sda2.jpg

April 24, 2007

"We may bring them in Canada"

He didn't say that. He couldn't have. Nobody could be that stupid. Not even Jack Layton is that stupid.

h/t

(Oh, and in case you were wondering - I really don't care what Afghans do with Taliban prisoners, and I suspect I hold the majority opinion on that subject.)

Posted by Kate at April 24, 2007 1:11 AM
Comments

Maybe we could give the the same rights as Canadian citizens?

Posted by: soup at April 24, 2007 1:31 AM

I dunno. It's an interesting idea. The comparison may not be entirely accurate, but the Americans sent there Nazi war criminals to the farms in the Midwest. Maybe the same idea could work? But it's probably wishful thinking. Taliban on the Praries?

Posted by: overthesea at April 24, 2007 1:46 AM

"I really don't care what Afghans do with Taliban prisoners, and I suspect I hold the majority opinion on that subject."

Well of course you don't care what happens to them and I expected nothing less from you. The fact is we have this little international agreement called the Geneva Convention that outlines how we are to treat prisoners of war, and anything less is a war crime. I do understand how you cons have nothing but contempt for international agreements unless it's something that benefits the US, but agreements are agreements and we have to live up to what we have agreed to do. You see when others believe that the convention can be brushed aside any time that’s convenient, it puts our soldiers at risk in future conflicts. That’s when our soldiers who are unfortunately captured are lined up against a wall and shot by the enemy, just like in what the cons affectionately refer to as the good old days before human rights.
So it appears war crimes have been committed and covered up so not just O'Connor should be fired, but he should be taking his buddy Hillier down with him.

Posted by: albatros39a at April 24, 2007 1:52 AM

Thats all we need Taliban + NDP. I think we in the "colonies" have enough to deal with already.

Posted by: sysk at April 24, 2007 1:54 AM

"I dunno. It's an interesting idea. The comparison may not be entirely accurate, but the Americans sent there Nazi war criminals to the farms in the Midwest. Maybe the same idea could work? But it's probably wishful thinking. Taliban on the Praries?"

Fort McMurry is still looking for workers aren't they?

Posted by: albatros39a at April 24, 2007 1:54 AM

Remind me once again why we are in Afghanistan. Ah, yes...to bring "freedom and democracy" to the Afghanis. Isn't it ironic that people have to be tortured for freedom to prevail.

Posted by: lberia at April 24, 2007 1:57 AM

albatros39a... Can you please show me where in the Geneva Convention that outlines how we are to treat terrorists. The Taliban are not members of the "armed forces" as described in the convention, nor are they civilians NOT taking part in hostilities.

Posted by: Tim at April 24, 2007 2:01 AM

Albatross, how does the Geneva Convention apply to terrorists that don't recognize the Geneva Convention themselves? Next time you're talking to your good buddies, you may want to ask them where their uniforms identifying themselves as soldiers are.

Posted by: Paul MacPhail at April 24, 2007 2:02 AM

albatros thinks like a liberal, bring any foreign sleaze bag into the country and hand them a job before a local. That's how the liberals ran this country for 30 of the past 40 years, giving immigrants what they want and in return they dutibly run to the polls for them.

Posted by: real conservative at April 24, 2007 2:02 AM

Yea, cause you know the Taliban are telling the suicide bombers before they send them on their merry way, "Make sure you read the GC rules and regs before you blow yourself and all those innocents up" or " Are you sure cutting this guys head off is in the Geneva Convention"

Posted by: Platty at April 24, 2007 2:05 AM

I'm pretty sure "albatros" is actually Scott Reid. Is that you, oh master of disaster?

Posted by: KRF at April 24, 2007 2:10 AM

You know,it might not be a bad idea to bring the prisoners to Canada. We can put them all up at albatros39's place. Then he can read them to sleep every night, "And on page 14 of the Geneva Convention..."

Posted by: Platty at April 24, 2007 2:11 AM

Albatross, we also have an international agreement with the gov't of Afghanistan to hand over captured operatives. Afghanistan hasn't signed the Geneva Conventions (none of the four), nor have our courts ruled on the status of the Taliban operatives.

Sorry.

Cheers,
lance

Posted by: lance at April 24, 2007 2:14 AM

Iberia: did it ever occur to you that the so called "tortured" people are the very ones trying to prevent the freedom of the ones we are fighting for,or are they just trying to uphold the democractic regime that was in place before NATO arrived on the scene?

Posted by: sysk at April 24, 2007 2:15 AM

Ask the UN bureaucrats in Kabul why they're not offering better guidance to the Afghan government with regards to their criminal justice and penal system.

This is a multinational UN and NATO sanctioned project. Canada is part of a large team from many countries and I was not aware that Canada was responsible for some kind of oversight of Afghan prisons and Afghan treatment of extremely violent criminals.

The Liberals and the NDP should maybe do a little research before they blame Canada. Their complaints might be more accurately directed to the United Nations.

Posted by: anon at April 24, 2007 2:24 AM

"Fort McMurry is still looking for workers aren't they?"

Well, if Kyoto won't shut down the oilsands, by yimminy, let's try the Taliban.

Brilliant. We are desperate, but not yet that desperate.

Posted by: Candace at April 24, 2007 2:44 AM

This preoccupation with the fate of captured taliban is curious. Even more curious is the lack of concern shown regarding how Taliban treat any soldiers they capture.

IIRC, the Geneva convention applies only to soldiers in uniform. In WWII I believe that the standard means of dealing with combatents not in uniform was to execute them on the spot. The fact that there are ex-taliban around to complain about their treatment after they were captured suggests that they are very lucky. Thus far I don't think that any soldiers on our side catured by the Taliban have made it back alive.

Dealing with terrorists is a messy business and the military should simply get on with doing its job without interference by clueless morons such as Dion and Taliban Jack. I too don't really care what the Afghani army does with captured taliban. Some of them may be fit for release, but the only way to deal with islamic fanatics is to kill them.

Posted by: loki at April 24, 2007 2:50 AM

I care what the Afgans do with the Taliban!!! They let them go.

Sometimes when I hear crap spouted about Geneva Conventions and their applications to this theatre of operations, it makes me think of two little kids having a fight and one guy quitting by saying "I didn't know that you'd punch in the face." Rules of engagement in Afstan? In a pigs A$$!!

Posted by: Pat at April 24, 2007 2:51 AM

Might be wishful thinking, but maybe Mr Dion would consider making that his election slogan.

And would somebody pass the troll hammer, please?

Posted by: Blackadder at April 24, 2007 2:53 AM

I would suggest we be real nice to the Taliban detainees and give them a free helicopter ride. Once at a suitable altitude tell them to talk or walk........Problem solved....

Posted by: capndan at April 24, 2007 3:33 AM

Alby

You seem to hang out around here playing the role of agent provocatour. Whatever fills yer pants.

That said, any idiot that uses a community as a icon for generalizations is leaking like a stuck pig. Where do you get yer info from? Introspection? Intuition? Indoctrination?

Have you ever been within 1500 miles of Fort Mac?

I grew up there you candyass,leftard,chickenshit, know nothing/know everything,couchbound, authority.

Fuck off!

Syncro

P.S. Sorry Kate, but not that sorry.

Posted by: Syncrodox at April 24, 2007 3:47 AM

Platty, I think albatross would rather go over to Afghanistan to watch over the prisoners. We could give him a pink plastic sword to banish around to intimidate the captured beheaders of innocent civilians. I wonder how long he would last...? 'And in his last breath the albatross fell from his neck as he recited the Geneva Convention....'

Posted by: Jema54 at April 24, 2007 4:20 AM

more from cbcpravda


http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_mallick/20060616.html

Posted by: cal2 at April 24, 2007 4:21 AM

oh oh cbcpravda missed that quote from Borat Dion- "may we bring them here"

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/04/23/afghan-torture.html

but they did manage to get in the talibanjack quote and get O'connor and abuse into the headline.


Posted by: cal2 at April 24, 2007 4:35 AM

Bring the Taliban to Canada and then spend 30 years trying, unsuccessfully, to get rid of them again. They will of course go the the supreme court to demand their rights ... and their welfare check.

Is Dijon insane?

Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at April 24, 2007 4:59 AM

On a serious note, why are the Liberals playing the Taliban tune? Does it not occour to them that the Taliban may well have operatives in this country informing them on military and propaganda issues?

Does Dijon et al not realise we are at war?

Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at April 24, 2007 5:05 AM

Of course, in the Liberals mind, Canada is the occupier, so it stands to reason, that Dion wants the Taliban prisoners in Canada.

He should realize that Canada is there at the bequest of the UN and the Afghan government. So it's upto Afghanistan to deal with its prisoners. And it's their responsibility and accountable for human rights.


2) did anyone catch Keith Martin (Liberal) on CPAC, where he stated that in December 2005, Canada didn't have a government, so Hillier was the only to sign the first agreement? Someone should tell him, that during an election campaign, Canada still has a government until election day, where the current may or may not be replaced. Paul Martin was still our Prime Minister until January 23, 2006!!!!

3) Someone should tell these NDPers (Dawn Black - an ex-executive assistant), that they can't blame our military on the ALLEGED misconduct of the prisoners by extension. Because Canada still sends foreign aid to China and China violates human rights, can Canada be held accountable for human rights violations in China?

Posted by: Catherine at April 24, 2007 5:28 AM

Need a troll hammer around here...

Posted by: backhoe at April 24, 2007 5:43 AM

With bringing the prisoners here, we could bring the troops and equipment home, to fight them here. I am sure all their supporters here would join them. Codere could lead them. Imagine, beheadings, in our cities, in our streets, choose your Canada. Some of them could get roles on little mosque on the prairie.

Posted by: mary T. at April 24, 2007 6:25 AM

Is that show still on the air?

Posted by: tower at April 24, 2007 6:45 AM

Captured enemy combatants not in uniform have no rights under the Geneva conventions. I nominate albatross's post as the dumbest of the year.

Posted by: Mississauga Matt at April 24, 2007 8:13 AM

Do I care what the Afghans do to their Taliban prisoners? Not really. It's their country and their laws that we are there to help protect. Who are we to judge what’s best for them? Their society is older than ours and knows what’s best for them.

Would the Taliban offer the same protect to any of our soldiers they held captive? I doubt it. They would behead them live if they had the change. So much for the Geneva Convention and their support of it.

As for the cowards who want to bring them here.. forget it. Most of the insurgents in Afghanistan are foreigners who entered that country illegally. How the Afghans deal with such people is their business. Just as it's non of their business how we handle ours. Of course, if you’re a socialist everyone’s business is your business. They may be enjoying themselves with their newly found freedoms.

Only Dion could think up such a stupid thing. Imagine, worrying more about the welfare of our enemies than of our soldiers. This is the same crowd who sent our soldiers to Afghanistan with green uniforms and poor equipment in the first place.

Posted by: Fiumara at April 24, 2007 8:17 AM

Perhaps we shouldn't be so hard on dubious citizen dion; this represents some growth for him. Minutes after saying this dumb thing, he said perhaps it wasn't realistic. yes, that's right, he's discovered reality! What's next for the amazing tin tin?
BTW, wouldn't it be sort of imperialist to interfere with the afghans and their treatment of prisoners? And not at all multicultural.

Posted by: slick mixolydian at April 24, 2007 8:49 AM

On second thought, maybe we should. Bring them here, I mean. Provide each Taliban prisoner a chain link enclosure, a prayer mat and three square meals a day. Call it "Frobisher Bay".


Posted by: Kate at April 24, 2007 8:56 AM

No thanks, no way we can allow be-headers into this Country under any circumstances.

Can't you just imagine,Jack the Dipper would then be demanding they be released from prison here on a daily basis and Dawn Black would be wearing herself thin baking cookies for the poor things. God knows what Alexa McDodo would do for them, certainly tea and sympathy would be in her order.

Under our Charter they couldn't be sent back because they'd be tortured so we'd have them here for life.

Posted by: Liz J at April 24, 2007 9:12 AM

KATE-"I really don't care what Afghans do with Taliban prisoners, and I suspect I hold the majority opinion on that subject."

ALBATROSS-"Well of course you don't care what happens to them and I expected nothing less from you. The fact is we have this little international agreement called the Geneva Convention that outlines how we are to treat prisoners of war, and anything less is a war crime."

Albatross, you might want to read those Geneva Conventions so that you know what you're talking about.

Among other things, the Conventions state there are three legal categories of persons, with very specific definitions:

1. lawful combatants
2. civilians
3. unlawful combatants

In category 3 are spies, saboteurs AND terrorists. And guess what? According to these Geneva Conventions, it isn't even required to take unlawful combatants prisoner. In fact, it is quite legal to summarily execute them.

Personally, I think that were it not for the intelligence value that SOME of the Taliban and Al Qaeda might have, we'd all be better off if we did just that.

Posted by: Dave at April 24, 2007 9:15 AM

It is a pretty good indication of the lack of a poster's knowledge when he or she uses the term "Geneva Convention" as a singular term. You usually don't have to dig much further to know they are stupid.

I do find it interesting that Dion and Layton, et. al. want Canada to pull out of Afghanistan totally.

Wonder what will happen to Taliban prisoners then?

Oh, sorry, that would be hypocritical to point out that our Opposition politicians are only using the prisoner question to batter the government. They don't care about what happens to the prisoners. If they did, they wouldn't want Canada to leave.

Its that simple.

Posted by: James Goneaux at April 24, 2007 9:26 AM

"You see when others believe that the convention can be brushed aside any time that’s convenient, it puts our soldiers at risk in future conflicts. That’s when our soldiers who are unfortunately captured are lined up against a wall and shot by the enemy"

As opposed to being beheaded on the internet?

