Canada Complicit in TORTURE

118 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

Gar Pardy, retired ambassador and Director General of Consular Services, was interviewed on The National this evening. Here's what he said about Peter MacKay's assault on Richard Colvin:

Quote:
I can't think of another case where a public servant has been attacked in this way.

Asked about culpability on the part of those who handed over detainees, or knew of the risk of torture and did nothing:

Quote:
Individuals who aid and abet in torture are also liable for prosecution under this section of the Criminal Code. [...] Liable in Canada under Canadian law.

These are from my notes. You can watch the broadcast [url=here[/url]">http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/watch/]here[/url] - the Colvin affair is the first item, starting with Natynczyk's comments.

NDPP

PMO Issued Instructions on Denying Abuse in 07: Former NATO official says response to reports was 'scripted' in Ottawa

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/729157--pmo-iss...

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office used a "6000 mile screwdriver" to oversee the denial of reports of Afghan detainee abuse when the scandal first erupted in 2007, according to a former senior NATO public affairs official who was then based in Kabul.

Only the Losers Need to Fear War Crime Laws:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/728888

"In its handling of Afghan prisoners, the Canadian government appears to have committed two types of offences. The first and most serious - crimes against humanity - will almost certainly not result in any sanction.."

It's Not Somalia But It's the Same in Many Ways

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/728959--travers...

[Like the NDP, Hillier an Obama Fan]: One Year to Turn Afghanistan Around:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/729049--one-yea...

Tigana Tigana's picture

Looks like it's going to be a bad week for politicians Smile

 

Leaked documents reveal No 10 cover-up over Iraq invasion

• Inquiry to hear how Blair hid true intentions for war
• Military 'ill-prepared' for aftermath of invasion

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/22/iraq-invasion-no10-cover-up

NorthReport

And another bad week, to add to a series of bad weeks, and months, and years, coming up for the Liberals as well.

 

Human rights mess goes beyond Tories

Conservatives did not initiate the culture of casual indifference to Canada's legal humanitarian obligations that has surfaced periodically in the national capital over the past decade, although they did reinforce it.

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/729401--h-eacut...

 

Tim Bousquet

Did Hillier's "murderers and scumbags" comment encourage Canadian arrests of innocent Afghanis who were tortured?

Journalist Bruce Wark reports:

http://bit.ly/73CD5k

kathleen

Unionist wrote:

kathleen wrote:

Hey, Canuqetoo, this is just par for Babble. Trolls and trash if you're not one of "them" and like unionist said - "not worth responding to". Don't know what's wrong with calling a tribe a tribe.

 

 

You don't like my comment - so you attack babble? And you "don't know what's wrong with calling a tribe a tribe"? Which tribe is that? Which tribe, kathleen? Which tribe was your buddy referring to? Did you catch the name? Or since they're Afghans, you and your buddy can just assume they're part of some "tribe" which doesn't allow them to appreciate Canadian largesse?

It's racism, western supremacism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia. We are all prone to it, because we are raised to be so superior to third world people (including the indigenous people right here) that we can even justify sending troops with guns to murder them, without having received an invitation, and think that we're doing something good. You may not like the terminology, but it's better to call this behaviour what it is, than to succumb to it - don't you think? And if you don't know what's wrong with it, then I feel sorry for you.

 

 

I tire of your righteous indignation, Unionist. I was interested in what Canuquetoo had to offer. You were intent on shutting it down.

Thanks for the lecture.

Unionist

kathleen wrote:

I tire of your righteous indignation, Unionist. I was interested in what Canuquetoo had to offer. You were intent on shutting it down.

Thanks for the lecture.

No problem. Canadians whose country sends expeditionary forces to invade others, and teach them how to be "civilized", need to be careful how they look down their noses at "inferior beings" like Afghan "tribes". If that's what you call a "lecture", expect to hear lots more of the same.

