Even loyal Conservatives who can claim any sense of self-respect and decency must be troubled at the manner in which they have been persistently and outrageously deceived by their prime minister and his political and military underlings on the Afghan detainee torture affair.
We heard what Richard Colvin said and then we heard just the opposite, outright denials and dismissals from a coterie of Con artists including Harper cabinet ministers and top generals. Then, today, Colvin releases a 16-page indictment laying out the blatant lies and coverups these blackguards invoked as their smokescreen. Their response? Nothing to see here, move on.
Safely retired ex-general Michel Gauthier says there's "no substantive new information" in Colvin's retort. That hardly sounds like a denial. Besides, says Gauthier, the accountable cabinet ministers should have been those who, in December, 2005 created the policy. Not the cabinet ministers and generals who, in 2006, 2007 and afterward knew or ought to have known what was happening and did nothing or, worse, even rallied to support one of the torturers.
If the extensive detail furnished by Mr. Colvin in this letter wasn't new information to Gauthier, he must have known it all along. He must've known it when he and his cronies dummied up before the Commons committee.
MacKay's greaseball secretary Laurie Hawn took the most despicable low road, throwing up allegations that the government's critics were accusing Canadian soldiers of war crimes. What manner of cowardly filth is that man?
The nice thing is that Colvin's rebuttal is long and packed with rich detail. Even a reporter of the calibre of today's Canadian media can see where it leads, where to look and how to quickly verify just who is telling the truth and, better yet, who is lying and why.
What's most telling is that Colvin has made such a substantive reply; he has furnished meaningful corroboration and probative sources for his claims. What do we get from the other side; from Harper, O'Connor, Hillier, Gauthier and MacKay? They're the guys with all the documents. They have all the advantages when it comes to proving what they say. Yet they still stand there like a bunch of thugish goons and say "we didn't know anything about it" so go away.
Even if you're a really gullible Conservative, it's obvious that Colvin has presented a case that Harper, O'Connor, MacKay, Hillier and Gauthier have to meet. But they're in too deep and they know it and now all that's left to them is to run for cover.
Showing posts with label detainees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label detainees. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Friday, February 29, 2008
Detainees Back for more Afghan Hospitality, Bye Harry

Canadian forces in Afghanistan are back to handing detainees over to Afghan authorities for - why, for detention of course.
Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security has assured us that they won't torture or otherwise abuse detainees never, ever, ever again. Really, they mean it. No, really.
From the Globe & Mail:
"The Afghan government has been lobbying Canada to resume its transfers, in part because the cutoff indicated Canada's belief that detainees face torture in the Afghan system — a propaganda victory for the Taliban, Afghan officials argued, and a source of friction with other NATO allies in southern Afghanistan who are also bound by legal conventions that forbid sending detainees into the hands of known torturers."
Interesting, it was the Canadian belief, not the actual torturing itself that was a propaganda victory for the Taliban. Curious place, Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, Prince Harry is winging his way home, plucked out of Afghanistan after that vermin, Matt Drudge, got the enormous journalistic non-scoop and ran the story of Harry's service with his regiment in the combat zone. Brit journalists had known about it for, well forever, but kept the secret to ensure Harry's and his comrades' safety.
Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security has assured us that they won't torture or otherwise abuse detainees never, ever, ever again. Really, they mean it. No, really.
From the Globe & Mail:
"The Afghan government has been lobbying Canada to resume its transfers, in part because the cutoff indicated Canada's belief that detainees face torture in the Afghan system — a propaganda victory for the Taliban, Afghan officials argued, and a source of friction with other NATO allies in southern Afghanistan who are also bound by legal conventions that forbid sending detainees into the hands of known torturers."
Interesting, it was the Canadian belief, not the actual torturing itself that was a propaganda victory for the Taliban. Curious place, Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, Prince Harry is winging his way home, plucked out of Afghanistan after that vermin, Matt Drudge, got the enormous journalistic non-scoop and ran the story of Harry's service with his regiment in the combat zone. Brit journalists had known about it for, well forever, but kept the secret to ensure Harry's and his comrades' safety.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Canadian General Supports Afghan Detainee Transfers
Canada's army says it would have to pack up and go home if it had to stop handing over its detainees to Afghan prison authorities. What a load of utter nonsense!
From the Globe & Mail:
Listing a long series of possible embarrassments and defeats, Brigadier-General André Deschamps outlined what he says would be the dire consequences, including losing the war, should a Federal Court judge rule in favour of a request by human-rights groups to issue an injunction banning the transfer of detainees to Afghan prisons because of the risk of torture or abuse.
Gen. Deschamps sketches a variety scenarios. Taliban fighters might surrender in droves, he warns, if they knew Canada would release them because it could not either hold them or transfer them. "The insurgents could attack us with impunity knowing that if they fail to win an engagement they would simply have to surrender and wait for release to resume operations," he said in a sworn affidavit.
Gen. Deschamps, the chief of staff of Canada's Expeditionary Force Command that runs combat operations in Afghanistan, goes so far as to suggest the Taliban might win the war, at least in Kandahar, if the court were to grant the injunction.
Come on, Deschamps, get real. There's absolutely no reason NATO can't organize a compound for all ISAF detainees. Secretary general de Hoop Scheffer has a lot of alliance member countries that don't want to fight but could be cajoled into running a detention facility.
It's what we did in Korea. Back then we knew better than to hand over North Korean or Chinese prisoners to the South Koreans. Unless he's an idiot, this guy Deschamps knows there are several alternatives to handing detainees over to the Afghans. His over the top approach of "our way or Armageddon" reflects a deeply politicized armed forces.
From the Globe & Mail:
Listing a long series of possible embarrassments and defeats, Brigadier-General André Deschamps outlined what he says would be the dire consequences, including losing the war, should a Federal Court judge rule in favour of a request by human-rights groups to issue an injunction banning the transfer of detainees to Afghan prisons because of the risk of torture or abuse.
Gen. Deschamps sketches a variety scenarios. Taliban fighters might surrender in droves, he warns, if they knew Canada would release them because it could not either hold them or transfer them. "The insurgents could attack us with impunity knowing that if they fail to win an engagement they would simply have to surrender and wait for release to resume operations," he said in a sworn affidavit.
Gen. Deschamps, the chief of staff of Canada's Expeditionary Force Command that runs combat operations in Afghanistan, goes so far as to suggest the Taliban might win the war, at least in Kandahar, if the court were to grant the injunction.
Come on, Deschamps, get real. There's absolutely no reason NATO can't organize a compound for all ISAF detainees. Secretary general de Hoop Scheffer has a lot of alliance member countries that don't want to fight but could be cajoled into running a detention facility.
It's what we did in Korea. Back then we knew better than to hand over North Korean or Chinese prisoners to the South Koreans. Unless he's an idiot, this guy Deschamps knows there are several alternatives to handing detainees over to the Afghans. His over the top approach of "our way or Armageddon" reflects a deeply politicized armed forces.
Monday, July 09, 2007
What Is Hillier Hiding This Time?

General Rick Hillier doesn't want Canada's military answering any questions about our detainees in Afghanistan. Apparently, releasing the information could endanger our troops serving over there.
Now, given that we're treating those we capture humanely and ensuring they're not abused once they're handed over to the Afghanis, what's the problem? I expect the Taliban knows who we've captured, either because they're missing or because they can always get that information from their collaborators within the Afghan government.
No, it strikes me that Hillier's concern is more with protecting his mission from unwanted scrutiny at home than protecting our soldiers from the Taliban. I do not give Hillier the benefit of the doubt.
Monday, March 12, 2007
O'Connor Holds Kabul To A High Standard, Really He Does, He Even Says So.
Our slouch of a defence minister, Gordo O'Connor, has raced to Afghanistan after being caught asleep at the wheel (again), this time on the detainee issue.
Obviously not having a clue what he was talking about, O'Connor told the Commons that the detainees were fine because he would've heard from the Red Cross if they weren't. This veteran military man, a retired brigadier no less, had no idea how the Red Cross works.
So Harpo told Gordo to get his camos pressed and get his sorry ass to Kandahar and to be sure to wipe next time before he flushes. Here's what Galloping Gord told reporters when he arrived in Afghanistan. "I want to look the man in the eyes and I want to confirm that they are going to do what they say they're going to do"
Hey Gord, while you're at it, how about you take a few minutes to confirm that you're going to do what you say you're doing. It'd be a good start.
"We use the term detainee abuse but there's no proof that there is any detainee abuse," Mr. O'Connor said. "But it's an important factor because we hold the Afghan government to a high standard."
If he wants proof of detainee abuse, he should contact the US State Department which has issued its own proof of torture and disappearance of prisoners who fall into Afghan custody. As for the "high standard" bull crap, has this loser even figured out that control of this government has come into the hands of murderous warlords, drug barons and common thugs?
Obviously not having a clue what he was talking about, O'Connor told the Commons that the detainees were fine because he would've heard from the Red Cross if they weren't. This veteran military man, a retired brigadier no less, had no idea how the Red Cross works.
So Harpo told Gordo to get his camos pressed and get his sorry ass to Kandahar and to be sure to wipe next time before he flushes. Here's what Galloping Gord told reporters when he arrived in Afghanistan. "I want to look the man in the eyes and I want to confirm that they are going to do what they say they're going to do"
Hey Gord, while you're at it, how about you take a few minutes to confirm that you're going to do what you say you're doing. It'd be a good start.
"We use the term detainee abuse but there's no proof that there is any detainee abuse," Mr. O'Connor said. "But it's an important factor because we hold the Afghan government to a high standard."
If he wants proof of detainee abuse, he should contact the US State Department which has issued its own proof of torture and disappearance of prisoners who fall into Afghan custody. As for the "high standard" bull crap, has this loser even figured out that control of this government has come into the hands of murderous warlords, drug barons and common thugs?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)