Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Government Promoting Torture?

The big controversy today on the Soloman Show was a "government directive to CSIS" to use information that MAY have been obtained through torture if that information can save lives. As you can well imagine, the usual suspects went bananas claiming that this was tantamount to promoting and encouraging the use of torture. Gerard Kennedy was damned near ready to ship Vic Toews off to the Hague. Evan kept referring to "groups" who might use torture, when in fact what he's talking about are foreign governments, a number of them our allies.

Canada has intelligence sharing agreements with roughly 150 countries, and a chunk of them allow what we define as torture. Does that mean we should immediately stop accepting all intel from those countries, or should we have them prove that no torture was used on a case by case basis? I was hoping that Evan would list all our allies who permit torture that we should stop sharing intel with, but he would only mention the United States and Afghanistan. Today's poll question; should we stop accepting all intelligence from countries known to on occasion use torture? We're going to have to stop using most intelligence coming out of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. I'm not sure how much we can use from South America either.

One thing that kept coming up today was that the information obtained through torture "is not reliable" or "tainted". It is most unreliable when obtaining a confession, but I would be curious to see the actual numbers when it comes to the locations of militant bases, future attacks, or the names of operatives. That data is likely classified, but my guess is that the more specific the information, the more reliable it is. I don't condone torture nor want to see my country torturing enemy combatants, but if Saudi Intelligence informs us that there could be an attack on a subway on a certain day, we certainly can't ignore that because someone may or may not have been tortured. It may not be 100% reliable, but neither is it 100% unreliable.

The letter Vic Toews wrote to CSIS (which Evan kept waving around for the camera today) made perfect sense. It is not creating a "market for torture" if we accept intel that may save lives. One panel loon even
went so far as to say that this memo was going to lead to rendition, where we start shipping off prisoners to foreign countries for the sole purpose of having them tortured. Come on man! Seriously?

7 comments:

  1. I wonder what his thoughts would be if they discovered a terrorist plot to blow up the cbc and no one acted on it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. First of all keep in mind that the leftists here label anything other than 5 star treatment of criminals and terrorists as torture. We have seen over and over how they claim every terrorist caught is really a victim. So frankly I really do not care how loud or how much they scream, since they have no credibility when it comes to dealing with criminals, much less terrorists. Gee, they can't even bring themselves to condemn honour killings as we have just witnessed with the recent trial.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Funny, I answered "no" and the "poll" came back with "change your vote". Either accept my vote or remove the choice.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Blowing up the CBC could only be considered an act of compassion toward all Canadians, not an act of terrorism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "known to on occasion use"

    Split infinitive.

    By the way, Powell Lucas is clearly a lefty, given his comment. Please learn how to see through/behind a statement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, but I prefer it my way... :)

      Delete
  6. One overlooked aspect of multiculturalism is respecting the culture of the home Country of an immigrant,and that respect has to include treating immigrants who run afoul of our laws the same as they would be treated by their own authorities back home.

    Anything less is racism.

    So,if for example, a gentleman from Sudan is suspected of supporting terrorists, we should consult with the Sudanese authorities and ask them how they would proceed,then interrogate the person just like he would have been questioned by his own people.

    This is both fair and diverse,we couldn't do it any better.

    ReplyDelete