Now our PM is restricting information from his gov't.

[gerryhatrick]

shortly before the election his campaign turned off media access. They reversed that decision, but only after they realized they would be critisized.

What I want to know is this:

What happens to detainees our soldiers capture?

Will they be handed over to US forces? Are there guarantees that torture will not occur?

No more "we won't cut and run" quotes please, just tell us the facts.

[uOttawaMan]

shortly before the election his campaign turned off media access. They reversed that decision, but only after they realized they would be critisized.

What I want to know is this:

What happens to detainees our soldiers capture?

Will they be handed over to US forces? Are there guarantees that torture will not occur?

No more "we won't cut and run" quotes please, just tell us the facts.

We traded them for a handful of bullets and a weeks worth of rations.

[sharkman]

Oh look, it's gerryhatrick with a new thread, this time attacking Harper! Wow, a new leaf turned over indeed.

Maybe next time you could wait until you have an actual new topic to flail, not just a new way to bring up the same old subject of WHERE THE HELL ARE THE PRISONERS GOING TO?

[Leafless]

gerryhatrick

You wrote- " No more "we won't cut and run" quotes please, just tell us the facts."

The facts are the military are just doing the job they were hired for and their job description does not only include pen and paper work.

The Liberals especially under John Chretien operated a closed door government and I rarely heard a complaint from anyone including the media.

[betsy]

What I want to know is this:

What happens to detainees our soldiers capture?

Will they be handed over to US forces? Are there guarantees that torture will not occur?

Why should everything be spelled out for everyone to know???

Especially when it comes to war??

What "guarantees" that there won't be any tortures do you need to hear?

A promise? A swear on boyscout's honor? If given, will you then go back peacefully to pretend that this kind of reality does not exist anymore?

Enough of this fluff about pseudo-humanitarian posturing! This attitude is more damaging to our soldiers' morale. Let our soldiers be as real soldiers in a REAL WAR! Show your concern for our own before others!

Stand 100% behind our own soldiers rather than mollycuddling the enemy! Get real!

[Nocrap]

gerryhatrick

You wrote- " No more "we won't cut and run" quotes please, just tell us the facts."

The facts are the military are just doing the job they were hired for and their job description does not only include pen and paper work.

The Liberals especially under John Chretien operated a closed door government and I rarely heard a complaint from anyone including the media.

So if Jean Chretien operated a closed door government and Stephen Harper is operating a closed door government; perhaps they are more alike than people realize. (As per previous thread)

I think the "cut and run" is going to come back to bite Mr. Harper on the butt. This Hour Has 22 Minutes picked up on what I and others had noticed, and did a complete bit last night - first SH's words and then GW's. Some papers are even showing identical photo-ops, so what initially may have looked like a good PR move is now losing credibility.

Add to that, the fact that recent Gallop polls indicate that 60% of Americans believe that it is an unwinnable war and want to bring their soldiers home; this was not a good time for Harper to hitch himself to GW's wagon.

[scribblet]

What I want to know is this:

What happens to detainees our soldiers capture?

Will they be handed over to US forces? Are there guarantees that torture will not occur?

Why should everything be spelled out for everyone to know???

Especially when it comes to war??

What "guarantees" that there won't be any tortures do you need to hear?

A promise? A swear on boyscout's honor? If given, will you then go back peacefully to pretend that this kind of reality does not exist anymore?

Enough of this fluff about pseudo-humanitarian posturing! This attitude is more damaging to our soldiers' morale. Let our soldiers be as real soldiers in a REAL WAR! Show your concern for our own before others!

Stand 100% behind our own soldiers rather than mollycuddling the enemy! Get real!

Now is definitely NOT the time to have a debate in Parliament. That time has passed, the cavalry have left the Depot, and the troops have jumped from the plane. At least for this initial commitment, any that wanted such a debate should have made a great big racket about it last year....when the Liberals made the

original decision, and not now.

As far as Harper restricting information, his instructions reflect the extreme caution his new government has to take, considering he has a number of rookies; that along with need and a desire to be focused on campaign issues. We all know how things can get taken out of context and misconstrued by the press, and by groups such as this. Better not to give out too much which can be spun and twisted.

