Hillier says SOME troops upset

[jdobbin]

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.

Not all the torture allegations come from people identified as Taliban.

Does all the right wing take allegations of abuse so lightly? The Geneva Convention is quite clear that prisoners under care and those transfered are not to be hurt. The good work our soldiers do gets undermined any time detainees are abused. If our allies cannot be trusted, are they really our allies?

[betsy]

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.

Not all the torture allegations come from people identified as Taliban.

Does all the right wing take allegations of abuse so lightly? The Geneva Convention is quite clear that prisoners under care and those transfered are not to be hurt. The good work our soldiers do gets undermined any time detainees are abused. If our allies cannot be trusted, are they really our allies?

I don't take allegations of abuse lightly, I don't think Canada does....if it is done by our troops. Just look at what happened in Africa years back.

But right now, it is not really our problem. Our government had already done something now to have monitoring....at least, we've done that. Let NATO handle the rest!

The three holy party leaders had already done enough to make this country look divided.

The last thing we want now is to step on the toes of NATO....and make life more complicated for our soldiers. Since our soldiers will find themselves shoulder-to-shoulder with other NATO allies in some comabt situations.

[jdobbin]

I don't take allegations of abuse lightly, I don't think Canada does....if it is done by our troops. Just look at what happened in Africa years back.

But right now, it is not really our problem. Our government had already done something now to have monitoring....at least, we've done that. Let NATO handle the rest!

The three holy party leaders had already done enough to make this country look divided.

The last thing we want now is to step on the toes of NATO....and make life more complicated for our soldiers. Since our soldiers will find themselves shoulder-to-shoulder with other NATO allies in some comabt situations.

If we can't trust our host country not to torture and kill detainees who may or may not be Taliban, we probably have no business being in Afghanistan.

We are NATO, by the way.

[betsy]

I don't take allegations of abuse lightly, I don't think Canada does....if it is done by our troops. Just look at what happened in Africa years back.

But right now, it is not really our problem. Our government had already done something now to have monitoring....at least, we've done that. Let NATO handle the rest!

The three holy party leaders had already done enough to make this country look divided.

The last thing we want now is to step on the toes of NATO....and make life more complicated for our soldiers. Since our soldiers will find themselves shoulder-to-shoulder with other NATO allies in some comabt situations.

If we can't trust our host country not to torture and kill detainees who may or may not be Taliban, we probably have no business being in Afghanistan.

We are NATO, by the way.

How can our host country learn overnight after years of being under the Taliban rule...and before that, I don't know what kind of government system they have.

It is a different culture there. They see these detainees as someone who also indiscriminately kill civilians...maimed or killed a brother, children, wives, massacred entired families. Many must have been tortured by the Taliban during their reign of terror.

And now, the shoe is on the other foot.

It is a culture of tit-for-tat. An eye for an eye. It's hard. We can't just insist and impose in a heavy-handed way.

We are a part of NATO.

The most constructive thing we can all do....the very least we can show our troops....is to stand united behind our soldiers and the mission. Keep a stiff upper lip!

[jdobbin]

The most constructive thing we can all do....the very least we can show our troops....is to stand united behind our soldiers and the mission. Keep a stiff upper lip!

If I said that you should support the cops by supporting the gun registry, would you? Keep a stiff upper lip and all. The cops want the registry. They access it thousands and thousands of times as week.

I think their morale will go down if you eliminate it. Better support our cops.

[jbg]

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.

I guess the Left is against self-determination when the results of it aren't to their liking, and in favor of self-determination when the West is hurt by it. I guess it's heads I win tails you lose.

[jdobbin]

I guess the Left is against self-determination when the results of it aren't to their liking, and in favor of self-determination when the West is hurt by it. I guess it's heads I win tails you lose.

I thought you were a left wing radical.

[betsy]

The most constructive thing we can all do....the very least we can show our troops....is to stand united behind our soldiers and the mission. Keep a stiff upper lip!

