Detainees paper again?

[Sir Bandelot]

If we wanted to do the right thing, we should have handed them over and made sure they would be protected from abuse. And failing that, if abuses happened beyond our control we should not have covered it up, thereby taking some of the blame for it upon ourselves. Any time we lie or break laws, we should be held accountable. Right action set you free.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

[fellowtraveller]

Its a good thing the international criminal court is run by NATO.

The ICC has nothing to do with NATO.

The International Criminal Court (ICC), governed by the Rome Statute, is the first permanent, treaty based, international criminal court established to help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community.

The ICC is an independent international organisation, and is not part of the United Nations system. Its seat is at The Hague in the Netherlands. Although the Court’s expenses are funded primarily by States Parties, it also receives voluntary contributions from governments, international organisations, individuals, corporations and other entities.

The international community has long aspired to the creation of a permanent international court, and, in the 20th century, it reached consensus on definitions of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Nuremberg and Tokyo trials addressed war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity committed during the Second World War.

In the 1990s after the end of the Cold War, tribunals like the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda were the result of consensus that impunity is unacceptable. However, because they were established to try crimes committed only within a specific time-frame and during a specific conflict, there was general agreement that an independent, permanent criminal court was needed.

On 17 July 1998, the international community reached an historic milestone when 120 States adopted the Rome Statute, the legal basis for establishing the permanent International Criminal Court.

The Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002 after ratification by 60 countries.

[fellowtraveller]

If we wanted to do the right thing, we should have handed them over and made sure they would be protected from abuse.

So you are suggesting that Canada should have forcibly taken over the Afghan penal and justice systems to ensure that some but not all prisoners were treated under laws not in effect in a sovereign country?

[Sir Bandelot]

So you are suggesting that Canada should have forcibly taken over the Afghan penal and justice systems to ensure that some but not all prisoners were treated under laws not in effect in a sovereign country?

I'm suggesting those who are irresponsible and put themselves into a position where there is no option but to LIE, should finally get what's coming to them.

And if that were true, what a conondrum it puts us all in. Something to think about, eh fellowtraveller?

[Bob]

This may shock you...but Canadians are bound by Canadian law. Not by the laws of middle Eastern countries.

So, are you saying it's no big deal to flout Canadian law, because many other countries' laws are worse?

I agree completely with Keepitsimple. I remember this artificial controversy quite well, I even watched that Ujjal Dosanjh virtually accuse the Canadian government of being complicit in war crimes, and Richard Colvin's far-reaching allegations after having a conversation with one or two former detainees (who may or may not have been captured by Canadian forces, and who may or may not even have been a detainee in the first place!). All it took was ONE accusation from an unknown "diplomat" to ramp up the anti-Conservative machine (which included everyone, the Liberal Party, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois) and cause such a ridiculous scandal that still hasn't ended.

Let's get to the point - what would you have Canada do with terrorists it captures? In order to comply with "international law", would you have Canada build prisoners and detention centres? Train local Afghanis who are overwhelmingly illiterate and backwards, to operate these prisons in accordance with "international law"? Conduct inspections on a regular basis so that Colvin and Dosanjh are pleased that the terrorist rats get three nutritionally-balanced Halal meals a day, a hygienic prayer mat and a Koran in their preferred language? You don't release terrorists back into the field to give them another chance to murder Canadian soldiers just because there's no Canadian-style detention-centre or prison within which to house them. But that seems to be what you would have the Canadian forces do. After all, they're "bound by Canadian law", right? When those released terrorists come back for rounds two, three, and four, and murder Canadian soldiers, at least we can take pride in the Canadian soldiers having had been in compliance with "the law". Put yourself in the shoes of a soldier for just a moment, and imagine that you're captured some terrorists on the battlefield that just killed some of your fellow soldiers, are you supposed to release them to rejoin the fight, as long as they pinky-swear not to fight anymore simply because there's no Canadian-style prison/detention centre to which they can be transferred? How is it that someone like yourself is ignoring this problem? I expect this sort of idiocy from Ujjal Dosanjh or Gilles Duceppe, who use "human rights" as a political sledgehammer to attack the Harper government...

Personally, I think the entire concept of taking prisoners is ridiculous in the first place. If they're hostile and a part of the infrastructure to kill Canadian soldiers, kill them. We need a take-no-prisoners policy. Kill them all, win the war, and get out.

[ToadBrother]

We didn't act badly. And I notice you avoid answering my question. What exactly were we to do with prisoners? Shoot them?

I think you mistake the intent of my question. As I've said all along, I found the whole detainee abuse issue a mole hill turned into a mountain for political effect. I don't think there is an easy answer. Clearly no one in NATO wanted to get bogged down running our own long-term internment camps, so there was little enough choice but to deliver them to Afghan authorities. I asked the question on a more general basis, in that there seemed to be this idea that we could just sort of wash our hands of the abuses that did happen.

Ultimately, as I've said repeatedly, I didn't have an issue with the detainee process. All we could do is get guarantees from Afghan authorities, which ultimately are going to be unreliable. My issue was with the Federal Government's invention of executive privilege out of thin air. I didn't agree with the Opposition's attempt at creating a shitstorm, but I did defend their right to do it.

[Bob]

I'm suggesting those who are irresponsible and put themselves into a position where there is no option but to LIE, should finally get what's coming to them.

And if that were true, what a conondrum it puts us all in. Something to think about, eh fellowtraveller?

Answer fellowtraveller's question - it was quite straightforward. The situation is simple, Canadian soldiers apprehended terrorists on the battlefield, and had nowhere to transfer that would be in complete compliance with "international law". So what would you have them do? Release them into the field only to come back to have another opportunity to murder Canadian soldiers? You're blatantly ignoring the dilemma, as if fellowtraveller's question (and point) are not the crux of this story.

[ToadBrother]

Personally, I think the entire concept of taking prisoners is ridiculous in the first place. If they're hostile and a part of the infrastructure to kill Canadian soldiers, kill them. We need a take-no-prisoners policy. Kill them all, win the war, and get out.

I can't agree with that. It's ludicrous. It flies in the face of how civilized nations have conducted war for centuries. It's precisely the kind of thing that some war crimes trials against former Axis powers were conducted. What a ludicrous and barbaric position to take.

[Remiel]

I can't agree with that. It's ludicrous. It flies in the face of how civilized nations have conducted war for centuries. It's precisely the kind of thing that some war crimes trials against former Axis powers were conducted. What a ludicrous and barbaric position to take.

You should have added ignorant and short-sighted. Dead men don't talk.

[Bob]

I can't agree with that. It's ludicrous. It flies in the face of how civilized nations have conducted war for centuries. It's precisely the kind of thing that some war crimes trials against former Axis powers were conducted. What a ludicrous and barbaric position to take.

Ya, "civilized nations" like the USA that are at war with failed states like Afghanistan for a decade. The only reason we don't win these wars decisively is because of how "civilized" we are. We're so "civilized" that the Taliban and their vermin affiliates are able to maintain their abilities to wage violence against the American war machine for a decade. It's sad to see America prosecute its wars with its hands tied behind its back - barely ever using its massive power, sending in soldiers to do hand-to-hand combat, doing house-to-house searches, and operating with absurd RoE. The enemy is laughing. I mean for God's sake, even Gitmo was a "controversy". You know, when I have these types of discussions I get the impression that the West has simple lost its will to live. Self-destructive liberalism has permeated every aspect of our lives, including the military, where soldiers are dishonourably discharged and jailed for punching a terrorist or slapping a Jihadi during an interrogation. We're our own worst enemy.

The entire concept of "rules of war" is so self-contradictory in most ways, anyways. Especially considering the nature of our contemporary enemies.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Bob

[ToadBrother]

Ya, "civilized nations" like the USA that are at war with failed states like Afghanistan for a decade. The only reason we don't win these wars decisively is because of how "civilized" we are. We're so "civilized" that the Taliban and their vermin affiliates are able to maintain their abilities to wage violence against the American war machine for a decade. It's sad to see America prosecute its wars with its hands tied behind its back - barely ever using its massive power, sending in soldiers to do hand-to-hand combat, doing house-to-house searches, and operating with absurd RoE. The enemy is laughing. I mean for God's sake, even Gitmo was a "controversy". You know, when I have these types of discussions I get the impression that the West has simple lost its will to live. Self-destructive liberalism has permeated every aspect of our lives, including the military, where soldiers are dishonourably discharged and jailed for punching a terrorist or slapping a Jihadi during an interrogation. We're our own worst enemy.