Posted by: multirec at April 24, 2007 9:30 AM

Methinks alby should stay away from revising the Geneva Conventions and stick to inventing fake weather patterns.

Posted by: Yukon Gold at April 24, 2007 9:41 AM

Well, here's a lot of right-wing nutbars saying of Afghanistan, "It's their country" (and therefore they can torture anyone they like).

Right, ... and Castro is an abomination who must be removed because .....?

If it's "their country" why are Canadian soldiers running around shooting at people?

Oh yeah, that's right, ... our puppet government is unpopular, to the extent that the dreadful Taliban is making a comeback.

Let me repeat that for you: The government that we're propping up is so bad that the Taliban is actually rising in popular opinion over there.

The welfare of our prisoners becomes Canada's business when we get ourselves into the position where we have captured people and have to turn them over to someone.

Regarding the general tendency of right-wing scumbags to cherry-pick international law in a desperate attempt to justify torture and murder, only forces that obey the laws of war merit the consideration of human rights.

By your logic, US soldiers attacking hospitals, raping civilians, etc., ... actually, engaged in the entire illegal invasion of Iraq, are therefore not lawful combatants and have no human rights that need to be respected.

I'll repeat: That is according to YOUR logic.

You people are ridiculous. You cannot hold Canada up as an example of "civilization" on the one hand, and then dismiss allegations of torture and violations of human rights with the other.

It's really high time that you all realized your monkey-brained limitations, lowered your heads in shame, and renounced all claims on our political discussions. Because you truly are revolting.

You are cut from the same cloth as the Taliban fanatics.

Posted by: thwap at April 24, 2007 9:43 AM

just take the prisoners to kabul and put them in the nato compound and then the french and germans can look after them seeing their troops are not allowed out in the combat zone.

Posted by: stubby at April 24, 2007 9:44 AM

Rule #1 for terrorist prisoners...
claim torture

Let's just see how this plays out before we declare Canadian soldiers guilty of War Crimes.

If torture leads to saving Canadian soldier and Afghanistani civilian lives the problem is?

Let's be generous. Mr. Dion has problems mangling the English language. Hence the dumbass comment when thinking on his feet.

Posted by: Paul at April 24, 2007 9:47 AM

I have friends and family that have socialist views like Heather Mallick and as many of you have mentioned it is impossible to change their view. As soon as Mallick wrote "Canada's best newspaper is the Toronto Star" you know what part of the political spectrum she is from. If you present me with evidence on something and I can research it I will change my opinion yet leftists no matter what hard proof is provided never change their view. The fact that at least 30% of Canadians will always vote Liberal, theft, corruption, incompetence, no leadership, it just does not matter, should be evidence of this dead mindset.

When I read the posts of those on SDA that rise like trout to the bait of Albatross, Ted or Iberia I'm always incredulous. I have also fallen for that bait. These guys will never change their view no matter what facts or brilliant replies you make. I just wish Kate would put the "Posted by:" at the top of the post so I could skip their remarks.

Posted by: David Hand at April 24, 2007 9:48 AM

Let us also not forget as part of the A-Q playbook, those captured by "Western" forces are to claim torture in order to sow doubt in the "western liberal weenies." Given this, I take pretty much all reports of torture with a grain of salt. The only ones I really trust are the ones backed up by a report from our military.

Posted by: dkjones at April 24, 2007 9:50 AM

"Among other things, the Conventions state there are three legal categories of persons, with very specific definitions:

1. lawful combatants
2. civilians
3. unlawful combatants

In category 3 are spies, saboteurs AND terrorists. And guess what? According to these Geneva Conventions, it isn't even required to take unlawful combatants prisoner. In fact, it is quite legal to summarily execute them.

Personally, I think that were it not for the intelligence value that SOME of the Taliban and Al Qaeda might have, we'd all be better off if we did just that.

Posted by: Dave at April 24, 2007 9:15 AM"

Dave your ignorance is astounding. Perhaps you should go back and read the Geneva Convention again, then consider the ramifications for Canadian troops in future conflicts if we simply brush the convention aside at our whim.
Judging by the posts that followed my first post, It appears that my assessment that "cons have nothing but contempt for international agreements" was bang on.


Posted by: albatros39a at April 24, 2007 9:53 AM

I was away for a day & just getting caught up, Is Dion totaly Insane? Bring Taliban Prisoners here.
My gawd if i was in the Liberal Party & heard that I would demand a coup. I thought Layton was bad enough, but this just is beyond pale.

Posted by: bryanr at April 24, 2007 10:10 AM

It took a whole 41 minutes before the Geneva convention was brought up and based on the reference, by someone clearly unfamiliar with it. In the context of actions in both Afganistan and Iraq it's irrelevant and should be treated the same as calling someone a Nazi - whoever uses it first automatically loses the discussion.

The denial of protection for unlawful combatants is there to protect our troops. If you afford all the protections to everyone regardless of whether they comply with the dictates of the agreement, what's the deterent for hiding amongst the civilian population. To use the Convention as designed, such parties should simply be shot.

Posted by: Mica at April 24, 2007 10:18 AM

Dave is absolutely right. The Taliban are unlawful combatants and not subject to the protections of the Geneva Convention. They are not part of a national army and they do not wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians.

Posted by: Belisarius at April 24, 2007 10:19 AM

Great stuff, all.

However, the problem is this:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Article 12 of the Convention states the fol:

Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power (in this case, Canada) to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.

If Afganistan is not a a party to the Convention, they they cannot be transferred. Although it clearly states that Afganistan would then be responsible to ensure prisoners are correctly treated, the next para states:

Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.

Now, at no point does it state that this is a war crime, so these professors are out of their mind stating that Canadian soldiers may have committed war crimes by transferring prisoners. However, you can see that we have some responsibility.

The real question is whether or not Taliban are covered by the Convention.

Article 4 states:

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

It is questionable if the Taliban fit this definition, however I think we can safely say they do not meet requirement (d).

The kicker is Article 5:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

We also do not do ourselves any favours by seeming to treat them as legitimate prisoners, thereby granting them status as a legitimate party to this conflict.

It seems to be an all or nothing proposition: Treat them humanely and everyone will assume they are legitimate prisoners of war and entitled to all the protections of the Convention, which means we must ask for them back if Afganistan is not treating them accordingly.

The simple solution would be not to afford them the provision of the Convention, since it is doubtful they qualify. Although shooting them on the spot might be legal, it would probably not fly back here in Canada.

Posted by: MBerridge at April 24, 2007 10:21 AM

...don't feed the trolls, let them die of natural starvation - attention.

I like the Frobisher Bay idea, actually I think all prisons should be up north. No need of a chain link fence, either the frozen tundra or polar bears escaping global warming will get to them first.

Posted by: tomax7 at April 24, 2007 10:23 AM

Agree tomax7..and hey,why can't we stick a few on Hans Island (sorry Hans,it's a good cause).That way the Danes can't argue about it!
And following the reasoning of the trolls,then Cho was just a combatant in the war against America,under their version of the Convention. Makes sense to me.

Posted by: Justthinkin at April 24, 2007 10:35 AM

Some people from the human rights industry are suggesting Canada should build some sort of holding facility in Afstan. This would be a monumental mistake.

The leftards would immediately dub it "Gitmo North". Twice a week there would be giant screaming stories in the Globe and Mail/CBC/Torstar about how Mohammed's prayer mat was too small or how Abdul detected some bacon grease in his breakfast, or how so and so wasn't getting full access to Eddie Greenspan. It would be a complete gong show.

Just say no Mr. Harper.

Posted by: Bart F. at April 24, 2007 10:36 AM

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2007/03/08/3715494-ap.html

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/11/afghan1114.htm

By all means, torture anyone who disagrees.

Show them (your own twisted vision of) Canadian values.

Posted by: thwap at April 24, 2007 11:32 AM

If no one from various agencies can get in to see these prisoners, how did the globe get the interviews. Are they hiding in canada as refugees. If they can get in to talk why can't others. When all taliban fighters and anyone else planning bad things, the first thing they are told is, if captured, cry torture. If these guys are/were tortured, why don't we see any scars. Same with Arar, but our softies in the media believe the terrorists, and not the government or the military. Why do the libs/ndp/greens/democrats want the west to lose.
They only good thing about losing is that all those supporters of the terrorists would be the first ones killed when they take over.

Posted by: mary T. at April 24, 2007 11:33 AM

Great idea DH. If Kate could post her comments with the commentators ID posted first it would save us all a lot of time. I gave up trying to reason with the trolls a long time ago. With this latest bunch Alby, Ibby, Teddy, and Thwappy, its abundantly clear that they are well indoctrinated, brainwashed Liberals who will never ever be capable of producing an original thought by themselves. The pity of it all is that these people make up approximately 30% of the Canadian population.

Posted by: Antenor at April 24, 2007 11:45 AM

*
Maybe the Fiberals could make a special deal with Doug Henning and the
Natural Law Party.... so that we can all levitate to work, thus really
reducing Canada's carbon emissions.

It's at least as jaw-dropping amazing as his latest brainwave here.

*

Posted by: neo at April 24, 2007 11:50 AM

What are you thugs complaining about? You could all get jobs running the Canadian version of Gitmo and go all Kate McMillan (think Lindy England, only with worse hair) on their asses.

Then you'd all be putting your sadistic rage to productive use, finally.

Posted by: Minion #98798 at April 24, 2007 12:02 PM

albatros39a

Maybe you should go back and read the Geneva Convention. Remember what the Americans did to those Germans that were wearing American MP uniforms during the battle of Bastogne in the second WW. Upon capture they were tied to a post and shot and they were in their right to do so under the rules of the convention. Also it is under the direction of NATO that these Taliban are handed over to the Afghans. Any combatant wearing the opposite sides militatary uniform or wearing civilian clothing conducting combat operations can be summarily executed under the convention.

Posted by: Shawn at April 24, 2007 12:16 PM

Last time I checked they were a sovereign country....so if we arent supposed to make waves about Chinese offenses of Human Rights why do we care abut AFghan offenses.....oh yeah right, enemy of my enemy

Posted by: Stephen at April 24, 2007 12:19 PM

correct me if i'm wrong but was it not the liberal government that signed the agreement to turn terrorists over to the afghan authorites?

Posted by: spike at April 24, 2007 12:26 PM

Taliban on the streets. Our streets. the Taliban.

Do I also smell albatros39a in the morning. Ah the sweet smell of defeat.

Posted by: Glen at April 24, 2007 12:32 PM

Re: M. Dion's suggestion we bring captured Islamo-fascists to Canada.

Does anyone have that hilarious parody where some useful idiot gets a letter from the government informing him that, in response to all the concern he has been expressing, he has been called upon to billet an Islamo-fascist in his home?

Picture Dion on the porch of Stornaway in his bathrobe, Kyoto running around on the lawn barking, door open behind him, staring at the open letter in his hand.

Posted by: Bart F. at April 24, 2007 12:52 PM

Thwap, 9:43 am,

Harper on the job. Doing the right thing as usual.

Thank heaven for that.

Standing offer to Dion; designate your chosen site in Afghanistan and we*ll send Tally-prisoners there, otherwise think again or shut up.

Nutbar leftiods..= TG

Posted by: TG at April 24, 2007 12:57 PM

Imagine the headlines. . .

Taliban prisoner escapes prison bus, destroys 10 Billion$ Irving refinery. = TG

Posted by: TG at April 24, 2007 1:04 PM

Every once and a while Kate seriously disturbs the moonbats. They come out from their nests hurling insults, flying blindly into walls, bumping into each other in a desperate attempt to find rational reason. But, alas, despite all the flittering about, once again they succumb to irrational feelings.

This is one of those times. And all any reasonable person can do is sit back and wonder.

Posted by: irwin daisy at April 24, 2007 1:08 PM

Typical Leftist pattern emerges again.
Liberals identify with and instinctually want to protect criminals in a conscious attempt to create a culture whose goal is to avoid personal responsibility at all costs.

Conservatives empathize and instinctually want to protect the victim of crime and demand the perpetrator be held responsible.

If the leftist would spend even a tiny fraction of the energy the spend coddling the criminals on actually protecting victims and forcing accountability they could earn a smidgen of respect from those outside the criminal element.

Posted by: Albertaman at April 24, 2007 1:15 PM

Leftist pattern: against torture and war.

Posted by: thwap at April 24, 2007 1:17 PM

All the liberal mps who are leaving the sinking ship could head up the construction of gitmo north. BS could be given the overseers job. After the next election the rest of the fired lib mps, including maybe dion, and May, could go offer their help. Scott better stay home, his kind are not to welcome in that area.

Posted by: mary T. at April 24, 2007 1:18 PM

the liberals need votes...

Posted by: POGUETRY at April 24, 2007 1:19 PM

Someone mail that Jack his bat wings....barking moonbat first class.

I hope they stay at Jack's place and eat up all his hummus.

Is there a full moon tonight?

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at April 24, 2007 1:50 PM

Kate said..."I really don't care what Afghans do with Taliban prisoners, and I suspect I hold the majority opinion on that subject"

I'm not sure that not caring constitutes holding an opinion. Do you sort of hope that they maybe do get tortured?

I'm not fond of the Taliban myself, but I do not think that Canada should turn a blind eye to how prisoners are treated. To do so is weak and cowardly. We should hold a stated position and ensure that it is respected.

And this is a bit O/T (or maybe not, given the title of this post), but did we all forget to make fun of Mario Dumont's being French?

