Afghanistan: Canadian JTF2 to hunt al-Qaeda

[EnviroTO]

You're still accountable, for electing the people that sent those guys in. If you didn't like what happened, too bad. You're not the sole cause of the incident, but you are somewhat responsible.

But what if I didn't vote for the government that was in power but did vote? I didn't elect the people that sent those guys in. Actually, nobody in the military is elected so nobody elected the people that sent those particular guys in. If someone voted for the government in power then the most they could be responsible for is for voting for a government, that chose a minister of defence, that choose the head of the military which had some people report to him, which in turn had other people reporting to them, which hired these people which broke the rules and committed a crime. That makes a voter who did not vote for the government in power very far removed from responsibility. As a member of the military you would be much closer to responsibility that a voter of a different party would be... and it you weren't in the same regiment or weren't in that chain of command then you are far removed from responsibility as well... but not as far removed as someone not in the military not voting for the government in power.

Letting the government know exactly what you wanted them to do, and how their actions would affect your vote. Telling them defence was a priority. A lot of people could have stopped this incident. The only way it could have happened was through negligence on their part.

Would making defense a priority change the hiring decisions that led to certain individuals being in Somalia and would changing policies stop someone from doing something that was already against policy? Are you responsible for the shootings on the weekend in Toronto?

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

But what if I didn't vote for the government that was in power but did vote?

I can't see how that would make a difference in a country where we have secret balloting. If it makes you feel better, fine. You still bear responsibility for what your government does.

I didn't elect the people that sent those guys in.

I'm afraid you did. You might not have voted for them, but you did elect them, in concert with the other voters in your riding.

Actually, nobody in the military is elected so nobody elected the people that sent those particular guys in.

You did however, vote in the election that sent those guys over there. You're still responsible.

If someone voted for the government in power then the most they could be responsible for is for voting for a government, that chose a minister of defence, that choose the head of the military which had some people report to him, which in turn had other people reporting to them, which hired these people which broke the rules and committed a crime.

Essentially, yes. However, you're still focussing on the people who did this as if they could have been weeded out during the hiring process. I'm afraid that isn't possible. This was the inevitable result of truly bad decisions made at a higher level over a long period of time, and a lot of people, would have done substantially similar things.

That makes a voter who did not vote for the government in power very far removed from responsibility.

Again, I'm afraid not. It probably removes them from criminal responsibility, but the voters were still responsible for what happened.

As a member of the military you would be much closer to responsibility that a voter of a different party would be... and it you weren't in the same regiment or weren't in that chain of command then you are far removed from responsibility as well... but not as far removed as someone not in the military not voting for the government in power.

The voters also set up a system where I could have legitimately been put to death for questioning orders in that situation. I have to say that they're far more responsible in this situation.

Would making defense a priority change the hiring decisions that led to certain individuals being in Somalia and would changing policies stop someone from doing something that was already against policy?

This wasn't a hiring issue. It was a case of ordinary people in an appalling situation acting in an appalling way.

Are you responsible for the shootings on the weekend in Toronto?

Only if they were shot by police, and I don't mind that.

Kevin

 

[EnviroTO]

Quote:
Are you responsible for the shootings on the weekend in Toronto?



Only if they were shot by police, and I don't mind that.

By your logic because you are a voter and voters voted in a government that allow individuals to walk freely without cameras on every street corner and there is no red army to keep eyes on the neighbours you are responsible for the shooting.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

I don't follow your logic. Could you expand on that please?

Kevin

 

[EnviroTO]

A guy at Jane and Finch shoots someone. How was he able to do it? Because he is free to walk around and not only that he is allowed to walk around without constant surveilance. Why are people allowed to walk free and without constant surveilance? Because our society is a free society where privacy is protected. Why? Because that is the will of the people. How is the will of the people expressed? By voting and sending a message to government. Could we choose to replace our government with a government which takes away the freedom to move about the city and put everyone under close surveilance on the rare occasion people have approval to leave their homes? Yes. So as a voter you are responsible for the shooting. If most of the public were not free to move around and were under constant surveilance at all times, he would not have been able to get a gun or go to someone's home he didn't have approval from the central government to visit. As a voter you are responsible for the shooting because we don't have a big brother central government watching our every move and approving and disapproving of our movements.