The entire concept of "rules of war" is so self-contradictory in most ways, anyways. Especially considering the nature of our contemporary enemies.

Maybe some day when you're not too busy writing violent absurd moronic polemics, you might pick up a history book. The Soviets were plenty brutal enough with the Afghani tribesmen, and ended up being delivered their gonads and sent packing. The Brits experienced the same thing.

[bloodyminded]

Moral equivalency at its intellectually bankrupt finest.

Sure. The morally upright position, held by such sober ehtical luminaries like yourself, is that we should applaud when Canadians break Canadian law, and the "barbarians" are tortured as a result.

[eyeball]

Let's get to the point - what would you have Canada do with terrorists it captures?

Personally, I think the entire concept of taking prisoners is ridiculous in the first place. If they're hostile and a part of the infrastructure to kill Canadian soldiers, kill them. We need a take-no-prisoners policy. Kill them all, win the war, and get out.

Speaking for myself, I'd really like to see politicians using the same blunt language you do. The only thing as pathetic as self-destructive liberalism is conservatism without a pagan-ethos.

Both only ever reach half-way before falling back to the same old mediocrity.

[bloodyminded]

.

Let's get to the point - what would you have Canada do with terrorists it captures?

The human beings it captures, not all of whom are terrorists.

Your automatic conflation tells us everything we need to know about the profoundly indoctrinated worldview that leads to jaw-dropping moments of moral relativism.

[Bob]

Maybe some day when you're not too busy writing violent absurd moronic polemics, you might pick up a history book. The Soviets were plenty brutal enough with the Afghani tribesmen, and ended up being delivered their gonads and sent packing. The Brits experienced the same thing.

That's because the Mujaheddin were assisted by America, Stinger missiles were the game changer. To suggest that the America of today couldn't crush Afghanistan in twenty-four hours by drawing a false parallel between the current war and the events of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is absurd. America hasn't ended this reason for one reason alone - because it doesn't have the moral fortitude to prosecute this war as it should. America doesn't have the will to win this war, it's that simple. They're too afraid to kill enough people.

For God's sake, America is supplying billions of dollars a year (I think approximately three billion dollars on average since 2002) primarily in military aid to Pakistan, a country that provides the metaphoric "refueling station" for the terrorists being fought in Afghanistan. After all those billions of dollars in aid, Pakistan still claims it cannot effectively control Waziristan, which is where all the terrorists run back to regroup after murdering American and coalition forces. And when America does limited action via drone strikes, we hear the same outrage from the left - from human rights organizations to the filth in Pakistan crying about their "sovereignty" being violated, the ultimate example being the crocodile tears shed for Osama bin Laden and the UN "investigation" into the legality of the operation. Yet Pakistan is still a "strong ally" in the "war on terror". America is literally feeding its enemies, and the enemy is laughing. Leftists like you are what perpetuate these conflicts, pretending to live on some higher moral plane than the rest of us, while soldiers bleed and die because they aren't given the permission to simply win the wars they are fighting.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Bob

[GostHacked]

Maybe some day when you're not too busy writing violent absurd moronic polemics, you might pick up a history book. The Soviets were plenty brutal enough with the Afghani tribesmen, and ended up being delivered their gonads and sent packing. The Brits experienced the same thing.

The US will eventually be shown the door as well. Just as Karzai brings in Sharia Law and brings the Taliban on board to and with his government.

[Sir Bandelot]

Answer fellowtraveller's question - it was quite straightforward. The situation is simple, Canadian soldiers apprehended terrorists on the battlefield, and had nowhere to transfer that would be in complete compliance with "international law". So what would you have them do? Release them into the field only to come back to have another opportunity to murder Canadian soldiers? You're blatantly ignoring the dilemma, as if fellowtraveller's question (and point) are not the crux of this story.

