Skip Nav
Movie Trailers
9 Sexy Movies Hitting Theaters in 2017
My Ex Replaced Me With a Victoria's Secret Model
Being Single Is a Choice, So Stop With the Guilt Trip

Check This: Canada Puts US on Torture List

A new Canadian manual warns diplomats that prisoners in the US are at risk of torture. The internal document also cites Afghanistan, China, Iran, and Israel on the same torture list.

According to the BBC:

The manual lists US interrogation techniques such as forced nudity, isolation, sleep deprivation, and the blindfolding of prisoners under "definition of torture."

The US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, where a Canadian is being held, is also mentioned.

On Saturday, Canada's foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier called the document "wrong" and stated:

I regret the embarrassment caused by the public disclosure of the manual used in the department’s torture awareness training. It contains a list that wrongly includes some of our closest allies. I have directed that the manual be reviewed and rewritten.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, the US government has been under international and domestic scrutiny for its interrogation practices, often being accused of torture. I find this latest charge especially worrisome, since it was leveled for practical and not political reasons. America should do everything it can to show that it is well within long-accepted standards of international law.

Join The Conversation
Arthur Arthur 9 years
Brandy, I hear you, that stuff is like reading stereo instructions! I hope you didn't find my comment mean. I was afraid it came off mean, but you prompted me to go check it out, so thanks for that!!
kh61582 kh61582 9 years
This is ridiculous. Canada is one of the most liberal countries in the world. Why do we care one way or the other what they are saying about us? The only reason they apologized for lumping us into that group is because they got caught. Just because we don't baby our POW's we are accused of mistreating them. Torture should only be used in the most extreme cases and frankly the American people have no business knowing about it one way or the other. I trust our military to protect us and whatever methods they need to use to achieve that are fine with me but for the record, what countries like Canada call torture is laughable. This world is spinning out of control. No one seems to understand what it takes anymore to keep a country safe.
Good. That thing is hard to read, and harder to understand when you do read it. So, then most are POWs, not enemy combatants. Thank goodness. I didn't want to be contradicting my own thoughts, which I soooo was. After a few lines, my eyes started glazing over, and I couldn't remember what I was reading. LoL! I;m sure that's George W felt.
Arthur Arthur 9 years
Exactly. Category 6 addresses your hypothetical invasion from Mexico precisely and states that the civilian is to be treated as a prisoner of war under the Geneva convention. Which is exactly the opposite of your comment: "Therefore, I would be considered an enemy combatant, rather than a POW ... I would not be gauranteed [sic] that the attacking force would be required to treat me humanely."
This is what I was basing off of: Article 4 A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. 3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. 4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. 5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. 6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Arthur Arthur 9 years
Brandy, that seemed so wrong I looked it up. I assumed that there would be something that distinguishes between an aggressor and a defender, but it is much more explicit according to wikipedia ( "To qualify for prisoner of war status persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war: ... or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war." On a separate note, the Democrat controlled congress just approved an Attorney General who would not name water-boarding as torture. The powerpoint in question gave significantly less latitude including blindfolding as torture. And the NYT headline for the same story: "Canada to Rewrite Manual Linking U.S. and Torture"
OK, so I looked up and read the Geneva Conventions Criteria for a POW, and I must say that it is out of date, and can disqualify a lot of people. Let's say that the US was attacked on our land (I mean another nations forces, like Mexico deciding they want Texas back, not like 9-11) Now, I don't wanna join with the army, but if someone comes anywhere near my home, I'm gonna blow their effing head off. Therefore, I would be considered an enemy combatant, rather than a POW, because I was not answering to anyone above me, I had no uniform, I'm not a part of a militia or any force, because I'm just protecting my property, and I'm not openly displaying arms. I would not be gauranteed that the attacking force would be required to treat me humanely. I'm sure this is how a lot of captured Iraqis came about being captured. Scared shitless, gun in hand at the angry foreign soldiers breaking in my door. Now, the definition or toture, which is what this post is about, is whole nother thing, of which we are guilty of.
jennifer76 jennifer76 9 years
The difference between a POW and a terrorist/insurgent is clearly defined by the Geneva Convention. People who follow the rules of the Geneva Convention are POWs, people who don't are terrorist/insurgents. Easy peasy.
foxie foxie 9 years
@ brandy - What? POW is not an American-only designation. You really don't see a difference between MILITARY POWs and terrorist insurgents?
onabanana onabanana 9 years
That was a joke, (sort of, my boss is terrible) Don't send me hate mail.
onabanana onabanana 9 years
I would turn in my boss for free.
What's the difference between an insurgent/terrorist and a POW? POW's are American's, and terrorists/insurgents are anyone who disagrees with us? Half of the "terrorists" that are sitting in Gitmo are there because we handed out cash rewards, equivalent to a year's salary, to people who turned in terrorists in Afghanistan. Personally, I know a few people I'd turn in for torture for a year's worth of pay.
Jinx Jinx 9 years
I believe the torture of suspected terrorists goes on. I remember seeing pictures of it. But I believe many countries are guilty of such actions.
blondie01 blondie01 9 years
nyaradzom2001 nyaradzom2001 9 years
i am not accusing your soldiers of doing anything jenna76 i just believe the US tortures civilians. I don't know who does it could be the CIA, FBI, Secret Service anyone but the US does torture and abuse prisoners. And the Geneva Convention is not worth the piece of paper it was written on. I have never known of countries to not engage in some form of torture and abuse during wars, ever. Torture is a way to exert power and intimidate.
onabanana onabanana 9 years
We should have allies considering we bailed Europe out of a few messes but alas good will has been squandered and memories are short.
CoconutPie CoconutPie 9 years
The USA have Allies ?!?!? I mean, real ones?
chancleta chancleta 9 years
wow that's shameful
jennifer76 jennifer76 9 years
nyaradzom - Are you accusing our soldiers of doing things like that? I just want to say one thing here. Please educate yourselves on the Geneva Convention before you invoke it regularly. The entire point of the Geneva Convention is to encourage all combatants to follow certain rules for the safety of civilian populations in war zones by offering them protection under the same rules they agree to follow. Allowing combatants who choose NOT to adhere to the terms of the Convention to still be protected by the Convention completely nullifies its point and will lead to more danger and suffering for innocent civilians caught up in conflicts.
freegracefrom freegracefrom 9 years
My God. It just completely blows my mind that this is even being debated at all. onabanana, loved your comments on this. Agreed 110%.
foxie foxie 9 years
You have zero tact. Calling me stupid doesn't make you look smart or classy and it sure as heck doesn't make me agree with you.
wackdoodle wackdoodle 9 years
Ignorance must be bliss. As I have pointed out before Foxie - stop skimming and start reading. It would do you some good to read things in entirety before dittoing someone else's comment. If you read my post or even the first page of the CIA policy manual on torture you'd know - the who,when,why and how of the US policy on torture. But you cannot be bothered with actually knowing what the government does because then you couldn't say you do not know anymore. Again, ignorance is bliss. The choice to be ignorant is also called stupidity.
foxie foxie 9 years
Wack, you're talking about us torturing people we don't know for certain HAVE information and you're talking about other countries torturing our soldiers. Torturing POWs, I say again, is another issue entirely. As for us torturing possibly innocent subjects, that's not in the realm of what I'm comfortable with either. As I said before, I'm talking about people who are KNOWN to have information. I mean, honestly, I'd reply to your post but I'd just be copying and pasting what I said before, so I guess I'll just ditto Jovian's post.
JovianSkies JovianSkies 9 years
I don't believe that any country's hands are clean when it comes to the issue of torture, even ours. What I do believe is that unless you're directly involved in the process, there's no way for us to either judge, or truly know about it.
wackdoodle wackdoodle 9 years
"How can any of us know the true nature of this interrogation technique when the government keeps it so secret?" Did you even read the KUBARK manual? It is the CIA manual on torture and what you can except to happen and why you won't actually get what you think you'll get. Logging in at the Library of Congress or FBI or CIA database and reading through declassified documents will actually teach you a lot about what's been going on during your time on earth. The reason we know what happens in current torture sessions is the soldiers who are forced to do the torturing later feel they incredible guilty for what they've been asked to do have come forward to their congressman or senators and admitted what they've done. We've had CIA operatives who's job is was to obtain information from enemy combatants and others have come forward and said it does not work. Interpol and other foreign agencies have found that trying to obtain intel via torture is like trying to screw for virginity. It does not work. And our own police forces across the United States are coming to the same conclusion - people under extreme emotional or physical duress will say whatever it is they think you want them say to get you to stop hurting them. That's why those great 24 to 48 hour straight interrogations had innocent people claiming they committed crimes they could not possibly have committed. The decision to pretend that the US is not torturing people is yours to make as is the decision that the our government is actually obtaining useful information from those torture sessions despite strong evidence to the contrary. How can we go to another country and say stop torturing our soldiers or our CIA or FBI operatives for intel, when we are now stooping just as low as our lowest enemy. Our claiming that we have some sort of exemption is wrong especially when it violates the Geneva Convention, which is suppose to help protect our own soldiers. It sets a dangerous precedent.
Funny #ThingsThatLeaveBritainReeling Tweets
Are Fitness Trackers Accurate at Counting Calories?
Lake Wedding Inspiration
Why Is Canada's Immigration Website Down?
From Our Partners
Latest Love
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds