Detainees paper again?

[Sir Bandelot]

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.

No one is obliged to follow what I believe. None at all. Nor am I obliged to find a way for snakes to get out of the nest they have made for themselves.

But despite that, I will take the opportunity to speak the truth as I see fit, to show where inhumanity is acted out and where injustice is being done. My view is to always defer to the smallest people, the most powerless who are at risk of being steamrollered over by armies, or by carte-blanch rules that treat everyone the same regardless of their circumstance. The rights of the individual outwiegh the rights of the many.

I don't expect any of you to get that, and I don't feel obligated to teach you what I mean.

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?

My view is, if an army goes into a town, they should take full responsibility for every life lost either directly or indirectly by their actions. There is no collateral damage, that is word used by liars. It is murder, plain and simple and every single life should be held to account. That's what I believe t be fair. Your views may differ.

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

I am sorry, I made a mistake. I assumed you were polite enough to debate with and for me to talk to. Now that you've said I'm stupid and naive, I see that I was wrong. Good day to you, fellowtraveller.

[dre]

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.

You think that even for one second we believe your concern about these detainees is sincere?

You believe some stuff... rufus the stunt bum believes some stuff. I dont give a shit what either of you think as long as you dont root through the dumpster in the alley while Im trying to sleep.

All I care is that we arent complicit in torture, and we shouldnt be turning pow's over to any shit-bag regimes like the guys we are backing in asscrackistan.

[eyeball]

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.

I seem to recall that most of us proposed the Canadian forces never go in the first place in good measure because we knew we'd soon be up to our necks in both a moral and a military quagmire the minute we signed onto this absurdity. The detainee issue is just one more example of what we meant.

I see little reason to not conclude the Canadian military is complicit in abuses and war crimes, but to be fair, they were just following orders.

[fellowtraveller]

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.

No, I did not miss that, I noted that it would be so utterly idiotic that no sane person would even consider it.

You want Canada- one of thiry-something Western nations in Afdghanistan- to set up an independent penal system in a foreign country that has an elected, functioning government? Should we set up a school and day care system within the barbwired for future generations of the detainees too? Perhaps some branch of CPP as they age?

You cannot be serious.

Worse, maybe you are.

[Scotty]

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

How? Keep careful records and watch over them for YEARS? And what about when we leave? Are we supposed to leave behind a special detachment to keep watch over these prisoners?

Afghanistan is a violent society all the way around, from top to bottom, and infinitely corrupt. The only way to ensure the safety of prisoners, by Canadian standards, is to bring them to Canada.

[Scotty]

I can't agree with that. It's ludicrous. It flies in the face of how civilized nations have conducted war for centuries.

While you're correct, I don't think you can necessarily dismiss his suggestion on that basis. We are not, after all, fighting a civilized foe. Nor are we fighting a nation which has any rules, or coherent governance. These people, as such, cannot be expected to 'surrender' in the same sense as that of a nation state. Nor can they ever be exchanged as the foe in question routinely tortures its prisoners to death.

[Scotty]

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.

There's no evidence Canadians broke any Canadian laws. Nor is there any law I'm aware of which governs how the Afghan government treats its own citizens.

The fact is that the treatment of prisoners, political or otherwise, in almost any third world nation would be, in comparison to the safeguards in Canada, against Canadian law. Should we never hand over criminals, terrorists or anyone else to a nation which does not meet our delicate definition of human rights?

And remember, just last week a federal judge in Canada demanded Corrections Canada rescind its 30 days in solitary punishment of a prisoner who refused to provide a urine sample for drug detection on the basis that asking that of the prisoner (known to be involved in drug trafficking) was too humiliating.

[Scotty]

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.

And you still didn't answer the question. Nobody has.

[Scotty]

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.

Oh I rather doubt that. I mean, if you want to talk about old time pacification, the Romans had a simple enough methodology in that they simply killed anyone within miles of where a Roman was killed. And as long as you have enough troops you can get away with that.

If NATO had simply slaughtered every village nearby whenever IEDs were planted there would have been a huge drop int he number of IEDs planted, as one example. Would that have resulted in gross missaplications of force on occasion, and the murder of innocents? Sure would. But there the roads would still have been safer.

Have some doubts as to which of the villagers is a guerrilla? Not a problem. Kill them all. That was the Roman way, and it worked quite well for many, many centuries.

[Scotty]

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.

More like six months.

It's a shame, really. Afghanistan will be dragged back to barbarity again due to the cold-blooded, ruthless machinations of men in places like Iran and Pakistan, to whom Afghanistan itself really doesn't even matter. The Pakistanis simply want to keep their crazed Mujahadeen religious wackos alive and well so that they can be used against the Indians should the Indians ever want to invade their misbegotten excuse for a country. The Iranians simply want to make trouble for the Americans.

[Scotty]

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

Because those people engaged in an orgy of self hatred and murder, slaughtering each other indiscriminately and blowing up everything they could?

