Afghan translator tells it all

[Born Free]

My problem with this particular theory is that these sorts of scandals (if we call it that) can often attract attention-seekers, people with axes to grind and so forth. The Tories certainly are bringing all of this on themselves, but I'm not inclined to immediately believe every harrowing tale simply because it matches certain peoples preconceptions of what must have happened.

Point taken. However, if you only believe half of it....its a really bad thing (so to speak) and it

deserves a complete public investigation (ie. inquiry). Anything short of that would be a travesty.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Born Free

[Born Free]

...but I'm not inclined to immediately believe every harrowing tale simply because it matches certain peoples preconceptions of what must have happened.

One only needs to look at the information we have been shown going back to the Colvin testimony timeframe. It was intuitively obvious back then that something was amiss. It has now reached the reeking point...

[ToadBrother]

Point taken. However, if you only believe half of it....its a really bad thing (so to speak) and it

deserves a complete public investigation (ie. inquiry). Anything short of that would be a travesty.

Look, my personal point of view is that the whole issue is a mole hill that's been turned into a mountain.

First off, I defy you to point to any military action involving hostile belligerents where one or both sides didn't do some questionable things. It's awfully easy for civilians thousands of miles away from the battlefield to critique what our soldiers do, but as a student of history I can tell you that in the heat of battle, or even in the aftermath, there's a long history of prisoner abuse. It's not right, it's discouraged, but it happens, and it needs to be put within a larger context. I suspect the government fears another Somalia scandal, where a regiment of some of the toughest SOBs to ever inhabit Her Majesty's armed forces were tarred and feathered for some indiscriminate acts while a country was literally overrun by some of the most vile savage monsters you can ever imagine. So, on any other day of the week, I'd be debating you fiercely, and calling down what I view to be ridiculously demoralizing nitpicking. Furthermore, I tend to agree with the Tory supporters here that the timing for this is terrible. It's one thing for Parliament to say "We want any abuses to stop", and certainly the Government wouldn't disagree. It's quite another to basically be using a Committee as an ad-hoc inquiry that basically gives a voice to anyone, with little thought as to accuracy, and with even less thought to how much damage could be done to the men on the ground or the armed forces in general.

Having said all that, I will reiterate that, given what I think is a politically motivated attack on the current Government (even though a chunk of the mission happened under the previous Liberal governments), at the end of the day I am what you might call a Strong Constitutionalist. In other words, even if I think the Opposition is creating a crisis where one need not exist, if everyone would just wait a year or so, when the appropriate time to review our performance on the field would come, I support unequivocally Parliament's right to hold the Government to account at its pleasure. In other words, Parliament may be doing the wrong thing at the wrong time, but the Government is in violation of law, constitution and the ancients ascribed to our legislative branch by assuming that it has even the tiniest right to in any way defy that which is its master. The Government is breaking probably the most basic laws of our system, that crucial compromise of the Glorious Revolution which made Parliament supreme over the Crown (and by extension over Ministers of the Crown). If I had my way, I'd have Harper and his ministers thrown out of office on their ears. It would certainly be a better fate than Charles II (executed) or James II (exiled) enjoyed for their similar beliefs that the Crown was superior to Parliament.

As many have observed, Canada's military will come out of Afghanistan one of the most skilled anti-insurgency-type forces in the world. We have an entire generation of commanders blooded in the field, as opposed to a few generations of useless paper tigers. We have a rare opportunity, probably the first since the Korean War, to have battle-trained soldiers, some of which who will be career officers, and the Opposition would throw that away to get at the autocratic egomaniac Harper. Frankly, I say a pox on all your houses. A pox on the Tories and the ideological whores here and everywhere who back that pathetic Parliament-hating twerp Harper. A pox on the Liberals for ascribing all the blame for whatever happened in Afghanistan, when it was the they who put our soldiers there to begin with. A pox on the NDP and Bloc because, well, they're just loud pointless malcontents living in their own particular fantasy lands, too stupid and too inflexible to consider the world as it actually is.

Edited April 16, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Jack Weber]

Well, Harper is not the first PM to run an autocratic regime. Chretien, up until the last few years, kept a pretty iron grip on the party, and I often wonder whether he lost his taste for the job, and let the Martinites gain much more influence than they would have in the 1990s. Mulroney and Trudeau were much the same; strongmen who only lost their grip when they became too battered or disinterested to maintain it. Mulroney, in particular, had to deal with a very divisive party, and its actually to his credit that he managed to keep a handle on things, but the constitutional wrangling and his own personal unpopularity ground him down.

