Will Opposition Parties Finally Bring Harper Down over Detainee Issue - Election Anyone?

106 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Sat, 2010-05-15 21:02

Cueball

No. You said that the Afghan suspects must have signed the Geneva convention in order to have those rights apply to them. By the same logic you should have to sign a copy of the Charter in order for it to apply to you.

The Charter applies to the Canadian government and how it deals with Canadian citizens, because it is signed into law by the Canadian government. The Geneva convention applies to the Canadian government and how its military personnel behave in the field because it is recognized and signed into military law by the Canadian government, according to the convention.

Likewise, Canada is also a signatory to the ICC, which is probably more pertinent, anyway.

And by the way: Welcome back.

Sat, 2010-05-15 21:12

#53

Michelle

remind wrote:

Well..... thanks for that "sage" advice michelle, sounds just like it came out of the CON War Room.

Yes, that's exactly it, remind. You've caught me. I've switched teams and I'm now working for the Cons. They've given me a top secret plum job in their war room.

Do you even listen to yourself? Ever?

Sat, 2010-05-15 21:17

#54

Bookish Agrarian

skdadl wrote:

Well, BA, you go on observing the comfortable elaborate courtesies with your friends in Canada, who are now committed to what may be an extremely lengthy process. All I was asking was that, in the meantime, one of your friends might speak publicly and forcefully to the subject that matters rather more than their careers, which is that some Afghans are being tortured in Afghanistan tonight, and we inevitably have had something to do with that.

Your cup of irony runneth over skdadl, when you are critical of opposition members and leave out those on the government benches.

Anyway, many of those people do - regularly. Maybe you should listen when they support the work of people like Malalia Joya instead of throwing rotten tomatoes at allies and save them for those in the current government.

Sat, 2010-05-15 21:28

#55

Unionist

skdadl wrote:

Well, BA, you go on observing the comfortable elaborate courtesies with your friends in Canada, who are now committed to what may be an extremely lengthy process. All I was asking was that, in the meantime, one of your friends might speak publicly and forcefully to the subject that matters rather more than their careers, which is that some Afghans are being tortured in Afghanistan tonight, and we inevitably have had something to do with that.

I would strongly suggest, skdadl, that if you're arguing tactics, you argue with someone who actually cares about Canada's crimes in Afghanistan. Otherwise you will just expose yourself to abuse, with no actual forward movement in the discussion.

Before this agreement was concluded, I warned that Harper was going to win. Once the opposition parties bought into the notion of "national security" being somehow at stake in an unlawful invasion and occupation, and treatment of prisoners which violates international law, the game was over. The detainee issue is finished now - in the same way that the issue of Omar Khadr is finished.

Not that Canadians of all walks of life don't care, and won't continue their activism on these and related issues. The parties in the House have been outmanoeuvred yet again, and they see no way to score political points by carrying on. Now, as in the case of Khadr, nothing need happen on the detainee issue for years to come. If we're lucky, Canada will be chased screaming from Afghanistan long before the farce of this committee is played out.

Sat, 2010-05-15 21:33

#56

Cueball

Well, the ICC could always bring charges since the local authorities seem to have failed to investigate and follow up on alleged war crimes committed by Canadian forces. It is within their mandate, if a country is unable or unwilling to prosecute.

Sat, 2010-05-15 21:45

#57

Bookish Agrarian

Unionist wrote:

I would strongly suggest, skdadl, that if you're arguing tactics, you argue with someone who actually cares about Canada's crimes in Afghanistan. Otherwise you will just expose yourself to abuse, with no actual forward movement in the discussion.

Lying again I see in your very thinly veiled personal attack and deliberate mischaracterization of any of the points I have been speaking to. Please point out one single comment from me that remotely suggests a lack of concern for what has and continues to happen in Afganistan. Just one single example. Unilike the clear ignorance you displayed on the issues and events in another thread I have actually been following events there since the time when the Taliban were the west's best friend.

I will listen to the crickets while you make up more lies to promote your cheap and crass political stunts. If babble actually supported it's stated principles you would be out on your ear for once.

Sat, 2010-05-15 21:50

#58

Cueball

Nice, Jack Layton being able to claim that Harper's latest sleight of hand trick to cover this issue up is a "victory for Democracy". I guess Layton feels that we can afford to have him give Harper such props, as long as he gets to be in the club.

