CP Learns that CSIS interrogated tortured Afghan Detainees

Born Free · March 10, 2010

English. It's a great tool. Learn it.

This proves that asking a question is not an allegation. Good fer you Morris.

One more thing... what terrorists are you asserting about?

M.Dancer · March 10, 2010

This proves that asking a question is not an allegation. Good fer you Morris.

One more thing... what terrorists are you asserting about?

Do you think this will hide that fact you can't find a citation showing that the terrorists are covered by the Convention on the treatment of POWs?

Good luck with that...

Edited March 10, 2010 by M.Dancer

M.Dancer · March 10, 2010

Speaking of falsehoods. Now run along and read up on Article 4 of the GC.

There are 4 GC conventions...pick one.

Army Guy · March 10, 2010

Really? Not to the guy receiving the beating/torture/etc.

How many cases of torture are before our courts today ? in relation to a bunch of guys beating the crap out of one man...could this be because they are charged with assualt....could it be our courts have it all wrong....

First..you did play that card. Second, yer playing it again.....

I'm not going to play this game, i'm sure if you read the post agin you'll find i did'nt bring it up you did, and if you got that impression that was not my intent.

Surely you arent saying subsequent CDC chiefs arent capable of doing it again are you? Tell me you jest. By the time one gets to the top of the food chain, these guys are as much a politician as they are military guys.

We've been through this before, this time lets be honest with each shall we...everyone who assumes the office of the CDS is human and is capable of anything, as recent news has pionted out even Cols are capable or rape and murder...and to put it on a different level so are senior managers of Canadian Chartered Banks. the inter net is full of examples ranging from incest to murder to white collar crimes....but i've yet to come out publicly on this forum and say Hey we should watch Born free becuase he is one of them....and he is capable of it because historically they've done it before....

Pretty much in the way a beating of two Somalis translated into an inquiry of what transpired in the bowels of the offices occupied by the top brass. One not need to be a member of the military to understand this stuff.

I have no problem with inquiries if there has been a crime or misdeed done....i just can't see it in this case...And while those that where charged or retired in the somolia affair got thier just rewards inquires make everyone in the forces stand up and fear the out come...they are never just nor do they dispense justice that fits the crime....

Shit happens and when it does, one should find a way to stop it from happening again before it becomes an even a bigger pile of shit.

On the soldiers side of the house, why is it we are always on the defensive when it comes to our actions...Is it because we don't have the citizens trust, because we are war mongers , we want to rule the world.....you support us but don't trust us....that is the impression i get....this is not the first time we have had to defend ourselves in this conflict, remember the Taliban insurgent claiming he'd been roughed up....all it took was one univeristy prof to take up that cause and poof it's got national attention, with people demanding to get to the bottom of it , screaming heads are going to roll....mean while serveral inquiries into the state of of equipment and vehs being used through our this mission, shared the same page with the comics...ok maybe not that far back but close...Canadian soldiers where dieing...and the public sat around and did what exactly....a Taliban insurgent claims to have been roughed up and Game on every one wakes up, hockey games are interupted....red buttons where being pressed across the nation....

So yes shit happens but when it does it all needs to be treated with the same vigor as accusations from the enemy does...

Topaz · March 10, 2010

This website points the finger really at the Tory appointed ambassador to Afghanistan. I've also read that Lalani didn't want any info on the torturing written down, no paper trail and that is why McKay says there isn't any, cause he right about that, but, not right about the torturing. http://mikewatkins.ca/2009/12/02/afghanistan-torture-cover-up-lalani/

Born Free · March 10, 2010

How many cases of torture are before our courts today ? in relation to a bunch of guys beating the crap out of one man...could this be because they are charged with assualt....could it be our courts have it all wrong....

I'm not interested in debating that. I'm only interested in issue regarding what actions the Canadian government and the military took regarding detainees...

I'm not going to play this game, i'm sure if you read the post agin you'll find i did'nt bring it up you did, and if you got that impression that was not my intent.

Well actually you implied it. You did write this... "And confirms what very little you know about our military...." and later made sure we knew that you had 30 years in the military implying the obvious...

So..... I will now assume that we share in the belief that having military experience isnt necessary to form a viewpoint on the issue.

We've been through this before, this time lets be honest with each shall we...everyone who assumes the office of the CDS is human and is capable of anything, as recent news has pionted out even Cols are capable or rape and murder...and to put it on a different level so are senior managers of Canadian Chartered Banks. the inter net is full of examples ranging from incest to murder to white collar crimes....but i've yet to come out publicly on this forum and say Hey we should watch Born free becuase he is one of them....and he is capable of it because historically they've done it before....

I've always been honest with you. Suggesting that I have been dishonest is an insult. I am of the opinion that the head of the CDC and even the PM are quite capable of being dishonest. We even have some damn good examples of it.

I have no problem with inquiries if there has been a crime or misdeed done....i just can't see it in this case...

Thats fine. However others do see that a misdeed could well have been committed and that there is probable cause to seriously delve into it. We all know that the cover up can be seen as being worse than the original deed.

On the soldiers side of the house, why is it we are always on the defensive when it comes to our actions...Is it because we don't have the citizens trust, because we are war mongers , we want to rule the world.....you support us but don't trust us....that is the impression i get....

Generally speaking, you have the wrong impression.

When certain actions are questioned and the reaction is to run and hide..as in this case with Peter MacKay & Co. ..that becomes a much different story. The mere fact that the government elected to attack ambasador Richard Colvin as not being a credible person, that had a rotten Nixonian smell to it that says to me....INQUIRY!!!

Edited March 10, 2010 by Born Free

Born Free · March 10, 2010

There are 4 GC conventions...pick one.

You need to read 'em all. There will be a quizz on Monday.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Born Free

Born Free · March 10, 2010

Do you think this will hide that fact you can't find a citation showing that the terrorists are covered by the Convention on the treatment of POWs?

Good luck with that...

What terrorists are you talking about? Name them. I've asked you this before....

M.Dancer · March 10, 2010

Two posts in a row confirming that BF doesn't grasp the subject....no surprises there.

Born Free · March 10, 2010

Two posts in a row confirming that BF doesn't grasp the subject....no surprises there.

...wazza matta Morris? Why cant you answer my question....what terrorists are you referring to? The issue isnt about terrorists...its about the dealing with detainees...you probably didnt know that...you should now consider yourself informed.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Born Free

M.Dancer · March 10, 2010

...wazza matta Morris? Why cant you answer my question....what terrorists are you referring to? The issue isnt about terrorists...its about the dealing with detainees...you probably didnt know that...you should now consider yourself informed.

Yes of course, detainees. They became detainees because of their benevolent charity work for the aga khan.

Come on BF, you don't have to act dumb...I mean it, you don't need to act...

Born Free · March 10, 2010

Yes of course, detainees. They became detainees because of their benevolent charity work for the aga khan.

Very weird. Perhaps its because you dont understand what the word detainee means....give it a Google. Accusing posters of being dumb is the kind of crap that got you banned not all that long ago.

Born Free · March 10, 2010

This website points the finger really at the Tory appointed ambassador to Afghanistan. I've also read that Lalani didn't want any info on the torturing written down, no paper trail and that is why McKay says there isn't any, cause he right about that, but, not right about the torturing. http://mikewatkins.ca/2009/12/02/afghanistan-torture-cover-up-lalani/

A very interesting read. Thanks.

eyeball · March 11, 2010

I'm sorry but I don't believe you are entitle to all documents relating to DND.

I certainly believe I should be entitled to see the documents that pertain to the Afghan Detainee issue and given Parliament IS entitled to see them I'll defer to it's decision on what I am allowed to see once it's assessed them.

I don't believe the PMO is was or should ever be entitled to decide something like this on it's own. The longer it continues to act as if it's got something to hide the more it looks like it's doing so to avoid being found guilty of something.

ToadBrother · March 11, 2010

I certainly believe I should be entitled to see the documents that pertain to the Afghan Detainee issue and given Parliament IS entitled to see them I'll defer to it's decision on what I am allowed to see once it's assessed them.

I don't believe the PMO is was or should ever be entitled to decide something like this on it's own. The longer it continues to act as if it's got something to hide the more it looks like it's doing so to avoid being found guilty of something.

This is a bit bizarre. No citizen has an absolute right to see classified documents. That's not really the point of the fight. I don't want you or I to be able to see them, but Parliament, on the other hand, has a constitutional right, an obligation even, to be able to view any document, unaltered, that it so chooses.

Obviously there are documents of a sufficiently sensitive nature that to openly reveal them could potentially do Canada (and maybe allies as well) some great harm. For instance, you don't have a right to know where our spies are located, because for that knowledge to be known would put them at great danger.

So no one is proposing that the Tories simply release those documents into the open. But obviously the committees charged with oversight cannot lawfully be denied access to those documents. Harper is violating one of the key tenets of our system of government, that Parliament commands government, not the other way around, and that part of that power is that government under no circumstances can deny Parliament such a request.

M.Dancer · March 11, 2010

Very weird. Perhaps its because you dont understand what the word detainee means....give it a Google. Accusing posters of being dumb is the kind of crap that got you banned not all that long ago.

Oh it isn't a hard word to grasp. In the present context of Afghanistan, it refers to belligerents who, by reason of them not conforming with the conventions of war, are not afforded the status of Prisoner of War and therefore not eligible for the benefits given to POWs by the 3rd Geneva convention.

I know I know...all those conventions just confuse the daylights out of you....it's simple really. While everyone is protected by the UN convention on torture, the universal declaration of human rights, etc etc....prisoners of war are afforded greater privileges that common criminals, or detainees as it were.

For instance, a POW is not required to answer any question other than name, rank, D.O.B, unit...a detainee not so much...

A POW may keep his uniform, body armour....a detainee....no, but they do get a nice coverall...

A POW can be evacuated 1000s of miles away to another country....a detainee is subject to afghan criminal law and remains in afghan custody.

POWs are to be housed in barracks or dormitories...detainees get to spend their time in cells with the other criminal riff raff...

POWs are allowed to smoke...detainees?

POWs are allowed to shop for the finer things in life from the canteen....detainees? :lol:

A POWs is under the direct authority of an officer of his own armed forces. ...a detainee is under the authority of the warden...

POWs are required to salute higher ranking officers of the forces holding them prisoner...detainees?

POW Officers are to be treated with respect...detainees are allowed to hang with the other criminal riff raff...

POWs get a monthly allowance from those holding them....detainees get fed and nothing more.

POWs are immune from prosecution from actions resulting in the honourable fulfillment of their duty...detainees can be tried and penalized according to the law

There are dozens and dozens of other differences but you seem fixated on the aspects of the conventions regarding humane treatment even thought that is guaranteed to them by other conventions. Why you wish to accord terrorists the status of honourable warriors is of no interest to me and it won't happen no matter how much you whine about it, your whining is inconsequential, the decisions have already been made.

Edited March 11, 2010 by M.Dancer

eyeball · March 11, 2010

This is a bit bizarre. No citizen has an absolute right to see classified documents. That's not really the point of the fight. I don't want you or I to be able to see them, but Parliament, on the other hand, has a constitutional right, an obligation even, to be able to view any document, unaltered, that it so chooses.

Obviously there are documents of a sufficiently sensitive nature that to openly reveal them could potentially do Canada (and maybe allies as well) some great harm. For instance, you don't have a right to know where our spies are located, because for that knowledge to be known would put them at great danger.

So no one is proposing that the Tories simply release those documents into the open. But obviously the committees charged with oversight cannot lawfully be denied access to those documents. Harper is violating one of the key tenets of our system of government, that Parliament commands government, not the other way around, and that part of that power is that government under no circumstances can deny Parliament such a request.

Given the severity of this violation I think I should be entitled to see the documents. I realize there are things of sufficient sensitivity that should preclude my looking at un redacted documents which is why I said I would be willing to defer to Parliament's decision on what I am allowed to see once it's assessed them.

Clearly the PMO has crossed the line and is now commanding Parliament and that is a line it should never be allowed to cross again. As such I think Canadians deserve to know what it is that has compelled it to do so. How else will we be able to highlight where that line is if we can't see it?

DrGreenthumb · March 11, 2010

Given the severity of this violation I think I should be entitled to see the documents. I realize there are things of sufficient sensitivity that should preclude my looking at un redacted documents which is why I said I would be willing to defer to Parliament's decision on what I am allowed to see once it's assessed them.

Clearly the PMO has crossed the line and is now commanding Parliament and that is a line it should never be allowed to cross again. As such I think Canadians deserve to know what it is that has compelled it to do so. How else will we be able to highlight where that line is if we can't see it?

I feel exactly the same way. Parliament should decide what we can see, not a minority faction of parliament that happens to be in power due to vote splitting.

msdogfood · March 11, 2010

I feel exactly the same way. Parliament should decide what we can see, not a minority faction of parliament that happens to be in power due to vote splitting.

Do any of you think this will take down the PMO??.

msdogfood · March 11, 2010

Oh it isn't a hard word to grasp. In the present context of Afghanistan, it refers to belligerents who, by reason of them not conforming with the conventions of war, are not afforded the status of Prisoner of War and therefore not eligible for the benefits given to POWs by the 3rd Geneva convention.

I know I know...all those conventions just confuse the daylights out of you....it's simple really. While everyone is protected by the UN convention on torture, the universal declaration of human rights, etc etc....prisoners of war are afforded greater privileges that common criminals, or detainees as it were.

For instance, a POW is not required to answer any question other than name, rank, D.O.B, unit...a detainee not so much...

A POW may keep his uniform, body armour....a detainee....no, but they do get a nice coverall...

A POW can be evacuated 1000s of miles away to another country....a detainee is subject to afghan criminal law and remains in afghan custody.

POWs are to be housed in barracks or dormitories...detainees get to spend their time in cells with the other criminal riff raff...

POWs are allowed to smoke...detainees?

POWs are allowed to shop for the finer things in life from the canteen....detainees?

A POWs is under the direct authority of an officer of his own armed forces. ...a detainee is under the authority of the warden...

POWs are required to salute higher ranking officers of the forces holding them prisoner...detainees?

POW Officers are to be treated with respect...detainees are allowed to hang with the other criminal riff raff...

POWs get a monthly allowance from those holding them....detainees get fed and nothing more.

POWs are immune from prosecution from actions resulting in the honourable fulfillment of their duty...detainees can be tried and penalized according to the law

There are dozens and dozens of other differences but you seem fixated on the aspects of the conventions regarding humane treatment even thought that is guaranteed to them by other conventions. Why you wish to accord terrorists the status of honourable warriors is of no interest to me and it won't happen no matter how much you whine about it, your whining is inconsequential, the decisions have already been made.

The C JAG is using the POW classifications but we dont know what CSIS is doing!

eyeball · March 11, 2010

Do any of you think this will take down the PMO??.

I'm hoping it'll uphold Parliament.

Failing that we might as well keep letting the PMO take Canada down because without a Parliament that's the only place we're going.

eyeball · March 11, 2010

The C JAG is using the POW classifications but we dont know what CSIS is doing!

We know CSIS is alleged to have been complicit in the torture of war prisoners taken by Canadian soldiers in combat.

bloodyminded · March 11, 2010

Oh it isn't a hard word to grasp. In the present context of Afghanistan, it refers to belligerents who, by reason of them not conforming with the conventions of war, are not afforded the status of Prisoner of War and therefore not eligible for the benefits given to POWs by the 3rd Geneva convention.

Whether your assessment is accurate or not (and I'm far from sure that it is) it's moot, because it begs an enormous question. It's moot unless one assumes, as you do, that the very fact of being a detainee makes one incontestably guilty.

You believe this for...some reason, unstated. I would speculate it's a kind of servility-to-power, unless you have a better hypothesis.

Army Guy · March 11, 2010

I'm not interested in debating that. I'm only interested in issue regarding what actions the Canadian government and the military took regarding detainees...

I think it's very revelant to this case, it is after Canadians here that are screaming for an inquiry, there seems to be a double standarded ...here in Canada this case would have resulted in charges of assault, police officers fired or suspended from duty, the story would fade into the sunset....But because we are talking about Afghanistan we want to take it to another level...we want charges of torture laid...we want to hold them and our government to standards we don't even apply to ourselfs....

So..... I will now assume that we share in the belief that having military experience isnt necessary to form a viewpoint on the issue.

And your right you don't have to have any experiance on any topic to have a view on it...But it helps to put things into context , to understand why things may or may not have been done, would you not agree...

I've always been honest with you. Suggesting that I have been dishonest is an insult. I am of the opinion that the head of the CDC and even the PM are quite capable of being dishonest. We even have some damn good examples of it.

It was not my intention to insult you, but rather piont out that because it had happened in the past does not mean we can paint all past or future CDS or for that matter any senior figure, or regular man with the same brush....each man or women should be based on thier own character, morals or values....and not thier peers or those that have served in the past would you not agree....

And while your opinion is true that everyone is certainly capable of being dishonest, and trust no one then sir...we have a problem, every postion and job comes with a set of rules and regulations that are designed to keep us on the right track, for the most part....everyone is capable of jumping off those tracks...but sooner or later your going to have to trust someone....

Generally speaking, you have the wrong impression.

Perhaps , but actions speak louder than words...

When certain actions are questioned and the reaction is to run and hide..as in this case with Peter MacKay & Co. ..that becomes a much different story. The mere fact that the government elected to attack ambasador Richard Colvin as not being a credible person, that had a rotten Nixonian smell to it that says to me....INQUIRY!!!

Really go back though all the post in this thread, just add up how many times Mackay and co are mentioned , and then add up how many times Canadian Soldiers are mentioned....some of you keep saying it's about our government ....and yet when you flip though the posts they are hardly mentioned....