Time to end Canadian complicity in torture.

Sassylassie

House Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,976
7
38
I came across this article and I thought I should share it. I agree that Canada should not be handing over Suspected Terrorist to other countries. I'd also like to see Guantanamo Bay shut down, it's inhumane no matter how you look at it.

Time to end Canadian complicity in torture
Oct. 19, 2006. 01:00 AM
ALEX NEVE


Canada should not inflict torture, nor should it be complicit in the infliction of torture by others. That simple and sadly necessary reminder comes in Justice Dennis O'Connor's recent report from the public inquiry into the Maher Arar case.
In fewer than 20 words, he captures one of the most fundamentally important human rights lessons to emerge from Arar's tragedy of unlawful imprisonment and torture. Canada should never be complicit when it comes to torture.
Over the coming weeks, much has to be done to ensure that the entire range of O'Connor's recommendations go forward.
There must be compensation and an official government apology for Arar. The policy, training and institutional gaps at the RCMP, CSIS, foreign affairs and elsewhere in government must be addressed. Canada must actively and meaningfully pursue official protests with the U.S. and Syrian governments. The independent and credible review of the cases of other Canadian citizens detained and tortured abroad must promptly be launched.
This should also be a time of broader reflection about the issue of Canadian complicity in torture.
The distressing truth is that beyond the wrongdoing brought to light in the Arar case there are numerous other ways in which Canada is complicit in torture inflicted by others. It is time to curtail that complicity and ensure that when it comes to the unconditional global ban on torture Canada's record is unassailable — no exceptions.
Look to Afghanistan. For close to five years now, Canadian soldiers have regularly handed individuals captured on the battlefield over to troops from other countries.
Until late in 2005, those transfers were to U.S. forces; since then it has been into the custody of Afghan authorities. In both instances, the transfers almost certainly expose some, even most, of the prisoners to a very real risk of torture.
Well-documented human rights violations in both U.S.- and Afghan-run jails in Afghanistan make that only too clear.
The military must adopt a different approach to the handling of prisoners in Afghanistan, one that would safeguard against torture. Until that happens, Canada remains complicit in the infliction of torture by others.
Look also to our immigration policy. International law is specific: Torture is absolutely forbidden, as is deporting someone to a country where they face a serious risk of being tortured.
Yet the Canadian government insists it is okay to send someone off to face the likelihood of torture elsewhere if they are alleged to pose some sort of security risk in Canada.
The assessment of that security risk is often made in the course of deeply unfair legal proceedings such as the security certificate process, which make it nearly impossible for the individual concerned to mount any sort of meaningful defence.
Regardless, no one should be sent off to a foreign torture chamber and turning a blind eye to torture is certainly no road to security. In doing so, Canada becomes willingly complicit in the infliction of torture by others.
Then there are the concerns that Canadian airports and airspace may have been used by CIA planes involved in the "extraordinary rendition" of individuals in counterterrorism cases; off to countries where they are likely to suffer the same experience of detention and torture as did Arar.
These concerns touch various regions of Canada, including Newfoundland, northern Ontario and Nunavut.
For more than a year, federal officials have been asked to clarify the nature of these mysterious flights, which number at least 75. They have been pressed to adopt safeguards to ensure that it does not happen in the future.
But they will say or do very little and will not even confirm whether they have reviewed the possibility that some of these flights may have been involved in activities that violate international human rights laws, such as the ban on torture.
We are left to worry that Canada has been complicit in the infliction of torture by others.
And finally, what about Guantánamo Bay, a travesty of human rights protection by any measure?
There have been persistent and serious allegations that torture and ill-treatment have been the harsh reality for the hundreds of individuals kept there without charge or trial, including one Canadian citizen, Omar Khadr, who was still a minor when he was first imprisoned.
Instead of improving, the situation at Guantánamo Bay appears to be getting worse, with President George Bush having just signed into law the new Military Commissions Act. This law abolishes the centuries-old legal remedy of habeas corpus for Guantánamo detainees, an important means of bringing forward concerns about torture.
Canada's voice of protest about Guantánamo Bay has been virtually silent. In that silence, Canada risks being complicit in the infliction of torture by others.
Canadians have rightly been deeply troubled by the revelations to come out of the Arar Inquiry. They understandably now expect the government to take steps to guard against the repeat of such a tragedy again in the future.
We must go further, however, and demonstrate willingness and readiness to live up to O'Connor's exhortation — to never be complicit in torture.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Let's end the seal hunt first. It's far more important.

I don't agree. With either point, but...

Sass, have you ever read "The Politics of Torture" by Alfred Mccoy? It's a very interesting read. The FBI has much better techniques, but they have been removed from the process.

I don't quite agree with shutting Gitmo down, but I do think the techniques of the FBI would have better suited the task. Hind sight is always 20/20.
 

Sassylassie

House Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,976
7
38
I will never agree that Gitmo is a good thing, both Canada and the US have lost thousands of men who fought for our freedom of repression and free speech. There is no reason to torture a "Suspected Terrorist" with the drugs on the open and hidden market the truth need not involve torture. How many innocent people are being held at Gitmo? We will never know because Bush will never let the public know. One innocent is one to many. I'm not willing to give up one Single Chartered right in the fight for Terrorism, if I do they win. They deserve their day in court, anyone can be picked up and shipped to Gitmo. Anyone, piss of the wrong person and you could become a "Person Of Interest" I don't trust Goverment enough to believe all those held there are "Suspected Terrorist".
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I will never agree that Gitmo is a good thing, both Canada and the US have lost thousands of men who fought for our freedom of repression and free speech. There is no reason to torture a "Suspected Terrorist" with the drugs on the open and hidden market the truth need not involve torture. How many innocent people are being held at Gitmo? We will never know because Bush will never let the public know. One innocent is one to many. I'm not willing to give up one Single Chartered right in the fight for Terrorism, if I do they win. They deserve their day in court, anyone can be picked up and shipped to Gitmo. Anyone, piss of the wrong person and you could become a "Person Of Interest" I don't trust Goverment enough to believe all those held there are "Suspected Terrorist".


I can not agree. I know somewhere in me there might be some shred of remorse, but not enough to to make me blink on this. I now it's cold, heartless and a meriad of other issues, but what of the gain in intel? Even the smallest bit helps. Yes the FBI techniques (the name fails me at the moment) would have been better, but If the intel out of Gitmo, saved one innocent civilians life, then I see it as worth it.
 

elevennevele

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2006
787
11
18
Canada
I can not agree. I know somewhere in me there might be some shred of remorse, but not enough to to make me blink on this. I now it's cold, heartless and a meriad of other issues, but what of the gain in intel? Even the smallest bit helps. Yes the FBI techniques (the name fails me at the moment) would have been better, but If the intel out of Gitmo, saved one innocent civilians life, then I see it as worth it.


So you believe.

I bet I could torture a confession out of you. By the end of it you'll be telling me you’re the Mary Queen of Scotts.
 

elevennevele

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2006
787
11
18
Canada
But seriously, there is a reason why this compound is off US soil. It's so the US government can avoid US legality. That already says a load. In my opinion what works and has worked for so long (up until the Bush way) was the legal approach. Which is also civilized.

The resentment gitmo breeds in my opinion is putting more US lives in jeopardy globally and this resentment in the middle east is part of the actions occurring against Americans as we speak. So it could be contrary to the lives you think it’s saving.

If anything, it ends up being neutral in benefits when all things are weighed in addition to the US losing it’s reputation around the world. Reputation which does count for currency by the way. The lives we live and the standards we’ve attained have not come by way of isolationism.

North Korea is isolationism and they seem to have very little currency with their reputation to play.
 

elevennevele

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2006
787
11
18
Canada
Also consider this. Information shared is a two way street. When the US didn’t torture people, international intelligence were, I’m sure, more favourable to sharing. Now it’s risky to share info with the US knowing that it could lead to some harsh interrogation of an accused, and maybe an innocent person. That in itself leads to having to bear some guilt for those sharing info. (Bing!) As in the Arar case.

So this direction by the US might lead to the unfavourable consequence of less information being shared by world partners. On the global front, it could well be a setback for the USA.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
I am afraid that, to a certain extent, I have to join the lefties on this one.

I have no problem with some forms of interogation, such as sleep deprivation, isolation, and other non-invasive means. The second you cause severe physical discomfort, by beatings, dunking, exposure, you have crossed the line. This is completely unacceptable.

Torture reduces the torturer to less than the person he is interogating.......