But there's no doubt that a combination of the circle-the-wagons mentality of the minority situation and Harper's own extremely autocratic style of running both the government and his party have created a very undesirable situation. It has created an unnecessary showdown with the Opposition over the Afghan prisoner abuse issue, one in which neither side can really back down now, and because Harper's position is the most likely legally untenable one, if the Speaker does rule against his ministers, his options become all the worse. Autocratic leaders have this tendency to go down in flames like this. Trudeau and Mulroney were smart enough to see the end game and got out. Chretien, possibly because of the sponsorship scandal, seemed to let go his grip and let Martin wear the whole show. Harper is in no position. If he walks away now, the Tories might well just explode. Most certainly there's no one to step into the breach, MacKay being very damaged goods now. So one gets the feeling that autocracy and extreme partisanship are likes bricks on the accelerator for the Tories, making it speed out of control but at least giving it forward momentum.

It's the great irony of the modern Tory party that as much as it may need a tyrant to keep it together, that tyrant may in fact ultimately smack the party into the wall. The only thing that I can see that is keeping the Tories afloat right now is the weakness of the Opposition, and in particular of Iggy, who seems quite incapable of the kind of tactical thinking necessary to improve Liberal fortunes. And of course the Liberals are in a similar boat. There's no obvious successor if they turf Iggy. No one can tell me that Bob Rae has a hope in hell of improving fortunes in Ontario (any more than Tories should expect Mike Harris to). There's this gridlock, but the whole Afghan issue threatens to force all these issues anyways.

There's some truth to the issue of a leader "Burning Hot"...Guys Like Harris,Mulroney,and,Trudeau came into power with a large majority and a tranformational agenda(Mulrony less so).Once the things they want to change get changed,they seem to become disinterested and almost directionless.This usually happens during a 2nd mandate.In Harper's case,he's never had the majority necessary to implement the hardline conservative transformation that he and the old Reformers really want.This must gall them!They have to actually acknowledge the ideologically different opposition that they despise,which they certainly would'nt do if they had that elusive majority.

Pesonally,I don't think the Afghan detainee issue is the backbreaker for the Tories.It's the obstinance towards the supremacy of Parliament and Harper's seeming intransigence to the democratic institutions of this country.I think Craig Oliver's "Death by 1000 Cut's" idea is what will ultimately bring them down.I also think they are rapidly becoming a stale government because they are unable to get what they really want to do.Unfortunately,the weakness of the opposition makes the Tories seem to govern as if they have a majority.Ignatieff's false opposition ethos of "Oppose only when it's politically expedient.",does'nt do anything but embolden a minority government to act as if it can do whatever it wants.Sadly,I also think that if the Liberals were to win the next election,it would'nt be because they are proposing anything terribly different,but because they simply are'nt the Harper lead Tories...

Edited April 16, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Born Free]

Look, my personal point of view is that the whole issue is a mole hill that's been turned into a mountain.

First off, I defy you to point to any military action involving hostile belligerents where one or both sides didn't do some questionable things.

This isnt about what some military grunt did or might have done. Its now about a government cover-up, ministers lying to Parliament and perhaps even an institutional cover-up within the military at the highest levels. As you've so deftly pointed out, we've seen this before in the military and it stunk to high heaven then and nothing has changed to make it any more acceptable behavour today.

[Argus]

..... not to mention that lying bastard Hillier...

There's no evidence Hillier lied about anything, but don't let facts get in the way of your hatreds. You never do.

[Argus]

It just wasn't Taliban, it was also Afghans. The very people we are over there supposely to "free" from abuse. I hate to say this but its appearing as Canada has its own Iraqi abuse.

No, it actually doesn't, but you and the opposition and the media have been drooling with your frantic, desperate need to create one ever since the first article questioned the treatement of prisoners.

So far you've got a big fat =nothing= for evidence, though.

[Argus]

no wonder Harper prorogued, every day we learn more it's becoming more and more obvious everyone knew, from the lowest translators to the Generals and the Government, they've been lying to us all along...

Be afraid. Be VERY afraid! Now that you know they'll probably send troops - into the streets - with GUNS!

All to get YOU!

[Argus]

The preponderance of evidence is mounting

Actually there isn't any.

and all the Harper thugs can say is... "the witness isnt credible".

It's not. Nor is anything you say - on any topic.

Your hate and bile just ooozes out with every post.

[Argus]

but they were warned by Colvin

No, they actually weren't.

[Argus]

as the evidence builds what is the possibility of someone being charged with a war crime? that would be embarrassing for the entire country...

I bet you were giggling when you wrote that.

[Argus]

Pesonally,I don't think the Afghan detainee issue is the backbreaker for the Tories.

Yawn.

The only people who care about the Afghan "issue" are people who would never vote for the Tories no matter what they do, they're mostly people who are reflexively anti-military to begin with, supercilious snots with poor educations and attention spans and an overweaning opinion of their own intelligence.

Kinda like almost everyone on this topic!