Posted by: Crabgrass at April 24, 2007 2:22 PM

"Every once and a while Kate seriously disturbs the moonbats. They come out from their nests hurling insults, flying blindly into walls, bumping into each other in a desperate attempt to find rational reason. But, alas, despite all the flittering about, once again they succumb to irrational feelings.

This is one of those times. And all any reasonable person can do is sit back and wonder.

Posted by: irwin daisy at April 24, 2007 1:08 PM "

Sit back and wonder, Daisy. I,personally,am laughing so hard I had to break poor Cheryl Crow's new rules and use 2 squares of TP to cover up the wet spot!
Buffy the Vampire Hunter...Kate the MoonBat Displeaser(in a good way) ...LOL

Posted by: Justthinkin at April 24, 2007 2:41 PM

Do I care what the Afghans do with the Taliban? Well, I hope they don't torture them. And, I hope they don't make them kneel in a soccer stadium to be shot in the back of the head in very public acts of intimidation and control over society.

Posted by: shaken at April 24, 2007 3:16 PM

The Geneva Conventions are what delusional leftards use to try to justify their fantasies with some thin veneer of authority when they think something should happen according to their opinion.

The Conventions are clear, unambiguous and clearly unread by the left. But then the facts are not the point.

Lefty judges "read in" stuff into our constitution deliberately left out so there is certainly precedent to what these people are doing. What is irksome is that they get away with it. No only are they adding stuff that isn't there, they're manipulating, distorting and rendering ineffective the reasoning for what IS there.

The GC's were for the protection of Civilians and legal militaries in that order. They were set up to enact swift and severe punishment to the violators for not obeying the rules of war. If combatants are allowed to hide amongst civilians and fight out of uniform they get civilians killed (and it's the ones hiding in civilian areas that are responsible for the deaths, not the legal combatants firing on them. In last year's Lebonon war, that would be Hezbollah that was committing war crimes - not the Jews.) Therefore, It was clear that illegal combatants lose all protections when they violate the conventions. This is not up for debate. It couldn't be more clearly outlined in the documents. It could also not matter less to the leftards who rely more on their feelings than the facts they can't be bothered to learn.

Taliban prisoners are subject to whatever they get. They have NO rights under the GC's. None.

They DO have protection from the UN Treaty Against Torture. So, if you leftards want to thank me for taking the 20 seconds it takes to do your homework for you, I can proceed to draw the conclusion that although Taliban terrorists should not be tortured, they should just not be taken prisoner to begin with. Yes, that means shoot them on sight. That's legal for terrorists under both treaties (GC's specifically condones it and the Treaty Against Torture is silent on the matter.)

Now if you're a retard lefty who wants to dish out their usual idiot opinion, at least spend the 20 seconds required to get your F'ing facts correct. Or better yet, kill yourself for being too stupid to live.

Posted by: Warwick at April 24, 2007 3:33 PM

While it's true Taliban prisoners aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions, I think it also makes sense to treat them humanely. A lot of the Taliban are just kids who have been brainwashed in Pakistani Madrassas. They might be salvageable.

And lets not forget the intelligence that can be gained from prisoners. I'm sure lots of information is obtained from them, even without resorting to torture.

Posted by: Belisarius at April 24, 2007 3:49 PM

Blisarius,

I'm not for torture but it's a fact that we don't have the manpower to run a prison and don't want the media having the opportunity of running amuk on our military at the first sign of underwear...

If the US, NATO or other relyable ally is running a prison there, fine. Send them there. If not, taliban be damned. Salvagable or not, these are some of the most hateful, violent, savage, cruel and viscious people on earth. If they can't be locked up by the government of Afghanastan and can't be pawned off elsewhere, there's nothing left but a bullet.

Posted by: Warwick at April 24, 2007 3:59 PM

"Leftist pattern: against torture and war.

Posted by: thwap at April 24, 2007 1:17 PM"

I gotta admit it, I'm a Liberal and I'm pretty much against torture and war. The question is, why are you for it?

Posted by: Don at April 24, 2007 4:00 PM

ROFL

Frankly, who'd expect more from a sanctimonious prig who is unable to eat a hot dog unassisted?

Things must be truly desperate in lib-land; they are now courting the Taleban-Canadian vote

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

Posted by: mhb at April 24, 2007 4:06 PM

In the spirit of multi-lateralism, and UN diplomacy, I propose we send a very strongly worded letter to Hamid Karzai, telling him that torture is wrong.

There. That should do it.

Posted by: Norman at April 24, 2007 4:10 PM

Al Gore and all those others promoting this global warming poppycock should duct tape their mouths shut and cut off all that HOT AIR

Posted by: spurwing plover at April 24, 2007 4:26 PM

Norman,

Or we could send the Taliban to Sudan to preach about human rights. It isn't any more nuts than putting Sudan on the UN human rights committee or Iran on the UN disarmament committee...

Don:

Thwap's your people. He was being facetious.

As for why someone would be for war, it's the wrong question. The correct question is why is there nothing important enough for you to fight for? Is your life that small? Do you have so little to defend that you don't value anything? Is there no one you care about that you'd defend?

Am I for war? Depends on who's on the menu. I'm against war with Haiti cause there isn't a point to it. They aren't a threat. I'm for the war against islamofascism cause they want to destroy my culture, country, family and aside from that I'd like to keep my head if at all possible. If that means some of the people doing the threatening lose theirs instead, so be it.

Posted by: Warwick at April 24, 2007 4:34 PM

Crabgrass

Yes, some of us hope or at least don't fret that the Taliban prisoners may be tortured.

A little retribution on behalf of the teacher who is beheaded in front of his/her students or the farmer who is disemboweled alive in front of his family because he spoke to the troops.

Posted by: clair voyant at April 24, 2007 4:37 PM

This post, with comments, sums up the conservative sensibility better than anyone on the left could dream of doing. Hatred, torture and insult. Bravo.

Now, why are we in Afghanistan again? Oh, yeah, we're fighting for freedom. Remember how the Taliban treated women? An outfit called RAWA was trotted out by the pro-war types--they bravely exposed Taliban excesses to the world. But, of course, things are different now.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at April 24, 2007 5:11 PM

You know, I love it. Years back, I remember getting chain emails after chain emails begging the world to do something about the treatment of women... loudest calls were from the lefties.

Now, the loudest calls to get out of Afghani affairs is from... the lefties.

Everything is easy when you can just wave a placard. Actual work is hard, and should be avoided, right lefties?

Posted by: Yukon Gold at April 24, 2007 5:29 PM

For those morons whose memory lasts a few days:

We're in Afghanistan because of Embassy bombings in Kenya and Sudan, bombing of USS Cole, export of terror to Central Asia, Africa, Europe, South-east Asia not to mention that incident in New York a few years back.

With the knowledge, consent and support of the Taliban, thousands of radical Jihadis were trained in al-Qaeda's Afghan terror camps to attack non-Muslim countries and spread Jihad. We're there to make sure they don't return.

