Mr. Hillier tore into Mr. Colvin’s assertion that most detainees handed over to the Afghans were innocent.
He described the detainees as “men who gave up after violent firefights where we had taken casualties ... men with explosive residue ... on their hands and gunshot residue all over their bodies.”
He said Mr. Colvin was off-base in asserting that most of the detainees were unlucky civilians caught by mistake. “Nothing could be farther from the truth,” the former general said.
“We detained under violent actions people trying to kill our sons and daughters.”
He said that perhaps Canadian soldiers took the occasional innocent into custody, but insisted this was rare.
“Yes, we probably detained the occasional farmer – and whether they were farmers by day and Taliban by night, which is often the case, is something that is very difficult to discern.”
Mr. Hillier said Canada’s military found itself in a ferocious fight when it set up in Kandahar in March, 2006, to fight the Taliban.
“All the sudden in 2006, we found ourselves in the middle of a war ... we found ourselves up against a determined and tough enemy,” Mr. Hillier recalled.
Thank-you, General Hillier. Now, will the Liberal Party of Canada return to being completely irrelevant.
9 comments:
Over the word of a bus driver?
Sorry Rob, I had to give in to that temptation.
Hillier speaks of civilians being detained in the passage you write about Rob. But what does any of that statement have to do with the question at hand? Did he know the prisoners would be tortured Rob? Cause the man on the ground (my cousin in particular) certainly knows that prisoners are being tortured.
Does anyone really care if these butchers were being tortured by their own people. The Geneva convention does no apply to them.
From today's testimony, it seems clear that the Canadian Forces were very humane. Without the Geneva convention, these insurgents would have simply been shot in wars of auld. With Paul Martin's protocol, it was the Liberals who condoned torture by their policy.
"anyone really care if these butchers were being tortured by their own people. The Geneva convention does no apply to them."
Um, if they didn't, we wouldn't be going through this inquiry, would we now.
"With Paul Martin's protocol, it was the Liberals who condoned torture by their policy."
Yes yes. It's all Paul Martin's fault Peter McKay is a lying sack of shit.
James - I don't have family in Afghanistan, and I would definitely have to yield to people on the ground, whether it's Hillier or your cousin to get a better view of things than desk-jockey's like Colvin, or worse yet, those in Ottawa.
However - I did have a chance to sit down with a fighter pilot in Athens this summer and his view was that, clearly, the politicians do not comprehend the size of the problem facing them, and the difficulty of the decisions that are made on a daily basis.
My point is not that we should ignore torture, but I don't buy into the effort to use this issue as some sort of political vehicle.
Clearly, the Red Cross information recited by Colvin did not indicate torture was going on.. and taking that acknowledgement, with the evidence of Hillier, and the reality of who they are dealing with, and Michael Ignatieff's own condonation of "coercive interrogation techniques", I really don't see this as an issue of great important, personally, or, in the views of most Canadians near as I can tell.
There is a mountain of difference in how detainees are treated in times of war, and how prisoners are treated in a functioning democracy.
Curran you are a left wing lunatic and traitor, and nowhere did I say it was anyones fault. Being ex military, not Canadian, I would have just shot the bastards. And you are the lying sack of shit.
I'm a traitot? Go fuck yourself you piece of anonymous shit!
Iv e lost two cousins in war, both my granfathers have served overseas and I have one cousin in Afghanistan now you fucking loser.
pissedoff.. a traitor is hardly someone who disagrees with you or I.. a traitor is hardly someone who puts themselves out there for citicism and attack because they have an interest in making Canada a better place.. whether I agree with James all the time or not.
There is nothing wrong with strongly disagreeing with a fellow Canadian, even to the point of anger.. and lord knows I have reached that point with guys like Warren Kinsella - and James Curran is no Warren Kinsella.
So - I take some serious issue with your comment.. if you read James' blog, you will see he is one of few Liberals who will take issue with his own party where he believe's they are out of line.
That sort of ability to think critically of the party you support (which I also do from time to time) is something we should be encouraging, not blythly dismissing by calling them a "traitor".
Post a Comment