Legal obligations and consequences to Iacobucci

[William Ashley]

Point 1: Mr. Iacobucci is no longer a sitting judge so I am assuming there is no guarantee the government will give him the complete set of classified documents as he will no longer have an active security clearance. Am I correct with that assumption?

No. Usually CSIS does security screening for a number of things (not all security clearances come from CSIS though). There are different levels of clearance. Also just because he is no longer a judge does not mean he is not part of the national security establishment. This would be more of a need to know basis. This is much the same how some parliamentarians may have different security clerances. As a member of the bar perhaps still, he may have a Top Secret Clearance given for the purpose, as lawyers can also obtain these sorts of clearances. So it would actually be far more likely he has Top Secret or Royal 1 Clearance. Mindful though his clearance likely does come from CSIS and not other state institutions.

Point 2: Assume they gave him all of the documents and he begins reviewing them. If there is clear evidence of complicity in torture or direct knowledge of torture or the participation in torture, is Iacobucci required to also report it to The Hague breaching attorney client privilege?

Iacobucci has no obligation to do anything, but there may be consequences for ommission of an act if there are repercussions for ommissions based on reasonable belief. However, the emergency act - war measures secrecy clause which would likely be invoked for state secrets would on a federal basis force non disimination of state secrets - so yes and no. A defence of duress would likely exist.

Point 3: Because Iacobucci is no longer a member of one of the executive bodies of the country such as Parliament or the Supreme Court, hasn't the government unintentionally created a perfect prosecution witness against the government of Canada if Canada is ever charged with committing a war crime? We are a signator to the International Criminal Court.

No idea. How old is he?

Point 4: Even if it doesn't get to the level of a war crime, some of the information will come out - probably enough for civil litigation. The former justice will be one of the key witnesses so hasn't he tied himself up by being required to go to civil litigation cases for the next 10 years depending on the information that comes out.

Who knows?

Point 5: If most of the scenarios come true, Iacobucci as a former judge would want this to come out. As a form of self defense he would have to make public what he found. If information is found but not reported to the proper parties, Iacobucci would be found guilty in participating in a conspiracy to cover up a war crime if it ever gets to The Hague.

Maybe.

In the end, isn't it more dangerous to the government of Canada hiring a lawyer such as Iacobucci given all of the obligations as an attorney and possibly the obligations under international law in reporting what is found.

Whitewash.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/O-5/

Edited April 3, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

He has no standing whatsoever. This is a question of privilege. Like I said before, if Jesus himself came down and said he'd review everything, it would be irrelevant. Either Parliament has the constitutional right to compel the Government to produce any documents at any time or it doesn't, and either the Speaker is the ultimate arbiter of privileges or not. If not, then I posit that, regardless of how justified the Government may be, Parliament has lost its more profound power.

If jesus were a religious minister he would having official standing. But really, why would jesus get involved in the Afghan torture debate, wouldn't he just heal the pain of the taliban who were tortured?

Its a war - things get ugly during a war - but ask yourself - when was the last time Canada wasn't in a state of war?

Or hold on Canada isn't in a war - it is doing a multi billion dollar "security mission" and service people in afghanistan arn't war veterans they are former military that provided security and relief in a country that was desbalized. And the korean war was only an intervention, yugoslavia was a conflict etc..

canada has only gone to war twice... once for WWI and once for WWII everything else was just an operation in a larger security frame work and they were illegal operations if the countries they were at war with actually existed right. But they didn't don't so it isn't a war against a country. I guess thats how it works.

Edited April 3, 2010 by William Ashley

[msdogfood]

No. Usually CSIS does security screening for a number of things (not all security clearances come from CSIS though). There are different levels of clearance. Also just because he is no longer a judge does not mean he is not part of the national security establishment. This would be more of a need to know basis. This is much the same how some parliamentarians may have different security clerances. As a member of the bar perhaps still, he may have a Top Secret Clearance given for the purpose, as lawyers can also obtain these sorts of clearances. So it would actually be far more likely he has Top Secret or Royal 1 Clearance. Mindful though his clearance likely does come from CSIS and not other state institutions.

Iacobucci has no obligation to do anything, but there may be consequences for ommission of an act if there are repercussions for ommissions based on reasonable belief. However, the emergency act - war measures secrecy clause which would likely be invoked for state secrets would on a federal basis force non disimination of state secrets - so yes and no. A defence of duress would likely exist.

No idea. How old is he?

Who knows?

Maybe.

Whitewash.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/O-5/

Thank- for the point by pint analysis!!!.

[msdogfood]

No. Usually CSIS does security screening for a number of things (not all security clearances come from CSIS though). There are different levels of clearance. Also just because he is no longer a judge does not mean he is not part of the national security establishment. This would be more of a need to know basis. This is much the same how some parliamentarians may have different security clerances. As a member of the bar perhaps still, he may have a Top Secret Clearance given for the purpose, as lawyers can also obtain these sorts of clearances. So it would actually be far more likely he has Top Secret or Royal 1 Clearance. Mindful though his clearance likely does come from CSIS and not other state institutions.

Iacobucci has no obligation to do anything, but there may be consequences for ommission of an act if there are repercussions for ommissions based on reasonable belief. However, the emergency act - war measures secrecy clause which would likely be invoked for state secrets would on a federal basis force non disimination of state secrets - so yes and no. A defence of duress would likely exist.

No idea. How old is he? - (age 73.

Who knows?

Maybe.

Whitewash.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/O-5/

[msdogfood]

Thank- for the point by point analysis!!!.

[eyeball]

To me it's irrelevant. I think it's a wild goose chase, a fishing expedition in the hopes of embarrassing the government.

But still, the fundamental point is that either Parliament still maintains its age-old authority over Government or it does not.

I think this fundamental point has gotten even more irrelevant to people. Parliament has obviously lost its age-old authority over government because people have lost control of Parliament. More people than ever just simply don't believe in it anymore.

[ToadBrother]

I think this fundamental point has gotten even more irrelevant to people. Parliament has obviously lost its age-old authority over government because people have lost control of Parliament. More people than ever just simply don't believe in it anymore.

If the people don't demand their MPs behave first and foremost as Parliamentarians, then it's little wonder. Look at the various party supporters on these forums. I mean the Liberal supporters are only allied with me because I happen to align with their partisan interests. Probably the biggest assaults on Parliamentary powers happened under Trudeau and Mulroney. Harper is only continuing the trend of governing from the PMO that began a generation or two ago, and by all appearances his supporters here are nothing but mindless sheep. But before anyone thinks I'm down on Tories, I think precisely the same thing of Liberals and NDPers. There isn't an ounce of backbone between the MPs in Parliament regardless of party affiliation.

But believe me, if fifty or sixty independents were voted in in the next election, Parliament would be transformed.

[eyeball]

If the people don't demand their MPs behave first and foremost as Parliamentarians, then it's little wonder.

Well, for what it's worth I've certainly been demanding it but it doesn't seem to be making a lick of difference.

But believe me, if fifty or sixty independents were voted in in the next election, Parliament would be transformed.

How, with a party of independents?

I bet voter turnout keeps dropping off. Perhaps when it finally hits rock bottom things will turn around. I think dis-confederation is the way to go myself. We can always reconstitute Canada later, assuming someone comes up with a good enough reason too.

[Smallc]

[ToadBrother]

Well, for what it's worth I've certainly been demanding it but it doesn't seem to be making a lick of difference.

I write three or four times a year. Unfortunately I suspect that, other than the cranks, very few of my fellow citizens do. If your MP were to get ten reasonable letters on an issue facing Parliament, he's going to pretty much ignore them. If he got several thousand, then I posit that he would see the issue somewhat differently. The problem is that people have disconnected themselves from the process, and then complain that the process doesn't work for them. It's like pulling your hands from the steering wheel and then blaming the car for going off the road.

How, with a party of independents?

No, just independents, not members of any particular caucus, not under the thumb of party leadership.

I bet voter turnout keeps dropping off. Perhaps when it finally hits rock bottom things will turn around. I think dis-confederation is the way to go myself. We can always reconstitute Canada later, assuming someone comes up with a good enough reason too.