 

George Victor

Canaquetoo: "After spending good money on Pervez Musharraf's self-serving autobiography, I wouldn't waste the breath needed to stand at the till to purchase Hillier's drivel. I did, however, get good value for the amount spent to purchase Sarah Chayes' excellent work: The Punishment of Virtue which goes into some detail about the tribal culture of southern Afghanistan and the intricacies of inter-tribal relations. This, plus reading South Asian papers online, is the basis for my arguments that American policy is counterproductive and harming efforts to form a central government because Afghans have tribal based cultures that do not lend themselves to centralised control."

 

Right. I would never buy Hillier's memoirs. He is one coarse, ignorant fellow. But since the library beckons, I had to request a loan - a radical sociologist out of Berkley in '69 told us tykes that you had to read what the bastards are reading to understand how to fight them.

 

But many many years ago I put out .75 cents for a copy of John Masters, Bugles and a Tiger (Ballantine paperback) the memoirs of a Brit officer in late 1930s India and the Frontier (now Pakistan). The British eventually "reached the mountains that separate the subcontinent from Afghanistan. Those mountains extend four hundred miles from the Khyber Pass in the north to the Bolan Pass in the deserts of Baluchistan to the south. They are raw and bare, and a proudly independent people lives in them. These people,Semitic in origin, Moslem in religion, Pushtu in speech, are the Pathans. ("P'tahan") "The Pathans, subdivided into various tribes, live astride the Indo-Afghan border, which runs roughtly down the middle of the mountain chain. Nota only do different members of the same tribe live on oposite sides of the international baoundary, but the same family or subtribe may own winter fields on the Indian side and summer grazing on the Afghan side.

 

"In all historical time the Pathans have kept themselves alive by a combination of nomad life, half-hearted tillage of the barren earth, armed raids into the settled farmlands of the plains, and levying tolls on the commercial traffic that must use the few routes through their hills. The principal routes are via the Kabul River, the Khyber Pass, the Kurram River, the Tochi River, the Gomal River, and the Bolan Pass.

 

"Well armed, owning no king or central authority, loosely organized into soviets of tribes, subtribes, and families, fanatically adhering to the Moslem law, addicted to blood fueds and vendettas, the Pathans gave the oncoming British serious pause...."

 

And so it goes.

Fidel

And they likely praise Allah every day for their long guns and RPG's.

Slumberjack

When has the term 'tribe' or its derivatives ever been presented within the mainstream media to imply anything other than what the use is intended to suggest among readers and viewers.  The latest examples reveal that we're expected to associate the term with lawlessness, as in the case of the Pakistani 'tribal' areas, where long range missiles are used to destroy houses and everyone in it.  Among the indoctrinated westerners who have come to equate tribalism with lawlessness, this form of 'justice' is seen as the appropriate response because the people affected, as in all ages killed and maimed, are of no account, their lives are meaningless because they are presented to us through the implied meaning of the word 'tribe' as deserving of such fate.

What is appropriate is fury and outrage at those interests in the MSM who propagate these associations of hatred with their all too obvious inferences.  Considering the numerous examples of horrific context, instead of defensiveness as the default response to such measured challenges that are offered here to loose terminology, time and effort might be better spent in understanding strongly held views and analysis behind the objections.   It isn't too much to ask at all in comparison with what should sicken us when it is absorbed everywhere else.

George Victor

They do things that I once tried to post here, quoting Masters...but failed. You will find some of them in Kipling's  "Tommy".  Old Imperialist India stuff, old boy. At least, known to the Raj...

Their history should have alerted "the West" to the insanity of the idea of going there in the first place, but our leaders have not read any of this, and we are not allowed to talk about history that might only be used in the bastardized fashion of our leaders.

SparkyOne

I don't understand those pictures of the flag with the little abu ghraib tourture victim.

 

That's American soldiers tourturing and humiliating Iraq people in a prison in Iraq.

Are Canadians tourturing Afghanistan people in a prison somewhere?

