When the Liberals decides to stop transfering prisoners to the US, it was bound to happen. It's their culture, we should respect it.

wow that was a phenominal statement, your logic haszero credibility...Geneva Convention trumps...if it was their culture to do as they wish why do we bother, let the Taliban regain power and do as they wish we should respect that according to you? Edited December 11, 2009 by wyly

[M.Dancer]

what you wrote the Geneva convention....

from the Geneva Convention

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

B Taking of hostages;

c Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

d The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

beating is torture...when a Canadian women was beaten to death with a shoe in an Iranian prison that was ok by your standards? that was the same treatment the afghan detainee recieved before he was retrieved by Canadian soldiers

the Geneva Convention defines it as torture...

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?

Colvin told his superior(the ambassador) it was happening, the americans knew it was happening, everyone knew and you expect people to believe our government didn't know? is that why they won't release the documentation?

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.

wow that was a phenominal statement, your logic haszero credibility...Geneva Convention trumps...if it was their culture to do as they wish why do we bother, let the Taliban regain power and do as they wish we should respect that according to you?

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.

Having zero credibility is citing law that doesn't apply. Good luck with that.

[M.Dancer]

when you say there is a difference in a beating and torture.

have you ever had a beating that last for three months? i think you need a spanking

one that would last for three days would that be seen a just a simple spanking or turture?

You have some proof this ONE fellow was beaten for three months or is that just a particular fantasy you hold on to along with the one you are having about spanking me?

I'm flattered btw.

[eyeball]

The taliban are not prisoners of war. If I say it a third time, will it sink in?

Yeah its not a WAR war is it Whoopi?

[ToadBrother]

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.

Having zero credibility is citing law that doesn't apply. Good luck with that.

If you don't know the difference between a prison fight and torture, then you've got some serious problems.

[ToadBrother]

Like I said, if the Conservatives can't even ensure the government is transparent to themselves how can we have any confidence in their ability to make it more accountable to us?

No government can. Have you any idea how bureaucracies work, particularly when they realize they've done something horribly wrong? They don't knock on the door and go "Mr. Minister, someone out there that we're responsible for f**ked up." They hide it, they bury it.

As much as we'd all love to believe that Ministers control their portfolios, as often as not, it's the a tug of war by the Deputy Ministers and lower functionaries on one side and the PMO on the other. In the modern Cabinet, Cabinet Ministers simply do not pull the weight with either the bureaucracy or with the Prime Minister that they once did.

This probably doesn't apply to Mackay so much, since, when you strip the layers of the onion, he's pretty much coeval with Harper. What I do suspect is that when evidence of prisoners that were turned over to Afghani authorities were being tortured, they simply did not tell the Minister. It's only when he and/or his advisors decided to actually put the activities under a microscope that suddenly things started to appear. But a Minister has to have some faith in Ministry staff to some degree, or the job becomes impossible. He bears responsibility, of course, because, as the old expression goes "the buck stops here", but I don't think it was a purposeful coverup on Mackay's part.

[M.Dancer]

If you don't know the difference between a prison fight and torture, then you've got some serious problems.

You don't which has occured either, so I guess it's you with the problems. Personally, if they were abuses by the guards or by the inmates, which is both likely, I have no serious problem with either, as long as they weren't abused by us.

[M.Dancer]

Yeah its not a WAR war is it Whoopi?

Being a war, or an insurgency, has no bearing whether the belligerents are lawful combattants or not. You no this but you are far to dishonest to allow the fact to stand.

[M.Dancer]

what you wrote the Geneva convention....

I don't want you running around the interwebs like a chicken without a head looking for something that may apply so being friday and being bkti day..I'll tell you.

It's the UN convention on torture.

Afghanistan is a signatory but does not recognize any competancy of any court or tribunal outside of Afghanistan to hear complaints.

For the record, you were quite apopoleptic about a nebulous war crime, which in itself is quite amusing, even more so because contravening this convention is not a war crime.

So lets recap:

The GC do not apply.

No Canadian has been accused of torture.

The UN convetion on torures applys and any complaints about torture must be heard nin afghanistan.

[Sir Bandelot]

In that case, send Mackay to Afghanistan to face charges, and do his jail time there.

[ToadBrother]

You don't which has occured either, so I guess it's you with the problems. Personally, if they were abuses by the guards or by the inmates, which is both likely, I have no serious problem with either, as long as they weren't abused by us.

Which is as morally suspect as anything I've read. Sort of like the justification for rendition. "Well, we didn't do it..."

In practical terms, we may not have or desire the kind of influence to stop this sort of thing. As you say, prisons are tough places. 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. You see, we own that damned government. It's NATO blood and money pouring in to keep it afloat, and so far as I'm concerned, we bear some responsibility. This illusion of some sort of competent Afghani government may serve some sort of propagandistic and symbolic purpose, but that's about it.

[eyeball]

No government can. Have you any idea how bureaucracies work, particularly when they realize they've done something horribly wrong? They don't knock on the door and go "Mr. Minister, someone out there that we're responsible for f**ked up." They hide it, they bury it.

Hey, I'm a commercial fisherman, you don't have to tell me how FUBAR the system is when it cocks up its responsibilities.

As much as we'd all love to believe that Ministers control their portfolios, as often as not, it's the a tug of war by the Deputy Ministers and lower functionaries on one side and the PMO on the other. In the modern Cabinet, Cabinet Ministers simply do not pull the weight with either the bureaucracy or with the Prime Minister that they once did.

Well then Peter MacKay should just come right out and tell us that nobody has any meaningful control over what our government does including the party in power. Instead what he and his party are doing is hiding that fact, they're burying it and pretending they are in control. The willingness of ordinary Canadians to accept this wilful ignorance makes me want to puke...its freakin' disgraceful. What's the point in worrying about terrorists when the enemy of our state is actually the state itself?

This probably doesn't apply to Mackay so much, since, when you strip the layers of the onion, he's pretty much coeval with Harper. What I do suspect is that when evidence of prisoners that were turned over to Afghani authorities were being tortured, they simply did not tell the Minister. It's only when he and/or his advisors decided to actually put the activities under a microscope that suddenly things started to appear. But a Minister has to have some faith in Ministry staff to some degree, or the job becomes impossible. He bears responsibility, of course, because, as the old expression goes "the buck stops here", but I don't think it was a purposeful coverup on Mackay's part.

In a democracy the real buck stops with us and we certainly have the shitty government we deserve and the messes we keep letting it make of so many things.

Edited December 11, 2009 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Being a war, or an insurgency, has no bearing whether the belligerents are lawful combattants or not. You no this but you are far to dishonest to allow the fact to stand.

Whether the belligerents are lawful combatants or not doesn't have squat to do with upholding our principles. But you don't have any principles so you wouldn't have a clue what I'm talking about.

[ironstone]

I have a question for all of those calling for Peter Mackay's head over this incident.Are you equally outraged by the horrible atrocities committed by the Taliban members?Public executions,real torture?How about throwing acid in the faces of young Afghan women...for having the nerve to try and get an education?!!

For all of the bogus outrage over this one...yes ONE Taliban prisoner that apparently got a beating,remember that it was Afghan guards that did the deed.

[eyeball]

I have a question for all of those calling for Peter Mackay's head over this incident.Are you equally outraged by the horrible atrocities committed by the Taliban members?Public executions,real torture?How about throwing acid in the faces of young Afghan women...for having the nerve to try and get an education?!!

I'm outraged but what's that got to do with our country's alleged behaviour? Is the Taliban's behaviour supposed to excuse it or mitigate our's somehow?

For all of the bogus outrage over this one...yes ONE Taliban prisoner that apparently got a beating,remember that it was Afghan guards that did the deed.

We've also been told it was nearly every single detainee, but we've also been told not to expect any accountability so who knows? Things could be ten times as worse for all we know. The only important to remember is that we're with the Afghan guards. We're their allies, their friends, if they're torturing our prisoners its no different than us torturing them ourselves. That's the nature of complicity according to international laws not to mention our own.

Edited December 11, 2009 by eyeball

[Shady]

Whether the belligerents are lawful combatants or not doesn't have squat to do with upholding our principles. But you don't have any principles so you wouldn't have a clue what I'm talking about.

You're moving the goal-posts. Principles can be very different than the actual law.

[ToadBrother]

I have a question for all of those calling for Peter Mackay's head over this incident.Are you equally outraged by the horrible atrocities committed by the Taliban members?Public executions,real torture?How about throwing acid in the faces of young Afghan women...for having the nerve to try and get an education?!!

For all of the bogus outrage over this one...yes ONE Taliban prisoner that apparently got a beating,remember that it was Afghan guards that did the deed.

This has always struck me as an odd defense of bad behavior. "Hah, I only stole gum, my neighbor robbed a liquor store!"

[Topaz]

Most Canadians want to know the truth, who knew what and when. Again, Arthur Kent has a piece on his website that tells about his info. and about the two former ambassadors from Canada to afghanistan and how they tried to hid info. http://www.skyreporter.com/blog/page/1/20091121_01/