Posted by: Belisarius at April 24, 2007 5:33 PM

Hey, they all report torture, it's their MO, the jihadis aren't stupid. They've noticed how the lefty media lemmings will run with any allegation that discredits coalition troops. There was a Muslim kid in Maine tortured(my word) recently when a classmate left a ham sandwich near him at lunch. The duplicity of Muslims, as a given, is well documented. Lying to or about non-Muslims has Mohammed's approval in advancing the jihad. They just never had the lefty MSM and multi-culti lemmings to facilitate it before. Why report a "rumor" before it is substantiated?

This is the same jerk around games that the left and their media minions have been doing to Bush from day one.

A lot of the Taliban are just kids who have been brainwashed in Pakistani Madrassas. They might be salvageable.

Besides the fact that they probably were captured with lethal weapons rather than soccer balls, troops aren't foster parents or social workers. What could a social worker do for this kid? He's not our responsibility.

Posted by: penny at April 24, 2007 6:16 PM

An enemy illegal combatant makes an unsubstanciated allegation and I am supposed to care because????? Canadian armed services people are taught that if captured they are to give their name rank and sin number. The taliban are taught that when caught they are to complain to the nearest western media that they are or have been tortured. The only consolation is that the more people hear the looney lefties like Taliban Steffie and Taliban Jack the more they realize what a gift PMSH is to Canada.

Posted by: Joe at April 24, 2007 6:27 PM

The assorted lefties and socialists infecting this thread are nauseating.

"Why are we there?" Because a LIBERAL PM sent them there at the request and the support of the UN and NATO.

"Why are we still there?" Because a CONSERVATIVE will stay until the job is done, not run away and hide like a little nancy-boy. We are still wanted there by the legal government of the country, the UN and NATO.

"Liberals are against war and torture." As is every other thinking and caring human being, Conservatives included. The difference is, Conservatives not only understand that "war is hell" but also know that some things are worth fighting for. Liberals / socialists / lefties (L/S/L) want SOMEONE ELSE to do all the heavy lifting...they want to be the back-seat driver, the arm-chair quarterback, the "sayer" not the doer". In short, they are spineless cowards with a need for attention and control.

To paraphrase the old saying...those that can (Conservatives), do; those that can't (liberals / socialists / lefties), hide behind mommy's skirt and shout insults, thinking themselves superior.

I parallel this whole "get out of Afghanistan" schtick with the following fictional line of reasoning:

Firefighters and police officers get killed on the job...therefore, the L/S/L would intone...ohmigod, why are they out there where it is dangerous? We should bring them back home to their firehalls and police stations! We are against violence and fire!

Morons.

Posted by: Eeyore at April 24, 2007 6:38 PM

Pundit, my dad was in the Air Police during WW2 and when he wasn't chasing AWOLs in Quebec he would take German prisoners to the camps north of Timmins. You are right, very few ever tried to escape even though it wasn't hard to do. When one did my dad and some of the other guards would patrol highway 11 for a few days. Some times the badly bitten by mosguitos and black flies escaper would show up, most time they didn't.

Posted by: David Hand at April 24, 2007 6:42 PM

...and as they arrive give them complimentary NDP party memberships and get them a temprary citizen status so they can vote...remember we allow prisoners to vote here....I think Jack was just engaging in a little voter base building.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at April 24, 2007 7:43 PM

Just to point out, didn't Dion make the comment?

Posted by: Jared at April 24, 2007 8:18 PM

"Why are we still there?" Because a CONSERVATIVE will stay until the job is done, not run away and hide like a little nancy-boy. We are still wanted there by the legal government of the country, the UN and NATO.

That's right--I'd forgotten about homophobia. Mandatory for conservatives. I did like the ambiguity of the last sentence, though. Deliberate?

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at April 24, 2007 8:21 PM

So I guess we can all agree: if something is not illegal, then it is morally ok to do. Like abortion, perhaps.

Posted by: lberia at April 24, 2007 8:34 PM

First of all, I believe they are prisoners of the government of Afghanistan, not Canadian prisoners. We are not "occupying" Afghanistan, we are there at the request of the government of Afghanistan, who maintain sovergnty over their country. It is all outlined in the "Afghanistan Compact" which was signed onto by the Government of Afghanistan and the NATO member countries.
Secondly, fine, lets leave Afghanistan to its own devises--so we can send our troops somewhere else--but wait--the same people complaining about us being in Afghanistan will also complain about us being somewhere else--not of course, until the casualties begin, and/or the media reports of our soldiers "soldiering". Oh, but wait--we also had casualties in Cyprus, Golan Heights, the Congo, Bosnia, etc., and believe it or not, our soldiers also participated in "soldiering" on those missions too--funny I didnt hear any cries of "bring our troops home" then.

Posted by: ann at April 24, 2007 8:46 PM

Hey Dawg, go upstairs. I think your mom's making cookies.

Posted by: Arty at April 24, 2007 9:28 PM

What is the big problem here? The taliban hide amongst women and children and as such this is quite clear even to an imbecile that they do not qualify for Geneva protection; they are citizens of Afghanistan and as such are turned over to local government. Case closed! Who gives a crap about these "so called" freedom fighters other than left-wing asshats like albatross! I find it so ironic that you same lefties rallied when Maher Arar was sent to Syria to be tortured.
Bring a canuk back to his people but not allow an Afghan to be dealt with by his people??!!!
You moonbats have serious issues!

Posted by: Affliction at April 24, 2007 9:32 PM

From the performance of ALL the Opposition Parties in the HOC, none of them are even fit to be in OPPOSITION.
They show no sign of having the capacity for intelligent debate on any subject. They have nothing to offer but a game of Gotcha, which is the lowest form of Politics played by the desperate.

Posted by: Liz J at April 24, 2007 9:35 PM

I find it so ironic that you same lefties rallied when Maher Arar was sent to Syria to be tortured.
Bring a canuk back to his people but not allow an Afghan to be dealt with by his people??!!!
You moonbats have serious issues!

I'm not sure I see the contradiction. Please enlighten me. We brought Arar back because he was a citizen, but the matter was made far more urgent because he was being tortured. Now some of us don't like the notion of handing over prisoners of war to be tortured. Seems consistent.

But, in fairness, the conservatives here are consistent, too--they support torture. "Serious issues," indeed: some are self-disclosing perhaps more than they intended.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at April 24, 2007 10:09 PM

albatros = thwap/dawg

Posted by: missing link at April 24, 2007 10:13 PM

Thwap, from your linked blog site, here's your bio in your own words. I'm putting it out here because it has adolescent games player written all over it.

About Me
I used to hang around on rabble.ca's "babble" until May, 2006, and, since then, I've been found at www.enmasse.ca and www.breadnroses.ca. I'm sometimes rude to people and I've been accused of "schoolyard taunts," so, here's my schoolyard.

Interests
labour issues socialism anarchism revolution & reform ... underground comix art ... philosophy and meaning ... stuff

Folks, you are responding to a kid whose interests include anarchy, underground comix art(?) and is a self-professed bully.

Posted by: penny at April 24, 2007 10:58 PM

Canadians have short memories. I remember when the Liberano$ made the deal to turn Taliban prisoners over to the Afghan authorities, they were so proud of themselves for being so progressive, and the rest of the lefties and the MSM were generally relieved that at least the prisoners would not be turned over to the evil Americans. Now that there are allegations of abuse, it's all Steven Harpers fault!! If I hear Keith Boag state that "Canandian Troops may be complicit in War Crimes" one more time, I'm going to scream!


Posted by: flurd at April 24, 2007 11:27 PM

Funny, the leftards are now silent on the GC's.

I guess they've been properly educated. They've moved on to more base sophistry and petty insults and stopped trying to apply a thin veneer of credibility to their stupidity.

At least its progress.

Posted by: Warwick at April 25, 2007 11:54 AM

Oh, and Dawg, spare us the faux outrage on the homophobia accusation.

There's a difference between gay and a nancy-boy. They are not synonymous. A nancy-boy is an effete coward. He's unmanly. He expects others to protect them. Not all gay men act all prissy but a whole lot of straight liberals do.

The synonyms for nancy-boys are:
Liberal
Lefty
Socialist
Government worker
librarian (male)

Posted by: Warwick at April 25, 2007 12:01 PM

I accept Warwick's correction. The term "nancy-boy" may not have been intended as homophobic--merely sexist, by denigrating the feminine. Whatever. Let's move on, by all means:

Funny, the leftards are now silent...They've moved on to more base sophistry and petty insults...

One seldom gets more PKB than this.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at April 25, 2007 12:38 PM

I hope the Afghani people love their country enough to help the NATO forces rebuild their society, which has been devastated beyond almost any reasonable description of living standards...........as much as terror apologists love trotting out "geneva convention" excuses for treating murderous plotters as equals.

Comparing our essentially humanitarian mission in Afghanistan to the horrible debacle in Iraq is simply ignorant.

The 9/11 attacks, which murdered many innocent civilian Canadians, were plotted by the same cowards who murdered Massoud on 9/9. We have every right to be there, helping restore civility to this region.

Sadly, watching the human turmoil that is the border with Pakistan, and knowing the hatred preached by the Taliban there, it will be a difficult task to keep schools open and the markets safe.

I wish some people cared as much about First Nations folks imprisoned on reserves here in Canada, as they do captured murderers in a country they will never visit.

Property rights = human rights.

Posted by: Forest Miner at April 25, 2007 1:24 PM

Well, "Warwick," thanks for the non-lesson. You do a good job of spinning for someone with zero-credibility.

The Geneva Conventions state that if there is any question as to the status of a prisoner, a competent tribunal should be formed to judge on their status.

Not, you p-o-m-p-o-u-s oaf, that the soldiers involved get to summarily execute everyone they capture, to explain it away later that all of the dead were "illegal combatants."

Furthermore, d1mw1t, as I already pointed out to you, ... by your own hateful, can't-wait-to-torture, tortured logic, all troops that have violated the laws of war have rendered themselves "illegal combatants" as well, and therefore, have no human rights whatsoever.

Way to dig your own grave.

Posted by: thwap at April 25, 2007 2:46 PM

Thwap,

Re the taliban, there are no questions as to their status under the GC's. None. They are subject to summary execution under GC rules as illegal combatants. This was routinely carried out prior to the baby boomer generation bastardizing society in the west. The status of the taliban is crystal clear to anyone with at least rudimentary reading comprehension skills.

Troops that violate the GC's but are otherwise legal combatants are subject to military discipline (including by the opposing army) as they would have committed a war crime.

There is a difference here as well. If you torture a legal combatant or civilian and you yourself are a legal combatant you can be court martialled or held to account in a military tribunal such as in Nuremberg. War crimes necessitate a trial. Illegal combatants do not.

Taliban do not get protection against torture or execution under the GC's. They do get protection against torture under the UN Treaty Against Torture.

As I stated earlier, the taliban should not be subjected to torture (see UN Treaty mentioned above.) They should be executed under the rules of the GC's. In other words, by taking prisoners, you are allowing these people to return to the community at some point to kill again. Why put the people of Afghanistan through that?

The other thing is that while we can be expected to be humane, we can't be expected to do the impossible. We don't have the troops to run a jail. We have to turn the taliban over to someone. If some other party is running jails in Afghanistan I'm all in favour of sending them there if it'll make you lot happy. Other than that, if there's no where else to send them, the Afghan government will have to deal with them. We can send them complaints if they're torturing people like the UN sends off all the time. It isn't Canada that is doing the torturing.

Part of the reason that the people of Afghanistan are loosing patience with the UN mission there is that they don't see that we have the balls to do what is necessary to keep them safe. They see all the fighting as futile as long as we lack the ruthlessness to eliminate the threat and allow their communities to be safe. If you think that our presence is just delaying the inevitable and you think that the taliban will be allowed to take over once the west loses interest, you can be forgiven for cynically calling for the troops to get on with it and leave. There's no point dying for a loss.

The taliban can read. They can see that support for the Afghan war is weakening. They know that their attacks are what is weakening it and can see that the west is now unwilling to do anything that is hard. They (rightly) see our society as effete and weak and our people as quitters who lose interest as soon as the going gets hard. We didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam, Rwanda and Somalia but they did. They know that they don't have to win a war, be able to win battles or keep territory like armies used to have to do to win. They just have to survive long enough and to inflict enough damage that we lose our will to continue. They don't have to earn victory, the just have to have the staying power to let us hand it to them. Defeatism earns defeat. Simple really.

Dig your own grave. There's no spinning here. Just facts.

Dawg,

It's not sexist either. There is nothing at all wrong with being feminine. If you're a female... I merely suggest that men should act like men. I have nothing at all against gays or SSM. I just don't like pansies. Gay or straight doesn't matter. If you're a man, act like one. Women should act like women although I do admit to enough bias that there is more leeway with women. Tom boys are more socially acceptable than effete males. May be a double standard but that's the way it is.

As for sophistry, that's all you got. I can give you facts, logic and arguments before I unleash the petty insults. That was the difference I was making. Insults is all your lot have. Think of that before the first words out of your mouth are "you're a racist, homophobe, sexist, whateveraphobe." It's the left's first and only response. Offer no reason, logical rebuttal or proof of any sort. Just throw a slur and move on. If facts are presented, change the subject.

I will give you half credit for acknowledging that the original line wasn't homophobic unlike the lefty norm. You could have just stopped there for full points but you had to add sexist...