Is he trying to suck-hole his way to power? Layton: "Making parliament work" for Harper.

Sat, 2010-05-15 22:08

#59

Boom Boom

It will be a huge bureaucratic nightmare getting through all the documents - and it'll take years, not months, and probably everyone will just say "ah, the hell with it" and move on to something else. So, in a sense, it's a victory for the Cons.

Sat, 2010-05-15 22:10

#60

Bookish Agrarian

I know some people don't like facts to get in the way of their cheap pot shots at the NDP but here is what the agreement actually is

Under the terms of the agreement agreed to by all parties, a committee of MPs will review all documents in un-redacted form to determine their relevance to the study of the transfer of Afghan detainees by the House Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan. The panel's decision on the relevance of those documents will be final and unreviewable

Let's think about this- the opposition parties have a 3 to 1 potential to out vote the government representative in determining a document is relevant and needs to be revealed. So as long as the opposition doesn't side with the government - are you listening Liberals- then the information will come to light. And there is no loop hole for the government to fall back on to try and suppress the information as the decision of the committee- assuming a 3-1 vote is final and unreviewable.

All documents must then take the following step.

Any documents that are found to be relevant will be referred to a Panel of Expert Arbiters, who will determine how the information in those documents will be made available to all MPs, and to the public, without compromising national security

Notice the wording is how not if the information contained in the document will be publicly released to MPs and the public. Things like names may not be released, but that does not mean the situations will not be. That of course is the important part in determining wrong doing on the part of the Canadian government. It is also quite possible that this committee will find, with the vast majority of documents, that there is no national security risk calling the government's bluff.

I know it is really hard to deal with things like facts when you have prejudices to overcome- but here is one final one. Here are the three people who represented the NDP in these discussions -Jack Harris, Libby Davies and Joe Comartin. I don't know much about Harris - but Davies and Comartin would take these issues very, very seriously. If Libby Davies and Joe Comartin are willing to support this process I am prepared to take that as being an indication that it has some positive potential. IF they and it fails then I will be more than happy to question their honour, but not before.

Sat, 2010-05-15 22:16

#61

Bookish Agrarian

I doubt it. There are piles and piles of staffers who will be searching for keywords and so on. Let's be realistic it won't be the four MPs doing the actual search work - just the final review. Most, if not all, documents will have an electronic version faciltating searching. Anyone who has done primary research before knows that there are plenty of ways to seperate the wheat from the chaff. We are not talking years.

Sat, 2010-05-15 22:22

#62

Boom Boom

I hope you're right, BA.

Sat, 2010-05-15 22:52

#63

Triphop

Will the ICC go after Mullah Omar for all the nasty things his goons did? How about the Chinese for mass murders in Tibet and Xinjiang or the Russkies who used thermobaric weapons on civilians in Chechenia? Nah I didnt think so either. The ICC is a stupid joke. Just like the UNHRC with Iran Cuba and Saudi Arabia running it. A fair and functioning justice system goes after everyone equally and isnt run by mass murdering despots. A fair and functioning ICC and UNHRC would try to nail the saudi and Iranian governments for femicide or China for genocide. The UN was a good idea but went to hell after Dag Hammarskjold died. Only a handful of voters give a crap about whathappens to prisoners in another country under the care of their own police. And there is a real risk of a Bernier or a Karygiannis leaking something that could get our troops killed. Were not going to be in Afghanistan after next year anyhow. Like Boom Boom sez theyre all moving on past this nonissue and so should we.

Sat, 2010-05-15 23:10

#64

Boom Boom

Triphop wrote:
Like Boom Boom sez theyre all moving on past this nonissue and so should we.

Bullshit. That's not what I said. I said those looking at the documents, once released, if they get bogged down by bureaucracy, would give up and say "ah the hell with it". But, as BA says, there are ways of doing this job quickly, and if that's the case, more power to them.

Sun, 2010-05-16 00:14

#65

Frmrsldr

Triphop wrote:

You don't think sensitive info about things like security protocols will be leaked back to Afghanistan by al Qaeda operatives in MPs' offices? ... Layton, Ignatieff, Duceppe aren't going to give Harper ammunition on the national security and troop safety issues by letting stuff out and they have their shit together enough to not pull a Maxime. But backbenchers might, or might even just be slobs and lose documents like Bernier.

What actionable "real time" information are the Afghan insurgents going to get from documents that are months to years old?

C'mon, Afghanistan is a bullshit war like Vietnam. At no time did the Vietnam War ever threaten American national security.

The Afghan war has not nor ever will threaten the national security of Canada. World War II, yes. Afghan war, no.

Sun, 2010-05-16 00:23

#66

Cueball

Triphop wrote:

Will the ICC go after Mullah Omar for all the nasty things his goons did? How about the Chinese for mass murders in Tibet and Xinjiang or the Russkies who used thermobaric weapons on civilians in Chechenia? Nah I didnt think so either. The ICC is a stupid joke. Just like the UNHRC with Iran Cuba and Saudi Arabia running it. A fair and functioning justice system goes after everyone equally and isnt run by mass murdering despots. A fair and functioning ICC and UNHRC would try to nail the saudi and Iranian governments for femicide or China for genocide. The UN was a good idea but went to hell after Dag Hammarskjold died. Only a handful of voters give a crap about whathappens to prisoners in another country under the care of their own police. And there is a real risk of a Bernier or a Karygiannis leaking something that could get our troops killed. Were not going to be in Afghanistan after next year anyhow. Like Boom Boom sez theyre all moving on past this nonissue and so should we.

Paragraphs are cool. They help seperate out thoughts. But, I must admit that mish-mash of non-sequiters would warrant one paragraph seperation for each sentence.

In anycase, you were banned, and there was a reason for it. As I pointed out before, for someone who spends so much time going off on xenophobic tirades about immigrants jumping borders, you don't seem to respect the rules when they are applied to you. Typical, really, one of the fundamental beliefs of fascist wingnuts is that the rules only apply to others, they on the other hand can think of no end of excuses that warrant that exceptions be made for them.

Hence, concepts such as "human rights are universal", are the last thing that interest them.

Here is an idea. If you really want "illegal immigrants" to obey the rules, why don't you stop coming up with new alias so that you can come and post your non-sensical and racist screed, and set an example for all those who don't abide by the rules, and just not come back to this web-site, like you have been asked before?

As for Mullah Omar, you can bet your booties the ICC would try him, if he was caught, but of course just like Sadam Hussien a kangaroo court with a good ole American style lynching is what Uncle Sam wants, so you can also bet the USA would never deliver him to the Hague.

Sun, 2010-05-16 00:33

#67

Cueball

Exactly. This is precisely the point Layton should be making, in more diplomatic language. The genuine possible "national security" value of this documentation is so incredibly small that making them secret clearly undermines Parliaments right to know. This is just a con game, and not Layton is cheering it on.

"Victory for democracy", my ass, this is a victory for "bureaucraftic obfuscation" the fact that they are willing to play the national security card is such a blatant fraud that it tells me that what is really going on is "obstruction of justice"... Triphop says it best... "nothing to see here folks... move along..."

What is supposed to be in these documents anyway, top secret plans for nuclear interogation techniques?.

Sun, 2010-05-16 00:56

#68

Frmrsldr

Triphop wrote:

Religious fruitcake poppy farmer acid tossing woman haters with RPGs aren't a good hill to die on, my friend. I don't think the NDP want to fight over this either. The Libs won't either cause they were in power when the handovers were starting.

Cueball wrote:

Talking about backward medieval style extremist ideologies, you seem a little bit confused here. You don't seem to be fully alive to the idea that torturing people in order to determine their guilt or innocence by securing a confession is a medieval practice, one more in keeping with the inquisition, or the witch trials, just like "acid throwing'

What are they guilty of? Defending their country by fighting against us? Let's see, our attack, invasion, occupation of and war against Afghanistan is a war of aggression. It is ILLEGAL. WE are the ones who are in the wrong. Not them.

As for acid throwing and other civil crimes by Afghans against Afghans, these are civil and criminal court matters to be dealt with by the Afghan authorities: NOT US. It is none of our damn business.

Violating international laws like the Geneva Conventions and others, being guilty of human rights atrocities and war crimes - what could be more egregious and heinous than that? What could be more of a government killer than that? NOTHING I can think of.

Sun, 2010-05-16 01:10

#69

Frmrsldr

Triphop wrote:

"Suggesting that there is some ethnic predisposition to irrationality that leads to vandalism among Greek people is clearly prejudiced." Its the greek state thats a mess. You get a few decades tug of war between commies and fascists and you get this kind of political culture. There is a problem with endemic corruption in Greece that's nowhere else in Europe except maybe places like Naples. Case in point is the rotten postal systems in these places that even Ebay sellers wont send to since stuff is always claimed stolen. You have to bribe everybody to get anywhere. ANd these countries all have proportional voting which means backroom deals between crooks to govern. The result is people pissed off cause the legal and political system gets you nowhere so they take to the streets. La-la Land in America is another basketcase like this. Britain is turning to this with the vote fraud and reporters being beaten up by thugs. The Taliban dont live in Canada so they don't Have Charter Rights. They never signed the Hague or Geneva Conventions so they don't have those rights. You think rights are universal? Rights are different or even nonexistent depending on where you are or who you are. How about rights to armed defense or own property. We have neither in our constitution. Neither America nor Canada have rights to medical treatment. Women on native rezes here don't have the dower and gender equality rights women everywhere else have. Rights arent universal. You also just won't get any public sympathy for people who are in the news squirting acid on little girls faces for going to schools or people who claim inocence but have C4 residue on their hands. And any assignment of blame will inevitably entangle individual soldiers. Who do you think 95% of the voting public will get behind? This is why Layton is dropping his peacenik stance by claiming the Cons arent spending ENOUGH on the Navy. Any dirt on detainee handovers will also cover the Liberal era so Iggy wont press it. What will come out of this is a list of Recommendations for Detainee Transfers. Nothing more. People here who think this resonates with the public need to get out more and talk to people outside their Project Ploughshares circle. There is a big danger with progressive types here of insular thinking and ignoring what the majority of ordinary people think. Politicians in our plurality system have popular opinion as their bread and butter and wont piss off the public by coming down on Canadian soldiers over taliban rights.

When soldiers decide whether to transfer prisoners or not depends on what the policy is. Who determines the policy? The GOVERNMENT. Who is ultimately in command of the military? Canada ain't no military junta. The answer again, is the GOVERNMENT.

The only time soldiers will get in trouble is if some individuals tortured or abused prisoners themselves or if they do something like what buddy Captain Robert Semrau did.

The hiding behind the troops ploy is a bullshit chimera.

Concerning the rights/treatment of Afghan combatants/insurgents alleged or real, Canada, the U.S.A. and most of the ISAF countries fighting there, signed the Geneva Conventions and must act accordingly or face the prospect of war crimes trials. It's that simple.

Sun, 2010-05-16 01:36

#70

Frmrsldr

Triphop wrote:

What part of "did not sign the Geneva Accord and Hague Convention" do you not understand? What do you mean by humanely?

I really dont like that women on rezes like two I know lose everything including their kids when their husband dumps them. I don't like that Canada has no property rights meaning that a company in BC can take the land your house sits on because they want to mine clay for kitty litter under it. And I really don't like that it's still illegal to convert from Islam in Afghanistan or most other Muslim countries and that there is no sexual equality or laws against spousal battery. Why do you think people care about some guy caught with IED parts shooting at Canadian soldiers getting handed to AFGHAN police and getting his teeth knocked out by his own people? As for humane some of the complaints are a joke. Amnesty International cited dirty toilets. Really? Half the civilian kids in Afghanistan poop over holes in the ground. Broadening the scope of this to Guantanamo we have complaints about toilets facing Mecca and scented soap and being touched by women. Complete rubbish. And how in the heck are Canadians supposed to deal with enemy combattants? Build Canadian-run jails? Let them plant IEDs instead of capturing them? Please spare your sympathies for real horrors like the mistreatment of women and children in these societies and here. These are people who are actually in dire need of being treated humanely.

What a bunch of contradictory bullshit.

One Afghan I know who threw acid in the faces of women not wearing burkhas in public and girls going to school is Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Right now representatives of the U.S., U.K. and Afghan governments are meeting with representatives of Hezb-i-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG) with the idea of Hekmatyar joining the Karzai regime.

What acid throwing suspects have been caught by Canadian soldiers who are currently in Afghan jails? None I've heard of.

Prisoners of War are afforded due process by the Geneva Conventions. This means they are to be presumed innocent before being proven (on reasonable grounds) guilty and are entitled to a fair trial. Branding them as "terrorists" before they have even been put on trial and "knocking out their teeth" as you put it, is to deny them due process.

Tell me, how does it work to teach some Afghans to respect life, human rights, equality, peace, democracy, education for their children, fairness, good government, justice, due process, clean government, etc., on the one hand, while we are waging an illegal war murdering other (most often) innocent Afghans, denying them due process, fair trials, torturing and abusing them, making deals with people like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and a drug lord corrupt criminal like Hamid Karzai's half brother Amed Wali Karzai?

How do you account for and justify such hypocricy and contradictions, huh?

Sun, 2010-05-16 15:36

#71

NDPP

Are We Covering For Uncle Sam?

http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/greg_weston/2010/05/14/13951...

"Until now, the controversy has been whether Canadian Forces turned over prisoners with the full knowledge there was a high probability of torture by the Afghans. But what if the Americans have been mistreating [or killing] Canadian captives...?"

Sun, 2010-05-16 20:46

#72

Frmrsldr

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

Are We Covering For Uncle Sam?

http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/greg_weston/2010/05/14/13951...

"Until now, the controversy has been whether Canadian Forces turned over prisoners with the full knowledge there was a high probability of torture by the Afghans. But what if the Americans have been mistreating [or killing] Canadian captives...?"

If so, then that is why Harper keeps harping on the need to 'protect' international relations.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter who we transfer prisoners to. The Geneva Conventions state that when a Power transfers prisoners, that Power does not transfer all legal and moral duties to the third Power. The transferring Power still has duties concerning the life, health and well being of its former prisoners and a corresponding duty to stay informed of the continuing existence, health and well being of its former prisoners.

Failure to do so is a breach of the Geneva Conventions and any signatory that breaches the Conventions in this regard runs the risk of being charged with human rights violations and/or war crimes.

Mon, 2010-05-17 14:47

#73

Steve_Shutt Steve_Shutt's picture

To those who claim that the detainee issue is not important, you so miss the point. It is not about the treatment of the detainees, it is about our actions and those taken in our name and, purportedly, in the furtherance of our values.

The inhumanity committed by the Tallaban is the very reason it is imperative that we are vigorous in our defence of their rights. The measure of any society is how it treats its sick, its elderly and its prisoners.

The question is not what evil has or has not been committed by those we are capturing, some may have committed attrocities and some may be innocent bystanders . The acts cited above with respect to the treatment of women in particular are terrorism in the truest sense but the field of battle is a complex place. The Tallaban do seek to terrorize the victems themselves and, through them, to demonstrate a rejection of modernity. They are acting monstrously. If we are not to become the monsters ourselves then we owe it to ourselves, our values, our humanity, to safeguard the fair and just treatment of those we capture and detain.

We can not win a contest of savagry and barbarism, nor should we ever try.

Mon, 2010-05-17 21:25

#74

NDPP

MPs Wary DND Will Produce All Afghan Defence Documents

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/dnd-05-17-2010

"Army can't locate a month's worth of crucial logs and reports...

The agreement allowing MPs to view secret documents on detainee transfers may not result in documentation review until after Parliamentary sittings adjourn for the summer in mid-June.."

This very coordinated full court press by government, military and 'Opposition' parties will effectively 'disappear' the very crucial issue of war crimes, treatment of POWs and Canada's participation in the US led Afghan war. Media and a barely there Peace Movement all conspire to produce a public that is largely indifferent to these issues.

Mon, 2010-05-17 21:33

#75

Cueball

So, the run around begins.

Mon, 2010-05-17 22:30

#76

Frmrsldr

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

MPs Wary DND Will Produce All Afghan Defence Documents

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/dnd-05-17-2010

"Army can't locate a month's worth of crucial logs and reports...

That shows you how the military may dodge the Torturegate bullet through successful obstruction of justice and 'deep sixing' evidence.

In this case, and more importantly, the government is not similarly off the hook. Harper may get elected for a third term if he calls an election in September before the Torturegate 'shit hits the fan'. Or he could resign and leave some other poor soul to face the fallout of the publication of the PMO (Prisoner) Papers.

In either case, if there is an election in September and if the Cons are re-elected, they will not have done themselves any favors.

Thu, 2010-06-03 22:31

#77

Unionist

Remember this old issue from long ago?

The deal that the NDP declared a VICTORY?

Anyone seen any of the documents yet?

Harper wins.

Thu, 2010-06-03 23:55

#78

ottawaobserver

I think you mean "Unionist wins", don't you?

Fri, 2010-06-04 00:17

#79

NDPP

No he means Harper wins because the other parties let him..

