Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Let us now ask some uncomfortable questions

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, November 13, 2008 2:08am - 44 Comments

Mellissa Fung

So if Mellissa Fung has it right, her release came as a result of a “prisoner exchange.” In response to her kidnapping, essentially, the Afghan authorities claimed their own hostages and approached her kidnappers with a trade: you release her, we’ll release yours. We don’t know who was held and then released as part of the deal, but one might assume they weren’t of much danger or guilt if they were subsequently set free.

So. First and foremost, are we all okay with this?

What did the Canadian government and the Prime Minister know of this deal and when did they know it? What did the CBC know and when did they know it? Why was this arrangement not declared as soon as news of her release was announced?

Never minding Afghan laws (or lack thereof) in this regard, is this sort of arrangement legal under Canadian law, as seemingly claimed by the Prime Minister in his first press conference? Does this correspond with current Canadian foreign policy? Do we now negotiate with terrorists? Or is this considered to be beyond the general definition of “negotiation?”

How real is the threat of torture when someone is detained in Afghanistan? Was a threat, implicit or explicit, of torture part of the negotiations? What responsibility does Canada take for the treatment of those detained in this transaction by the Afghan government? What responsibility should Canada take for the treatment of those detained in this transaction by the Afghan government?

(Let’s leave it there. Though if any bit of this was even mildly untoward, then, of course, we are into a whole other round of questions about everything we’ve been doing for the last seven years and how one engages the bad guys without becoming a little like them in the process.)

Bookmark and Share
  • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

    “A reputation for endorsing torture endangers our soldiers. Do you really need this explained to you?”

    Yes, I think I do need it explained to me. You seem to be arguing that appearing weak will make our psychopathic enemies more loving/tender towards us while appearing strong would make us more vulnerable. Nothing I have seen in human nature makes me think that knaves, gangsters and murderers respond well to weakness in others.

    If our enemies think that we are going to abide by Geneva Conventions while they kidnap and murder Canadians than we are encouraging that behaviour because they know there will be no consequences.

  • Scott B

    I buy the moral arguments against torture and agree with them – but here’s a practical one for you jwl.

    If I were being tortured I would probably say anything to get them to stop (hey it’s torture) even if it is a lie. And if I thought the truth would endanger people, I would DEFINITELY lie. Many have argued that torture is actually an unreliable technique for interrogation.

  • http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/ Transcanada

    Given Steve Harper’s track record for telling the truth I’ll go with Fung’s version of events. I often wonder what goes on in Harper’s mind when he opens his mouth. He will always outsmart his base-true-believers but most Canadians didn’t vote for him because of trust issues, and what he does just reinforces the belief he should not be trusted.

    Whether you classify Harper’s version as splitting hairs or a bald faced lie does not matter. As Harper reveals the way he thinks when he opens his mouth, his chances of achieving greater respect from Canadians diminish.

    Canadians do not trust him.

  • TJ Cook

    The trouble here, jwl, is that you’re picturing the bad guys as cartoonish monsters – not human. “Psychopaths”.

    In fact, committing acts of torture is notoriously difficult and tends to have a devastating psychological impact on the torturer. The military knows that a potential torturer is more likely to torture a captured soldier if that soldier’s country has committed acts of torture – the rationalization is easier. And if captured, the torturer can always point to his enemy’s actions as justification for his own (kind of like you’re doing).

    But to torture someone from a country with clean hands is a bigger psychological hurdle for the torturer, and bears much greater public relations risk if they’re caught since they lacked even the flimsy “they did it too” excuse.

    THAT is the practical reason why long-standing military policy from all first-world nations is that we do not torture. Because it puts our soldiers in danger. The military understands this.

    As for the moral reason: it’s wrong. If our “enemies” do it to us, it’s still wrong. Honestly, have you really descended to GWB’s kindergarten-grade moral outlook? Is the appearance of “strength” really more important to you than your principles?

  • Wayne

    Here is a real life scenario to think about. My ex, my niece and myslef walking downtown (dangerous part) late at night in Vancouver. 3 youths (very young) follow and then rush ahead of us whipping out weapons threatening me and mine and demanding our money. What followed was an exercise in what I call real life. To place things in context I have been teaching marrial arts for more than 30 years now (a variety of them ranging from western boxing to chinese several schools of kung fu – re: bagua, hsing I, tai chi, siu lum etc etc etc) I put my ex-wife and niece behind me then warned my attackers that they would be wise to leave now and leave fast … however they didn’t … I proceeded to disarm them (2 knives and and a stick) then had what I call a party with them teaching them the finer arts of self defense and how to injure someone quickly (speed is the key) once I removed their weapons and they were laying on the ground no more threat I then went to the main attacker and made very sure he would never again be able to use his right arm to attack anyone again as I focused on breaking his elbow and wrist as he was the main man and the other were obvious flunkies and of little threat and who knows maybe they had a future. However the leader of the pack should not be able to use this attack again and judging by the shape I left him in he won’t be waving a knife around at people again. Now there are people who will think what I did was terrible and beyond what was necessary – but guess what I don’t care and neither did the police when they came and picked up the debris of what I was dealing with the only hurt party deserved it and this is real life.

  • Mike T.

    The scenario posted above has nothing in common with anything discussed previously in the thread.

  • Mike T.

    Unless the poster means that he deliberately went beyond what he knew would be reasonable to subdue his attackers, and therefore engaged in torture. But its still a pretty weak link.

  • Austin So

    Seriously, Wayne, projecting your fantasies onto this situation is pure comedy.

    There is no parallel.

    Austin

  • Sisyphus

    Gee, Wayne. If you were really good you would have disabled them and then rehabbed them through the sheer power of your mind.

  • Wayne

    Oh it was a form of torture and no fantasy make no mistake about and in point of fact check out the Vancouver Sun 5 years ago I think it was in June 2003 maybe 2002 the story is there as well as some of the trouble I got into by the parents of the injured party. In either event if I were Melissa’s father and heard that she was kidnapped and I found out where her kidnappers father was … I would be on the first plane to Pakistan and indeed If he was responsible I would perform extreme violence on him to get my daughter back to do less would be ridiculous and any who disagree are the people who live in a fantasy world and probably have not experienced real life as yet or never had a family. As to fantasy land statement by Austin well what can I say hopefully you can keep living in yours as to my martial arts experience I have taught police officers, private students and have owned Martial Arts Studios and quite frankly have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.

  • Scott M.

    …except, apparently, restraint and belief in rule of law.

  • Wayne

    Scott = I did practise restraint I only broke his elbow and wrist I was tempted for a brief moment to go considerably beyond that believe me and as to law and order … well … law and order that’s the name of a television show and is the typical statement of someone who has little experience in real life and who sits back enjoying the comforts of a nice peaceful modern safe country. I hope you never have to actually have to face reality ask Melissa what she thinks I daresay she is quite happy with how things turned out I sure hope you, your wife and niece are never attacked in front of you and you are face with reality somehow I doubt you would be posting such drivel if you had!

  • Mike T.

    Perhaps it is time to put aside the Internet Tough Guy portion of this thread and return to matters which are actually relevant?

  • edeast

    yes, like: Amanda Lindhout.

  • joe blow

    If you have a better way of dealing with violent kidnappers in a lawless land like Afghanistan, let us know what it is.

  • Ti-Guy

    If you have a better way of dealing with violent kidnappers in a lawless land like Afghanistan, let us know what it is.

    Conscription. All suburban males between 19 and 40.

  • T. Thwim

    Develop better relations with all the people there. Support them when they’re having trouble. Be consistent, generous, and fair in providing assistance. Provide significant rewards for information that leads to our forces killing the kidnappers. Provide schools for their children and armed escorts to get their children to school safely. Outsource that kind of activity to local Afghanis ASAP.

    If a kidnapping or something occurs, then the amount of support we provide them lessens/stops as we concentrate on finding the perpetrators. Once found/killed, the support resumes.

    In short, make the area friendly to us and hostile for the kidnappers.

  • John.K

    Or we could just go home and leave these people to run their lives & country in whatever way they see fit…however distasteful we might find that to be, it’s their country not ours.

  • Just a guy with a thought or two.

    This is all nonsense.

    There was no torture. There has been no allegation of torture. There has been no evidence of torture. Period. Those detained were held as part of an investigation into a family-run kidnapping ring, and probably had real knowledge of the whereabouts and plans of those directly involved. Period. Their detention was in full compliance with Afghan law, which includes a whole series of UN human rights conventions, and a clear ban on torture. Period. In the end, those who were clearly only marginally invovled were released, while people closer to the episode were held for prosecution. Period. It was the Afghan government, not Canada, that made this all happen – it was their investigation and their operation – not Harper’s. Period.

    Don’t you all think this hypothetical run-around is a bit ridiculous? Particularly when it was an Afghan solution to an Afghan problem? Was Canada involved? Probably. Is it our country? No. See, there is this concept we like to call “sovereignty”. So unless you want Canada to start pushing countries around, and acting the 18th century British viceroy, you all better get used to the idea that this kind of thing gets resolved on the terms of the government in power. You are all getting up-in-arms about the possibility of torture, and the possibility of wrong-doing, without knowing (a) what actually happened; and (b) what the laws of the land are in Afghanistan. You want to talk about morales? Lets talk about the morality of projecting our values and our way of doing things on a foreign culture and foreign system of governance. It is their country, not ours. They make the rules, not us. The best we can do is try to ensure that they rule humanely, which in this case they apparently did. So what are you all upset about?

    I think our people did a great job. The outcome did not break Canadian law, did not break Afghan law, and resulted in no fatalities or blood baths. What if there had been a resuce attempt? If they had raided a family compound guns blazing, then those same people who were detained and released would probably be dead.

    You can’t have your cake, and eat it too. So why don’t we all stop armchair quaterbacking for a foreign government? Why don’t we simply be happy that a Canadian citizen (who through her own foolishness and lack of responsibility put our soldiers and embassy people and the rest in this awkward position in the first place) is home safe? Why don’t we start asking news agencies and the like what they are thinking sending people into harms way like this, if they are going to be content to let the government take the fall when it all goes sideways? Would any of this even be news if these people worked for a private company, or the government, or whatever else? Anyone remember the two aid workers that got killed a little while ago? I remember everyone screaming for blood then. Now that firm action is taken in the face of criminality you are all back-tracking?

    So typically Canadian.

From Macleans