Harper Accuses Liberals

jdobbin · March 23, 2007

That isn't an answer to the question. Should we take no prisoners, then? Or should be start our own prison and keep them there? If so do we have to treat them according to the Charter? Do we have to send over teams of lawyers and health care workers and prison guards? And how long do we keep them? Can we ever turn them over to their own government or, when we leave, presumably in a few years, do we have to bring them back to Canada?
I don't expect an answer to any of this, btw. You guys are just snivelling for no reason. You haven't thought things through and you don't really give a crap about these missing prisoners anyway.

You just don't get it. Other countries have made better arrangements than Canada has on transferring and monitoring prisoners. O"Connor kept assuring us that such a system was in place. Defence lawyers are now investigating whether laws were broken in transferring prisoners if it was known that they were going to be tortured.

If Canada can't get an agreement not to torture, then prisoners should not be transferred. The prisoners should be released and Canada should pull up stakes. We're not going to be agents of the goon squad.

It is obvious obvious you haven't thought things through. The military certainly has and is concerned that they broke the laws of Canada.

Argus · March 23, 2007

Harper was rude and ignorant. Simply trying to score cheap political points for his observers.

I don't know what country you live in, but I'm willing to be you have never seen Question Period. It is all about scoring cheap political points for observers - for all sides.

Get the controls in place. Is that too much to ask?

What kind of controls would you like to have on a sovereign government?

jdobbin · March 23, 2007

Let me get this straight. You're suggesting we keep track of everyone we turn over to the Afghan's indefinitely? How are we supposed to do that? Do you want teams of swat guys, maybe JTF2 to continually tracel the country to check out every prison and to visit with every individual we've turned over to THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT to ensure they're being treated with kindess and respect?

Let me get this straight. You don't care what happens to prisoners even if they are released like they were this week by Afghans in exchange for an Italian journalist? You think there should be no way to know what their condition is and where they are?

It's obvious you don't care about soldier's security.

Argus · March 23, 2007

Starving the Canadian Forces ...

Let's try to remember the facts, shall we? Serious money had started to flow into the forces already under Chretien, and accelerated under Martin. Steve has continued this.

Bullshit. ...

It's not bullshit, its a historical fact.

Sure, the same way Holocaust deniers claim their bullshit is historical fact. The Liberals could not possibly care less about the well-being of Canada's military and it's troops. They have been that way since Trudeau's era. The only concern most Liberals probably have now about the troops in Afghanistan is the hope there's a bloody Taliban offensive with lots of Canadian casualties so they can cash in politically.

Argus · March 23, 2007

That isn't an answer to the question. Should we take no prisoners, then? Or should be start our own prison and keep them there? If so do we have to treat them according to the Charter? Do we have to send over teams of lawyers and health care workers and prison guards? And how long do we keep them? Can we ever turn them over to their own government or, when we leave, presumably in a few years, do we have to bring them back to Canada?

I don't expect an answer to any of this, btw. You guys are just snivelling for no reason. You haven't thought things through and you don't really give a crap about these missing prisoners anyway.

You just don't get it. Other countries have made better arrangements than Canada has on transferring and monitoring prisoners.

Like who? How?

O"Connor kept assuring us that such a system was in place.

No he didn't. He said the red cross monitors prisoners and weould tell Canada's military if they observed problems. The REd cross said they did moniter prisoners, but would not tell Canada's military. It was an honest mistake.

Defence lawyers are now investigating whether laws were broken in transferring prisoners if it was known that they were going to be tortured.

Cite? What defence lawyers? Where?

If Canada can't get an agreement not to torture, then prisoners should not be transferred. The prisoners should be released and Canada should pull up stakes. We're not going to be agents of the goon squad.

An agreement not to torture? How do you know they were tortured? Did Canada have such an agreement with other nations when it was acting under the UN? Was their monitering? I'm betting you don't have the slightest idea because, just like the rest of the little whiny liberals around here, the thought never occured to you so long as a Liberal government was in place. It was only when they left you started getting all concerned about what happens to people taken prisoner by Canadian soldiers abroad.

Argus · March 23, 2007

Let me get this straight. You're suggesting we keep track of everyone we turn over to the Afghan's indefinitely? How are we supposed to do that? Do you want teams of swat guys, maybe JTF2 to continually tracel the country to check out every prison and to visit with every individual we've turned over to THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT to ensure they're being treated with kindess and respect?

Let me get this straight. You don't care what happens to prisoners even if they are released like they were this week by Afghans in exchange for an Italian journalist? You think there should be no way to know what their condition is and where they are?

It's obvious you don't care about soldier's security.

I'm saying we're operating in a sovereign country, and they will treat people accused of wrongdoing however they want. Standards of care of obviously well below what we in the west consider to be optimal, but that is so in ALL third world countries, especially those involved in conflicts.

And your attempt to weasel this argument into concern for the soldiers is amusing but kind of silly. This whining about what happened to Taliban prisoners has nothing to do with the well-being of Canadian soldiers. The Liberals are simply hoping they can find out those prisoners were tortured or better yet, executed so they can blame Harper for it.

hiti · March 23, 2007

Steve's conservatives are lying again............

Quote: (Harper) He has a Defence Minister, Gordon O'Connor, who for a year misled the Commons on a point that any halfway attentive minister would have had straight from the start. Mr. O'Connor said the Red Cross was monitoring the handling of prisoners whom Canada handed over to the Afghans and was informing Canada of their treatment. Even after a briefing from the president of the international Red Cross last September, he didn't change his tune. (He said Monday, implausibly, that "we did not talk about that specific issue.") Mr. Harper should explain how Mr. O'Connor's year-long lack of awareness was possible. Mr. O'Connor has offered no clue.

On Monday, the House was again misled. Tory House Leader Peter Van Loan said the Canadian government has contributed $1-million to the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, the body it now expects to monitor the detainees. The money, he said, "will provide . . . a lot of support to ensure that they can do their job." But the Canadian International Development Agency says the $1-million was given to a United Nations agency by the Liberal government in 2002. It's unlikely it "will" support the commission. -end quote, Globe and Mail editorial

Steve should require his potted plants to show more respect for the House and the people of Canada. The offense here is Harper's Tories continuous wholesaling of false information (lies), not Liberals desire to see Taliban prisoners receive basic human rights.

uOttawaMan · March 23, 2007

Steve's conservatives are lying again............
Liberals desire to see Taliban prisoners receive basic human rights.

Oh? They aren't getting basic human rights now?

You are right, we should get out the old Liberal peacekeeping gear and hand out cookies to the Taliban.

jdobbin · March 23, 2007

I'm saying we're operating in a sovereign country, and they will treat people accused of wrongdoing however they want. Standards of care of obviously well below what we in the west consider to be optimal, but that is so in ALL third world countries, especially those involved in conflicts.
And your attempt to weasel this argument into concern for the soldiers is amusing but kind of silly. This whining about what happened to Taliban prisoners has nothing to do with the well-being of Canadian soldiers. The Liberals are simply hoping they can find out those prisoners were tortured or better yet, executed so they can blame Harper for it.

Harper's minister would take the fall. The only weaseling out is Tories who say that O'Connor is blameless for not knowing the condition or whereabouts of prisoners. He said he knew. He didn't and still doesn't seem to know.

The fact that is against Canadian law to hand over people to torture should not be lost on O'Connor.

It would appear that some of the right could care less about thuggery and torture and Canadian soldiers' part in handing over people to that element.

I don't know that that helps our military one bit. The whining that this is how it is done in developing nations is rot. We are propping up their government and offering security. If they can't abide by some simple guidelines of behaviour, what are we there for?

jdobbin · March 23, 2007

Like who? How?
No he didn't. He said the red cross monitors prisoners and weould tell Canada's military if they observed problems. The REd cross said they did moniter prisoners, but would not tell Canada's military. It was an honest mistake.

Cite? What defence lawyers? Where?

An agreement not to torture? How do you know they were tortured? Did Canada have such an agreement with other nations when it was acting under the UN? Was their monitering? I'm betting you don't have the slightest idea because, just like the rest of the little whiny liberals around here, the thought never occured to you so long as a Liberal government was in place. It was only when they left you started getting all concerned about what happens to people taken prisoner by Canadian soldiers abroad.