 

I thought this was about Canadians handing over prisoners who are tourture BY other Afghanistan people.  Wouldn't it make more sense to have that abu ghraib man picture on an Afghanistan flag?

Connection seems pretty lame.

Unionist

Is Peter MacKay posting here in his ample spare time?

 

George Victor

I believe the motif's central idea is "torture". The idea that it was exclusive to "others", while "we" were not involved, has been questioned.

You're right. (If we can ignore the "handing over". ) Some find that more difficult than others, apparently. 

SparkyOne

Why were we handing over prisoners?

SparkyOne

Unionist wrote:

Is Peter MacKay posting here in his ample spare time?

 

LOL LOL!!!

George Victor

Sparky: "Why were we handing over prisoners?"

 

We didn't want to shoot them or put them in concentration camps, and it seemed the easiest, most cost-effective  thing to do, for anyone not giving a damn about their treatment by the home grown security forces.

canuquetoo

Unionist wrote:

canuquetoo wrote:
The sad part is that Canada's feeble aid efforts are marginalised by a tribal culture that does not differentiate between occupying nationalities - they are all enemies.

The problem was not the use of the word "tribal", but the imperialist racist arrogance of denigrating Afghans, and this is the "sad part", of being too backward in their culture to distinguish between Nice White Western Invaders (Canadians and their aid efforts) and the Bad Guys. They're not advanced enough to see that We Are Their Friends.

But I didn't realize that that information came from a book, so I retract my umbrage.

 

Yawn.... You don't realise many things because you are too steeped in your own delusions to make any attempt to comprehend the context of anyone's words except to misrepresent them.

 

The "sad part" is the militarisation of aid delivery.

 

Hysterical denunciations of "imperialist racial arrogance" is the default position of ideologues with nothing to say.

 

canuquetoo

kathleen wrote:

Unionist wrote:

kathleen wrote:

Hey, Canuqetoo, this is just par for Babble. Trolls and trash if you're not one of "them" and like unionist said - "not worth responding to". Don't know what's wrong with calling a tribe a tribe.

 

 

You don't like my comment - so you attack babble? And you "don't know what's wrong with calling a tribe a tribe"? Which tribe is that? Which tribe, kathleen? Which tribe was your buddy referring to? Did you catch the name? Or since they're Afghans, you and your buddy can just assume they're part of some "tribe" which doesn't allow them to appreciate Canadian largesse?

It's racism, western supremacism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia. We are all prone to it, because we are raised to be so superior to third world people (including the indigenous people right here) that we can even justify sending troops with guns to murder them, without having received an invitation, and think that we're doing something good. You may not like the terminology, but it's better to call this behaviour what it is, than to succumb to it - don't you think? And if you don't know what's wrong with it, then I feel sorry for you.

 

 

I tire of your righteous indignation, Unionist. I was interested in what Canuquetoo had to offer. You were intent on shutting it down.

Thanks for the lecture.

I think that many posters see the little trooper in the same light. The mods have his back so he feels free to intimidate and silence anyone who dares to disagree with his viewpoint.

Frmrsldr

Tim Bousquet wrote:

Did Hillier's "murderers and scumbags" comment encourage Canadian arrests of innocent Afghanis who were tortured?

Journalist Bruce Wark reports:

http://bit.ly/73CD5k

I think it's also a case that Harpo wanted to show what a good Quisling he was/is for the American Empire.

canuquetoo

 

"Well armed, owning no king or central authority, loosely organized into soviets of tribes, subtribes, and families, fanatically adhering to the Moslem law, addicted to blood fueds and vendettas, the Pathans gave the oncoming British serious pause...."

 

And so it goes.

In Pakistan, they are refered to as Pakhtoons. The various tribes are supported by regional players like Iran and Pakistan whose intent is to keep Afghanistan destabilised. Pakistan, for strategic depth in its hostilities with India, who is also a regional player, supporting Karzai's government on one hand and tribal entities on the other. Iran, for reasons of a more geopolitical nature than merely keeping a neighbouring nation weak.

 

Frmrsldr

SparkyOne wrote:

I don't understand those pictures of the flag with the little abu ghraib tourture victim.

That's American soldiers tourturing and humiliating Iraq people in a prison in Iraq.

Are Canadians tourturing Afghanistan people in a prison somewhere?

I thought this was about Canadians handing over prisoners who are tourture BY other Afghanistan people.  Wouldn't it make more sense to have that abu ghraib man picture on an Afghanistan flag?

Connection seems pretty lame.

An assassin murders someone. In the eyes of the law, the party that paid the hitman is just as guilty as the party that pulled the trigger. The Geneva Conventions are very specific about the handling of detainees. If a party hands detainees over to a third party where it is known or suspected the third party tortures and abuses prisoners, this is a war crime.

Webgear

 

Webgear

 

PraetorianFour

Why would Canadians hand Afghans over to the ANP [Afghanistan National Police].

I'm going to throw this out there without causing a dogpile.
The basic idea theory plan hope design thought etc.. etc.. is to take the ANP and turn them into a semi-professional, credible and ethical police force. It's impossible to give them the feeling of authoruty responsibility and professional compitence if we [Be it Canada, NATO] hold their hand and don't let them do their job.
"You're all police officers BUT we don't want you arresting anyone or searching anyone, handling prisoners or giving people traffic tickets". Part of the process is to let them be their own keepers.

Therein lies the problem it seems like we faced in Afghanistan. We want the ANP to basically be police officers but there not "there" yet and by that I mean it's or it was common place for them to take a prisoner drive off somewhere and put the boots to him or even shoot him.

Where do Canadian soldiers fit in?
I'll explain a military wide problem in a moment but Canadian soldiers were basically told what i just said here right? If you get a prisoner hand them over to the ANP because they need to be seen by the locals doing their thing and not having NATO hold their hands OR do everything for them. [This was a same-issue in Bosnia. The search for illegal weapons went from a NATO lead effort to Bosnian police searching for weapons with NATO advisors to Bosnian police working without help or hinderence of NATO].
Canadian soldiers are not stupid though and lots of complains went up the chain of command saying NO we can't hand these prisoners over, their just getting executed. Then it turned into a big bun fight over what to do.

This is just my illinformed opinion but I suspect one major problem is something that is found throughout all militaries in the world. I am sure the military members of this forum current and otherwise will agree. The "troops" can be miserable, not getting paid not getting fed and all around pissed off. yet when a General comes to inspect the troops all he hears is SIR! Everything is great, troops are happy everyone is getting paid well there is plenty of food things are A-OKAY! It's not the privates talking to the generals...
Somehow from the "grunt level" to the general there is a big disconnection. I could not pinpoint it but taking a guess in my little example the middle management does not want to explain why soldiers are not getting fed to a very angry general.

In the case of what we are talking about here though I think the people on the bottom all over knew exactly what was happening and let people know but some how the people on top were told everything is fine the prisoners are being taken care of in a professional manner etc.. etc..
Disconnect somewhere along the way and the truth exactly where will come out and hopefully they will be brought to task over it.

Fidel

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=a&aid=16259]Canada 's Guantanamo[/url] Canadian military's role in torture coverup in Afghanistan

Quote:
Now, instead of launching an inquiry, the Conservatives are pursuing their usual practice of smearing critics. "We frankly just found his evidence lacked credibility. All his information was, he admits, at best second hand," said Lawrie Hawn, parliamentary secretary to Defense Minister Peter MacKay. MacKay angrily dismissed the charges, while former Canadian military chief-in-command in Afghanistan Rick Hillier can't "remember reading a single one of those cables", and depicted the fuss as mere "howling at the moon". "Even in our own prisons somebody can get beaten up," he cracked to reporters.