Fri, 2010-06-04 00:35

#80

NDPP

and continue to with shit like this:

MPs Won't Rule Out Military Training in Afghanistan after 2011

http://cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100603/100603_Canada_Afghanis...

"Canada may keep a military presence in Afghanistan after its combat mission ends next year in order to strengthen the country's national security forces, an all-party House of Commons committee on the conflict says...

NDP Defence critic Jack Harris said a post-2011 role for Canada is in the works..."

And yet not long ago...

No Troops in Afghanistan after 2011: Cannon

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2725809

"Canadian troops will withdraw from Afghanistan as scheduled in 2011, even if the United States and NATO ask for some to stay behind to train Afghan soldiers, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said Thursday (NP Mar. 24, 2010)

It's true what they say: You're all in it together...

oh and by the way when are we going to see all those mps 'expenses' or will that involve a similar accommodation with the AG as the detainee concordat was with the war criminals?

Fri, 2010-06-04 07:39

#81

Unionist

ottawaobserver wrote:

I think you mean "Unionist wins", don't you?

Yup. All I care about is being right. As opposed to the NDP, which deeply cares about Canada's aggression against Afghanistan and the supremacy of Parliament and its order to produce documents. And then there's you, who appear to follow this tried and true formula:

1. Unionist criticizes NDP.

2. OO personally attacks Unionist.

Carry on, friend.

Oh, and thanks, so much, for stopping in to visit one of the Afghanistan threads. Hope to see you here more often.

Fri, 2010-06-04 10:30

#82

NDPP

Opposition Parties Threaten Tories Over Afghan Detainee Documents

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/opposition-parties-threaten...

"If no resolution is found before the summer break, Mr Comartin said opposition parties will not be able to do anything - including complain to Commons Speaker Peter Milliken, who has upheld their right to see the uncensored documents - until Parliament resumes in late September. Indeed, should the government force a fall election, it's possible opposition parties would never see the documents at all."

Fri, 2010-06-04 11:09

#83

ottawaobserver

Unionist wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

I think you mean "Unionist wins", don't you?

Yup. All I care about is being right. As opposed to the NDP, which deeply cares about Canada's aggression against Afghanistan and the supremacy of Parliament and its order to produce documents. And then there's you, who appear to follow this tried and true formula:

1. Unionist criticizes NDP.

2. OO personally attacks Unionist.

Carry on, friend.

Oh, and thanks, so much, for stopping in to visit one of the Afghanistan threads. Hope to see you here more often.

Unionist, when you "criticize" the NDP, you are actually personally attacking people I know and care about who are trying their darnedest.

I'm sure you're not up on all the latest in those negotiations, but it happens that the Bloc actually caved once inside closed doors, leaving the NDP on its own. What to do, then, to try and salvage something? A tricky proposition. Was there perhaps nothing to salvage, and if then what would be the recourse? Again, difficult questions.

When Jack Harris says "a role", I'll want to hear more about that when he gets back to Ottawa before I shit on "the NDP" from a great height. I suspect it's a humanitarian role, and ensuring those folks work in safety. This is because I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, whereas your inclinations seem to be in the opposite direction.

It would help if you'd outline what you think should be done, if anything, in respect of Afghanistan. If the position is walk away completely and suffer any consequences, that's fair enough. I never thought our role should have been changed to a combat one, particularly not when the decision was announced between Christmas and New Year in the middle of an election campaign, with no parliamentary debate and oversight, and we're paying for the consequences of that dearly.

But, did the west have no interest in the Taliban's protection of Al Qaeda after 9-11? That's a different story for me. I'm no expert on the issue, though, and am well-aware that western adventures into Afghanistan (or eastern ones for that matter) have never ended well for the adventurers, and had the effect of distorting things further there.

Fri, 2010-06-04 11:35

#84

ottawaobserver

BTW, in case anyone has any doubts about the NDP's position on the future of the Afghanistan, make sure you listen to Paul Dewar's lead off questions in Question Period today on the future of the mission.

It's very important to read and listen to the original sources, not the ones filtered by the mainstream corporate media. I'll post a link when available.

It also appears that while the Bloc caved on the oversight of the documents earlier, they are now calling for a contempt motion alongside Joe Comartin of the NDP. As usual, it's the Liberals trying to drag things out.

Fri, 2010-06-04 11:46

#85

Joey Ramone

ottawaobserver wrote:

It would help if you'd outline what you think should be done, if anything, in respect of Afghanistan. If the position is walk away completely and suffer any consequences, that's fair enough.

Is this actually a difficult question? I don't know about Unionist, but I'd like to see the NDP demand that the Canadian Forces be pulled out of Afghanistan immediately, and formal appologies from our government to the people of Afghanistan and the families of Canadian soldiers killed there. I'm pretty sure the NDP would only gain respect and support if it took a clear, principled position like this.

Fri, 2010-06-04 12:09

#86

Unionist

ottawaobserver wrote:

Unionist, when you "criticize" the NDP, you are actually personally attacking people I know and care about who are trying their darnedest.

In case you haven't figured this out, we're allowed to criticize, attack, condemn public figures here - but not so much each other. That may sound inconsistent and hypocritical to you, but it's kind of the way we deal with our neighbours, workmates, colleagues as well, even when we disagree with them profoundly. Refresh your understanding of babble policy if you can't tell the difference between saying "Jack Harris is a stooge of the Canadian aggression in Afghanistan" (not that I'm saying that, mind you - just a hypothetical example), and "ottawaobserver is a stooge of the Canadian aggression in Afghanistan" (not saying that either). One is acceptable, the other is not.

Quote:
I'm sure you're not up on all the latest in those negotiations, but it happens that the Bloc actually caved once inside closed doors, leaving the NDP on its own.

The Bloc, FYI, has never once called for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan. The NDP did, in August-September 2006 and for a while thereafter, at which time I praised them for doing so. They are really our only hope. As for the disclosure of documents, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc shamelessly betrayed their mandate, their supporters, and the supremacy of Parliament. I don't give a shit about the "negotiations". I saw the conclusion, and the cynical self-congratulatory "victory" statement by the NDP. They are all to be condemned for letting Harper win this skirmish and ensuring that the Canadian people will never know what war crimes have been committed. Let me know when you find a grain of evidence that my conclusion is erroneous.

Quote:

When Jack Harris says "a role", I'll want to hear more about that when he gets back to Ottawa before I shit on "the NDP" from a great height.

I don't really want to hear, because Canada has no role to play in Afghanistan before it withdraws, apologizes, pledges never to interfere in the internal affairs of the Afghan people, and asks for a reparations bill to be submitted for consideration and payment. Also, when Mr. Harris says "all Canadians" want to know that the "sacrifices" of our soldiers have not been for naught, he does not speak for me. From the start, I have clearly stated that every single Canadian death is a wasted life, a death in vain.

Quote:

It would help if you'd outline what you think should be done, if anything, in respect of Afghanistan. If the position is walk away completely and suffer any consequences, that's fair enough.

I was serious when I welcomed you to the Afghanistan discussions. You must be the only babbler who doesn't know my stand on Afghanistan, expressed here clearly since 2005. I want the Afghan people to win. I want the Canadian aggressors to lose. I prefer that they withdraw instantly, but if they stay, I want them to be defeated. I believe the Afghan people, like all others, must be left free to solve their problems alone, no matter how little you apparently think of their ability to do so without Canadian help.

Quote:
But, did the west have no interest in the Taliban's protection of Al Qaeda after 9-11?

Your use of the term "the west" clearly shows which side you're on. I'm on the opposite side - the side of the victims of "the west". Best if we don't continue this discussion.

For further information, please review the dozens of threads I've opened on this subject, especially those entitled, "The Afghan People Will Win".

Fri, 2010-06-04 12:53

#87

ottawaobserver

Well, thank goodness you've already figured out my position on this, so I don't have to bother writing it down. Who knew I could convey so much with just two words.

Fri, 2010-06-04 13:28

#88

ottawaobserver

Thinking about this a little more, Unionist, I think you and I usually agree on how things go wrong, but disagree on the best way of fixing them up. The west is culpable for a lot of things around the world. It's also the source of one or two good things. We can't roll back the past, only figure out the best way to go forward. It never seems as straightforward to me now what's the best thing to do, as it did when I was younger.

Fri, 2010-06-04 13:46

#89

remind

OttawObserver wrote:
It never seems as straightforward to me now...as it did when I was younger.

Concur with this observation, an waiver back and forth between; either believing I have more to lose so am co-opted, or that I realize nuance and that things change slowly with people, so slower steps are needed.

Fri, 2010-06-04 13:47

#90

Life, the unive...

Quote:

You must be the only babbler who doesn't know my stand on Afghanistan, expressed here clearly since 2005.

I didn't realize you were so important on babble that people had to follow your views on every issue. Get over yourself and babble might run a lot smoother since you are so important to the board.

Fri, 2010-06-04 13:49

#91

Unionist

remind wrote:
things change slowly with people, so slower steps are needed.

You actually want to apply this observation to Afghanistan, where a majority of Canadians have long said they want the "mission" ended? Which people do you want to take "slower steps" with - the minority of gung-ho Cons who still want to "win" there?

Do you recall that Canada's involvement began fast - on one day, Oct. 7, 2001 - by declaration of Jean Chrétien? No vote, no poll, no discussion in Parliament, nada? And only Alexa McDonough saying "hang on a second" and opposing it?

Do you actually think withdrawal of Canada from Afghanistan could not be done just as fast, if we had at least one single party saying we should?

Instead, we will now have four (4) parties saying that Canada needs to continue to have troops there beyond 2011. Yes, you heard me, soldiers. I wasn't born yesterday, and I can understand the diplomatic code of lying politicians.

Fri, 2010-06-04 14:07

#92

Life, the unive...

Just who do you think Canada sent to Haiti and other places around the world to deliver humanitarian aid and do building and road reconstruction?

Fri, 2010-06-04 14:10

#93

Unionist

Ok, remind, I see your point now. I withdraw my comment.

Fri, 2010-06-04 23:19

#94

remind

Well, seeing as how I was off topic, and merely concurring with OO in a general way about activism of all types, but mainly I suppose women's equality rights, and not in application at all to Afghanistan, thank you for your retraction.

Fri, 2010-06-04 23:38

#95

remind

Michelle wrote:
remind wrote:
Well..... thanks for that "sage" advice michelle, sounds just like it came out of the CON War Room.

Yes, that's exactly it, remind. You've caught me. I've switched teams and I'm now working for the Cons. They've given me a top secret plum job in their war room.

Do you even listen to yourself? Ever?

Missed huge swaths of this thread and was reading back over and found this, my apologies for not seeing it sooner.

My comment neve said that, or even inferred it. I said it "sounded like" because it did, it is true that they want people not to vote, as their followers vote, thereby they might get a phoney majority, it was sarcastic through and through.

...it is perhaps you who should listen to yourself, given it really is a sentiment that the Conservatives foster. And another poster noted after me, it was not progressive speak.,

Having said that I will note that we all have our down and pessismistic days, where that kinds stuff just slips out, and I had thought that was how you were feeling. Looking back I approached it poorly, should not have been a flip indication of what it fed and should have engaged you as to why you were feeling down and pessimistic and indicated that way.

My sincere apologies.

Sat, 2010-06-05 00:57

#96

Frmrsldr

Unionist wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

When Jack Harris says "a role", I'll want to hear more about that when he gets back to Ottawa before I shit on "the NDP" from a great height.

I don't really want to hear, because Canada has no role to play in Afghanistan before it withdraws, apologizes, pledges never to interfere in the internal affairs of the Afghan people, and asks for a reparations bill to be submitted for consideration and payment. Also, when Mr. Harris says "all Canadians" want to know that the "sacrifices" of our soldiers have not been for naught, he does not speak for me. From the start, I have clearly stated that every single Canadian death is a wasted life, a death in vain.

Absolutely. I agree entirely with you on this, Unionist.

Sat, 2010-06-05 06:53

#97

Maysie

This was recently brought to the mods' attentions:

Triphop, at post #41 you used the word "retard". This is an offensive word and isn't used on babble. Please refrain. Thanks.

Sat, 2010-06-12 03:07

#98

NDPP

Opposition Gears Up for War on Detainee Issue

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100611/detainee-documents-battle-...

"The opposition parties could hold up millions in federal cash needed to pay for the G8 and G20 summits and a whack of other programs if the Conservative government does not bend on the release of classified documents about the Afghan mission.."

'could' doesn't mean would - especially with this bunch..

Sat, 2010-06-12 03:48

#99

Frmrsldr

Should they, though - could be v e r y interesting.

Sat, 2010-06-12 04:25

#100

NDPP

of course they should.

Sat, 2010-06-12 04:25

#101

NDPP

of course they should.

Pages

Topic locked