Detainees paper again?

[bloodyminded]

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.

I don't know about Toadbrother--who by the way is not a radical leftist automatically opposed to war--but I'm personally used to this sort of platitudinous sanctimony, and I laugh in the frightened little faces of everyone who says things like this (plagiarized from this or that reactionary propagandist--take your pick,they're all roughly the same).

[Sir Bandelot]

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?

I'm saying that's my opinion of what should have been done, if we wanted to do the right thing. How would I do that? The same way I would have invaded Afghanistan. When I get paid to be the leader of this country I will tell you how I'll do that!

Now read the second clause in my statement:

"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."

See, the problem with some people around here is, they accept the premise that we should walk into a pit of vipers, and when someone gets bit, they start saying "What else could we do??". Then they look to others for confirmation that we are blameless in these circumstances ourselves, or start asking someone else to think and solve their problems.

I'm saying Canadians have made their bed. They vote for and support these actions with tax money. Now it's time to lie down in that flea ridden dung pile, and suck it up!!!

[Bob]

I don't know about Toadbrother--who by the way is not a radical leftist automatically opposed to war--but I'm personally used to this sort of platitudinous sanctimony, and I laugh in the frightened little faces of everyone who says things like this (plagiarized from this or that reactionary propagandist--take your pick,they're all roughly the same).

You're disputing my assertion that the left is too blame for perpetuating conflict? The left handcuffs the military's ability to conduct warfare and secure victory. Whether it's zealous Jags prosecuting soldiers from slapping a captured terrorist during an interrogation, outrage of terrorists not being treated as common criminals at Gitmo and being given a silk prayer rug and a nutritionally balanced Halah diet in line with the Canada Food Guide, establishment of ridiculous RoE where you can't shoot unless fired at first or weapons are seen in the hands of the enemy, to sending in soldiers to do house-to-house searches and expose them to IEDs or other traps in order to reduce the risk of harm befalling "innocent civilians" (at the expense of the security of our soldiers), and everything else in between.

Most casualties and injuries from coalition soldiers can be blamed on the left, due to how they've shaped the methods used in the prosecution of this war to comply with "international law". If it wasn't for the left, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would've been over a long time ago, without any of this "nation-building" nonsense (leftism/neo-conservatism that Bush Jr. bought into, that Obama is perpetuating). These are failed states, and particularly in the case of Afghanistan, worthless and inferior societies and cultures that are unworthy of our assistance, especially when we have unmet needs in our our countries. But of course the left thinks that with enough intervention and babysitting, we can turn these barbarian Islamist tribes into leftist cappuccino drinking bisexuals who worry about global warming. And when all is said and done, Iraq should be made to compensate America for all of its sacrifices towards its liberation.

The self-described "anti-war" left is aggressively undermining the West's ability to defend itself, and leads to the perpetuation of conflict rather than its resolution.

[Bob]

I'm saying that's my opinion of what should have been done, if we wanted to do the right thing. How would I do that? The same way I would have invaded Afghanistan. When I get paid to be the leader of this country I will tell you how I'll do that!

Now read the second clause in my statement:

"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."

See, the problem with some people around here is, they accept the premise that we should walk into a pit of vipers, and when someone gets bit, they start saying "What else could we do??". Then they look to others for confirmation that we are blameless in these circumstances ourselves, or start asking someone else to think and solve their problems.

I'm saying Canadians have made their bed. They vote for and support these actions with tax money. Now it's time to lie down in that flea ridden dung pile, and suck it up!!!

In other words, you can't answer a simple question that's been asked of you several times - what do you propose Canadian forces do with captured terrorists when faced with two options? On the one hand, they can transfer them to the custody of the existing infrastructure in Afghanistan, that more-than-likely doesn't comply with "international law". On the other hand, you can release the terrorists back into the field, and give them a do-over in their attempts to murder Canadian soldiers.

This entire dialogue reminds me of the Saving Private Ryan Nazi that was released instead of executed because of the outcries of the weakling leftist translator, who ended up watching his fellow soldier get murdered by the very same Nazi they had released, while doing nothing to save him.

Keep dodging and deflecting. We don't expect anything else from you.

[ToadBrother]

You're disputing my assertion that the left is too blame for perpetuating conflict? The left handcuffs the military's ability to conduct warfare and secure victory. Whether it's zealous Jags prosecuting soldiers from slapping a captured terrorist during an interrogation, outrage of terrorists not being treated as common criminals at Gitmo and being given a silk prayer rug and a nutritionally balanced Halah diet in line with the Canada Food Guide, establishment of ridiculous RoE where you can't shoot unless fired at first or weapons are seen in the hands of the enemy, to sending in soldiers to do house-to-house searches and expose them to IEDs or other traps in order to reduce the risk of harm befalling "innocent civilians" (at the expense of the security of our soldiers), and everything else in between.

Most casualties and injuries from coalition soldiers can be blamed on the left, due to how they've shaped the methods used in the prosecution of this war to comply with "international law". If it wasn't for the left, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would've been over a long time ago, without any of this "nation-building" nonsense (leftism/neo-conservatism that Bush Jr. bought into, that Obama is perpetuating). These are failed states, and particularly in the case of Afghanistan, worthless and inferior societies and cultures that are unworthy of our assistance, especially when we have unmet needs in our our countries. But of course the left thinks that with enough intervention and babysitting, we can turn these barbarian Islamist tribes into leftist cappuccino drinking bisexuals who worry about global warming. And when all is said and done, Iraq should be made to compensate America for all of its sacrifices towards its liberation.

The self-described "anti-war" left is aggressively undermining the West's ability to defend itself, and leads to the perpetuation of conflict rather than its resolution.

I don't know how to respond to such an accusation save to either question your sanity or your decency.

[Sir Bandelot]

In other words, you can't answer a simple question that's been asked of you several times - what do you propose Canadian forces do with captured terrorists when faced with two options? On the one hand, they can transfer them to the custody of the existing infrastructure in Afghanistan, that more-than-likely doesn't comply with "international law". On the other hand, you can release the terrorists back into the field, and give them a do-over in their attempts to murder Canadian soldiers.

This entire dialogue reminds me of the Saving Private Ryan Nazi that was released instead of executed because of the outcries of the weakling leftist translator, who ended up watching his fellow soldier get murdered by the very same Nazi they had released, while doing nothing to save him.

Keep dodging and deflecting. We don't expect anything else from you.

Since when do I owe you any kind of answer? Someone who wants to kill people in cold blood, does not deserve the dignity of my response. We don't expect anything of value, from you.

[Bob]

Since when do I owe you any kind of answer? Someone who wants to kill people in cold blood, does not deserve the dignity of my response. We don't expect anything of value, from you.

You don't owe me anything. But you're ignoring the crux of this issue, because answering it honestly would be politically inconvenient to your leftist ideology. You pretend as if the question you were asked to answer simply doesn't exist. Fellowtraveller originally asked you the question, and we'll continue pretending to wait for the answer that you'll never deliver.

You've got a 100% success rate on dodging and evading in this thread. You're doing great. But hey, keep doing what you're doing and try scoring political points by shedding crocodile tears over allegation of abuse of Afghan detainees in order to denigrate the Conservatives, while pretending to be a humanitarian concerned with "international law" and "Canada's reputation".

Edited June 28, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

The reason that this issue has never gathered much real traction with Canadians is that reasonable non-partisans have always know that Afghanistan was/is a s**thole and that things were pretty bad at the beginning of the conflict - and to a large degree, still are. As PIK said, we could have handed them over to the Americans but that wasn't feasible because of the uproar over the highly publicized Abu Graib fiasco. So Canada upgraded the weak handover policy that the Liberals left behind and then as reports on the ground indicated issues, the policies were tightened as we went along. To a reasonable person, it would appear that Canada did the best we could in very trying circumstances....short of building our own prisons and forgoing the opportunity to work with the Afghans to improve their prisons..... or bringing them back to Canada.

What a crappy position to be in.....and I find it ironic that the same people who preach in terms of moral relevance and are willing to accept or ignore the prisoner abuse and unlawful detention that exists all over the middle east - will totally abandon this moral relevance argument when there's an opportunity to make cheap political points.

There are reasons who Conservative popularity continues to grow and one of them is that more and more, the opposition "attacks" are seen for what they are - outrageous exagerrations.

I agree with this 100%, but I would have more aggressively attacked the Canadian left for trying to demonize our military in order to score political points against the Harper government with their radical base. I was sickened when I watched that rat Colvin give his spiel, and subsequently in the following question periods when Dosanjh and the other "foreign affairs critics" tried to smear the Canadian military and launch accusation of war crimes. It was so fucking despicable.

[RNG]

None of this matters because unless the US turns both Afghanistan and Pakistan to glass parking lots, the Taliban will be running Afghanistan within two years of the US withdrawal.

