Canucks complicit in torturing innocents in Afghanistan

[acheron]

if we are to 'win' in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have to prove that our way is better than their way (i.e. democracy versus autocracy) - and we can't do that unless we show that our system works in their context. At the moment it seems like the US-led coalition thinks that the only justice these sand-loving heretics respond to is ghosting them away to limbo-jail where they get beaten and fucked over without trial - somewhat like what happened when Hussein and the Taliban were in control - only we try to hide it and tell our supporters we're doing it our way instead of the old way. If nothing else the arab people deserve an admission that the coalition have decided that democracy doesn't work and we have be assholes for the time being... Who knows, they might even respect the honesty as long as it's leading somewhere.

[praktik]

Originally Posted by tripleup

Why in the world would you want us to take full time ownership of the prisoners? Then we can't ever hand them over to the locals, and these people run the risk of becoming Canadian citizens or some sort of burden on our own system. Or worse, set free into the general population to take up arms against our soldiers and allies..

Because I thought the goal was to create a solid Afghan democracy. Wasn't that the aim?

Wouldn't setting up a prison according to western (but non-american as they currently are!) principles of justice be a good example for the Afghans? Wouldn't it set a good precedent for future operations where Canada is involved?

You can't jump into a country in a battle that is ostensibly about "values" and just jettison our own.

Originally Posted by guysmiley

Notwithstanding the obvious ethical considerations, you don’t see the possible dangers, both to our troops and, for example, a packed Toronto subway station, of contributing to the disenfranchisement of the population within a country that quite possibly has the highest anti-western sentiment in the world?

guysmiley has this exactly right. The war in Afghanistan cannot be won militarily. It will be won when young muslims there can be convinced not to join the insurgency.

Arresting innocents and handing them off for torture at the hands of anybody has the opposite effect. It fuels the insurgency.

As Johann Hari documented recently in The Independent:

To my surprise, the ex-jihadis said their rage about Western foreign policy -- which was real, and burning -- emerged only after their identity crises, and as a result of it. They identified with the story of oppressed Muslims abroad because it seemed to mirror the oppressive disorientation they felt in their own minds. . . .

But once they had made that leap to identify with the Umma – the global Muslim community -- they got angrier the more abusive our foreign policy came. Every one of them said the Bush administration's response to 9/11 -- from Guantanamo to Iraq -- made jihadism seem more like an accurate description of the world. Hadiya Masieh, a tiny female former HT organiser, tells me: "You'd see Bush on the television building torture camps and bombing Muslims and you think -- anything is justified to stop this. What are we meant to do, just stand still and let him cut our throats?"

But the converse was -- they stressed -- also true. When they saw ordinary Westerners trying to uphold human rights, their jihadism began to stutter. Almost all of them said that they doubted their Islamism when they saw a million non-Muslims march in London to oppose the Iraq War: "How could we demonise people who obviously opposed aggression against Muslims?" asks Hadiya.
...
He started to recruit other students, as he had done so many times before. But it was harder. "Everyone hated the [unelected] government [of Hosni Mubarak], and the US for backing it," he says. But there was an inhibiting sympathy for the victims of 9/11 -- until the Bush administration began to respond with Guantanamo Bay and bombs. "That made it much easier. After that, I could persuade people a lot faster."
...
Maajid's Islamist convictions were about to be challenged from two unexpected directions -- the men who murdered Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, and Amnesty International.

HT [the Islamic group which he had headed] abandoned Maajid as a "fallen soldier" and barely spoke of him or his case. But when his family were finally allowed to see him, they told him he had a new defender. Although they abhorred his political views, Amnesty International said he had a right to free speech and to peacefully express his views, and publicised his case.

"I was just amazed," Maajid says. "We'd always seen Amnesty as the soft power tools of colonialism. So, when Amnesty, despite knowing that we hated them, adopted us, I felt -- maybe these democratic values aren't always hypocritical. Maybe some people take them seriously ... it was the beginning of my serious doubts."

If we want to truly win in Afghanistan, we have to take values seriously, and not abrogate them because its "too tough" or expensive (heck, how expensive is this shit already??).

[tripleup]

Originally Posted by guysmiley

Notwithstanding the obvious ethical considerations, you don’t see the possible dangers, both to our troops and, for example, a packed Toronto subway station, of contributing to the disenfranchisement of the population within a country that quite possibly has the highest anti-western sentiment in the world?

Our presence there alone raises our profile and elicits that sentiment. Prisoner transfers aren't going to inflame the local populace or the enemy any more than our presence already does.

Hell, creating our own prison system and entering them into our prolonged care while we are there is more likely to create resentment and propaganda as Abu Gharib-lite, than prisoner transfers.

It also introduces them to our lovely refugee claim process. Just what we need, the people that shot, mined, and killed our forces roaming the streets and subways on the taxpayer's dime.

[tripleup]

Originally Posted by praktik

Because I thought the goal was to create a solid Afghan democracy. Wasn't that the aim?

That was the bull-shit sales job that the Liberals fed to the public.

All we are doing over there is holding the American's purse until they were done with Iraq, so they had a strategic foot hold in the region.

If you believe that "hearts & minds" crap, you're not that bright.

[praktik]

Originally Posted by tripleup

That was the bull-shit sales job that the Liberals fed to the public.

All we are doing over there is holding the American's purse until they were done with Iraq, so they had a strategic foot hold in the region.

If you believe that "hearts & minds" crap, you're not that bright.

And BLAMMO - into the gutter after 4 posts.

Fight like a gentleman sir!

Address the substance of my post, because it applies both to stabilizing a democratic Afghanistan and "defeating the Taliban".

For even if you consider nation-building as impractical, it cannot be doubted that on a purely military measure, we shouldn't be doing things to encourage the enemies recruitment and the alienation of the populace we are supposed to be protecting, dontcha think?

[tripleup]

Originally Posted by praktik

And BLAMMO - into the gutter after 4 posts.

Fight like a gentleman sir!

Address the substance of my post, because it applies both to stabilizing a democratic Afghanistan and "defeating the Taliban".

For even if you consider nation-building as impractical, it cannot be doubted that on a purely military measure, we shouldn't be doing things to encourage the enemies recruitment and the alienation of the populace we are supposed to be protecting, dontcha think?

Listen, we weren't handing people over to be specifically for torture, like the U.S. does with people it sends to Syria among other places. We transfered our prisoners to the local authority. Unfortunately the locals have a different brand of justice, and torture was a possibility.

The real issue here is the way that information was handled @ home, not our troops behaviour in Afghanistan in regards to prisoners.

Also, you keep hammering home the potential of appearances to the average Afghani. Guess what, they don't have CNN or even Al Jazeera in most of that country. Any recruitment tool and propaganda is going to be baseless rumour mongering or inflammatory exaggeration. The incentive will either be based on religious or financial reasons and have little to nothing to do with something as minor as transferring a prisoner to the Afghani Government.

As I noted earlier, creating a Canadian Prison on Afghani soil would create that huge propaganda tool you seem to be so concerned about and local gossip, fear, and mis-trust of us would increase as a result.

You seem to forget that ensuring an Afghan democracy isn't why we are there. It's to assist the friendly party that's trying to gain power that's in league with our allies and western interests in what amounts to their civil war.

[praktik]

I am definitely not one who believes in nation building. But I don't doubt the capacity of people behind the war policy to rationalize their position. We tend to think of politicians and governments who get us into war as bloodthirsty and capricious - but in Canada's case I don't believe that for a second. First the Liberals and then the Conservatives, in my opinion, believed the rhetoric they were repeating: namely that we were there in part in order to "raise up" Afghan society. That this ignores the lessons of history and may not be workable in a society 30 years behind where Pakistan is now misses the point: namely that since our decision makers honestly believed in those aspects of the mission and therefore the lack of ownership on the torture issue is even more of a problem. If this was their aim, then their handling of the torture issue is even more in disrepute since handling it responsibly would have been in synch with their stated aims. The advantages should have been obvious.

And these advantages exist, whatever the state of media technology in Afghanistan is. You think when we hit a wedding party that doesn't get noticed? You forget that we're the ones with a thin slice of knowledge as to what's going on over there. We're distanced. They're living it. The fact that the afghan authorities have been corrupt, self-serving and brutal is not lost on the Afghans - in fact, its perhaps the largest driver behind the reasons why the mission has deteriorated. To suggest that Canada operating a joint prison with NATO allies that doesn't torture and treats inmates humanely would go unnoticed in Afghanistan is ridiculous. I would go so far as to suggest that you are making the same mistake our war planners have been making: lack of attention to the opinions of the average Afghan and the way our actions impact on that. You're essentially saying: "they're just a bunch of tribesmen without cable - how could they even have an opinion?" Or alternatively (its hard to tell really), that there is no possible way we could impact their opinions positively. I reject both those assertions.

The other lost opportunity is to demonstrate, right in the middle of a conflict zone, that traditional methods of interrogation work better than torture at achieving policy objectives is worth mentioning. I would have loved to have Canada setting an example, not just for the region, but to the Americans as well.

And I agree, there are also a host of issues with the way the information was treated at home and thats important too. I'm not one to always have to pick one thing that I think's important. Sometimes there are multiple things that are..

[tripleup]

Originally Posted by praktik

I am definitely not one who believes in nation building. But I don't doubt the capacity of people behind the war policy to rationalize their position. We tend to think of politicians and governments who get us into war as bloodthirsty and capricious - but in Canada's case I don't believe that for a second. First the Liberals and then the Conservatives, in my opinion, believed the rhetoric they were repeating: namely that we were there in part in order to "raise up" Afghan society.

Unfortunately none of us know what exactly is/was going on, but I am more of the opinion that our Government wanted to be more involved in American foreign policy actions moving forward post 9/11. Trading our military co-operation for a bigger slice of domestic information and working on joint security concerns.

Perhaps some of the MPs were truly believing the rhetoric, but those @ the top intentionally sold this as a humanitarian nation building effort to play up to Canadian pride in our Peace Keeping Heritage. Don't forget that despite that heritage, many of our Tin Star Generals in the modern armed forces were chomping @ the bit to cut their teeth and "see our boys in action".

Originally Posted by praktik

You're essentially saying: "they're just a bunch of tribesmen without cable - how could they even have an opinion?" Or alternatively (its hard to tell really), that there is no possible way we could impact their opinions positively. I reject both those assertions.

No, I'm saying that they aren't a plugged in society waiting for the pundits to tell them what to rage about today, and that information in a tribal and technologically deficient society is passed around via second hand stories. Hence the comment about a Canadian Prison being more of a detriment in the "hearts and minds" sense than a tool for popular propaganda in the region.

The other manner of popular opinion being formed will be in their interaction with our forces in the community.

The point, is that despite all the freaking out over here, this particular issue is of minor importance or concern to the average Afghani when forming an opinion on who and what we are while over there.

If you honestly think that a few yrs of us being over there and demanding a certain standard from the Afghani government in regards to prisoner treatment is going to change the way our allies behave, much less interrogate people, or change the culture of an entire feudal region ..well....that must be some fucking crazy pot you're smoking there hippie.

[praktik]

well we've provided our perspectives, but I don't think we can square this circle...

we'll have to agree to disagree!

You've got the "who cares?" angle covered, and I got the "it matters" angle covered...

[Lurker]

^ Pistols at dawn should be a fair way to settle the argument

Jokes aside, good points on both sides.

Me personally, I'm starting to side with the who cares camp since their government can't get their shit together and the way this war has been handled fro the start has been a monumental cock-up.

They should have just gone in with a bunch of spooks and spec ops guys supported by awacs and drones and kill the baddies in their sleep and then disappear.

Afghanistan is the grave of empires for a good reason. Trying to occupy and passify the tribal nature of it is pointless.

[Puma]

The Afghani people are the ones who are torturing the Afghani people. I don't know how are we going to stop the Afghani military and police and the war lords/ insurgents from torturing their own people if NATO leaves. Afghanistan is a country stuck in the past they are 200 years behind.

Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran is going to be a problem for at least another 15 years.

[judge wopner]

Originally Posted by praktik

well we've provided our perspectives, but I don't think we can square this circle...

we'll have to agree to disagree!

You've got the "who cares?" angle covered, and I got the "it matters" angle covered...

Originally Posted by Lurker

^ Pistols at dawn should be a fair way to settle the argument

Jokes aside, good points on both sides.

Me personally, I'm starting to side with the who cares camp since their government can't get their shit together and the way this war has been handled fro the start has been a monumental cock-up.

They should have just gone in with a bunch of spooks and spec ops guys supported by awacs and drones and kill the baddies in their sleep and then disappear.

Afghanistan is the grave of empires for a good reason. Trying to occupy and passify the tribal nature of it is pointless.

Afghanistan being a "tribal" nation is besides the point. its not the lynchpin so many are making it out to be.

attempting to occupy any nation by a foreign force is difficult and has historically involved bloodshed.

i agree that the government of all stripes believed the notion that good intentions, good rhetoric and some military force backing up the PRT's (provincial reconstructions teams) would be a great way to stabilize the state and plant in a government the most afghans would be happy with.

i dont think that bringing a measure of stability, services like water and power and education are seen as occupation and invasion by most afghans who were never sympathetic to the taliban in the first place.

the argument that what canada and/or the ISAF are doing makes things worse is somewhat simplistic. in any state or military force there are going to be examples of innocents being killed either due to poor planning or actual abuse like we saw with our forces in somalia. c

ities of 50,000 will at any time have deaths due to car accidents, industrial accidents and crime, so we need to think of large military outfits in a similar vein. with US plans to inject another 30-40,000 troops, we will inevitably see scores of unfortunate incidents of people getting killed in non-combat and comabt-related events. how the authorities handle them and seek to prevent future incidences from occurring is critical.

the tourture debate is fairly simple: if Canada had credible evidence that the detainee's handed over to the Afghan's were being tortured, it would be their duty to halt future transfers until the situation was addressed.

we are seeing a case in which the government is bungling what actually happened, and denying that the allegations they now were aware of were in fact "credible".

i would say the response to the current afghan torture issue poses more of a threat to the "hearts and minds" of afghans than the actual treatment of prisoners because it displays a disregard for how people were treated at the upper echelons of the governments. i dont think most afghans who have seen so much conflict would be surprised to see soldiers mistreating people. of course it would disturb them, but i suspect even an uneducated afghan can appreciate how vicious it can appear when the actual leaders of the occupying forces display their ineptitude on the issue.

i firmly believe there are regions in Afghanistan taht welcome the troops and are working in coordination with them to rebuild the country. its never black and white but we cant conduct any sort of operation (peacekeeping or combat related) under the idea that it can only benefit the masses. there will always be segments of any state taht will resent the mere presence of foreign troops, or of troops of a different race and religion, who wish to bring western values, or install command structures foreign to their sensibilities. these segments will always exist to form the base for future resistance.

i think the presence of resistance and pro-taliban afghans isnt so much a measure of our success or failure in the region. there will always be people deeply unhappy with the current order, we have that in the US, but being much more affluent, few if any take up arms to settle their beef. the poverty of afghanistan and its complex social structure makes it more complicated of a study than a "can we win their hearts and minds" question.

im sure many people are happy simply to see water brought into their town regardless of who brought it. do we count those as loyal afghans to Canada's cause? will they turn on us the moment taliban elements move back in when we leave?

we cant police the entire nation, and we need to recognize that our intentions however noble have been proven by and large to be ineffective in establishing order, bringing prosperity and winning the support of canadians by and large, never mind afghan civilians. the conflict is dragging on, more troops are being sent in. of course if you provide a large enough garrison eventually you reach a critical mass in which these goal might in a general sense be reached (security, infastructure construction, training of an Afghan military) but at what monetary cost, human cost and what viability going forward? the US can ill afford to garrison a nation for so many years at those troop levels, especially as it entertains national health care and a global recession.

i suspect canadians are increasingly awakening to the notion that the image of canadian peacekeepers and the ideology behind it is less and less valid going forward.

[praktik]

As to your last point my prof has been fond of going over the following questions:

When canadians say they support peacekeeping (he pointed to a recent poll showing healthy support) do they even know what the word means anymore?

It has evolved over the years and we've used different terms to describe different missions: "peace making" for example (and a few others I momentarily forgot).

In which way does the Afghan mission resemble Cyprus?

Not in many ways at all IMO.

But I do think that coming on the heels of Rwanda and Somalia in the 90s, that this adventure is likely to have the effect you suggest: a lack of interest in supporting future "peacekeeping" missions.

And I think thats a good thing! I think it was our proclivity for "peacekeeping", and the ego-massaging effect of seeing your country as noble and good that got us into this and other flawed missions.

it may not have been "peacekeeping" by any classical sense, but I think our peacekeeping national myth made it easier for us to get on board.

[guysmiley]

What we're doing in Afghanistan is not peacekeeping as there is no peace. Nor is it policing or strictly nation-building (although there are elements of both). At the crux of it is an active war against the so-called insurgency.

Regardless of the reasons that we went to war, why we continue to be there, or whether we’ve been successful in any capacity or not, we’re bound by an ethical code of conduct that manifests itself through international conventions and agreements as well as domestic and international laws; this applies to everyone who represents our country.

Accusations of being overly simplistic in the implementation of this conviction should carry absolutely no weight as it’s as simple a rule as we can get: We don’t fucking torture people. Ever. This includes capturing them and handing them over to another organization when we knew that that there was a very good chance that they would be tortured.

These are serious and credible accusations and they should be investigated as such. If there was a procedural or intelligence gap, it should be addressed. If there was a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the truth, those responsible should be brought to justice.

[Boss Hog]

The opposition wants it and more importantly the people want it.

Do you think the government will listen?

I'm betting, just as with the climate change issue, the Conservatives will continue to thumb their nose at what Canadians actually want from their government.

Seriously, remember this shit come next election.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally Posted by Boss Hog

...and more importantly the people want it.

I seriously doubt this. Statistical validity notwithstanding, I have trouble with the article beginning with:

[quote]"Most people in Canada believe a public inquiry.....is necessary at this time...."[end quote]

I'm aware of how sampling is used to express a position. But I'd bet most people in Canada are likely completely unaware that this is even a topic of discussion. 500 people on an Angus Reid poll is a massive leap away from "most Canadians."

My own (admittedly highly rudimentary and anecdotal) sampling-based logic goes as follows: I'm a pretty plugged in sort, as are most people in my life. Topics of the day are usually discussed in detail with friends, family, work associates etc. Within that circle, this topic has registered a 0 out of 10 on the interest metre. No one talks about it. No one seems to care beyond a disconnected shrug. In fact, I remain amazed at the front page/lead item coverage this issue is garnering.

Based solely on my own observation, I'm very skeptical as to whether "most Canadians" even have an opinion on this, let alone care enough to want an inquiry.

[Boss Hog]

Wow, really. A lot of people I know are talking about it and seem to care about it.

[Vincent Vega]

Yup.....and I can't explain where that divide comes from in terms of who cares and who doesn't.

Maybe in my own circle it's a simple case of "important stuff overload" as of late. Don't know. All I know is that it just hasn't registered.

[guysmiley]

Originally Posted by Vincent Vega

500 people on an Angus Reid poll is a massive leap away from "most Canadians."

Not really a huge leap if good sampling methods are used. AR used 1,010 people and has a confidence level of +/- 3.1% in their poll. This certainly wouldn't give you an absolute answer, but it's more than good enough to act as a barometer (based on the questions asked in the poll).