Saturday, March 06, 2010

Conservative War Crime

A recent CBC story delves into the issue of whether the Conservatives committed war crimes by handing over prisoners to be tortured in Afghanistan. The most sensational aspect of this story is the revelation that not only is it possible that the Conservative government knew about the torture of detainees, but that the government was handing over its prisoners so that they would be tortured.

In the CBC videoclip a professor from the University of Ottawa Amir Attaran describes that if these documents are released there is a possiblity that this Conservative government is guilty of war crimes. Mr. Attaran in reference to the Somalia affair where two Canadian soldiers beat a teenager to death, said, "This is ugly, this makes Somalia look very small."


ridenrain said...

Isn't that the guy that Iggy saved? The one who's career was saved by the current leader of the opposition?

Michael said...

Hmmm, how convenient. :D said...

Yeah you're right, so? Would you have any evidence to suggest a law professor is lying? Please my good people enlighten me with the evidence you must have for you to insinuate a professor of law is lying.

Michael said...

Never said he was lying, just that the connection is rather......convenient. said...

Yes Michael it is and so is 7/11, what about it?

Annie... said...

So if Michael did save his job..does that make the man a liar on TV? He wouldn't risk his job again, would he.
All people do not lie like Harper.

ridenrain said...

The fact that the last government were the ones who came up with the prisoner handling rules so I can't see how the Libs expect to benefit from this. said...

Ridenrain, yeah it's almost... ALMOST like they care more about doing what's right than sheer partisanship.

Michael said...

Who, the Liberals?

ridenrain said...

If right was the critical factor, we might might not even be in "Chretien's" war. said...

Whoever (in the wise words of Larry the cable guy) Gits 'Er Done said...

Yes Ridenrain what other issues do you have to really confuse the issue? The Kennedy assassination? Moon landing hoax? 9/11 conspiracy theories?

wilson said...

It wouldn't be the first time Attaran said he obtained proof that Afghan prisoners were abused, and even by Canadian soldiers
(investigation concluded in 2008)

A fairly detailed history on Attarans ties to Libs and non-stop accusations of torture here:

wilson said...

Can you explain the media silence on Attaran's accusations Scott?

Try to find a media outlet that picked up the story, other than the CBC.
There is none. said...

Well I doubt I can if you can't my good Wilson, but bear with me while I offer my humble attempt.

Do you think, just maybe, other news agencies don't regularly cite other news agencies?

And just maybe do you think it's a bit presumptious to declare that other news agencies won't report on the story because it's been a whole day and they haven't yet?

Toe said...

So far it's been in MacLeans twice, Globe n Mail, Ottawa Citizen, no silence that I can see.
But what I want to know is why did Attaran get to see the unredcat docs and most in parliament didn't? Unless CBC has them and to protect their sources, their exposing thru Attaran. Anyone know? The journos aren't asking. said...

Toe, I know the video says Attaran has seen the documents, but I think that means has seen them censored. The CBC interviews Attaran because he's a law professor who has read the censored documents and believes when uncensored they will show critical evidence there was misdoing.

Mark Francis said...

Arguing over documents we can't see. So it devolves into attacking messengers... Arg...

Amir Attaran... I don't know. He's got an odd history. For example, he's advocated for Africa Fighting Malaria, which promotes the renewed large-scale use of DDT to fight malaria. It's a very suspect org (see ) advocating a stupid policy which will simply make mosquito populations resistant to DDT, making the currently effective small-scale use fail, with a resulting increase in malaria infections. He also has advocated against supplying generic AIDS drugs to South Africa.

Wrong side of those issues, for sure.

Nothing anyone here has said, including me, makes him wrong. We simply need to see these documents for ourselves. said...

I agree Mark. There is a second video of Attaran, I haven't posted it yet, that offers some insight into why the documents should be released. His main argument is that the government has to or it's acting unconstitutional.

wilson said...

Toe, no other media outlet covered the Attaran story.

Scott, seriously, you think a story this explosive would be exclusive to the CBC?

If it is, where is the follow up, where is Maleski?
Where are Dewar and Dusanj?
Like Liberals and Dippers would not comment if

Who showed Attaran secret federal documents,
and how did that person get them?

The allegations of war crimes are dwarfed by the number of federal laws (Parliament passed) that have been broken, if Attaran did see highly classified documents. said...

Wilson, I must apologize, you must know what I wrote better than I, because I don't seem to recall saying Attaran saw those uncensored documents.

I know in a previous comment I wrote that he most likely didn't, but that wouldn't preclude me from writing that he also did see them, am I right?

As for other media not reporting on it, I'm not other media. I do know the perceived absence of something does not mean it doesn't exist.

Toe said...

What on earth are u guys saying? Attaran most certainly claims to have seen uncensored documents. You saw the Terry Milewski's report, yes?

That's why I asked if CBC actually has them and are protecting their sources thru Attaran! said...

Toe I saw Milewski's report, and I could not find any instance where Milewski or Attaran claim anyone saw the uncensored documents.

Yes Attaran said he read the documents but because he continues to be unclear whether there were war crimes committed, I believe he saw the documents as they were censored.

If he had seen them uncensored as a law professor he could say undeniably yes or no if such crimes occurred, but alas he did not.

Toe said...

CBC reported:

"If the allegation is true, such actions would constitute a war crime, said University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who has been digging deep into the issue and told CBC News he has seen uncensored versions of government documents released last year."

uncensored 'versions', 'last year'. How many versions are there? And if they were released last year, uncensored, how and to whom? And why does Attaran say IF the allegations are true, when he has seen uncensored docs according to himself? There is something very wrong here, let's hope we see some light soon. said...

Toe yes I have seen that footage, and not to be overly critical, I think the uncensored documents Amir saw are different from the censored documents now in question.

No where is it said he saw documents proving torture, nor any documents showing that the Canadian government handed over prisoners to be tortured. Everything Amir said was pretensed with "possible," "a question of," etc.

CanadianSense said...

If you are involved in an auto accident do the insurance companies representatives ask you if you know or have any relationship with the people involved in the accident?

In a court are experts cross-examined for bias?

It is inappropriate to look for bias or ask if the person may have an agenda?

Did Phil Jones, Michael Mann, U.N. Pachy get investigated for the above concerns? (Bias, Agenda)

Why are you holding this friend of the Liberal leader to a lower standard?

wilson said...

Go to the 1:10 minute mark of the video Ross,
Attaran makes the statement that releasing the uncensored documents he SAW show Canada partnered with alleged, no 'if's', no 'it is my opinion',
a clear statement of FACT.

Listen to the video. said...

Wilson, yes I did see that portion of the video as well but it wouldn't take uncensored documents to know Canadians partnered with torturers, that is an objective fact everyone knows about.

What I don't know for 100% is whether the torture was known by the Canadians.

But this is a moot point as I have corresponded with Mr. Attaran and he has clarified the story, saying he has seen the documents and they confirm that Canadian officials were handing over detainees for the purpose of them being tortured. He is however restricted from saying which documents and wat was their specific content.

CanadianSense said...

Wilson the host is allowed to repeat rumours.

If I am not mistaken he also believes the PM pocketed the host. said...

Canadiansense, as for your first comment it very well articulated and you point out great examples in needing to test for bias, but if I'm not mistaken, they don't apply here at all.

We're not debating the unverifable causes of a crash or some word of an expert, we're talking about physical evidence. Your assumption that Amir is risking his career on the government not releasing the documents and the government not coming out to say Amir is wrong is to say the least grasping.

If Amir is lying the federal government or pertinent officials could come out and say the professor is lying without disclosing any content of the files, yet they do not.

And though the absence of opposition does not prove Amir is right, his word and his willingness to stake his reputation on it does offer considerable more evidence then some historic connection to Ignatieff.

As for your second comment, who is the host you speak of?

CanadianSense said...

If the gov't chooses to sue Amir, the CBC, you will report he is being muzzled by the gov't.

Remember how you and the media spun the Colvin documents, testimony?

We call this a No win Free Spin for the bad guys.

Amir is FREE to see he saw a purple dinosaur as WELL.

I encourage Free Speech including on tv programs with very low ratings (CBC news can't break top 30)-Check out BBM

Amir simply like Colvin both need to present REAL evidence, and convince a court of their allegations.

Until than we simply have an opinion that can not be proven but can be used repeatedly to damage the reputation of both Liberal and CPC governments and the military.

Sorry Amir personal statement, telephone call, email, shared romantic dinner by candle light are not sufficient outside the court of Liberal opinion.

I have NOT made a single personal attack on his character, motivations, financial sponsors, I simply want the facts presented the potential for bias.

Let the viewer make up his own mind.

A) Amir has ties to the Liberal Party and no one has disputed Liberals supporters can be honest.

B) Us in the other camp simply want the media to report a bias may exist, his previous relationships.

The media are NOT reporting all the facts or potential for bias on this story.

They did a hatchet job on the single mother who was actually married visiting her husband, and the two women who showed up for interviews had a height difference of seven inches.

The same person Bob Rae demanded we pay $ 2.5 million to settle the lawsuit.

Results we hear Liberals alleging we have a racist gov't/civil service are racists and brown skin people are not safe travelling abroad for a few weeks.

Scott I laid out examples of rumours, opinions and details of damage to our reputation. You can repeat them and hope as a Liberal they only land on the current gov't.

I will again have the lawyers and politicians settle it before making unsupportable statements against the Liberals, CPC or our military based on a smalll number of people who may have a bias/agenda. said...

Canadian Sense, how is it that laws of logic do not apply to you?

First where did I spin the Colvin documents? I surely must have because you said: "Remember how you and the media spun the Colvin documents, testimony?" Since you know the posts I've written better than I, please point out where I did this spinning.

Second my Canadian Sense, you must be far more intelligent than I because I cannot grasp how you can say you have not attacked his character when in the paragraph just before you insinuate he is gay.

It may be me just understanding "romantic" wrong, but then again I'm using a dictionary and you're using your cunning intellect.

Now Canadian Sense as you clearly have more going up in that head of yours than mine, I hope you explain the above two points to a dolt like myself.