[Nocrap]

What I want to know is this:

What happens to detainees our soldiers capture?

Will they be handed over to US forces? Are there guarantees that torture will not occur?

Why should everything be spelled out for everyone to know???

Especially when it comes to war??

What "guarantees" that there won't be any tortures do you need to hear?

A promise? A swear on boyscout's honor? If given, will you then go back peacefully to pretend that this kind of reality does not exist anymore?

Enough of this fluff about pseudo-humanitarian posturing! This attitude is more damaging to our soldiers' morale. Let our soldiers be as real soldiers in a REAL WAR! Show your concern for our own before others!

Stand 100% behind our own soldiers rather than mollycuddling the enemy! Get real!

Now is definitely NOT the time to have a debate in Parliament. That time has passed, the cavalry have left the Depot, and the troops have jumped from the plane. At least for this initial commitment, any that wanted such a debate should have made a great big racket about it last year....when the Liberals made the

original decision, and not now.

As far as Harper restricting information, his instructions reflect the extreme caution his new government has to take, considering he has a number of rookies; that along with need and a desire to be focused on campaign issues. We all know how things can get taken out of context and misconstrued by the press, and by groups such as this. Better not to give out too much which can be spun and twisted.

I agree to a certain extent, but by not justifying your position, you leave it up to speculation, and that can be more damaging than a few twisted words.

[scribblet]

What I want to know is this:

What happens to detainees our soldiers capture?

Will they be handed over to US forces? Are there guarantees that torture will not occur?

Why should everything be spelled out for everyone to know???

Especially when it comes to war??

What "guarantees" that there won't be any tortures do you need to hear?

A promise? A swear on boyscout's honor? If given, will you then go back peacefully to pretend that this kind of reality does not exist anymore?

Enough of this fluff about pseudo-humanitarian posturing! This attitude is more damaging to our soldiers' morale. Let our soldiers be as real soldiers in a REAL WAR! Show your concern for our own before others!

Stand 100% behind our own soldiers rather than mollycuddling the enemy! Get real!

Now is definitely NOT the time to have a debate in Parliament. That time has passed, the cavalry have left the Depot, and the troops have jumped from the plane. At least for this initial commitment, any that wanted such a debate should have made a great big racket about it last year....when the Liberals made the

original decision, and not now.

As far as Harper restricting information, his instructions reflect the extreme caution his new government has to take, considering he has a number of rookies; that along with need and a desire to be focused on campaign issues. We all know how things can get taken out of context and misconstrued by the press, and by groups such as this. Better not to give out too much which can be spun and twisted.

I agree to a certain extent, but by not justifying your position, you leave it up to speculation, and that can be more damaging than a few twisted words.

Justifying what position? I'm not privy to inside information, neither is the press for that matter.

The CPC a have been subject to media spin and attacks, for a long time, I don't blame Harper for using extreme caution.

[stignasty]

Oh look, it's gerryhatrick with a new thread, this time attacking Harper! Wow, a new leaf turned over indeed.

Maybe next time you could wait until you have an actual new topic to flail, not just a new way to bring up the same old subject of WHERE THE HELL ARE THE PRISONERS GOING TO?

Oh look, it's sharkman with an ad hominem attack instead of addressing an issue.

[stignasty]

The Liberals especially under John Chretien operated a closed door government and I rarely heard a complaint from anyone including the media.

You're joking right? Or did you somehow miss the "liberal MSM" mantra?

[BubberMiley]

What was that definition of accountability again? Something about accounting for one's actions?

[gerryhatrick]

Oh look, it's gerryhatrick with a new thread, this time attacking Harper! Wow, a new leaf turned over indeed.

Maybe next time you could wait until you have an actual new topic to flail, not just a new way to bring up the same old subject of WHERE THE HELL ARE THE PRISONERS GOING TO?

Maybe you don't care about Canada. I do. So?

[gerryhatrick]

What I want to know is this:

What happens to detainees our soldiers capture?

Will they be handed over to US forces? Are there guarantees that torture will not occur?

Why should everything be spelled out for everyone to know???

Especially when it comes to war??

What "guarantees" that there won't be any tortures do you need to hear?

A promise? A swear on boyscout's honor? If given, will you then go back peacefully to pretend that this kind of reality does not exist anymore?

I want to hear Stephen Harper tell Canadians that detainees will be treated humanely (according to the convention we're a signatory to) and never turned over force without assurances (prefereably written) that they will be treated in the same manner by them.

I sense that many here are either unaware of the profound damage Abu Garaib has done to the USA or they're just cavalier about it....dwelling in a "it can't happen to us" mentality.

I realize anything can still happen, but hearing our PM speak publically about it would stamp the idea on every citizen and soldier and help protect against the worst case scenario.

If it even came out that our forces had turned over detainees who were mistreated by the Americans then you can kiss any goodwill they've earned goodbye and start digging 5 times as many 6 foot deep holes.

Beyond all that, maybe you can explain your opposition to me? What possible reason do you have to be against Harper clarifying our policy on this issue? Do you think making this information public would be a threat to the operation?

[gerryhatrick]

Enough of this fluff about pseudo-humanitarian posturing! This attitude is more damaging to our soldiers' morale. Let our soldiers be as real soldiers in a REAL WAR! Show your concern for our own before others!

Stand 100% behind our own soldiers rather than mollycuddling the enemy! Get real!

One more thing betsy.....demanding that the policy on detainees is vocalized by our leadership IS supporting our troops. You talk about "damaging our soldiers morale" but obviously haven't considered the damage that the torture pictures did to the morale of the US forces. And then to have thier civilian leadership blame them for a policy of "softening" that they asked for. Not exactly a morale booster. And all for nothing, since testimony indicates no real useful information ever came out of all that "softening". The only result was a tripling of enemies and a loss of respect worldwide.

I would also like to hear that our troops who are required to guard detainees have suitable training.

I find your complaining above to be "fluff" and pseudo-something. Certainly not logical or thought-out at all. It's just more partisan nonsense.

[Nocrap]

Enough of this fluff about pseudo-humanitarian posturing! This attitude is more damaging to our soldiers' morale. Let our soldiers be as real soldiers in a REAL WAR! Show your concern for our own before others!

Stand 100% behind our own soldiers rather than mollycuddling the enemy! Get real!

One more thing betsy.....demanding that the policy on detainees is vocalized by our leadership IS supporting our troops. You talk about "damaging our soldiers morale" but obviously haven't considered the damage that the torture pictures did to the morale of the US forces. And then to have thier civilian leadership blame them for a policy of "softening" that they asked for. Not exactly a morale booster. And all for nothing, since testimony indicates no real useful information ever came out of all that "softening". The only result was a tripling of enemies and a loss of respect worldwide.

I would also like to hear that our troops who are required to guard detainees have suitable training.

I find your complaining above to be "fluff" and pseudo-something. Certainly not logical or thought-out at all. It's just more partisan nonsense.

Showing concern for what will happen to detainees is not unreasonable and in light of the horrific images of American brutality, we should know whether Mr, Harper supports this kind of treatment, the way he supports everything else Mr. Bush does.

Maybe we should contact our MP's and demand that they present the question in parliament.

[BubberMiley]

I think most soldiers in Afghanistan would be opposed to torture and wouldn't want to wind up in an environment where torture of prisoners becomes commonplace, so demanding some accountability on this issue would more logically be interpreted as supporting our troops in Afghanistan.

[Argus]

I want to hear Stephen Harper tell Canadians that detainees will be treated humanely (according to the convention we're a signatory to) and never turned over force without assurances (prefereably written) that they will be treated in the same manner by them.

So you want us to establish our own prison camps in Afghanistan? No? Remembering that Canada isn't always that gentle on prisoners? Then you want us to fly them ten thousand miles across the world to Canada? And then what? Let then go because we don't have legally admissable evidence under the Charter that they commited a crime in Canada? After which, of course, they'll claim refugee status and stay here forever on welfare.