[ToadBrother]

Yawn.

The only people who care about the Afghan "issue" are people who would never vote for the Tories no matter what they do, they're mostly people who are reflexively anti-military to begin with, supercilious snots with poor educations and attention spans and an overweaning opinion of their own intelligence.

Kinda like almost everyone on this topic!

Which doesn't suit me very well, does it. So how about you stop playing with those guys and explain to me how violating a precept of our constitution dating back 300 years is a good thing.

[Jack Weber]

Yawn.

The only people who care about the Afghan "issue" are people who would never vote for the Tories no matter what they do, they're mostly people who are reflexively anti-military to begin with, supercilious snots with poor educations and attention spans and an overweaning opinion of their own intelligence.

Kinda like almost everyone on this topic!

I have no idea why you would aim that at me...

But I bow to your obvious intellectual and patriotic superiority!!!

Edited April 16, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Topaz]

Here's one point of view about the timeline starting in 2005 til now. This does give a clearer picture of what was happening in Ottawa and over in Afghanistan. http://communities.canada.com/vannet/blogs/editorsnotes/pages/afghanistan-detainee-torture-timeline.aspx

[Wilber]

Party solidarity doesn't have to be as all-encompassing in the Westminster system as it is here. There have been two major uprisings among government MP's in Britain under the Labour Party in the last decade, the last being an unpopular tax proposal that saw a revolt among Labour MPs that forced Gordon Brown to back down. Probably the most famous example in the UK was the Tory revolt that saw Thatcher ousted. For a sitting Prime Minister in Canada to be thrown out by a caucus revolt is almost unthinkable in Canada.

The difference isn't constitutional, as the UK system is sufficiently close to ours. It's cultural, both at the political level and at the level of the electorate. What we need to do is to find a way to change the culture that has infected our system, where MPs just fall in lock step behind strong leaders and powerful party organizations wield enormous amounts of influence at the riding association level. I've heard enough stories of threats of sign funds and the like being withheld if candidates didn't tow the line to tell me that the parties wield far too much control. In fact, I'm terrified of moving to an electoral system like that of Germany or Israel precisely because these systems deliver even more control to parties.

It's the culture that's the problem, and you can't constitutionally alter the way the electorate behaves to MPs, or whether MPs will be overawed by the Party apparatchik. Obviously at least some other Westminster Parliaments, while having strong parties, don't basically treat party leaders like dictators.

Got to agree with this. British parliamentarians have a tradition of putting their lives on the line to safeguard their powers. Our tradition doesn't seem to extend past paychecks and pensions.

[Argus]

Which doesn't suit me very well, does it. So how about you stop playing with those guys and explain to me how violating a precept of our constitution dating back 300 years is a good thing.

I think I've already stated that I believe he ought to hand over the documents - suitably treated so that the opposition MPs who leak them can be arrested, tried and convicted.

I don't think there's anything to the actual breathless, wide-eyed speculation about mistreatment but smoke.

But then, I didn't think there was all that much to the Abu Ghraib nonsense either. All that boiled down to in the end was that some prisoners in a chaotic war setting were embarrassed by naked pictures and such. Yes, there was individual cases of more severe mistreatement - as you would find by guards in any US or Canadian prison. Shit happens, as they say, especially in that sort of atmosphere. But compared to the hundreds who were being slaughtered daily by fanatics that never did seem all that important.

[Argus]

Here's one point of view about the timeline starting in 2005 til now. This does give a clearer picture of what was happening in Ottawa and over in Afghanistan. http://communities.canada.com/vannet/blogs/editorsnotes/pages/afghanistan-detainee-torture-timeline.aspx

Hmmm, I like where he writes

May 2006: Mr. Colvin begins writing memos to senior Canadian officials documenting abuse of detainees when he “became aware of the scope and severity of these problems.”

So far we have yet to see any actual evidence to support Colvert's testimony. Those who have read the memos say they were innocuous, and made no specific statements or suggestions of abuse, that in fact, Colvert didn't seem to "discover" the potential until everyone else was already affirming that it was a problem and had to be dealt with.

Now, they could be lying I suppose. But inevitably, these memos will be made public. They're surely aware of that. So they'd have to be awfully stupid to lie openly about their content - repeatedly and publicly.

[Wilber]

I wonder if the fault could be attributed to regular MPs really. Other than being "nobodies" in their own caucus, they have exactly one choice: to go other to the "twin" and become a "nobody" there.

They are only left with that choice because they won't stick up for each other. If a party leader says he is going to eject someone from caucus, all it would take is enough of his fellow MP's to stand up and say that this person was elected as a member of this party by his constituents and you are doing no such thing. Because they don't have the guts to stand up for each other, they render themselves powerless, so why are they worthy of any respect. Until the electorate and the members themselves insist that MP"s are elected by and are there to serve their constituents and not a party leader, nothing will change.

