Comments on: Expert on laws of war says that war crimes may have been committed by Canadian officials

By: Scott Tribe

Scott Tribe — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:30:55 +0000

@KC, How about we start with getting our system up to the standards of the British and Dutch forces?

(Colvin) said unlike the British and Dutch, Canada did not monitor their conditions; took days, weeks or months to notify the Red Cross; kept poor records; and to prevent scrutiny, the Canadian Forces leadership concealed this behind "walls of secrecy."

Regardless if we have done so already or not, this is about investigating whether Canadian officials in the past were complicit in torture by looking the other way or erecting a "wall of silence" towards Afghan policy. So, I think your question is off the mark a bit and not dealing with the issue at hand -- who ignored Colvin's warnings, and how far up the chain of command did this go?

By: Mark Francis

Mark Francis — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:09:03 +0000

@KC, From http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/many-detainees-were-just-farmers-afghan-official-says/article1372428/ :

The chief of Afghanistan’s notorious intelligence agency told Canada in April of 2007 that he had no idea how many of the prisoners handed over to him by rank-and-file Canadian soldiers were in fact Taliban or just local farmers, according to a memo written by diplomat whistleblower Richard Colvin for his Ottawa superiors.

Mr. Colvin delivered shocking testimony this week in Ottawa that has put the Conservative government on the defensive, spurred calls for a full-blown public inquiry and made senior bureaucrats scramble to explain themselves. He said all the detainees Canadians turned over to Afghan authorities were tortured. The memo suggests that most turned out to be of little value.

In fact, Amrullah Saleh, chief of Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security, told Canadians most prisoners were later released – meaning they weren’t likely high-value captures, according to the memo.

By: KC

KC — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:28:55 +0000

Ok so Canadian-run POW camps is the answer. What do we do with them when we pull out in 2011?

By: Mark Francis

Mark Francis — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:55:15 +0000

@KC, “I simply don’t know what the answer is.”

Hmmm… oh, oh, I know the answer… we do what we are supposed to do: humanely imprison them and process them. Those who are dangerous are held.

Or, maybe this is a huge hint that we simply don’t belong there at all?

By: Mark Francis

Mark Francis — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:51:42 +0000

@Steve Mason, In other words, Steve Mason believes it is okay to torture people, and that the Conservative Party supports that.

He also believes in conviction without trial and giving brutal punishment.

On the upside, he still believes in voting.

By: KC

KC — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:59:13 +0000

Scott – I ask you with complete sincerity what you think Canada should do with captured Taliban. Assuming we can’t actually trust the Afghan government not to torture detainees what do we do with them? Set them free in Afghanistan only to have them return to the battlefield and keep killing Canadian soldiers and Afghan civilians? Set them free in Canada? Bring them back to Canada and indefinitely detain them without charge or trial (because really there is nothing under Canadian law that can be used against them)? Create Canadian run POW camps in Afghanistan and hold them until the ‘war’ is ‘over’ (if the war ever ends)?

I simply don’t know what the answer is.

By: croghan27

croghan27 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:55:36 +0000

“Citing this article is about as usefull as citing Jack Layton as an independent expert on the economy.”

Seems to me it was the current Minister of Finance who, less than a year ago, brought in a “what, me worry” budget, ignoring the international economy going to hell in a hand cart (that almost sank his government). So, yes – consulting Layton on the economy makes a lot more sense than the flaming incompetent now in place.

By: Roll Tide

Roll Tide — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:41:35 +0000

Byers is about as third party as Ezra Levant.

By: Reid

Reid — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:27:14 +0000

Citing this article is about as usefull as citing Jack Layton as an independent expert on the economy.

Here’s what the Ubysee editorial board thinks of Byers:

We’re Tired Of Byers
Our View

Last week, UBC political science professor, failed NDP Candidate, and media gadfly Michael Byers went on a hunger strike as part of the 2010 Homelessness Hunger Strike Relay. When we heard the news, virtually every member of The Ubyssey editorial staff winced. And not just because it was a self-serving media stunt that reeked of martyrdom and did little to serve the actual cause of homelessness. Since he arrived on campus in 2004, we’ve seen, heard, and written more about Byers than is merited given his accomplishments—how ever impressive they might be. He’s written many a book, comes off as incredibly thoughtful in interviews, and people who take his classes generally have nice things to say. That’s the case with a lot of academics though—and we don’t see many thrusting themselves into the public spotlight with the gusto Byers does.

But Byers isn’t an academic at this point; he’s a politician. He ran for the NDP last election, he plans to run again for them in the next election and he’s ready to criticize the Harper government about anything at the drop of a dime. Except he—and reporters who use him for his good quotes and pretty face—still refer to him as an “in ternational law expert,” even when he’s talking about the Olympics, the economic crisis, or any other subject that has nothing to do with international law. An academic imparts his learned knowledge on an issue, and a politicians promotes himself and his particular views. With Byers, the line is certainly blurred. At this point, whenever he publicly promotes a cause, it’s difficult to tell: is he promoting an important issue, or is he promoting Michael Byers and the NDP?

We know that even though his actual job is a UBC professor, UBC students aren’t exactly his first priority. After all, this past semester plenty of graduate students signed up for his class on global politics, but when they got to their first class, he told them that due to the upcoming election the class would be cancelled. He then proceeded to tell them why he was running, why students should vote for him, and, by the way, if anyone wanted to volunteer for him, that would be super awesome. Not exactly a humble display from the socially conscious professor.

All of which has led us to conclude the following: we’re tired of Byers; tired of talking about him, tired of hearing about him, and tired of his pseudo-self promotion. Michael Byers, we’re taking a cue from Stephen Colbert: you’re on notice.

By: the rat

the rat — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:31:56 +0000

Yeah, he’s a third party to you because he supports your view. The fact that he was and likely will be a candidate for the NDP and has publicly called for a “truce” between NDP and Liberals where each would not run candidates against the other in selected ridings, well, that has no bearing whatsoever on this, I’m sure. Nor does the fact that much of this took place under Liberal stewardship matter, it seems. But more to the point it’s same old-same old for our Liberal friends who support the army on Nov. 11th and the rest of the year do everything to undermine it.