babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Canadian forces still handing prisoners over to killers

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Canadian forces still handing prisoners over to killers
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 24 March 2006 03:23 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Canada to hand over suspects to Kabul

quote:
"[Gen.] Hillier is placing rank-and-file Canadian troops, unwittingly, in the position of very likely being accessories to torture and, therefore, war criminals under international and Canadian law," Amir Attaran, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, said. Today, Prof. Attaran will host a symposium on whether Canada's military is "complicit in torture in Afghanistan."

..."There continued to be instances in which security and factional forces committed extrajudicial killings and torture. Torture and abuse consisted of pulling out fingernails and toenails, burning with hot oil, sexual humiliation and sodomy," the U.S. State Department said in assessing its Afghan ally this month.

The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission found that "torture continues to take place as a routine part of police procedures."

...The Defence Department refused to release the text of the agreement, which it said cannot be made public without the agreement of the Afghan government.

"To clarify, the arrangement in question is not a [secret] treaty between two countries, but rather a non-legally binding arrangement," wrote Emma Trussel, director of media operations and issues management.


Note the 'not a secret treaty'...they just can't tell us what it is.

So the question of whether the prisoners go to the US, or Afghani, authorities is more or less moot. Both engage in torture and killings.

I suggest that someone with the wherewithal consider charging Hillier with war crimes. It's time.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 24 March 2006 03:35 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
Note the 'not a secret treaty'...they just can't tell us what it is.

The very sentence you quote tells us what it is. It's a "non-legally binding arrangement", not a "treaty". The use of square brackets (ie: "[secret]") generally means that the person being quoted didn't actually say that word.

Regardless of whether it's a treaty or just an arrangement, and regardless of whether the terms are released or not, it's of serious concern that Canadian's may be turning people over to face torture.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Grape
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12275

posted 24 March 2006 04:07 PM      Profile for Grape     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This seems a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. If we hand over prisoners to the US, everyone gets upset. If we hand over prisoners to the Afghani government, everyone gets upset.

If we detained the prisoners ourselves, I'm sure everyone would get as equally upset and start screaming about "Canadian imperialism and oppression".

Where, exactly, should these prisoners be going?


From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 24 March 2006 04:09 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Home. Along with Canadian soldiers.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grape
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12275

posted 24 March 2006 04:24 PM      Profile for Grape     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Home. Along with Canadian soldiers.

We should send the prisoners home? What if they're foreign and will face torture in their respective countries? Then everyone will just get upset again and accuse us of being accomplices to torture. Like I said - damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Yanking out our troops is one option, but I'd wager the bloodbath that would follow would upset everyone just as much. The pro-withdrawl side would likely be the first ones up in arms, screaming about how we shouldn't have abandoned the Afgahni people.


From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Staznie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11952

posted 24 March 2006 04:30 PM      Profile for Staznie        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Home. Along with Canadian soldiers.

Why should we do what you want. Every soldier who I've ever talked to over there, wanted to be there.


From: No longer in Hamilton | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 March 2006 04:35 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grape:

We should send the prisoners home? What if they're foreign and will face torture in their respective countries? Then everyone will just get upset again and accuse us of being accomplices to torture. Like I said - damned if you do, damned if you don't.


How about: Just kill everyone, take no prisoners?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 24 March 2006 04:36 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then they should pay for their own ticket and live off the goodwill of their Afghani guests. Why shoud my tax dollars pay for what they want to do?
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 March 2006 04:36 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Staznie:
Why should we do what you want. Every soldier who I've ever talked to over there, wanted to be there.

If they are there voluntarily (I didn't realize that - I thought they had been sent there), then I think they should pay for their own rescue.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 24 March 2006 04:38 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post
I am still waiting for a description of who the enemy in Afghanistan is. Is it Whalid Kharzais enemies, they get tortured according to reports available, what about General Dosthum, he of the opium cartel. Are we fighting his competition in the opium business. Are we fighting the opium farmers who are so poor this is how we fed their families. Who exactly are we fighting?

This is a tribal culture where tribal loyalties and emnities have played out for centuries, so I look forward to someone clearly defining who is the enemy?


From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Staznie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11952

posted 24 March 2006 04:40 PM      Profile for Staznie        Edit/Delete Post
I'll touch that, each Canadian soldier/diplomat over there is worth hundreds of $1000's in training and manpower, the CPT are not worth anything to the country or military. it is the in militaries vested interest to secure any soldiers/diplomats that have been taken hostage.
From: No longer in Hamilton | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 March 2006 04:43 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Staznie:
I'll touch that, each Canadian soldier/diplomat over there is worth hundreds of $1000's in training and manpower, the CPT are not worth anything to the country or military. it is the in militaries vested interest to secure any soldiers/diplomats that have been taken hostage.

I'll make sure to wear expensive jewellery next time I'm taken hostage, so that the great military thinkers like Staznie will be sure to invest in my rescue.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 24 March 2006 04:43 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grape:
This seems a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. If we hand over prisoners to the US, everyone gets upset. If we hand over prisoners to the Afghani government, everyone gets upset.

If we detained the prisoners ourselves, I'm sure everyone would get as equally upset and start screaming about "Canadian imperialism and oppression".

Where, exactly, should these prisoners be going?


Nonetheless, the Third Geneva Convention prohibits us from turning prisoners to power which do not respect the convention, and holds the initial detaining power responsible for their subsequent treatment.

This isn't advisory; this is duly ratified Canadian law, the law of the land since its ratification by the Pearson Government on May 14, 1965.

If we obeying the law is inconvenient, we should have thought of that first, because as signatories to the ICC, Canada's soldiers and commanders are liable for their treatment of prisoners.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grape
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12275

posted 24 March 2006 04:44 PM      Profile for Grape     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

How about: Just kill everyone, take no prisoners?


That's self-defeating in counter-insurgency. And prisoners can provide valuable intelligence.

quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

Nonetheless, the Third Geneva Convention prohibits us from turning prisoners to power which do not respect the convention, and holds the initial detaining power responsible for their subsequent treatment.

This isn't advisory; this is duly ratified Canadian law, the law of the land since its ratification by the Pearson Government on May 14, 1965.

If we obeying the law is inconvenient, we should have thought of that first, because as signatories to the ICC, Canada's soldiers and commanders are liable for their treatment of prisoners.


I'm not saying we shouldn't obey the law. The question is what, exactly, we can do with the prisoners.

As Grizzled Wolf said, there are efforts underway to create facilities in Afghanistan for these prisoners which meet the requirements of the GC.

[ 24 March 2006: Message edited by: Grape ]


From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Staznie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11952

posted 24 March 2006 04:45 PM      Profile for Staznie        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by eau:
I am still waiting for a description of who the enemy in Afghanistan is. Is it Whalid Kharzais enemies, they get tortured according to reports available, what about General Dosthum, he of the opium cartel. Are we fighting his competition in the opium business. Are we fighting the opium farmers who are so poor this is how we fed their families. Who exactly are we fighting?

This is a tribal culture where tribal loyalties and emnities have played out for centuries, so I look forward to someone clearly defining who is the enemy?


Quite simply, there are many enemies, Canada is there to train the afghan army and police so that they can take care of the crime later. We are in a 3 block phase, defense/security, offense ops, and civil military coop. Canada will retain an interest in afghan for a while, bringing progress to the country by reinforcing human rights, humanitarian assistance and national security.