The Dutch and British do. The Americans don't indicate what sort of arrangement they have.

Honest mistake? Who are you trying to kid? O'Connor runs the department and hasn't a clue what happens to people Canadian soldiers take prisoner.

You obviously haven't been reading up on the several investigations going on into all of this.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/23/...yer-070323.html

Defence Department lawyers are trying to block investigations into the way Canadian troops handle detainees in Afghanistan, even though the defence minister has promised they would go ahead.
Minister of Defence Gordon O'Connor told MPs earlier this week that an independent commission would review allegations that military police broke the law when they turned Afghan prisoners over to the Afghan government, knowing they might be tortured.

The investigations are supposed to reveal what has happened and what the condition and whereabouts of prisoners are. The government is using the courts to stop the military from investigating. Why?

And the only whiny voices I hear is right wingers saying it was an honest mistake. O'Connor kept repeating the same things over and over and it wasn't until military police started to look into things that he thought he should find out.

And you obviously haven't been reading any threads I've written on about Afghanistan. I've said often enough that the issue of Afghanistan and turning over prisoners like Joint Task Force 2 did with Taliban to the Americans could be construed as being illegal under Canadian law. The Liberals brushed it aside and now it is an issue in courts all over the world because of rendition. Don't be surprised if Liberals are not called as witnesses about what they knew about prisoner transfers back when they were in power.

Greg · March 23, 2007

Your behaviour that I reported violated the forum rules. Use of the word 'fuck' does not violate the rules so far as I know.

While technically correct, there is not specific rule that states you can't use swear words. However, the first rule of the forums is to be respectful to each other,

BE POLITE AND RESPECT OTHERS
Mapleleafweb operates these forums in the hopes that they will promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion. We encourage you to speak your mind on relevant issues in a thoughtful way. Please respect others using this board and treat them with respect and dignity.

I wouldn't consider the discussions in this thread as respectful.

Lets clean the language up and debate this issue with some civility.

Argus · March 23, 2007

An agreement not to torture? How do you know they were tortured? Did Canada have such an agreement with other nations when it was acting under the UN? Was their monitering? I'm betting you don't have the slightest idea because, just like the rest of the little whiny liberals around here, the thought never occured to you so long as a Liberal government was in place. It was only when they left you started getting all concerned about what happens to people taken prisoner by Canadian soldiers abroad.

The Dutch and British do.

They do? Exactly what do they do? Do they visit prisons to check on those they sent there? How often? For how long?

Honest mistake? Who are you trying to kid? O'Connor runs the department and hasn't a clue what happens to people Canadian soldiers take prisoner.

Like all ministers, O'Connor knows precisely what he has been told by departmental staff. No more, no less. This is no big issue for the department and never was. I suspect he asked someone what happened with regard to prisoners turned over to the Afghans, and someone told him "Oh the Red Cross monitors what happens to these guys" which is technically true. He may have jumped to the conclusion the Red Cross would then report any violations to Canada. Or maybe that was what he was told. I don't really know. But I do know that it is unlikely he would deliberately lie about something like that when all anyone needed to do was to ask the Red Cross - which, of course, is what eventually happened.

You obviously haven't been reading up on the several investigations going on into all of this.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/23/...yer-070323.html

Defence Department lawyers are trying to block investigations into the way Canadian troops handle detainees in Afghanistan, even though the defence minister has promised they would go ahead.

If one ignores the big scary headline put in place by the CBC, all the story actually says is there is a technical dispute between DND lawyers and lawyers for this commission on how much access they should get. If you knew anything about DND you would know they are notorious for withholding information. The Somalia commission fought tooth and nail for every piece of paper they could pry loose from the department. And the cost of that, and resulting delays, were then cited by a gleeful Liberal government in cutting the inquiry off at the knees.

And you obviously haven't been reading any threads I've written on about Afghanistan. I've said often enough that the issue of Afghanistan and turning over prisoners like Joint Task Force 2 did with Taliban to the Americans could be construed as being illegal under Canadian law.

Almost anything "Could be construed as illegal" under Canadian law as applied to the military abroad. Except Canadian law doesn't apply to the military abroad. Oops.

jdobbin · March 24, 2007

They do? Exactly what do they do? Do they visit prisons to check on those they sent there? How often? For how long?
Like all ministers, O'Connor knows precisely what he has been told by departmental staff. No more, no less. This is no big issue for the department and never was. I suspect he asked someone what happened with regard to prisoners turned over to the Afghans, and someone told him "Oh the Red Cross monitors what happens to these guys" which is technically true. He may have jumped to the conclusion the Red Cross would then report any violations to Canada. Or maybe that was what he was told. I don't really know. But I do know that it is unlikely he would deliberately lie about something like that when all anyone needed to do was to ask the Red Cross - which, of course, is what eventually happened.

If one ignores the big scary headline put in place by the CBC, all the story actually says is there is a technical dispute between DND lawyers and lawyers for this commission on how much access they should get. If you knew anything about DND you would know they are notorious for withholding information. The Somalia commission fought tooth and nail for every piece of paper they could pry loose from the department. And the cost of that, and resulting delays, were then cited by a gleeful Liberal government in cutting the inquiry off at the knees.

Almost anything "Could be construed as illegal" under Canadian law as applied to the military abroad. Except Canadian law doesn't apply to the military abroad. Oops.

The Globe and Mail had a long discussion of what British and Dutch do when it comes to prisoners handed over. The U.S. apparently also keeps tabs on their transfered prisoners too.

I have no idea how often but more than the Canadians do now.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...geRequested=all

As for what has happened to the detainees — I am not sure anyone in Canada knows. Unlike the United States, which keeps tabs on the people it is holding, or the British and the Dutch forces operating alongside Canadians in Afghanistan, both of which reserve the right to follow up on detainee conditions after they hand them off, Canada doesn't check up.
Once detainees are handed over to Afghan police or security forces, Canada has no knowledge of whether they are released, charged, left in prison or even whether they have died. The International Committee of the Red Cross is given their names when they are handed over but there is no Canadian follow up.

O'Connor assured over and over that he knew what was going on. You wouldn't accept this incompetence from a Liberal Defence minister. I surely don't expect you to make excuses for a Conservative one.

We'll have to see what the Military Police deem legal and illegal. That is, unless the Tories pull the plug on the investigation.

jbg · March 24, 2007

O'Connor assured over and over that he knew what was going on. You wouldn't accept this incompetence from a Liberal Defence minister. I surely don't expect you to make excuses for a Conservative one.
We'll have to see what the Military Police deem legal and illegal. That is, unless the Tories pull the plug on the investigation.

McCallum did better?

jdobbin · March 24, 2007

McCallum did better?

No. Both Liberals and Tories now have to answer why they don't know the conditions of prisoners or where they are.

Alexandra · March 24, 2007

Steve's conservatives are lying again............
Mr. O'Connor said the Red Cross was monitoring the handling of prisoners whom Canada handed over to the Afghans and was informing Canada of their treatment.

O'Connor was correct. The Int'l. Red Cross stated it does monitor the handling of prisoners. What was not correct, which O'Connor apologised for mis-stating, is the Int'l. Red Cross does not report back to any country's military command on its' findings.

As an aside, it may be more honest to quote the various editorials one is paraphrasing, hiti.

From a CBC article:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/01/...dog-070301.html

The Kandahar office of Afghanistan's human rights commission has agreed to act as a watchdog for detainees captured by Canadians to ensure that valid complaints of abuse are investigated, the Canadian Press has learned.

Canadians respect human rights very well," Abdul Quadar Noorzai, the Kandahar manager of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, said in an interview. He was eager to trumpet the agreement signed last Friday with Brig.-Gen. Tim Grant, commander of Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

"It is one of the greatest acts taken by them and I really appreciate it from the core of my heart," said a beaming Noorzai, who said he has been working for a year to carve out such an arrangement.

and,

Canada is the only NATO country to strike such an arrangement so far. The Afghan commission hopes other alliance members will do the same.

The negotiations were started almost a year ago when Nader Naderi, commissioner of the Afghan human rights commission based in Kabul, went to Canada and met with the minister of defence.

Interesting that CBC picked this Canadian Press article off the wire and printed it in toto on their website.

scribblet · March 24, 2007

If the Grits weren't so hysterical you can't blame anyone for feeling they love the Taliban more than our own - heck they should be apologizing to our soldiers for years of neglect.

Wimpy ole Stephane Dion says Harper was trying to bully him - aaawww poor baby -

Not to mention this just proves Liberals love to dish out partisan invective but they can't take it when they get it back in kind.

madmax · March 24, 2007

If the Grits weren't so hysterical you can't blame anyone for feeling they love the Taliban more than our own.

Nobody believes that BS. This is the childish behaviour of Stephen Harper coming to the front. You wish to behave poorly in the sandbox with the Prime Minister, that is your choice.

As for apologizing to soldiers. It never happens. I have never heard of a soldier being apologized to. The military is just starting to get a portion of federal funding increases. I recall the Conservatives getting in the way of the NDP motion to increase benefits to the soldiers. The CPC just released a budget, if they increased the benefits to the soldiers then soldiers won't require an apology from the CPC, they will have what they earned.

Wimpy ole Stephane Dion says Harper was trying to bully him - aaawww poor baby -
Not to mention this just proves Liberals love to dish out partisan invective but they can't take it when they get it back in kind.

Our MPs and PrimeMinisters behaviour is so disgracefull. It is a good thing that the vast majority of people in Canada don't watch these MPs act as misbehaving children.

I do like the orderly behaviour I have been able to watch with regards to the British Parliment.

I am not surprised that Scribblet condones this type of behaviour of the PM or justifies it by the previous actions of the Liberals.

It shows only that Politic bias trumps good government.

scribblet · March 24, 2007

I am not surprised that Scribblet condones this type of behaviour of the PM or justifies it by the previous actions of the Liberals.
It shows only that Politic bias trumps good government.

Where did I sway I condoned it?

I don't like any of it, but when the Liberals sqawk about it, it becomes quite humerous, they are the masters of that game.

jdobbin · March 24, 2007

Canada is the only NATO country to strike such an arrangement so far. The Afghan commission hopes other alliance members will do the same.
The negotiations were started almost a year ago when Nader Naderi, commissioner of the Afghan human rights commission based in Kabul, went to Canada and met with the minister of defence.

Interesting that CBC picked this Canadian Press article off the wire and printed it in toto on their website.

CBC often uses CP reports. Just as CTV does.

What you ignored in all of this was what the Afghan Human Rights group said.

Mr. O'Connor travelled to Afghanistan last week to try and shore up the tattered safeguards regarding detainees.
"We have now engaged the Afghan Human Rights Commission to ensure that they can be monitored," he said yesterday. But the commission's annual reports confirm international assessments that Afghanistan's prisons are rife with torture, abuse and corruption, and the organization acknowledges that it lacks the staff to monitor all detainees.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

Other NATO countries do their own monitoring.

Argus · March 24, 2007

They do? Exactly what do they do? Do they visit prisons to check on those they sent there? How often? For how long?

The Globe and Mail had a long discussion of what British and Dutch do when it comes to prisoners handed over. The U.S. apparently also keeps tabs on their transfered prisoners too.

I have no idea how often but more than the Canadians do now.

As for what has happened to the detainees — I am not sure anyone in Canada knows. Unlike the United States, which keeps tabs on the people it is holding, or the British and the Dutch forces operating alongside Canadians in Afghanistan, both of which reserve the right to follow up on detainee conditions after they hand them off, Canada doesn't check up.

This is essentially meaningless, you know. The dutch and british "reserve the right to follow up". So what? Do they? Ever? How? The system was put in place by Bill Graham, something you declined to mention, and no one had any problem with it while the Liberals were the government.

O'Connor assured over and over that he knew what was going on.

He was told what he was told.

You wouldn't accept this incompetence from a Liberal Defence minister. I surely don't expect you to make excuses for a Conservative one.

I expect incompetence from Liberal Defence Ministers because the Liberals consider Defense to be a junior post of little importance. That's neither here nor there, however. I would not expect a Liberal defense minister to know where a few scrubby prisoners were either. More to the point, nor would you, nor would you care.

A revealing bit from what you call the discussion was when the reporter/advocate in question was directly asked what is the difference between how we treat and render prisoners and how other countries do the same. His answer was that of a skilled politician/activist, never actually answering the question. This is his answer to that question:

Former Defence Minister Bill Graham still maintains that the Canadian agreement is better than the Dutch, British and American deals. He was the minister when Gen. Rick Hillier signed the pact with the Afghans. Many others question whether the Canadian deal provides sufficient safeguards, especially since Afghanistan's track record on the torture and mistreatment of detainees is pretty bad, even according to its own human rights groups. There has been very little debate in Canada, in public or in Parliament, about our treatment of detainees and our deal handing them over with no follow up.

He brings in irrelevant data, then states "Many others question whether the Canadian deal provides sufficient safeguards". I translate "many others" as "me and a couple of other CBC guys I know". And then goes on to say Canadians don't care.

This is nothing but shoddy activist journalism. You make an accusation based on what "many other people" are saying AND when the authorities investigate, as they are bound to do, you get to run screaming headlines "MILITARY INVESTIGATING ARMY'S MISTREATMENT OF PRISONERS!!!!!"

Argus · March 24, 2007

McCallum did better?

No. Both Liberals and Tories now have to answer why they don't know the conditions of prisoners or where they are.

But you never complained before.

jdobbin · March 24, 2007

But you never complained before.

I have in the Afghanistan threads.

Argus · March 24, 2007

Other NATO countries do their own monitoring.

You continue to repeat this on the most tenuous of source evidence. What monitoring do NATO countries do? How? When? How often? You don't know anything and yet you're blithely repeating your interpretation of a few scraps and pieces of media reports. At least O'Connor was actually told by someone in his department (we can be pretty confident of this) that the Red Cross monitors the prisoners. That he chose to interpret this as meaning the Red Cross would then report back to the military was not "lying". And if we use your stringent standards for dishonesty you ought to fall on your own sword unless you can demonstrate what monitoring NATO countries do.

jdobbin · March 24, 2007

This is essentially meaningless, you know. The dutch and british "reserve the right to follow up". So what? Do they? Ever? How? The system was put in place by Bill Graham, something you declined to mention, and no one had any problem with it while the Liberals were the government.
I expect incompetence from Liberal Defence Ministers because the Liberals consider Defense to be a junior post of little importance. That's neither here nor there, however. I would not expect a Liberal defense minister to know where a few scrubby prisoners were either. More to the point, nor would you, nor would you care.

A revealing bit from what you call the discussion was when the reporter/advocate in question was directly asked what is the difference between how we treat and render prisoners and how other countries do the same. His answer was that of a skilled politician/activist, never actually answering the question. This is his answer to that question:

Former Defence Minister Bill Graham still maintains that the Canadian agreement is better than the Dutch, British and American deals. He was the minister when Gen. Rick Hillier signed the pact with the Afghans. Many others question whether the Canadian deal provides sufficient safeguards, especially since Afghanistan's track record on the torture and mistreatment of detainees is pretty bad, even according to its own human rights groups. There has been very little debate in Canada, in public or in Parliament, about our treatment of detainees and our deal handing them over with no follow up.

He brings in irrelevant data, then states "Many others question whether the Canadian deal provides sufficient safeguards". I translate "many others" as "me and a couple of other CBC guys I know". And then goes on to say Canadians don't care.

This is nothing but shoddy activist journalism. You make an accusation based on what "many other people" are saying AND when the authorities investigate, as they are bound to do, you get to run screaming headlines "MILITARY INVESTIGATING ARMY'S MISTREATMENT OF PRISONERS!!!!!"

I've said the Liberals have to answer for this just as much as the Tories do now. It is in this very thread. In the Afghanistan threads, I have said that that tracking has been insufficient since we don't know what happens to the prisoners we transfered to the U.S. early on or what has happened since from those transfered to Afghans. In other words, there was no reports, no verification one way or the other. O'Connor kept saying everything was okay in committee and Parliament but couldn't produce and report. He basically said the absence of a report from the Red Cross was a clean bill of health. It was only when the military police investigated problems that he rushed to Afghanistan to see what was going on.