The Afgan Documents - The Government Responds

[eyeball]

I'm interested in discussing the foolishness of absolutes.

No, you're arguing for a doctrine of moral relativism in our foreign policy.

It's so ugly it's disgusting.

[M.Dancer]

It's so ugly it's disgusting.

Maybe you should have a nice soothing cup of kelp tea and a nap to feel better...

[Shwa]

It can get confusing - Parliament, the House of Commons, the Senate, the Cabinet, Speaker of the House, Points of Privilege, Freedom on Information, Ministerial Responsibility, National Security, Parliamentary committees......how does it all fit together? Here's a very lengthy explanation of the government's position on the release of documents. Keep in mind that the government is obligated to follow the laws, rules and precedents of our Constitution and Parliament. The Conservatives didn't write them - but they surely must follow them:

Link: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/03/31/the-government-responds/

Good post and thanks! At least the governments position is understandable. It might not be right, but it is understandable.

[Born Free]

I'm not stupid enough to compare pregancy with morality.

Seems like you already have....

[Born Free]

M.Dancer, on 13 April 2010 - 10:08 AM, said:

I'm interested in discussing the foolishness of absolutes.

It appears that you are only interested in discussing foolishly...

[Sir Bandelot]

I think the real point is, what oversight is there in any of this process to ensure that innocent people don't get sent off to some foreign jail to be tortured. If it's just left up to the soldiers, or their commanders on site, with no follow-up, records, visits by someone, government or the IRC, how can anyone legitimize this process.

So regardless whether you think torture is warranted to get vital information from a terrorist, who is deciding that. Who decides if a person should be tortured, or when to stop. And are we leaving these people to rot in a cell somewhere, forgotten, their case unknown to anyone. How many are already in that situation now, that we don't even know about it. Those questions need to be answered.

[M.Dancer]

Seems like you already have....

Only to you. Would it help if I dumb it down for you?

Is stealing always wrong? Yes or No?

[ToadBrother]

Good post and thanks! At least the governments position is understandable. It might not be right, but it is understandable.

I think the Government's position is eminently understandable, and to some extent I even agree with it, because I still think the whole issue is a fishing expedition. At the same time, no matter how reasonable their position is, it is a violation of our constitution, as it has functioned for over three hundred years, for Ministers of the Crown to deprive Parliament of any papers that Parliament sees fit to demand. The argument that certain legislation somehow preempts Parliament's rights in certain issues of National Security has not been bourne out by the actual text of the legislation itself, and I think any reasonable person would say that if there were some modification to Parliamentary privilege as first set out in the Bill of Rights 1689 and clarified and entrenched in our own Parliament by the BNA Act 1867, that such a bill, which would alter the constitutional relationship between the Crown and Parliament, would have to explicitely state that.

In short, the Government is in violation of the Constitution, has shown a flagrant disregard for ancients rights and privileges of the supreme legislative body in our country, and, even if it causes substantial damage to our troops and our allies, cannot justify such a breach.

[Born Free]

Only to you. Would it help if I dumb it down for you?

Is stealing always wrong? Yes or No?

Whadaya you think?

Better still...do you believe that Canada must follow the Geneva Convention or only a little bit?

Edited April 13, 2010 by Born Free

[bloodyminded]

I think the real point is, what oversight is there in any of this process to ensure that innocent people don't get sent off to some foreign jail to be tortured. If it's just left up to the soldiers, or their commanders on site, with no follow-up, records, visits by someone, government or the IRC, how can anyone legitimize this process.

So regardless whether you think torture is warranted to get vital information from a terrorist, who is deciding that. Who decides if a person should be tortured, or when to stop. And are we leaving these people to rot in a cell somewhere, forgotten, their case unknown to anyone. How many are already in that situation now, that we don't even know about it. Those questions need to be answered.

I agree completely. We've already dumbed down our public discourse to the point where folks like to mockingly ask, "Are you really so opposed to the torture of terrorists?"....as if there has been some trial, proving guilt, of which we're all blithely unaware.

On top of that, even when the tortured are terrorists, the questions you ask are good ones. The details here are everything.

Edited April 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

Better still...do you believe that Canada must follow the Geneva Convention or only a little bit?

We should follow it all...but I think you mean to say, should we follow the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

So does mean we should follow it, even if it means where using torture in a very special circumstance might save lives?

I would argue that if the penalty for breaking the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is less than the cost of allowing innocent lives to be lost, then break it and worry about the high morals later.

[Shwa]

I think the Government's position is eminently understandable, and to some extent I even agree with it, because I still think the whole issue is a fishing expedition. At the same time, no matter how reasonable their position is, it is a violation of our constitution, as it has functioned for over three hundred years, for Ministers of the Crown to deprive Parliament of any papers that Parliament sees fit to demand. The argument that certain legislation somehow preempts Parliament's rights in certain issues of National Security has not been bourne out by the actual text of the legislation itself, and I think any reasonable person would say that if there were some modification to Parliamentary privilege as first set out in the Bill of Rights 1689 and clarified and entrenched in our own Parliament by the BNA Act 1867, that such a bill, which would alter the constitutional relationship between the Crown and Parliament, would have to explicitely state that.

In short, the Government is in violation of the Constitution, has shown a flagrant disregard for ancients rights and privileges of the supreme legislative body in our country, and, even if it causes substantial damage to our troops and our allies, cannot justify such a breach.

They are not quite in violation yet. Give them time to respond to your concerns as to why your opinion does not constitute a violation, but simply a disagreement in a debate, which is understandable. You will reply. They will then need to take some time to respond to your reply - you know, research, take a holiday, prorogue Parliament for a bit, come back, research some more, go to a luncheon. Then once you respond to this new reply, and in keeping with the spirit of debate with your disagreement, they will have to once again formulate another reply to your reply.

...even if it causes substantial damage to our troops and our allies, cannot justify such a breach

Whoa, do you mean simply bad PR, or are you talking about the loss of life with our troops and allies?

[bloodyminded]

They are not quite in violation yet. Give them time to respond to your concerns as to why your opinion does not constitute a violation, but simply a disagreement in a debate, which is understandable. You will reply. They will then need to take some time to respond to your reply - you know, research, take a holiday, prorogue Parliament for a bit, come back, research some more, go to a luncheon. Then once you respond to this new reply, and in keeping with the spirit of debate with your disagreement, they will have to once again formulate another reply to your reply.

Nice.

[eyeball]

Nice.

It is hard to believe TB's concern that Rome is burning given he proposes we ignore the flames and fiddle with the smoke detectors.

[Topaz]

I think we should know more about what the Canadian Ambassadors to Afghanistan knew in this time frame. David Sproule from Oct/05-apr..07 and Arif Lalani Apr.26/07-Sept4/08. I have read thing about how Lalani let alot of things go and asked certain people not to write anything down about torturing and seemed to be protecting the Afg. government, since he was close to the president there. We only hear about David Mulroney not not the other two.

[ToadBrother]

They are not quite in violation yet.

Yes they are. The Committee has already demanded the unredacted documents and the Government has refused.

Give them time to respond to your concerns as to why your opinion does not constitute a violation, but simply a disagreement in a debate, which is understandable. You will reply. They will then need to take some time to respond to your reply - you know, research, take a holiday, prorogue Parliament for a bit, come back, research some more, go to a luncheon. Then once you respond to this new reply, and in keeping with the spirit of debate with your disagreement, they will have to once again formulate another reply to your reply.

I don't think you really understand what the Bill of Rights 1689 and Section 18 of the BNA Act represent. The government, by pretty much every measure except their own tortured argument, has violated those precepts of the constitution first formulated by the Bill of Rights 1689 which first spelled out in strict constitutional terms Parliament's ability to oversee the actions of the Crown (executive).

What you're saying amounts to "I'm not guilty of speeding until I get the ticket".

Whoa, do you mean simply bad PR, or are you talking about the loss of life with our troops and allies?

I'm saying that loss of life and bad PR are not sufficient justification for the Government to violate its constitutional requirement to give Committees any documents they demand. We can argue all day about whether the Committee should be demanding those documents, and you will find that I tend to agree with you that it is irresponsible at this juncture to demand them. But my first loyalty is to the constitution, which I'm afraid, is more important than even the lives of our troops. After all it was the blood of our forebearers in fighting the tyranny of Charles II which laid the groundwork for those most important privileges that Parliament wrested from the Crown. Are you saying the blood spilled during the Civil War, which was far greater than the blood spilled by our troops in Afghanistan, is of a lesser quality, that their sacrifice which did so much to produce our democracy, is irrelevant here?

[ToadBrother]

It is hard to believe TB's concern that Rome is burning given he proposes we ignore the flames and fiddle with the smoke detectors.

And what would your remedy be?

[Shwa]

Yes they are. The Committee has already demanded the unredacted documents and the Government has refused.

Yet in a previous thread you mention something about the Opposition willing to negotiate how the documents will be released. Offering to negotiate with an entity to already be in contempt of Parliament and breaking constitutional law, doesn't sound as principled as your stand is. That is like negotiating the fine with someone who is in the act of speeding.

I'm saying that loss of life and bad PR are not sufficient justification for the Government to violate its constitutional requirement to give Committees any documents they demand. We can argue all day about whether the Committee should be demanding those documents, and you will find that I tend to agree with you that it is irresponsible at this juncture to demand them. But my first loyalty is to the constitution, which I'm afraid, is more important than even the lives of our troops.

Oh I see what you are saying, and to a point I agree, but there is nothing wrong with trying to achieve a win-win situation in grave circumstances. That would be the committee getting their uncensored documents and no lives are lost. If that means the committee members have to sit on their hands a few weeks, even a few months, OK, then we resort to the details of what constitutes parliamentary debate.

However, what does one do when one receives said documents and discovers that the entire process has been a face-saving political ruse? Can the government successfully get themselves out of something like that?

[bloodyminded]

Yet in a previous thread you mention something about the Opposition willing to negotiate how the documents will be released. Offering to negotiate with an entity to already be in contempt of Parliament and breaking constitutional law, doesn't sound as principled as your stand is.

Are you insinuating that Toadbrother is more principled than the Government or the Opposition? I"m inclined to agree.

[Born Free]

We should follow it all...but I think you mean to say, should we follow the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

So does mean we should follow it, even if it means where using torture in a very special circumstance might save lives?

To answer your question... the answer is Yes...regardless of what you think.

I would argue that if the penalty for breaking the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is less than the cost of allowing innocent lives to be lost, then break it and worry about the high morals later.

As a plebe, your argument is absolutely wonderful. However, our government has higher obligations than you might have.

Countries are not permitted to turn over their detainees over to another nation if it suspects the detainee will be tortured. If Canada discovers the detainee is being tortured it must prevent the torture from continuing and demand that the prisoner be returned to their custody. This is not what many of us are arguing about.

In addition, Canada should have had a process in place to keep informed of the well being of anybody who they had handed over to another country. For reasons best known to him, the Defense Minister and the Chief of Staff General Rick Hiller didnt seem to be bothered insuring that we had such a process in place thereby living up to the terms of the convention. Surely Hillier and Co. must have known that the Afghans were likely going to torture their prisoners. They have that reputation. Ergo, Hillier appears to have been oblivious of his responsibilities.

AND THAT is some of the stuff that is bothering so many people.

[M.Dancer]

To answer your question... the answer is Yes...regardless of what you think.

Well I disagree. If lets say....we know someone has been part of a plot to set a massive bomb off in Toronto, and that bomb willgo off if it is not found...and he ain't talking...I would have no problem forgiving anyone who takes a belt sander to his backside if the information gained saved lives. I would even lend them the beltsander and plug it in.

[bloodyminded]

Well I disagree. If lets say....we know someone has been part of a plot to set a massive bomb off in Toronto, and that bomb willgo off if it is not found...and he ain't talking...I would have no problem forgiving anyone who takes a belt sander to his backside if the information gained saved lives. I would even lend them the beltsander and plug it in.

This "ticking time-bomb" hypothetical has been nicely discredited.

And at any rate, it is irrelevant to the many tortures that have occurred under our name.

Edited April 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[ToadBrother]

Yet in a previous thread you mention something about the Opposition willing to negotiate how the documents will be released. Offering to negotiate with an entity to already be in contempt of Parliament and breaking constitutional law, doesn't sound as principled as your stand is. That is like negotiating the fine with someone who is in the act of speeding.

Look, we all have to live in the real world. The Opposition is cognizant and sympathetic to the government's stated concern that if this information were to become general knowledge, it could do great harm to Canada, her troops and to our allies. The Opposition is not surrendering Parliament's inherent privileges by trying to meet the Government half-way, since it still has clearly reserved the right to make an appeal to the Speaker, or to pursue whatever other methods are at its disposal. These were all suggested relatively early on, but since then the Government has essentially made the argument that not only is the executive within its rights to deprive Parliament of certain information, it's also arguing that on a tortured interpretation of legislation, claiming, essentially, that the legislation limits Parliament's privilege, even where it's hard to imagine what would amount to an amendment to our constitution would not require specific statements that Parliament was intended to be a limited agency.

Oh I see what you are saying, and to a point I agree, but there is nothing wrong with trying to achieve a win-win situation in grave circumstances. That would be the committee getting their uncensored documents and no lives are lost. If that means the committee members have to sit on their hands a few weeks, even a few months, OK, then we resort to the details of what constitutes parliamentary debate.

Then the Government should be negotiating like that. But the Government isn't. It isn't negotating at all. It is attempting to unilaterally dictate terms (including referencing the whole thing to someone who has no constitutional standing whatsoever).

However, what does one do when one receives said documents and discovers that the entire process has been a face-saving political ruse? Can the government successfully get themselves out of something like that?

Probably not. But the constitution doesn't exist to save the Government, it exists to assure that Parliament is supreme over the Crown.

[Born Free]

Well I disagree. If lets say....we know someone has been part of a plot to set a massive bomb off in Toronto, and that bomb willgo off if it is not found...and he ain't talking...I would have no problem forgiving anyone who takes a belt sander to his backside if the information gained saved lives. I would even lend them the beltsander and plug it in.

I know you disagree. Here are the views (in the context of Afghanistan) of a retired Col. from the Canadian forces. They have been kept simple and easy to understand why he believes torture is a bad idea. I share those views.

One – We believe that we are a humane culture and Canada is obliged to follow the Geneva Convention and that rule of law. Occupying the moral high ground requires some effort.

Two – It makes it easier for our Govt officials to discuss human rights issues with foreign governments, particularly as they apply to any detained Canadians.

Three – Abused detainees who were not particularly sympathetic to the Taliban faction will likely remuster to the Taliban and take some folks within their extended family and tribe with them. Those who were keen Taliban won’t likely have any useful attitude adjustment although abuse will no doubt add to their enthusiasm. If there is a “hearts and minds” effort in progress, the abuse of Afghans by Afghans is clearly counterproductive. Its rather difficult to win the hearts and minds of Afghans who are missing a lot of fingernails.

Four – An enemy who knows that surrender means torture is more likely to fight than surrender. Live prisoners are better than enemies who won’t ever give up and would rather fight to the death. Generals should know this and act accordingly.

Five – Negotiating the future of any NATO soldiers captured by the Taliban will not be enhanced by a record of detainee abuse by the NATO supported Afghan government.

Six – Detainee abuse is simply unprofessional. If we say we don’t do it we need to ensure that it does not happen to people we detain.

[M.Dancer]

I know you disagree. Here are the views (in the context of Afghanistan) of a retired Col. from the Canadian forces. They have been kept simple and easy to understand why he believes torture is a bad idea. I share those views.

One – We believe that we are a humane culture and Canada is obliged to follow the Geneva Convention and that rule of law. Occupying the moral high ground requires some effort.

Two – It makes it easier for our Govt officials to discuss human rights issues with foreign governments, particularly as they apply to any detained Canadians.

Three – Abused detainees who were not particularly sympathetic to the Taliban faction will likely remuster to the Taliban and take some folks within their extended family and tribe with them. Those who were keen Taliban won’t likely have any useful attitude adjustment although abuse will no doubt add to their enthusiasm. If there is a “hearts and minds” effort in progress, the abuse of Afghans by Afghans is clearly counterproductive. Its rather difficult to win the hearts and minds of Afghans who are missing a lot of fingernails.

Four – An enemy who knows that surrender means torture is more likely to fight than surrender. Live prisoners are better than enemies who won’t ever give up and would rather fight to the death. Generals should know this and act accordingly.

Five – Negotiating the future of any NATO soldiers captured by the Taliban will not be enhanced by a record of detainee abuse by the NATO supported Afghan government.

Six – Detainee abuse is simply unprofessional. If we say we don’t do it we need to ensure that it does not happen to people we detain.

Oh I agree. That's why torture should be done in secret and afterwards the suspect disposed of in a deep pit of lime.