If I said that you should support the cops by supporting the gun registry, would you? Keep a stiff upper lip and all. The cops want the registry. They access it thousands and thousands of times as week.

I think their morale will go down if you eliminate it. Better support our cops.

Nice try, Dob. But it ain't the same.

Anyway, can you explain why they're accessing the registry....if it's really true that they do.

Can you make another thread on it? I don't want to hijack this thread.

[betsy]

We are NATO, by the way.

Yeah, I know. But I'm not talking about your NATO.

National Association of Taliban Ombudsmen.

I'm talking about the OTHER NATO....you know, the one who wages war against the Taliban.

(sorry, but I just can't resist that!) Lol.

[betsy]

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.

If the prisoners are in your hands. If our soldiers are the ones holding and detaining the prisoners. Yes, I would expect that. That's how we've believed and keep on hoping it will be.

But the scenario we've got here is not anything like that.

That's why I don't agree with the Liberals/NDP demand to cease handing prisoners to the Afghan authorities immedialtely....and that CANADIAN soldiers should be the ones detaining the prisoners.

Why should we burden our own soldiers? Why should we put them at a greater disadvantage? UNNECESSARY RISK? Why should we stick out their necks any further?

Aside from the possible scenario I've written somewhere in this post....all you need is one detainee to make allegation that our soldiers are torturing them. Then what?

We start grilling our own soldiers?

Of course....the National Association of Taliban Ombudsmen will want an inquiry!

So why should we be stupid enough to set us up on that very highly likely scenario?

I would even bet...at the end of the day, they'll find a way that we also end up paying for compensation!

Layton and Dion and Diuseppe are making a farce out of this war! Their reality looks like something out of Monty Python!

(Sorry, I missed your post).

[Topaz]

We are pissed off that there are folks making mountains outta mole hills. Lets again find reasons to shove our own heads in the mud yet again. No, we won't spend $$ to properly support and equip the military, but we should pay millions to bring talibs to Canada.....

Just our own quisling types. Who should be reminded that al Qaeda and the taliban don't take prisoners any longer than it takes to line them up and shoot them or chop necks.

Perhaps Harper should have thought very carefully before extending the Canadians troops to the most dangerous part of this country. My question to you, why are we over there? What is Canada'a interest, Harper's keeps talking about. It is the oil, I don't want oil gotten by Canadians troops dying! OBL isn't in Afghanistan any longer, he's in Pakistan mts., by the US, which I don't believe. So why is there a war going on in Afghanistan?.....O I L!!!!!!

[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.

If the prisoners are in your hands. If our soldiers are the ones holding and detaining the prisoners. Yes, I would expect that. That's how we've believed and keep on hoping it will be.

...

Why should we burden our own soldiers? Why should we put them at a greater disadvantage? UNNECESSARY RISK? Why should we stick out their necks any further?

So we agree that the Captor should do all in thier power to ensure the safety of the captured. Yet, you also say the Captor should take no unnecessary risk. What then is unnecessary risk in regards to captured Taliban/suspected Taliban?

Is it unnecessary risk to ensure the prisoners have access, say once a month or so, to representatives of the Red Cross/Red Crescent? or to have those organizations inspect the conditions that said prisoners are being held in ?

....all you need is one detainee to make allegation that our soldiers are torturing them. Then what?

We start grilling our own soldiers?

Of course....the National Association of Taliban Ombudsmen will want an inquiry!

Of course we want an inquiry. Canadians capture the enemy. Canadians, have signed onto the Geneva Conventions and the Treaty/convention banning torture. Canadians have an obligation to ensure that such captured enemy are not tortured and/or abused. Because we hand them over to Afghans for keeping doe's not relinquish our obligation to ensure the prisoners we have captured are not abused and/or tortured.

If the prisoners claim they are being abused/tortured then do we have an obligation to investigate those claims? If we do, is it at greater risk to our soldiers?

So, according to the Globe and Mail links provided earlier, some 30 detainees have claimed to be abused/tortured by thier Afghan keepers.

Do we ignore them or do we investigate?

Doe's our duty to ensure the safety of the captured end upon turning them over to another power?

According to some on this thread we have no duty/right to make the Afghans treat those captured by Canadians in the same manner we would treat them ourselves. I absolutely agree with that. Therefore, considering our obligations we must then set up our own detainee camp with guards and wire and everything else required. And why not? Prisoners are part of War. Surrender is something we want the enemy to do and we must also do all in our power to make surrender a viable option for the Taliban, either individually or in groups or in its entirety. We don't do that by beating our prisoners, or tortureing them. We don't encourage surrender by turning them over to other powers that do abuse them/torture them.

I know, the Taliban are very nasty people who in no way deserve fair treatment. Nevertheless, If our aim is to get them to give up the struggle, then we must be absolutly brutal to those who continue to fight us on the battlefield and absolutly humane and mercifull to those who no longer wish to fight us.

If Duceppe and Layton and Dion are making political hay out of this then I say good for them. Secrecy is the cornerstone of abuse.

As an aside, I think O'Connor is actually doing a pretty good job as MoD. The guy who has fucked this all up is the CDS. General Hillier. Now that guy is probably a very good field commander. But is otherwise a Dork.

He's the one that should go - and I suspect he will. As CDS anyways.

[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?

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.

I guess the Left is against self-determination when the results of it aren't to their liking, and in favor of self-determination when the West is hurt by it. I guess it's heads I win tails you lose.

I'm all for self-determination. If the Afghans believe abusing the prisoners is the right thing to do, I say 'carry on. It's none of our business'. Our business is ensuring those captured by Canadians are not abused.

If Afghans are abusing them, then the answer is simple: Stop turning them over to Afghans.

[jdobbin]

Yeah, I know. But I'm not talking about your NATO.

National Association of Taliban Ombudsmen.

I'm talking about the OTHER NATO....you know, the one who wages war against the Taliban.

(sorry, but I just can't resist that!) Lol.

It would appear that the issue of the detainees is something that the Tories can't brush aside. Once again, they have slipped in the polls. They are now 1% above the Liberals.

Until the Tories take the issue seriously and deal with it, it will hand around their necks like a weight.

[jdobbin]

Nice try, Dob. But it ain't the same.

Anyway, can you explain why they're accessing the registry....if it's really true that they do.

Can you make another thread on it? I don't want to hijack this thread.

Isn't the same? You just dismiss it but the police have been harsh critics of ending the gun regisry. They access it 5000 times a day.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...7225b0a&k=74454

But the Canadian Police Association says its members consult the gun registry 5,000 times a day. They say it helps police determine what kind of weapons they might find inside a house, and what size security perimeter to erect during an operation.

“If the amnesty continues — you know what’s going to happen,” said association president Tony Cannavino.

“We’re going to have less and less long guns registered. That’s a problem — instead of being more accurate and having updates on who’s buying long guns, that won’t happen. . .

So either you favour the police or not. Support our police!

[Argus]

Just our own quisling types. Who should be reminded that al Qaeda and the taliban don't take prisoners any longer than it takes to line them up and shoot them or chop necks.

Perhaps Harper should have thought very carefully before extending the Canadians troops to the most dangerous part of this country. My question to you, why are we over there?

We've been over there for years as peacekeepers. Then, in 2005, the Liberal Party negotiated an agreement which changed our role and sent us to the south to fight the Taliban. They warned at the time that this would be a very different kind of fight, and that we could expect casualties. What? You weren't around then? You weren't paying attention? Why is that?

What is Canada'a interest, Harper's keeps talking about.

Canada has expended quite a bit of effort over the last forty to fifty odd years in trying to maintain order and peace in various parts of the world. We spent over twenty years in Cyprus, keeping the Turks and Greeks from killing each other. We spend a considerable amount of time and effort and blood in old Yugoslavia trying to keep the Serbs, Croats and Muslims from committing genocide on each other. Now we're in Afghanistan trying to keep peace while it reorganizes itself from a collection of tribal warlords constantly at each other's throats to a semblance of a modern state.