This doesn't even make any sense.

[eyeball]

This doesn't even make any sense.

Give yourself another 20 years or so of frustration and disappointment. I never imagined I'd be willing to give separation a shot but things change. Even just embracing the possibility opens one up to new ideas.

[ToadBrother]

Give yourself another 20 years or so of frustration and disappointment. I never imagined I'd be willing to give separation a shot but things change. Even just embracing the possibility opens one up to new ideas.

I don't think two thousand years would be sufficient to disentangle the word salad you posted. It's not on-topic, it's not coherent, it's just pointless knee-jerk babble. I think if you want to find the cause of your disappointments, a good place to start would be in the mirror.

[msdogfood]

Tories alerted to Afghan secret police legal 'risk'

Tuesday, April 6th, 2010 | 2:31 pm

See link Thanks!!

[eyeball]

I don't think two thousand years would be sufficient to disentangle the word salad you posted. It's not on-topic, it's not coherent, it's just pointless knee-jerk babble. I think if you want to find the cause of your disappointments, a good place to start would be in the mirror.

Well, considering you're the guy who steered it off topic in the first place...

But still, the fundamental point is that either Parliament still maintains its age-old authority over Government or it does not.

Your post

...feel free to bite me.

That said, I agree the reason we can't find out what our government has been doing in our name overseas is a symptom of a deep fundamental flaw in our democracy. This flaw of course is at the heart of many of our problems so it's rarely off-topic whatever the circumstances.

[ToadBrother]

Well, considering you're the guy who steered it off topic in the first place...

Your post

...feel free to bite me.

That said, I agree the reason we can't find out what our government has been doing in our name overseas is a symptom of a deep fundamental flaw in our democracy. This flaw of course is at the heart of many of our problems so it's rarely off-topic whatever the circumstances.

The flaw, in my opinion, is a lazy, apathetic electorate who kicks back and moans when things go against what they want, leaving MPs high-and-dry, and thus much more prone to simply "follow the leader". You seem to be suffering precisely that. You're a great handwringer, which most Canadians seem to be these days. But handwringing don't change a damned thing.

Edited April 7, 2010 by ToadBrother

[eyeball]

The flaw, in my opinion, is a lazy, apathetic electorate who kicks back and moans when things go against what they want, leaving MPs high-and-dry, and thus much more prone to simply "follow the leader". You seem to be suffering precisely that. You're a great handwringer, which most Canadians seem to be these days. But handwringing don't change a damned thing.

I'm suffering from having spent the better part of a decade and a half in various grass roots associations trying to do something about the leaders and followers you mentioned who've left my community and region high and dry. It didn't change a damn thing.

So what have you done beyond praise the FUBAR system of government these assholes used to screw us with?

You like to wring your hands a lot over apathetic voters but I bet you'll still give a big thumbs down to any suggestion that enthusiastic voters who are eager to participate be given the opportunity to vote more often and on a range of issues.

I'm kicking myself now for not recognizing long ago that it's probably Canadians like you who've made the effort to better our country such a thankless dispiriting excersize. You think you can do a better job? Fly at it. Let me know how that works out for you.

[msdogfood]

more bad news!!!.

Military Police investigator did not receive diplomats’ torture warningsBy ALTHIA RAJ, Parliamentary Bureau

Abuse probe never told when Afghan torture tools found

[ToadBrother]

I'm suffering from having spent the better part of a decade and a half in various grass roots associations trying to do something about the leaders and followers you mentioned who've left my community and region high and dry. It didn't change a damn thing.

It doesn't, because such organizations have memberships that are fractions of a fraction of the electorate. Your organization had what, 10 or 20 members at most, probably networking somehow with a few other groups, but honestly, I doubt even in an extended situation I never seen these groups have more than a few dozen members.

In other words, these organizations, as high minded and idealistic as they are, have the impact of a nerf ball on steel door. Politicians will fawn over them to some extent, if for no other reason than the picture in the newspaper, but at the end of the day, it don't work.

