I'm watching Dragon's Den, which I think is a great show, and during a commercial break, Mansbridge comes on announcing the headlines for the upcoming news show. He states shocking new testimony shows ALL Afghan detainees were likely tortured. Now at first I'm thinking I must have misheard, and through the wonders of PVR's, I rewind and yep. he said all Afghan detainees were most likely tortured. The allegation is that all of the prisoners Canada handed over to Afghanistan's notorious intelligence service in 2006-07 were tortured. That is quite different than all Afghans turned over by our forces were tortured. And I have a rather obvious question for anyone to answer. Are we to believe that prisoners only allegedly began being tortured once the Conservatives won the 2006 election?
Uh Peter, that was and is a blatant lie. Perhaps you or the higher ups at CBC might want to correct the record. From what I heard, that sounded more like a Liberal Party press release from a worn-out strategist.
p.s. It's also rather ironic that when you guys run around with cap in hand demanding money for local television you provide another blatant example of why most Canadian's disagree with you.
12 comments:
I saw what you saw! That same lie is being repeated on CBC newsworld.
As MP Cheryl Gallant stated in testimony in committee this afternoon. This is an allegation, with no evidence, that would be thrown out of a court of law.
This rumour of Richard Colvin wasn't passed on because it was just another rumour, in a country that thrives on rumours made up by the taleban.
No proof, no credibility.
What I find incredible is the fact that nobody is asking what the relationship is between Richard Colvin and the "shoebox bomber," a convicted Al-Quaeda terrorist. Before Al Rahim converted to Islam and changed his name, he was born RICHARD COLVIN Reid.
That co-incidence is just too creepy and should be investigated.
I read about it this morning and thought Colvin was trying to make trouble. CBC and CTV, the leftist mouthpieces will have a grand old time talking about this endlessly.
Here's the article:
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/11/18/11796716-sun.html
These are allegations and moreover the prisoners were the responsibility of the Afghan govt. not Canada.
MariaS
Nope, I tried hard but I can't get myself to care about tortured afghan detainees.
From 2001-Dec 2005, Liberals were handing over Afghan detainees freely, no agreement with US.
Amnesty Int'l filed a case over detainee treatment in US hands, in hand overs from Cdn military.
(they lost the case to extend the Charter to Afghan prisoners turned over by Canadians)
Then presto, days before Martin lost the 2006 election
Liberals finally made a deal, the original deal with Afghan authorites (not the US), signed in December 2005 by Gen. Rick Hillier.
Libs did NOT have a govt to govt agreement, they handed Hillier the whole thing to handle as he saw fit. (how's that for government accountability!)
Allegations of abuse/torture surfaced and were answered with the Harper govt improving the human rights agreement with an additional agreement Feb 2007, and also getting free access to prisoners.
First on the 'complicite' list will be Chretien, Martin, Graham, Hillier.
p.s. the media has been so intent on hanging the Conservatives with prisoner abuse,
they got this story wrong (big surprise eh)
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070505/afghan_detainees_070505?s_name=medExpress2007&no_ads=
The Liberal propaganda arm (CBC, CTV, Canadian Press, etc.) is having a field day with this story. They have opted to take the word of Mr. Colvin as fact without checking into his sources or investigating his claims. If, instead of the Tories, this was a single individual being accused of a crime, that individual would be already found guilty of the crime without so much as a single corroboration of the facts against the accused.
The MSM got caught with their pants down over their fear mongering on the H1N1 virus and this is the perfect story to divert attention away from their shoddy reportage. These so-called news organizations are a disgrace to the idea of factual reporting.
What do other countries do with their detainees? Who, if not the local authorites, do they rely on to sort them out?
A little trivia for all,
3 years and 11 months after the first Afghan prisoners were captured by Canadian troops and handed over to the US,
the Liberal govt finally got around to writing down a detainee policy. (Amnesty Int'l was on their case)
First Afghans captured Jan 2002,
Lib policy to protect detainees captured by Cdn soldiers Dec 2005.
Oh, and Eggleton got caught telling fibs about it:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1024895546199_20304746//
You can lump the MSM favourite anti-semite and Canada basher Amir Attaran in with Mansbridge.
He accused the Canadian government of being involved in torture.
And these media big wigs are begging for more money or they will block their signals. Hurry up and block, no one will notice.
So how is this witness connected to the shoebomber.
When will all those willing to jump on any accusation against PMSH learn, the truth is out there and will be exposed in hours.
How soon was all the connections to adscam of the new team, out on the net.
Suggest you send a compalint with all the details to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC)
at www.cbsc.ca.
I find that complaints to the networks are simply ignored, but these guys respond to all complaints and require a response from the broadcaster.
Are we talking about the taliban favourite newstation, CBC?
No wonder Peter wants to find favour among them.
The LPOC were in government while the alleged taliban detainess were abused so for colvin to say that he went to kandahar in spring of 2006 at a time when CPC had just taken OFFICE to blame them smells very stink to me.
Peter Mansbridge feels that since there is no other NATIONAL MEDIA across this nation to contradict his statement; he like many others like him, say, do as they please; say whatever they want you hear and so far they do not want a conservative party period; they want a party of their choice not yours to bed with for more money and prestige.
Post a Comment