The left also has to acknowledge that everyone on earth (and I mean EVERYONE) has biases and preferences. There is just no getting around it. Think of the left's high opinion of Christians and/or Americans if you're doubting me. The hypocritical and intolerable part of smug lefties is that they pretend to be so morally superior to everyone else, calling them racists, et al while openly touting their own intolerance as a virtue. If my biases are the height of shameful crimes against humanity deserving of shunning and punishment by some unaccountable human rights kangaroo court, why is your biases acceptable and morally pure?

That's the sort of thing that gets conservatives so pissed off and worked up. Your double standards and hypocrisy.

Posted by: Warwick at April 26, 2007 11:41 AM

Warwick said "Tom boys are more socially acceptable than effete males. May be a double standard but that's the way it is."

Warwick, is it fair to assume that your straight-ahead, no-nonsense position on this has not been compromised by any sort of post-secondary education?

I agree with Dawg on the use of the term Nancy-boy. I think it exposes something ugly in you. You're free to call it whatever you want.

Posted by: Crabgrass at April 26, 2007 12:33 PM

Warwick,

I will extend to you the compliment that you appear to be blessed with at least half a brain.

Obviously, I'll prefer to go with this interpretation of the GC's rather than with yours:

"The Geneva convention also makes it clear that it isn't for Rumsfeld to decide whether the detainees are ordinary criminal suspects rather than PoWs. Anyone detained in the course of an armed conflict is presumed to be a PoW until a competent court or tribunal determines otherwise. The record shows that those who negotiated the convention were intent on making it impossible for the determination to be made by any single person. "

from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/comment/story/0,,632303,00.html

I cannot believe that there is a document that states that soldiers can unilaterally execute anyone they see, so long as they offer uninvestigated claims that those killed were "illegal" or "unlawful combatants."

Besides, as you, yourself point out, the torture violates a UN Treaty, if not the GC's. But let's continue ...

Regarding your contention that the people of Afghanistan are losing patience with the UN mission because we're not ruthless enough to keep them safe, I beg to differ.

As has been reported, and as I've stated, we're losing the popularity contest with the Taliban because our reconstruction has been a joke and because Karzai's government is brutal and corrupt.

If people over there were sick of our failure to destroy the Taliban, JOINING the Taliban seems like a strange way to express their anger at us AND them.

"Today the rural and lawless south has become the perfect hideaway for the insurgency and a breeding ground for future Taliban recruits. "The alienated tribes in the southern region have been subjected to bad governance, which has increased the difference between the tribes," said Koenigs. "This has created a huge discontent in the region." Disappointed with the Karzai government and the international community, the peasants in the south have begun to look to the Taliban for strong, trustworthy leadership. Koenigs stressed that this is an insurgency "with support from the people in the region." The consequences of ignoring it would be dire.
"

These are the "terrorists" we're fighting. You can find other sources for this. Very often, the foot-soldiers of the Taliban are Afghan peasants, moved to take up arms in anger at the government we've imposed upon them.

You might want to summarily execute these men, or carelessly toss them to the torturers, ... I do not.

We aren't losing because we're "effete" and "weak," or anything. We're losing because we have failed those people. And if the job was too big and doomed to failure, what did we get involved with it in the first place for?

For that matter, why did the US, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, work so much to create this nightmare so many years ago?

Posted by: thwap at April 26, 2007 2:16 PM

Thwap,

The Guardian in the UK is a marxist, anti-Semitic rag with zero credibility. It's also wrong. Not surprisingly. If you believe everything you read in the papers you're doomed to a life of ignorance.

Rummy has bugger all to do with the GC. The GC's are crystal clear. Try reading them. The GC's that is, not the guardian's fantasy/wishful thinking. Just because some leftard with a journalism degree says something, doesn't mean it's correct. Instead of "this interpretation" from obviously biased left-wing journalists with no more credibility on the matter than some joe on the street, why don't you look up the conventions and do your own homework? Think for yourself. Read the source, not the spin.

The GC's were written for another time. That you can't believe they would condone summary executions is a factor of your world view melded to the times you live in. There are other, more recent, treaties and conventions as well as the legal systems of the countries themselves. If a Canadian summarily executed an Afghan prisoner, he would not be in violation of the GC's but would most certainly be in violation of Canadian military law. The GC's are static. Canadian law is not. Is that too hard to get your head around? There have been no updates of the GC's since the 4 GC was signed. Do you think that a document from 1949 is going to live up to the standards of 2007? Think!

That the GC's allow this or that doesn't mean they ban any investigations on the matter. You can investigate whether Rummy had gas last night. That isn't against the GC's either. If the executed person was not an illegal combatant and the soldier executed them anyway, they are subject to the rule of law. Self defence is legal. In your analogy you can murder someone and since self defence is legal there will be no investigation, right? Wrong. Your analogy is illogical. Any event can be investigated as to its legality.

That's not to say that I don't think the taliban are in need of a bullet. I'm just saying they're unlikely to get one. It's valid to say that you don't agree. It's not valid (as in factual, correct, truthful...) to suggest that the GC's agree with you or your biased marxist friends at the Guardian. They don't.

As for failing the people of Afghanistan, running away and leaving them to the Taliban will help them how?

The US didn't work hard to create the Taliban but defeat the soviets. You've heard of the cold war, no? The US supported the Afghans against the soviets. 9/11 was their thanks. The Allies also sided with Stalin in WWII. That wasn't to suggest the US or UK had a big love of the Soviets.

As for the Saudis, their money and vicious brand of islam is at the root of the problems globally. Why we don't isolate them along with Iran is beyond me. They're doing the muslim world no favours. Ask Pakistan.

If you have ignorant peasants in a crappy place being indoctrinated into an ideology of hate, you will always have a percentage that are willing to join. Human nature. That's what we're fighting. Karzai is corrupt. The place isn't good. But your criticism needs to take into account reality. It must be balanced with what is possible. How can you reconstruct buildings currently being blown up? You can rebuild when the bullets and bombs are still flying. Nothing is doomed to failure unless you have a media and a left-wing political class that is openly calling for failure. That's your side. The taliban would meld into the woodwork if they thought we had the intestinal fortitude to see the job through.


Crabgrass,

BA, Economics. Chartered Financial Analyst. Grew up on campus to a prof father (biology) and doctor mother who both still work on campus. My sister is a physiotherapist. All well educated professional people.

I would turn around your words: When you imply that not getting a university education makes you some sort of Neanderthal shows much the same ugliness. Your bias is no better than mine but I have the virtue of not being a damn hypocrite about it. Everyone has their preferences. Liberals pretend that theirs is a virtue and those off all others a sin. Thinking of which, I can guess your thoughts on Christians (of which I am not.)

I was also not the one to bring the term nancy-boy up. I was the one to point out the use of which doesn't mean you're homophobic.

That I prefer to associate with people who's qualities and demeanours I appreciate doesn't make be a bad person. It makes me a person, period. Everyone has biases. You most certainly do. You just think yours are acceptable and virtuous. That's what makes you both hypocritical and all too typical of the left.

Posted by: Warwick at April 26, 2007 4:20 PM
Site
Meter