Peter Mackay

eyeball · December 14, 2009

If the Afghan jailers broke the terms of the agreement by failing to inform our soldiers that a detainee has been released, how is this the military's or the government's fault?

Opacity is even more obvious than transparency - like a smudge on a clean window - and the most transparent accountable government in Canada's history missed it.

How do explain that?

eyeball · December 14, 2009

From what I've read about the culture in Afghanistan virtually every man in the country would be in jail for assault if they were in Canada - and a big chunk of the women, too.

It's funny how all you wild eyed lefties are all about accepting the differences in cultural standards except when you can find a reason to criticise a tory government.

It's really funny listening to all you bleeding heart conservatives go to any length to defend your efforts to save the world from itself.

I can only imagine the howling that would be coming from you if this had happened on the Liberal's watch. For what its worth, I'd still be howling mad too. Can you even detect the irony in that?

wyly · December 15, 2009

Sure, but don't call it a war crime which it ain't.

In Canada they would call it disturbing the peace...

Canadian Zahra Kazemi "beaten" to death with a shoe in an Iranian prison, accused spy/non combatant...tortured or not?... I'll bring this up forever until you answer there's no avoiding it...

now grow some balls and answer the question

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."

—UN Convention Against Torture[1]

Afghanistan and Canada have both agreed to this definition in the Convention against Torture

capricorn · December 15, 2009

Opacity is even more obvious than transparency - like a smudge on a clean window - and the most transparent accountable government in Canada's history missed it.

How do explain that?

English is my second language so I had to look up the word opacity in order to understand what you're asking eyeball. The Webster's definition didn't help. As to your reference to a smudge in a clean window, my initial reaction was that a smudge on a window would not prevent a determined bird from flying into it. Somehow I don't think this is an analogy that helps defend the transparency of the Conservatives on this issue. Or maybe it does.

capricorn · December 15, 2009

I can only imagine the howling that would be coming from you if this had happened on the Liberal's watch.

There is no doubt that similar events took place under the Liberal watch. (I read Hansard testimony from Amnesty International and Michael Byers from 2005 and the torture of Afghan detainees was raised. I looked for it recently and can't locate it.) The thing is, at the time there was no Colvin or industrious Globe reporter to push it forward. Perhaps a judicial inquiry would bring it to light. The problem is, the opposition would want to limit the inquiry to the period after the Conservatives won government. For obvious reasons, there is a concerted effort to keep this a Conservative foul up.

M.Dancer · December 15, 2009

[1]

Afghanistan and Canada have both agreed to this definition in the Convention against Torture

any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

Well done. So we can both agree then that being beaten up is neither torture or a war crime.

Jerry J. Fortin · December 15, 2009

The spin doctors are running at max rpm. The reality here is that there was in fact a history of abuse. The government was aware of it and denied it with their efforts at spin "control", because we all know that beating people up isn't torture.

wyly · December 15, 2009

Well done. So we can both agree then that being beaten up is neither torture or a war crime.

Canadian Zahra Kazemi "beaten" to death with a shoe in an Iranian prison, accused spy/non combatant...tortured or not?... I'll bring this up forever until you answer there's no avoiding it...failing to answer is an admission that you have no clue what your talking about and you don't have the balls to admit you're wrong!

any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

ironstone · December 20, 2009

Perhaps the best course of action would be for the Conservatives to call a public inquiry over this affair,then shut it down before it's finished.Remember the Somalia inquiry?

Jerry J. Fortin · December 20, 2009

Perhaps the best course of action would be for the Conservatives to call a public inquiry over this affair,then shut it down before it's finished.Remember the Somalia inquiry?

It seems there is no shortage of desires for public inquiries into this and just about everything else under the sun. In this case I should think that the opposition parties should simply decide whether or not the issue has risen to the level of public perception worthy of a confidence motion. I actually believe that tossing the government over an issue is better for citizens than witch hunts.

Topaz · December 20, 2009

Harper will probably keep McKay as Defense Minister, for his own reasons. One, being that sometime in the future, there will be a new leader of the Tories and if McKay was promised this spot by Harper, he may not be able to get by the "court of public opinion" and it going to a westerner instead. I think McKay politicians days could be hurt by what he is saying and doing. Also, the The Star has a very article on this subject and asking very good questions. http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/740827

eyeball · December 20, 2009

There is no doubt that similar events took place under the Liberal watch. (I read Hansard testimony from Amnesty International and Michael Byers from 2005 and the torture of Afghan detainees was raised. I looked for it recently and can't locate it.) The thing is, at the time there was no Colvin or industrious Globe reporter to push it forward. Perhaps a judicial inquiry would bring it to light. The problem is, the opposition would want to limit the inquiry to the period after the Conservatives won government. For obvious reasons, there is a concerted effort to keep this a Conservative foul up.

Well that would be just plain wrong in my opinion. I was against our involvement in Afghanistan from the beginning not only because it was the wrong thing to do but because of my conviction that Ottawa/Canada would cock it up regardless of who was in power. I certainly never had any illusions that the Conservatives or Liberals would cock it up more or less than the other.

I bet dollars to donuts that if the Conservative's suddenly changed tack and likewise demanded an inquiry that the Liberals would start backtracking. That said I suspect they would soon both be working together to ensure the inquiry gets cocked up too.

whowhere · December 21, 2009

That's a lame excuse. He should also be fired for not knowing about it.

In the corporate world to save face the senior manager usually takes it out on the people closely tied to the problem. To mirror corporate actions as Cabinet minister he would have to start firing people to deflect away from himself.

Lido Plage Guy · December 21, 2009

Please..........As much as I don't support the Conservatives....I can't justify dumping on poor old Peter Mackay, even though he is an ass. In time of War the truth has to be guarded to save the lives of our young men and woman who are serving while we sit at home and pass judgment. Mr. Mckay lied or withheld the truth for common sense reasons. I would do the same.

DrGreenthumb · December 21, 2009

I heard on the radio this morning that new evidence is coming out that further implicates Petey, and maybe even the PM. Red cross had a meeting with Mackay to discuss the prisoner treatment. THe report filed about this meeting has been heavily censored.

maple_leafs182 · December 21, 2009

Please..........As much as I don't support the Conservatives....I can't justify dumping on poor old Peter Mackay, even though he is an ass. In time of War the truth has to be guarded to save the lives of our young men and woman who are serving while we sit at home and pass judgment. Mr. Mckay lied or withheld the truth for common sense reasons. I would do the same.

We shouldn't even be at war in the first place.

Jerry J. Fortin · December 21, 2009

We shouldn't even be at war in the first place.

Yet we are in fact at war. There are body bags being shipped home far too frequently to support that reality. The sad thing about this is that utter lack of conviction on the part of our government to actually WIN and bring our soldiers back in victory. It is sad to see the public not up in arms about the reality of this war.

eyeball · December 21, 2009

Yet we are in fact at war. There are body bags being shipped home far too frequently to support that reality. The sad thing about this is that utter lack of conviction on the part of our government to actually WIN and bring our soldiers back in victory.

It is sad to see the public not up in arms about the reality of this war.

I imagine that would cause the government to bring the troops home toot sweet.

eyeball · December 21, 2009

Yet we are in fact at war. There are body bags being shipped home far too frequently to support that reality. The sad thing about this is that utter lack of conviction on the part of our government to actually WIN and bring our soldiers back in victory. It is sad to see the public not up in arms about the reality of this war.

I imagine that would cause the government to bring the troops home toot sweet.

Jerry J. Fortin · December 21, 2009

I imagine that would cause the government to bring the troops home toot sweet.

I didn't mean that public outrage would alter the events. Our government rarely listens to us. I was merely suggesting that with all the media efforts and government spin that the war that is taking the lives of our soldiers is just not being taken seriously enough by the majority of citizens.

wyly · December 21, 2009

Please..........As much as I don't support the Conservatives....I can't justify dumping on poor old Peter Mackay, even though he is an ass. In time of War the truth has to be guarded to save the lives of our young men and woman who are serving while we sit at home and pass judgment. Mr. Mckay lied or withheld the truth for common sense reasons. I would do the same.

he's not protecting the troops he's protecting his own ass and the government...

Jerry J. Fortin · December 21, 2009

he's not protecting the troops he's protecting his own ass and the government...

They have not been forthright and people have been harmed. That is just not good, period. Even given the entire concept of state security, the thought of equating that with prisoner abuse is troublesome to say the least.

bloodyminded · December 21, 2009

Please..........As much as I don't support the Conservatives....I can't justify dumping on poor old Peter Mackay, even though he is an ass. In time of War the truth has to be guarded to save the lives of our young men and woman who are serving while we sit at home and pass judgment. Mr. Mckay lied or withheld the truth for common sense reasons. I would do the same.

Yes, we should be happy for our government to lie to us. It's ultimately for our own good. They are the stern but loving parents, and we are the wayward children who do not share their deeper understanding nor their superior moral outlook.

Sweet Godzilla on His throne.

This sort of statist obedience is so infectious that even the once independently-minded Christoper Hitchens completely justified the government lying the Americans into the Iraq War.

but that doesn't mean that we--Canadians or Americans--have to follow suit in obeisance.

Edited December 21, 2009 by bloodyminded

BrassTax · December 21, 2009

"Lying is done with words and also with silence."

Bugs · December 22, 2009

Canadian Zahra Kazemi "beaten" to death with a shoe in an Iranian prison, accused spy/non combatant...tortured or not?... I'll bring this up forever until you answer there's no avoiding it...

now grow some balls and answer the question

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."

—UN Convention Against Torture[1]

Afghanistan and Canada have both agreed to this definition in the Convention against Torture

I think you're really pressing it.

Who got charged with a war crime for this murder in Iran? How is the case proceeding?

Perhaps it would be OK, in your eyes, if Peter Mackay got the same treatment as whoever was bureaucratically responsible for Zahra Kazemi's torture? I think that would be appropriate, why not?