[EyeBrock]

Curtman Curtman:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Thousands eh?

Who said there was thousands at the march in Winnipeg?

I'm just going by the title of the thread and I thought a 'crowd counting' lesson might be in order.

The sight of so many cops giving you bad flash-backs?

[Gunnair]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Transparency has it's limits Gunnair.

Making our guys look bad isn't. The media are all over any 'bad-news' stories on the CF they can find.
Putting our guys in a poor light sells papers and ad space for newscasts. Combat operations are not the place for second guessing by the media or far left politicians who march with Hamas supporters.

The media loved the Somalia thing. They want something of a similar ilk, so do the Libs like McCallum and Dosanj and Coderre.

Limiting transparency means there is none. Combat operations have little to do with the allegations of torture and vice versa. One would hope they are two entirely seperate things.

Fact of the matter is, regardless of the Pavlovian response of some fucktard politicians, if the allegations are false, or if the Liberals implicated when they were in office, the public will see rather clearly through the bias dross. Hiding it on the other hand, especially if there's something to it, simply magnifies the negative outcome - kinda like what happened in Somalia.

If we want to avoid another 'Somalia' one would think we don't hide shit like we did in 'Somalia'.

[EyeBrock]

Do you not think that the allegations that the Army handed prisoners over for torture will smear our troops in combat's reputation?

It's a very simplistic approach that in my experience doesn't work. One Army guys conduct being questioned throws dirt at the whole of the Army.

You think it's a good idea to have an ersatz inquiry to the Army's conduct in Afghanistan by partisan politicians looking to score political points? While we are still in daily combat?

I'd not expected a view like this from a serving member of the CF.

[Bodah]

Just because the opposition/media says were hiding something doesn't make it fact, its just an accusation until proven. Proroguing had nothing to do with the witch hunt on our CF, it has to do with the fucked up senate that Harper is rightfully so, fed up with.

Don't let the truth get in the way of a good smear job though.

[Curtman]

Bodah Bodah:

it has to do with the fucked up senate that Harper is rightfully so, fed up with.

Nope. He can appoint senators with or without proroguing. Even though he ran a campaign that promised not to appoint any senators without them being elected. Whether or not he had the ability to make anybody hold an election without making constitutional adjustments, he made the promise.

[Akhenaten]

Curtman Curtman:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

We support people who use torture? I hope you can back that assertion up.

Do we? That's the question that Stephen Harper shut down parliament to avoid answering. If we don't, then he should let the committee do its job and clear our good name.

This is such crap. The Liberals were warned when they started handing over detainees to Afghan athorities instead of to the Americans. The were warned again afterwards by the diplomats at the time in the very same fashion they accuse the CPC of being warned by Colvin.

So they already knew and already ignored warnings, and they already gave the green light to hand over the detainees regardless.

Then when the same thing (supposedly) happened to the CPC they jumped up and down with accusations.

If ANYONE is responsible for 'sullying our good name' it was the Liberals. Period. Full stop. And now you figure it's the CPC's responsibility to 'clear our good name'.

$1:

The link to the article in La Presse, which was accessible on the website of the Centre d'études des politiques étrangères a only a few hours ago, is now redirecting to a "403 Forbidden" page. But it's still obtainable in Google's cache. One can only wonder whether Canada's English language newspapers have this article in their morgues. Did no Anglo journalist even bother trying to match this scoop? With due acknowledgment to the diligent work undertaken by the Torchists, who first noticed something amiss a month ago, here's the English translation:

April 28, 2007:

"Canadian diplomats stationed in Kabul warned the former Liberal government in 2003, 2004 and 2005 that torture was commonplace in Afghan prisons. In spite of these warnings, the Martin government signed an agreement with the Karzai government in December 2005 to hand over all Canadian-captured prisoners to Afghan authorities, Foreign Affairs documents obtained by La Presse reveal.

"From 2002 to 2005, the Canadian practice regarding Afghan detainees suspected of Taliban ties was to hand them over to U.S. military authorities. Ottawa decided to shift its transfers to Afghan authorities, however, in response to abuse allegations at the Guantánamo Bay internment center and the controversy that erupted over revelations of torture and degradation at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

"The December 2005 agreement to transfer detainees to Afghan authorities was concluded despite the content of annual reports from Canadian diplomats covering broad assessments of Afghanistan's progress in human rights protection and the development of democratic institutions. According to a 2004 report: 'The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission concludes from its monitors' assessments that torture remains a current practice, particularly during the early stages of police investigations, in order to extract confessions from prisoners.'

"While the Afghan government was not accused of condoning physical violence in the treatment of prisoners, a 2005 report filed by Canadian diplomats noted that the Afghan military, police and intelligence services were implicated in arbitrary arrests, kidnappings, extortion, torture, and the murder of criminal suspects. Police commanders and officers were also implicated in many allegations of rape. The alleged victims included women, girls and boys.

"While Liberal deputy leader John McCallum was defence minister in 2003, his colleague Bill Graham was foreign affairs minister. In an interview, Mr McCallum told La Presse had never seen the Foreign Affairs' documents. Mr Graham took over as defence minister in June 2004 and still held the post when Canada signed the agreement in December 2005.

"An anonymous Liberal source, well acquainted with the situation, said the Martin government believed that the situation had improved in Afghan prisons when the agreement was concluded: 'From 2002 to 2005, we transferred our prisoners to the Americans. But that became politically untenable because of the stories about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. These events, and our certainty that things had improved in the Afghan prison system, convinced us to sign the detainee transfer agreement with the Afghans,' the source explained.

"However, the Martin government had received annual reports that ill-treatment in Afghan prisoners was commonplace, and the reports closely compare with the report disclosed in a Toronto daily newspaper Wednesday that has caused such a stir in the House of Commons. That document shows that going back to 2006, torture has been a routine practice in Afghan prisons. Opposition parties cited these reports to accuse the Harper government of closing its eyes on violations of Afghan prisoners' rights. The Globe and Mail also reported this week that about 30 Taliban prisoners say they were abused by local Afghan police after they were transferred by Canadian soldiers.

"The Harper government didn't help its cause this week, making several contradictory statements about Afghan prisoners captured by Canadian soldiers and delivered to local authorities in the Kandahar area. Defence minister Gordon O'Connor was the source of the confusion and plunged the Conservatives into embarrassment. The minister initially said that the Independent Human Rights Commission monitors the condition of prisoners to ensure they are well treated, but the commission does not have the financial means nor the staff to undertake the task.

"Then, on Wednesday, Mr O'Connor said that Canada had concluded an agreement with authorities in Kandahar allowing Canadian soldiers a right of access to Afghan detainees to ensure they're not being ill-treated. This was contradicted 24 hours later by prime minister Stephen Harper, who confirmed in the House of Commons on Thursday that no formal agreement exists to allow this access, but that the Canadian authorities hoped to conclude one soon.

"Then public safety minister Stockwell Day added to confusion when he said that for several weeks Corrections Canada staff had been afforded access to the Afghan prisons in the Kandahar area. Then Mr Day moderated his remarks by affirming that two Corrections Canada staff members had been sent to Afghanistan to advise local prison authorities, and then he he explained that their mandate had been broadened so that they could look into the the practice of torture in Afghan prisons."

There you have it.

No matter how laggardly and inattentive the Conservatives may have been in fixing up the whole mess, let it no longer be said that the Conservatives made it, at least not by themselves. The Conservatives inherited a slapdash and jerryrigged process from the Liberals, and if it was a mess it was because the Liberals made it, first. And they knew they were making a mess. And they did it anyway.

Just how it has come to pass that the Liberals have been able to make so much hay out of the "detainee abuse scandal" at the expense of their successors in the Conservative Party may prove to be one of those enduring mysteries of Ottawa politics. Or, in the alternative, some plucky reporter will strike out from the herd and resolve the mystery, at the expense of his colleagues' reputations.

link

Want an inquiry to 'clear our name'? So do I. Let's just make sure that inquiry goes all the way back to 2002.

[EyeBrock]

curtman, in case you missed a few things in Parliamentary proceedings 101, proroguing the House means that the Bills that the all-hallowed Liberal senators ripped to bits and sent back to the Commons are now dead.

They will go back with a new number in the next session to a new Senate that will have a lot more Tories.
This will counter the Liberal Senate's continued obstruction of the democratically appointed representatives of the people of Canada.
This wouldn't have been possible without a prorogue.

If you want to wail about lack of democracy, look at what the Liberal dominated Senate have been doing.

But I guess you are still in shock from seeing all those cops, post traumatic stress kicking in eh?

[Akhenaten]

Comparisons with Somalia are hard to make, imo. In Afghanistan our forces are doing what they're being told, in many cases acting on their own to prevent abuse of detainees.

In Somalia we had bonfide bad apples, even in middle command. We had individuals who captured and tortured to death a Somalia teen.....pretty much for no other reason than because they wanted to. No two craps about it.

This is different. Here we have an 'agreement' with the Afghan government that they would follow geneva conventions even though they're not a signatory. It was doomed to fail.




As as per the article above: Canada would not be in a position to be forced to 'clear it's good name', if it weren't for the Liberals playing 'gotcha' politics over an agreement they made with Afghan authorites despite constant torture warnings tehy already received. The CPC inherited that. As soon as they could the Liberals 'blew the whistle' on their own mistakes and tried to land it in Harpers lap.

[Curtman]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

curtman, in case you missed a few things in Parliamentary proceedings 101, proroguing the House means that the Bills that the all-hallowed Liberal senators ripped to bits and sent back to the Commons are now dead.

They will go back with a new number in the next session to a new Senate that will have a lot more Tories.
This will counter the Liberal Senate's continued obstruction of the democratically appointed representatives of the people of Canada.
This wouldn't have been possible without a prorogue.

If you want to wail about lack of democracy, look at what the Liberal dominated Senate have been doing.

But I guess you are still in shock from seeing all those cops, post traumatic stress kicking in eh?

They could have reintroduced those bills in their original form tomorrow morning when the House of Commons was supposed to sit. Exactly the same. Again, not an excuse to prorogue.

The cops were very friendly by the way. They did a fantastic job too.

[Gunnair]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Do you not think that the allegations that the Army handed prisoners over for torture will smear our troops in combat's reputation?

It's a very simplistic approach that in my experience doesn't work. One Army guys conduct being questioned throws dirt at the whole of the Army.

You think it's a good idea to have an ersatz inquiry to the Army's conduct in Afghanistan by partisan politicians looking to score political points? While we are still in daily combat?

I'd not expected a view like this from a serving member of the CF.

I don't think the allegations will smear them if they are false. The politicians hiding from it may.

I do not agree that the inquiriy will affect combat ops. Since you so strongly believe that there is nothing to the allegations, the one thing we do agree on then, then the military will come through this free and clean while the partisan asshats will look like the idiots they are.

Yours is an attitude I find puzzling. Maybe you haven't been through a 'Somalia' type inquiry though.

[Gunnair]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Comparisons with Somalia are hard to make, imo. In Afghanistan our forces are doing what they're being told, in many cases acting on their own to prevent abuse of detainees.

In Somalia we had bonfide bad apples, even in middle command. We had individuals who captured and tortured to death a Somalia teen.....pretty much for no other reason than because they wanted to. No two craps about it.

This is different. Here we have an 'agreement' with the Afghan government that they would follow geneva conventions even though they're not a signatory. It was doomed to fail.




As as per the article above: Canada would not be in a position to be forced to 'clear it's good name', if it weren't for the Liberals playing 'gotcha' politics over an agreement they made with Afghan authorites despite constant torture warnings tehy already received. The CPC inherited that. As soon as they could the Liberals 'blew the whistle' on their own mistakes and tried to land it in Harpers lap.

Generally I agree that the comparisons are not great, though I temper that with the fact that the similarity of info being hidden is what puts it on a similar footing. This time, however, it is the government that is doing the hiding.

[Curtman]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Curtman Curtman:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

We support people who use torture? I hope you can back that assertion up.

Do we? That's the question that Stephen Harper shut down parliament to avoid answering. If we don't, then he should let the committee do its job and clear our good name.

This is such crap. The Liberals were warned when they started handing over detainees to Afghan athorities instead of to the Americans. The were warned again afterwards by the diplomats at the time in the very same fashion they accuse the CPC of being warned by Colvin.

...

Want an inquiry to 'clear our name'? So do I. Let's just make sure that inquiry goes all the way back to 2002.

Do it! The committee got shut down as soon as the first shred of evidence showed up. There needs to be a committee to decide if there should be an inquiry. Prorogation shut that down.

[Akhenaten]

"Do it! The committee got shut down as soon as the first shred of evidence showed up."


Not quite. All of these warnings were published in the news when Martin was still leader. In other words the facts are already known. Liberals ignored warnings of detainee abuse and signed an agreement with the Afghan authorities anyways thereby putting our soldiers in threat of breaking Geneva Conventions.

Liberals are the party of torture. The CPC is the party of 'clean this mess up'.

Bring on the inquiry. Prorogation didn't shut down any inquiry and there's nothing to stop another.

[Curtman]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

"Do it! The committee got shut down as soon as the first shred of evidence showed up."


Not quite. All of these warnings were published in the news when Martin was still leader. In other words the facts are already known. Liberals ignored warnings of detainee abuse and signed an agreement with the Afghan authorities anyways thereby putting our soldiers in threat of breaking Geneva Conventions.

Liberals are the party of torture. The CPC is the party of 'clean this mess up'.

Bring on the inquiry. Prorogation didn't shut down any inquiry and there's nothing to stop another.

And there you have Mcallum, which you guys are hanging out to dry.. He was the Minister of Defense PRIOR to the Martin Government. He is saying that he would not have made the decision to hand over the detainees. He's saying exactly what you are saying they should own up to, and he's a Liberal. Let the damn committee do its job.

[Akhenaten]

The committee is only investigating Colvins testimony which conveniently only goes back to 2006. Clear it all out. Start from 2002 onwards.