From: No longer in Hamilton | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Staznie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11952

posted 24 March 2006 04:47 PM      Profile for Staznie        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I'll make sure to wear expensive jewellery next time I'm taken hostage, so that the great military thinkers like Staznie will be sure to invest in my rescue.


its cold and callous but its reality.


From: No longer in Hamilton | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 March 2006 04:56 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grape:

As Grizzled Wolf said, there are efforts underway to create facilities in Afghanistan for these prisoners which meet the requirements of the GC.

Grizzled Wolf?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grape
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12275

posted 24 March 2006 04:58 PM      Profile for Grape     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Grizzled Wolf?


Yeah - you were debating with him in a couple of other threads.


From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Wee Mousie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12266

posted 24 March 2006 05:10 PM      Profile for Wee Mousie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"To clarify, the arrangement in question is not a [secret] treaty between two countries, but rather a non-legally binding arrangement," wrote Emma Trussel, director of media operations and issues management.


It must be, in some incoherent bureaucratic way, reassuring to know that the agreement the Defence Department claims cannot be made public, is not a secret agreement, but for me the most encouraging news is that it is not legally binding.

Let us make certain that the agreement’s instructions are never followed.

And let me take one more opportunity to reccommend the viewing (or downloading for later viewing) of The Road To Guantánamo which will be online only until tomorrow, March 25, 2006 at Information Clearing House.


An insight into what may happen to a prisoner turned over to our allies in The War On Terror.

[ 24 March 2006: Message edited by: Wee Mousie ]


From: Mouse Hole | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 24 March 2006 06:27 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post
A major reason Canadian troops are being placed in Afghanistan has to do with the monolithic prison being built there to house many of the people that have been illegally kidnapped and imprisoned by the U.S. government.

It is important to remember that the U.S. government has privatized the detention of these kidnapped people, probably to give them greater deniability when the bushwhacker gang is gone and the crap hits the fan.

As to the abuse being heaped upon this kidnap victims. Everyone should check out the infamous Stanford prison experiment story.

Basically it points out that, when individuals are given unrestrained power and control over others they will invariably be corrupted by the power and become as abusive as they can get away with.prison experiment

[ 24 March 2006: Message edited by: otter ]


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
gunnar gunnarson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8547

posted 24 March 2006 06:38 PM      Profile for gunnar gunnarson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From what I'm reading, the kidnap victims weren't rescued by a bunch of gun-totin', evildoer-smitin' cowboys -- they were ransomed and released. And as for the unhinged nastiness coming at them from some quarters, it seems to me that they're acting in the best Christian tradition -- going amongst the multitudes, naming the invasion and occupation for what it is, and working for peace at great personal risks to themselves. (Admittedly, I don't have first-hand knowledge of Christianity, but the version practiced by Bush, I'll wager, has very little to do with Christ.)

As for what Canadian soldiers are doing in Afghanistan, I'm sure we've all seen the story of the Christian convert sentenced to die by an Islamic court. Good thing we went to war to kick out the Taliban and bring freedom, eh?

Jesus.


From: audra's corner | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grape
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12275

posted 24 March 2006 06:54 PM      Profile for Grape     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by gunnar gunnarson:

As for what Canadian soldiers are doing in Afghanistan, I'm sure we've all seen the story of the Christian convert sentenced to die by an Islamic court. Good thing we went to war to kick out the Taliban and bring freedom, eh?

Jesus.


There's yet another "damned if you do/ damned if you don't" situation. The mission's criticized for being "imperialist", then people cry when we don't dicate laws to the Afghanis.

I recall a thread on the taxi shooting where people were crying about how Afghani law is paramount and that the soldier should be subjected to Afghani law. Now that someone's being subjected to Afghani law, everyone's up in arms about how we're letting it happen.

"Jesus" is right. Apparently the objectors don't know whether to shit or go blind. They're "anti-imperialist" one second, and pro-imperialist the next. About the only constant is the compaining itself.


From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
gunnar gunnarson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8547

posted 24 March 2006 07:03 PM      Profile for gunnar gunnarson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grape:

There's yet another "damned if you do/ damned if you don't" situation. The mission's criticized for being "imperialist", then people cry when we don't dicate laws to the Afghanis.

I recall a thread on the taxi shooting where people were crying about how Afghani law is paramount and that the soldier should be subjected to Afghani law. Now that someone's being subjected to Afghani law, everyone's up in arms about how we're letting it happen.

"Jesus" is right. Apparently the objectors don't know whether to shit or go blind. They're "anti-imperialist" one second, and pro-imperialist the next. About the only constant is the compaining itself.



So it's not really about spreading freedom around the world, then? Oh, I'm shocked.

I guess according to your way of thinking, then, it's OK to install and support thugs as long as they play ball? As long as Bush and friends have access to gas fields, pipeline rights-of-way and real estate for the establishment of military bases, it doesn't matter that their local clients are vicious bastards? I guess we're supposed to just shut up and salute then.

No, Harpoon's doing even better -- he's flying halfway around the world to demonstrate how eager he is to be Bush's bumboy and then telling us we can't even have a discussion about it. I guess you think this is a good thing, then.


From: audra's corner | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 March 2006 07:08 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grape:

There's yet another "damned if you do/ damned if you don't" situation. The mission's criticized for being "imperialist", then people cry when we don't dicate laws to the Afghanis.


Your logic is dying and you're making up stories. We must not dictate laws to the Afghanis. That is your own nightmare. We must leave. And the minute we do, the Lego-Government in Kabul will fall.

quote:
I recall a thread on the taxi shooting where people were crying about how Afghani law is paramount and that the soldier should be subjected to Afghani law. Now that someone's being subjected to Afghani law, everyone's up in arms about how we're letting it happen.

Nonsense. Link to it or hold your peace. The discussion was that anyone who kills a person in Afghanistan is subject to Afghan law as well as international law. Your comrades-in-logic said, "Oh no, they are only subject to their own ROE." That was the discussion. Not what you concoct.

quote:
"Jesus" is right.

Yes, Jesus was right. He went where cowards feared to tread and paid the penalty for it. He was handed over to the Americans, and there was no one to save him. Today, we've come a long way.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grape
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12275

posted 24 March 2006 08:09 PM      Profile for Grape     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Nonsense. Link to it or hold your peace. The discussion was that anyone who kills a person in Afghanistan is subject to Afghan law as well as international law. Your comrades-in-logic said, "Oh no, they are only subject to their own ROE." That was the discussion. Not what you concoct.


From the other thread

quote:
Originally posted by rici:

The theory here is that Canada is trying to help Afghanistan return to (or build) the rule of law; rejecting out of hand the application of Afghani law does not seem like a particularly good way to do so.


quote:
Originally posted by Maestro:

Wow!. Lets see, we're trying to establish the rule of law by operating in such a way that we can't follow the rule of law.


So, getting back to the Christian charged for converting, shouldn't we be respecting Afghani law?

quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Yes, Jesus was right. He went where cowards feared to tread and paid the penalty for it. He was handed over to the Americans, and there was no one to save him. Today, we've come a long way.[/QB]


Jesus was delusional. Well intentioned, perhaps, but delusional. I'm not quite clear here, though - are you equating Jesus to the prisoners in question?

quote:
Originally posted by gunnar gunnarson:

So it's not really about spreading freedom around the world, then? Oh, I'm shocked.


When did I ever argue that?

quote:
I guess according to your way of thinking, then, it's OK to install and support thugs as long as they play ball? As long as Bush and friends have access to gas fields, pipeline rights-of-way and real estate for the establishment of military bases, it doesn't matter that their local clients are vicious bastards? I guess we're supposed to just shut up and salute then.

Again - where did I say that? The Afghani government should be elected.

quote:
No, Harpoon's doing even better -- he's flying halfway around the world to demonstrate how eager he is to be Bush's bumboy and then telling us we can't even have a discussion about it. I guess you think this is a good thing, then.

The no-debate thing? I don't know where I stand on that - I'm torn between both sides.


From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Wee Mousie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12266

posted 24 March 2006 08:59 PM      Profile for Wee Mousie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The West (Bush Cabal) demanded democracy in the Middle East, but as soon as Jordan democratically elects Hamas, the West tried to blackmail their new government with threats of stopping aid payments.

The West urged Afghanis to set up a new government based upon a formal set of laws, agreed that those laws may be the Islamic shari'a law codes, then, when that law demanded an unwanted penalty for a unpopular law, the West pressured them to break their own law.

It is my impression that, in the end, Abdul Rahman will be pardoned for his crime of apostasy, when it is concluded that his conversion to Christianity was due to mentally defect.

When it comes to intrigue, it seems that the US Administration is still Bush league.

[ 24 March 2006: Message edited by: Wee Mousie ]


From: Mouse Hole | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 March 2006 09:03 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grape:
This seems a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. If we hand over prisoners to the US, everyone gets upset. If we hand over prisoners to the Afghani government, everyone gets upset.

If we detained the prisoners ourselves, I'm sure everyone would get as equally upset and start screaming about "Canadian imperialism and oppression".

Where, exactly, should these prisoners be going?


The difference though is that Canada has signed the charter of the ICC, and the US has not. This means that Canadian soldiers might be held personally liable for war crimes committed by act or ommission, should Canada not investigate such allegations itself.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 24 March 2006 09:12 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grape:

There's yet another "damned if you do/ damned if you don't" situation. The mission's criticized for being "imperialist", then people cry when we don't dicate laws to the Afghanis.

I recall a thread on the taxi shooting where people were crying about how Afghani law is paramount and that the soldier should be subjected to Afghani law. Now that someone's being subjected to Afghani law, everyone's up in arms about how we're letting it happen.

"Jesus" is right. Apparently the objectors don't know whether to shit or go blind. They're "anti-imperialist" one second, and pro-imperialist the next. About the only constant is the compaining itself.


This is just plain old sophistry.

Yes, the mission is imperialist. There is no contradiction between calling the mission imperialist, and demanding the end of the mission.

The problem with the poor Christian soul who faces the death penalty is that the government and legal authority he faces is supported by the Canadian forces.

Again, there is no contradiction in suggesting that legal system is faulty, and the demand that Canadian troops be returned home.

If all we are doing is supporting a legal system with which we do not agree, then why are we there?

The objection to the Afghani law that allows the death penalty for Christian conversion is not 'pro-imperialist', the objection is that Canadian troops are supporting the law.

Yet more sophistry from 'the grey':

quote:
The very sentence you quote tells us what it is. It's a "non-legally binding arrangement", not a "treaty". The use of square brackets (ie: "[secret]") generally means that the person being quoted didn't actually say that word.

Right. It's not secret and it's not a treaty. It's an 'arrangement', the details of which cannot be made public without the consent of the Afghanistan government.

You might want to explain how it is that a legally 'non-binding' 'arrangement' prevents the Canadian government from revealing the terms of said non-secret, non-treaty 'arrangement.

Then there's Grape, weighing in with the utterly predictable 'damned if you do, damned if you dont' excuse for logic.

If in fact there is no acceptable alternative, which there isn't, the obvious answer is to not take prisoners. That is completely compatible with the demand the troops be returned home.

If we must turn over prisoners to torturers and thugs, then what are we doing there? Obviously we've taken sides in a dispute wherein we have no business.

Grape goes further and says if we remove our troops " the bloodbath that would follow would upset everyone just as much."

This is precisely the excuse used by imperialists of all times. It is utterly bigotted, and reeks of the 'white man's burden' school of British imperialism.

I'll just point out that people have been living in Afghanistan for thousands of years, and have maintained a culture through many invasions.

They will maintain their culture through the current invasion.

If we want to help Afghanis, we should be standing with them against the US troops. Ridding Afghanistan of US criminals would be a concrete step in helping them develop a peaceful and secure future.

As long as we stand with the torturers and murders of the US, we are complicit, not only in war crimes, but in ensuring the death and destruction continues.

Canadian troops out of Afghanistan!


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 24 March 2006 09:28 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Afghani drug trade came up in another thread. Here is an article worth reading.

Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade

quote:
In the wake of the 2001 US bombing of Afghanistan, the British government of Tony Blair was entrusted by the G-8 Group of leading industrial nations to carry out a drug eradication program, which would, in theory, allow Afghan farmers to switch out of poppy cultivation into alternative crops. The British were working out of Kabul in close liaison with the US DEA's "Operation Containment".

The UK sponsored crop eradication program is an obvious smokescreen. Since October 2001, opium poppy cultivation has skyrocketed.

The presence of occupation forces in Afghanistan did not result in the eradication of poppy cultivation. Quite the opposite.

...As revealed in the Iran-Contra and Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) scandals, CIA covert operations in support of the Afghan Mujahideen had been funded through the laundering of drug money. "Dirty money" was recycled --through a number of banking institutions (in the Middle East) as well as through anonymous CIA shell companies--, into "covert money," used to finance various insurgent groups during the Soviet-Afghan war, and its aftermath

...US foreign policy supports the workings of a thriving criminal economy in which the demarcation between organized capital and organized crime has become increasingly blurred.

The heroin business is not "filling the coffers of the Taliban" as claimed by US government and the international community: quite the opposite! The proceeds of this illegal trade are the source of wealth formation, largely reaped by powerful business/criminal interests within the Western countries. These interests are sustained by US foreign policy.

Decision-making in the US State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon is instrumental in supporting this highly profitable multibillion dollar trade, third in commodity value after oil and the arms trade.

The Afghan drug economy is "protected".

The heroin trade was part of the war agenda. What this war has achieved is to restore a compliant narco-State, headed by a US appointed puppet.


These are the interests we're protecting in our Afghanistan 'mission'.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 24 March 2006 09:28 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
maestro

Are you a member of MAWO?


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 24 March 2006 09:32 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
maestro

Are you a member of MAWO?


No. Nor am I a member of any political party, or political organization. (I had to google MAWO to find out what it was.)

I guess I am just a 'concerned individual'.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 24 March 2006 09:38 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
maestro

I was just wondering because I saw that you are from Vancouver and MAWO is based in Vancouver.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 24 March 2006 09:53 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What Webgear FD not enough fun for you? Tsk tsk, trash talking babble and then strolling back here anyway? No class.
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 24 March 2006 10:03 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Scout

What are you talking about? I have talked on several forums including FD, which I havent talked on in a few months now.

