Tyranny

[MightyAC]

By withholding documents from parliament Harper and the Con government are breaking constitutional law. When the government operates outside the rule of constitutional law we cease to be a democracy.

Nobody cares but this is larger than a simple cover up now. Operating outside the law, attempting to remove checks and balances, intimidating party members and the press, gag orders, firing those that have an independent thought, attacking science and reason. Our PM has a fair amount in common with George Dubya Bush.

[Shwa]

By withholding documents from parliament Harper and the Con government are breaking constitutional law.

You argument flows from this premise or assumption.

Could you explain what those documents are and how witholding them breaks constitutional law please? I have supplied the following link to allow you to test your premise against current information law:

Access to Information and Privacy Acts

[DrGreenthumb]

You argument flows from this premise or assumption.

Could you explain what those documents are and how witholding them breaks constitutional law please? I have supplied the following link to allow you to test your premise against current information law:

Access to Information and Privacy Acts

Parliament passed a motion requiring that the unredacted documents be supplied to the committee investigating the Afghan detainee issue. The government does not have the right to ignore an order of Parliament. Doing so is illegal and an affront to our democracy. The government is in contempt, and is acting illegally. When our elected officials cannot , in a majority vote, force the government to follow Parliament's orders, we cease to be a democracy.

[Muddy]

There is nothing being done or not being done by the previous governments when it comes to the war in afganistan. In war secrecy from the public is neccessary. If we had not spun the news on Dieppe Canada may have lost heart and not been part of the liberation of Europe from Hitlers evil regime. We might have quit during WW1 from public pressure in the early days and never had the victory of Vimy Ridge. War is a terrible messy thing but must be fought on many fronts. Our troops have enough to contend with every day facing an enemy that wears no uniform. Get the job done then we can sort out wrong doing in public. I am amzed that our soldiers actually take prisoners now when they are damned if they do and are damned if they don`t when turning them over to the proper authority.

Our guys do have certain rules of war they try to follow but our enemy has none of our rules or compassion.

Lets get the friggen job done. Let the other guy die for his cause. I want our guys home safe and I don`t give a crap about terrorists..

[scribblet]

No - and technically - No

[Sir Bandelot]

Lets get the friggen job done. Let the other guy die for his cause. I want our guys home safe and I don`t give a crap about terrorists..

Agrred but that is still a rather monocular view. What if the people who get tortured thanks to us are not terrorists?

The law is primarily made to protect the innocent from getting caught up in a frenzy, that fails to discriminate good guys from bad guys.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There is a very fine line between national security and the true need for secrecy is some specific respects. That does not mean that a government may violate the laws and traditions of the land without oversight, and that is where Parliament comes into play. The public interest being the focus of the government, must be considered to be contained within the laws of the land. Not even the government is allowed to violate the law. The laws of this land contain the allowable actions available to the government with respect to foreign policy application. Parliament is where the voice of the people can be heard, and it is where the will of the people is determined. No government action should be hidden from the Parliament of Canada, yet within that legislative body internal security must be maintained.

[Muddy]

Agrred but that is still a rather monocular view. What if the people who get tortured thanks to us are not terrorists?

The law is primarily made to protect the innocent from getting caught up in a frenzy, that fails to discriminate good guys from bad guys.

We have no jurisdiction to sort out the guilty from the innocent. That is the job of the Afgans. If our enemy wore a uniform I could see how we could follow more closely Geneva conventions. It is the enemy by not wearing a uniform who put innocent people in jeopardy of being swooped up. Lets put the blame where it should be. The by hiding behind a civilian mask is the biggest problem in these cases. The Afganistan Army is in uniform, they are recognizable. So some guy hiding behind the barrel of an AK47 without a uniform I think has put himself in jeopardy of ending up in Agan prison hands. Screw the legalities Amir and CBC. This is war! It is not for the squeamish.

Another year to go before our guys come home. I only care about their safety and the task at hand of killing the other guy and not being killed.Then we can sort it out.

[ToadBrother]

You argument flows from this premise or assumption.

Could you explain what those documents are and how witholding them breaks constitutional law please? I have supplied the following link to allow you to test your premise against current information law:

Access to Information and Privacy Acts

Specifically it violates Section 18 of the BNA Act, but in general, since the Glorious Revolution, Parliament has had the absolute power to compel Ministers of the Crown to provide it with unfettered information. Remember here that while the Government's executive powers flow from the Crown, it's right to govern flows from Parliament. Parliament is the boss of Government, not the other way around.

[ToadBrother]

There is nothing being done or not being done by the previous governments when it comes to the war in afganistan. In war secrecy from the public is neccessary.

