Ignatieff-fight terrorism with politics

[capricorn]

What about torture? Will he able to keep his anti-torture principles intact if he becomes prime minister? "Canada sent Maher Arar [a Canadian engineer] to Syria, and a court found that he had been subjected to extraordinary rendition, that his claims [of torture] were true and that he had delivered no intelligence to anybody. It was a disgrace. So, we don't do it. Ever. Period. Off the table. We don't get other people to do our dirty work for us, and we don't do dirty work ever."

How, then, to deal with international terrorism? Ignatieff has always said that our democracies are under threat from the bottom up, thanks to extremism. But without the intelligence services and their dirty methods, what weapons do we have? "One of the conditions of modern life is that you look into any crowd and you think: who's the person with the bomb in their head? But the only solution is politics. Give people tolerant, non-dogmatic, pragmatic good government that serves their interests. I don't know of another solution. That's all there is."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/2...ew-rachel-cooke

(my emphasis)

So, according to Ignatieff, politics and good government are the only tools that can effectively counter terrorism. Does this mean he sees no role for our spooks at CSIS and the RCMP who monitor and gather intelligence in counter-terrorism efforts?

Oh, and Canada sent Arar to Syria. Wow! That's news to me.

On a stopover in New York as he was returning to Canada from a vacation in Tunisia in September 2002, U.S. officials detained Arar, claiming he has links to al-Qaeda, and deported him to Syria, even though he was carrying a Canadian passport.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/

Arar was detained during a layover at John F. Kennedy International Airport in September 2002 on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunis. He was held in solitary confinement in the United States for nearly two weeks, questioned, and denied meaningful access to a lawyer. The US government suspected him of being a member of Al Qaeda and deported him, not to Canada, his current home, but to his native Syria, even though its government is known to use torture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar

Even Arar says it's the US that deported him to Syria.

A Canadian who said U.S. authorities deported him to Syria where he was tortured should have been able to contest the order in a U.S. court, his lawyer told an appeals court on Friday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/i...937169220071109

If we want a glimpse into Ignatieff's policies on terrorism and the role our government should play in national security matters, his interviews abroad provide a great source of information.

[jdobbin]

Oh, and Canada sent Arar to Syria. Wow! That's news to me.

Think you are being a little disingenuous about Canada's role in what happened.

[punked]

Think you are being a little disingenuous about Canada's role in what happened.

Weren't the Liberals in power at the time????

[waldo]

you presume to come off as a champion of Ignatieff discourse, while at the same time offering up unfounded inferences within your posed question.

If we want a glimpse into Ignatieff's policies on terrorism and the role our government should play in national security matters, his interviews abroad provide a great source of information.

nothing quite like a little unfounded inference interspersed within that "glimpse" you speak of - hey?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Iggy is right about this people. You want proof? Look at how the "War on Terror" is going. To date it has already lasted longer than the second world war and is nowhere near being resolved.

[capricorn]

Think you are being a little disingenuous about Canada's role in what happened.

We here are well versed on the fact that the courts ruled that Canada was complicit in Arar's deportation. Not so the Guardian's readership. It leaves their readers with the impression that Canada acted alone in the deportation. Saying Canada sent Arar to Syria is different from saying Canada was complicit.

[capricorn]

you presume to come off as a champion of Ignatieff discourse, while at the same time offering up unfounded inferences within your posed question.

nothing quite like a little unfounded inference interspersed within that "glimpse" you speak of - hey?

Inference? You need only look back to Ignatieff's New York Times mea culpa on supporting the war in Iraq to understand that Ignatieff loves to utilize the foreign press to enunciate the bases of his policies.

[waldo]

Inference? You need only look back to Ignatieff's New York Times mea culpa on supporting the war in Iraq to understand that Ignatieff loves to utilize the foreign press to enunciate the bases of his policies.

and is the inference posed within your initial question... one of the, as you say, "bases of his policies", enunciated via press articles? Or is it just something you've decided upon, you've inferred (rather, made up without foundation), to suit your purpose?

[wulf42]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/2...ew-rachel-cooke

(my emphasis)

So, according to Ignatieff, politics and good government are the only tools that can effectively counter terrorism. Does this mean he sees no role for our spooks at CSIS and the RCMP who monitor and gather intelligence in counter-terrorism efforts?

Oh, and Canada sent Arar to Syria. Wow! That's news to me.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar

Even Arar says it's the US that deported him to Syria.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/i...937169220071109

If we want a glimpse into Ignatieff's policies on terrorism and the role our government should play in national security matters, his interviews abroad provide a great source of information.

Yes the Liberals answer is to sing "we are the world" or "kumbaya" while the enemy

plots to kill us...that is why Liberals have no place in Government while we are war

with Islamic Radicle's...........we need a leader who is willing to do what needs to be done

to deal a death blow to Islamic terrorist's.

[waldo]

Yes the Liberals answer is to sing "we are the world" or "kumbaya" while the enemy

plots to kill us...that is why Liberals have no place in Government while we are war

with Islamic Radicle's...........we need a leader who is willing to do what needs to be done

to deal a death blow to Islamic terrorist's.

apparently... you draw something to support your reply from the lengthy scattered quote you're replying to. Given the nature of the OP quote you reference... is there anything within it, specifically, you'd like to use to actually support your reply?

[jdobbin]

We here are well versed on the fact that the courts ruled that Canada was complicit in Arar's deportation. Not so the Guardian's readership. It leaves their readers with the impression that Canada acted alone in the deportation. Saying Canada sent Arar to Syria is different from saying Canada was complicit.

That might be what the reporter's account leaves an impression of for some, especially partisans, but Ignatieff certainly didn't say that Canada was completely to blame.

This is often the problem of reporters telling a narrative. It obviously isn't the full text of a discussion that may have encompassed an entire hour which may have given context to the statement.

For you though, it is Ignatieff passing entire blame on Canada for the event.

[wulf42]

apparently... you draw something to support your reply from the lengthy scattered quote you're replying to. Given the nature of the OP quote you reference... is there anything within it, specifically, you'd like to use to actually support your reply?

The Liberals were responsible for practically disarming the Military.........

they made Canada weak and a laughing stock of the world and let

thousands of immigrants in without any thought of the results

...Harper is turning that all around and none to soon

the point is we don t need a weak helpless Govenment running Canada!

[waldo]

The Liberals were responsible for practically disarming the Military.........

they made Canada weak and a laughing stock of the world and let

thousands of immigrants in without any thought of the results

...Harper is turning that all around and none to soon

the point is we don t need a weak helpless Govenment running Canada!

even if that were true... none of what you've just stated follows directly or indirectly from the OP... that you quote when making your initial reply. So, again, from that opening post that you've quoted, exactly what are you referencing within it to support your initial reply?

[jdobbin]

You need only look back to Ignatieff's New York Times mea culpa on supporting the war in Iraq to understand that Ignatieff loves to utilize the foreign press to enunciate the bases of his policies.

And Harper used the Wall Street Journal to express his.

[eyeball]

The Liberals were responsible for practically disarming the Military.........

I'm pretty sure it was Diefenbaker that started Canada down this road.

[eyeball]

So, according to Ignatieff, politics and good government are the only tools that can effectively counter terrorism. Does this mean he sees no role for our spooks at CSIS and the RCMP who monitor and gather intelligence in counter-terrorism efforts?

In light of the scandals surrounding CSIS and especially the RCMP these last few years I'd say they're desperate for more effective governance but they probably need more politics like they need a hole in the head.

Ignatieff is right about politics and terrorism but I think the real goal should be to prevent aggravating situations that breed terrorism in the first place. The only way I see to defuse the situations that are already out of control is to hold a lengthy reconciliation process involving a thorough review of history, apologies and reparations. This will require effective politicing of an extremely rare and principled nature. Sadly, I just don't see this happening unless we can enlist people like the Dalai Lama's and Ann San Su Kyi's of the world to lead us out of the dark. Ignatieff likely won't cut it.

[madmax]

Iggy is right about this people. You want proof? Look at how the "War on Terror" is going. To date it has already lasted longer than the second world war and is nowhere near being resolved.

The only problem being was that Iggy supported the war on terror......

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The only problem being was that Iggy supported the war on terror......

It isn't a problem at all. As if you could find one single politician that hasn't changed their views, or any other citizen for that matter.

The war on terror is a joke. It can never be fought let alone won. Think about the KKK or the IRA, were they ever targeted?

[punked]

It isn't a problem at all. As if you could find one single politician that hasn't changed their views, or any other citizen for that matter.

The war on terror is a joke. It can never be fought let alone won. Think about the KKK or the IRA, were they ever targeted?

The other problem is with such important decision you kinda have to get it right the first time. You can't change your mind 10 years in 1000 Canadians dead and 25 Billion spent. It isn't like picking out best colour flip flops it is kinda important.

[madmax]

It isn't a problem at all. As if you could find one single politician that hasn't changed their views, or any other citizen for that matter.

The war on terror is a joke. It can never be fought let alone won. Think about the KKK or the IRA, were they ever targeted?

I am not disagreeing with your perspective. My problem with Iggy supporting the War on Terror, is that he was a human rights academic when he made these crazy statements of support. I would expect them from a BUSH/Kerry/Clinton/ or a Harper/Martin/Chretian.... but I wouldn't expect these simplistic beliefs in an intellectual circle that is coming from the vision of Martin Luther King or Ghandi. It is when Ignatieff becomes a politician that he changes his stripes, and does so twice in a few years.

He can't be trusted on his position with regards to terrorism. Thus even if his current statement is in alignment with mine, I cannot believe him and I would be a fool to trust his word on the subject.

[waldo]

The other problem is with such important decision you kinda have to get it right the first time. You can't change your mind 10 years in 1000 Canadians dead and 25 Billion spent. It isn't like picking out best colour flip flops it is kinda important.

and one trusts that those important decisions do not come under the influence of massive misinformation campaigns... given the circumstances of the day, were there many politicians/people of the day that came out against the war in Iraq? Once the facts began to unravel themselves from the tangle of lies/deceit, majorities of politicians/people began to recant their initial support...

[waldo]

... made these crazy statements of support... these simplistic beliefs

to which "crazy statements of support" and to which "simplistic beliefs" do you reference?

[jdobbin]

I'm pretty sure it was Diefenbaker that started Canada down this road.

You'd have to go back farther than that.

[capricorn]

My problem with Iggy supporting the War on Terror, is that he was a human rights academic when he made these crazy statements of support. I would expect them from a BUSH/Kerry/Clinton/ or a Harper/Martin/Chretian.... but I wouldn't expect these simplistic beliefs in an intellectual circle that is coming from the vision of Martin Luther King or Ghandi. It is when Ignatieff becomes a politician that he changes his stripes, and does so twice in a few years.

He can't be trusted on his position with regards to terrorism. Thus even if his current statement is in alignment with mine, I cannot believe him and I would be a fool to trust his word on the subject.

I think Ignatieff is trying to further distance himself from his previously held position that some form of torture is OK, i.e. of "lesser evil" fame. To accomplish this, he seems to be adopting the position that intelligence gathered by security agencies is not useful in guarding against terrorism. I would like to know whether Ignatieff is against all forms of security intelligence or just intelligence gathered under duress.

[Leafless]

I'm pretty sure it was Diefenbaker that started Canada down this road.

Actually it was the Liberals under Mr.Trudeau.

Beginning in the 1960’s though, coinciding with the Trudeau government (and continuing under his “leadership”, with one short break, until the mid 1980’s) the Canadian military began a slow and inexorable slide towards…how can I be nice about this….a “reduced capability”.

http://op-for.com/2006/07/canada_climbing_out.html

Maybe the following Trudeau quote has something to do with the decline of Canada's military.

I believe that Canada cannot, indeed that Canada must not survive by force. The country will only remain united - it should only remain united - if its citizens want to live together in one civil society.