[YEGmann]

Hmmm, I like where he writes

May 2006: Mr. Colvin begins writing memos to senior Canadian officials documenting abuse of detainees when he “became aware of the scope and severity of these problems.”

The "timeline" is really funny! One can conclude that it is Gen. Hillier who arranged the detainee transfer to the govermnent of Afganistan and, further, it is PM Harper who signed the agreement!

But yes, the real gem of this piece of s-t is Colvin "documenting" abuse of detainees... In my world "document" means something very different from what Colvin has presented.

[ToadBrother]

I think I've already stated that I believe he ought to hand over the documents - suitably treated so that the opposition MPs who leak them can be arrested, tried and convicted.

I don't think there's anything to the actual breathless, wide-eyed speculation about mistreatment but smoke.

By not releasing the documents unredacted to the committee not only are the Tories in violation of a core precept of our system of government, but they've fueled all this nonsense. As words gets around that you get to be put up in a hotel and get your expenses paid as part of the witch hunt, before its done, we'll have accusations of Canadian soldiers eating babies.

But then, I didn't think there was all that much to the Abu Ghraib nonsense either. All that boiled down to in the end was that some prisoners in a chaotic war setting were embarrassed by naked pictures and such. Yes, there was individual cases of more severe mistreatement - as you would find by guards in any US or Canadian prison. Shit happens, as they say, especially in that sort of atmosphere. But compared to the hundreds who were being slaughtered daily by fanatics that never did seem all that important.

Well, Abu Grhaib certainly wasn't a properly run military prison, that's for sure. And the officers involved deserved to be drummed out of the army. But, for better or for worse, in hostile circumstances, soldiers do bad things. Realistically, if you attempted to prosecute every single incident, you wouldn't have an army anymore. If there have been gross misconduct, then I'm all for court martials, but if we're talking about some cuts and bruises and a few broken bones, well, that's the price of being a belligerent. I think the Opposition is moving ahead without thinking of the potential this has to ruin a battle hardened military structure that is many times more capable of mounting operations, even in severe conditions, than Canada has had for over half a century. Such an army is an extraordinarily valuable asset, but if the Opposition tear it to pieces to get at Harper, then many of the gains made in Afghanistan will be lost.

Still, a constitution is a constitution. If Harper doesn't like the way our government works, he should quit, pure and simple. He's under no obligation to remain PM, and if he finds our constitution distasteful, and has no ability to alter it, then I suggest he find another career.

[Jack Weber]

By not releasing the documents unredacted to the committee not only are the Tories in violation of a core precept of our system of government, but they've fueled all this nonsense. As words gets around that you get to be put up in a hotel and get your expenses paid as part of the witch hunt, before its done, we'll have accusations of Canadian soldiers eating babies.

Well, Abu Grhaib certainly wasn't a properly run military prison, that's for sure. And the officers involved deserved to be drummed out of the army. But, for better or for worse, in hostile circumstances, soldiers do bad things. Realistically, if you attempted to prosecute every single incident, you wouldn't have an army anymore. If there have been gross misconduct, then I'm all for court martials, but if we're talking about some cuts and bruises and a few broken bones, well, that's the price of being a belligerent. I think the Opposition is moving ahead without thinking of the potential this has to ruin a battle hardened military structure that is many times more capable of mounting operations, even in severe conditions, than Canada has had for over half a century. Such an army is an extraordinarily valuable asset, but if the Opposition tear it to pieces to get at Harper, then many of the gains made in Afghanistan will be lost.

Still, a constitution is a constitution. If Harper doesn't like the way our government works, he should quit, pure and simple. He's under no obligation to remain PM, and if he finds our constitution distasteful, and has no ability to alter it, then I suggest he find another career.

Remember Toadie,Mr.Harper has always wanted rebuild the political infrastructure in Canada to resemble a Reform view of Canada.This probably why he has such a disdainful attitude towards anyone who might have a differing point of view...Like for example...Opposition parties that might question his position on paying no attention to a request from Parliament on documents regarding Afghan detianee's???

Edited April 17, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Born Free]

as the evidence builds what is the possibility of someone being charged with a war crime? that would be embarrassing for the entire country...

I personally dont see that happening.

[Born Free]

There's no evidence Hillier lied about anything, but don't let facts get in the way of your hatreds. You never do.

Think of the word "ludicrous" as a starter....

[Born Free]

No, it actually doesn't, but you and the opposition and the media have been drooling with your frantic, desperate need to create one ever since the first article questioned the treatement of prisoners.

So far you've got a big fat =nothing= for evidence, though.

The evidence is Harpers briefcase. He stays up all night redacting the contents because his shredder is broken...