 |
Cowards and Bullies
Many Canadians, and not a few Americans I suspect, will give support to this letter writer who writes with great passion in today's Vancouver Sun:
Canadian cowards abandon abused child soldier
Dawn Steele, Vancouver Sun
Published: Monday, July 21, 2008
Re: Khadr tapes 'heartbreaking' to family, July 16
I have a 15-year old son. He's kind and honourable, but fascinated with anything military, like many boys his age. If I were a fundamentalist in a war, I could easily convince him of his "duty" to fight at his parents' side to "protect his people." That's why we recognize and protect child soldiers.
I cried watching the video of that tortured child, abandoned in the Guantanamo hellhole created by the Bush administration's sick mix of fear, paranoia and machismo. It's been six years and they have yet to prove that he committed any crime. As a mother, I know how easily that could have been my child instead, through no fault of his own.
Where is our humanity as a nation? When did we start punishing children for the sins of their parents? Or condoning their brutal torture and exploitation for "intelligence"? I'm disgusted, and ashamed of Canada's leaders. They are cowards who have knowingly abandoned an abused child to create a false sense of security.
Dawn Steele
Vancouver
Of great significance is the increasing speculation that the U.S. soldier that Omar Khadr is believed to have killed was, in fact, killed by U.S. military action.
blog:639:3::0
-
U.S. military action, or inaction, being blamed on someone else? Perish the though ....
You have to remember that "Prime Minister" Harper keeps a box of condoms handy for those times when the Bush administration comes to visit. He's often the "most popular guy" at these get togethers.
-
This just in:
BRITISH REPORT SAYS NOT TO TRUST U.S. ASSURANCES REGARDING TORTURE
HUMAN RIGHTS -- BRITISH REPORT SAYS NOT TO TRUST U.S. ASSURANCES REGARDING TORTURE: A report released Sunday by the British parliament's foreign affairs committee says that the British government should not rely on assurances from the U.S. government that it does not torture terrorism suspects, after "Britain had previously taken those assurances at face value." The main difference between the two countries that the report cites is the definition of waterboarding as torture. UK Foreign Secretary Dana Miliband has said that the controversial technique is torture, but President Bush vetoed a bill that would ban CIA use of the method. The committee concluded that "Given the clear differences in definition, the UK can no longer rely on US assurances that it does not use torture." The committee also suggested that the British government conduct "exhaustive analysis of current US interrogation techniques." The report also challenges the British government to investigate further whether British land has been used for "rendition" flights by the United States, after allegations that two American planes carrying terrorism suspects had landed and refueled on the British-held Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia.
Could it be simply that, one person's interrogation is another person's torture? -
the report cites is the definition of waterboarding as torture
How can there be two differing definitions? It either is...or it isn't.
@ skeptikool
Could it be simply that, one person's interrogation is another person's torture?
Makes ya wonder, doesn't it? Add a Comment
|
 |
|
|