I wouldn't argue with that. And no one is proposing that secrets be read out in an open session of Parliament. But Parliament is not the public, and committees are not the public. Surely every member of the Foreign Affairs Committee has clearance to view state secrets, and since an in-camera session can be held so that no secrets are revealed, the public itself is not made fully aware of state secrets, and yet there is still accountability to Parliament. I mean, you don't actually think the Executive should be able to do whatever it likes, do you?

[eyeball]

If our enemy wore a uniform I could see how we could follow more closely Geneva conventions. It is the enemy by not wearing a uniform who put innocent people in jeopardy of being swooped up. Lets put the blame where it should be. The by hiding behind a civilian mask is the biggest problem in these cases.

I have to laugh at this in light of the real root causes of this conflict - imperialism hiding behind a civilian mask not to mention covert often un-uniformed intelligence agents. This sort of enemy within has put our society in harm's way in much the same way that the Taliban has imperiled ordinary Afghans.

By all means let's put the blame where it should be.

Edited April 12, 2010 by eyeball

[Wilber]

Agrred but that is still a rather monocular view. What if the people who get tortured thanks to us are not terrorists?

The law is primarily made to protect the innocent from getting caught up in a frenzy, that fails to discriminate good guys from bad guys.

Our law fails to discriminate between good guys and bad guys all the time, just look how victims of crime are treated by our legal system. They are at the bottom of the list when it comes to consideration, everything else comes first.

[M.Dancer]

I have to laugh at this in light of the real root causes of this conflict - imperialism hiding behind a civilian mask not to mention covert often un-uniformed intelligence agents. This sort of enemy within has put our society in harm's way in much the same way that the Taliban has imperiled ordinary Afghans.

By all means let's put the blame where it should be.

I am forced to laugh..

[Muddy]

I wouldn't argue with that. And no one is proposing that secrets be read out in an open session of Parliament. But Parliament is not the public, and committees are not the public. Surely every member of the Foreign Affairs Committee has clearance to view state secrets, and since an in-camera session can be held so that no secrets are revealed, the public itself is not made fully aware of state secrets, and yet there is still accountability to Parliament. I mean, you don't actually think the Executive should be able to do whatever it likes, do you?

If I thought that no one in committee would not leak findings I would not have a problem. All to often I have seen political opportunism over rule patriotism and leaks happen.

We have but one year to go. Finish our military task then lets sort it out if we were the bad guys or not.Personally I think our troops have done a commendable job in a very hard war to fight seeing as the enemy wears no uniform. Because of the enemy hiding behind civilians by wearing ordinary garb mistakes happen. Everyone in our military wants to go home after this is over. We should not be running prison camps over there.You will notice I did not call them Prisoners of War camps. That was deliberate.

[waldo]

If I thought that no one in committee would not leak findings I would not have a problem. All to often I have seen political opportunism over rule patriotism and leaks happen.

We have but one year to go. Finish our military task then lets sort it out if we were the bad guys or not.Personally I think our troops have done a commendable job in a very hard war to fight seeing as the enemy wears no uniform. Because of the enemy hiding behind civilians by wearing ordinary garb mistakes happen. Everyone in our military wants to go home after this is over. We should not be running prison camps over there.You will notice I did not call them Prisoners of War camps. That was deliberate.

political opportunism? Of course... that premise in itself suggests you've accepted that exploitative opportunities exist. For something that Conservative supporters continually remind us as being of "no/little interest" to Canadians, why should you worry about loose lips sinking CPC ships?

[Shady]

I'm getting really tired of the left attacking our men and women in the military. :angry:

[bloodyminded]

I'm getting really tired of the left attacking our men and women in the military. :angry:

Ah, back to the scoundrel's refuge. When all else fails...

Edited April 12, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shady]

Ah, back to the scoundrel's refuge. When all else fails...

How long must they be characterized as war criminals by you people? It's pretty digusting.

[waldo]

Ah, back to the scoundrel's refuge. When all else fails...

oh snap! Why don't you support the troops!!!

[bloodyminded]

How long must they be characterized as war criminals by you people? It's pretty digusting.

If I belong to this group referred to as "you people"--and you clearly are saying that I do--might you show us where we are "attacking the troops"?

[Muddy]

political opportunism? Of course... that premise in itself suggests you've accepted that exploitative opportunities exist. For something that Conservative supporters continually remind us as being of "no/little interest" to Canadians, why should you worry about loose lips sinking CPC ships?

You assume I am a supporter of the Conservative Party led by Harper. Your wrong. I dislike Liberals more. Political opportunism is always at the top of the agenda of politicians no matter the party.