And a question for you anti-war types. How many Iraqis has the US killed? And how many Iraqis have Iraqis killed.

Total savages, should be left to suffer their own fate.

Al Queda could have been done away with in Afghanistan with technology, like satellite surveillance and stealth drones, as was a big part of getting Bin Laden. Two stupid wars.

Edited June 28, 2011 by RNG

[ToadBrother]

I agree with this 100%, but I would have more aggressively attacked the Canadian left for trying to demonize our military in order to score political points against the Harper government with their radical base. I was sickened when I watched that rat Colvin give his spiel, and subsequently in the following question periods when Dosanjh and the other "foreign affairs critics" tried to smear the Canadian military and launch accusation of war crimes. It was so fucking despicable.

Were you equally disgusted with an attempt to evade the most important power that Parliament holds over the executive? Or are you just disgusted by abuses when it's on the "left"?

[bloodyminded]

You're disputing my assertion that the left is too blame for perpetuating conflict? The left handcuffs the military's ability to conduct warfare and secure victory. Whether it's zealous Jags prosecuting soldiers from slapping a captured terrorist during an interrogation, outrage of terrorists not being treated as common criminals at Gitmo and being given a silk prayer rug and a nutritionally balanced Halah diet in line with the Canada Food Guide, establishment of ridiculous RoE where you can't shoot unless fired at first or weapons are seen in the hands of the enemy, to sending in soldiers to do house-to-house searches and expose them to IEDs or other traps in order to reduce the risk of harm befalling "innocent civilians" (at the expense of the security of our soldiers), and everything else in between.

Most casualties and injuries from coalition soldiers can be blamed on the left, due to how they've shaped the methods used in the prosecution of this war to comply with "international law".

Casualties and injuries of coalition soldiers have dropped radically, profoundly.

Must be the Left's doing as well; everything else evidently is.

If it wasn't for the left, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would've been over a long time ago,

Nope. They were failed ideas, which unsurprisingly have led to severe problems. The Soviets might have been "left," but they weren't "restrained by the Left" in the way you mean it. The British couldn't do it either, and it wasn't because of all the lefty commentators ruining the Empire's Good Work.

As for Iraq, the initial war itself was a resounding success. But the people of Iraq (not only terrorists, by a long shot) determined to make things difficult for the invaders. Not "the Left." Ye gods.

These are failed states, and particularly in the case of Afghanistan, worthless and inferior societies and cultures that are unworthy of our assistance, especially when we have unmet needs in our our countries.

The promiscuous bigotry you employ aside, your last ten words are precisely the argument the Left has been making for years. Interesting, no?

And when all is said and done, Iraq should be made to compensate America for all of its sacrifices towards its liberation.

On the contrary, the coalition (primarily the US and UK) should be doling out massive reparations to the Iraqi people.

Edited June 28, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Sir Bandelot]

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.

Fellowtraveller and I may disagree but at least he/she is polite in their responses. I hope fellowtraveller does not take my responses personally. You on the other hand, I will not answer your questions. I disagree with you on the most fundamental level.

Simple as that.

[ToadBrother]

On the contrary, the coalition (primarily the US and UK) should be doling out massive reparations to the Iraqi people.

Perhaps they should go find a nice Baathist tyrant and put him in charge, you know, to make things like they were.

[fellowtraveller]

Fellowtraveller and I may disagree but at least he/she is polite in their responses. I hope fellowtraveller does not take my responses personally.

I won't be able to assess whether the answer is personal or not, since you have yet to respond.

[Sir Bandelot]

I won't be able to assess whether the answer is personal or not, since you have yet to respond.

Well just to re-cap, my response is-

How would I do that? The same way I would have invaded Afghanistan. When I get paid to be the leader of this country I will tell you how I'll do that!

This says, I don't have the answer but I will point to the problem despite that.

More significant is the second part of my answer, where I concede the problem might not be solvable directly-

Now read the second clause in my statement:

"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."

That is three times now that I've posted this reply. Let me know if you are still not satisfied with this answer!

[Topaz]

My view is that the government knew, they covered it up, stop writing things down. The Tories had admitted they had to make changes but they stop short of why and what those changes were. I think they were probably thinking of the International Court at the time and the Court is still watching.

[Bob]

Were you equally disgusted with an attempt to evade the most important power that Parliament holds over the executive? Or are you just disgusted by abuses when it's on the "left"?

