Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Loyalty Oaths and Litmus Tests

A recent guest has been claiming that Leftists hate "the troops" because we want to see the Geneva Conventions respected. As proof of the hatred for "the troops" [in quotations because jingoists use the term in a thoughtless, knee-jerk fashion] felt by the NDP and the Liberal Party of Canada, my guest refers to the "fact" that all they want to talk about are possible abuses of prisoners in Afghanistan, and not at all about the conditions that "the troops" have to live and work under.

I'm not going to get into a stupid pissing contest about which side "supports the troops" more. I'm not going to get into that nonsensical framing of issues whereby contrary opinions are regarded as treasonous, where questioning of foreign policy becomes shitting all over "the troops."

Just to refute the claim that all (in this case) the NDP and the Liberals have never concerned themselves with our soldiers other than to condemn them for alleged abuses in Afghanistan, I provide this statement from the House of Commons:

There are tremendous problems in our country for veterans and their families, not just for the veterans of World War I, World War II, Korea, the gulf war and Afghanistan, but also for our modern day veterans, those who served during peacekeeping times and the cold war. An awful lot of them, almost 4,000 to be exact, have a problem with what is called the SISIP deduction. This was something that we in the NDP had in our veterans first motion, which was adopted by the three opposition parties in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted against it at that time.

We should remember what the Prime Minister said when he was in opposition. He said that when motions are passed by the House of Commons, that should bring the direction from government to the forefront. Unfortunately, not only did the Conservatives vote against our motion, but the budget completely ignored that aspect of the motion. When there is a $14.2 billion surplus and they are not going to help disabled veterans now, when do they plan on doing it?

There is a gentlemen in my riding by the name of Mr. Dennis Manuge, who has just started a class action lawsuit with a legal team, and with members of that lawsuit right across this country, to fight the government over the SISIP deduction. Many of our injured soldiers are now facing the choice of losing their homes and equity and being
forced into rental accommodations that, in some cases, are of a poorer standard.
These are people who volunteered to serve their country and unfortunately were
injured in the line of duty. What is being said to them? They are being told
that maybe we will get around to thinking about helping them.

When the government has a $14.2 billion surplus over and above moneys required for the day to day operations of government, one would assume that of all governments, this government, a government that reportedly likes to support the troops, would have looked at this issue very seriously, and if it did not want to accept the recommendations from the NDP then it could at least accept the recommendations from the DND ombudsmen.

Two of those ombudsmen have said that the SISIP deduction has to go and that with a $290 million investment this problem will be fixed. That amount is 1.8% of the
recently announced $14.2 billion surplus. One would think that in its heart of hearts the government would have come up with $290 million, not only honouring the motion passed by the House of Common but accepting the recommendations of two ombudsmen.

Just recently, Mr. Côté, the DND ombudsman, again wrote a letter mentioning that recommendation to the government. It is still being ignored by the government. For the life of me, I cannot understand this in view of the heightened awareness of our troops, those bravely serving in Afghanistan and around the world and those who have been injured and are coming home. Our troops went through one war. They should not have to go through another one when they get back home.

14 comments:

RB Glennie said...

Hi Thwapman:

Nice research.

Two things -

This isn't during question period. It's during debates that no one listens to and no one gives a crap about (unfortunately).

Second, very conveniently, after weeks of hearing about teh Liberal / NDP passion for the fate of people who blow up children, an NDP member conveniently during debates (NOT again, during Qeustion time) just YESTERDAy comes in to show his concern for veterans...

very convenient...

thanks
Roundhead

RB Glennie said...

ps

"nonsensical framing of issues whereby contrary opinions are regarded as treasonous, where questioning of foreign policy becomes shitting all over "the troops."

yet you are the one talking about "Canadian values" - loyalty to Canada means not being loyal to the NDP or Liberals, as you seem to believe

thanks

Anonymous said...

No, "roundhead," ... while I'm sure you obviously like to have things both ways (accusing me of treason but resenting it when your pro-torture stance is called "unCanadian"), that's just not going to happen here.

You and Stephen Harper can cut it out with the "treason" talk and we can discuss respecting the Geneva Conventions in a sane, reasonable manner.

And, no, you can't slither out of this situation as easily as you'd like to.

The "Veterans First" motion and the SISIP deduction wasn't just invented yesterday to balance-out the NDP's carping about alleged beatings and torture.

It's not just a "cover" for their profound hatred of the Canadian Forces.

I'm going to have to ask you to suck this one up: The CPC doesn't have a monopoly on concern for the troops.

It's just that other parties seem to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Thank you for playing.

RB Glennie said...

I didn't mention "treason", Thwap-boy, you did...

Anonymous said...

Oh, I'm sorry. I guess there's a big difference between accusing people of hating their own troops and wanting their terrorist opponents to win, and "treason."

whatever.

Anonymous said...

Yes, there is

At least you didn't say "terrorists", as you did "troops"

thwap said...

????

Unknown said...

Geneva Conventions don't apply to fighters without uniforms.

Anonymous said...

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm

"Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy," belong to any of the categories for POWs, "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

No detainee can be without a legal status under the Conventions. According to the ICRC Commentary:

Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law.1

U.S. officials have endorsed the government's adherence to this principle.

In 1987, then-Deputy Legal Advisor to the U.S. State Department, Michael Matheson, stated that:

We [the United States] do support the principle that, should any doubt arise as to whether a person is entitled to combatant status, he be so treated until his status has been determined by a competent tribunal, as well as the principle that if a person who has fallen into the power of an adversary is not held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried for an offense arising out of the hostilities, he should have the right to assert his entitlement before a judicial tribunal and to have that question adjudicated.3"

thwap said...

And furthermore, as long as we're attempting to be legal sticklers n' all, saying that (in this case) Taleban prisoners have no human rights whatsoever and so we can do with them what they will, ... the Geneva Conventions also stipulates that the parties in conflict must be in compliance with the laws of war to be considered deserving of their rights.

So, since the US military has attacked hospitals and (quite possibly actually) used white phosphorus as a combat weapon, and their have been no investigations by the US gov't, ... it can be argued by terrorist sophists that US military personnel are "enemy combatants," and whether they're shot dead or beheaded is of no legal consequence.

That's where your hateful logic ends up.

And regardless of all of that, ... attempting to find legal loopholes in the Geneva Conventions that justify the use of torture on hundreds of people (many of whom were not captured in combat but were turned over by uncredible persons looking for rewards and to settle personal scores) seems to me to be another right-wing attempt to have its cake and eat it too;

"We're not turning over people to be tortured. We never would. Besides EVEN IF WE WERE it's okay because none of these people have any rights anyway. Ever."

Anonymous said...

"uncredible" thwat-boy?

Yes, the "competent tribunal" you speak of must consist of representatives of the opposing side... that would mean representatives of the Taliban / Al-Qaeda would sit together with Americans and everyone would have tea and of course the Al-Qaeda terrorists you love would decide that their captured soldiers are not terrorists....

Now, I'm glad you've revealed that you believe the Allied troops in Iraq should not receive the "protections" of the Geneva Accords...

they actually don't have them now, as you may observed uniformed men getting their heads sawed off, and other uniformed personnell being captured in international waters and being put on TV...

I'm sure you'll be protesting and writing blog entries about that, twat boy

thwap said...

Ah, I see it now.

You being a hateful and evil person yourself, you're projecting your own mental and moral failings onto me.

Actually, "rounonymous," I support respecting the human rights of all the humans involved in this conflict.

There's so many other points that i could correct you on but you're an idiot and a nobody and not worth the effort.

So here's an assignment for you: Do some goddamned research on the Geneva Conventions yourself, you stupid, ugly cretin, ... and find out what the international law makers intended when they wrote "competent tribunal."

Two questions that I don't care if you answer:

1. Is it better to die because your legs were pulpified and your wrists snapped, or to have your head sawn off?

2. What's your problem with twats? You don't like twats or something?

Anonymous said...

fuckhead, i've the geneva accords bvecause i'm acutally educated

unlike you twatboy

you don't know what the fuck is in them becuase you're a fuckhead

thwap said...

roundhead,

Let me quote you:

"fuckhead, i've the geneva accords bvecause i'm acutally educated"

... it is to laugh. (Not really.)

You've 'what' the geneva accords exactly? Tell me piss-pants, ... what competent tribunal would judge the status of our prisoners?

A competent tribunal would be a fantastic idea, you piece of filth.

It might have spared all those people released from Gitmo without ever having been charged with anything, of years of torture.

You disgusting maniac.