Richard Colvin: Soon to be NDP Candidate

[eyeball]

Well I'M indifferent to it. That doesn't mean I approve, but I recognize (as Colvert apparently fails to) the difference in standards of care, the difference in terms of violence and behaviour, between a country like Canada, ana a country like Afghanistan.

There's violence, and lots of it, in our own prisons. Just what do you expect an Afghanistan prison to be like? Or a Turkish prison, or an Egyptian prison, or any prison in that part of the world?

I also make the disctinction between brutality, the kind of casual, or even mean-spirited brutality you'll find in these places, and actual torture. The media keep calling this torture, but to me, that term is reserved for the barbarism we see in places like Iran and North Korea, places where people are tortured to death in large numbers, by methods calculated to inflict the maximum pain. The odd beating or two doesn't really constitute "torture" in most cases. I'm not excusing it, but there is a difference, and people need to get a clue about the reality of life in that part of the world.

Aren't you the one who tried to suggest we bring back slavery?

There is a compelling reason why your distinctions and standards form the basis for having laws that protect human rights. There is also a compelling reason for resisting any attempt of the state to dilute or lower ours or accept those of our allies. Preventing more people from adopting your attitudes is the most compelling reason of all. The last thing we need is for our government to conclude we approve of torture or looking the other way and shrugging it off when our allies do it.

If we are doing this now then we should be charged with war crimes and if found guilty Canadians officials should spend time in prison. It goes without saying they should be treated humanely. How will they ever learn the errors of their ways if they are not presented with humane alternatives?

[Argus]

There is a compelling reason why your distinctions and standards form the basis for having laws that protect human rights. There is also a compelling reason for resisting any attempt of the state to dilute or lower ours or accept those of our allies. Preventing more people from adopting your attitudes is the most compelling reason of all. The last thing we need is for our government to conclude we approve of torture or looking the other way and shrugging it off when our allies do it.

Love it. That's the kind of pie-in-the-sky, ivory tower theoretical drivel which has kept the Left out of power in Canada. People listen to them, their eyes glaze over, they shake their heads, and move on to people who have some grasp of how the real world operates.

And it doesn't operate by divorcing ourselves from 90% of the world because their standards aren't up to our noble, dainty sensibilities. So we pick our places, we pick our targets - the worst abusers - and try to focus on them. There is thus far no evidence of torture, merely allegations of beatings and mistreatment. But as has been pointed out, that sort of behaviour pattern is common throughtout the third world, not merely in prisons but throughout societies.

If we are doing this now then we should be charged with war crimes and if found guilty Canadians officials should spend time in prison.

If found guilty of WHAT exactly? Of ignoring some third ranked bureacrat's vague, unproven suspicions that there was violence and abuse in Afghanistan's prison system?

[eyeball]

So we pick our places, we pick our targets - the worst abusers - and try to focus on them.

Notwithstanding the one's we support - the one's we don't want the public focusing on.

There is thus far no evidence of torture, merely allegations of beatings and mistreatment. But as has been pointed out, that sort of behaviour pattern is common throughtout the third world, not merely in prisons but throughout societies.

The alleged beatings and mistreatment fall within the scope of international agreements on war crimes that we have signed.

If found guilty of WHAT exactly? Of ignoring some third ranked bureacrat's vague, unproven suspicions that there was violence and abuse in Afghanistan's prison system?

We don't know exactly what, which is why we need to have a judicial inquiry.

Its being alleged that Canada is guilty of breaking conventions against war crimes, to wit torture. Its also pretty clear that the government is trying to cover something up, what exactly we don't know, but I have a pretty good idea why.

[Oleg Bach]

Jack Layton, the head of the NDP was naive enough to allow one of his own children to serve in Afghanistan - correct me if I am wrong..but if this is the case then it shows that NDPers are not bright enough to understand the great wickedness that drives this "mission" forward..what man in his right mind would send a blood relative to die for rich people waging a war ultimately for fun and profit...I hope this Colvin character is smarter..then to submit to those men in high places who rule the nation and continue to waste young lives on this rock pile..Perhaps Colvin is like Layton - who actually believes that governments are in control...which would make him pretty much useless. Those that wage anysort of war rarely heed governments.

[August1991]

Well I'M indifferent to it. That doesn't mean I approve, but I recognize (as Colvert apparently fails to) the difference in standards of care, the difference in terms of violence and behaviour, between a country like Canada, ana a country like Afghanistan.

There's violence, and lots of it, in our own prisons. Just what do you expect an Afghanistan prison to be like? Or a Turkish prison, or an Egyptian prison, or any prison in that part of the world?

This is partly my point too, Argus. Canadian "diplomats" abroad face many difficult situations where they often turn a blind eye. Are they all guilty of injustice? Our soldiers in Afghanistan face many trying situations. Should we judge their decisions by urban leftist ideal and hypocritical values?

Argus, you are right to wonder whether prisoners in Canadian prisons are also subject to torture. If our courts put someone into a prison and then a fellow prisoner abuses them, is the judge - our court system - guilty of torture?

----

Twenty-five former ambassadors have signed the letter, which says that Richard Colvin, a career diplomat who was posted in Afghanistan from 2006 to 2007, was "unfairly subjected to personal attacks" as a result of his testimony about Afghan detainees.

CBC

These ambassadors somehow believe that Colvin was an innocent party. In their view, Colvin was summoned to speak before a parliamentary commission. That perception is false. Colvin chose to go public.

IMV, a public servant should serve political masters. If the public servant believes that the political masters are wrong, she/he should resign from public service and then enjoy the freedom to speak freely. Colvin wants to speak freely, while enjoying a place at the tax-paid trough. Even our political masters don't enjoy such freedom. We live in a democracy, but Colvin wants to have the benefit of a dictatorship.

While in this case I admire Colvin's courage to speak truth to power, I wish that he would be willing to suffer some of the real consequences of his pronouncements. Colvin has always enjoyed the protection of the Canadian State in his various choices. He can't be fired and every Wednesday, Colvin knows that his paycheque will be deposited in his bank account.

And something else. How much does Colvin dramatize these Afghan detainees to raise his own importance? Colvin knows well that the world is filled with injustice - he lived many years in Russia - so how much of this particular case is about Richard Colvin?

Edited December 12, 2009 by August1991

[August1991]

This former ambassador makes the same point but more eloquently and accurately:

In our system of government, it is ministers who decide and public servants who implement their decisions. If the decisions or lack of decisions taken by ministers are in the view of the public servant unethical, his or her duty is clear. It is to say so fearlessly and, if ignored, to resign.

Going to the media without resigning would be unethical conduct. This is always the wrong choice.

While I agree that Peter MacKay's personal attacks on Colvin, which he has now retracted, should not have been made, the central issue is the roles and responsibilities of ministers and civil servants. Perhaps when the ambassadors come back from lunch they'll get the point.

In the meantime, I won't be signing any letters. As to budding young diplomats in training, they should learn that their first duty is to provide the government with the best professional advice they can muster and not to let their personal agendas get in the way. If they have a beef, the cafeteria in the Pearson Building is the place to vent it, not the media.

Ottawa Citizen

[eyeball]

In the meantime...

...71 former ambassadors – the number is growing every day – have signed a letter reproaching the government for its campaign of vilification of Mr. Colvin. Usually a retiring bunch (literally), former envoys trained to take orders and stay neutral seldom band together in such numbers to deplore a government's policies.

Source

This is not unlike the climate change 'debate' where the consensus of a vast majority of those experts who should know what they are talking about is overwhelmingly obvious.

[wyly]

If they have a beef, the cafeteria in the Pearson Building is the place to vent it, not the media.

so Colivn does just that and he is ignored and told to shut up...what is someone who knows something is wrong to do?... he took the only option left to him after being rebuffed by his superiors, he went public...

[Argus]

In the meantime...

Source

This is not unlike the climate change 'debate' where the consensus of a vast majority of those experts who should know what they are talking about is overwhelmingly obvious.

Do you have any idea what kind of people infest Foreign Affairs? Think of the most wasteful, arrogant, lazy civil servants you can imagine. They're still more hard working, and less wasteful than the drones in Foreign Affairs. Their extravagance with their personal comfort are legendary throughout government, as is their habit of considering three hour lunches at four star restaurants followed by a nap a hard day's work.

[Argus]

so Colivn does just that and he is ignored and told to shut up...what is someone who knows something is wrong to do?... he took the only option left to him after being rebuffed by his superiors, he went public...

Actually, the option left to him was to resign, but he chose not to do that.

But don't worry, he'll be persuaded once the current kerfuffle dies down. A few years sitting in a cubicle in the basement of a building with poor heat compiling lists of cell phone bills ought to do it.

[eyeball]

Do you have any idea what kind of people infest Foreign Affairs? Think of the most wasteful, arrogant, lazy civil servants you can imagine. They're still more hard working, and less wasteful than the drones in Foreign Affairs. Their extravagance with their personal comfort are legendary throughout government, as is their habit of considering three hour lunches at four star restaurants followed by a nap a hard day's work.

Oh well, I guess we'll just have to attract better talent by paying civil servants the same amount that corporate drones get.

[August1991]

Oh well, I guess we'll just have to attract better talent by paying civil servants the same amount that corporate drones get.

It is difficult to fire civil servants - Richard Colvin is still receiving his salary, in Soviet style, every second Thursday. He has an Iron Rice Bowl. OTOH, corporate drones often lose their jobs.

Eyeball, thinking of incentives and implications, you can do the math on your own.

----

The bigger issue is a rogue civil service, a power unto itself. Imagine PM Jack Layton, elected with 55% of the vote, intent on changing Canada - except the right wing civil servants appointed by Harper refuse to enact Layton's policies. Is this democratic?

I have a bigger fear.

People who choose to be civil servants tend to be left wing. (How many anti-government, right wing, libertarian 23 year olds decide to apply for a government job? OTOH, how many pro-government, left wing, socialist 23 year olds have no choice but to apply to the government for a job?)

Civil servants will in general approve left wing governments when in fact they should, if true democrats, merely execute the wishes of their democratically elected representatives.

And here's the final irony. Civil servants are left wing (like Colvin) so they prefer government intervention. But if the government does not do what they want, they complain. Duh.

Edited December 14, 2009 by August1991

[bloodyminded]

And here's the final irony. Civil servants are left wing (like Colvin) so they prefer government intervention. But if the government does not do what they want, they complain. Duh.

Ah! Two ingenious and inarguable points, offerred up into a perfect tautology:

Civil servants are left wing.

So if they complain about malfeasance, they are lying.

Well, good, problem solved.

[eyeball]

It is difficult to fire civil servants - Richard Colvin is still receiving his salary, in Soviet style, every second Thursday. He has an Iron Rice Bowl. OTOH, corporate drones often lose their jobs.

Eyeball, thinking of incentives and implications, you can do the math on your own.

We're not talking about incompetent civilian or corporate employees we're talking about whistle-blowers. Since when was bringing unpalatable damaging information to the attention of shareholders or the public an act of incompetence?

Perhaps Colvin should be given a multi-million dollar reward to provide an incentive to his private sector contemporaries to do the same when or if their job requires it.

There could be even more math involved given the potential implications to shareholders and citizens of not having all the facts.

[YEGmann]

Richard Colvin a whistleblower?

Gimme a break!

He's a typical lazy bureaucrat, now covering his ass with a dozen or two of e-mails. The e-mails contain lots of crap describing the situation . One can derive whatever he wants from those reports, all of them are essentially gossips. All detainees might be abused or conditions in the Afgan prisons are excellent. That's why his reports were neglected, they were of little use.

He never tried to be heard. Just sent e-mail showing his concern over the situation. Regardless what the situation was. Just to have a paper trail.

On the other hand, I think there is nothing politcal in the Colvin's stand. Inspection came - papers shown. Bureaucratic bisiness as usual.

[eyeball]

Richard Colvin a whistleblower?

Gimme a break!

He's a typical lazy bureaucrat,

Oh I see, he's not a WHISTLE-BLOWER whistle-blower.

Some people have suggested that our representatives and Cabinet Ministers actually have no control over rogue bureaucrats like Colvin and even civil servants at the Deputy Ministers level. I would think this should shock the hell out of people. If for no other reason than that I'd think the public would be demanding an inquiry.

Now I can see why our MP's might want to hide their incompetence and inability to control the government they're supposedly in charge of from us but why anyone would actually hold that up as some sort of valid reason to EXCUSE MP's for not having a better handle on this issue is a truly profound mystery. Ministerial ignorance after all is one of the many reasons given that MacKay shouldn't resign.

Edited December 15, 2009 by eyeball

[madmax]

Do you have any idea what kind of people infest Foreign Affairs? Think of the most wasteful, arrogant, lazy civil servants you can imagine. They're still more hard working, and less wasteful than the drones in Foreign Affairs. Their extravagance with their personal comfort are legendary throughout government, as is their habit of considering three hour lunches at four star restaurants followed by a nap a hard day's work.

And you haven't transferred yet???

[madmax]

Oh I see, he's not a WHISTLE-BLOWER whistle-blower.

Lots of ad hominem attacks coming....

Whistle blowers are ok, until they blow the whistle. If I recall correctly, the doctor involved in the Somalia affair was called lots of horrible things for blowing the whistle.

Colvin is looking like a heads up guy, no matter how long he watched his peers have long lunches and nappie times.

Seems the debators here want to change the channel.

Considering even the most uninformed MLW poster was well aware that Afghans torture people and its likely if we handed over prisoners they would be tortured, its takes a pretty dark set of glasses to turn a blind eye to what would occur.

Everyone knew this crap was going on. Most took the opinion of many of the MLW posters.

Who cares?

So goes a poor defense.

[August1991]

Richard Colvin a whistleblower?

Gimme a break!

He's a typical lazy bureaucrat, now covering his ass with a dozen or two of e-mails.

Whatever he is, Colvin is not a lazy bureaucrat.

Considering even the most uninformed MLW poster was well aware that Afghans torture people and its likely if we handed over prisoners they would be tortured, its takes a pretty dark set of glasses to turn a blind eye to what would occur.

Madmax, there is tremendous injustice in the world every day. Canadians largely turn a blind eye to it. IMHO, it seems odd to focus on this particular injustice that in fact is small in the grand scheme of things, and was largely corrected by this government anyway.

Let me a bit more explicit. Canadian representatives abroad are often party to terrible injustices but turn a blind eye.

So, why did this particular injustice attract attention? Colvin's words could be turned into a partisan media circus. IMV, Colvin is a party to this circus.

We're not talking about incompetent civilian or corporate employees we're talking about whistle-blowers. Since when was bringing unpalatable damaging information to the attention of shareholders or the public an act of incompetence?

Perhaps Colvin should be given a multi-million dollar reward to provide an incentive to his private sector contemporaries to do the same when or if their job requires it.

There could be even more math involved given the potential implications to shareholders and citizens of not having all the facts.

Eyeball, you raise a good question.

If I were an employee and I discovered that my employer was dishonest, I would certainly quit. OTOH, if I were an honest employer and an employee accused me of dishonesty, I would certainly fire him.

Your good question? Who should decide whether the whistleblower deserves the multi-million dollar reward or not?

Ultimately, it is up to customers, employees and shareholders to decide if a company is honest or not.

In the case of the democratic State, voters decide whether the the government is honest or not. IMV, it is not the role of a bureaucratic to make this decision.

Edited December 15, 2009 by August1991

[capricorn]

In the case of the democratic State, voters decide whether the the government is honest or not. IMV, it is not the role of a bureaucratic to make this decision.

True the bureaucrat does not decide whether a government falls or survives. But a bureaucrat can precipitate a government's downfall, such as in the case of Allan Cutler who essentially got the ball rolling on the Sponsorship scandal.

Allan S. Cutler is a former Canadian public servant notable for his role as the whistleblower who reported anomalies in a Canadian sponsorship program designed to raise awareness in Quebec of the Government of Canada's contributions to Quebec industries and culture. This program was undertaken to counter Quebec separatism. The ensuing scandal implicated high-ranking bureaucrats and politicians in the Liberal Party of Canada and contributed to the setback of the Liberal Party in the 2004 Federal election and its defeat in the 2006 Federal election.

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

It's interesting to note that Cutler was ostracized and hounded until he quit his job. No one came to defend him. Not his colleagues and certainly not the Liberal government. The labour movement made noises in his support which amounted to a whimper. The Conservatives, on the other hand, selected him to run as a candidate in Ottawa South. With Colvin, it's a completely different story and he has become somewhat untouchable. His colleagues have come to his defense and the government has repeatedly stated that Colvin's performance and professionalism are not in question. The government's problem lies with the conclusions Colvin drew from the information he gathered on the processing of Afghan detainees. What a comparison these two cases make.

[August1991]

True the bureaucrat does not decide whether a government falls or survives. But a bureaucrat can precipitate a government's downfall, such as in the case of Allan Cutler who essentially got the ball rolling on the Sponsorship scandal....

It's interesting to note that Cutler was ostracized and hounded until he quit his job. No one came to defend him. Not his colleagues and certainly not the Liberal government.

Capricorn, I think you give far too much importance to Allan Cutler in exposing this scandal and not enough to the BQ and Gilles Duceppe, and the G&M reporting of Daniel Leblanc.

But let me give a small thought experiment of Milton Friedman.

You buy something in a store and the cashier makes an error in your favour. Should you report the error?

1) If you report the error to the cashier and return the money, this will simply help an incompetent cashier to keep their job when in fact, the cashier is the wrong person for the job. If the business continues to have such employees, it will continue to destroy value longer. It will eventually go bankrupt but your supposedly good action has caused more harm by delaying the inevitable.

2) If you don't report the error and keep the money, the employer will sooner learn that the cashier is incompetent and either fire the person or transfer them to another task. The world is a better place because the right person is sooner put in the right job.

You can play with this thought experiment, twist some of its basic assumptions but the basic point remains. I will add that the error of a cashier is a monetary loss.

-----

When it comes to whistleblowers, I first look to partisan disputes. Then I look at simplistic morality. Finally, I look at how the whistlerblower affects incentives.

Edited December 15, 2009 by August1991

[August1991]

I once thought that Colvin was an honest whistleblower, with a sense of drama.

Now I think that he just cares about his iron rice bowl.

[Visionseeker]

Colvin's career in the foreign service is now ended.

Really! Based on what exactly, speaking truth to power?

Colvin's stock at the chocolate box (term the FS uses to describe the exceptionally ugly building that is our foreign service HQ) is actually quite high. Most career foreign service personnel see him as a hero who embodies the spirit of Pearsonianism (the religion of our foreign service). If I were a cynical person, I'd think your post is nothing more than a juvenile attempt to malign the man's character.

But I'm not cynical, just knowledgeable. And my knowledge tells me you are talking out of an orifice ill designed for speech.

[Sir Bandelot]

MAYBE Canadians don't really care if some Afghani detainee is handed over by Canadian troops to be tortured, because it's a "minor" injustice. That is not the point... what will bother Canadians more is learning that the government is lying to us, habitually. To me thats where the issue lies in this case, not specifically just that the person(s) were handed over and tortured, but that our government knew, and knew it was illegal and against our basic values, allowed it to continue for some time and lied to us when the story came out. It is NOT an indictment of our troops per se.

To focus on that particular aspect is an obfuscation of the real significance of this story.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Sir Bandelot