# Detainee Scandal heats up again



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

> OTTAWA – The opposition is threatening work-to-rule action after saying new documents that outline previously unknown allegations of Afghan detainee abuse won’t significantly aid a parliamentary probe into the Conservative government and top military officials.
> 
> Detainee secrecy threatens Tory agenda - thestar.com


Thoughts?

I'm thinking that the government better start removing some of those censures.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Headline:* Bob Rae heats up detainee issue*


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Bob Rae, -is- the opposition to some I guess.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

*It's not simple*

There are security issues involved here. And no, I do not trust the the MP's with them. Behaviour has been too partisan with people looking out for their party rather than the country.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The Losers party can't even get one of their own motions passed, so they drag up ancient history that happened on their own watch and try to peg it on the government. Incredible.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Lichen Software said:


> There are security issues involved here. And no, I do not trust the the MP's with them. Behaviour has been too partisan with people looking out for their party rather than the country.


What security issues?

This was public knowledge even when the other wing-nuts were running things. Names of those still in country can be blacked out without overwriting an entire document. 

Bottom line: Both parties knew this was going on and chose to ignore it and like it or not the public knows it as well.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Oh here we go with my party is better'n yer party, and yer a loser if your not on my king of the castle.

As a taxpayer/voter, I want to know what the hell happened, I don't give two craps who was in power at the time, if it was both then fry 'em both.

But playing this coverup game is the same crap we've seen from past governments. This one os certainly proving to be no better at all.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Ottawa's "offensive" stand on detainee documents stuns inquiry*





> A government lawyer today refused to even set a date for handing over a specific set of records requested by the Military Police Complaints Commission.
> 
> “The documents will be given to your counsel when they are good and ready,” Justice Department lawyer Alain Prefontaine told the complaint commission.
> 
> ...


(Globe & Mail)

*Halifax Chronicle-Herald Editorial Cartoonist Bruce Mackinnon is on the money...*


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

How quickly do y'all think those documents should have been handed over?


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Time to get to the bottom of this. It appears that torturing was taking place with the approval of senior government - elected officials. The "coke 'n' hooker" scandal has been a smokescreen.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jimbotelecom said:


> Time to get to the bottom of this. It appears that torturing was taking place with the approval of senior government - elected officials. The "coke 'n' hooker" scandal has been a smokescreen.


Sure why not? It's time to find out exactly which Chretien or Martin government publicly elected official started the whole mess. Go for it!


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

SINC said:


> Sure why not? It's time to find out exactly which Chretien or Martin government publicly elected official started the whole mess. Go for it!


If both parties are guilty of tacitly condoning torture it should be brought to light.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

What Afghans do to Afghans after we turn them over is out of our hands and no longer in our control. It's war, it's dirty and it's based on centuries of Islamic law and/or practice that we will never change. I liken it to Las Vegas. What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. Same thing applies in Afghanistan.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

SINC said:


> What Afghans do to Afghans after we turn them over is out of our hands and no longer in our control. It's war, it's dirty and it's based on centuries of Islamic law and/or practice that we will never change. I liken it to Las Vegas. What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. Same thing applies in Afghanistan.


If our officials counselled our government that detainees were being tortured our government was likely agreeing to the principle. Our government was defying its obligations under the Geneva convention. This my friend is criminal.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yea it's always the liberals fault. Still hangin on to the skirts years later, tories can't stand on their own yet?

What happened to the open, transparent, and accountable government we were promised?

So far we got hookers and blow and hush hush torture recession WHAT recession HST is good for everybody disaster of a government as far as I can tell.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jimbotelecom said:


> If our officials counselled our government that detainees were being tortured our government was likely agreeing to the principle. Our government was defying its obligations under the Geneva convention. This my friend is criminal.


First let me be clear that I am in no way your friend.

Now that we have that out of the way, let me ask you this:

Did the perpetrators of 9/11 follow the Geneva convention?

There are times when actions supersede convention and what the Taliban do to our troops and other allied troops with IEDs is far from operating under the terms of your precious Geneva convention.

When the enemy and Islam has no respect for the convention, they do so at their own peril, in this case the actions of their own countrymen when we hand them over.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Like it or not, SINC, Canada is a signatory to the Convention. If we decide not to abide by it, we can expect no-one, terrorist organizations or other "proper" states, to abide by it either.

Slippery slope.



> ...the Government of Canada, entered into an arrangement with the Government of Afghanistan for the transfer of detainees. [132] This arrangement provides that the participants will treat detainees in accordance with the standards established in the Third Geneva Convention, designed to protect Prisoners of War.”


