Hillier says SOME troops upset

[Wilber]

Let's say you're given a choice, either the safety of our soldiers, or the safety of the prisoners. Which do you choose?

I don't have any idea why the two are together as a choice. Are Canadians soldiers in danger because they are ensuring the safety of those detained?

Then stop doing it by saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you approves of torture.

It's interesting that you still refuse to answer the question. Does the fact that Canadians turn Afghan prisoners over to the Afghan government mean that they know or approve of them being tortured? You infer that because they haven't followed up on these prisoners to your satisfaction that it must be so. You infer that anyone who refuses to condemn our troops for that also approves of people being tortured. Pretty sanctimonious if you ask me.

[jdobbin]

Then stop doing it by saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you approves of torture.

It's interesting that you still refuse to answer the question. Does the fact that Canadians turn Afghan prisoners over to the Afghan government mean that they know or approve of them being tortured? You infer that because they haven't followed up on these prisoners to your satisfaction that it must be so. You infer that anyone who refuses to condemn our troops for that also approves of people being tortured. Pretty sanctimonious if you ask me.

Lots of deflecting here. The Canadian government's own Foreign Affairs department yesterday said they know of cases but won't release them because of national security. This is a direct contradiction if what they stated before.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070504/...fghan_cda_abuse

But testimony given by a senior military officer in the Amnesty lawsuit outlined a specific case, where Canadian soldiers had to take a back a prisoner who was beaten by Afghan National Police officers. This latest contradiction follows a statement by Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day earlier this week, who confirmed that correctional officers had received two reports of prisoner abuse.

In both instances, the government is refusing to release details of the incidents, claiming it might violate national security.

I have never condemned our troops. I condemn five different cabinet ministers who couldn't get their story straight and outright had it wrong on what was happening over there.

I don't believe in the question as it has been posed. You seem to think it is a either/or situation. I don't.

As far as following up on detainees to my satisfaction, this is deflecting again. They haven't followed up on detainees period. And this responsibility falls directly on the government's shoulders not the soldiers.

[Argus]

Oh please. There is not one Liberal, not one NDP, not one BQ who could possibly care less what happens to Taliban prisoners, or suspected Taliban or whatnot. They are, in the British vernacular, "wogs", and the opposition does not care any more about them than they do the wogs in the hellhole prisons of Pakistan or Iran or China or Cuba or anywhere else in the third world. This is simply a way of attacking the government and scoring points. Nothing more, nothing less. All the outrage and indignation and shouting is simply farce, an act, with lines written by scriptwriters (er, speech writers) and choreographed moves all done in hopes the ignorant herd whose vote they are playing for will award points to them.

And the Tories are the only ones who really care about the world's welfare, the soldiers. They have hearts of gold and don't do anything that it remotely connected to getting votes. They are simply angels placed on earth to look after us and care, deeply care about all living things.

The Conservatives did not send the troops to Afghanistan. The Liberals did. The Conservatives did not volunteer for a heavy combat operation in the south. The Liberals did. The Conservatives did not negotiate an agreement to hand prisoners over to the Afghans, the Liberals did. Once in office the Tories simply carried on with what the Liberals had already done, except that they did their best to provide better equipment to the troops. The Liberals, now out of power, and with a spineless new leader, cast around for something to make them popular again, to discredit the government, and they found - Afghanistan! So despite the fact all their hypocritical braying is about something they themselves are 100% responsible for, you think the Conservatives should somehow be blamed for being as unethical, dishonest and shameless as the Liberals you support?

[Argus]

That was after the coup, right, where he removed the Liberals from power and told them he'd do whatever they wanted and they better not dare intervene?

The Defence department didn't care and shunted aside Foreign Affairs in making the deal. Hillier never listened to criticism of the weakness of the agreement and the minister signed off on it based on their recommendations.

Oh I see, so the Liberals weren't responsible. It was all Hillier's fault for giving them bad advice. So are you saying that the Conservatives aren't responsible for anything since, that it was all Hiller's fault for giving them bad advice?

[jdobbin]

Oh I see, so the Liberals weren't responsible. It was all Hillier's fault for giving them bad advice. So are you saying that the Conservatives aren't responsible for anything since, that it was all Hiller's fault for giving them bad advice?

I've said the Liberals are responsible. Just as the Tories are responsible now.

[Argus]

As far as following up on detainees to my satisfaction, this is deflecting again. They haven't followed up on detainees period. And this responsibility falls directly on the government's shoulders not the soldiers.

But wait a minute. You just said that the responsibility for signing the original agreement to turn prisoners over to the Afghans was the soldiers' fault, not the Liberals, because the soldiers gave them bad advice. So shouldn't you now be saying that all the confusion is the fault of the soldiers and not the government?

[jdobbin]

But wait a minute. You just said that the responsibility for signing the original agreement to turn prisoners over to the Afghans was the soldiers' fault, not the Liberals, because the soldiers gave them bad advice. So shouldn't you now be saying that all the confusion is the fault of the soldiers and not the government?

I said it was the Defence department's fault. That is the government.

[Argus]

Oh I see, so the Liberals weren't responsible. It was all Hillier's fault for giving them bad advice. So are you saying that the Conservatives aren't responsible for anything since, that it was all Hiller's fault for giving them bad advice?

I've said the Liberals are responsible. Just as the Tories are responsible now.

I ask anyone who cares, to read jdobbin's previous post wherin he states the following:

The Defence department didn't care and shunted aside Foreign Affairs in making the deal. Hillier never listened to criticism of the weakness of the agreement and the minister signed off on it based on their recommendations.

Perhaps my reading is in error, but it certainly appears that he is excusing the Liberals and blaming Hillier. Perhaps someone would like to point out my error here?

[jdobbin]

So despite the fact all their hypocritical braying is about something they themselves are 100% responsible for, you think the Conservatives should somehow be blamed for being as unethical, dishonest and shameless as the Liberals you support?

Yes.

[Argus]

But wait a minute. You just said that the responsibility for signing the original agreement to turn prisoners over to the Afghans was the soldiers' fault, not the Liberals, because the soldiers gave them bad advice. So shouldn't you now be saying that all the confusion is the fault of the soldiers and not the government?

I said it was the Defence department's fault. That is the government.

You specifically blamed Hillier in excusing the Liberal government for signing.

[Figleaf]

As far as following up on detainees to my satisfaction, this is deflecting again. They haven't followed up on detainees period. And this responsibility falls directly on the government's shoulders not the soldiers.

But wait a minute. You just said that the responsibility for signing the original agreement to turn prisoners over to the Afghans was the soldiers' fault, not the Liberals, because the soldiers gave them bad advice. So shouldn't you now be saying that all the confusion is the fault of the soldiers and not the government?

Slimy manouver there, Argus. You sleazily substituted 'soldiers' for 'Hillier' in a transparent piece of filthy rhetorical fraudulence. And it's not the dishonesty that suprises ... it's the ineptitude.

[Remiel]

War is here to stay, it is a reality of the human experience that is not going to go away because we don't like it, no more than crime, AIDS or cancer will go away, deal with it!!!!

You would call the rest of us the defeatists, but this statement certainly clears up the confusion on that account.

[jdobbin]

I ask anyone who cares, to read jdobbin's previous post wherin he states the following:

The Defence department didn't care and shunted aside Foreign Affairs in making the deal. Hillier never listened to criticism of the weakness of the agreement and the minister signed off on it based on their recommendations.

Perhaps my reading is in error, but it certainly appears that he is excusing the Liberals and blaming Hillier. Perhaps someone would like to point out my error here?

Perhaps you should keep where I said the Liberals are responsible for the agreement based on the Defence department's recommendation. Hillier signed the agreement and recommended it to the minister.

Foreign Affairs was indeed shunted aside.

[jdobbin]

You specifically blamed Hillier in excusing the Liberal government for signing.

I never excused the Liberal government in any of these posts.

And I do focus on Hillier because he pushed for the agreement.

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20070502082537703

PAUL KORING , BRIAN LAGHI and CAMPBELL CLARK

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

May 2, 2007 at 1:00 AM EDT

WASHINGTON AND OTTAWA — The Department of Foreign Affairs was pushed to the sidelines when Canada struck its detainee-transfer deal in Afghanistan, two senior government sources have told The Globe and Mail.

“We were not consulted,” said one, adding that Foreign Affairs was shunted aside by the Department of National Defence and Canada's top soldier, Rick Hillier, when he signed the accord in 2005. The deal has become mired in controversy because it includes no follow-up role for Canada on the fate of detainees in Afghanistan's notoriously brutal prison system.

Another senior foreign-service officer gave a longer explanation: “Hillier went to Kabul thinking of them [the detainees] as ‘scumbags' and made the deal. Hillier wanted to sign it; he insisted on signing it,” he said. “Defence took the file and messed it up.”

[Argus]

As far as following up on detainees to my satisfaction, this is deflecting again. They haven't followed up on detainees period. And this responsibility falls directly on the government's shoulders not the soldiers.

But wait a minute. You just said that the responsibility for signing the original agreement to turn prisoners over to the Afghans was the soldiers' fault, not the Liberals, because the soldiers gave them bad advice. So shouldn't you now be saying that all the confusion is the fault of the soldiers and not the government?

Slimy manouver there, Argus. You sleazily substituted 'soldiers' for 'Hillier' in a transparent piece of filthy rhetorical fraudulence. And it's not the dishonesty that suprises ... it's the ineptitude.

Figgy! Filthy Figgy! It was transparent indeed, in an effort to point out the hypocrisy of his position. When I try to point out the obvious to people like you subtlety is just a waste of time. A two by four across the face is sometimes too subtle to people as locked into their own rabid ideological thinking as guys like you.

[betsy]

It was a simple question, why answer it with another question?

It isn't a simple question. How is that torture of detainees helps Canadians troops?

Let's say you're given a choice, either the safety of our soldiers, or the safety of the prisoners. Which do you choose?

It IS a simple question. What is your answer?

Never mind about the torture aspect.....just let us know your choice.

[jdobbin]

Let's say you're given a choice, either the safety of our soldiers, or the safety of the prisoners. Which do you choose?

It IS a simple question. What is your answer?

Never mind about the torture aspect.....just let us know your choice.

The safety of the soldiers always comes first. So are you saying that the safety of the soldiers is in jeopardy in some way? I have no idea what you are asking.

[jbg]

It was a simple question, why answer it with another question?

It isn't a simple question. How is that torture of detainees helps Canadians troops?

Afghans torture Afghan's and it's O'Connor's (link) or Hillier's fault? Something's disconnecting here.

[jdobbin]

Afghans torture Afghan's and it's O'Connor's (link) or Hillier's fault? Something's disconnecting here.

Hillier pushed for and signed the deal. Check the link. O'Connor was asked to look into things by Harper and mislead the House for months by saying that there was monitoring. There wasn't.

[betsy]

The safety of the soldiers always comes first. So are you saying that the safety of the soldiers is in jeopardy in some way?

Of course.

Didn't you read about the low-morale aspect of this? Haven't you read Army Guys and Weaponeer's pov?

And how about if we follow the idiotic wish of some of our bright Oppositions leaders...stop handing the prisoners to the Afghans immediately. Who's going to babysit those suspects? Our troops?

You want these insane, fanatics inside our military base? It's hard enough for our soldiers trying to stop determined suicide bombers from coming close to them....and you want them right inside with them!

So our men will be watching not only the outside perimeters....but most importantly, watching the insides too? Never knowing when one could manage to escape and kill as many along the way?

You want to saddle our troops with the ADDED responsibility of taking good care of these suspects....the very same people, most of whom, were trying to blow up and send our men back in bodybags?

[betsy]

You know, there is one possible way to handle this that ought to satisfy the Oppositions leaders.

They should:

Choose some of their own MPs and send them to Afghanistan to monitor the situation. If they want to guarantee no tortures....hey, it should all start right from the very beginning. So there can be no doubts about our troops either.

In order for them to guarantee that our own men are not in any way engaging in tortures....these MPs must go marching with our men, just so they'll be there to witness the "capture moment."

Since these MPs are against any sorts of firearms, we will not torture them by making them carry any rifles or firepower of any kinds of weapons. But we will provide them with their very own survival kit: Valium and a shovel (for digging), so they can quickly bury their heads whenever the going gets rough!

These MPs do not have anything to worry about. If they ever get captured by the Taliban....I'm sure, they'll be treated humanely as possible, since the reason why these MPs are in Afghanistan in the first place is for the Taliban's benefit anyway....so they'll make quite a credible confession during Taliban Question Period to say: "hey, we're on your side!"

[betsy]

You know, there is one possible way to handle this that ought to satisfy the Oppositions leaders.

They should:

Choose some of their own MPs and send them to Afghanistan to monitor the situation. If they want to guarantee no tortures....hey, it should all start right from the very beginning. So there can be no doubts about our troops either.

In order for them to guarantee that our own men are not in any way engaging in tortures....these MPs must go marching with our men, just so they'll be there to witness the "capture moment."

Since these MPs are against any sorts of firearms, we will not torture them by making them carry any rifles of firepower or any kinds of weapons. But we will provide them with their survival kit. Valium and a shovel (for digging), so they can quickly bury their heads whenever the going gets rough!

These MPs do not have anything to worry about. If they ever get captured by the Taliban....I'm sure, they'll be treated humanely as possible, since the reason why these MPs are in Afghanistan in the first place is for the Taliban's benefit anyway....so they'll make quite a credible confession during Taliban Question Period to say: "hey, we're on your side!"

Amnesty International must come along too. Just to make sure that the MPs are doing a very good job monitoring....and that absolutely no one is hurting the feelings of the Taliban.

[Peter F]

Betsy:

Let's say you're given a choice, either the safety of our soldiers, or the safety of the prisoners. Which do you choose?

It IS a simple question. What is your answer?

Never mind about the torture aspect.....just let us know your choice.

Safety of the prisoners. They are unarmed and at the mercy of thier captors. It is the duty of the captor to do all in thier power to ensure thier safety.

[jdobbin]

Of course.

Didn't you read about the low-morale aspect of this? Haven't you read Army Guys and Weaponeer's pov?

And how about if we follow the idiotic wish of some of our bright Oppositions leaders...stop handing the prisoners to the Afghans immediately. Who's going to babysit those suspects? Our troops?

That's what Canada used to do in the past. They handled their own prisoners.

[jdobbin]

You know, there is one possible way to handle this that ought to satisfy the Oppositions leaders.

They should:

Choose some of their own MPs and send them to Afghanistan to monitor the situation. If they want to guarantee no tortures....hey, it should all start right from the very beginning. So there can be no doubts about our troops either.

In order for them to guarantee that our own men are not in any way engaging in tortures....these MPs must go marching with our men, just so they'll be there to witness the "capture moment."

You forget that until this year, the Defence department wouldn't even let MPs visit Afghanistan. A little hard to monitor when you are not allowed to even visit the country.