Diplomat: Canada Complicit in Torture of Innocent Afghans

[Admiral Beez]

If the mandate was actually to go in and simply eradicate Al-Q and the Taliban, then anyone with an IQ over 80 could have predicted failure.

Actually the mission to remove Al-Q's ability to operate internationally from Afghan bases has for the most part been a success.

No one can eradicate the Taliban, since everyone and no one can be a Talib at any one time. Much like you couldn't eliminate, or even identify the VC in Vietnam. The mission was never to eradicate the Taliban, but to take out their ability to support terror in the West. If the Taliban had not supported Bin Laden and Al-Q up to 9/11, the Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan.

 

[Roy G Biv]

Actually the mission to remove Al-Q's ability to operate internationally from Afghan bases has for the most part been a success.

No one can eradicate the Taliban, since everyone and no one can be a Talib at any one time. Much like you couldn't eliminate, or even identify the VC in Vietnam. The mission was never to eradicate the Taliban, but to take out their ability to support terror in the West. If the Taliban had not supported Bin Laden and Al-Q up to 9/11, the Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan.

Well, it's been promoted as a "rebuilding effort" and has been anything but. After denying Colvin's report, the Conservatives are now saying they were aware of the problems, and took steps to resolve them. Bull fucking shit. I hate this government.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I hate this government.

Unless Iggy gets his act together, he's done for, and you'll have to live with the government you hate.

Honestly, I sometimes think the Liberals are plain old stupid. They're chasing, albeit very poorly, after the Quebec vote, but seem to forget that Western Canada is growing in population, and is about to gain several new ridings. The Liberals should be campaigning in the growth areas, not Quebec.

Of course, politics in Canada would be much simpler if we just did the following: 1) require that parties must run candidates in all ridings (Good-bye Bloc), 2) following the British example and dissolve the Liberal Party, moving to a two party system with a distinct difference between them, Cons and Dippers (Labour).

 

[newuser2k9]

Unless Iggy gets his act together, he's done for, and you'll have to live with the government you hate.

Honestly, I sometimes think the Liberals are plain old stupid. They're chasing, albeit very poorly, after the Quebec vote, but seem to forget that Western Canada is growing in population, and is about to gain several new ridings. The Liberals should be campaigning in the growth areas, not Quebec.

Of course, politics in Canada would be much simpler if we just did the following: 1) require that parties must run candidates in all ridings (Good-bye Bloc), 2) following the British example and dissolve the Liberal Party, moving to a two party system with a distinct difference between them, Cons and Dippers (Labour).

I think the Liberals' failure so far is controlling image. Their policies so far do resonate with Canadians (see Obama), it's just in the face of a well-oiled tightly controlled Conservative machine they can't seem to fight back. Our current labeling of them, at least in my opinion, is framed by the Conservative propaganda. Ignatieff is not stupid; I would even characterize him as a good politician. It's the tactics that are failing. Liberals should be aggressively trying to polarize the younger electorate, blitzing social media (it has to get better than their little pathetic YouTube page) and finding issues that get them into the polls. Right now, the 18-34 demographic could care less about politics. In the US, Obama managed to unlock a piece of this, not only by race, but by little things that get the internet stirring, such as issues such as Net Neutrality and having a Twitter before it got big. Little steps such as these could give the Liberals some headway into becoming a meaningful party yet again.

 

[unimaginative2]

I agree with most of what newuser said.

Beez, from a purely political standpoint there's absolutely no sense in the Liberals chasing after votes in Alberta. Iggy could go for a daily bath in tar sands oil and the Liberals still wouldn't get more than two seats in a landslide. In Quebec, a really good election could bring the Liberals thirty or more seats. In Alberta and increasingly the rest of the prairies, politics is essentially tribal. Nothing short of a Campbell/Mulroney-scale wipeout is going to stop them from voting Conservative. That's not to say that the Liberals or any other party should deliberately marginalize a part of the country. I'm just saying that from a political perspective--and that's what seemed to be governing your comments--chasing votes in Western Canada outside Greater Vancouver and maybe Winnipeg makes very little sense, especially if it comes at a cost of votes in the much more populated Ontario and Quebec. Remember that Quebec has more people than Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and BC minus Vancouver combined.

 

[Roy G Biv]

The CPC is going full-throttle with the "Why do you hate the troops" bullshit. John Baird is really bringing it. Thankfully, the media isn't putting up with it.

It's all very, very disgusting.

 

[kEiThZ]

While I am weary of the CPC's politicizing of the issue, I also resent the fact that all too often issues like these come down on the troops. People in uniform who work hard to follow the law in letter and spirit, from general to private, are painted as neanderthals or dimwits in the press who'd willingly handover detainees to be tortured. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Soldiers have several times refused transfers on the battlefield where abuse was suspected. The Force commander has halted transfers when there were concerns about torture. So the argument that we were wilfully handing over prisoners to be tortured and that every single one of them was tortured is quite exceptional.

