Tories learned of Afghan prison conditions in 2006: MacKay

who cares if these people were tortured, They would not think twice to torture a Cdn if they ever get thier hands on one of use over there.

Our government thinks too much about others and not about Cdns.

We're supposed to better than them.

So what happened to prisoners before January 2006. Or did we just not give a damn ?

Yes they did and if you are following the time line you'll note that prior to 2006 we weren't getting reports of abuse were we?

This isn't all that "dramatic a difference of narrative" from the previous couple of days. This narraive just has substance whereas the previous narative was more like, "screw you, we don't have to tell you anything".

I'm pretty sure this counts as an about face and/or a flip flop. Before they were claiming any such allegations of torture and abuse were simply unfounded and they had no such concerns and now they say different in the face of mounting evidence.

I still see this as a non issue, they had suspicions of torture, so they looked into the matter and made changes to help see that it would be prevented. Still there is no concrete evidence that detainees that the Canadians turned over were tortured. Personally I think a minority may have, but suspicion and speculation is not evidence and should not be considered fact.

Given what we know about karzai, his government, his security forces, and the boy raping warlords I think it isn't a stretch to believe the reports especially when they are coming from all over.

There is certainly far more credible evidence then say any crap bush put forth about Iraq.

In the end the government should come clean about what it knew when it knew and understand that all POWs we hand over remain our responsibility especially if they are innocent.

The Libs were raked over the coals just because they didn't state for the record the JTF2 was taking prisoners so who was playing games then?

Three generals and an actively serving ambassador have all stepped forward to say that Colvin's full of it anyway. Majority rules in this case.

McKay just stepped forward and said "Oops, Colvin was right".

The majority does not rule. The evidence does. Given the number of reports from independent sources, their prevalence, and the obvious believability of Afghans abusing other Afghans I'd say they are wrong.

Until there is proof that Abdul was captured by Canadians, and then purposefully turned over for torture, I will see this as a non issue.

Canada simply cannot capture combatants in a sovereign nation then take them to a third location. The US was wrong in setting up gitmo, and Canada would have been wrong to do the same thing.

Until there is proof that Abdul was captured by Canadians, and then purposefully turned over for torture, I will see this as a non issue.

Canada simply cannot capture combatants in a sovereign nation then take them to a third location. The US was wrong in setting up gitmo, and Canada would have been wrong to do the same thing.

1) Nobody is saying that Canada captured POWs and deliberately handed them over for torture nor is anybody accusing soldiers of doing that.

2) We can invade a sovereign country, depose the government, install another one and yet we have no right to oversee a POW/prison? That makes no sense. We have as much right to do just that as we do to do anything we do over there.

3) yes the US was wrong to set up gitmo because they cared nothing about guilt only suspicion and they even ignored that. We could easily have set something up much better.

4) This kind of crap hurts our effort more then anything we do. Bar none. The Afghans all know when we take innocent people and they remember. That's why some 8 years later the bulk of them distrust us and Karzai as much as anybody.

5) If we aren't there to prevent innocent people from being picked up by us no less and tortured then clearly we have failed.

1) That is the distinction the Liberals are trying to make. That officials knew torture was going on and still handed combatants over for torture, in essence supporting the torture of detainees.

2) Once a new government was formed, and then asked NATO to stay to help secure the country, we should not be removing their citizens from their country. Innocent or not, they are the problem of the host nation not ours. If we were occupying the country then yes we would have an obligation to, but we were and still are there at the request of the government.

3) We do not have the money or resources to set up a Canadian gitmo, nor do we have the personnel for something like that.

4) The reason they distrust Karzai probably range from he is a puppet of the americans, to he is not Pashtu, to he isn’t religious enough. I think Afghans view torture much differently than we do; I doubt many in Afghanistan dont have the luxury of having a high moral standards.

5) In that instance we would have failed. It's not like Canadian Soldiers are going out in the night and capturing people. To be captured by Canadians a Afghani must either be a known terrorist or it is after an engagement and the combatant has gun powder residue on them. In order for that to happen you have to be around a meter away from a weapon as it is fired. Even if you have residue on you it is not a guarantee that you will be arrested, several times Canadians have turned over someone who tested positive only to find they were let go an hour or two later.

I think they did know and took the position "so what". That's not to say soldiers were doing it though. They were doing what they were told.

Also, the Libs are asking tough questions. That is their job.



I disagree. We didn't occupy Germany and Japan and then turn over all power to their defacto governments did we? Anything Karzai does reflects on us and anything he does we do because the people there think that. We supported him and we put him in power so why should they divorce us from him?



Well I don't think so. At first we were handing over POWs to the US. That changed somehow. I think we could have set up a few camps with red cross assistance and supervised afghan personnel and managed nicely.

It would have helped our cause don't you think?



Yes they do view it differently. Its a founding principle as to why we are wrong to be there and wrong to put our values onto the Taliban especially when "our allies" do evil shit we ignore because "they aren't like us".

Aside from getting OBL it negates our purpose entirely.



Well I'm going by the reports about known innocent people being sent up the river.

When we are trying to convince the populace that we are a benevolent force trying to help them, then handing over POWs for torture/abuse (or simply ignoring) seems the wrong way to do it.

What are we saying? Its OK for the Afghan government to torture and abuse its citizens because "its none of our business" but when the Taliban was doing it suddenly it was a moral obligation to depose them?

That makes no sense.