(MacLeans, 1 December 2009)


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Obviously we have work to do. I thought the example of Maher Arar made it obvious that torture is wrong. 

Of course Arar can no longer go to Vegas.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> Like it or not, SINC, Canada is a signatory to the Convention. If we decide not to abide by it, we can expect no-one, terrorist organizations or other "proper" states, to abide by it either.
> 
> Slippery slope.
> 
> (MacLeans, 1 December 2009)


Yep slippery indeed, but if we honour it and the Taliban don't, I guess your way is to let 'em kill as many of us as they please.

That is not and never has been right, so let them take action against each other. I have zero guilt in allowing this to take place.

I know, let's ask the kin of all our troops killed by them for their opinion. I'm sure they will agree with you.

Back in the real world, when others ignore a convention, one has to fight fire with fire, not be a do-gooder pansy.

I know which side I'm on and you are welcome to choose yours.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Detainee scandal...:lmao: There is no detainee scandal except in the minds of the opposition. Most Canadians, me included, could care less as to what happens to detainees once handed over to the installed government. What they choose to do with their own people is their business. Most of you don't care and have no clue what happens to those captured by the local Afghan forces...do you?

Fact is, Canada is incapable of waging any sort of war in Afghanistan, financially or otherwise. Canada should have never agreed to a combat role in that backwater of a country. We could have honored our NATO commitment in other ways. Thanks to that idiot Bush and his Iraq excursion, we're stuck in Afghanistan. Time to let Obama's boys take over Kandahar and bring our troops home.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

kps said:


> Detainee scandal...:lmao: There is no detainee scandal except in the minds of the opposition. Most Canadians, me included, could care less as to what happens to detainees once handed over to the installed government. What they choose to do with their own people is their business. Most of you don't care and have no clue what happens to those captured by the local Afghan forces...do you?
> 
> Fact is, Canada is incapable of waging any sort of war in Afghanistan, financially or otherwise. Canada should have never agreed to a combat role in that backwater of a country. We could have honored our NATO commitment in other ways. Thanks to that idiot Bush and his Iraq excursion, we're stuck in Afghanistan. Time to let Obama's boys take over Kandahar and bring our troops home.


^^^

That too! :clap::clap:


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

kps said:


> Detainee scandal...:lmao: There is no detainee scandal except in the minds of the opposition. Most Canadians, me included, could care less as to what happens to detainees once handed over to the installed government. What they choose to do with their own people is their business. Most of you don't care and have no clue what happens to those captured by the local Afghan forces...do you?
> 
> Fact is, Canada is incapable of waging any sort of war in Afghanistan, financially or otherwise. Canada should have never agreed to a combat role in that backwater of a country. We could have honored our NATO commitment in other ways. Thanks to that idiot Bush and his Iraq excursion, we're stuck in Afghanistan. Time to let Obama's boys take over Kandahar and bring our troops home.


While I agree Bush was an idiot, it is indeed a scandal. When our diplomats and military personnel are saying one thing and our "transparent" government chooses to stall, delay, obfuscate, and avoid telling the truth...it is a scandal. But as some of you have insinuated - who cares about tortured and dead Afghans? I do. And so do millions of Canadians.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Detainee scandal...:lmao: T*here is no detainee scandal* except in the minds of the opposition. Most Canadians, me included, could care less as to what happens to detainees once handed over to the installed government. What they choose to do with their own people is their business. Most of you don't care and have no clue what happens to those captured by the local Afghan forces...do you?
> 
> Fact is, Canada is incapable of waging any sort of war in Afghanistan, financially or otherwise. Canada should have never agreed to a combat role in that backwater of a country. We could have honored our NATO commitment in other ways. Thanks to that idiot Bush and his Iraq excursion, we're stuck in Afghanistan. Time to let Obama's boys take over Kandahar and bring our troops home.


you wish. I suppose this is why Harper and co. have dug in their heels with releasing info. If there is no problem, they can just open up, and be that warm, fuzzy, open honest and accountable teddy bear they said they would be.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> While I agree Bush was an idiot, it is indeed a scandal. When our diplomats and military personnel are saying one thing and our "transparent" government chooses to stall, delay, obfuscate, and avoid telling the truth...it is a scandal. But as some of you have insinuated - who cares about tortured and dead Afghans? I do. And so do millions of Canadians.


Good for you, go to Afghanistan then. I care about Canadians being blown up by IEDs.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> you wish. I suppose this is why Harper and co. have dug in their heels with releasing info. If there is no problem, they can just open up, and be that warm, fuzzy, open honest and accountable teddy bear they said they would be.


Harper is not exactly my no. 1 Groove. Beyond me what the big deal is in releasing the info. Typical political posturing, makes me sick.

We chase the Taliban out of a village, but can't stay and hold it due to manpower and so we leave. When we leave the Taliban return. It's all a bunch of BS over there and I for one have had enough. Bring our troops home.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

kps said:


> Harper is not exactly my no. 1 Groove. Beyond me what the big deal is in releasing the info. Typical political posturing, makes me sick.
> 
> We chase the Taliban out of a village, but can't stay and hold it due to manpower and so we leave. When we leave the Taliban return. It's all a bunch of BS over there and I for one have had enough. Bring our troops home.


It's always been BS over there. Ask the Russians and the British before them.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Absolutely. Nine years later and nothing has been accomplished. There are rumors of Karzai using opium and losing it. What a mess.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

So the good thing is we're out soon. But that doesn't correct the fact that there is something fishy with our government's policy and that government needs to be held accountable. The opposition's job is to hold the government accountable. 

This will cost the pro-torture party votes in the next election. I'm speculating that there will be no majority - not a bad thing. Eventually the truth will come out.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

kps said:


> Absolutely. Nine years later and nothing has been accomplished. There are rumors of Karzai using opium and losing it. What a mess.


Not that I'm defending Karzai, but if you care to deal in rumours, check out the one about the PM's marital breakdown. Wifey apparently had or is having an affair with the head of security at the palace. The head of security is a female (this can really galvanize the bible belt support). When you google make sure you spell her name correctly. Just a rumour though. Like coke 'n' hookers, there are no pictures, no proof, and no major media source has dared to speculate.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> So the good thing is we're out soon. But that doesn't correct the fact that there is something fishy with our government's policy and that government needs to be held accountable. The opposition's job is to hold the government accountable.
> 
> This will cost the pro-torture party votes in the next election. I'm speculating that there will be no majority - not a bad thing. Eventually the truth will come out.


"Pro-torture party"????? Are you for real?

Remember that handing over of detainees was also occurring during the previous party's rule.

FWIW, I do think the government should hand over the documentation and be done with it.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> Not that I'm defending Karzai, but if you care to deal in rumours, check out the one about the PM's marital breakdown. Wifey apparently had or is having an affair with the head of security at the palace. The head of security is a female (this can really galvanize the bible belt support). When you google make sure you spell her name correctly. Just a rumour though. Like coke 'n' hookers, there are no pictures, no proof, and no major media source has dared to speculate.


The drug use is a rumor, Karzai's erratic public behavior is not.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

kps said:


> I do think the government should hand over the documentation and be done with it.


Absolutely. The way they're handling this reeks of cover-up. If it is totally the other guy's fault, then pin it on them. If you are complicit, then grow a set and take responsibility.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Absolutely. The way they're handling this reeks of cover-up. If it is totally the other guy's fault, then pin it on them. If you are complicit, then grow a set and take responsibility.


You mean like the Liberals did when they were in charge of the mess they created, right?


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

kps said:


> "Pro-torture party"????? Are you for real?
> 
> Remember that handing over of detainees was also occurring during the previous party's rule.
> 
> FWIW, I do think the government should hand over the documentation and be done with it.


One can only conclude that a decision was made to continue to pass on detainees in contrast to the Red Cross's advice, senior diplomatic personnel, and military brass. So yes - pro-torture. Not as blatant as Abu Graib but knowledge can be a real bugger.

No problem if the other party gets tarred with the same brush. It will be interesting to see the timelines and actions taken when the truth is eventually revealed.

Have to agree with you - pass on the information and stop all the needless speculation.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> You mean like the Liberals did when they were in charge of the mess they created, right?


So are you then suggesting that _no one_ take responsibility SINC?

That to me would make the Conservatives not that much different from The Liberals. I thought they campaigned on 'being different'.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> So are you then suggesting that _no one_ take responsibility SINC?
> 
> That to me would make the Conservatives not that much different from The Liberals. I thought they campaigned on 'being different'.


Naw, that was Apple, with "Think Different."


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Naw, that was Apple, with "Think Different."


Perhaps this was the Conservative's inspiration but truthfully, I've always seen them as being PC, for all the obvious reasons.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

The entire "scandal" is an invention of the opposition. They are well aware that the documents that they want released would not ever be released by any government regardless of the party in power. There's national security issues, there's the safety of our troops, there's a level of trust with regards to confidential information shared among other nations. The government cannot and should not release that information, full stop.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> You mean like the Liberals did when they were in charge of the mess they created, right?


yet somehow, that was a travesty of justice in the extreme of all epic proportions. But since it's Harper, meh. Carry on.

Nothing like principles eh Sinc!

Personally, I think they should hand it over, and if there was wrongdoing by either this government, or the previous one, let's get it out and get on with it for gawd's sake.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Read the post above yours gt, it might educate you.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

bsenka said:


> The entire "scandal" is an invention of the opposition. They are well aware that the documents that they want released would not ever be released by any government regardless of the party in power. There's national security issues, there's the safety of our troops, there's a level of trust with regards to confidential information shared among other nations. The government cannot and should not release that information, full stop.


Hawgwash. The troops are complaining about the instructions from Ottawa. There is something amiss.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

…strange things are afoot at the Circle-K…


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Read the post above yours gt, it might educate you.



oh because he said so? Some anonymous someone on an internet forum?


pfffft.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Alot of the people involved in this are non-elected bureaucrats in the defence ministry. I agree that certain individuals in the elected bodies are involved (ie. McKay), this problem cannot be pinned squarely on one party or another.

Take this from a guy who would chop his own leg off before he voted conservative.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Adrian. said:


> Take this from a guy who would chop his own leg off before he voted conservative.


You mean the pro-torture party?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If this scandal heats up any more, it'll make that Iceland volcano look like a firecracker. I looked for it on the front page of the paper today but I guess they forgot to mention it (the scandal--the volcano was there).


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Macfury said:


> If this scandal heats up any more, it'll make that Iceland volcano look like a firecracker. I looked for it on the front page of the paper today but I guess they forgot to mention it (the scandal--the volcano was there).


It's another smokescreen


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> One can only conclude that a decision was made to continue to pass on detainees in contrast to the Red Cross's advice, senior diplomatic personnel, and military brass. So yes - pro-torture. Not as blatant as Abu Graib but knowledge can be a real bugger.
> 
> No problem if the other party gets tarred with the same brush. It will be interesting to see the timelines and actions taken when the truth is eventually revealed.
> 
> Have to agree with you - pass on the information and stop all the needless speculation.


Canada's mandate in Afghanistan does not include building prisons or being jailers. 

If the Red Cross has issues, let them go and inspect Afghan prisons run by the Afghanis, if Karzai and his government are a puppets of the US, let them take it up with the puppeteer and stop the so called "torture" of detainees by those means.

As far as I'm concerned, I'll keep supporting our troops even though I no longer agree with the mission.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

kps said:


> As far as I'm concerned, I'll keep supporting our troops even though I no longer agree with the mission.


I support our troops too. 

Blame it on the U.S.? We're still possibly guilty of handing over detainees knowingly. 
Naw it doesn't wash. Sorry


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> I support our troops too.
> 
> Blame it on the U.S.? We're still possibly guilty of handing over detainees knowingly.
> Naw it doesn't wash. Sorry


We're not guilty of anything and I'm not blaming the US either. We know who the guilty are ---if the word "guilt" even applies at all. 

The Afghans are responsible for dealing with their own people, how they deal with them is their business...full stop. 

If there is torture, then let those concerned deal with the perpetrators and/or those who hold the strings.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

^^^^^

As already discussed we are signatories to the Geneva convention. If we knowingly hand over detainees for torture even though our own citizens are counselling against this surely the decision maker (the pro-torture party) is guilty of violating this agreement.

Don't you think this is becoming a bit cyclical?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jimbotelecom said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> As already discussed we are signatories to the Geneva convention. If we knowingly hand over detainees for torture even though our own citizens are counselling against this surely the decision maker (the pro-torture party) is guilty of violating this agreement.
> 
> Don't you think this is becoming a bit cyclical?


Not one little bit. As has been mentioned time and again we have no control over what Afghanis do to their own people after we turn them over. And stop blaming the Cons for this mess, it was policy created and condoned by a Liberal government. All the current government has done is continue the process.

Personally I could give a rat's patooti what happens to them once we turn them over. Geneva convention, Geneva schemention. It isn't worth the paper it is written on when the Afghanis won't honour it.