It is the oil, I don't want oil gotten by Canadians troops dying!

There is no more oil in Afghanistan than there was in Cyprus or Yugoslavia. But if by chance we find some I'm sure we can guarantee you get none.

[betsy]

So we agree that the Captor should do all in thier power to ensure the safety of the captured. Yet, you also say the Captor should take no unnecessary risk. What then is unnecessary risk in regards to captured Taliban/suspected Taliban?

Why, were the prisoners being detained by our soldiers when the alleged abuse happened? Or were they already handed over to the Afghans?

If by "captors"....you mean the ones who had captured them right from the start....well I guess I misunderstood.

My answer was based on the word "captors" meaning those who currently holds and detains them.

So maybe, we don't agree.

And after reading the rest of your post (my pov on this had been posted already somewhere here)...then I definitely say, we don't agree. It's NATO's problem.

[Peter F]

Why, were the prisoners being detained by our soldiers when the alleged abuse happened? Or were they already handed over to the Afghans?

If by "captors"....you mean the ones who had captured them right from the start....well I guess I misunderstood.

My answer was based on the word "captors" meaning those who currently holds and detains them.

So maybe, we don't agree.

And after reading the rest of your post (my pov on this had been posted already somewhere here)...then I definitely say, we don't agree. It's NATO's problem.

From my understanding of the scandal, the prisoners claim being abused by thier Afghan keepers. Back home in Canada the opposition parties have criticized the government for turning over captured taliban to Afghans who abuse the prisoners.

According to you , we Canadians treat our prisoners humanely...its just that we don't have any prisoners nor do we want any prisoners, so we turn them over to others and if those others are abusive well then thats not our problem.

So yes I guess we don't agree.

NATO, as far as I know, has not signed the Geneva Conventions nor the conventions against torture. Nor does NATO have any organisation in place to keep or care for prisoners. That is done by the individual nations that are part of NATO. So to say Canada has no obligations to prisoners - NATO does, is Monty Pythonesque.

Apparently, in 2005, Gen.Hillier entered into agreement with the Afghan government to turn over any persons captured by Canadians to the Afghans for detention. Such an agreement was not between NATO and Afghanistan, it was between Canada and Afghanistan. If there are any problems with that agreement, then it is not NATO's problem - it is Canada's problem. Canada should deal with it, or not, as we will. What we can't do, and apparently its what you think we should do, is admit we entered into agreement with Afghansitan regarding treatment and monitoring of prisoners we capture, but we really don't have anything to do with it so its not our problem....Why then did Hillier enter into any agreement at all? But he did, so it must mean something.

[betsy]

Why, were the prisoners being detained by our soldiers when the alleged abuse happened? Or were they already handed over to the Afghans?

If by "captors"....you mean the ones who had captured them right from the start....well I guess I misunderstood.

My answer was based on the word "captors" meaning those who currently holds and detains them.

So maybe, we don't agree.

And after reading the rest of your post (my pov on this had been posted already somewhere here)...then I definitely say, we don't agree. It's NATO's problem.

From my understanding of the scandal, the prisoners claim being abused by thier Afghan keepers. Back home in Canada the opposition parties have criticized the government for turning over captured taliban to Afghans who abuse the prisoners.

According to you , we Canadians treat our prisoners humanely...its just that we don't have any prisoners nor do we want any prisoners, so we turn them over to others and if those others are abusive well then thats not our problem.

So yes I guess we don't agree.

NATO, as far as I know, has not signed the Geneva Conventions nor the conventions against torture. Nor does NATO have any organisation in place to keep or care for prisoners. That is done by the individual nations that are part of NATO. So to say Canada has no obligations to prisoners - NATO does, is Monty Pythonesque.

Apparently, in 2005, Gen.Hillier entered into agreement with the Afghan government to turn over any persons captured by Canadians to the Afghans for detention. Such an agreement was not between NATO and Afghanistan, it was between Canada and Afghanistan. If there are any problems with that agreement, then it is not NATO's problem - it is Canada's problem. Canada should deal with it, or not, as we will. What we can't do, and apparently its what you think we should do, is admit we entered into agreement with Afghansitan regarding treatment and monitoring of prisoners we capture, but we really don't have anything to do with it so its not our problem....Why then did Hillier enter into any agreement at all? But he did, so it must mean something.

Maybe we should ask the previous government! They were the ones who signed up with NATO in the first place, didn't they? Especially, if it's true that NATO had not signed the Geneva Conventions.

Anyway, the fact that we've signed up with NATO...and that this is a NATO operation....makes it NATO's problem.

[Peter F]

Maybe we should ask the previous government! They were the ones who signed up with NATO in the first place, didn't they?

True enough. That would be Louis St.Laurent's Liberal government of 1949.

Especially, if it's true that NATO had not signed the Geneva Conventions.

Anyway, the fact that we've signed up with NATO...and that this is a NATO operation....makes it NATO's problem.

No, Its Canada's problem. Nato being a collection of soveriegn states each agreeing to help defend the other should any one of them be attacked. There is nothing about treatment of prisoners, capturing of prisoners or anything else to do with prisoners. That would come under each nations concept of the Laws of War. In Canada's case, we have agreed to apply the geneva conventions and Canada has also signed the agreement against torture of prisoners. Domestically we accept that prisoners - no matter how heinous their crimes - shall be treated in a humane manner. So our concept of how prisoners should be treated are fairly Liberal in that we do not torture them, or abuse them, or starve them or beat them, or deny them mail, or religion or water or anything else. We treat our prisoners humanely.

So if our government, as they have, enter into agreement with the Afghan government where they take our prisoners from us and in return we get to check on the prisoners from time to time to ensure they are treated in a humane manner, I find that very acceptable. If however, Afghanistan treats the prisoners poorly, then of what use was our government and/or Hillier in entering into an agreement with Afghanistan?

Did we not negotiate in good faith?

[betsy]

Btw, does anybody know how these detainees happened to be captured? I'm talking about the ones caught by our troops....and if I'm not mistake, there's only a couple of them?

[betsy]

Nato being a collection of soveriegn states each agreeing to help defend the other should any one of them be attacked.

I know. Then why didn't we, without qualification, come to the defense of the USA following the events of 9/11?

We are a signatory to NATO. The Liberal waffling after 9/11 was inexcusable. Legally.

[betsy]

When parties are bound by the Geneva Convention (Convention 3), amongst other things, in a

… “relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention

Although leftwingers will tell you that Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran are signatories to the GC, it’s irrelevant! The Taliban is not. Neither is Al-Qaeda. They are the enemy.

[jbg]

I'm all for self-determination. If the Afghans believe abusing the prisoners is the right thing to do, I say 'carry on. It's none of our business'. Our business is ensuring those captured by Canadians are not abused.If Afghans are abusing them, then the answer is simple: Stop turning them over to Afghans.

Somehow the logic seems inconsistent. Either they're civilized and entitled to the benefits and burdens of nation-statehood, with its trappings of passports, access to international aid mechanisms and whatnot or they're not.

[Peter F]

I'm all for self-determination. If the Afghans believe abusing the prisoners is the right thing to do, I say 'carry on. It's none of our business'. Our business is ensuring those captured by Canadians are not abused.If Afghans are abusing them, then the answer is simple: Stop turning them over to Afghans.

Somehow the logic seems inconsistent. Either they're civilized and entitled to the benefits and burdens of nation-statehood, with its trappings of passports, access to international aid mechanisms and whatnot or they're not.

Being entitled to all the benefits and burdens of nation-statehood etc is neither here nor there. If they are abusing prisoners (contrary to the agreement with Canada who turned those prisoners over to them) then Canada should cease turning prisoners over to them. Is there any point to the Canada-Afghan agreement regarding detainee's at all?