[Scotty]

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.

I think they were saying "The Liberals are using this as a lever to attack us, not caring at all what that does to Canadian support for the war, and we need to ensure they have as little ammunition as possible."

[Scotty]

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.

Repatriate them to whom?

[Scotty]

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

If we tried to do that today the courts would be intervening every day to demand better treatment, to ensure the prisoners had the option of appealing against their status, to ensure they got the right to communicate with their families, get conjugal visits, and probably to allow them to declare refugee status.

[Scotty]

My view is, if an army goes into a town, they should take full responsibility for every life lost either directly or indirectly by their actions. There is no collateral damage, that is word used by liars. It is murder, plain and simple and every single life should be held to account. That's what I believe t be fair. Your views may differ.

I'm reminded of a scene in Game of Thrones, where there is a trial by combat. After the knight dies, the winner is told that he doesn't fight with honor. The man looks up, says "No, I don't." Then he looks at the body, or where the body was before it fell into a hole and says "He did."

Your beliefs are a recipe for military failure.

[Sir Bandelot]

I'm reminded of a scene in Game of Thrones, where there is a trial by combat. After the knight dies, the winner is told that he doesn't fight with honor. The man looks up, says "No, I don't." Then he looks at the body, or where the body was before it fell into a hole and says "He did."

Your beliefs are a recipe for military failure.

If you read what I'm saying, which is about 'collateral damage' you'd understand I am talking about civilian deaths. Not knights in a video game.

[Sir Bandelot]

How? Keep careful records and watch over them for YEARS? And what about when we leave? Are we supposed to leave behind a special detachment to keep watch over these prisoners?

Sure, why not? That's one possibility. Or is that too inconvenient and expensive? War most certainly is.

Even handing them over to Afghanistan can be made to work satisfactorily, if we take steps to ensure that they are treated humanely. That could be done through ministerial oversight and cooperation between governments. Their names should be catalogued and they should by monitored, routinely visited by western authorities.

What to do when the war is done? Whatever it is that we do when other wars are done. Someone has to review each case, and let them go free if appropriate.

This approach is not unprecedented. What we have done, and the US and western allies in general is unprecedented. In other words just throw them in a gulag and forget about them forever.

Afghanistan is a violent society all the way around, from top to bottom, and infinitely corrupt.

Yes it is. Sadly it will still be that way after this war is over.

Afghanistan and other similar countries that are divided by sectarian/ tribal/ feudal society are simply not ready for western liberalism and democracy. Afghanistan will only get better when the people of Afghanistan want it to. Democracy cannot be forced at the end of a gun. Democracy only works through willingness and cooperation.

Obama is already making conciliatory overtures to the Taliban, the same ones we swore we would never negotiate with. It doesn't take an oracle to see where this is going. A useless, destructive endeavor. Some of us were saying this right from the beginning.

Those who claimed this would be a cakewalk or benefit Afghanistan somehow, or benefit us should now be taken away and arrested. Those who still claim it now have a special place in hell reserved for them.

[Scotty]

If you read what I'm saying, which is about 'collateral damage' you'd understand I am talking about civilian deaths. Not knights in a video game.

I can read quite well. What you're suggesting is that the enemy, who cares nothing for collateral damage, should be able to attack with impunity from within the confines of any built-up area, and that if we accidentally kill or even injure a non combatant while responding we should be held accountable for that.

As I said, a recipe for military failure.

[Sir Bandelot]

I can read quite well. What you're suggesting is that the enemy, who cares nothing for collateral damage, should be able to attack with impunity from within the confines of any built-up area, and that if we accidentally kill or even injure a non combatant while responding we should be held accountable for that.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

As I said, a recipe for military failure.

Not necessarily. We expect the same rules from our police. We do not give them free reign to just shoot to kill anyone who gets in the way, just because the bad guys use bystanders as human shields, or take hostages. When that happens there is always an investigation. And rightly so.

How can we secure a victory in any case, when the enemy buries themselves amongst the people? Is a military shoot-to-kill strategy even appropriate in those circumstances? What objective can be achieved using this approach.

It results in exactly what we see in Afghanistan, a prolonged draining effort to win by attrition, by subjugation, crushing the will of the enemy and putting the civilians through a literal hell on earth. Meanwhile convincing the folks at home that we must do this, for their own good and ours. Draining bith psychologically, ethically and economically. Several thousands lives and trillions of dollars later, what has accomplished that could not be done by other means, even perhaps done better by those means! That is IF, our real objective is to actually help anyone at all.

One could still secure a victory, only one has to be patient and smarter. And also, the need for immediate victory at all costs is not always necessary. Simply stopping the enemy in their tracks and forcing a stalemate condition could be all it takes to put pressure on their government, economy and society to eventually concede to our will. If we are seen as the good guys in some way, not the invaders.

Why is our attitude so liberal in allowing the military to kill whomever gets in the way when they move into a village? Many of these killings are not even documented. Why do we accept it and call it 'acceptable losses? Just because that's the way it has always been!

[bloodyminded]

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

It's not yet an impossibility. No doubt the option remains an open one.

Edited July 3, 2011 by bloodyminded

[GostHacked]

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?

Why was Afghanistan invaded in the first place? Why is the land of the law in Afghanistan under Karzai the same as when the Taliban were running the country?

Gitmo II?

Even former prisoners of Gitmo have been released back into the wild only to cause more issues.

[Sir Bandelot]

I've answered the questions and noticed no one responds.

Teh

silence

roars...

(sic)

[Army Guy]

Eyeball:

I seem to recall that most of us proposed the Canadian forces never go in the first place in good measure because we knew we'd soon be up to our necks in both a moral and a military quagmire the minute we signed onto this absurdity. The detainee issue is just one more example of what we meant.

By mosty of us you mean those on this board, because at the start of this mission ,nationally the Majority of Canadians agreed to this mission and could not wait to see thier combat troops in action. None of them knew what was in store for our troops, except thye military which was lobbying not to go on this mission as we were not prepared. but the people and government speak and we (soldiers)do as we are told. So i hardly think it is fair to say "we told you so at the start" when the majority could not wait to get thier hands full of blood....

The detainee situation is a crock of media hype, that has been blown up a million times....and nothing has been proved or nobody charged.....after how many7 investagations.

I see little reason to not conclude the Canadian military is complicit in abuses and war crimes, but to be fair, they were just following orders.

Todate there has been only one soldier charged with war crimes, shooting a crictically wounded detainee....out of the thousands that served in that mission one could hardly paint them all with the same brush.

...and just as a side bar following orders is not,nor has ever been an excuse for following an illigal or unlawful order.

[Army Guy]

But despite that, I will take the opportunity to speak the truth as I see fit, to show where inhumanity is acted out and where injustice is being done. My view is to always defer to the smallest people, the most powerless who are at risk of being steamrollered over by armies, or by carte-blanch rules that treat everyone the same regardless of their circumstance. The rights of the individual outwiegh the rights of the many.

don't expect any of you to get that, and I don't feel obligated to teach you what I mean.

Really, so if i thought it was my right to drink and drive and fire a wpn out the window at neibors dogs that it should be struck into law that , that is OK ....Hence why the needs of the many always out wieghs the needs of the few....

My view is, if an army goes into a town, they should take full responsibility for every life lost either directly or indirectly by their actions. There is no collateral damage, that is word used by liars. It is murder, plain and simple and every single life should be held to account. That's what I believe t be fair. Your views may differ.

They are held responsiable and accountable for thier actions and the actions of thier men under thier control, However one needs to understand combat first before one makes unrealistic demands not to have any collateral demage or deaths...it just does not happen..colateral deamge is written into the genva convention, as it understands the nature of war fare and that it happens...That being said any commander not taking every action to avoid unnessicary deaths and damages can be charged and held accountable by any court of law....

Even handing them over to Afghanistan can be made to work satisfactorily, if we take steps to ensure that they are treated humanely. That could be done through ministerial oversight and cooperation between governments. Their names should be catalogued and they should by monitored, routinely visited by western authorities.

Everthing looks good on paper, until you actually get on the ground and look at the problem, The detainee process was made extremly more difficult because of Suppose problems that were reported. an example of this is when detainees were captured by CDN soldiers at every hand over that was made each detainee was asked a long list of questions regarding is capture and handling, and if the detainee just once said he was mishandled or abuse those soldiers were detaineed until a full investagation was conducted...so each detainee was handled with kid gloves...

Once they reached a collection piont they would be transfered by MP's (military police) to prison to be handed over to Afghan prison gaurds who were under the training and advisement of Corrections Canada, corrections Canada was under control of the Governments liason team which reported directly to the senior canadian government offical on the ground who reported to the PM office....All of this was to be checked and controled by the Inter national red cross.....how much more control do you want...

Afghanistan will only get better when the people of Afghanistan want it to. Democracy cannot be forced at the end of a gun. Democracy only works through willingness and cooperation.

More myth, the Average Afghan wants peace and does not care what form of governmant it takes, that peace can not happen because of a few thousand want the right to hold those millions under thier thumb, in a brutal dictatorship.

Those who claimed this would be a cakewalk or benefit Afghanistan somehow, or benefit us should now be taken away and arrested. Those who still claim it now have a special place in hell reserved for them.

What about those that were willing to just sit and watch it all unfold on TV and not do anything to help...what about those that can armchair this whole mission and just sit back and report all the negative stuff....and turn the other cheek when faced with anything positive, claiming it must be a mistake or falsely reported...i complated 3 tours in Afghan and can say after each tour we made a difference for the better, that does not earn me a place in hell. but cements my understanding and belief of Canada's military and the heros that wear the uniform, that i call comrads.