As an old soldier I just want to get our guys home safe without a bunch of panty waste politicians undermining them.

[Shwa]

Specifically it violates Section 18 of the BNA Act, but in general, since the Glorious Revolution, Parliament has had the absolute power to compel Ministers of the Crown to provide it with unfettered information. Remember here that while the Government's executive powers flow from the Crown, it's right to govern flows from Parliament. Parliament is the boss of Government, not the other way around.

The British North America Act? I thought we had changed those to the Constitution Acts in 1982? (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/Const_index.html) I can't see Section 18 in the Constitutional Acts as having any bearing. Are you referring to the Parliament Act? (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/P-1/index.html)

I can't seen to find anything that would define this as "breaking constitutional law" as per the OP. At worse it is an abuse of privledge (http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_g_parliamentaryprivilege-e.htm) but either way, that is for the courts to decide, not parliament.

[ToadBrother]

If I thought that no one in committee would not leak findings I would not have a problem. All to often I have seen political opportunism over rule patriotism and leaks happen.

Can you give me an actual example of when a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee has ever leaked information of a sensitive nature? Otherwise this is just fear mongering.

We have but one year to go. Finish our military task then lets sort it out if we were the bad guys or not.Personally I think our troops have done a commendable job in a very hard war to fight seeing as the enemy wears no uniform. Because of the enemy hiding behind civilians by wearing ordinary garb mistakes happen. Everyone in our military wants to go home after this is over. We should not be running prison camps over there.You will notice I did not call them Prisoners of War camps. That was deliberate.

But these are not the issues. The issue here is that since 1688, the Crown has not had the power to deprive Parliament of its privileges and rights. The Bill of Rights 1689, one of the cornerstones of our constitution, makes Parliament supreme. We can argue all day about whether the Committee trying to delve into what happened to Afghan prisoners is right or wrong (I tend to lean towards it being the wrong time to do it, myself), but what I am, more than a supporter of our Armed Forces, I am supporter of our constitution and of Parliament's ancient right to compel the Executive in such matters. What's at stake here, more than anything else, is Parliament's rights over Ministers of the Crown, which were established during the Glorious Revolution. Otherwise, can you tell me the difference between Charles II's theory of the Executive's rights and powers vs. Parliament and the current Cabinet's position on the Executive's rights and powers vs. Parliament?

[ToadBrother]

The British North America Act? I thought we had changed those to the Constitution Acts in 1982? (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/Const_index.html) I can't see Section 18 in the Constitutional Acts as having any bearing. Are you referring to the Parliament Act? (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/P-1/index.html)

The Constitution Act, 1982 patriated the Constitution. It did not dissolve the authority of previous acts of a constitutional nature like the BNA Act or the Bill of Rights 1689 (the latter pretty much being the bedrock of Parliamentary democracy throughout the Commonwealth). Those documents (save clauses that have been altered by later amendment) still carry the force of law in Canada, as they do in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and all the other realms where the British monarch reigns.

I can't seen to find anything that would define this as "breaking constitutional law" as per the OP. At worse it is an abuse of privledge (http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_g_parliamentaryprivilege-e.htm) but either way, that is for the courts to decide, not parliament.

No, Parliament decides. Issues of privilege as per Section 18 of the BNA Act most definitely give Parliament, via the Speaker, ultimate authority over this (and remember, the Speaker has another function which could factor into this in that it is via him that Parliament can access the Crown, which could raise some interesting constitutional issues if the Government refuses to provide unredacted copies even after the Speaker rules). Parliament is supreme over the Government (which represents the Executive functions of the Crown). This is in part because of acts like the BNA Act and the Bill of Rights 1689, but also one of those sort of "unwritten" areas of our constitution.

I'll ask the question do you. Do you think the Executive should be able to conceal its actions from Parliament?

Edited April 12, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Shwa]

I'll ask the question do you. Do you think the Executive should be able to conceal its actions from Parliament?

Since there is no timeframe prescribed, then the government is within its right to take its time to prepare themselves or the documents or whatnot. Since a Contempt of Parliament motion has not been passed in Parliament, it would seem that there is no "breaking of constitutional law" going on. It would seem that the Members more or less agree. I am not saying that it can't or won't happen, I am saying that it hasn't. That is, it is a little too soon to proclaim a tyranny.

Should the Executive be able to conceal its actions from the Legislative? No, of course not. But I think there has to be some reasonable timeframes for the release of information or documents to Parliamentary Committees. What is reasonable is something the Opposition is going to have to consider carefully...