What happens to detainees?

geoffrey · March 16, 2006

Torture is completely reasonable against the enemy in a time of war. If torturing some hooligan thats been killing our troops, and is part of an organization that has threated civilians at home, gives us additional information, go for it.

They sacrifice any civil rights the minute they became terrorists. Too bad.

The information from torture is well worth any suffering by these murders.

Black Dog · March 16, 2006

Torture is completely reasonable against the enemy in a time of war. If torturing some hooligan thats been killing our troops, and is part of an organization that has threated civilians at home, gives us additional information, go for it.
They sacrifice any civil rights the minute they became terrorists. Too bad.

The information from torture is well worth any suffering by these murders.

So if a Canadian serving in Afghanistan is captured by Taliban fighters, you'd be okay with him being tortured for information on troop movements, etc.? I mean, for consistency's sake?

geoffrey · March 17, 2006

So if a Canadian serving in Afghanistan is captured by Taliban fighters, you'd be okay with him being tortured for information on troop movements, etc.? I mean, for consistency's sake?

Not at all. Since your using international law to defend your position, I'll use the same. A Canadian solider has legal rights under Geneva, a terrorist does not. Not that I like the whole Geneva idea anyways, but in order to protect us from terrorists, I have no problem with terrorists being tortured. Taliban insurgents are protection anything but their failed theocratic system.

GostHacked · March 17, 2006

So if a Canadian serving in Afghanistan is captured by Taliban fighters, you'd be okay with him being tortured for information on troop movements, etc.? I mean, for consistency's sake?

Not at all. Since your using international law to defend your position, I'll use the same. A Canadian solider has legal rights under Geneva, a terrorist does not. Not that I like the whole Geneva idea anyways, but in order to protect us from terrorists, I have no problem with terrorists being tortured. Taliban insurgents are protection anything but their failed theocratic system.

As one of the Coalition countries in Afghanistan (with the Canadian Military is now head of security for the country for the time being) and wearing the Canadian uniform, you should with respect follow the Geneva Convention. The Terrorists (for the most part) do not recognize the convention. That does not make it right for you to throw away all your standards. Once you throw a few standards away, you become no better than the terrorists themselves. And this is what you REALLY want to avoid.

fixer1 · March 17, 2006

Torture is wrong to be used by both sides in this matter. Also these are prisoners of war not detainees, as the USA likes to call them, so they can circumvent what few rights they have. It is wrong for Canada to turn over these prisoners to the USA and all these prisoners should be kept in prisons within Afghanistan, not half way around the world in Cuba.

I am all for Canada taking part in Afghanistan, but we should also not be used by the USA to further their goals etc. All prisoners should have rights and it should be shown that we believe in those rights and show that simply by the fact we honour them, when we atke prisoners.

I believe what the USA is doing is wrong and should be stopped, but we all know that they will not heed anything we have to say about it. So every prisoner captured by Canadian troops should be held by us and not turned over to the USA>

Spike22 · March 17, 2006

We will never tell BWAA HA HA HA

Hicksey · March 17, 2006

I hope they get tortured and belittled until they give up all their fellow terrorist friends. If they have killed even one soldier--death by firing squad.

Black Dog · March 17, 2006

Not at all. Since your using international law to defend your position, I'll use the same. A Canadian solider has legal rights under Geneva, a terrorist does not. Not that I like the whole Geneva idea anyways, but in order to protect us from terrorists, I have no problem with terrorists being tortured. Taliban insurgents are protection anything but their failed theocratic system.

I'll take this on in a couple of ways:

First, your invocaton of international law is disingeneous: you said (and I quote): "Torture is completely reasonable against the enemy in a time of war." Period. Nothing there about international law. So either everyone gets to torture the enemy (incluidng Taliban insurgents with captured Canadians) or no one does.

Further to the the legal aspect. I note you ignored the fact that there are laws other than the Geneva Conventions that prohibit torture. So, Geneva protocols aside, torture is still illegal. You can't violate international law and then expect others to abide by it.

Okay: so how about the practical aspect. Well, torture is an extremely unreliable means of gathering information, the point being that someone under torture would say anything just to get a respite from the torture: accuracy is not a high priority. As the article I linked to before stated, there's also no way of telling before you torture someone if they have information that could be of use. Of course by the time you figure that out, it's probably too late: you've become a torturer a mini-Saddam. In short, the practical and legal shortcomings of torture should make it unacceptable under any circumstances.

