The latest
Really? And just why are we not allowed to make such a conjecture? Why is even the asking of that question considered tantamount to treason?
There's nothing magical or sacrosanct about being a member of Canada's military. They have rules. They're supposed to know those rules. And they're supposed to follow those rules. And if they don't follow them, they should expect to be punished for it. And if they knowingly and deliberately committed war crimes, what's wrong with suggesting they be held accountable?
"How DARE you accuse the troops of war crimes?!?!?!?!?!?!", scream Canada's intellectual defectives like this. But why can't we? It's now indisputable that Canadian troops were handing over Afghan detainees knowing full well that their Afghan captors had a history of abuse and torture. No one can deny that. Absolutely no one.
In short, war crimes have been committed. We're beyond debating that point anymore. All that's left to debate is who's responsible and who should be prosecuted for them. The progressive position on this appears to be that we want to get to the bottom of this and find out what really happened. The right-wing position is to howl loudly and accuse everyone else of treason and smearing the troops, while doing everything physically possible to avoid dealing with this.
War crimes have been committed. By Canadians. Either by troops on the field, or their commanders, or by the politicians who were managing this whole clusterfuck. And we are absolutely entitled to demand that someone figure out who's at fault here. What's particularly amusing is that it's Canada's "law and order all the time" wankerhood that's so monumentally uninterested in, you know, people obeying the law and being held accountable.
If members of Canada's military broke the law and committed war crimes, let them be charged, prosecuted and put in prison. Why Canada's "Law and Order" party is so savagely opposed to this idea is a mystery.
IT'S ALWAYS THE DISHONESTY: Note well how the aforementioned wanker is reduced to lying about what actually happened to make his point:
Liberal MP McCallum says Canadian troops committed a “war crime” and the CBC ignored it?
Really? Is that truly what McCallum said? Why, no:
“the fact that they may have been committing war crimes, handing over detainees knowing that they were very likely to be tortured, that is a war crime”
See the difference? McCallum is stating that the troops "may" have committed war crimes (a completely true statement), and he's also stating that handing over detainees knowing they would be tortured is a war crime (also an entirely true statement).
What's inarguable is that someone committed war crimes. We just want to know who. Well, OK, some of us would like to know. The rest just want to howl loudly, then lecture the rest of us on law and order. The hypocrisy there should be self-evident.
OH, DEAR: And another resident of Wankerville proves incapable of understanding simple English. And for those of you just joining us, it's worth knowing that commenter "ferrethouse" is none other than one Craig Smith. That would be this Craig Smith.
The crazy gets around, doesn't it?
9 comments:
Since the transfer of prisoners in itself is not an illegal order, the troops would have to know with certainty that the detainees would be tortured, in order to be guilty of war crimes. So they would have had to have Colvin's numerous detailed reports. If so, why can't the hearings have them too?
No, LS, one doesn't need to know "with certainty" that transferred detainees will be tortured. It's sufficient that there be merely substantial risk:
"In the context of an international or non-international conflict, the transfer of detainees where there is a substantial risk of torture is a most serious war crime under the Geneva Conventions and the Canadian Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, which is part of the Criminal Code of Canada."
The reliance on absolute certainty here is a right-wing talking point that you should try to avoid.
True, which is why I said "certainty", not "absolute certainty". My meaning is that they could easily have nothing more than rumours, which is not substantial risk. It is not a Nuremburg situation. The simple act of transfer to a presumed ally would not be a defacto war crime. Would they not have to be aware of the substantial risk?
LS, if you read Richard Colvin's testimony, you'll notice that it was common knowledge among people on the ground in Afghanistan that the Afghan police abused people in their custody.
At this point, no one can claim ignorance.
Also, if the reports of transferring being done in the field are true, in this case it doesn't matter if they thought it possible that they were going to be tortured or not, it's just illegal.
Cameron:
I'd read of that scenario being used as a defense -- it was in the heat of a pitched battle, there was no time for protocol or niceties, prisoners were simply handed over, etc. Are you saying that that simple act -- transferring detainees on the battlefield -- is in and of itself illegal?
That would make for an interesting conundrum, since it's the defense being used for why protocol wasn't being followed. It would be entertaining if the defense itself was illegal.
It's not as if our troops hadn't already witnessed our allies sodomizing children, either. Although I believe they were instructed to ignore those sorts of things.
We don't even know who we're handing over to whom. It's disgusting.
Im not surprised at all to see Canadian Sense at the top of the commenter list busy having her latest fantasy wank - though she seems to be fantasizing over Colvin now.
Guess it's less disturbing than the John Nunziata fantasy she's been peddling as of late.
CC, to my knowledge, prisoner transfers like that, in the field, without proper notification and a process of identifying them, is illegal on it's face.
Again, I'm not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV, but it seems that is something I read. Someone with more military law understanding should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Post a Comment