I'm not talking about organizations, I'm not talking about committees or societies dedicated to whatever. I'm talking about Joe Q. Voter, the guys and gals who, if all them wrote into their MP and made it clear the views of the electorate.

So what have you done beyond praise the FUBAR system of government these assholes used to screw us with?

That's utterly unfair. I don't think our system is as broken as you think, but I can certainly see areas of improvement. The problem is those areas of improvement require voters to actually engage and use their muscle in between elections.

You like to wring your hands a lot over apathetic voters but I bet you'll still give a big thumbs down to any suggestion that enthusiastic voters who are eager to participate be given the opportunity to vote more often and on a range of issues.

I'm not convinced that direct democracy is in and of itself a solution, and I'm very leary of online voting, as, being a technology professional, I know all too well that even SSL is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks, particularly seeing as it's becoming clearer that various Western governments may be able to assert their own fraudulent certificates. The voting booth may be a pain in the ass, but at least it's considerably easier to keep the whole thing honest.

I'm kicking myself now for not recognizing long ago that it's probably Canadians like you who've made the effort to better our country such a thankless dispiriting excersize. You think you can do a better job? Fly at it. Let me know how that works out for you.

Yeah, it must be my fault that you float stupid ideas.

[eyeball]

It doesn't, because such organizations have memberships that are fractions of a fraction of the electorate.

When they came for our fraction nobody spoke up...

The government is acting undemocratically? Wow. Tell me something I don't know intimately. I'd say this little squabble in Parliament is just a piss trickle compared to the river that's been flowing under that bridge for decades now.

That's utterly unfair. I don't think our system is as broken as you think, but I can certainly see areas of improvement.

I guess I'm just afraid these improvements you'd make would be so incremental as to be inconsequential to most Canadians on the ground where they work and live.

The problem is those areas of improvement require voters to actually engage and use their muscle in between elections.

Well, we tried that for at least three federal election cycles and a couple of different provincial governments and...we got nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if this little excersize cost Canada the benefit of several thousand voters who couldn't care less about the current state of Parliament. Whatever faith they may have had in it evaporated when it hung them out to dry.

That's just one fraction, as you put it.

[ToadBrother]

The government is acting undemocratically? Wow. Tell me something I don't know intimately. I'd say this little squabble in Parliament is just a piss trickle compared to the river that's been flowing under that bridge for decades now.

Governments always act undemocratically, once they're elected. You think there's a democracy out there that doesn't suffer that problem? There's some that suffer it a helluva lot worse than ours. Look at the constant contortions Israel goes through, to the point where it is seriously pissing off the most important allies it's ever had, all because the way its parliament constitutes itself inevitably gives small hardline parties outrageous amounts of influence because of the necessity of coalitions.

That's why I think any change has to be weighed carefully. You and Myata seem to be of the opinion that change itself is sufficient to cure problems. I'm of the opinion that you don't take a four hundred year old system that's proven remarkably resilient and adaptable, and just start tossing amendments at it willy-nilly, or at least fully understand the consequences of changes. Particularly as far as electoral reform goes (and believe me, I was an STV supporter here in BC, and feel we have lost, for a generation, the single most important democratic change we could have made), we need to assure that we don't duplicate what happens in Israel and Italy, where more influence doesn't become undue influence. There are worse things than majority governments.

I guess I'm just afraid these improvements you'd make would be so incremental as to be inconsequential to most Canadians on the ground where they work and live.

Most Canadians couldn't give a crap, so far as I can tell. Even the questionable prorogations and now the clear violation of Parliament's ancient and inherent rights to compel the executive basically leads to a lot of "mehs". If every Tory MP was made to feel that they're seats were at risk if they didn't compel Harper to back down, believe you me, it would be a different ball of wax. But between the supporters for any given party who basically are partisan-spin-spewing robots and most Canadians either being too uneducated or unmotivated to see that democracy requires them to make their voices, and not just through the latest Ekos survey to directly communicating their displeasure (or pleasure, even) at their MP's performance, it strikes me that change is pointless. I mean, it costs almost nothing (just the price of a piece of paper and envelope or an Internet connection) to send your MP, or indeed any Minister, your feelings, and yet most people are like my old man, kicking back in the Lazyboy with a beer shouting "That damned Trudeau... that damned Mulroney... that damned Chretien... that damned Harper".