Info obtained under severe duress is garbage.....

Now, I will part company with the lefties over expulsion. If you are a threat to my society, and you have no legitimate claim to be here, then out you go. If your homeland tortures, I truely regret that, but NOT enough to tolerate your presence here.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
So you believe.

I bet I could torture a confession out of you. By the end of it you'll be telling me you’re the Mary Queen of Scotts.


I'll bet my house, my business and everything I own, you could not! Hazing has its merits. So does training.
 

Sassylassie

House Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,976
7
38
Colpy wrote: Now, I will part company with the lefties over expulsion. If you are a threat to my society, and you have no legitimate claim to be here, then out you go. If your homeland tortures, I truely regret that, but NOT enough to tolerate your presence here.

I agree with this point of view, it they are deemed a threat to Canada sent them back to their country of origin.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
OK so the "let's torture and maim, "anything-goes" group is represented....

Now the difference between the enemy and us is what again.....
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
I’ve figured it out!

It’s OK for us (Canada the United States…the ‘coalition of the willing’) to justly imprison and torture people we’ve either decided are enemies… and people we think just might be enemies…

Because our cause is just and our hearts are pure!

Imagine what it must be like for those folk imprisoning people and torturing them who know that what they’re doing is wrong because their enemy….the people who have already explained the warmth and compassion of “democracy” and “freedom” (Canada the United States…the ‘coalition of the willing’ have told them that that’s not how civilized people behave…..

We can behave this way without shame however because if they hadn’t started this whole thing then there wouldn’t be any trouble….
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I’ve figured it out!

It’s OK for us (Canada the United States…the ‘coalition of the willing’) to justly imprison and torture people we’ve either decided are enemies… and people we think just might be enemies…

Because our cause is just and our hearts are pure!

Imagine what it must be like for those folk imprisoning people and torturing them who know what that what they’re doing is wrong because their enemy….the people who have already explained the warmth and compassion of “democracy” and “freedom” (Canada the United States…the ‘coalition of the willing’ have told them that that’s not how civilized people behave…..

We can behave this way without shame however because if they hadn’t started this whole thing then there wouldn’t be any trouble….


Pretty much. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, sometimes the reation is the manifestation of "righteous retrobution", in this case by a horrible act.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Wahhhhhhhhhh Wahhhhhhhhhh

He did it first!

No he did it first!


CDNbear Canadian dipolomat to the United Nations announced today that Canada will base its foreign policies on those of fifth-grade children and not resolve to rise above our barbaric natures.

Canada is sooooooo pleased!
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Wahhhhhhhhhh Wahhhhhhhhhh

He did it first!

No he did it first!


CDNbear Canadian dipolomat to the United Nations announced today that Canada will base its foreign policies on those of fifth-grade children and not resolve to rise above our barbaric natures.

Canada is sooooooo pleased!


LOL, not at your best today.

My guess is, my views don't sit well with you.

Well fortunetly for me, and to the very same extent, you, someone has taken it upon themselves to do the dirty work. I would have preferred the autorities to have used the techniques that the FBI uses, which were developed during world WWII(LWF), and proved quite useful with the Japanese. And lets face it, those were some serious adversaries. Those techniques do not require physical torture and are allowed under the Geneva Convention.

But...

It didn't work out that way. So sorry to bad. I have long thought that the rules of war and to some extent the Geneva Convention, were flawed. As much as the rules set forth, that also include, standing orders and the ROE, lended greatly to the enemies of our Armies. Our enemies have learned that the West has no stomach for war, so they inevitably have gone to Guerilla warfare and tactics that produce littel major damage to the force, but produce horrific images for the Homefront. The TV is the new battlefield. As long as we allow emotion and ethics t dictate our ways of war, we will always come out on the bottom.

Collateral damage is inevitable, graphic imagery is certain, dealing with it is the hard part. Not every action has to fit our moral perview. Accepting that at times, the ends justify the means, does not mean we have given up our souls. It merely means that we took the rules as dictated by the enemy and played by their rules. Their rules suck, but they know that their rules get results.

If the practices at Gitmo, were the norm, I would take issue. They are not, the CIA was developing their new techniques at Gitmo, and perfecting them. This leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but I feel no grief. Many lives were saved because of it. Was the value of the intel gathered, a measurable result? I would say, no. But that does not negate the value of the pre-emptive value that may have resulted from the slightest amount of credable intel.