Now, about the moral aspect. It's clear you don't have any moral objections to torture and the law doesn't seem to concern you much. So, why stop at torture? Say you nab a terrorist suspect: why not slit his wife's throat or rape his children in front of him: that should get him talking, right? Once you decide someone "deserves" to be tortured there's no limit to that which is acceptable. And once your actions are placed beyond the scope of legality and morality, you pretty much exempt yourself from any legal or moral protections. In other words: if torture is what you want, then you must accept all the consequences, including its use against your side.

Army Guy · March 18, 2006

All prisoners captured by Canadian troops are processed through the chain of command, they are transported to the rear and handed over to the US authorities, As the US is in command in Afgan. they also have the facilities and personal to determine what each prisoner is guilty of.

Once a prisoner is captured by Canadian troops they are treated as per the genva convention, it is not the place of the soldier to determine who gets what treatment. thier taken off the battle field as soon as possiable and transported to the rear.

All that said with the change of tactics of IED's it is difficult to capture anyone as they can be detonated by anything or anyone. And those that do ambush veh convoys with small arms normally don't stick around long enough to fight. Just fire off a few rounds then they leave ...those that stay normally get to see the business end of a 25 mm which does'nt take many prisoners.

As for Canadian soldier being given the same treatment very unlikely the terrorist are not bound by the convention "any" western soldier caught will die after the terrorist are finished using them to further thier cause. It has not happen as of yet because we try and take every precaution we can to ensure we always have the advantage.

newbie · March 18, 2006

All prisoners captured by Canadian troops are processed through the chain of command, they are transported to the rear and handed over to the US authorities, As the US is in command in Afgan. they also have the facilities and personal to determine what each prisoner is guilty of.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is NATO's role then in Afghanistan?

Army Guy · March 18, 2006

The US is in NATO, and has overall command of the Afgan mission. And if that changes so will who gets to process the prisoners.

gerryhatrick · March 18, 2006

It doesn't matter. Inhumane treatment isn't US policy, unless the terrorist is withholding information that could save lives. Tough shit. Shouldn't have been there throwing rocks or shooting.

So if a Canadian soldier falls into the hands of the "enemy", any mistreatment is justified.

Mistreatment in order to extricate information. Which is fine with me. Just general mistreatment is not however. But theres nothing we can do about that besides just keep the prisioners ourselves, which is fine too.

I think Black Dog iwas trying to make the point that if you torture it will encourage your enemies to torture your soldiers.

I for one (and I think a poll would reveal I relfect the huge Canadian majority) do not want the people our troops captured to be tortured in any way.

Canadians are smart enough to know that torture does not work, and that the damage to reputation and the negative reaction from enemies is not worth it anyway.

gerryhatrick · March 18, 2006

All prisoners captured by Canadian troops are processed through the chain of command, they are transported to the rear and handed over to the US authorities, As the US is in command in Afgan. they also have the facilities and personal to determine what each prisoner is guilty of.

Well then, we have a problem at the moment.

Harper or his MOD need to step up and make a public comment about the policy.

gerryhatrick · March 18, 2006

Find contact info for your MP here:

http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliam...rent&Language=E

Ask them to question the government about detainee policy and guard training for Canadian soldiers (if they'll be gaurding detainees).

We also want to know if detainees will ever be turned over to other nations, and if so under what assurances.

This needs to be talked about now to support our soldiers.

Hicksey · March 18, 2006

It doesn't matter. Inhumane treatment isn't US policy, unless the terrorist is withholding information that could save lives. Tough shit. Shouldn't have been there throwing rocks or shooting.

So if a Canadian soldier falls into the hands of the "enemy", any mistreatment is justified.

Mistreatment in order to extricate information. Which is fine with me. Just general mistreatment is not however. But theres nothing we can do about that besides just keep the prisioners ourselves, which is fine too.

I think Black Dog iwas trying to make the point that if you torture it will encourage your enemies to torture your soldiers.

I for one (and I think a poll would reveal I relfect the huge Canadian majority) do not want the people our troops captured to be tortured in any way.

Canadians are smart enough to know that torture does not work, and that the damage to reputation and the negative reaction from enemies is not worth it anyway.

I see ...

If we were only nicer to them ... That's garbage.

This is war. Make no mistake, those fighting against us know this. Niceties have no place in war.

We're there to win. The one who wins will be the party who is willing to go farther than the other. We still do our best not to create collateral damage unless it is necessary. We're not the ones that send homocide bombers on to buses full of women and children and blow them up. Like it or not, torture or not--we're still much, much more humane in our fight than those we fight against.

What people are failing to consider is that this torture doesn't just prevent attacks, it saves lives. It saves soldiers' lives and it saves the lives of Afghanis because those who seek to attack our troops aren't concerned with keeping the collateral damage down.

geoffrey · March 18, 2006

Ah the bleeding hearts!

Don't torture! You might make the terrorist mad! You might even hurt him!

Torture does work. It gives information that is critical to our intelligence in the region. We track down these terrorists using information from torture.

It's a neccessary practice and I have no problem with us or the US using it as a weapon to protect us and our troops!

gerryhatrick · March 18, 2006

What people are failing to consider is that this torture doesn't just prevent attacks, it saves lives. It saves soldiers' lives and it saves the lives of Afghanis because those who seek to attack our troops aren't concerned with keeping the collateral damage down.

On what basis to you make that claim? How is torture saving lives?

Be specific please.

gerryhatrick · March 18, 2006

Torture does work. It gives information that is critical to our intelligence in the region. We track down these terrorists using information from torture.

Same question for you that I asked Hick. On what do you base your belief that torture provides useful information?

geoffrey · March 19, 2006

Torture does work. It gives information that is critical to our intelligence in the region. We track down these terrorists using information from torture.

Same question for you that I asked Hick. On what do you base your belief that torture provides useful information?

Common sense.

You torture someone, they tell you the info to stop the torture. Sounds like a great idea.

cybercoma · March 19, 2006

All prisoners captured by Canadian troops are processed through the chain of command, they are transported to the rear and handed over to the US authorities, As the US is in command in Afgan. they also have the facilities and personal to determine what each prisoner is guilty of.

Well then, we have a problem at the moment.

Harper or his MOD need to step up and make a public comment about the policy.

It's not a Harper policy, it's a global policy. When one nation takes charge of a mission, as the US has done with Afghanistan, all other assisting nations answer to them. Harper didn't put them in charge and Harper doesn't get to make decisions as if he were in charge.

speaker · March 19, 2006

I can't believe that this debate is still going on. I guess some people are just really sick. Torture is wrong. For all the reasons given above. Anybody having trouble understanding this please get yourself to a psychiatric clinic. Seriously.

geoffrey · March 19, 2006

I can't believe that this debate is still going on. I guess some people are just really sick. Torture is wrong. For all the reasons given above. Anybody having trouble understanding this please get yourself to a psychiatric clinic. Seriously.

I'd refer all of you that think not hurting a terrorist is more important than saving innocent lives to the same psychiatrist.

gerryhatrick · March 19, 2006

Same question for you that I asked Hick. On what do you base your belief that torture provides useful information?

Common sense.

You torture someone, they tell you the info to stop the torture. Sounds like a great idea.

Well no sh#t. Problem is it's the wrong info.

Torture is far more than just inhumane, so all you tough guys can save the typical hard-case act. It's dumb because it's a waste of time. All it does is make a population angrier at you than they previously were (NOT JUST terrorists/Taliban) and cause peaceful civilians to take up arms against you.

And ruin any credibility and good reputation you might have had in the world.

gerryhatrick · March 19, 2006

It's not a Harper policy, it's a global policy. When one nation takes charge of a mission, as the US has done with Afghanistan, all other assisting nations answer to them. Harper didn't put them in charge and Harper doesn't get to make decisions as if he were in charge.

You think the US is in charge of our troops and sets policy for them? Stop wasting our time please.

gerryhatrick · March 19, 2006

I'd refer all of you that think not hurting a terrorist is more important than saving innocent lives to the same psychiatrist.

Congratulations in winning your own straw man argument.

You have no proof that all who have been tortured in Abu Garaib (or anywhere else) were terrorists. Often they were completely innocent...just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or they were thieves. This is supported by US intelligence testimony. Those who claimi that all who are tortured are terrorists are only attempting to rationalize it for weak minds.

And besides that, nobody here has said "not hurting a terrorist is more important than saving innocent lives". That is a straw man argument you set up. I don't like torture because it's never been shown to work (often produces false or useless information) and it destroys the reputation of your nation and makes your soldiers targets for people who otherwise would not have targetted them.