Fellowtraveller, and you are blatantly ignoring the greater dilemma.

[Sir Bandelot]

I can't agree with that. It's ludicrous. It flies in the face of how civilized nations have conducted war for centuries. It's precisely the kind of thing that some war crimes trials against former Axis powers were conducted. What a ludicrous and barbaric position to take.

It shows precisely the problem with these irrational, impulsive types. They are a greater threat to our country and our freedom than any terrorist ever was.

[GostHacked]

It shows precisely the problem with these irrational, impulsive types. They are a greater threat to our country and our freedom than any terrorist ever was.

I agree, the rhetoric they spill out is just as dangerous.

[ToadBrother]

The US will eventually be shown the door as well. Just as Karzai brings in Sharia Law and brings the Taliban on board to and with his government.

Karzai won't last a month once NATO troops are out. He's not derisively called the Mayor of Kabul for nothing.

[Bob]

Fellowtraveller, and you are blatantly ignoring the greater dilemma.

What greater dilemma? Only someone with a warped moral compass would suggest that adherence to "international law" (designed exclusively to benefit our enemies who contravene every legal and moral value you take for granted in and out of the context war) is as important as protecting the safety of our soldiers in accomplishing their mission. To you, mental masturbation about "international law" is a higher moral imperative that military success and the protection of our soldiers.

It is quite clear that you refuse to answer the question that was asked of you.

[ToadBrother]

That's because the Mujaheddin were assisted by America, Stinger missiles were the game changer. To suggest that the America of today couldn't crush Afghanistan in twenty-four hours by drawing a false parallel between the current war and the events of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is absurd. America hasn't ended this reason for one reason alone - because it doesn't have the moral fortitude to prosecute this war as it should. America doesn't have the will to win this war, it's that simple. They're too afraid to kill enough people.

The Taliban are being supported out of Pakistan. Without the US invading Pakistan in force, there will be no proper defeat for the Taliban. Getting medieval on Taliban asses in Afghanistan will do no good whatsoever.

[Bob]

The Taliban are being supported out of Pakistan. Without the US invading Pakistan in force, there will be no proper defeat for the Taliban. Getting medieval on Taliban asses in Afghanistan will do no good whatsoever.

The USA should stop deploying troops on the ground and just destroy its enemies with the technology it has. You're right about the connection between Pakistan and the Taliban and other terrorists, so why is America supporting this "ally" with billions of dollars in military aid that isn't yielding any discernible benefit? The Pakistan, as you've said, is still the backbone of the terrorists - yet it is still an "ally" of America in the "war on terrorism". Launch cruise missiles and use air strikes to obliterate Waziristan if Pakistan can't handle its own affairs, and then send Pakistan a bill and take them to "international court" for supporting terrorism and murderers for unspecified punitive damages.

America and the West need to restore fear in the hearts of the enemies.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Bob

[ToadBrother]

The USA should stop deploying troops on the ground and just destroy its enemies with the technology it has. You're right about the connection between Pakistan and the Taliban and other terrorists, so why is America supporting this "ally" with billions of dollars in military aid that isn't yielding any discernible benefit? The Pakistan, as you've said, is still the backbone of the terrorists - yet it is still an "ally" of America in the "war on terrorism". Launch cruise missiles and use air strikes to obliterate Waziristan if Pakistan can't handle its own affairs, and then send Pakistan a bill and take them to "international court" for supporting terrorism and murderers for unspecified punitive damages.

America and the West need to restore fear in the hearts of the enemies.

And what technology do you propose to bring to bear? The Taliban and their allies will do what the Afghani warriors have been doing for thousands of years, they'll take to the mountains. I know of no technology that magically allows you to track them.

You're talking nonsense.

[fellowtraveller]

Sir Bandelot, what you said is this "If we wanted to do the right thing, we should have handed them over and made sure they would be protected from abuse."

How specifically do you propose that Canada interfere with the penal and justice systems of a sovereign nation like Afghanistan and impose our will, values and laws to MAKE SURE that the prisoners are treated in accordance with the laws of Canada?

For that matter, how would you make that assertion applied to ordinary Canadian criminals in the Canadian penal system?