The Afghan people will win - Part 10

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture
Webgear

 

Unionist

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

The cat is out of the bag: Fallen soldier thought Afghan mission 'useless'

The cat was first seen on [url=Sept">http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/afghan-people-wi.... 19 at 12:04 am.[/url]

But she still has teeth and claws!

 

Frmrsldr

Former post edited and moved below. (See post #105).

NDPP

America Has Been Here Before

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/20

"We should hang a huge sign over Afghanistan: 'CAUTION: DEJA VU!'. Afghanistan's much ballyhooed recent election staged by its foreign occupiers turned out to be a fraud wrapped up in a farce - as this column predicted a month ago. It was as phony and meaningless as US run elections in Vietnam in the 1970s. Canada played a shameful role in facilitating this obviously rigged vote.."

Jingles

Quote:
I don't believe what we are doing to be illegal or immoral.

How handy for you. Notwithstanding what it is you believe, the fact is we are occupying a sovereign nation, a nation which never was nor ever could be a threat to Canada (remember, that's the country you fantasize you are "defending"). It is, despite the post hoc justifications and legal weaselry, a violation of international law: an act of aggression. 

Quote:
I still believe in the mission.

There is no "mission". There is only occupation. Your continued aid and abetting of a war crime makes you complicit. You are a war criminal. You can look up what is the punishment for that, but I'm sure you know what that is already.

Webgear

Well, if I am convicted I will take my punishment.

Yes, I know the possible penalties.

Article 77

Applicable penalties

1. Subject to article 110, the Court may impose one of the following penalties on a person convicted of a crime referred to in article 5 of this Statute:

(a) Imprisonment for a specified number of years, which may not exceed a maximum of 30 years; or

(b) A term of life imprisonment when justified by the extreme gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the convicted person.

2. In addition to imprisonment, the Court may order:

(a) A fine under the criteria provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence;

(b) A forfeiture of proceeds, property and assets derived directly or indirectly from that crime, without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/EA9AEFF7-5752-4F84-BE94-0A655EB30E16/0/Rome_Statute_English.pdf

http://www.international.gc.ca/court-cour/war-crimes-guerres.aspx?lang=eng

Frmrsldr

Unionist wrote:

This Semrau was the scumbag who was reported by an eyewitness to have murdered an unarmed and gravely wounded insurgent, and then was immediately released on bail.

I see now that the other scumbags haven't even charged him with first-degree murder. Perhaps he only intended to wound him again, but not kill him?

I stand by [url=my">http://www.rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/afghanistan-... first reaction[/url] from January:

Quote:
He must have accidentally shot some U.S. agent being groomed to infiltrate the insurgents. Otherwise, wouldn't they be giving him a medal?

You may wish to read the following posts to see babblers saying Semrau is presumed innocent (we're referring to an armed Canadian shooting people in Afghanistan) and justifying the release on bail of someone who, if the prima facie evidence is upheld, is a dangerous murdering sociopath.

Captain Semrau was probably part of an Airborne/Green Beret/Special Forces/JTF 2/CIA counter-intelligence psywar/psyops programme:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/091709a.html

The reason why he got caught in his targeted assassination is that he did it in front of the wrong (Afghan) people. (Afghan) insurgent intelligence/counter-intelligence is much better than ours. A number of the Afghan troops being mentored were probably insurgent intelligence "plants" (undercover agents), possibly double agents.

Update

Los Angeles Times wrote:
McCrystal is expected to expand the use of teams that combine CIA operatives with special operations soldiers. In Iraq, where he oversaw the special operations forces from 2003 to 2008, McCrystal used such teams to speed up the cycle of gathering intelligence and carrying out raids aimed at killing or capturing insurgents.

http://freedomsyndicate.com/fair0000/latimes00016.html

Ann Jones and Tom Engelhardt wrote:
In a country where 40 percent of men are unemployed, joining the ANA for 10 weeks is the best game in town. It relieves the poverty of many families every time the man of the family goes back to basic training, but it's a needlessly complicated way to unintentionally deliver such minimal humanitarian aid. Some of these circulating soldiers are aging former mujahideen - the Islamist fundamentalists the U.S. once paid to fight the Soviets - and many are undoubtedly Taliban.

http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2009/09/20/us-or-them-in-afghanis...