How about we just shoot them in the head so there ARE no prisoners? Is that okay?

[gerryhatrick]

So you want us to establish our own prison camps in Afghanistan? No? Remembering that Canada isn't always that gentle on prisoners? Then you want us to fly them ten thousand miles across the world to Canada? And then what? Let then go because we don't have legally admissable evidence under the Charter that they commited a crime in Canada? After which, of course, they'll claim refugee status and stay here forever on welfare.

How about we just shoot them in the head so there ARE no prisoners? Is that okay?

Too much coffee for you today?

I don't recall saying any of the things your questioning me about, so I won't bother responding to it. It appears rhetorical anyway.

I want to know what the policy is. I want it clearly stated so there's no F-ups.

Is that a threat to you? You seem angry about it.

[gerryhatrick]

Showing concern for what will happen to detainees is not unreasonable and in light of the horrific images of American brutality, we should know whether Mr, Harper supports this kind of treatment, the way he supports everything else Mr. Bush does.

Maybe we should contact our MP's and demand that they present the question in parliament.

Great idea. I'm doing it now.

[mowich]

I have been a Conservative since Stephen Harper won the party leadership race. Before that, I was a Reformer. I campaigned for the party; blogged on their behalf; persuaded friends to give them a chance; proudly marched into the polling station and gave them my vote; and on election eve I watched as they took enough seats to form a minority government. I was ecstatic. On the day, that Stephen Harper took the oath of office and became our Prime Minister I again watched every moment of the ceremony, sometimes with tears of joy in my eyes. I had but one fleeting moment of hesitation when I heard that David Emerson had ‘crossed the floor’ and would be sworn in as a Cabinet minister. Caught up in the euphoria I never gave it a second thought, then.

The second thought came a day later as the headlines screamed of Emerson’s ‘betrayal’. I soon found myself thinking back to how I felt when Belinda Stronach crossed the floor. I realized that I did not support this move at all. In fact, I thought it smacked of cheap opportunism and political expediency. I kept these thoughts to myself. When I did write about the appointment it was only to state that Mr. Emerson, in my opinion should sit as an independent. Adding that, were I a Liberal supporter in his constituency I too would be extremely upset.

As time went on, the furor refused to abate, and neither Mr. Harper nor Mr. Emerson would address the issue. I began to have some misgivings. Surely, I thought someone would step up and talk to the public. If the PM, and if Emerson felt that this was right and just, then why were neither of them willing to speak on the matter?

Misgiving gave way to skepticism. I knew of course that Stephen Harper did not like the media. I knew it was not his way to comment on every little thing he did, nor was he one for photo ops. Still that was before he was Prime Minister of my country. That was before he had a responsibility to speak on matters that were of importance to Canadian citizens. This was obviously important and he said nothing.

The days passed and my uncertainty simmered. It seemed that the Emerson affair was loosing steam in the media. Then the Shapiro inquiry was announced. The PM finally spoke and his words dashed any hope that here, finally, he would allay my suspicions. Instead of speaking to the Emerson issue he took umbrage with the inquiry and refused all cooperation, then disappeared back to his office. Not another word did he speak on this or any other subject not related to the now famous, Five Pillars of the campaign. The few press conferences he held were short, and to the point, a few questions were taken and then he was gone again.

Then he appeared as by magic in Afghanistan. How in hell did he get there, my mind wondered, stupidly? Not a single word had leaked about his visit. I was dumb-founded; truly, that he could have such iron-fisted control over the news was simply overwhelming. I give him credit for the visit, it is important that he show his support in this manner. I also give him credit for not making a political show out of the trip, as a previous PM had. Still, it was a masterful show of the power he wields when it comes to containing leaks. So masterful in fact that it should have set off warning bells in my head. Nevertheless, it did not; I was content in the moment. Again, it was not to be for long.

This announcement today makes me very angry. It reeks of despotism. The last time I checked everyone including cabinet ministers and government officials had the right of free speech. Not anymore, not if you are a member of the Conservative government of Stephen Harper. Makes me wonder what draconian measure he may have up his sleeve for the ROC.

