M.Dancer Posted May 6, 2010 Report Posted May 6, 2010 They should have been given only 380 of the 799 prisoners held in Guantanamo were even charged with anything. In the extra-judicial limbo Guantanamo operates in, facts don't mean anything. They mean even less in the ethical fog that swirls around your use of them. They tye detainees have far far more rights accorded to them than they have ever given to their victims. I shan't lose sleep over any of them as long as they remain in detention. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Dave_ON Posted May 6, 2010 Report Posted May 6, 2010 ...and boot will no doubt be the operative verb Indeed, if many more CPC MP's are "booted" Conservatives may lose government by attrition. The house will be filled with independant former CPC MP's. Quote Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. -Vaclav Haval-
Wild Bill Posted May 7, 2010 Report Posted May 7, 2010 no different than connecting Ignatieff with adscam or even more ludicrous Alberta reformers/conservatives still connecting today's liberals with Trudeau same people in a new suit trying to reinvent/disassociate themselves by changing names...a duck is still a duck no matter how you disguise it and a conservative will always be conservative no matter the name you give them PC/Reform/CPC... "A duck is still a duck..." Aren't you proving MY point? A liberal will always be crooked because they were before? Same logic! Or is it that only conservatives can be ducks? Your partisan'slip' is showing! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
bloodyminded Posted May 7, 2010 Report Posted May 7, 2010 (edited) Don't confront me none, Molly! I've never given a rat's ass for the detainees! Yeah, even if they're innocent, and being detained in our name...who cares? It's not like they're Albertans, or soldiers, or something important like that. Edited May 7, 2010 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Wild Bill Posted May 7, 2010 Report Posted May 7, 2010 Yeah, even if they're innocent, and being detained in our name...who cares? It's not like they're Albertans, or soldiers, or something important like that. My understanding is that we were not equipped to keep prisoners. Our job was to hand them over to the Americans and/or the Afghan government. Now some folks are questioning if the Americans or the Afghan government did all the right things. Apparently, this means that we should NOT have handed over the prisoners! We should have known from the start that there would be problems from our allies and never given our prisoners into our allies' custody. I guess this means we should have had our own prisons! What other option would there be? We should have known our allies were evil and taken on the role of prison keeper right from the start, along with any eventual trials. In other words, we should've had our own Gitmo! This is ridiculous! Any human rights fault lies with the country that actually received and kept the prisoners. If there was evidence that Canadian soldiers abused prisoners BEFORE handing them on to other countries then I would agree they were at fault. However, we cannot be responsible for any wrong actions on the part of the Americans or the Afghanis. In fact, in the final analysis I would say it is the Afghanis who take final responsibility. These would have been their citizens, or at least insurgents found on their soil. Or should we refuse to respect their sovereignty as well? We should have assumed from the start they would be guilty of rights violations and kept the prisoners ourselves! Such a policy would have been totally awkward and impractical. Not to mention insulting to our allies. If you have an abusive prison, you blame that prison! Perhaps the warden or maybe even the state or federal government that operates the prison. You don't blame the cop who caught the criminal and handed him or her over to the prison! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
eyeball Posted May 8, 2010 Report Posted May 8, 2010 They tye detainees have far far more rights accorded to them than they have ever given to their victims. I shan't lose sleep over any of them as long as they remain in detention. My grandfathers nearly sacrificed their lives so that I could sleep at night knowing that people's rights to habeas corpus would be protected. Were your's fighting for the other side or something? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
bloodyminded Posted May 8, 2010 Report Posted May 8, 2010 My understanding is that we were not equipped to keep prisoners. Our job was to hand them over to the Americans and/or the Afghan government. Now some folks are questioning if the Americans or the Afghan government did all the right things. Apparently, this means that we should NOT have handed over the prisoners! We should have known from the start that there would be problems from our allies and never given our prisoners into our allies' custody. I guess this means we should have had our own prisons! What other option would there be? We should have known our allies were evil and taken on the role of prison keeper right from the start, along with any eventual trials. In other words, we should've had our own Gitmo! This is ridiculous! Any human rights fault lies with the country that actually received and kept the prisoners. If there was evidence that Canadian soldiers abused prisoners BEFORE handing them on to other countries then I would agree they were at fault. However, we cannot be responsible for any wrong actions on the part of the Americans or the Afghanis. Handing over prisoners to a party that you have good reason to believe will abuse them...is illegal. Your logic is the same that tells us (and some people do try to make the claim) that funding death squads is not bad, because it's the death squads, not us, who do the killing. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
eyeball Posted May 8, 2010 Report Posted May 8, 2010 My understanding is that we were not equipped to keep prisoners. Now some folks are questioning if the Americans or the Afghan government did all the right things. Apparently, this means that we should NOT have handed over the prisoners! We should have known from the start that there would be problems from our allies and never given our prisoners into our allies' custody. More importantly we never had the moral or ethical background for this war. I suspected right from the beginning that our country would become trapped in a moral quagmire of our own making because of the inherent corruption that exists in our own government and parliament. I was also pretty certain our allies were even more deficient in principles than we were. I just saw Avatar, good flick. I guess there's little doubt who's side we'd be on in that scenario. Unobtainium makes a good metaphor for peace or justice. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
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.