Canada Complicit in TORTURE

118 posts / 0 new
Last post

And the Liberals. They would have turned a blind eye. too. Liberals dragged us into crazy George's quagmire in the Stan, and they've supported the Harpers all along.


The Liberals and the Cons follow the same play book. What the cons are doing now, the Liberals have done in the past.

David Mulroneys testimony should be priceless

Tigana Tigana's picture

On 570 News


Canadian diplomats ordered to hold back information on Afghan prison torture: sources

November, 17, 2009 - 08:14 pm Brewster, Murray - (THE CANADIAN PRESS)

OTTAWA - Canadian diplomats in Afghanistan were ordered in 2007 to hold back information in their reports to Ottawa about the handling of the prisoners, say defence and foreign affairs sources.

The instruction - issued soon after allegations of torture by Afghan authorities began appearing in public - was aimed at defusing the explosive human-rights controversy, said sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

There was a fear that graphic reports, even in censored form, could be uncovered by opposition parties and the media through access-to-information laws, leading to revelations that would further erode already-tenuous public support.

The controversy was seen as "detracting from the narrative" the Harper government was trying to weave around the mission, said one official.

"It was meant to put on happy face," he added.




Tigana Tigana's picture


Tigana Tigana's picture



This is not who we are. I hope HarperCo has not ripped the heart right out of the country. 

 Sure puts Harper's "Defense" budget in a different light.


War crimes charges? An election? It's the perfect time to kick the blighters out.

UNICEF Smurf anti-war video is here


And Jason Kenney wants new immigrants to learn about the Canadian Military:

I'd like Kenney to learn something from the military too - the 5BX.



Tigana Tigana's picture



Whether the prisoners were guilty or innocent of anything is irrelevent.  As prisoners of war they are covered under the Geneva Conventions and subject to its protection.  Chain of command may be the right procedure at first but any subsequent order to continue turning prisoners over to Afghan authorities was an illegal order if soldiers knew that they were being executed or tortured.  This is the problem.  Do individual soldiers serving in Afghanistan at the time or today 'know' that prisoners were being tortured?  This goes to the nature of the complaints by individual soldiers which were sent up the command structure.  Will the inquiry here from those individual soldiers? 

Rape is a war crime.  Any Afghan soldier committing this offense is guilty of a war crime.  Any NATO soldier knowing or witnessing such a crime and does not report it is guilty of complicity. 

The USS Cole, Madrid, London, foreign embassies outside of Afghanistan, throwing acid in the face of girls and the abuse of women in general are not relevent and in fact 9/11 is no longer relevent in this specific case.  None of these prisoners were or have been charged with pariticipation in, planning or complicity in these past  or present crimes.  There is no evidence that Al Queda or those who consider themselves to be Taleban have any central command and are linked directly to any of these past events.  There is no clear distinction between a Taleban enemy soldier and a Taleban member of parliament, an 'insurgent' (whatever that is specifically) and an Afghan citizen legitimately fighting against a corrupt central Afghan government and NATO/ISAF members backing that government.  The Canadian and NATO allies continue to claim that the war has gone through several phases, missions etc. which is used to defend the original invasion and subsequent missions to restore government and order yet claim and work to continue the illusion that their opposition is one and the same from the beginning.  There is no difference in the abuse suffered by women by any of the warlord led clans or provinces in their control.  When it comes to the abuse of women, as we define this abuse for the purpose of continuing the war and occupation of Afghanistan, there simply is no good guy.  These are all the same emotional 'sales pitches' used by people like 'Eastwinds' above to either justify what is happening or deny any need for self-examination.  This is the same tactic used by Hillier and others in their testimony when they intentionally refuse to describe soldiers as soldiers but use the phrase "...killing our sons and daughters."  

The argument that the Afghan judicial system is in its infancy is a ludicrous excuse.  After almost ten years the Afghan authorities still need to be told that it is wrong to torture, be corrupt or deal in drugs?  The Afghan judicial system isn't going to change because there is no requirement for it to do so.  The argument that Canadian soldiers need to be seen handing over prisoners to the Afghan officials so that they can be 'seen' to do their job  is also ludicrous and has no credibility.  The Afghan officials don't deserve to be solely in charge until they prove they can be trusted.  Until that time the fate of soldiers, citizens or any others who are captured or dealt with by Canadian military and civilian personnel remains the the responsibility of the Canadian government.  This also creates the impression that there are no honest Afghans capable of taking on these civil society roles and this is a lie.  Corrupt people remain in positions of authority in Afghanistan either by design or lack of political will to change.     



mimeguy wrote:

 "...killing our sons and daughters."  


This is a war where our sons and daughters are waging an illegal aggressive war and killing Afghan sons and daughters who are legitimately defending their country.

What (if any) meaning does the War of 1812 have to these four star clowns?


Good points Mimeguy.

  It could get things sidetracked to start talking about whether or not the tortured prisoners were "guilty" or not, or even if they were soldiers or not. Nobody gets tortured, thats the rule, period.

  The issue of rape: I read an article about how bad it is in Afghanistan right now, with rape being perpetrated left right and centre there.

   Reporting: YA!! There should be some soldiers out there who DID report it, but were turned away and told to mind their own business. Also, that every soldier has a duty to report war crimes, and every soldier should be reminded of that duty and given a chance to report it without risking sanctions from their superiors. Perhaps a method of reporting that goes to some outside agency, other than the military in the field, who can record and investigate the claims. Whadda ya think of that??







I'm sure the Liberals are just playing games here. They know there will never be an inquiry so they support the issue.

Pressure mounts for public inquiry on Afghan torture


“We're looking at what needs to be established in terms of what happened,” New Democrat MP Paul Dewar, who sponsored the motion, said during today's debate. “Is there any other option than a public inquiry in light of the fact that we have a government that refused to dispense all the documents?”

Even if the Commons passes the motion, it cannot force the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper to launch the inquiry since that is a decision that rests with the executive branch of government. But it would increase pressure on the Conservative minority, which would then be forced to decide if it will reject the will of the Parliament.

MPs from all three opposition parties expressed support for the motion, with many citing the government's refusal to release information.



Tory adds patriot game to torture allegations strategy



What the Tories are doing with their militarization of the country, said Keith Martin, the Liberal MP who used to sit with the Alliance Party, is build the military men into heroes and then demolish anyone who dares breathe an unfavourable word.

On the detainees’ question we don’t know which side is correct. The Conservatives are hunkering down. They are not releasing results of Canadian military police investigations in Afghanistan. They’ve stonewalled the Canadian Military Police Complaints Commission on the issue. They declare important correspondence off limits because of national security.
This gives the impression that they have something to hide on this file. It may well be the reason why they are playing their demagogic patriot game. It’s the best card they’ve got.


Harper using soldiers as his shield


Richard Colvin isn't the latest public servant gutted for doing a job embarrassingly well. That dubious honour belongs to RCMP public complaints commissioner Paul Kennedy who is to be replaced later this month after publicly detailing snafus ranging from the force's still unexplained intervention in the 2006 federal election to the airport death of Robert Dziekanski.

Kennedy and Colvin are part of a pattern that overlays almost every controversy. Nuclear safety watchdog Linda Keen was wrongly collared for the medical isotope shortage. Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand was savaged for probing suspicious Conservative campaign funding. Respected deputy minister Louis Ranger left his post after apparently applying too stringent taxpayer protection to billions in stimulus spending.

However varied the specific motivation, the result is universally predictable. Partisan spin twists debate until the public interest is lost in the din of diversionary bafflegab.

To follow the crazily bouncing "messaging" ball is to arrive empty-headed at false assumptions.

It's not, as the Prime Minister would have voters believe, about which political party stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the armed forces. It's not about Colvin's credibility. It's not even about the hard, unequivocal, blood-and-bruises evidence military leaders insist was missing from serial warnings.

Reduced to its essence, the Afghanistan prisoner storm is about political accountability. Canada had a problem with transfers when Liberals were the ruling party and it reached a tipping point just months after Conservatives came to power. Both governments applied situational Band-Aids, both ducked the tough, expensive actions needed to ensure this country was doing everything necessary to comply with the letter and spirit of domestic and international law.

Far from protecting the troops, that expediency ratcheted risks higher. It exposed them to local reprisals as well as to legal liability and made victory in a hearts-and-minds war all that more elusive.

Those failures are now compounded by what looks, feels and smells like yet another cover-up. Fast as stories are changing, there's now compelling evidence that more than enough was known in June 2006 to stop the transfers or add the safeguards that weren't put in place for more than a year.


When the first Canadian soldiers said Hey Boss the Afghan police are killing the guys we hand over to them it should have went up the chain of command and something should have been done end of story.

I'm not sure what the fuck people up high were thinking. As if any of this shit would not come out.


PraetorianFour wrote:
I'm not sure what the fuck people up high were thinking. As if any of this shit would not come out.

News flash: They're [b][i]still[/i][/b] thinking this shit will not come out!!!



Closing for length

remind remind's picture

continued here


Jeeze remind, I was just doing that...


thanks though


Topic locked