No, I'm not disgusted at all. I am not obsessed with process and protocol. I focus on the bottom-line, and I can why the Harper government tried to obstruct the disgusting attempts of the opposition to smear the military and throw around rhetoric about "international standing" and accusations of "war crimes".

It's too bad you can't see the broader issues at play here. Rather, you want to consume yourself with the minutiae of technicalities than on what was at stake.

[Bob]

My view is that the government knew, they covered it up, stop writing things down. The Tories had admitted they had to make changes but they stop short of why and what those changes were. I think they were probably thinking of the International Court at the time and the Court is still watching.

What "International Court"? What are you talking about?

[dre]

No, I'm not disgusted at all. I am not obsessed with process and protocol. I focus on the bottom-line, and I can why the Harper government tried to obstruct the disgusting attempts of the opposition to smear the military and throw around rhetoric about "international standing" and accusations of "war crimes".

It's too bad you can't see the broader issues at play here. Rather, you want to consume yourself with the minutiae of technicalities than on what was at stake.

I just dont trust the government to do whatever the hell they want because of their own assessment of the "broader issues at play". I dont even trust them to fix the potholes in the street in front of my house for that matter.

[fellowtraveller]

This says, I don't have the answer but I will point to the problem despite that.

More significant is the second part of my answer, where I concede the problem might not be solvable directly-

That is not an answer, it is an evasion you have repeated several times.

It was your suggestion that Canadian forces in Afghanistan should oblige the sovereign government of that country to be oblioged to follow your rules on detainess.

It is a stuupid and naive assertion and one that cannot possibly be implemented even if we were foolish enough to try.

So let us dispense with the impossibilty that Canada could control the penal and justice systems of Afghanistan and get to the question: what would you have the Canadian ground forces do with prisoners?

Here are the options as I see them: kill them on the spot, don't detain them just give them a stern lecture and set them free, send them back to Canada where they would be immediately released into our society or turn them over to Afghan authorities.

Have I missed any?

[dre]

That is not an answer, it is an evasion you have repeated several times.

It was your suggestion that Canadian forces in Afghanistan should oblige the sovereign government of that country to be oblioged to follow your rules on detainess.

It is a stuupid and naive assertion and one that cannot possibly be implemented even if we were foolish enough to try.

So let us dispense with the impossibilty that Canada could control the penal and justice systems of Afghanistan and get to the question: what would you have the Canadian ground forces do with prisoners?

Here are the options as I see them: kill them on the spot, don't detain them just give them a stern lecture and set them free, send them back to Canada where they would be immediately released into our society or turn them over to Afghan authorities.

Have I missed any?

Yes. Youve missed the most obvious one... You put them in POW camps, allow the Red Cross access, and repatriate them when the war is over.

[RNG]

Yes. Youve missed the most obvious one... You put them in POW camps, allow the Red Cross access, and repatriate them when the war is over.

Gitmo II?

[dre]

Gitmo II?

Something like that... except without the detainee abuse, torture etc. Canada used hundreds of camps during WW2, about 40 of them right here in Canada. Places like Ozada where german soldiers escaped but soon returned volunarily because it was cold and a grizzly bear scared them

I dont think its terribly important where the camps are... but that we take responsibility for the treatment of prisoners we take on the battlefield, we allow access to the Red Cross, and dont turn them over to fucked up regimes likely to torture them.

[Bob]

Yes. Youve missed the most obvious one... You put them in POW camps, allow the Red Cross access, and repatriate them when the war is over.

And in the meantime, before those camps that you want to build are operational, what do you propose the Canadian forces to do? This is the question that is never, ever answered by the anti-Harper leftist automatons. That's to say nothing about the absurdity of concern over detainee abuse. The left is silent about these types of abuses until it can use them as a political attack against their sworn domestic opponents., by implying Canadian military complicity (basically accusing Canadian soldiers of committing war crimes) in these abuses.

You think that even for one second we believe your concern about these detainees is sincere? Fellowtraveller is right to call this guy out on his continuing evasion of the question. You don't give a damn about these Afghan terrorists, so stop pretending to. Lastly, there's not one shred of meaningful evidence beyond Colvin's "interviews" with a couple of former detainees who may or may not have been transferred to Afghan security custody by Canadian forces. He's just a leftist patsy who got played by the enemy.

[RNG]

Plus, the anti-CPC naysayers would then bitch like crazy about the cost of building and maintaining these POW camps.

Edited July 1, 2011 by RNG