DND to argue legal obligations regarding detainees

[Cobalt_Kid]

Speaking as an ex Army NCO, with several friends now on the ground in country, I can say with all certainty, we Soldier types believe in the fundamentals of the mission, I have heard of and seen the aid in the wake of the fighting. As for cuddling with Bush...well DUH! The US is our largest trading partner, we share one huge assed boder, if for nothing else...how about discretian being the better part of valour. A few more years of the anti US crowd and their could have been a forced "regime change" in the Great White North!

I'd be all for the mssion if I thought we were fighting for a sustainable government that actually represented more that just the local powerbase in the north. Anyone who knows Afghanistans history knows they don't allow foreign occupiers for long. They've had centuries to develope into some of the best guerilla fighters in the world. Having grown up hearing about the insane stuff that Canadian vets did in both WWs I know the myth of our politeness is just that, the Germans hated fighting us in Europe and the Taliban is finding out just how professional we are. The only problem is there's not enough Canadians and not enough other NATO countries stepping up. The local government is hopeless, they're busy lining their own pockets just like the South Vietnamese did during that war. It bothers me we're losing so many people and it's going to be for not no matter how hard we try. This isn't Vimy in WW I or the low countries in WW II.

But he hasn't done one thing that the LPoC didn't leave them with, cept to increase aid support.

He's changed the entire focus of our military, just turn on the TV and watch the recruitment ads about "Figthing with the Canadian Forces", what happened to Peacekeeping and foreign aid. This isn't 1939 and the operation needs to be about something more than defeating an enemy that in all likelyhood can't be defeated in the field.

Tech jobs increased here like ten fold, coming of course with a greater earning potential. Sure we lost min wage jobs to the cheaper overseas market...so what? In return we increased the average income and began to decrease unemployment. Isn't that the point?

Many people are stuck at the same real wage level they were 20 years ago and all indications are the gap between rich and poor is rapidly widening as the middleclass disappears. All this can't be laid on NAFTA, but it was part of the US conservative agenda that has helped create and accelerate the growing wage disparity. The numbers say it all, in the mid 1970s a guy on the shop floor made $1 for every $30 made in the executive suite. Now it's something like $1 to $1,000.

I think you're making some weird assumptions here, I haven't seen Harpo do anything of the sort. I've seen him mend fences with our neighbours, I've seen him live up to our international obligation, ie: NATO and the UN, but try and make Canada an American state...nah...just making Canada work really...Just look at the strength of the dollar and our economy...Our Gov't is stable and our leaders are doing just that...leading.

Everything I've seen from Harper indicates to me he's even less interested in the democratic process than Martin or even Chretien.

DAMMIT!!! Now I'll have to defend the NDP...oh brother my skin just crawled...ewww...just saying that made me feel ill...

You thought of it first.:lol:

 

[CDNBear]

I'd be all for the mssion if I thought we were fighting for a sustainable government that actually represented more that just the local powerbase in the north. Anyone who knows Afghanistans history knows they don't allow foreign occupiers for long. They've had centuries to develope into some of the best guerilla fighters in the world. Having grown up hearing about the insane stuff that Canadian vets did in both WWs I know the myth of our politeness is just that, the Germans hated fighting us in Europe and the Taliban is finding out just how professional we are. The only problem is there's not enough Canadians and not enough other NATO countries stepping up. The local government is hopeless, they're busy lining their own pockets just like the South Vietnamese did during that war. It bothers me we're losing so many people and it's going to be for not no matter how hard we try. This isn't Vimy in WW I or the low countries in WW II.

The old guard that was in Afghanistan were there to implement their Gov't and turn Aghanistan into a new version of their own country...I don't see this as being the same thing...Although I'm not comfortable with imposing western democracy on a people that didn't come to it on their own.

He's changed the entire focus of our military, just turn on the TV and watch the recruitment ads about "Figthing with the Canadian Forces", what happened to Peacekeeping and foreign aid. This isn't 1939 and the operation needs to be about something more than defeating an enemy that in all likelyhood can't be defeated in the field.

