[Gunnair]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

The committee is only investigating Colvins testimony which conveniently only goes back to 2006. Clear it all out. Start from 2002 onwards.

Agreed 100%. Do it and do it right!

[Curtman]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

The committee is only investigating Colvins testimony which conveniently only goes back to 2006. Clear it all out. Start from 2002 onwards.

We were not handing detainees over until Rick Hillier signed the agreement in December 2005. It was the job of the new government to oversee it, or stop it.

[Akhenaten]

Hiller didn't sign shit unless it was a secondary signature. Since when do generals make agreements for the government. It was the Liberals. Not Hiller. Nice try though. Hiller is not the governement. THe govenment made the deal.

$1:

"Canadian diplomats stationed in Kabul warned the former Liberal government in 2003, 2004 and 2005 that torture was commonplace in Afghan prisons. In spite of these warnings, the Martin government signed an agreement with the Karzai government in December 2005 to hand over all Canadian-captured prisoners to Afghan authorities, Foreign Affairs documents obtained by La Presse reveal.

"From 2002 to 2005, the Canadian practice regarding Afghan detainees suspected of Taliban ties was to hand them over to U.S. military authorities. Ottawa (OTTAWA NOT HILLER) decided to shift its transfers to Afghan authorities, however, in response to abuse allegations at the Guantánamo Bay internment center and the controversy that erupted over revelations of torture and degradation at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

"The December 2005 agreement to transfer detainees to Afghan authorities was concluded despite the content of annual reports from Canadian diplomats covering broad assessments of Afghanistan's progress in human rights protection and the development of democratic institutions. According to a 2004 report: 'The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission concludes from its monitors' assessments that torture remains a current practice, particularly during the early stages of police investigations, in order to extract confessions from prisoners.'

$1:

We were not handing detainees over until Rick Hillier signed the agreement in December 2005. It was the job of the new government to oversee it, or stop it.

Hilarious. So you're basically admitting what I just said: The Liberals made the agreement that contravines the G.C. and it's the CPC's job to clean it up. So yes, as I said:

Liberals: The government of torture.
CPC: The government of "Clean up the Liberals mess".

[Curtman]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Hiller didn't sign shit unless it was a secondary signature. Since when do generals make agreements for the government. It was the Liberals. Not Hiller. Nice try though. Hiller is not the governement. THe govenment made the deal.

$1:

"Canadian diplomats stationed in Kabul warned the former Liberal government in 2003, 2004 and 2005 that torture was commonplace in Afghan prisons. In spite of these warnings, the Martin government signed an agreement with the Karzai government in December 2005 to hand over all Canadian-captured prisoners to Afghan authorities, Foreign Affairs documents obtained by La Presse reveal.

"From 2002 to 2005, the Canadian practice regarding Afghan detainees suspected of Taliban ties was to hand them over to U.S. military authorities. Ottawa decided to shift its transfers to Afghan authorities, however, in response to abuse allegations at the Guantánamo Bay internment center and the controversy that erupted over revelations of torture and degradation at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

"The December 2005 agreement to transfer detainees to Afghan authorities was concluded despite the content of annual reports from Canadian diplomats covering broad assessments of Afghanistan's progress in human rights protection and the development of democratic institutions. According to a 2004 report: 'The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission concludes from its monitors' assessments that torture remains a current practice, particularly during the early stages of police investigations, in order to extract confessions from prisoners.'

There you go. In December 2005, during an election. This agreement was signed.

Later in April 2006, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor explained that "the process is that if Canadian soldiers capture insurgents or terrorists they hand them over to the Afghan authorities and then the International Red Cross or Red Crescent supervise the detainees. If there is any problem, the Red Cross or Red Crescent would inform us and then we would become involved."

The Red Cross informed them, and to this day are still refusing to get involved. The committee was investigating this.

[Akhenaten]

"There you go. In December 2005, during an election. This agreement was signed."



lol. "There you go" what? The Liberals signed the agreement, not the CPC, not Hiller.

$1:

Later in April 2006, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor explained that "the process is that if Canadian soldiers capture insurgents or terrorists they hand them over to the Afghan authorities and then the International Red Cross or Red Crescent supervise the detainees. If there is any problem, the Red Cross or Red Crescent would inform us and then we would become involved."

Are you under the misunderstanding that this agreement somehow stops the transfer of prisoners from qualifying as a war crime? He's merely explaining the process that the Liberals already set up.

G.C. DOES NOT say "don't hand over prisoners if you think they'll be tortured --- unless of course you inform the Red Cross first".



No matter how hard you try to pound the square peg into the round hole, Curtman, this is the Liberals fault right from the beginning.

[Curtman]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

"There you go. In December 2005, during an election. This agreement was signed."



lol. "There you go" what? The Liberals signed the agreement, not the CPC, not Hiller.

$1:

Later in April 2006, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor explained that "the process is that if Canadian soldiers capture insurgents or terrorists they hand them over to the Afghan authorities and then the International Red Cross or Red Crescent supervise the detainees. If there is any problem, the Red Cross or Red Crescent would inform us and then we would become involved."

Are you under the misunderstanding that this agreement somehow stops the transfer of prisoners from qualifying as a war crime?

G.C. DOES NOT say "don't hand over prisoners if you think they'll be tortured --- unless of course you inform the Red Cross first".

No matter how hard you try to pound the square peg into the round hole, Curtman, this is the Liberals fault right from the beginning.

No he admitted that it was their job to step in if the Red Cross told them about torture.

The Red Cross turned around and told them that it was still in fact their responsibility.

Then the Red Cross informed them that there was possibly some abuse happening. They refused to get involved, or renegotiate the deal as they said they would.

In any case. You do see the part in the text that YOU quoted where it says that we were not handing detainees over to Afghanistan, but over to the U.S. right? You read that part?

The committee was shut down rather than Steve dealing with this mess that his ministers chose to ignore.

[Gunnair]

Curtman Curtman:

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

"There you go. In December 2005, during an election. This agreement was signed."



lol. "There you go" what? The Liberals signed the agreement, not the CPC, not Hiller.

$1:

Later in April 2006, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor explained that "the process is that if Canadian soldiers capture insurgents or terrorists they hand them over to the Afghan authorities and then the International Red Cross or Red Crescent supervise the detainees. If there is any problem, the Red Cross or Red Crescent would inform us and then we would become involved."

Are you under the misunderstanding that this agreement somehow stops the transfer of prisoners from qualifying as a war crime?

G.C. DOES NOT say "don't hand over prisoners if you think they'll be tortured --- unless of course you inform the Red Cross first".

No matter how hard you try to pound the square peg into the round hole, Curtman, this is the Liberals fault right from the beginning.

No he admitted that it was their job to step in if the Red Cross told them about torture.

The Red Cross turned around and told them that it was still in fact their responsibility.

Then the Red Cross informed them that there was possibly some abuse happening. They refused to get involved, or renegotiate the deal as they said they would.

In any case. You do see the part in the text that YOU quoted where it says that we were not handing detainees over to Afghanistan, but over to the U.S. right? You read that part?

The committee was shut down rather than Steve dealing with this mess that his ministers chose to ignore.

Your tone is moving quickly from truthseeking to bias lynching. Which is it?

[Akhenaten]

$1:

You do see the part in the text that YOU quoted where it says that we were not handing detainees over to Afghanistan, but over to the U.S. right? You read that part?

Did you read this part where the liberals are the ones who decided to start handing detainees over to teh Afghans despite years of warnings coming form HR groups, R.C and their own diplomats?


Show me where Harper is guilty of anything they weren't already veterans at.

[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Your tone is moving quickly from truthseeking to bias lynching. Which is it?

Its a bit of both I guess. I am definitely biased against Harper, he's given plenty of reason to be that way. It angers me that people think to be biased against Harper I have to be biased toward the Liberals. Honestly though, it doesn't seem to make any sense to hold the Martin government accountable for something they never had any ability to oversee.

If they signed the agreement full out knowing that they would be feeding detainees to wolves then by all means get those bastards. But don't shut down the committee. It just makes them look guilty.

[Gunnair]

$1:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Your tone is moving quickly from truthseeking to bias lynching. Which is it?

Its a bit of both I guess. I am definitely biased against Harper, he's given plenty of reason to be that way. It angers me that people think to be biased against Harper I have to be biased toward the Liberals. Honestly though, it doesn't seem to make any sense to hold the Martin government accountable for something they never had any ability to oversee.

Your bias is clearly showing here. Ever ask yourself the question... "If the Liberal government cannot provide oversight to detainees and torture, then maybe we shouldn't have handed them over?"

If not, you're thickly bias and the credibility of any of your arguments ends in a splutter of partisan hackery.

$1:

If they signed the agreement full out knowing that they would be feeding detainees to wolves then by all means get those bastards. But don't shut down the committee. It just makes them look guilty.

Again, end the boring partisan hackery. Makes you look like any of the other clowns here that are slowly being weeded out of here.


There is as much of a chance that the allegations are unfounded.

[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Curtman Curtman:

Its a bit of both I guess. I am definitely biased against Harper, he's given plenty of reason to be that way. It angers me that people think to be biased against Harper I have to be biased toward the Liberals. Honestly though, it doesn't seem to make any sense to hold the Martin government accountable for something they never had any ability to oversee.

Your bias is clearly showing here. Ever ask yourself the question... "If the Liberal government cannot provide oversight to detainees and torture, then maybe we shouldn't have handed them over?"

If not, you're thickly bias and the credibility of any of your arguments ends in a splutter of partisan hackery.

The Liberal government couldn't provide oversight because they lost the election. It became the new governments job. I'm not saying they shouldn't have provided oversight if they hadn't lost, but they did.

How does the official opposition determine what goes on in Afghanistan with respect to handing over detainees?

Gunnair Gunnair:

Again, end the boring partisan hackery. Makes you look like any of the other clowns here that are slowly being weeded out of here.


There is as much of a chance that the allegations are unfounded.

I don't disagree with that either. He has the option to resume the committee in March. We'll see if he does that. I don't understand what is 'partisan hackery' about that. The opposition has only the ability to debate in the House of Commons. Which is closed.

[bootlegga]

$1:

Rallies were also staged Saturday in Regina and Saskatoon, and attracted several hundred people. In Regina, about 200 people gathered on a downtown pedestrian street.

Also in Regina, three people — who kept a respectful distance from the main group — held signs showing support for Harper. Their presence was noted with a smattering of boos from the crowd.

However, a speaker said the point of the rally was to support democracy and implored people to respect differing points of view.

[martin14]

Curtman Curtman:

I have to be biased toward the Liberals.

which is of course why you dont have a Liberal sitting beside your name.

[Akhenaten]

$1:

Honestly though, it doesn't seem to make any sense to hold the Martin government accountable for something they never had any ability to oversee.

How is that remotely honest? They made the agreement even after hearing warnings from everywhere. How does that make it 'not their responsibility'? They put Canada's name down on the dotted line. No. Sorry. Closer to the truth you're just bending over backwards to avoid holding the Liberal government accountable for the very agreement they signed, despite warnings, despite it being a pretty stupid thing to do, despite putting our armed forces into a potentially liable position.

Subsequently demands to hold the CPC accountable for not cleaning it up are less than compelling. I hope they make it an election issue.

$1:

The Liberal government couldn't provide oversight because they lost the election.

Doesn't remotely matter. The agreement itself was inherently prone to liable and warnings issued by the Red Cross that it was a bad idea were ignored. I would remind us that that just because the liberal government "wasn't there to provide oversight" doesn't remotely guarentee they would've.

[Curtman]

martin14 martin14:

Curtman Curtman:

I have to be biased toward the Liberals.

which is of course why you dont have a Liberal sitting beside your name.

It's strange that I selected that banner when I first signed up, but it only appeared when I received my warning for smuggling nutmeg.

I would vote for a coalition containing the Liberals, but I can't see myself voting for the Liberal party in the next election.