Well, we tried that for at least three federal election cycles and a couple of different provincial governments and...we got nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if this little excersize cost Canada the benefit of several thousand voters who couldn't care less about the current state of Parliament. Whatever faith they may have had in it evaporated when it hung them out to dry.

That's just one fraction, as you put it.

I refuse to blame Parliament for the stupidity of the apathetic. If you've lost your passion, it's because you lost it, not because anyone took it away.

[eyeball]

Governments always act undemocratically, once they're elected. You think there's a democracy out there that doesn't suffer that problem? There's some that suffer it a helluva lot worse than ours. Look at the constant contortions Israel goes through, to the point where it is seriously pissing off the most important allies it's ever had, all because the way its parliament constitutes itself inevitably gives small hardline parties outrageous amounts of influence because of the necessity of coalitions.

I'm not swayed by these sorts of arguments I'm afraid. They're just not applicable. Canada is not Israel. Canada should be leading the world in democratic reforms but instead we're followers of the worst sort.

That's why I think any change has to be weighed carefully. You and Myata seem to be of the opinion that change itself is sufficient to cure problems. I'm of the opinion that you don't take a four hundred year old system that's proven remarkably resilient and adaptable, and just start tossing amendments at it willy-nilly, or at least fully understand the consequences of changes. Particularly as far as electoral reform goes (and believe me, I was an STV supporter here in BC, and feel we have lost, for a generation, the single most important democratic change we could have made), we need to assure that we don't duplicate what happens in Israel and Italy, where more influence doesn't become undue influence. There are worse things than majority governments.

Our government is stuck and stagnating. It's not adapting to changing times and more importantly to people's need to adapt to the pace of change that's sweeping by and often over them. Things are changing so quickly that what's being taught in grade 9 is apparently redundant by the time kids graduate. Constantly applying the brakes on our horse and buggy era democracy is not the answer.

I refuse to blame Parliament for the stupidity of the apathetic. If you've lost your passion, it's because you lost it, not because anyone took it away.

My passion's been burned out of me I'm afraid. I first became interested in politics when I was 15 and volunteered for a friend's father who ran for the Conservatives in Toronto.

I certainly don't buy the argument that apathy, laziness or stupidity have as much to do with voter dropout as you think. If it really did there'd be no excuse for not forcing people to cast a vote and penalizing them for not doing so. We don't allow people to use these excuses to shirk their responsibility when filing a tax return or participating in a census so I fail to see why mandatory voting should be such a monumental deal, but apparently even that is too staggering a change for our democracy to weather. I honestly think not voting could also be viewed as a form of protest and perhaps even a way of embarrassing the government to the point of forcing it to react if turnout drops enough.

I was an STV supporter here in BC, and feel we have lost, for a generation, the single most important democratic change we could have made

No kidding, I think the loss of STV was the straw that's likely broken my political spirit forever. The fact I probably won't live long enough to ever see another chance like that come along is pretty goddamn depressing really. Perhaps because this is the point where I start feeling like blaming my fellow voters too. I still think hopelessness and futility are by far the bigger cause of democracy's demise in our country. Those are not exactly things people should be blamed for entirely. They are not the same as stupidity or apathy and thinking they are is just a wrong-headed interpretation.

[msdogfood]

OK back on topic anyone went to guess whan the speaker will deliver is decision..

on privilege!??.

[DrGreenthumb]

OK back on topic anyone went to guess whan the speaker will deliver is decision..

on privilege!??.

If the speaker doesn't make his decision known immediately he should be removed. He has had more than enough time.

[msdogfood]

If the speaker doesn't make his decision known immediately he should be removed. He has had more than enough time.

So why do think the speaker has not rendered his decision yet??.

[DrGreenthumb]

So why do think the speaker has not rendered his decision yet??.

Cowardice.