So you're basing your assertion on TV ads? That's not a wise course of action.

I know it's unfashionable for the modern set to admit, accept or be comfy with(although you seem to have a pretty good grasp of the historic parts), but our Nations Forces are and never were set up to be a Peacekeeping Force. Under Pearson, we became a Peacekeeping Nation and we are damned good at it. But you can not have peace when their is a rage tag army bearing down on your Peacekeeping activities...Rwanda...Bosnia...get my drift. Sometimes you have to get dirty, before you can clean things up.

Many people are stuck at the same real wage level they were 20 years ago and all indications are the gap between rich and poor is rapidly widening as the middleclass disappears. All this can't be laid on NAFTA, but it was part of the US conservative agenda that has helped create and accelerate the growing wage disparity. The numbers say it all, in the mid 1970s a guy on the shop floor made $1 for every $30 made in the executive suite. Now it's something like $1 to $1,000.

Yes that gap grew, I will admit, but it grew as big in the public sector, ie: Look at Hydro exec's...I'm having difficulty thinking of one occupation that hasn't seen an income growth in 20 years, lest it was bloated 20 years ago...

Everything I've seen from Harper indicates to me he's even less interested in the democratic process than Martin or even Chretien.

I'll have to admit, he's been tight on the reigns, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he's been worse the Cretien. Martin yes, Cretien...Not even on a bad day...

You thought of it first.:lol:

Humour and all...

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

The old guard that was in Afghanistan were there to implement their Gov't and turn Aghanistan into a new version of their own country...I don't see this as being the same thing...Although I'm not comfortable with imposing western democracy on a people that didn't come to it on their own.

There's a deep element of xenophobia in Afghani tribal society, I'm not sure they'd make a distinction between past foreign occupiers and NATO forces there now. The person that smiles at our troops today may be burying an IED in a road tomorrow, the society is so different from ours I don't think we'll ever get a grasp on how to be safe there.

So you're basing your assertion on TV ads? That's not a wise course of action.

No, on the whole focus that seems to be basing Canadas international reputation on how many soldiers, ships, aircraft and tanks we have. Canada has tradtionally had a small force between wars and that hasn't been all bad, it's kept us from getting into fights we should stay out of like Vietnam.

I know it's unfashionable for the modern set to admit, accept or be comfy with(although you seem to have a pretty good grasp of the historic parts), but our Nations Forces are and never were set up to be a Peacekeeping Force. Under Pearson, we became a Peacekeeping Nation and we are damned good at it. But you can not have peace when their is a rage tag army bearing down on your Peacekeeping activities...Rwanda...Bosnia...get my drift. Sometimes you have to get dirty, before you can clean things up.

I understand the need for security before a Peacekeeping operation can really begin, I doubt we'll ever see that in Afghanistan though. There's going to be a neverending supply of new recruits for the Taliban because of local hatred for the northern based government and because that's just their way of life. Pakistan offers a secure staging area and Afghanistan itself is an insurgents dream with it's climate and geography. The fighters we're facing in Afhganistan make the VC and NVA look like punks, and they were pretty tough.

I'll have to admit, he's been tight on the reigns, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he's been worse the Cretien. Martin yes, Cretien...Not even on a bad day...

I gave up on Harper the day he announced he was including Emerson in his cabinet a few days after the election. To me he was saying, "I know better than all of you", what's the point in having elections if the government is going to ignore the will of the people.

 

[CDNBear]

There's a deep element of xenophobia in Afghani tribal society, I'm not sure they'd make a distinction between past foreign occupiers and NATO forces there now. The person that smiles at our troops today may be burying an IED in a road tomorrow, the society is so different from ours I don't think we'll ever get a grasp on how to be safe there.

Of this you can be sure...But I never give up and neither do the good men and women of the CDN Forces...It's in our nature to at least try and try again.

No, on the whole focus that seems to be basing Canadas international reputation on how many soldiers, ships, aircraft and tanks we have. Canada has tradtionally had a small force between wars and that hasn't been all bad, it's kept us from getting into fights we should stay out of like Vietnam.

Not at all, we're just merely updating...and none to soon I might add.

I understand the need for security before a Peacekeeping operation can really begin, I doubt we'll ever see that in Afghanistan though. There's going to be a neverending supply of new recruits for the Taliban because of local hatred for the northern based government and because that's just their way of life. Pakistan offers a secure staging area and Afghanistan itself is an insurgents dream with it's climate and geography. The fighters we're facing in Afhganistan make the VC and NVA look like punks, and they were pretty tough.

This also may be tue, but I'll fall back to the perseverance of our Troops and the fact that in one minute we can be Hunter/Killers and the next Babysitting/medics. We do have a way with hearts and minds.

I gave up on Harper the day he announced he was including Emerson in his cabinet a few days after the election. To me he was saying, "I know better than all of you", what's the point in having elections if the government is going to ignore the will of the people.

Oh I was none to happy either...But I think it was Colpy that explained those growing pains away...

 

[Mr. Richards]

Oh yes bit...We should bring them all to Canada and put them on welfare, great thinking...Good grief.

Shhhh! Lets not give anyone any ideas. There may be an election around the corner. The liberals and NDP would love that idea

 

[YoungJoonKim]

I'd like to enter this argument but debate doesn't have facts and evidence.
Therefore, I withdraw.
I sickens me to see how oped opinions on both sides are getting more and more intensifying and ugly.
Its like seeing dolphins jumping out of the sea with sharks because they wanna get married.
weeeeeEee

p.s.
All my comment here will be dissolved into lies.

 

[FiveParadox]

CDNBear, your quip about the Charter applying to Canadians exclusively, is incorrect. The Parliament of Canada established several rights and freedoms as applying to everyone in Canada—these being the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, expression, peaceful assembly, association, life, liberty, security of the person, not to be unreasonably searched or seized, not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, to be informed of reasons for detention, to have legal counsel, habeus corpus, access to the principles of fundamental justice, not to be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment, equality before the law, and the right to appeal to judicial institutions for remedies considered appropriate by said institutions to solve a breach of the Charter.

You are partially correct of course, CDNBear, in that some provisions of the Charter are extended to citizens exclusively. These are limited, however, to the right to vote for members of the House of Commons; the right not to be represented by the same House of Commons for in excess of five years except in real, apprehended war; the right to have a sitting of Parliament held once every twelve months; the right to enter, remain in and leave the country; the right to enter any Province of Canada and to make a living in said Province (this right is also extended to permanent residents); and, the right to access education in English or French, where at least a sizeable minority of the said population exists.

 

[CDNBear]

Shhhh! Lets not give anyone any ideas. There may be an election around the corner. The liberals and NDP would love that idea

My bad...I'm sorry.

I'd like to enter this argument but debate doesn't have facts and evidence.
Therefore, I withdraw.
I sickens me to see how oped opinions on both sides are getting more and more intensifying and ugly.
Its like seeing dolphins jumping out of the sea with sharks because they wanna get married.
weeeeeEee

p.s.
All my comment here will be dissolved into lies.

8O

CDNBear, your quip about the Charter applying to Canadians exclusively, is incorrect. The Parliament of Canada established several rights and freedoms as applying to everyone in Canada—these being the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, expression, peaceful assembly, association, life, liberty, security of the person, not to be unreasonably searched or seized, not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, to be informed of reasons for detention, to have legal counsel, habeus corpus, access to the principles of fundamental justice, not to be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment, equality before the law, and the right to appeal to judicial institutions for remedies considered appropriate by said institutions to solve a breach of the Charter.

You'r point? I'm fully aware of what the Charter has become...Toilet paper for abusers and lawyers alike...

My quip...for clarities sake, was with regards to how it should be applied, or not in a war zone. And it shouldn't be.

You are partially correct of course, CDNBear, in that some provisions of the Charter are extended to citizens exclusively. These are limited, however, to the right to vote for members of the House of Commons; the right not to be represented by the same House of Commons for in excess of five years except in real, apprehended war; the right to have a sitting of Parliament held once every twelve months; the right to enter, remain in and leave the country; the right to enter any Province of Canada and to make a living in said Province (this right is also extended to permanent residents); and, the right to access education in English or French, where at least a sizeable minority of the said population exists.

Again...You mistook my intent. No big deal...I still like ya.

 

[Niflmir]

Has anybody brought up the fact that we ratified a lot of international agreements on rights? Some of which grant more rights than our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? The Senate has complained about this extensively, especially in their recent piece on rights of children.

"Go Jingoism when you're not home!" appears to be the new motto.

 

[CDNBear]

"Go Jingoism when you're not home!" appears to be the new motto.

Go... "You can not afford to play the game with a hand book a mile thick when in a combat zone."

Good men and women die and feed the bleedingheart machine...

 

[Niflmir]

Ok, why did we go in the first place?

Those who care for the troops so much want to take them out of the path of the bullet others want them bleeding their heart's blood on the ground, yet the pacifists are the bleeding hearts?

 

[CDNBear]

Ok, why did we go in the first place?

Because Afghanistan was a failed state by UN definition...Of which Afghanistan is a Member as of 19 November 1946. So they are/were fully aware of what constituted a failed state. This failed state allowed a group within it's borders to attack a soveriegn nation and still hold proection within its borders. That attacked nation being the US a Member of NATO...Hence the activation of the mandate of NATO..Attack one...Attack all.

Those who care for the troops so much want to take them out of the path of the bullet

This arguement so childish and absolutely absurd. It's been put down so many times, it's lost its humour...

others want them bleeding their heart's blood on the ground

Ya, we call them the NDP and the Taliban..

yet the pacifists are the bleeding hearts?

Only when it comes to the bad guys...

 

[Niflmir]

Because Afghanistan was a failed state by UN definition...Of which Afghanistan is a Member as of 19 November 1946. So they are/were fully aware of what constituted a failed state. This failed state allowed a group within it's borders to attack a soveriegn nation and still hold proection within its borders. That attacked nation being the US a Member of NATO...Hence the activation of the mandate of NATO..Attack one...Attack all.

Please show me the UN delaration which defines a failed state.

So we are there because the personified US suffered a black eye? Our objectives are then to beat the crap out of the personified Afghanistan? Aren't they bloody enough, or do we have some real objectives?

 

[CDNBear]

Please show me the UN delaration which defines a failed state.

I can't find it at the moment, I'm sure if you go through my posts, you'll find the link. I've posted it here a few times...

So we are there because the personified US suffered a black eye?

That's quite the juevenile way of seeing it...

We are there because as a Treaty Member of NATO we have a legitimate obligation to be there. As well as the fact that we are endevouring to assist in a Nation that needs a great deal of help.

Our objectives are then to beat the crap out of the personified Afghanistan?

Another immature view...But seeing as you asked...No we are there to stablise and rebuild...

Aren't they bloody enough, or do we have some real objectives?

It's shameful that you don't see the freedom of women and removal of a violent, opressive regime as a viable honourable objective...

And you look down your nose at me??? Pfft...I'll take that as a compliment then.

 

[Niflmir]

Alright, last chance to show you are willing to discuss in good faith. Pigeon hole me once more and I take flight, "Shouting at those who will not listen is the way of the infidel."

Women's rights in Afghanistan have deteriorated since we invaded. If going there and getting these women rights had been our intent, I would have acknowledged their intent but not their methods. In the context of a failed state (which we will not consider a UN definition until proven otherwise), the opium trade sky-rocketed after invasion so the state is in even worse shape now.

We are under no obligation to take part in an illegitimate war. The onus lies with the agressors in order to show legitimacy and define clear objectives. This has not been done and the lack of objectives is showing, many Canadians have reached surfeit with this needless war. We have not brought freedom to the underprivileged, we have brought famine and suffering, bombs and gunfire; all because less people died when the towers fell than the sum total of homicides in the USA in one year. It is hardly juvenile for me to use the metaphor of a black eye, the USA continues to suffer this many deaths each year at the hands of its own citizens.

It has been used worldwide as an excuse to de-individualize freedom and puts an abstract, unclear notion of security against a delocalized threat above the rights of citizens.

 

[CDNBear]

Alright, last chance to show you are willing to discuss in good faith. Pigeon hole me once more and I take flight,

Pigeon hole you? It's not hard to do...You use every cliche'ic response from the left. Please do tell...where do you stand if not described by your words???

"Shouting at those who will not listen is the way of the infidel."

Oh please don't tell me you're another one of those sensitive types that thinks having your views spanked and handed back to you in type is shouting???

http://www.amnestyusa.org/By_Country/Afghanistan/page.do?id=1011101&n1=3&n2=30&n3=851

Women's rights in Afghanistan have deteriorated since we invaded.

Ummm, go back and reread that article...From the first paragraph...

Four years after the fall of the Taliban, violence continues to plague Afghanistan. Amnesty International is particularly concerned about reports of attacks on civilians by anti-government forces, especially in southern Afghanistan in recent months. During the election process in September 2005. armed anti-government insurgents killed officials who registered women to vote, and confiscated voting cards forcibly. Women in Afghanistan continue to face severe violence both within and outside the home.

By the enemy!

The process is neither easy nor expedient...

Are you aware that the Dutch dispised The Alied Forces during WWII(LWF)? Including Canada?

Now they are our biggest fans...We could be anything less to them...Amazing what happens when freedom is actually realised. It took Canadian Troops marching and destroying the Nazi strangle hold to get us that admiration...Is that not possible in Afghanistan? I think so.

If going there and getting these women rights had been our intent, I would have acknowledged their intent but not their methods.

Stop using the comfy couch as a place to assess methods and tavtics...It's been proven to be hazardous to the health of Troopers the world over.

In the context of a failed state (which we will not consider a UN definition until proven otherwise),

You do what you want, but unless you have a mouse in your pocket, there is no we. I know what the UN, NATO and World Court definition of a failed state is. I care not what you think on that matter.

the opium trade sky-rocketed after invasion so the state is in even worse shape now.

Sadly true...But the Nazi's kept the trains running on time too. Should we go back and allow them to take control again?

The Taliban were relentless in their pursuit of druglords and rightly so. When caught they were usually beheaded without being afforded a trial, let alone a fair one...So you're advocating murder to stem the opium flow?

We are under no obligation to take part in an illegitimate war. The onus lies with the agressors in order to show legitimacy and define clear objectives.

Ummmm, I guess you missed what I said. Iraq was illegitimate, Afghanistan was justifiable. And we are under an obligation to defend our NATO alliances. It's as simple as that.

This has not been done and the lack of objectives is showing, many Canadians have reached surfeit with this needless war.

Because they are woefully misinformed, either purposefully or be ignorance.

We have not brought freedom to the underprivileged, we have brought famine and suffering, bombs and gunfire; all because less people died when the towers fell than the sum total of homicides in the USA in one year. It is hardly juvenile for me to use the metaphor of a black eye, the USA continues to suffer this many deaths each year at the hands of its own citizens.

So that somehow negates the fact that a global criminal element was at work in and protected by the Afghan gov't?

So what you are saying is...American lives aren't worth as much as Aghani :?: 8O

It has been used worldwide as an excuse to de-individualize freedom and puts an abstract, unclear notion of security against a delocalized threat above the rights of citizens.

Can't argue with that...It's also an extention of the US's antiquated policy of "Manifest Destiny".

 

[Niflmir]

"Shouting at those who will not listen..." is a quote out of the Quran which was meant to be applied to me, as in it is unwise for me to continuously express myself to a person who doesn't listen to me to the point where I become agitated.

Bis naechste Zeit.

 

[CDNBear]

"Shouting at those who will not listen..." is a quote out of the Quran which was meant to be applied to me, as in it is unwise for me to continuously express myself to a person who doesn't listen to me to the point where I become agitated.

Bis naechste Zeit.

The fact that I responded to your posts is fact enough that I was listening...The fact that you chose to wander off in a snit is a whole other matter...

Until next time...It is...