- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Mortarman Rockpainter said:
Agreed. Were you perhaps expecting us to not read the article stegner? You should be posting at adolescent-supersniper-JTF-master.com if you expect that sort of infantile argument to work.
Agreed. Were you perhaps expecting us to not read the article stegner? You should be posting at adolescent-supersniper-JTF-master.com if you expect that sort of infantile argument to work.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Motarmann post facto means after the fact, thus it follows my post deals with what was done after the fact. Again hence the post facto. The fact in this instance being Buckler lying to the press. Again nothing about Mr. Harper asking to her to lie as there is no evidence of this and this circumstance would be pre facto or simply facto. That is why I attached the article about what happened after. Does this clear things up? Sorry for the confusion.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
stegner said:
??? Why would you make a statement about Buckler being defended after the statement? Certainly she could not be defended prior to it. What is your point? ???
- Reaction score
- 1,300
- Points
- 1,040
I know my Latin: I'm a Roman Catholic after all.
Now, re-read your post. In one sentence, you say that she was defended post facto. Then you say "this was certainly under the direction of Mr. Harper". Given the theme of this thread, "this" could reasonably refer to your previous statement that the PMO, and therefore PM Harper, was responsible. The inference was clear.
Now, re-read your post. In one sentence, you say that she was defended post facto. Then you say "this was certainly under the direction of Mr. Harper". Given the theme of this thread, "this" could reasonably refer to your previous statement that the PMO, and therefore PM Harper, was responsible. The inference was clear.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
My comments is to suggest that perhaps what she said is indefensible and should have not been defended by members of the government. She should have been taken out to the woodshed or perhaps even behind the barn, but certainly not defended.
Mortarman Rockpainter the post-facto defense of Buckler was under the direction of Mr. Harper or the PMO or whatever. This is not to say that the mis-statement of Buckler was under such direction though as there is no evidence to suggest this.
Mortarman Rockpainter the post-facto defense of Buckler was under the direction of Mr. Harper or the PMO or whatever. This is not to say that the mis-statement of Buckler was under such direction though as there is no evidence to suggest this.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
stegner said:
Wow, I want to work for you. NOT! You are saying that someone who has proven their worth and risen to a position of considerable importance should be "Taken out to the woodshed"? Go ahead and put that leadership plan into practise and see where it gets you.
FSTO
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,846
- Points
- 1,210
RangerRay said:
I like Mike Duffy but it seems if anyone raises a question about the validity or honesty of a reporters story he quickly changes the subject.
Case in point tonight when Gen Mackenzie sunk Valpy's Globe and Mail Story he immediately shifted the story on another tack.
Mortarman Rockpainter said:
nobody knows?.. oh.. i am sure that who ever told her what to say in her press release knows, i wonder where she gets her information for thse press releases...
since she has been communications officer for the govt, she has received her instructions from harper and the pmo.. i hardly think nothing has changed this time
NATO determined to put more troops in Afghanistan
Mike Blanchfield and Brian Hutchinson , Canwest News Service Published: Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Article Link
This starts the fifth paragraph down....
As Harper received NATO's endorsement, the Conservatives continued to come under fire in the House of Commons over its handling of Afghan detainees, particularly a new policy that prevents Canada from handing over suspected Taliban insurgents to local authorities.
But Canwest News has learned that Afghanistan National Army soldiers working beside Canadian "mentors" continue to detain prisoners.
Detainees taken under such circumstances are transported directly to local Afghan jails.
Their treatment is not monitored by Canadian troops or Canadian government officials, a well-placed source in Kandahar has told Canwest.
The arrangement appears to circumvent rules that now prevent Canadians from delivering suspected insurgents to Afghan detention facilities. That practice ended in November because of concerns that the detainees, if released to Afghan authorities, might be subjected to torture.
One "credible" claim of torture was made by a prisoner transferred under the old system. The report was not immediately made public, nor was the resulting change in Canadian policy. The delay has caused a political uproar in Ottawa.
Sources have told Canwest that suspected insurgents apprehended by Canadian troops are, in fact, now being held at a detention centre at Kandahar Airfield, and are being treated in accordance with the Third Geneva Convention.
More on link
Mike Blanchfield and Brian Hutchinson , Canwest News Service Published: Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Article Link
This starts the fifth paragraph down....
As Harper received NATO's endorsement, the Conservatives continued to come under fire in the House of Commons over its handling of Afghan detainees, particularly a new policy that prevents Canada from handing over suspected Taliban insurgents to local authorities.
But Canwest News has learned that Afghanistan National Army soldiers working beside Canadian "mentors" continue to detain prisoners.
Detainees taken under such circumstances are transported directly to local Afghan jails.
Their treatment is not monitored by Canadian troops or Canadian government officials, a well-placed source in Kandahar has told Canwest.
The arrangement appears to circumvent rules that now prevent Canadians from delivering suspected insurgents to Afghan detention facilities. That practice ended in November because of concerns that the detainees, if released to Afghan authorities, might be subjected to torture.
One "credible" claim of torture was made by a prisoner transferred under the old system. The report was not immediately made public, nor was the resulting change in Canadian policy. The delay has caused a political uproar in Ottawa.
Sources have told Canwest that suspected insurgents apprehended by Canadian troops are, in fact, now being held at a detention centre at Kandahar Airfield, and are being treated in accordance with the Third Geneva Convention.
More on link
- Reaction score
- 2,579
- Points
- 1,260
So far, only spotted this in the French MSM - clarifications from anyone with better French than me (and most CERTAINLY better than Google translations shown below) always appreciated.
For a bit of background, the Wikipedia entry on Pul-e-Charki prision.....
A Canadian arm in a prison in Kabul?
Michele Ouimet, La Presse, 3 Feb 08
Original French - Google English
The project is under study, confirms Bernier
Gilles Toupin, La Presse, 5 Feb 08
French version - Google English
Wikipedia on said American wing
For a bit of background, the Wikipedia entry on Pul-e-Charki prision.....
A Canadian arm in a prison in Kabul?
Michele Ouimet, La Presse, 3 Feb 08
Original French - Google English
The project is under study, confirms Bernier
Gilles Toupin, La Presse, 5 Feb 08
French version - Google English
Wikipedia on said American wing
Judge rejects temporary ban on detainee transfers
The Canadian Press February 7, 2008 at 1:57 PM EST
Article Link
OTTAWA — A judge has refused to temporarily stop Canadian soldiers from transferring enemy prisoners into Afghan custody.
Federal Court Justice Anne Mactavish says the matter can be reviewed if troops resume the transfers, which military authorities stopped in November after finding evidence of torture in Afghan jails.
Amnesty International Canada and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association had sought the temporary injunction pending the outcome of their case for a broader ban.
Judge Mactavish says there are “real and very serious concerns” over how effective Canadian efforts have been to ensure the safety of their prisoners.
But she says those concerns have been rendered moot, at least for now.
The judge refused to grant costs in the case
More on link
The Canadian Press February 7, 2008 at 1:57 PM EST
Article Link
OTTAWA — A judge has refused to temporarily stop Canadian soldiers from transferring enemy prisoners into Afghan custody.
Federal Court Justice Anne Mactavish says the matter can be reviewed if troops resume the transfers, which military authorities stopped in November after finding evidence of torture in Afghan jails.
Amnesty International Canada and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association had sought the temporary injunction pending the outcome of their case for a broader ban.
Judge Mactavish says there are “real and very serious concerns” over how effective Canadian efforts have been to ensure the safety of their prisoners.
But she says those concerns have been rendered moot, at least for now.
The judge refused to grant costs in the case
More on link
- Reaction score
- 2,579
- Points
- 1,260
<sarcasm>
Of course, it COULDN'T possibly be the Taliban's fault for not letting people speak to witnesses or the people who were allegedly abused, right?
</sarcasm>
Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.
Military probe into alleged Canadian abuse hits brick wall
Investigation into mistreatment of detainees in our custody deliberately stalled, critics say
PAUL KORING, Globe & Mail, 18 Feb 08
Article link - .pdf permalink
After more than a year, the criminal probe into whether Canadian soldiers beat and abused Afghan detainees while military police turned a blind eye remains incomplete and critics say it is being deliberately dragged out.
No charges have been laid, there's no hint when the investigation might end and one person is dead: An Afghan intermediary sent by investigators to try to make contact with the alleged victims was killed by the Taliban.
The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, the special military police unit conducting the investigation, rejects accusations that it is running out the clock. "It's absolutely a top priority," said Captain Cindy Tessier, referring to Operation Camel Spider, as the probe has been dubbed. Capt. Tessier said five investigators have been working on the case full-time for a year; more than 70 people have been questioned in three countries and huge piles of documents have been sifted and read.
But she could offer no estimate as to when the investigation might wrap up.
Amir Attaran, the University of Ottawa law professor who uncovered the suspicious and unexplained pattern of injuries among detainees, is not convinced the military is serious in its belated and long-running efforts to investigate.
"When the military is investigating the military, which is inconvenient for the military, is it any wonder that the military rags the puck?" he said.
Meanwhile, the military medical records for detainees from the spring of 2006 - when the detainees were allegedly abused and beaten and then treated by Canadian doctors at the main base on Kandahar Air Field - have mysteriously gone missing. "No one at KAF has an explanation for the missing Roto 1 files other than to speculate that it was poor organization," says one report by a CFNIS investigator marked "secret," which was released heavily censored.
The CFNIS is a special unit, independent of usual military police reporting, that was created in 1997 with a mandate to investigate serious and sensitive matters related to Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. Its independence permits it "to conduct thorough investigations without fear of influence" from the military chain of command, according to the CFNIS.
Few details of its probe have emerged. Another CFNIS report, from June of 2007, admits that efforts to track down, win the confidence of, and then interview the three detainees allegedly abused while in Canadian custody have failed. "It would be highly unlikely that investigators will be able to interview the detainees" after the grim news that an interlocutor sent by investigators "had been targeted by the Taliban and assassinated."
Sources familiar with the general thrust of the investigation, who discussed its progress on condition that they not be identified, suggest that its focus has shifted from whether one or more detainees was beaten by soldiers or military police to why no military police investigation was launched at the time.
In fact, military police failed to investigate the beatings between April of 2006, when they occurred, and 10 months later when The Globe and Mail reported that Prof. Attaran had furnished the documents to the Military Police Complaints Commission. Once the story broke, multiple investigations were launched.
In its official account of the beating, the military admitted the detainees had been hit but concluded that military police had "used appropriate physical control techniques" to restrain the prisoners, even though their hands were already bound behind their backs.
But the government flatly insisted there was no cause for public concern as its policies regarding detainees guaranteed they were safe both in Canadian custody and after transfer to Afghan prisons. Since then, reports have shown that Afghan detainees have been tortured in Afghan custody, and the government twice changed its policy on handing over prisoners before stopping handovers altogether.
In additional to the CFNIS criminal probe, Canada's top soldier, Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hillier, ordered a board of inquiry to investigate all of the policies, procedures and training regarding the capture, treatment and transfer of enemy prisoners that he once disparaged as "detestable murderers and scumbags."
"We'll peel back the layers of the onion and we'll determine what, if anything, occurred, did that meet our policies and processes for handling detainees, do we have to improve anything," Gen. Hillier said. That board is still peeling and hasn't reported. In his last public comment, in December, Lieutenant-Commander Philip Anido said it was awaiting witnesses still not released by the CFNIS and that any report was months from completion. No interim reports or recommendations have been issued.
It has already confirmed it lacks the mandate to examine what happened to detainees after they were given to Afghan security forces - either under the new or old transfer agreements. Now that those transfers have been suspended, it is not clear what value any recommendations will have about a mostly changed system now no longer in use.
The board did not respond to written questions from The Globe and Mail seeking when it might conclude, what it was currently doing and how much it has cost during its first year of existence.
Meanwhile, the Military Police Complaints Commission, an independent, civilian body, also launched an investigation on receipt of the documents found by Prof. Attaran. Both that probe and a second MPCC investigation based on a complaint made by Amnesty International and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association remain unfinished.
Prof. Attaran said he has been told "the MPCC is being obstructed by the Canadian Forces, who refused to give the MPCC evidence."
Stanley Blythe, chief of staff at the MPCC, said "good progress" has been made, although he confirmed that MPCC investigators are waiting - and have been for months - to interview witnesses not yet released by the CFNIS probe. Mr. Blythe said he could provide no estimate when either MPCC investigation might conclude.
Given the delays, which he believes the military is deliberately creating, Prof. Attaran said, "it is totally baffling to me why the MPCC has not invoked its power to hold a public hearing as it is entitled to do."
Of course, it COULDN'T possibly be the Taliban's fault for not letting people speak to witnesses or the people who were allegedly abused, right?
</sarcasm>
Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.
Military probe into alleged Canadian abuse hits brick wall
Investigation into mistreatment of detainees in our custody deliberately stalled, critics say
PAUL KORING, Globe & Mail, 18 Feb 08
Article link - .pdf permalink
After more than a year, the criminal probe into whether Canadian soldiers beat and abused Afghan detainees while military police turned a blind eye remains incomplete and critics say it is being deliberately dragged out.
No charges have been laid, there's no hint when the investigation might end and one person is dead: An Afghan intermediary sent by investigators to try to make contact with the alleged victims was killed by the Taliban.
The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, the special military police unit conducting the investigation, rejects accusations that it is running out the clock. "It's absolutely a top priority," said Captain Cindy Tessier, referring to Operation Camel Spider, as the probe has been dubbed. Capt. Tessier said five investigators have been working on the case full-time for a year; more than 70 people have been questioned in three countries and huge piles of documents have been sifted and read.
But she could offer no estimate as to when the investigation might wrap up.
Amir Attaran, the University of Ottawa law professor who uncovered the suspicious and unexplained pattern of injuries among detainees, is not convinced the military is serious in its belated and long-running efforts to investigate.
"When the military is investigating the military, which is inconvenient for the military, is it any wonder that the military rags the puck?" he said.
Meanwhile, the military medical records for detainees from the spring of 2006 - when the detainees were allegedly abused and beaten and then treated by Canadian doctors at the main base on Kandahar Air Field - have mysteriously gone missing. "No one at KAF has an explanation for the missing Roto 1 files other than to speculate that it was poor organization," says one report by a CFNIS investigator marked "secret," which was released heavily censored.
The CFNIS is a special unit, independent of usual military police reporting, that was created in 1997 with a mandate to investigate serious and sensitive matters related to Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. Its independence permits it "to conduct thorough investigations without fear of influence" from the military chain of command, according to the CFNIS.
Few details of its probe have emerged. Another CFNIS report, from June of 2007, admits that efforts to track down, win the confidence of, and then interview the three detainees allegedly abused while in Canadian custody have failed. "It would be highly unlikely that investigators will be able to interview the detainees" after the grim news that an interlocutor sent by investigators "had been targeted by the Taliban and assassinated."
Sources familiar with the general thrust of the investigation, who discussed its progress on condition that they not be identified, suggest that its focus has shifted from whether one or more detainees was beaten by soldiers or military police to why no military police investigation was launched at the time.
In fact, military police failed to investigate the beatings between April of 2006, when they occurred, and 10 months later when The Globe and Mail reported that Prof. Attaran had furnished the documents to the Military Police Complaints Commission. Once the story broke, multiple investigations were launched.
In its official account of the beating, the military admitted the detainees had been hit but concluded that military police had "used appropriate physical control techniques" to restrain the prisoners, even though their hands were already bound behind their backs.
But the government flatly insisted there was no cause for public concern as its policies regarding detainees guaranteed they were safe both in Canadian custody and after transfer to Afghan prisons. Since then, reports have shown that Afghan detainees have been tortured in Afghan custody, and the government twice changed its policy on handing over prisoners before stopping handovers altogether.
In additional to the CFNIS criminal probe, Canada's top soldier, Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hillier, ordered a board of inquiry to investigate all of the policies, procedures and training regarding the capture, treatment and transfer of enemy prisoners that he once disparaged as "detestable murderers and scumbags."
"We'll peel back the layers of the onion and we'll determine what, if anything, occurred, did that meet our policies and processes for handling detainees, do we have to improve anything," Gen. Hillier said. That board is still peeling and hasn't reported. In his last public comment, in December, Lieutenant-Commander Philip Anido said it was awaiting witnesses still not released by the CFNIS and that any report was months from completion. No interim reports or recommendations have been issued.
It has already confirmed it lacks the mandate to examine what happened to detainees after they were given to Afghan security forces - either under the new or old transfer agreements. Now that those transfers have been suspended, it is not clear what value any recommendations will have about a mostly changed system now no longer in use.
The board did not respond to written questions from The Globe and Mail seeking when it might conclude, what it was currently doing and how much it has cost during its first year of existence.
Meanwhile, the Military Police Complaints Commission, an independent, civilian body, also launched an investigation on receipt of the documents found by Prof. Attaran. Both that probe and a second MPCC investigation based on a complaint made by Amnesty International and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association remain unfinished.
Prof. Attaran said he has been told "the MPCC is being obstructed by the Canadian Forces, who refused to give the MPCC evidence."
Stanley Blythe, chief of staff at the MPCC, said "good progress" has been made, although he confirmed that MPCC investigators are waiting - and have been for months - to interview witnesses not yet released by the CFNIS probe. Mr. Blythe said he could provide no estimate when either MPCC investigation might conclude.
Given the delays, which he believes the military is deliberately creating, Prof. Attaran said, "it is totally baffling to me why the MPCC has not invoked its power to hold a public hearing as it is entitled to do."
- Reaction score
- 2,579
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Perhaps we should send Prof Amir Attaran over as an Intermediary. He seems to be so up to speed on the situation.
- Reaction score
- 2,579
- Points
- 1,260
George Wallace said:
My first out-loud chuckle of the day - thank you!