This central government watching our every move gets to the core of my argument. Without constant surveilance and total control of every individual we open the door to people breaking rules and doing bad things. Our society relies on more of us upholding trust than breaking it, because our freedom allows us to do whatever we want (with consequences). If voters elect a government based on a belief or on a trust of what they will deliver, we can blame the government for breaking our trust but we can't blame ourselves for giving it unless we had reason to believe that they did not deserve it. Likewise, if a government appoints someone to manage the military with the belief that they are capable and they have performed due dillegence to confirm their beliefs, you can't blame the government for giving that trust but you can hold the appointee accountable for deriliction of duty (breaking the trust). If we can't trust anyone to do their jobs and fail to make those who break our trust accountable, our society crumbles. We might as well install a big brother central government if the error is creating trust and allowing people their freedom. Its the whole principal of innocent until proven guity... trusted to live free until trust broken.

The duty of the public is to voice our concerns and vote accordingly. I fail to see how I failed in that duty. Is there someone who honestly believes that the will of the people is represented by the action of a man torturing a Somali? Did we really need to take out an advertisement to let government know that torture isn't acceptable? Of course not. It isn't a government policy to torture. Does anyone honestly believe that the Canadian soldier(s) in Somalia that committed the act believed they were following the will of the Canadian people, the will of the government in power at the time, or the will of the top brass in the Canadian Forces? Those people who broke our trust are responsible. Those people who failed to perform their job properly are responsible. The people who performed their job properly and gave people their trust are not responsible.

Person A shoots randomly into a crowd at the CNE and Person B is hit and dies. Person B is partly responsible because they didn't hide well enough or didn't wear full body armour?? This type of partial responsibility is so weak that it doesn't even seem sensible to mention. Person A was trusted not to shoot Person B. Person A broke the trust. Person B wasn't trusted to wear body armour at all times and hide in a bomb shelter all his life. Person B didn't break anyone's trust.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

A guy at Jane and Finch shoots someone. How was he able to do it? Because he is free to walk around and not only that he is allowed to walk around without constant surveilance. Why are people allowed to walk free and without constant surveilance? Because our society is a free society where privacy is protected. Why? Because that is the will of the people. How is the will of the people expressed? By voting and sending a message to government. Could we choose to replace our government with a government which takes away the freedom to move about the city and put everyone under close surveilance on the rare occasion people have approval to leave their homes? Yes. So as a voter you are responsible for the shooting. If most of the public were not free to move around and were under constant surveilance at all times, he would not have been able to get a gun or go to someone's home he didn't have approval from the central government to visit. As a voter you are responsible for the shooting because we don't have a big brother central government watching our every move and approving and disapproving of our movements.

In order for your logic to be correct, you would have to show a link between surveillance and somebody's purchase and use of a weapon. That's not possible.

If voters elect a government based on a belief or on a trust of what they will deliver, we can blame the government for breaking our trust but we can't blame ourselves for giving it unless we had reason to believe that they did not deserve it.

Given previous performance in the miltary portfolio, neither party deserved any trust in the years leading up to the Somalian incident.

Likewise, if a government appoints someone to manage the military with the belief that they are capable and they have performed due dillegence to confirm their beliefs, you can't blame the government for giving that trust but you can hold the appointee accountable for deriliction of duty (breaking the trust).

And if the government appointed the military personnel because the military supported them politically, and not because of their capability?

Its the whole principal of innocent until proven guity... trusted to live free until trust broken.

The trust had already been broken.

The duty of the public is to voice our concerns and vote accordingly. I fail to see how I failed in that duty. Is there someone who honestly believes that the will of the people is represented by the action of a man torturing a Somali?

QED. You may not have wanted it, but that's what the impact of the Canadian government policies enacted by the politicians the Canadian voters chose, and carried out by the military that came from the Canadian people and was commanded by Canadian officers. Suck it up.

Does anyone honestly believe that the Canadian soldier(s) in Somalia that committed the act believed they were following the will of the Canadian people, the will of the government in power at the time, or the will of the top brass in the Canadian Forces?

Yes, they thought they were following orders.

Those people who broke our trust are responsible. Those people who failed to perform their job properly are responsible. The people who performed their job properly and gave people their trust are not responsible.

When the people give their trust to those who clearly don't deserve it, they're responsible. Your points would be valid if the politicians who'd been voted into office hadn't already demonstrated a lack of responsibility.

Person A shoots randomly into a crowd at the CNE and Person B is hit and dies. Person B is partly responsible because they didn't hide well enough or didn't wear full body armour??

A strawman.

An apt analogy would be asking if Person C had witnessed the first shooting, and then gave another gun to Person A. If they did, they'd be at least partially responsible.

Kevin

 

[EnviroTO]

In order for your logic to be correct, you would have to show a link between surveillance and somebody's purchase and use of a weapon. That's not possible.

If you aren't free to leave your home without central government approval, are disallowed from buying a gun (i.e. they aren't available for sale), and can't do anything without the government watching then you wouldn't be able to get a gun. You also wouldn't be able to enter a neighbourhood without the approval of the central government.

Given previous performance in the miltary portfolio, neither party deserved any trust in the years leading up to the Somalian incident.

I didn't realize that it was government policy to torture foreigners in prior elections either. Perhaps you can point out some of the publicly visible signs that the election of a certain party would lead to the torture of a Somali.

You may not have wanted it, but that's what the impact of the Canadian government policies enacted by the politicians the Canadian voters chose, and carried out by the military that came from the Canadian people and was commanded by Canadian officers. Suck it up.

What Canadian government policy led to the torture of a Somali, directly or indirectly? I don't see the link.

Yes, they thought they were following orders.

The military commander thought the order from the defense minister was to torture a Somali? The major general? The colonel? The major? The belief they were following orders by torturing a Somali did not reach all the way to the top and therefore doesn't link back to government and voters. I would like to know how people could believe an order was given when there was not.

When the people give their trust to those who clearly don't deserve it, they're responsible. Your points would be valid if the politicians who'd been voted into office hadn't already demonstrated a lack of responsibility.

They demonstrated that the military they had put together had a high risk of torturing foreigners and they could not be trusted to resolve an issue of torture? The government got rid of the whole problematic army detachment after the incident which certainly shows they are trying to ensure it doesn't happen.

A strawman.

An apt analogy would be asking if Person C had witnessed the first shooting, and then gave another gun to Person A. If they did, they'd be at least partially responsible.

No. I didn't see these individuals in the Canadian military torture foreigners before. I didn't see any signs that the Canadian military was at high risk of torturing locals when deployed abroad. I didn't see any signs that the goverment found torture to be acceptable.

In the analogy there is no evidence of Person A shooting a person before Person B.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

If you aren't free to leave your home without central government approval, are disallowed from buying a gun (i.e. they aren't available for sale), and can't do anything without the government watching then you wouldn't be able to get a gun. You also wouldn't be able to enter a neighbourhood without the approval of the central government.

There is no way that surveillance, even constant surveillance, is going to prevent anybody from doing anything. It's strictly reactive. You'd also have to show that there was no other way of addressing the situation.

I didn't realize that it was government policy to torture foreigners in prior elections either. Perhaps you can point out some of the publicly visible signs that the election of a certain party would lead to the torture of a Somali.

Lack of investment in the military, the appointment of party hacks to positions of authority, the lack of an effective policy, poor discipline without any corrective action. There are probably more.

What Canadian government policy led to the torture of a Somali, directly or indirectly? I don't see the link.

Lack of clear rules of engagement and a mission were direct causes. Lack of competent oversight was an indirect cause.

The military commander thought the order from the defense minister was to torture a Somali? The major general? The colonel? The major? The belief they were following orders by torturing a Somali did not reach all the way to the top and therefore doesn't link back to government and voters. I would like to know how people could believe an order was given when there was not.

The commanders were confused on just what the rules were, right up to the colonel. The people who were in charge of creating the policy did a very poor job.

They demonstrated that the military they had put together had a high risk of torturing foreigners and they could not be trusted to resolve an issue of torture?

Among other things, yes.

The government got rid of the whole problematic army detachment after the incident which certainly shows they are trying to ensure it doesn't happen.

No, they disbanded it and sent the same people out to other units. It was a political exercise which actually accomplished nothing.

No. I didn't see these individuals in the Canadian military torture foreigners before. I didn't see any signs that the Canadian military was at high risk of torturing locals when deployed abroad. I didn't see any signs that the goverment found torture to be acceptable.

That's why you're responsible. Try some research.

In the analogy there is no evidence of Person A shooting a person before Person B.

One reason it's such a poor analogy.

Kevin

 

[EnviroTO]

Lack of clear rules of engagement and a mission were direct causes. Lack of competent oversight was an indirect cause.

The commanders were confused on just what the rules were, right up to the colonel. The people who were in charge of creating the policy did a very poor job.

So it is a hiring problem in the military. People right up to colonel are not metally capable of determining that torture is not acceptable. They must put labels on electrical appliances that say "do not use under water" for military personnel that need everything spelled out for them.

That's why you're responsible. Try some research.

I see. So in addition to our normal daily jobs were are expected to be full time investigative journalists, to go into covert ops and spy on our own military in addition to every other government department. Somehow a voter is expected to monitor all 3 million people working for the government to ensure that they understand their jobs, perform them well, and understand concepts as simple as "torture is not the will of the Canadian people". Wow. That is a responsibility that is fairly unreasonable to expect the average voter to fulfil don't you think? Some how a voter needs to monitor the activities of 3 million public servants including those working in secured areas. Interesting. How will voters have time for their normal jobs? Then you have voters who are also managers in their civilian life that need to ensure 3 million public servants are doing their jobs in addition to all the people below them in their company. A CEO of a company like GE who is also a voter in the US which has many more public servants must be almost like a god to keep a handle on things. How does he find time to sleep?

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

So it is a hiring problem in the military. People right up to colonel are not metally capable of determining that torture is not acceptable.
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>

Unfortunately, sometimes not. Especially in a situation like the Airborne Regiment was in.

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
They must put labels on electrical appliances that say "do not use under water" for military personnel that need everything spelled

<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

You obviously haven't seen "115 Volts, Your Deadly Shipmate". I never knew a fan was so dangerous.....

So in addition to our normal daily jobs were are expected to be full time investigative journalists, to go into covert ops and spy on our own military in addition to every other government department.

Reading the news once in a while might be an idea. I haven't seen a single story where a criminals military past wasn't mentioned. The Auditor-General reports every year on the military.

If you don't like the responsibility democracy brings, feel free to move to a police state.

Kevin

 

[bizorky]

Throughout your posts you have failed to accurately define what you mean by "responsible." Be specific and accurate. In the end, it is still just your opinion.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

I would have thought it's self-evident, but here's the Wiki for responsibility.

Kevin

 

[bizorky]

I said that politicians, voters, etc., bear SOME responsibility for the actions of a few soldiers in Somalia, while the soldiers themselves bear the rest.

Rather than running off to find some website to camouflage the weakness of your assertions, try explaining what you mean by "SOME responsibility." How much responsibility is "SOME responsibility?" Are you just posting Wikipedia because you are unclear as to what you want to say, or can't say it, or are unable to provide factual legal proof or even a reasoned ethical argument for your opinion - which is all that you are running on here.

Just because you say other people are responsible does not mean that they are. You are posting your own opinion, nothing more!