Many so-called conventions need to be rewritten for the times and this is one of them.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

SINC said:


> Not one little bit. As has been mentioned time and again we have no control over what Afghanis do to their own people after we turn them over. And stop blaming the Cons for this mess, it was policy created and condoned by a Liberal government. All the current government has done is continue the process.
> 
> Personally I could give a rat's patooti what happens to them once we turn them over. Geneva convention, Geneva schemention. It isn't worth the paper it is written on when the Afghanis won't honour it.


It's the law. And please, as already mentioned, if the other party gets tarred with the same brush, so be it. The pro-torture party (perhaps parties) needs to be held accountable.

Let the truth out. Or is there something else to hide? Knowing the top down control that the PM holds over the pro-torture party, chances are that the order came from him. Is he afraid to admit it? I know you don't give a rat's patooti, but there are millions of us (including the serving military) that smell a rat.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

sinc can only really see things in terms of, liberal bad, and stop telling me the cons are bad la la la la la la la.

Perhaps it'd nice to go past it, and just ask for the truth as to what happened.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> As already discussed we are signatories to the Geneva convention. If we knowingly hand over detainees for torture even though our own citizens are counselling against this surely the decision maker (the pro-torture party) is guilty of violating this agreement.
> 
> Don't you think this is becoming a bit cyclical?


Funny, but Afghanistan is also a signatory and they are the ones doing the alleged torturing. You're the one who first brought out the question of proof...so where is the proof of this alleged torture? How many? 1 out of 10-20-30-50-100? Call the Afghan forces, I'm sure they'll gladly share their records with you.

Sure Canada is a signatory, but how well did that pan out in Rwanda? How about Sudan, Somalia, etc. Does Israel or perhaps the Hamas militias follow the convention re civilians? Because that is the only convention that vaguely even applies here ---Geneva IV. The military convention certainly doesn't as they are not recognized as combatants of a regular opposing force. They are lucky that as non-recognizable combatants they're not shot as terrorists.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

kps said:


> Funny, but Afghanistan is also a signatory and they are the ones doing the alleged torturing. You're the one who first brought out the question of proof...so where is the proof of this alleged torture? How many? 1 out of 10-20-30-50-100? Call the Afghan forces, I'm sure they'll gladly share their records with you.
> 
> Sure Canada is a signatory, but how well did that pan out in Rwanda? How about Sudan, Somalia, etc. Does Israel or perhaps the Hamas militias follow the convention re civilians? Because that is the only convention that vaguely even applies here ---Geneva IV. The military convention certainly doesn't as they are not recognized as combatants of a regular opposing force. They are lucky that as non-recognizable combatants they're not shot as terrorists.


The proof is documented in the lucky ones who managed to live beyond the torture (see Red Cross records, amnesty international, etc.) and somehow get released....most never return to their families because they are dead.
Give me a break on the enemy combatant jargon...we have military personnel in the country armed with all kinds of weaponry. It's a war.

I'm baffled you are defending this garbage.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

kps said:


> Funny, but Afghanistan is also a signatory and they are the ones doing the alleged torturing.


I rest my case. The Geneva convention is tits up. Mammaries North. Dead in the water. Finito. Done. Over. Doesn't apply.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what case? You don't have any case to rest sinc. Now go find people who actually care about your Harper good liberal bad spew.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> The proof is documented in the lucky ones who managed to live beyond the torture (see Red Cross records, amnesty international, etc.) and somehow get released....most never return to their families because they are dead.
> Give me a break on the enemy combatant jargon...we have military personnel in the country armed with all kinds of weaponry. It's a war.
> 
> I'm baffled you are defending this garbage.


What exactly do you think I'm defending, Mr. "torture party"?

You're slowly getting it...maybe. Yes, Canadians are at war there...and in a war people die, people get mistreated and yes, many do not return to their families. Perhaps you do not understand that and that baffles me. 

What does not baffle me is your continued attack on the current government with regard to this issue for no other reason than partisanship. This isn't about the Conservatives, Liberals or even the NDP, this is about a NATO mission that Canada agreed to participate in many years ago and if the mission has turned into something which we can no longer support, then we should get out sooner rather than later.

Do you really think that I condone the torture of human beings? I certainly do not, but I'm not about to drag this country through mud because we're operating in a country which sees that as acceptable or take the questionable statements of locals to the RC and AI as proof of Canada's wrongdoing.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

^^^^^
I've never been to war and will likely never have to. I'm the product of a WWII pilot. Family members are in the military; a nephew in Afghanistan right now. There are many military families that live in my neighbourhood. These good people will not and do not speak in specifics. It's not just the Red Cross, and Amnesty who have commented on detainees, it's our own military brass. When the brass comment it's usually with some knowledge.

I'm not overly partisan. In fact I've voted for all three parties that you mention. The key is the time lag on policy from our elected officials when the problem was brought forth to when it was corrected. The Cons were the government. The lag was so long that many of our own officials (diplomatic and military) took aim and are taking aim at the current government.

Many of us (Canadians) don't advocate torture in this country. That is why the problem of detainee transfers was brought forth through various channels. What was our government's response? There was a response and it's well documented.
Given the lag in timelines one can only conclude that our government chose to do nothing and not correct the policy for an extended period - why? The PM's top-down style and tight control are under the microscope here.

Our country is not being dragged through the mud. Our opposition is doing its job to highlight wrongdoing. The electorate is the ultimate judge. A minority of our elected officials are responsible for this; it will likely now stay a minority in the next election. I'm comfortable with this. What I don't want is a pro-torture party majority.

Perhaps the Cons can return to majority power under different leadership but that will be year's away.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> Not one little bit. As has been mentioned time and again we have no control over what Afghanis do to their own people after we turn them over. And stop blaming the Cons for this mess, it was policy created and condoned by a Liberal government. All the current government has done is continue the process.
> 
> Personally I could give a rat's patooti what happens to them once we turn them over. Geneva convention, Geneva schemention. It isn't worth the paper it is written on when the Afghanis won't honour it.
> 
> Many so-called conventions need to be rewritten for the times and this is one of them.


Geneva says that it is illegal to transfer people into the custody of another agency/group that is knowingly torturing those people. Canada has done this. Therefore, Canada has breached the Geneva Convention. You wouldn't be tearing up the Geneva Convention so bad if you were in Rwanda ten years ago.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jimbotelecom said:


> What I don't want is a pro-torture party majority.


The worst you will probably discover is a "wasn't-really-sure-it-was-torture" party.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Macfury said:


> The worst you will probably discover is a "wasn't-really-sure-it-was-torture" party.


Agreed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Adrian. said:


> Geneva says that it is illegal to transfer people into the custody of another agency/group that is knowingly torturing those people. Canada has done this. Therefore, Canada has breached the Geneva Convention. You wouldn't be tearing up the Geneva Convention so bad if you were in Rwanda ten years ago.


And what do you say to Afghanistan who are also signatories of the Geneva convention and mistreat their own people AFTER we turn them over? 

We cannot be held responsible for what we cannot control. Even if we simply released them, they would be caught and killed by their own countrymen. There is no solution and no blame attached to Canada for these actions.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

SINC said:


> And what do you say to Afghanistan who are also signatories of the Geneva convention and mistreat their own people AFTER we turn them over?
> 
> We cannot be held responsible for what we cannot control. Even if we simply released them, they would be caught and killed by their own countrymen. There is no solution and no blame attached to Canada for these actions.


So why did the Cons change their policy so that they could track detainees?
You're wrong. Sorry.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jimbotelecom said:


> You're wrong. Sorry.


And you are entitled to an opinion, but that's all it is: opinion.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

CBC News - Politics - Afghan detainee records order 'clear': Speaker


Thank you Mr. Speaker! Now it's probably election time; Let's put an end to the pro-torture party rule.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Will he comply or won't he, that's the question.

Another election will leave us basically where we are now, but I'm sure it will cloud over the detainee issue.

Although, if Canadians sense an election call is a cover up (which it would be), they could retaliate and give the minority to the Liberals. All messy and costly and ultimately, solving nothing.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave...."


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

mrjimmy said:


> Will he comply or won't he, that's the question.
> 
> Another election will leave us basically where we are now, but I'm sure it will cloud over the detainee issue.
> 
> ...


Yes but the new government will not be the pro-torture party.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

jimbotelecom said:


> Yes but the new government will not be the pro-torture party.


 Ignatieff is the one who is on record as being in favour of torture.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

bsenka said:


> Ignatieff is the one who is on record as being in favour of torture.


Yes you're quite right. In fact his reasoning on torture and his support for the Iraq war were two key reasons he never attained the Liberal party leadership against Dion. He has revised his position on Iraq to appease queasy party members.

All said, Iggy is one of the reasons that the Liberals will not achieve a majority. I'm certainly not an Iggy fan. My opinion is that the Liberals will form the next government, albeit a minority. I'm comfortable with this as are many Canadians.

It will be interesting to see how the pro-torture party responds to the speaker's ruling.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

At least the Afghans themselves get it:

*Drop detainee debate: diplomat

Canada faces more important issues: Afghan ambassador*



> Canada's continued discussion of the treatment of Afghan detainees is a waste of time, says Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada.
> 
> "It's a terrible waste of time, unfortunately," Jawed Ludin said Tuesday of the federal government's months-old debate about whether Canada knowingly turned over detainees to be tortured at the hands of Afghanistan security forces.
> 
> ...


Drop detainee debate: diplomat


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

:clap:

but I doubt this will shut up the Iggy's and the Laytons.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> At least the Afghans themselves get it:
> 
> *Drop detainee debate: diplomat
> 
> ...


Seems to me that all he (not 'the Afghans') gets is that the allegations make his Country look bad... Hmmm... is that all that makes his Country look bad? Also, he's using it as a platform to beg for continued support. 

This is about Canada knowingly handing prisoners over to be tortured. Nothing else.

Regardless of anyone's opinions about how they believe was should work, this is a violation of the Geneva Convention. In addition to this, it is now about a Government cover up.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> This is about Canada knowingly handing prisoners over to be tortured. Nothing else.


No, this is about politicians and their short sighted supporters.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> ... It will be interesting to see how the *pro-torture party* responds to the speaker's ruling.


Please try and remember that the Liberals were in charge of transferring detainees before the Conservatives were the gate keepers. Do you honestly think that the Liberals knew nothing of the possibility of torture during their tenure? Phhulleeaase! 

This is all political gamesmanship on the part of the Opposition. The economy is rebounding and Canada is at the front of all G8 nations to come out of the recession. They can't attack them on the economy so they will take whatever they can get including the so called Jaffer/Guergis affair. Yah, now there's a scandal.  A junior Minister and her near-do-well husband former MP allegedly hook themselves up with some sleazy shister and the Opposition try and pin it on the PM? That is about as desperate as it gets.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

SINC said:


> No, this is about politicians and their short sighted supporters.


Love the horse! Yes this is quite cyclical.

Time to get rid of the pro-torture party. It will allow them to elect a new leader and Harper can go back to a think tank to concentrate on his agenda.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Please try and remember that the Liberals were in charge of transferring detainees before the Conservatives were the gate keepers. Do you honestly think that the Liberals knew nothing of the possibility of torture during their tenure? Phhulleeaase!
> 
> This is all political gamesmanship on the part of the Opposition. The economy is rebounding and Canada is at the front of all G8 nations to come out of the recession. They can't attack them on the economy so the will take whatever they can get including the so called Jaffer/Guergis affair. Yah, now there's a scandal.  A junior Minister and her near-do-well husband former MP allegedly hook themselves up with some sleazy shister and the Opposition try and pin it on the PM? That is about as desperate as it gets.


Seems to be working though and in politics, that's all that matters.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Seems to be working though and in politics, that's all that matters.


We shall see...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

:clap:


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> Please try and remember that the Liberals were in charge of transferring detainees before the Conservatives were the gate keepers. Do you honestly think that the Liberals knew nothing of the possibility of torture during their tenure? Phhulleeaase!
> 
> This is all political gamesmanship on the part of the Opposition. The economy is rebounding and Canada is at the front of all G8 nations to come out of the recession. They can't attack them on the economy so they will take whatever they can get including the so called Jaffer/Guergis affair. Yah, now there's a scandal.  A junior Minister and her near-do-well husband former MP allegedly hook themselves up with some sleazy shister and the Opposition try and pin it on the PM? That is about as desperate as it gets.


Not sure on your first point, but as I have stated previously it's not a bad thing to get the truth out and tar both parties with the same brush. The Cons were clearly in charge when diplomatic staff and military brass brought forth their concerns.


Agree that "coke 'n' hookers" is a smokescreen to deflect attention from the torture issue. But then who exactly opened up the can of worms on this - none other than the PM.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Agree that "coke 'n' hookers" is a smokescreen to deflect attention from the torture issue. *But then who exactly opened up the can of worms on this - none other than the PM.*


Say what??!! How do you figure that?


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> Say what??!! How do you figure that?


My cynical side says that he took action against his junior minister with less than stellar proof of any wrong doing. I believe it was convenient for him in two ways: one, he got rid of a PR thorn in his side, secondly, and I think more importantly, he distracted the nation's attention from the torture and cover-up issue. After all he was defending the junior minister only the day before axing her without spelling out the allegations.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> My cynical side says that he took action against his junior minister with less than stellar proof of any wrong doing. I believe it was convenient for him in two ways: one, he got rid of a PR thorn in his side, secondly, and I think more importantly, he distracted the nation's attention from the torture and cover-up issue. After all he was defending the junior minister only the day before axing her without spelling out the allegations.


Well your cynical side should also be aware that if he didn't act first the Opposition would have had a field day when they inevitably got the info. He had no choice as it was new information. There is a long standing history for a PM never to fire a Minister until they absolutely have to, this goes back to the beginning of Parliamentary history. I think the reasons should be obvious.

As for the distraction from the detainee issue, I don't think so, if the Olympics didn't why would such a little tabloid blip like this?


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> As for the distraction from the detainee issue, I don't think so, if the Olympics didn't why would such a little tabloid blip like this?


Mostly because too many people like to read the tawdry details with a headline like "coke n hookers".

I think he has dug himself an even deeper hole. Certainly there's little chance of a majority for the pro-torture party.

Mr. Prentice seems to be happy though as he's likely the next leader of the Cons.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

That pro-torture party bit is really lame, but considering it was the Liberals who started the whole torture bit, I suppose one can live with you calling the Liberal party by that name.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Interesting bit of parliamentary history...*



> By tradition, in Canada, when a Speaker is elected and first takes his throne, the prime minister and the opposition leader drag him to the throne while he pretends to struggle, a reminder that kings used to behead Speakers.
> 
> On Tuesday, Speaker Peter Milliken, like Lenthall before him, asserted the power of Parliament in the face of the power of the Crown, embodied by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.


(Halifax Chronicle Herald)


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> *Interesting bit of parliamentary history...*
> 
> (Halifax Chronicle Herald)


It was a good day for Democracy.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

CBC News - Canada - Top general OK with releasing Afghan papers

Top general says "release the papers". What do the cons have to hide?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

The ever-great Bruce MacKinnon from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

^^^ :lmao: That's a good one. Shows the PM has his priorities straight.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> ^^^ :lmao: That's a good one. Shows the PM has his priorities straight.


He's a loafs fan.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

(MetroNews.ca)


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

^^^ :lmao: Another good one.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Yet more top brass against the pro-torture party's lollygagging.

CBC News - Canada - Afghan detainee oversight lacking: Laroche


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Not sure I have much sympathy for those "detained", however there seems to be enough evidence to conclude that torture generally does not work ... why, because you get what you ask for .... which might not be the truth. That said, in cases where many lives are at stake it is not unreasonable to assume simply "asking" is not a viable alternative. The most effective method is to not be in a position where you have to torture to get the information you need ... but that is hindsight isn't it. As for our government .... we tend to assign blame to the current and forget that the prior had a hand in getting us involved. What is obscene to me is not that torture has taken place .... it has been a hobby for thousands of years, but that we allow our elected members to make a political gain from it. You really think they care about the treatment of detainees ........ non voters last time I looked.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jimbotelecom said:


> Yet more top brass against the pro-torture party's lollygagging.
> 
> CBC News - Canada - Afghan detainee oversight lacking: Laroche


Thank goodness they blame the right party, (the Liberals) who started it all. Great name for them too.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Rps said:


> Not sure I have much sympathy for those "detained", ....



*Really, Rps?*



> George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld covered up that hundreds of innocent men were sent to the Guantánamo Bay prison camp because they feared that releasing them would harm the push for war in Iraq and the broader War on Terror, according to a new document obtained by The Times...
> 
> ...the former Vice-President and Defence Secretary knew that* the majority of the initial 742 detainees sent to Guantánamo in 2002 were innocent* but believed that it was “_politically impossible to release them_”.


(TimesOnlineUK)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> *Really, Rps?*


Alleged.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Time to close this thread:

Harper pleased with Afghan document deal



> Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he's satisfied with the agreement on the release of Afghan detainee documents.
> 
> In St-Félicien, Que., for a funding announcement, Harper called the deal "reasonable.
> 
> ...


CBC News - Canada - Harper pleased with Afghan document deal


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

SINC said:


> Time to close this thread:


That's not likely, as long as the pro-torture party hangs on.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

SINC said:


> Time to close this thread:
> 
> Harper pleased with Afghan document deal
> 
> ...



Perhaps we'll keep it open a bit longer.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Get in there and dig up some dirt. Godspeed! (and I'm an Atheist).


----------