Would I be involved in something like what took place at Gitmo? I have the stomach for it, but if there was an emminant threat, and I mean in the short term, I probably could. I know this will only serve to feed the image you have of me. But you should the smallest bit, be thankful, that there are men and women, willing to do your dirty work, to help save lives. An assumption I can not back up, but even the simplist of minds, must be able to grasp the possiblity.

BTW, that doesn't make me a moron, it makes me something you would never understand, so explaining it would serve no purpose.
 
Last edited:

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,702
1,878
113
Saying no to torture

Oct 20th 2006

From Economist.com
Why some are willing to see it used






IT PAYS to be sceptical about the significance of opinion polls. Depending on what questions the pollsters ask, and how, the most ridiculous or startling results may be generated. But some polls throw up genuinely disturbing information.

According to one conducted for the BBC and released on Thursday October 19th, nearly a third of respondents (some 27,000 people were questioned in 25 countries) consider the use of torture acceptable under certain circumstances. Another published last November by the Pew Research Centre found that nearly half of all Americans think torturing terrorist suspects could, at times, be justified. Those results tallied with other Pew polls of the past few years.

Divining the significance of such data is not easy. The various pollsters, for example, apparently left it to respondents to define what they meant by torture. But the results are morbidly fascinating and give clues as to why some people are more willing to contemplate torture than others. Although a clear majority, worldwide, opposes even the occasional use of torture, there are significant groups willing to say they favour it.

Those with an especial fear of terrorism seem most inclined to support its use. Thus 53% of Israeli Jews, according to the BBC poll, would allow terrorist suspects to be tortured for the sake of trying to get information that could save innocent lives. (Only 16% of Israeli Muslims would agree.) Large minorities in the Philippines, Indonesia, Kenya and Russia—where terror attacks have also repeatedly claimed lives—would also tolerate its use.

But fear of terrorists is not the only factor. General attitudes to human rights count, too. Thus in many places where the death penalty is outlawed, as in the European Union, few would consider the use of torture even in extreme circumstances. In Britain and Spain, each the site of a large terrorist attack in the past couple of years, only a small proportion would contemplate it. In contrast in terrorism-free China, where authorities use the death penalty with enthusiasm, more than a third of those questioned say torture might also be ok.

Ignorance apparently matters too. Last year’s Pew survey showed that the general public in America is far more enthusiastic about the occasional use of torture than are security experts, academics or military leaders. It is tempting to conclude that experts who may have a better idea whether torture is likely to prove useful are less inclined to support its use.

But evidently some do believe that it, or something close to it, could be useful for states fighting terrorists. Israeli security officials say they have prevented terrorist attacks with information gleaned from “coercive interrogation” of suspects. On October 17th George Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act which (though he denies it would sanction torture) allows CIA investigators to use tough, physical, interrogation methods against terrorist suspects. According to Amnesty International, the torture and ill-treatment of prisoners continue to be recorded in many countries.

Those who believe think it could be useful may not, therefore, be swayed by moral or legal arguments. All big human-rights agreements concluded since the end of the second world war contain absolute bans on torture, with no exceptions. No domestic system officially allows it. Nor can anyone be sure they are only torturing the guilty. Argentina’s junta, for example, justified the use of torture against leftist groups that led to the execution of thousands of innocent people between 1976 and 1983 (dictator General Gaultieri and his men were out of power not long after they ordered the invasion of Britain's Falkland Islands)

A more telling argument, instead, may be that torture is often counterproductive. A desperate prisoner may say anything to bring his pain to an end, leaving interrogators with useless or distracting information. In addition, governments using torture are likely to provoke popular resentment and more embittered opponents. France’s brutal methods against those fighting for independence in Algeria ended up dividing French domestic opinion and strengthening its enemies. Routine abuse of Palestinian prisoners by Israel’s security services, Shin Bet, did nothing to dissuade Palestinian fighters and suicide bombers. Even America's closest allies say they are appalled by treatment of terrorist suspects that amounts, too often, to something near to torture. In too many cases, it seems, terrorist suspects are subjected to cruel treatment not for the sake of obtaining information, but for the purposes of punishment or humiliation.

economist.com
 
Last edited: