Why don't we just torture Richard Colvin?
AND ANOTHER THING CAMPBELL WEBSTER
The Guardian
Let's assume for the moment that you must choose between two statements, selecting the statement you believe is more likely to be true. Here are the two statements:
1) The Afghan military tortures none of its prisoners.
2) The Afghan military tortures all of its prisoners.
For all we know about the Afghan government and military, the first statement seems ludicrous. This leaves the second statement as the most likely to be true, and no doubt the one most people would choose.
You could argue this is a false choice, and perhaps other statements (they torture some or all of their prisoners, for example) might be the actual truth.
Still, what is compelling about the second statement is that it jives nicely with Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin's testimony before a House of Commons committee last week. He told the committee it was probable that all prisoners handed over by Canadian soldiers to the Afghan government were tortured. He also stated Canadian government officials were aware this was likely the case.
While the Conservatives attack the credibility of Mr. Colvin, their own credibility on the issue is in doubt simply because they have aligned themselves with statement number one. Oddly enough, the self-styled straight talker, Canada's former chief of defence staff, Rick Hillier, has also maintained that he heard no credible evidence that the Afghans tortured prisoners, also aligning himself with statement number one.
It begs the following question of both the Conservatives and Mr. Hillier: As there is no evidence that any Afghan government in recent history did not torture prisoners, when do they believe this accepted national practice suddenly changed? Examine decades worth of international media, NGO and governmental statements and reports and the only thing you will find is relentless claims of torture of Afghan prisoners of war, no matter who was in charge. Torture appears to be the national pastime of any Afghan government. Richard Colvin was simply stating the obvious. Perhaps now that he works in Canada's Washington, D.C., embassy he will reveal that Americans like baseball.
But perhaps the silliest aspect of this story is that Defence Minister Peter MacKay has any credibility on this or any other issue, and that he enjoys a measure of respect and even electability in Canada. He is, after all, the man who on May 31, 2003, signed a straightforward contract with David Orchard. The contract, signed by Mr. MacKay, stated that in return for Mr. Orchard's support of Mr. MacKay's leadership bid of the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. MacKay would not merge the PCs with the Alliance Party.
A few weeks later, Mr. MacKay did exactly that, after having denied any such agreement existed in written form ... until it surfaced.
Taken together (the claim that Afghans have suddenly dispensed of their decades long love of torture and MacKay's callous disregard of his own word) it makes you wonder how the Conservatives can possibly get out of this mess.
They really only have one option: Torture. Or specifically, tortured explanations and torturing the reputation or Richard Colvin.
Campbell Webster is a writer and producer of entertainment events. He can be reached at campbell@campbellwebster.ca
The Guardian is committed to encouraging intelligent discourse among our readers and to creating a forum where diverse views and opinions on a wide range of topics can be aired. The forum you are in now is a result of our continuing efforts to facilitate a dynamic online conversation among our readers.
This is a semi-moderated or reactively moderated conversation. Once a reader follows the steps to register and submit his or her comment it goes directly to the website. A comment may be edited or deleted for reasons of content or language.
All readers wishing to join a conversation must first sign in and agree to the Terms of Usage, which explain the rules of acceptable content.
Aongasha from PEI writes: It is interesting to note that as usual the press is seemingly oblivious to the fact that up until 2006 (Feb) it was a Liberal government responsibility in Afghanistan. Also that Ambassador Mulroney says that 2006 was a chaotic year and they were under extreme pressure from Taliban attacks. He then went on to say that once this was under control they took steps to revamp the process the Liberal government had in place. Yet the over arch here is that it is all the Conservatives fault. More media bias Mr. Campbell?
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Robert from British Columbia writes: Aongasha please do some research and find out the the differences were between Canadian operations Athena and Archer.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Kevin from British Columbia writes: Mr. Webster is correct in pointing out the value of Mr. MacKay's word. The only mistake he makes is calling Mr. MacKay's party conservatives because Sir John A. Macdonald's legacy is discraced by this government of neo-liberal pseudo-conservatives.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
NOTE
The management of this site emphasizes that it is in no way liable for persons, physical or legal, who are hosted here. Moreover, the managers of this site may not be held liable for errors and omissions that may slip into the information displayed in these reader comments. Everyone who submits a comment should read, understand and agree to the Terms of Usage for this section.
