Is Conservative Government Guilty Of War Crimes?

[Francis2004]

Agreed, it's not certain, but if Chretien's tenure is any indication... My attitude's the same as it would have been regardless of who the government was. Somebody's guilty of something, certainly, though who and what isn't clear yet.

But here's what I think right now: We capture soldiers from a society of corrupt mediaeval warlords and hand them over to a society only marginally less awful, what should we expect to happen? Have detainees been tortured? Of course they have. Did the military and political leaders know about it? Of course they did. Are they now pretending they didn't and shooting the messenger instead of telling the truth? Of course they are. Much of the consequences might turn on certain legal niceties, such as, are these detainees enemy combatants or are they terrorists? The argument, if it comes to that, will be that they're not enemy combatants, they're terrorists, so the Geneva conventions don't apply. We (meaning NATO) should have set up our own detention centre from the beginning, not turned detainees over to the Afghans knowing perfectly well how they'd be treated, but having failed to do that then, we should do it now.

You have no proof that in Chretien's ( or even Martin's ) time there was any wrong doing and all is speculation.. I would personally like that reviewed and hence an inquiry..

Worse off you seem to be of the opinion that two wrongs make a right in this. Where can it get any better for Canada if this is true.. Trying to wash our hands in blood will only aggravate the situation and not make us look any better.

 

[wulfie68]

The point is, Conservatives are in power, and they bear the total responsibility for what is happening. Whether Liberals would have done this or that is irrelevant.

No, you missed the point in your rush to be a good CPC hating drone. It was that this HAS allegedly happened in the past and responsibility rests with whomever knew about it and didn't ensure steps were made to correct it. If Chretien, Martin et al knew about it, then some responsibility resides with them. I'm also in the camp that believes no real good would come of a public inquiry for the same reason others have stated: if the problem is corrected then all an inquiry serves is to undermine all that has been done before.

Its also interesting to me, that from Dexter's quote, if this diplomat had concerns about torture, he DIDN'T go to General Hillier with them. Why not? It sort of weakens the whole story that he would sit on something like this for a couple years...

 

[Francis2004]

Ignatieff viewpoint regarding torture could well have changed.

This is like saying Harper would send Canada to Iraq today..

Knowing what both men have learned from the recent past I think both are intelligent enough to be cautious.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The big question is how the Conservatives will do after the next election after the public inquiry

The answer is, probably terribly. That is why I don't see Harper appointing a commission.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Just think os all the Canadian soldiers who would not have died,if your beloved liberals had not sent us there in the first place.
Let us start at the beginning if we are to cast stones.

The decision to support Afghanistan operation was the right one, pgs. Supporting Iraq invasion would have been the wrong thing to do. And if your Messiah had been the PM when Bush invaded Iraq, we would be mired in Iraq today to the hilt. Chrétien had the astuteness and farsightedness to stay out of Iraq.

But the decision to get involved in Afghanistan was the right decision.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Ignatieff viewpoint regarding torture could well have changed.

This is like saying Harper would send Canada to Iraq today..

Quite so, Francis. The point is not that Harper would send Canada to Iraq today (he wouldn’t), but he most certainly would have sent Canada to Iraq if he had been the PM at the time of Iraq invasion. When Bush invaded Iraq, Harper enthusiastically supported his idol, Bush and slammed Chrétien for not supporting the Iraq invasion.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I'm also in the camp that believes no real good would come of a public inquiry for the same reason others have stated: if the problem is corrected then all an inquiry serves is to undermine all that has been done before.

No real good will come out of an inquiry for the Conservative Party, I agree. That is why I don't think Harper will appoint a commission (and also why I think Martin was wrong in appointing Gomery Commission).

 

[Colpy]

No real good will come out of an inquiry for the Conservative Party, I agree. That is why I don't think Harper will appoint a commission (and also why I think Martin was wrong in appointing Gomery Commission).

Although I have no solid evidence of it, I feel fairly confident in saying this; every nation that has ever gone to war has been guilty to some degree of "war crimes" under the modern definitions.

The problem is that the open nations, the free nations, the western nations, the GOOD guys........are bludgeoned continually by accusation, demand for inquiry, and then retreat to self-examination, self-flagelation.........in the end, doing great harm to their effort and to their cause.

The "bad guys" just don't give a rat's arse.

Time to put the "war crimes" foolishness to bed.....except in cases of genocide (I mean REAL genocide......not "cultural" genocide or the collateral damage (I hate that term) death of civilians......or other extreme examples of national, intentional malfeasance......

No inquiry.

Immediate establishment of a Canadian detention centre... (tents and razor wire) within which Canadians will work with Afghans in humane detention and interogation..........hopefully the Afghans will learn something.....

Work towards creating a NATO detention centre for dentention, interogation, and de-programming of terrorists and suspects, working closely with Afghans........once again, hopefully turning them away from medieval practices that are not only terrible and de-humanizing to both torturer and victim....but are also largely ineffective.

 

[Avro]

We are better than bad guys Colpy, even if we do terrible things we should at least own up to it.

Especially when we hand over people that may or may not be guilty.

Being brutal doesn't mean you win, just look at the Russian experience in Afghanistan. They ran over guys from the feet up with tanks and still lost.

The Tories first response to this was to try and discredit Colvin, the first act of someone who is guilty.

I'd accuse you of being partisan but I don't think that's the case here, I have a feeling you would defend the Libs on this as well.

However I think you are wrong, if enough evidence is there an inquiry should be called, that's what good guys do.

A good read

Another one

Another

Another

 

[Francis2004]

And that's exactly why we are a "good" nation that can self examine ourselves..

The day we stop self examining ourselves is the day we become like them..

And that is why our Armed Forces are there in the first place so we don't become like them..

Let us not let our self righteousness cloud our ability to see we may have made a mistake that needs correcting..

Note I said MAY because only a proper inquiry will determine that fact..

 

[Avro]

And that's exactly why we are a "good" nation that can self examine ourselves..

The day we stop self examining ourselves is the day we become like them..

And that is why our Armed Forces are there in the first place so we don't become like them..

Let us not let our self righteousness cloud our ability to see we may have made a mistake that needs correcting..

Note I said MAY because only a proper inquiry will determine that fact..

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Cannuck]

People that keep asking for an inquiry need to understand that inquiries rarely if ever bring light to problems, let alone solve them.

 

[Avro]

People that keep asking for an inquiry need to understand that inquiries rarely if ever bring light to problems, let alone solve them.

So what do you suggest?

Did the Gomery inquiry not suit your needs?

Just asking.

 

[Francis2004]

So what do you suggest?

Did the Gomery inquiry not suit your needs?

Just asking.

Our system process is to have "Inquiry / Commission". Not to have one is to wash our hands of the issue believe the problem did not exist.

Anyone trying to make us believe an inquiry is not required also believes that Government is not accountable as that is what these processes are for..

Otherwise what is to stop the Government from doing wrong if we NEVER have an "Inquiry / Commission" again ????

 

[Avro]

Our system process is to have "Inquiry / Commission". Not to have one is to wash our hands of the issue believe the problem did not exist.

Anyone trying to make us believe an inquiry is not required also believes that Government is not accountable as that is what these processes are for..

Otherwise what is to stop the Government from doing wrong if we NEVER have an "Inquiry / Commission" again ????

I'd prefer Canuck to answer this question....if he is even here.

Not sure why some members have to hide their online status.

 

[Francis2004]

I'd prefer Canuck to answer this question....if he is even here.

Not sure why some members have to hide their online status.

I am sure he will answer if he so wishes..

 

[JLM]

People that keep asking for an inquiry need to understand that inquiries rarely if ever bring light to problems, let alone solve them.

You are a wise man indeed Cannuck. Inquiries just generate more hiding and lying.

 

[Avro]

You are a wise man indeed Cannuck. Inquiries just generate more hiding and lying.

My word....apathy has truely set in.

 

[Cannuck]

Anyone trying to make us believe an inquiry is not required also believes that Government is not accountable as that is what these processes are for..

You are completely and utterly wrong. That's not surprising though considering that most blanket statements are.

For starters, the problem with inquiries is that lawyers and judges know very little about the issues they are dealing with. Take the Somalia inquiry. Anybody with any background in the military knows you don't take a group such as the Airborne and send them on a peacekeeping mission. THAT was the mistake.

Secondly, the political system is run by the legal system. Hiring judges to investigate is like hiring Tie Domi to investigate fighting in hockey.

Thirdly, because of the public nature of the inquiries, political sensitivities always carry extra weight. Look at the Braidwood inquiry...the biggest problems on that day was the low hiring standards of the RCMP and OH&S legislation that indirectly governs the training of these officers. It was and is politically unacceptable for either the government or the police to publicly state that the officers are not competent.

Fourthly, the set up by their very nature make inquiries a poor way to uncover problems. By making it about "who" is responsible, the ass covering begins as soon as the word inquiry is uttered publicly. A lot can be learned from the NTSB. When airline crashes are investigated, they are less concerned about afixing blame and instead, are more interested in how or what to change to make the event less likely in the future.

What we really need is somebody outside of the issue to do an investigation...somebody not involved with government, the legal system or the military. Doing it publically tends to make those with important things to say clam up.

 

[JLM]

My word....apathy has truely set in.

Apathy, how? Fixing past wrongs is just more formidable than being vigilant and using past knowledge to guard against future wrongs. Inquiries just open the gate for more corruption and giving opportunites for the likes of sleazy lawyers etc.