[ 24 March 2006: Message edited by: Webgear ]


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 24 March 2006 10:06 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, come on Webgear, I read your work over at the dark site.

quote:
I have talked on several forums including FD, which I havent talked on in a few months now.

Does that change what you said some how?

[ 24 March 2006: Message edited by: Scout ]


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 24 March 2006 10:11 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And what did I say that was so upsetting to you.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 24 March 2006 10:36 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Staznie:
Every soldier who I've ever talked to over there, wanted to be there.

So what? I know lots of soldiers who wanted to fight, many of them not caring who the fight was against or why. Any fight was better than no fight. I am sure a lot of members of the Waffen SS wanted to be doing what they were doing too. Doesn't have much to do one way or the other with the merits of the operation.

The problem with gauging things by what soldiers want or don't want is that their attitudes are influenced from the top down (been there, done that) so one can expect that normally they will generally reflect the official line on what they are doing. When they do not you know things are truly in deep, deep doo doo.


quote:

Grape:
This seems a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. If we hand over prisoners to the US, everyone gets upset. If we hand over prisoners to the Afghani government, everyone gets upset.

If we were smart we would not be there taking prisoners to start with, but since we are our SOP should absolutely prohibit turning them over to or even cooperating with any one that does not adhere to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to the Geneva Convention, and recognize that insurgents, despite GWB's fantasies, are to be treated under this convention. And, it should be a strictly adhered to policy not to work with or cooperate with any power that has not signed the ICC and has not recognized its authority.

After WWII we set out on a course to create a better world for all of us and from that has come the UDHR and ICC along with other agreements. Somewhere between then and now governments such as the current one in the US have set about destroying all of those advancements. We should be resisting that rather than assisting it.

In the small view individual events in Afghanistan may look very progressive and productive, especially to those too close to the action to see much more, but in the greater view this adventure is a mistake.

quote:

Staznie
Quite simply, there are many enemies, Canada is there to train the afghan army and police so that they can take care of the crime later.

Yep, like rounding up Christians and blasphemers and hanging them. By putting these guys in power we are equally responsible. Part of any agreement for Canadian support should be the revocation by the Afghan government of all laws that contravene the UDHR, and the formal recognition that secular law is supreme to religious fantasies, Islam included.

quote:

Maestro
The Afghani drug trade came up in another thread. Here is an article worth reading.

Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade


Aw, Maestro, who would want to believe that we are putting our troops at risk to protect drug lords and huge transnational business organizations?

For more info surrounding the Rahman case:

[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_%28convert%29][/URL]


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 24 March 2006 10:38 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, I'm not upset, nice try. I just think it's rich after your whining you come back here anyway. You know where everyone knows everything but nothing really, especially about the military like you do. Blah blah sour grapes cakes.
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 March 2006 11:06 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's leave FD on FD. If he behaves himself here, I don't really care what he posts there. If he acts like a jerk here and brags about it over there, that's different. Then contact a moderator.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 24 March 2006 11:14 PM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grape:
I'm not saying we shouldn't obey the law. The question is what, exactly, we can do with the prisoners.

As Grizzled Wolf said, there are efforts underway to create facilities in Afghanistan for these prisoners which meet the requirements of the GC.


According to the Nuremberg Trials, Canadians along with Americans are currently committing war crimes punishable by death.

The US is operating Concentration Camps holding hundreds - possibly thousands - of innocent people without charge or trial until their natural (or unnatural) death, and the world is not outraged.

The US is training and directing Death Squads who go out all over Iraq, killing hundreds of civilians in order to subdue the Iraqis by fear and terrorism, like Carter and Reagon did in El Salvador. Where is the outrage?

There is no civil war in Iraq, but there are attempts at creating one, in order to get Iraqis to fight themselves instead of the occupation. There are still over 100,000 Terrorists in Iraq, and the Resistance is fighting them and winning. These terrorists bombed the Shia Shrine. Those terrorists plant bombs to blow up civilians. Those terrorists carpet bomb and drop napalm and phosphorus bombs and burn men, women and children to death. Those terrorists torture people, and our military helps the terrorists try to achieve their goals.

Those terrorists and their terrorist master minds in Washington deserve to be tried and hung by the neck until dead, but nobody - not even the farce of the International Criminal Court which selectively dishes out victors-'justice' in the Hague will touch them.

What an abuse of our military for evil purposes.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 24 March 2006 11:25 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
At some point in this discussion we must recognize a distinction. One may completely agree that America has instigated and aggrieved the situation in Afghanistan and elsewhere, that the CIA is pulling strings behind the scenes, that American imperialism is scary and awful and must be opposed, and still end up in support of Canada's mission in Afghanistan. It is intellectually dishonest for those who oppose Canada's Afghanistan commitments to argue that those who come to different conclusions must be witting or unwitting supporters of the Bush crime family. Can we begin by making this distinction?

Those who are most prone to think that Canadian foreign policy is always hostage to American foreign policy don't have enough faith in their government (even under Steven Harper) and don't have a good grasp of the thinking that Canadian civil servants and strategists have put into the question of how to genuinely help people in places like Aghanistan, how to strengthen a regime of international law, and how to counter-balance and oppose when necessary, the worst impulses of our neighbour to the south.

Finally, the security dimension. We would all do well to remember that the primary reason we are in Afghanistan is to deny operational and training bases to al Qaeda.


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 24 March 2006 11:26 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Red Albertan:
The US is operating Concentration Camps holding hundreds - possibly thousands - of innocent people without charge or trial until their natural (or unnatural) death, and the world is not outraged.

The US is training and directing Death Squads who go out all over Iraq, killing hundreds of civilians in order to subdue the Iraqis by fear and terrorism, like Carter and Reagon did in El Salvador. Where is the outrage?.


I'm outraged, RA. I think that CIA terrorist training schools at Fort Benning, Virginia make al Qaeda schools for terror look like kindergartens. Yes, the Pinochet security forces were trained in terror and running concentration camps as students at the SOA. A number of Latin American cabinets were graduates of the SOA. And the Yanks rigged elections all over the world, from the Diem "victory" in S. Vietnam to the assassination of Allende, dethroning Maurice Bishop and election rigging throughout Central America and Carribe.

And now they want our people to help them install a despot in Afghanistan for the sake of corporate America's access to vast oil and gas deposits in Asia. Canada out of Afghanistan.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 24 March 2006 11:34 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Finally, the security dimension. We would all do well to remember that the primary reason we are in Afghanistan is to deny operational and training bases to al Qaeda.

Brett, would the shadow gov really have this on the agenda ?. I mean, there's evidence all over the place that the original al Qaeda leaders were trained in terrorist methods at places like Fort Benning in Virginia with recruits pulled from Islamic schools inside the United States. The Yanks don't seem to mind Cuban ex-pats plotting terror against Cuba from bases in Florida. I have a really hard time digesting anything that says the Yanks are interested in stopping terrorism, I really do.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Staznie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11952

posted 24 March 2006 11:36 PM      Profile for Staznie        Edit/Delete Post
oh you know they are all innocent do ya?
From: No longer in Hamilton | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 March 2006 11:38 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ahh yes! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Everyone is guilty thus. Sad.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Staznie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11952

posted 24 March 2006 11:38 PM      Profile for Staznie        Edit/Delete Post
If it walks like a duck....
From: No longer in Hamilton | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 24 March 2006 11:39 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that theCuban Five are innocent, yes.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 24 March 2006 11:39 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[to hell with it]

[ 24 March 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
gunnar gunnarson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8547

posted 24 March 2006 11:41 PM      Profile for gunnar gunnarson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Staznie:
oh you know they are all innocent do ya?

Whose innocence are you having such terrible doubts about? And aren't people supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, anyway?


From: audra's corner | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Staznie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11952

posted 24 March 2006 11:43 PM      Profile for Staznie        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by gunnar gunnarson:

Whose innocence are you having such terrible doubts about? And aren't people supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, anyway?



in a perfect world, but when your dealing with these suicidal ticking time bombs its better to err on the side of caution and force them to sleep on nice mattresses and feed them three times a day.

From: No longer in Hamilton | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 24 March 2006 11:57 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Brett Mann
At some point in this discussion we must recognize a distinction. One may completely agree that America has instigated and aggrieved the situation in Afghanistan and elsewhere, that the CIA is pulling strings behind the scenes, that American imperialism is scary and awful and must be opposed, and still end up in support of Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

Yes, but that conclusion would be based on a termination of the logic process before all issues are adequately considered.

The mission in Afghanistan is not Canada's, it is the US'. Canada is a tool serving the US mission. In effect then, unless we set out separate ground rules that in this case would put us at odds with many US goals there, and declare our independence from the US mission, we are acting in support of the very things that we agree must be opposed. An exercise in shooting our own feet, eh?

quote:

Those who are most prone to think that Canadian foreign policy is always hostage to American foreign policy don't have enough faith in their government

True

quote:

and don't have a good grasp of the thinking that Canadian civil servants and strategists have put into the question of how to genuinely help people in places like Aghanistan, how to strengthen a regime of international law, and how to counter-balance and oppose when necessary, the worst impulses of our neighbour to the south.

Not necessariyly true. This presumes that their ultimate goal is helping people in places like Afganistan rather than pursuing the interests of the economic class that bankrolls the politicians.

quote:

We would all do well to remember that the primary reason we are in Afghanistan is to deny operational and training bases to al Qaeda.

Who is we? If anyone truly believes that they either haven't done enough research yet or don't understand the data. Send them my way, I can make them a deal on the Lions Gate Bridge.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Staznie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11952

posted 25 March 2006 12:02 AM      Profile for Staznie        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry West:

Who is we? If anyone truly believes that they either haven't done enough research yet or don't understand the data. Send them my way,


Wow, you must be brilliant or have some pretty good contacts, because I just got back from the 'stan and i could of sworn thats what we were doing. but then again i'm just a stupid canadian soldier who just blindly goes where i'm told.


From: No longer in Hamilton | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 25 March 2006 12:05 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
i'm just a stupid canadian soldier who just blindly goes where i'm told.

Who is arguing with him? When he's right, he's right. Get over it.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
gunnar gunnarson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8547

posted 25 March 2006 12:06 AM      Profile for gunnar gunnarson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Staznie:

in a perfect world, but when your dealing with these suicidal ticking time bombs its better to err on the side of caution and force them to sleep on nice mattresses and feed them three times a day.

Wow. In one sentence you've managed to dehumanize people, suggest that they're so far beneath us that we needn't bother trying to distinguish guilty from innocent, blow off the whole notion of due process, gloss over unpleasant little realities like torture, and somehow assume an uncanny ability to divine just who's a 'suicidal ticking time bomb' and who isn't.

Have you no moral sense whatsoever?


From: audra's corner | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Staznie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11952

posted 25 March 2006 12:08 AM      Profile for Staznie        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Who is arguing with him? When he's right, he's right. Get over it.


its not him, its her. and i recommend you touch up on the use of rhetorical and satirical devices.


From: No longer in Hamilton | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 25 March 2006 12:09 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What do you mean rhetorical and satirical devices?

When you said "i'm just a stupid canadian soldier who just blindly goes where i'm told" inferring you were dumb as a post you really meant the opposite? As smart as a post?

[ 25 March 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Staznie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11952

posted 25 March 2006 12:17 AM      Profile for Staznie        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by gunnar gunnarson:

Wow. In one sentence you've managed to dehumanize people, suggest that they're so far beneath us that we needn't bother trying to distinguish guilty from innocent, blow off the whole notion of due process, gloss over unpleasant little realities like torture, and somehow assume an uncanny ability to divine just who's a 'suicidal ticking time bomb' and who isn't.

Have you no moral sense whatsoever?


wow you have quite the imagination to read all that. and i guess you believe that the US is holding these guys arbitrarily without ANY valid reason, MAN thats naive. how could i possibly argue with the likes of that.


From: No longer in Hamilton | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 25 March 2006 12:24 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Staznie:
wow you have quite the imagination to read all that. and i guess you believe that the US is holding these guys arbitrarily without ANY valid reason, MAN thats naive. how could i possibly argue with the likes of that.

But the US is holding lots of people arbitrarily without any valid reason, at Guamtanamo Bay for one.

And besides, he's right. You yourself said (on another thread) that sometimes laws have to be broken if they "shield tyrants." Well, who do you think suffers when laws are broken by those who are supposed to enforce them? Not the tyrants, typically. Little people, ordinary people.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 March 2006 12:25 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Staznie:
If it walks like a duck....

What?! Who walks like a duck? What do you mean? They wear beards, farm sheep, speak a funny language, and arm themselves cause the country is filled with bandits and extrajudicial slaughter so they are terrorists. Is that what you mean?

[ 25 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
gunnar gunnarson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8547

posted 25 March 2006 12:26 AM      Profile for gunnar gunnarson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Staznie:

wow you have quite the imagination to read all that. and i guess you believe that the US is holding these guys arbitrarily without ANY valid reason, MAN thats naive. how could i possibly argue with the likes of that.


What, you mean the US is engaging in arbitrary detention? Bombing the shit out of people and rationalizing away the civilian deaths as "collateral damage?" Making up the law as they go along? Torturing people? Declaring people to be "unlawful combatants" so they can be held without recourse to the Geneva Conventions? Guantanamo?

Poor naive me. I guess I must have imagined it all then.

I don't know what's worse, cynically going along with all this or actually believing it. You must be disappointed that you didn't get to do a tour at Abu Ghraib.

[ 25 March 2006: Message edited by: gunnar gunnarson ]


From: audra's corner | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 25 March 2006 12:26 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Finally, the security dimension. We would all do well to remember that the primary reason we are in Afghanistan is to deny operational and training bases to al Qaeda.

You never quit repeating this - as if repetition creates truth - and you have never complied with any request for proof.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 25 March 2006 12:27 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Staznie:
wow you have quite the imagination to read all that. and i guess you believe that the US is holding these guys arbitrarily without ANY valid reason, MAN thats naive. how could i possibly argue with the likes of that.

Very unfortunately, we know all too well that the US rounded up people arbritarily, in house to house searches, because they happened to be driving a taxi cab, because they happened to be transiting through JFK airport, because they happened to be in Afghanistan...

The death of Dilawar in Bagram is not unique:

quote:
Dilawar, died on December 10 2002, was a 22-year-old Afghan taxi driver and farmer who weighed 122 pounds and was described by his interpreters as neither violent nor aggressive.

Sorry Staznie, it must be a little overwhelming for you with many of us refuting your points; it doesn't mean a lack of respect or unwillingness to listen


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 25 March 2006 12:28 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Staznie:
If it walks like a duck....

....shoot it!!


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Staznie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11952

posted 25 March 2006 12:29 AM      Profile for Staznie        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by 'lance:

But the US is holding lots of people arbitrarily without any valid reason, at Guamtanamo Bay for one.


your opinion not the US's.

quote:
And besides, he's right. You yourself said (on another thread) that sometimes laws have to be broken if they "shield tyrants." Well, who do you think suffers when laws are broken by those who are supposed to enforce them? Not the tyrants, typically. Little people, ordinary people.

what laws are they breaking? what jurisdiction do they fall under. in war there are POW camps, this is war, they are prisoners. my grandfather was held in a US Pow camp for 7 years without so much as a scratch, he's fine, he doesn't hold anything against the Americans because he knew the drill.


From: No longer in Hamilton | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
gunnar gunnarson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8547

posted 25 March 2006 12:30 AM      Profile for gunnar gunnarson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
mmmmm ... duck confit ...
From: audra's corner | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 25 March 2006 12:30 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Staznie:
Wow, you must be brilliant or have some pretty good contacts, because I just got back from the 'stan and i could of sworn thats what we were doing. but then again i'm just a stupid canadian soldier who just blindly goes where i'm told.

You sure you were authorized to return? You're not on the run, are you?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 25 March 2006 12:33 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

Is that the drill your daddy knew?


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 25 March 2006 12:34 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:

Sorry Staznie, it must be a little overwhelming for you with many of us refuting your points; it doesn't mean a lack of respect or unwillingness to listen


Speak for yourself, siren. Freedom of speech is inherent. Respect and the right to be listened to, are earned. Or not.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
gunnar gunnarson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8547

posted 25 March 2006 12:35 AM      Profile for gunnar gunnarson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
what laws are they breaking? what jurisdiction do they fall under. in war there are POW camps, this is war, they are prisoners.

The whole point, Staz, is that they are not being treated as prisoners of war. Bush and his buddies simply fabricated this classification of so-called "unlawful combatant" precisely so they wouldn't have to treat their captives as PoWs and follow the requirements of the Geneva Conventions.

Either you're in denial or you're being totally disingenuous.


From: audra's corner | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Staznie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11952

posted 25 March 2006 12:35 AM      Profile for Staznie        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:

Sorry Staznie, it must be a little overwhelming for you with many of us refuting your points; it doesn't mean a lack of respect or unwillingness to listen


no apology necessary, like i said before, this is an unwinnable argument for both sides. i just look at the point of view from the president and what he has to do to keep his people safe. it basically comes down to less national security more personal freedoms, or less personal freedoms more NS. it really is tight rope. i happen to be on the security side, this time, because i know i won't be the one going to gitmo. HOWEVER, it doesn't mean i won't change my mind when the americans start locking up blonde haired, blue eyed canadian female soldiers.


From: No longer in Hamilton | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 25 March 2006 12:37 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
your opinion not the US's.

Amnesty's, Human Rights Watch's, the Red Cross's -- which, unusually, went public -- and, oh yes, that of the US Supreme Court. Which said that these men had the right to challenge their detention in US courts. A right which had previously been denied them, and has since been denied them, by various bits of legal chicanery.

quote:
what laws are they breaking?

No-one knows. They haven't been told. Almost none of them have been charged with anything, and some have been held for four years now.

quote:
what jurisdiction do they fall under.

No-one knows that either. Bush and company have consistently argued that they don't fall under the jurisdiction of US courts -- because Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba.

They're in legal limbo. Haven't you been reading the papers these last four years?

quote:
in war there are POW camps, this is war, they are prisoners. my grandfather was held in a US Pow camp for 7 years without so much as a scratch, he's fine, he doesn't hold anything against the Americans because he knew the drill.

But they're not being treated as POWs. The Bush Administration announced just after invading Afghanistan that captured (suspected, accused) Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters wouldn't be accorded the protection of the Geneva Conventions, because they were "terrorists," and didn't fight in uniform. They'd be classed "enemy combatants," and treated in accord with the Geneva Conventions "to the extent compatible with military necessity."

In other words: we can do what we want with them.

These are not mere radical opinions, as you might be tempted to dismiss them (I'm not a radical anyway, at least not as you might understand the word). These are facts attested by liberal-democratic journalists and legal scholars in many countries.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 25 March 2006 12:37 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Staznie:
what laws are they breaking? what jurisdiction do they fall under. in war there are POW camps, this is war, they are prisoners. my grandfather was held in a US Pow camp for 7 years without so much as a scratch, he's fine, he doesn't hold anything against the Americans because he knew the drill.

But the American regime has changed.

quote:
On the day of his death, Dilawar had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.

"A guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.

"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying. Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen.

It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.[2]


[ 25 March 2006: Message edited by: siren ]


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 March 2006 12:37 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

....shoot it!!


Who are chickenhawks who flunked basic training and safe gun handling courses?. Alex ?.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Staznie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11952

posted 25 March 2006 12:40 AM      Profile for Staznie        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by gunnar gunnarson:

The whole point, Staz, is that they are not being treated as prisoners of war. Bush and his buddies simply fabricated this classification of so-called "unlawful combatant" precisely so they wouldn't have to treat their captives as PoWs and follow the requirements of the Geneva Conventions.

Either you're in denial or you're being totally disingenuous.


no i wouldn't say i'm in denial, i think the prisoners in gitmo are being treated just fine, perhaps more humane than they would treat us.


From: No longer in Hamilton | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 25 March 2006 12:41 AM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Staznie
....I just got back from the 'stan and i could of sworn thats what we were doing. but then again i'm just a stupid canadian soldier who just blindly goes where i'm told.

I wouldn't use the word stupid, whether you do things blindly or not I don't know. I do know from a fair amount of experience in these kind of situations that what things look like on the ground, particularly when the appearance is interpreted and reinforced by the command, and what they turn out looking like in retrospect and through a more encompassing lens are often quite different. A few decades studying stuff like this doesn't hurt either.

It is a pretty reasonable conclusion about those responsible for making this policy that they are either ignorant (the benign view), or that what they say we are doing and lead us to believe we are doing is merely a cover story for what is really motivating them.


quote:

....in war there are POW camps, this is war, they are prisoners.

Hmm, prisoners of war are protected by the Geneva Convention, why have the Americans refused to grant this protection to the Islamic warriors? Maybe it is not a war? Maybe it is not even a duck? If it gobbles like a turkey....


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Staznie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11952

posted 25 March 2006 12:42 AM      Profile for Staznie        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:

[ 25 March 2006: Message edited by: siren ]



war sucks and lifes not fair. good night gang.

[ 25 March 2006: Message edited by: Staznie ]


From: No longer in Hamilton | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 25 March 2006 12:42 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Staznie:
oh you know they are all innocent do ya?

Yes. They are innocent. In fact, they are not even as little as charged with a crime. If there were evidence against them, there would be proper court procedures. These men and juveniles are as innocent as the Jews in Hitlers Death Camps.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
gunnar gunnarson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8547

posted 25 March 2006 12:45 AM      Profile for gunnar gunnarson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
i know i won't be the one going to gitmo. HOWEVER, it doesn't mean i won't change my mind when the americans start locking up blonde haired, blue eyed canadian female soldiers.

So you're OK with them locking up a bunch of brown guys with beards and kicking the crap out of them, then. And you don't care whether they're innocent or guilty. You only start caring when they start locking up people with blonde hair and blue eyes.

My, what a wonderful commitment to human rights you have. Do they teach racism and situational ethics to everyone who joins the Canadian military, or do you have to prove you were in the KKK first?

[ 25 March 2006: Message edited by: gunnar gunnarson ]


From: audra's corner | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 25 March 2006 12:48 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
no i wouldn't say i'm in denial, i think the prisoners in gitmo are being treated just fine, perhaps more humane than they would treat us.

Then you're a fool, or wilfully blind, and in either case deserve the nickname "Stasie" someone handed you.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 25 March 2006 12:49 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Staznie:
If it walks like a duck....

Right. If it's brown like a Muslim... that's what you're really saying, isn't it? You stink of racism.

Besides, may I suggest that EVEN IF any of them took up weapon to oppose the Invader, that's still not a crime except in the eyes of the Invader. Those who resisted Hitler in France were justified. Those who resist Canada, Britain and the US in Afghanistan and Iraq are also justified.

Canadian troops out of Afghanistan and Haiti, and Chretien, Graham and Harper to the ICC!


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 25 March 2006 12:50 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by gunnar gunnarson:

Wow. In one sentence you've managed to dehumanize people, suggest that they're so far beneath us that we needn't bother trying to distinguish guilty from innocent, blow off the whole notion of due process, gloss over unpleasant little realities like torture, and somehow assume an uncanny ability to divine just who's a 'suicidal ticking time bomb' and who isn't.

Have you no moral sense whatsoever?


Sometimes my imperfection as a human being becomes obvious to me, when I wish such treatment to befall people like Staznie...


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 25 March 2006 12:53 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Staznie:

wow you have quite the imagination to read all that. and i guess you believe that the US is holding these guys arbitrarily without ANY valid reason, MAN thats naive. how could i possibly argue with the likes of that.


Yes. Totally. These people are held without ANY reason other than that they're Muslims, and that's why they have never even been charged with a crime. A criminal gets charged with a crime, and the crime gets proven or the charge dismissed by a serious attempt at due process. That's why we have courts. These people are being dehumanized, brutalized and tortured, without the least bit of evidence they committed any crime whatsoever. It is arbitrary incarceration.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 25 March 2006 01:01 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Staznie:

no apology necessary, like i said before, this is an unwinnable argument for both sides. i just look at the point of view from the president and what he has to do to keep his people safe. it basically comes down to less national security more personal freedoms, or less personal freedoms more NS. it really is tight rope. i happen to be on the security side, this time, because i know i won't be the one going to gitmo. HOWEVER, it doesn't mean i won't change my mind when the americans start locking up blonde haired, blue eyed canadian female soldiers.


Don't worry. You will be offered a job as a KZ guard eventually. There's a career opportunity coming up for you. I think they might be paying better for the ones that operate the chambers and the ovens. (History is filled with fucking stupid brainless killing machines called 'soldiers', who help the wealthy Elites do the dirty work against whatever the current group may be that the Elites "don't like".)


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
gunnar gunnarson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8547

posted 25 March 2006 01:06 AM      Profile for gunnar gunnarson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What do you want to bet that our morally challenged friend won't be back?

Walk into a room, fart rudely, reek the place out, and leave. Mission accomplished.


From: audra's corner | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 25 March 2006 01:08 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by gunnar gunnarson:

So you're OK with them locking up a bunch of brown guys with beards and kicking the crap out of them, then. And you don't care whether they're innocent or guilty. You only start caring when they start locking up people with blonde hair and blue eyes.

My, what a wonderful commitment to human rights you have. Do they teach racism and situational ethics to everyone who joins the Canadian military, or do you have to prove you were in the KKK first?


It is horrific to realize (yet again) that this is the disgusting mindset of the people supposedly charged with our national safety. A bunch of racist, disgusting humans reminiscent of the disbanded Airborne Regiment, which was known for its acts of racism in Somalia.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 25 March 2006 01:09 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Staznie, if you sincerely believe the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Bagram Airbase and numerous secret prisons around the world are being held with good reason and treated fairly, then read this.

(If you haven't read it, by the way, Slate Magazine is a reputable, mainstream Internet publication, owned by the Washington Post).

If that doesn't make you think just a little bit, read this.

Then read this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

If you need more information, go to Slate's Advanced Search page, here, and enter "Guantanamo Bay." You'll get more than you can stomach, and perhaps you'll get an inkling that all this is the good deal more than the "opinions" of people you appear to disdain.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
gunnar gunnarson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8547

posted 25 March 2006 01:11 AM      Profile for gunnar gunnarson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
'lance, I'd go just a wee bit easier on references to the Washington Post if I were you. Two words: Ben Domenech.
From: audra's corner | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 25 March 2006 01:12 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by 'lance:
Staznie, if you sincerely believe the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Bagram Airbase and numerous secret prisons around the world are being held with good reason and treated fairly, then read this.

(If you haven't read it, by the way, Slate Magazine is a reputable, mainstream Internet publication, owned by the Washington Post).

If that doesn't make you think just a little bit, read this.

Then read this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

If you need more information, go to Slate's Advanced Search page, here, and enter "Guantanamo Bay." You'll get more than you can stomach, and perhaps you'll get an inkling that all this is the good deal more than the "opinions" of people you appear to disdain.


Lance, Stasie is not interested. People who after 4 years of lies still don't get it, don't want to get it.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 March 2006 01:22 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Staznie:

war sucks and lifes not fair. good night gang.

[ 25 March 2006: Message edited by: Staznie ]



Can't begin tell you how much light this inciteful comment has shed on this subject.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 25 March 2006 01:27 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd just like to point out that the quote from me, cited by Staznie and now referenced by Cueball . . . I didn't edit out anything objectionable or odd, or anything else, I just went in to close a square bracket.

I'm just sayin' as it looks like some sort of damning evidence by absence.

And unionist, i did not miss your post; it is a subject for another thread and another day.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 25 March 2006 01:31 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by gunnar gunnarson:
'lance, I'd go just a wee bit easier on references to the Washington Post if I were you. Two words: Ben Domenech.

Well, I reckoned that anyone who actually thought Guantanamo Bay was a comfortable or even just non-brutal detention facility had never heard of Ben Domenech.

And too besides, Dahlia Lithwick is no Ben Domenech.

quote:
Originally posted by Red Albertan:
Lance, Stasie is not interested. People who after 4 years of lies still don't get it, don't want to get it.

What can I say? If I didn't have just the slightest teensiest most infinitesimally small trace of optimism going, I'd not bother with babble. Or much of anything else.

But you're right. Best to say to hell with it, in this case, and head beerward.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Schop
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8903

posted 25 March 2006 01:34 AM      Profile for Schop     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I think we have a pretty clear answer to the question posed earlier...

quote:
Originally posted by gunnar gunnarson:
Have you no moral sense whatsoever?

quote:
Originally posted by Staznie:
i happen to be on the security side, this time, because i know i won't be the one going to gitmo. HOWEVER, it doesn't mean i won't change my mind when the americans start locking up blonde haired, blue eyed canadian female soldiers.

From: Somewhere out there | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 25 March 2006 02:05 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From Brett Mann:

quote:
At some point in this discussion we must recognize a distinction. One may completely agree that America has instigated and aggrieved the situation in Afghanistan and elsewhere, that the CIA is pulling strings behind the scenes, that American imperialism is scary and awful and must be opposed, and still end up in support of Canada's mission in Afghanistan. It is intellectually dishonest for those who oppose Canada's Afghanistan commitments to argue that those who come to different conclusions must be witting or unwitting supporters of the Bush crime family. Can we begin by making this distinction?

No we can't, because it is absolutely clear that the Canadian forces in Afghanistan are supporting the US mission. It is also clear that Canadian forces in Afghanistan are under the orders of the US.

This was demonstrated recently when the US general (Freakley) ordered that all national flags be removed as a show of support for the Afghani forces. There wasn't even an objection from the Canadian forces, yet it is clear that the order made distinctions between US and Canadian forces even more difficult.

As well, even though Canada was given the command of the ISAF, the US made it clear that the ISAF would be operating at their pleasure. In other words, the Canadian 'command' was really 'second-in-commnand'.

quote:
Those who are most prone to think that Canadian foreign policy is always hostage to American foreign policy don't have enough faith in their government (even under Steven Harper) and don't have a good grasp of the thinking that Canadian civil servants and strategists have put into the question of how to genuinely help people in places like Aghanistan, how to strengthen a regime of international law, and how to counter-balance and oppose when necessary, the worst impulses of our neighbour to the south.

You can't be serious. We're counter-balancing the 'worst impulses' of the United States? We're supporting the worst impulses of the United States.

quote:
Finally, the security dimension. We would all do well to remember that the primary reason we are in Afghanistan is to deny operational and training bases to al Qaeda.

According to the Project on Defense Alternatives:

quote:
The essential importance of Afghanistan to the extra-regional goals and activities of Al Qaeda was not that it provided a sanctuary and training site for terrorists.

Instead, Afghanistan served the organization's global activities principally as a recruiting ground for future cadre. The capacity of Al Qaeda to repair its lost capabilities for global terrorism rests on the fact that terrorist attacks like the 11 September crashes do not depend on the possession of massive, open-air training facilities. Warehouses and small ad hoc sites will do.

Moreover, large terrorist organizations have proved themselves able to operate for very long periods without state sanctuaries -- as long as sympathetic communities exist. The Irish Republican Army is an example. Thus, Al Qaeda may be able to recoup its lost capacity by adopting a more thoroughly clandestine and "state-less" approach to its operations, including recruitment and training.


In other words, the Canadian mission is denying nothing to al-Qaeda. And especially they are not denying more recruits.

Here is how RAWA sees the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, as of Dec. 5, 05:

Canada in Afghanistan

quote:
While there may seem to be a large space between Graham’s “helping” approach and Hillier/Leslie’s “kill people” approach, Canada’s real foreign policy path is actually rather narrow: it involves supporting and legitimizing US foreign policy, whether through “failed state” rhetoric, military support, or profitable arms manufacturing. Canada’s Afghan mission fits the bill on all counts.

...In rural provinces, which comprise the majority of Afghanistan, peacekeeping troops could have made a huge difference in bringing order. Instead, these areas are overrun by US backed militias, warlords, local commanders, and US troops engaged in their “hunt” for Al Qaeda and Taliban. US troops collaborate directly with local authoritarian warlords, rewarding them with weapons and aid in exchange for “intelligence” on Al Qaeda and Taliban.

As a result, since the fall of the Taliban, the country has become a progressively more dangerous place. This year, more US soldiers were killed in Afghanistan than in any previous year, and warlords are more entrenched than ever.

...The real goal is not peacekeeping, but rather the illusion of peacekeeping so as to make the installation of a US-friendly regime palatable to Afghanis. ISAF’s intense propaganda efforts attest to this.

...The largest segment of Afghanistan’s economy is based on the drug trade, revived by US-backed warlords and regional commanders. Instead of criminalizing poor farmers for growing poppies, Western nations could help Afghans reduce their dependency on a drug economy by providing full compensation to farmers who have gone into debt to grow and harvest opium. Additionally, farmers could be assisted with alternative and sustainable farming that would benefit their families and their country.

The problem, of course, is that focusing on constructive projects such as those mentioned above would benefit only the Afghans, and not US, Canadian, or NATO interests. They would strengthen the people of Afghanistan and enrich their democratic development, while weakening the power of US and Afghan warlords.

...the real reasons for intervention are not genuine help and solidarity, Canada’s deployment in Afghanistan has little relationship to what the people of that country actually need. Instead, under the guise of helping Afghanistan, Canada is actually providing a kind face to US contravention of the laws of war.

...Where the US military leads in the “war on terror,” Canada follows. The Canadian engagement in Afghanistan enables Canada to be a useful tool of American imperialism, a junior member of the “winning team.” The price of accommodation with empire is high for all involved. Those whose sovereignty is violated get the worst of it, facing hunger, disease, bombs, torture, and death.

But for the accomplices, there is a steady diet of fear and racism, as well as the erosion of democracy, ethics, and even basic logic. That Canada is experiencing such erosion is evidenced by Major General Leslie being able to hold up a claim that killing young men overseas is worth dying for.


The article speaks for itself.

[ 25 March 2006: Message edited by: maestro ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wee Mousie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12266

posted 25 March 2006 02:06 AM      Profile for Wee Mousie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
While you are still het up, on the topic of prisoner treatment at Gitmo,

I would like to make one more recommendation to view (or download to view)

The Road to Guantanamo which is only available online for one more day
at Information Clearing House.


From: Mouse Hole | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 25 March 2006 02:17 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wee Mousie:
While you are still het up, on the topic of prisoner treatment at Gitmo,

I would like to make one more recommendation to view (or download to view)

The Road to Guantanamo which is only available online for one more day
at Information Clearing House.


I have found a much better quality version, which will display full size on the computer monitor with minimal distortion. The size of the file is 695 MB, and is in DIVX format.

You will need a free Torrent client such as BitTorrent to download the file:

The Road To Guantanamo


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 25 March 2006 02:18 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
maestro, thanks (?) for the hard hitting article from znet.

Wee Mousie -- are you on commission for this Clearing House programme?


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wee Mousie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12266

posted 25 March 2006 03:32 AM      Profile for Wee Mousie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:
Wee Mousie -- are you on commission for this Clearing House programme?

I get 50% of whatever they charge you.

How did you guess?


From: Mouse Hole | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Staznie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11952

posted 25 March 2006 09:59 AM      Profile for Staznie        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
From Brett Mann:

The article speaks for itself.

[ 25 March 2006: Message edited by: maestro ]



I haven't read such a blatant example of clap trap since i read da vince code.

From: No longer in Hamilton | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 March 2006 10:01 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Long thread.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca