Oh, for the love of mutt:
Meharchand: "You know, we could digress here and talk about who's handing over, is it the Canadian soldiers who you're accusing of war crimes, is it the government, I don't want to go there in this interview."
That would be the CBC's Suhana Meharchand, asking an on-topic and explosive question, then in the same breath telling John McCallum she doesn't want an answer. If there's any way she could have been more appalling and pathetic as an interviewer, it doesn't come to mind at the moment.
BY THE WAY, if Canada's troops on the ground handed over prisoners knowing there was a good chance they'd be tortured, then of course they're war criminals. I honestly don't see the problem here.
Transferring detainees when there is a substantial risk they will be abused or tortured is a war crime. If you handed over prisoners under those circumstances and with that knowledge, then you're a war criminal.
Where exactly does that logic break down?
8 comments:
The logic is simple, CC. It stops, however, when it smacks into the base of the pedastal we've managed to put under the armed forces since Afghanistan started. And it directly challenges the professed nobility of the mission and the institution. It is a terribly unpalatable situation, and so far even our news media is afraid to touch it. It makes things like soldiers' highways, yellow ribbons, red fridays, coffins on planes, seem fraudulent in an infidelitous sort of way.
If the truth comes to light about Afghanistan, it spells the end of our participation in that conflict, and severe consequences for the Canadian Forces as, even if members escape war crimes charges, favourable public perception will plummet, and that will be reflected in future budgets and white papers.
However, we reap what we sow.
"That would be the CBC's Suhana Meharchand, asking an on-topic and explosive question, then in the same breath telling John McCallum she doesn't want an answer. If there's any way she could have been more appalling and pathetic as an interviewer, it doesn't come to mind at the moment."
Ignorant, cackling Meharchand when told in a March 9/2009 interview with an NGO working in Haiti that the average daily wage was one US dollar displayed her profound ignorance by arguing that one US dollar in Haiti was "relative" implying that one US dollar was somehow adequate for the poorest people in the western hemisphere to survive on.
There was a discussion on The Current last week about the creeping conflation of militarism with patriotism. Desmond Morton was putting the blame squarely on the Harper Conservatives, who learned from their Republican masters that there's no better tool in the demagogic arsenal for mobilising the base and putting the critics on the defensive. It's particularly useful for a military conflict that's poorly understood and, more importantly, does not really represent the kind of threat most us would agree a military is designed to protect us against.
The wingnuts can vilify their adversaries so easily when discussing this precisely because the stakes are *so low.*
The television media is, of course, as pathetic as usual.
I mean, it's not like Bocanut is going to get his American-babe-on-the-beach-shagging wang shot off in Afghanistan anytime soon.
My understanding is that in a situation like this, where Canadian soldiers are not actually carrying out the torture, then "following orders" is a legitimate defense.
So then the war criminals are not the soldiers, but the ones giving the orders.
" Ti-Guy said...
I mean, it's not like Bocanut is going to get his American-babe-on-the-beach-shagging wang shot off in Afghanistan anytime soon.
12:30 PM"
That's it?
Pathetic.
Well, give me more to work with, you middle-aged, dateless loser.
Bi-Guy,
Congratulations!!!
The first step towards recovery is to admit you need help.
Post a Comment