Afghan War Crimes. Civilians Deliberately Targeted

[ScottSA]

Well, it won't do well for me to go into case by case analysis of election results and events on the ground. Obviously I wouldn't have enough information to substantiate any claim (although I'm not sure either how widespread are Internet cafees - could the proximity of your base be a factor?).

But as a general principle, I'm very sceptical about projects that would involve imposing anything, however good it may appear to us, on other people. For the same very reason that I wouldn' t like it myself. Imagine a complete stranger barging into your home, turning it upside down, kicking out a relative who may have been nasty, but with whom you lived your whole life, and then starting rearranging things the way they think it should be, saying all the way that they're doing it for your own sake. I'm not sure it'll sell, no matter how much good we do, and how much money we'll pump into it. With all the history of colonization, democratization and liberation, things always go back to the way of life which is consistent with their beliefs and traditions. The way to deal with them is to understand it (way of life, traditions) and not piss them off if they don't touch us.

Afgans already had a stable govt - perhaps their first stable government in years, and also the one that originated in the land. Should it have been taught a lesson for harbouring our enemies, sure. Should it have been taken away, leaving us to manage a country we have no idea about - sounds like a very uncertain proposition.

Try to keep your eye on the ball here. First, we're in Afghanistan to deny al Queda a national base. Kicking the Taliban out is a secondary but necessary adjunct to that, which is why we're still thrashing the Taliban.

Meanwhile, behind our troops come the reconstruction efforts, and as in Japan and Germany, they are not simply being undertaken so that Shinto warriors, Nazis and Taliban can come crawling out of the aftermath and pick up where they left off by inheriting the infrastructure we left behind. Obviously it is in OUR interests to entice the populace to give up Shintoism, Nazism and radical Islamic fundamentalism. It is possible, but not if the home front starts whining about bodycount the minute the troops go into an offensive posture. I can't think of anything more enervating to our troops than having the NDP calling it a lost cause and demanding that we run away at the earliest opportunity. It's fine to be skeptical, but that is not the same thing as announcing that it can't and won't work.

[M.Dancer]

I hate it when we impose clean water and new schools on people....

[Figleaf]

I hate it when we impose clean water and new schools on people....

I hate when our money and lives of our soldiers are expended doing it with no prospect of lasting success.

[ScottSA]

I hate it when we impose clean water and new schools on people....

I hate when our money and lives of our soldiers are expended doing it with no prospect of lasting success.

I hate it when people tattle on every other post.

[M.Dancer]

I hate it when we impose clean water and new schools on people....

I hate when our money and lives of our soldiers are expended doing it with no prospect of lasting success.

Of course you do. I'm sure you would be miffed if you thought there was a prospect of success. You would find another erroneous reason to hate it.

[Guthrie]

and who got clean water and schools????

I mean, even New Orleans never got clean water and schools.

[ScottSA]

and who got clean water and schools????

I mean, even New Orleans never got clean water and schools.

Right woody. Big Bad Bush and his secret cabal of Zionists are trying to impose dirty water and child sweatshops on New orleans and Afghanistan.

[mcqueen625]

No doubt that targeting of civilans is a war crime - in our moral frame of reference. What's worth asking though, is whether there's reason or meaningful purpose in trying to apply standards created and developed in our part of the world to societies with absolutely different culture and the way of life. Should we continue to interfere, creating tensions that would and do result in loss of life (for us as well as the local polulation), or find another way of dealing with these societies?

I do not believe there's one simple answer to it, but this question should be asked before and at any time during any armed encounter with a different culture.

My culture believes we should pluck the eyeballs out of moral relativists. Is this cultural moray ok with you? When can you visit for your introduction to comparitive culture?

Utter hogwash. What other way should we find to "deal" with it? How about getting off the fence and saying that killing civilians is wrong, period. Who cares what their "culture" says about it? It's wrong. They are wrong.

Who is civilian and who is the military, that is the bigger question. The military could be that innocent kid who is walking by a check-pint with a basket of fruits or vegetables, but when this child gets close enough they detonate a bomb that is contained in the basket, the purpose of which is to kill as many people as possible. The civilians/soldiers look like everyone else. Because they do not dress in military garb does not mean that they are not enemy soldiers. This is not a conventional war where you can tell who is who by the uniforms they wear, so unfortunately many declared civilian casualties are in reality combatants.

[ScottSA]

No doubt that targeting of civilans is a war crime - in our moral frame of reference. What's worth asking though, is whether there's reason or meaningful purpose in trying to apply standards created and developed in our part of the world to societies with absolutely different culture and the way of life. Should we continue to interfere, creating tensions that would and do result in loss of life (for us as well as the local polulation), or find another way of dealing with these societies?

I do not believe there's one simple answer to it, but this question should be asked before and at any time during any armed encounter with a different culture.

My culture believes we should pluck the eyeballs out of moral relativists. Is this cultural moray ok with you? When can you visit for your introduction to comparitive culture?

Utter hogwash. What other way should we find to "deal" with it? How about getting off the fence and saying that killing civilians is wrong, period. Who cares what their "culture" says about it? It's wrong. They are wrong.

Who is civilian and who is the military, that is the bigger question. The military could be that innocent kid who is walking by a check-pint with a basket of fruits or vegetables, but when this child gets close enough they detonate a bomb that is contained in the basket, the purpose of which is to kill as many people as possible. The civilians/soldiers look like everyone else. Because they do not dress in military garb does not mean that they are not enemy soldiers. This is not a conventional war where you can tell who is who by the uniforms they wear, so unfortunately many declared civilian casualties are in reality combatants.

I agree with you. I should have said "intentionally" killing civilians is wrong.

[Rue]

The problem faced by Canada and other NATO Forces in Afghanistan is no different then what the US is faced with in Iraq and ANY nation is faced with when they use a conventional army as a political occupation force....what to do with civilians you capture because you suspect they are terrorists.

There are international treaties. There are conventions that talk about fair trials. There are conventions that forbid torture.

The problem is the US rewrote the definition of torture so as to basically justify using torture as an interogation technique by stretching the concept of what constitutes pain to the point of absurdity.

As well the US has shown it does not feel it has a legal obligation to offer speedy or for that matter "fair" trials. Now when I say "fair" I mean trials that follow the rules of natural justice which includes;

1-the accused being fully informed what the charges are against him

2-the accused is given full dislcosure of any evidence to be used against him

3-the accused is given access to a lawyer

4-there is a timely trial

5-while the accused is incarcerated he is not subjected to inhumane or cruel punishment

6-the reasons for the decision are given to the accused

7-the accused has the right to either speak or remain silent at his trial

8-heresay evidence is considered inadmissable

9-there is a right to appeal if there has been an error of law.

Now we were told by Mr. Bush that he would not follow any of the above in Iraq because it was not practical.

In Afghanistan the Canadians like all other NATO forces hand over civilians to the Afghanis because this way politically if the prisoners are tortured or not guaranteed natural justice no one can blame Canada.

So the million dollar question is-if you want to go into other countries and claim you are bringing democracy and being a role model for democracy, how do you do that, if you engage in the exact same tactics as your enemy when it comes to interogating and torturing your captives?

Here is what I say on the topic. No I am not some fool who thinks that you can treat a terrorist bent on killing you with kit gloves. However, we have the technology to interogate using pharmaceutical products that do not require crude beatings or sodomy or sexual abuse.

Now that said, if you are an elite commando unit or a military force in the heat of battle and you are in the heat of battle and believe you will be killed or someone is about to be killed-yes you do what you do to prevent the death-but in this world where we want to be exporting our democracy like Chistian missionaries only now we are extolling the virtues of Tim Horton's coffee not the BIble, we are stuck with the legal reality of having to deal with the arrest and interogation of civilians.

Its an issue that won't go away. The reality is, democracy can only go so far. Are any of us really willing to fight terrorism if it means preventing it by torturing a terrorist?

We have to deal with that question.

Me personally I believe we should follow an honour code because I believe if we don't and we fail to morally distinguish ourselves from these terrorists - we are no better than they and have lost the very purpose of the battle we chose to engage in which was to prevent ourselves from becoming terrorists.

I appreciate in the heat of war and battle shit happens-and it has always happened-and soldiers do what they do to survive and no its not easy trying to define right from wrong-however away from the heat of the battle-we have to be honourable.

I am not sure right now if the stories we are hearing about torture of suspected terrorists in Afghanistan are accurate or not. I also like many people can tell you we should do the honourable thing-but then I am not there-I am far removed from immediate danger-I would not presume to know what is the honourable thing in the heat of battle or in the midst of the conflict. I talk in ideal terms not practical ones and concede what I say may not be practical but I sure as hope its possible because turning into the terrorists we are fighting is not what I want and I am sure its not what the soldiers want. I do not think I am naive in saying most soldiers are honourable people and believe in an honour code.