If there is to be an inquiry, I want a full one, that covers the Liberal time in power as well and the inquiry should name names for which ministers were responsible for detainee policies. Though, given that many of those policies and rules of engagement came from the preceding Liberal government, it'd be interesting to see how far the Liberals apparent concern for detainees extend.

 

[Roy G Biv]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...xists-despite-mackays-denials/article1390782/

Sworn testimony by senior Canadian officers and rare uncensored documentary evidence contradict Defence Minister Peter MacKay's repeated assertions that no proof exists of even a single case of a Canadian-transferred detainee abused by Afghan security forces.

In one well-documented case in the summer of 2006, Canadian soldiers captured and handed over a detainee who was so severely beaten by Afghan police that the Canadians intervened and took the detainee back. Canadian medics then treated the man's injuries. The incident is documented in the field notes of Canadian troops, recounted in a sworn affidavit by a senior officer and confirmed in cross-examination by a general.

He has repeatedly insisted, both to the House of Commons and elsewhere, that there is no proof that even a single instance of post-transfer abuse exists.

“Not a single Taliban prisoner turned over by Canadian Forces can be proven to have been abused. That is the crux of the issue.†Mr. MacKay said in Halifax on Nov. 22.

The minister's spokesman said Sunday that Mr. MacKay was standing by his repeated denials.

“He has said what he has said based on the advice of generals and senior officials in the department,†said Dan Dugas, spokesman for the minister.

What a dick.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I really don't care if the Afghans torture each other, that's their business. As for those captured while fighting or preparing/planning to attack Canadians and then turned over to their countrymen for torture, they made their choice when they took up arms against us.

The Soviets would have bayonetted them where they stood. The Afghans themselves slaughtered an entire British Regiment outside Jalalabad in 1842. This is a brutal country, where life is violent and short. To assume that any Afghans that are handed over by the Canadians are NOT tortured shows an ignorance of Afghan history and culture.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Note that our personnel on the ground do their best to prevent such torture. They have Corrections Canada personnel embedded in Afghan prisons to monitor and report on the treatment of prisoners. The idea that we knowingly tolerate torture is BS. We do everything in our power to ensure that detainees aren't tortured.

However, at the end of the day the CF is not an occupying power, it's a guest in Afghanistan and can't detain Afghan nationals or transfer them out of the country (say to a Canadian prison) without the consent of the Afghan government. That is bound to be a limiting factor in how much we can monitor detainees.

Colvin's assertions though, that every single detainee that was handed over were tortured is obviously false. As is the denials by the politicians that they knew nothing about the torture of Afghans, while the troops on the ground were refusing to hand over detainees.

 

[Admiral Beez]

However, at the end of the day the CF is not an occupying power, it's a guest in Afghanistan

Again, that may be the official speak for public consumption in Canada. However, if President Karzai tomorrow ordered Canada and the other NATO/UN forces out of Afghanistan immediately, notwithstanding the chaos that would result, he'd get a firm and polite "no, I don't think so...we'll tell you when we're ready to leave, thank you" in reply.

We're lucky that the Afghan people tolerate and to a level welcome Canadian soldiers, since if we were no wanted, our guys would have all been dead, wounded and withdrawn within two months of arrival.

NATO has invaded Afghanistan, deposed its government, set up a puppet government along with corrupt elections, and now controls the country, and wouldn't leave if told to. How is that not an occupation?

 

[kEiThZ]

I think you do a great disservice to the Afghans. There is a genuine desire to get their government up and running and functional. If they were simply our stooges, we could simply tell them to cut the corruption and human rights abuses.

And I actually do believe we'd pull out if they ever asked us to leave. Look at Iraq, the Americans would have pulled out sooner had it not been for the pleas of the Iraqi to stay back. The Afghans know they can't survive without NATO at the moment. But NATO and the US are not looking to stay there a minute more than they have to.

That's not an occupation insomuch as it is a symbiotic relationship. Suggesting that the Taliban constituted a government even when they were in power is very misleading, the local powerbrokers simply swore allegiance to the Taliban and continued to run their fiefdoms. That's why it was so easy to take down the Taliban in the first place.

But back on topic, I see a lot of media commentary that has completely missed out on Colvin's comments. We knew there was torture at some points. Why else would the CF halt detainee transfers? But Colvin is asserting that Canada knowingly transferred detainees to get tortured and that every single detaineed who was transferred got tortured. Those are quite sweeping allegations.

 

[Roy G Biv]

We knew there was torture at some points.

Maybe you should let your government know...

Furthermore, why are you against the troops?