But then this is standard operating procedure for Harper's Conservatives. They called New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton "Taliban Jack" for his suggestion that NATO should negotiate with elements of the Taliban. That is now the policy not only of Canada in Afghanistan, but of the Karzai government in Kabul.

 Uncle Sam's yes-men in Ottawa are always out of touch.  

canuquetoo

PraetorianFour wrote:
Why would Canadians hand Afghans over to the ANP [Afghanistan National Police]. I'm going to throw this out there without causing a dogpile. The basic idea theory plan hope design thought etc.. etc.. is to take the ANP and turn them into a semi-professional, credible and ethical police force. It's impossible to give them the feeling of authoruty responsibility and professional compitence if we [Be it Canada, NATO] hold their hand and don't let them do their job. "You're all police officers BUT we don't want you arresting anyone or searching anyone, handling prisoners or giving people traffic tickets". Part of the process is to let them be their own keepers. Therein lies the problem it seems like we faced in Afghanistan. We want the ANP to basically be police officers but there not "there" yet and by that I mean it's or it was common place for them to take a prisoner drive off somewhere and put the boots to him or even shoot him. Where do Canadian soldiers fit in? I'll explain a military wide problem in a moment but Canadian soldiers were basically told what i just said here right? If you get a prisoner hand them over to the ANP because they need to be seen by the locals doing their thing and not having NATO hold their hands OR do everything for them. [This was a same-issue in Bosnia. The search for illegal weapons went from a NATO lead effort to Bosnian police searching for weapons with NATO advisors to Bosnian police working without help or hinderence of NATO]. Canadian soldiers are not stupid though and lots of complains went up the chain of command saying NO we can't hand these prisoners over, their just getting executed. Then it turned into a big bun fight over what to do. This is just my illinformed opinion but I suspect one major problem is something that is found throughout all militaries in the world. I am sure the military members of this forum current and otherwise will agree. The "troops" can be miserable, not getting paid not getting fed and all around pissed off. yet when a General comes to inspect the troops all he hears is SIR! Everything is great, troops are happy everyone is getting paid well there is plenty of food things are A-OKAY! It's not the privates talking to the generals... Somehow from the "grunt level" to the general there is a big disconnection. I could not pinpoint it but taking a guess in my little example the middle management does not want to explain why soldiers are not getting fed to a very angry general. In the case of what we are talking about here though I think the people on the bottom all over knew exactly what was happening and let people know but some how the people on top were told everything is fine the prisoners are being taken care of in a professional manner etc.. etc.. Disconnect somewhere along the way and the truth exactly where will come out and hopefully they will be brought to task over it.

There is a fundamental truth to the 'disconnect' when the issue is driven top-down such as a piece of kit that end users find poorly designed and useless but it is issued because some careerist refuses to acknowledge any error.

In the case of information driven from the bottom, the careerists only acknowledge the portions that have the potential to reflect well on themselves and, in the case of such damning information as presented by Richard Colvin, any attempt to communicate such info would be throttled to preserve "plausable deniability".

Plausable deniability - what an odious term for cover thine ass.

Fidel

canuquetoo wrote:
Plausible deniability - what an odious term for cover thine ass.

It's how US shadow government has operated for years at arm's length from cosmetic government. They are still hand in glove with Al CIA'duh and other militant groups working to create an arc of destabilized countries extending from Africa to Central Asia. And our political stooges are only following the general plan handed them from Warshington.

NDPP

We Are All War Criminals

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24043.htm

"And because these crimes are committed in all of our names, we are all war criminals..."

George Victor

"And because these crimes are committed in all of our names, we are all war criminals..."

 

The crimes are not committed in our names, but in the name of democracy, freedom, modernism... The "war criminals" are those who use these fine principles for their own purposes (count the ways).

Eastwinds

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

We Are All War Criminals

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24043.htm

"And because these crimes are committed in all of our names, we are all war criminals..."

 

9/11, Nairobi and Dar es Salaam embassies, USS Cole, Bali, Madrid bombings, London subway, Pakistani suicide bombings, etc..are also atrocities. Radical islamic jihadists are an atrocity. Didn't see the author of your link mention any of that.

Our inability to be strong, united, and play hardball is our weakness in dealing with an enemy who lives and dies by it.

My oh my have the times changed since WW2.

contrarianna

Eastwinds wrote:

....

My oh my have the times changed since WW2.

Not so much.
We have brainwashed defenders of gratuitous torture of the innocent-- in the name of finally getting "strong, united, and play[ing] hardball".  The SS would be proud.

Eastwinds

contrarianna wrote:

Eastwinds wrote:

....

My oh my have the times changed since WW2.

Not so much.
We have brainwashed defenders of gratuitous torture of the innocent-- in the name of finally getting "strong, united, and play[ing] hardball".  The SS would be proud.

 

I do not take joy in the torture of a human being but I also will not call my country's soldiers war criminals.

George Victor

Yeah, "hardball" fails to explain pain of the victim, somehow, rationalize the old "tit for tat", "eye for an eye" stuff.

George Victor

How about the leadership, military and political? The soldier ("doughboy in WW11 American memory) has had to follow orders too, eh?  Always that way in uniform.

"My country's" soldiers, sailors and aircrews should be employed in defence of the motherlan...fatherl... er, place of peace, order and good government.

Eastwinds

Politicians are ALL the same to me. Parliament is just a place for the high paid to shout at each other and achieve little most of the time. It doesn't matter the party, minor ideological differences is a very fine line that separates them. Whatever party is the ruler of the day, the opposition parties get up and try to accomplish what?...score points for the next election?...score better points for the leader? It would be the same if the cons were in opposition at the moment, they're all the same.

Does it make the job easier for the men and women who serve in our armed forces in Afghanistan?

 

Ignatieff isn't so moral himself, is he?....

 

 

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/24/...

contrarianna

Eastwinds wrote:

contrarianna wrote:

Eastwinds wrote:

....

My oh my have the times changed since WW2.

Not so much.
We have brainwashed defenders of gratuitous torture of the innocent-- in the name of finally getting "strong, united, and play[ing] hardball".  The SS would be proud.

I do not take joy in the torture of a human being but I also will not call my country's soldiers war criminals.

There is no comfort in your statement that you "don't take pleasure" in defending the gratuitous torture of the innocent,
since there are some therapies for hyper-Sadism.
Unfortunately, the "moral" jingoistic rationalizations for torture (for any state or group) is much more intractable and is not seen by the believer as a problem.

Fidel

contrarianna wrote:

Eastwinds wrote:

....

My oh my have the times changed since WW2.

Not so much.
We have brainwashed defenders of gratuitous torture of the innocent-- in the name of finally getting "strong, united, and play[ing] hardball".  The SS would be proud.

 

Well according to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA]wiki[/url], some of the Nazis welcomed to North America with operation paperclip were actually prosecuted as war crims at the time of the Nuremberg trials. Some of them went on to study torture under various US government sub-programs that rivalled the Manhatten project in scope. They  terrorized Latin American and other citizens of the thirdworld where them and their fascist friends waged war on democracy for many years.

Every November the eleventh, Americans and Canadians, and Brits, too, should remember that the Nazis were really our friends. Or at least it would appear that this was the case.

Eastwinds

contrarianna wrote:

Eastwinds wrote:

contrarianna wrote:

Eastwinds wrote:

....

My oh my have the times changed since WW2.

Not so much.
We have brainwashed defenders of gratuitous torture of the innocent-- in the name of finally getting "strong, united, and play[ing] hardball".  The SS would be proud.

I do not take joy in the torture of a human being but I also will not call my country's soldiers war criminals.

There is no comfort in your statement that you "don't take pleasure" in defending the gratuitous torture of the innocent,
since there are some therapies for hyper-Sadism.
Unfortunately, the "moral" jingoistic rationalizations for torture (for any state or group) is much more intractable and is not seen by the believer as a problem.

Who's innocent? The ones who place IED's and throw acid on school girls faces or the few that may be innocent?

 

Unionist

Eastwinds, quit sitting on your laurels and enjoying the good life off the sacrifices of our sacred martyrs. Go to Afghanistan, save the people there from each other; show us how it's done. Go. Now. Git.

 

Fidel

Eastwinds wrote:
IED's and throw acid on school girls faces or the few that may be innocent?

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was infamous for throwing acid in the faces of women when he was a student at Kabul University. He was bosom pals with the west then in the late 70's and 1980's. And now Gulbby is our friend again, or at least, I'm not sure the west or NATO gangsters ever had a serious falling out with him. Mackay is full of Yanqui bullshit.

Frmrsldr

Eastwinds wrote:

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

We Are All War Criminals

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24043.htm

"And because these crimes are committed in all of our names, we are all war criminals..."

9/11, Nairobi and Dar es Salaam embassies, USS Cole, Bali, Madrid bombings, London subway, Pakistani suicide bombings, etc..are also atrocities. Radical islamic jihadists are an atrocity. Didn't see the author of your link mention any of that.

Our inability to be strong, united, and play hardball is our weakness in dealing with an enemy who lives and dies by it.

My oh my have the times changed since WW2.

The means by which we have employed to combat our enemy have turned us into the very evil we are fighting against.

Frmrsldr

Eastwinds wrote:

contrarianna wrote:

Eastwinds wrote:

....

My oh my have the times changed since WW2.

Not so much.
We have brainwashed defenders of gratuitous torture of the innocent-- in the name of finally getting "strong, united, and play[ing] hardball".  The SS would be proud.

I do not take joy in the torture of a human being but I also will not call my country's soldiers war criminals.

When you go up the chain of command, who is at the top?

The Canadian government.

Remember also, that former Gen. Rick Hillier (Chief of Defense Staff) signed the Afghan detainee transfer agreement with the Karzai government (something he had no authority to do without the backing of Prime Minister and Parliament) without the monitoring and safeguard provisions and, as of yet, I have heard of no occasion when Hillier subsequently stopped the transfers - he tows the (Cons[ervative]) party line.

To transfer detainees to a party where it is known or suspected that party tortures and abuses detainees is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Protocol on the Treatment of Prisoners and is thus a war crime.

The Geneva Conventions also stipulate that soldiers have the duty to disobey unlawful commands. The reason why few soldiers have spoken out publicly about this is because I believe they are too chickenshit over the prospect of a Court Martial and have been indoctrinated (brainwashed) to believe that the interests of the military and its commissioned officer class are the same as the interests of the non commissioned class. Thus criticizing the military and/or its commissioned officer class (falsely) goes against the interest of all soldiers.

Frmrsldr

Eastwinds wrote:

Politicians are ALL the same to me. Parliament is just a place for the high paid to shout at each other and achieve little most of the time. It doesn't matter the party, minor ideological differences is a very fine line that separates them. Whatever party is the ruler of the day, the opposition parties get up and try to accomplish what?...score points for the next election?...score better points for the leader? It would be the same if the cons were in opposition at the moment, they're all the same.

Does it make the job easier for the men and women who serve in our armed forces in Afghanistan?

Ignatieff isn't so moral himself, is he?....

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/24/...

This issue is being written about in newspapers in the U.S.A., in China, in India and in other countries. Our violation of the Geneva Conventions and thus our committing a war crime has tarnished the reputation of Canada internationally.

This has occurred under a Conservative administration's watch. And what have they done? Did they recognize this as an egregious violation of international law and universal morality and take immediate steps to stop this pernicious situation in a long term and definitive manner?

No, they acted the same way Nixon did when the Watergate story was unfolding: Covering up, lying, "deep sixing" and destroying information, making sure not to leave a paper trail or any physical evidence that would lead to the Office of the President (Nixon) or the Prime Minister's Office (Harper), obstructing justice, intimidating some witnesses while paying others hush money to keep their mouths shut and instructing still others to lie before Congress (Nixon) or Parliament (Harper).

Facing the prospect of impeachment forced Nixon to resign.

I hope facing the prospect of a war crimes trial at the World Court in the Hague, the prospect of a vote of non confidence in the House, the prospect of criminal charges being laid in Canada and the outrage of enough Canadians will either force Harper to resign or force an election.

Frmrsldr

Eastwinds wrote:

Who's innocent? The ones who place IED's and throw acid on school girls faces or the few that may be innocent?

Peter MacKay makes the charge that Richard Colvin's claims of detainee abuse "Lack one shred of credible evidence."

Then MacKay is guilty of the very thing he charges Colvin with when he makes an unsubstantiated statement by substituting the word "detainee" for the politically charged word "Taliban".

According to universal justice, one is innocent until proven guilty. That's the way it works. Have any of these detainees be been put on trial? Have any of these detainees been found guilty in a court of law of being "Taliban" and/or having committed acts of terrorism?

If not, then where's MacKay's credible evidence to substantiate his claim/political rhetoric/propaganda?

Frmrsldr

Fidel wrote:

Eastwinds wrote:
IED's and throw acid on school girls faces or the few that may be innocent?

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was infamous for throwing acid in the faces of women when he was a student at Kabul University. He was bosom pals with the west then in the late 70's and 1980's. And now Gulbby is our friend again, or at least, I'm not sure the west or NATO gangsters ever had a serious falling out with him. Mackay is full of Yanqui bullshit.

Fidel, you are right. Even as we speak, shadowy representatives of the U.S.A., the U.K. and the Karzai government are holding talks with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Jalaluddin Haqqani, Mullah Mohammed Omar and other Taliban and insurgent group commanders to lay down their arms and join the Afghan national government.

There have been some incidents of women and schoolgirls getting acid thrown in their faces after October 2001. These occurrences have largely taken place in eastern Afghanistan, opposite of the region of Pakistan where Gulbuddin is believed to be located, suggesting it is his HIG network that is responsible and not the Taliban or other insurgent groups.

NorthReport

Who does that idiot Hillier think he is kidding with his attempted drive-by smear today?

Damn that Paul Martin for elevating this GI Joe nutbar!

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

WHOA! The CBC is reporting today that the Red Cross was complaining that they were not notified of prisoners transferred by Canada to the Afghans for as many as eight days and were thus having difficulty tracking them. Eight days? Now, I admit I'm a suspicious type, but was this CF policy done with a nudge, nudge, wink, wink to enable torture of detainees without the concern of busybody NGOs? Is this why a former top general will argue he was negligent and entirely irresponsible in not reading reports?

Interestingly, Hillier argues that they may have transfered "Afghan farmers by day and Taliban by night". Has our "kill the scum" general just admitted the Afghan war is a popular war of liberation against foreign occupation? Doesn't all of this make him a war criminal?

What a day!

 

 

remind remind's picture

continued here

Frmrsldr

NorthReport wrote:

Who does that idiot Hillier think he is kidding with his attempted drive-by smear today?

Damn that Paul Martin for elevating this GI Joe nutbar!

Hillier admitted that we (Canadian military) had substantive credible evidence that Afghan detainees were tortured and abused by Afghan authorities. This vindicates Richard Colvin's claims. Hillier, MacKay and Harper, it seems, lack the intellectual capacity to realize this.

It was reported that the halt of the transfer of detainees occurred four times. Thus, the corrupt Karzai government failed four times to stop the torture and abuse. This begs the question, does this torture and abuse still continue? Needless to say, these are yet more incidents where the Harper administration looks bad.

Pages

Topic locked