Frmrsldr

Jingles wrote:

Quote:
I don't believe what we are doing to be illegal or immoral.

How handy for you. Notwithstanding what it is you believe, the fact is we are occupying a sovereign nation, a nation which never was nor ever could be a threat to Canada (remember, that's the country you fantasize you are "defending"). It is, despite the post hoc justifications and legal weaselry, a violation of international law: an act of aggression.

Quote:
I still believe in the mission.

There is no "mission". There is only occupation. Your continued aid and abetting of a war crime makes you complicit. You are a war criminal. You can look up what is the punishment for that, but I'm sure you know what that is already.

Anyone guilty of war crimes or crimes against humanity will be brought before the World Court. The World Court, like any human organization has limited resources. As we all know, when it comes to detaining and prosecuting war criminals, the World Court and those acting in a supportive role will go after the worst case offenders and work their way down to a cut off point. At best (hopefully) those who escape justice are very "small" offenders. Crimes against humanity would have to be gross and/or widespread. In order for a war crime to be proven the crime must satisfy the conditions of being systemic and widespread, a pattern done over a period of time.

Unless Webgear is a high ranking officer, it is unlikely he will face charges of a war crime or a gross crime against humanity. If Webgear is of a lesser rank, particularly a lower non commissioned officer rank, what could happen is that Commanding Officers facing lesser war crimes and/or crimes against humanity charges could pass the legal (and moral) blame/responsibility to the troops at the bottom of the military's "corporate ladder". This was the case with the beating death of the Somali boy by the Canadian military in 1994.

As a soldier, to take a vocal stand against the war, one runs the risk of the military filing charges and a legal suit against one. For example, an Army buddy of mine - Corporal Paul Demetrick - whom some of you here at rabble may know about, took a vocal and public stand against the Afghan war by writing letters to newspapers about his views and identifying who he is and the fact that he was (at the time) a soldier. The Army started preliminary Court Martial proceedings against him. In Canadian military law there is this catch all clause "Conduct unbecoming ... ", where, if all else fails, they can charge you with. In the Demetrick case, the military decided the best course of action was to hush things up: He was quietly given a 'voluntold' honorable discharge.

So, you see, whether Webgear toes the "corporation's cultural" values of the military and complies to another tour if ordered or if he resists and voices any opposition he may have for the war, he faces potential legal risks. "Damned if he does. Damned if he doesn't", either way. If he obeys like a good little soldier and does as he is ordered, he is least likely to get into (legal) trouble.

If he is opposed to the war, if he quietly voluntarily leaves the military at the first opportunity, this is the least 'harmful' (to oneself) option. This is why so few currently serving Canadian soldiers have spoken out against the war. That, plus they are indoc[trinated] by the military (and society) to internalize the military's values. It takes a strong individual to resist external pressure and indoctrination.

If you have the opportunity, check out the DVDs "Sir! No Sir!" and "F.T.A.".

http://www.truthout.org/091709R

NDPP

Former Canadian Soldier Speaks out Against 'disgusting' Child Rape in Afghanistan

http://www.canada.com/nas/disgusting+former+Canadian+soldier+says+allege...

"Every day, Travis Schouten lives with the image of the rape of an Afghan boy at a Canadian Forces base. 'It's disgusting' said Schouten, now retired after 5 years in the military. We're telling people that we're trying to build a nation there and we let this happen.."

 

Child rape IS disgusting whether in Afghanistan or Canada where it is rampant. But as repugnant as child-rape, is imperialism, occupation and aggressive warmaking..

remind remind's picture

continued over here

Pages

Topic locked