He does not have the right to muzzle people this way. He simply does not. I agree that matters of national security should be vetted, but not to speak or write, at all, about anything, unless the PMO clears it? Get real.

I will be one of the first to applaud any Conservative in government who has the back bone to stand up and refute this edict, it can not go unchallenged. This is no less than a form of tyranny.

Mr. Harper is telling his government and the Canadian people that he cannot rely on the intelligence of his own people. He does not trust them. In effect, he is saying that he and he alone is capable of conceiving messages for public dispensation. He is denying cabinet ministers and bureaucrats the right to free speech. This proclamation does nothing but stir up resentment, well-founded resentment. It does not foster teamwork or unity. It is divisive. It makes puppets of them all. The Puppet Master would do well to watch his back. This is a minority government. Unity must be unequivocal. This measure works against that unity.

If Stephen Harper wants to lead his party to a majority in the next election he better get down off his throne and start spending some time with the common people. I am not happy with him. I am very displeased with his actions. He will have to work very hard to regain the trust I once had in him. I am a Conservative supporter. If I am this upset, imagine how all the borderline voters must feel.

Mr. Harper still has a chance to turn things around; he can begin by apologizing publicly to his ministers and other government members for his lack of faith. He can restore their ability to speak for themselves. Then he can come out of his office more often and talk to us. He can reign in his inherent disregard for the media. It is the only method he has in which to reach the millions of Canadians who deserve to hear from their Prime Minister, more frequently.

So suck it up Stephen and start acting like a human being. Or, this could very well be your swan song.

[Argus]

So you want us to establish our own prison camps in Afghanistan? No? Remembering that Canada isn't always that gentle on prisoners? Then you want us to fly them ten thousand miles across the world to Canada? And then what? Let then go because we don't have legally admissable evidence under the Charter that they commited a crime in Canada? After which, of course, they'll claim refugee status and stay here forever on welfare.

How about we just shoot them in the head so there ARE no prisoners? Is that okay?

Too much coffee for you today?

I don't recall saying any of the things your questioning me about, so I won't bother responding to it. It appears rhetorical anyway.

No. It's entirely logical. No handing over prisoners to the Americans without rock solid proof of uh, what, that they'll be nice? And if they refuse to give those assurances, then what? You don't know? Are you saying you didn't bother to think about the fairly obvious consequences? What do we then do with prisoners? Do we take no prisoners? What? Ground your beliefs in the real world instead of lofty ideals.

As to the "horrific images" of mistreatment - none I've seen have been as bad as the "horrific images" of the mistreatment of a Somali prisoner by Canadian troops. Gee, wonder how many images there would have been if we'd taken thousands of prisoners instead of one or two?

[Hicksey]

Oh look, it's gerryhatrick with a new thread, this time attacking Harper! Wow, a new leaf turned over indeed.

Maybe next time you could wait until you have an actual new topic to flail, not just a new way to bring up the same old subject of WHERE THE HELL ARE THE PRISONERS GOING TO?

Oh look, it's sharkman with an ad hominem attack instead of addressing an issue.

I thought he was rather astute in his realization that gerryhatrick was topic shopping. I call topic shopping starting different topics about the same topic until he gets the answer he was looking for. Sure, sharkman might have used [sarcasm] tags on his first line, but I think if a poster is going to start multiple threads on a topic he should be open to criticism for doing so.

[geoffrey]

When the best attack on our Prime Minister is that he sounds like GWB in one line of a statement, and goes to support our troops, which is somehow like GWB (even though other leaders do), I think we are doing pretty good.

I've yet to figure out why people feel so entitled to know everything thats going on. Most people can't comprehend the reality of the situation, and even more people can't do anything about it anyways. Let the experts decide policy matters, the average Canadian isn't bright enough to do it on their own.

Matters of military security are not the business of the nation, let our generals keep our troops safe, thats all I care about.

[GostHacked]

I would nuke this whole thread considering gerryhatrick already started this in another thread.