Afghan translator tells it all

[bloodyminded]

Because it backs up the fact that Canadians trust the Armed Forces much more than they trust politicians......and Michael Ignatieff, leader of the Liberal mudslingers, is by far the least trusted leader. As I said, Canadians aren't stupid - most know political opportunism when they see it. The game has gone on far too long.....

Sure, but that's wholly beside the point. I'm not doubting the real-time existence of political opportunism. It's always real, ever-present.

[Keepitsimple]

Now granted....this is from Steve Janke's BLOG but I've heard this before - it just seems to be conveniently ignored by the media - the article is from 2007, before Mr. Ignatieff became Liberal leader. Is it just an amazing coincidence?

Which got me thinking...so I checked into Attaran's background:

[Amir Attaran] is currently Associate Professor of Law and Population Health, and the holder of the Canada Research Chair in Law, Population Health and Global Development Policy at the University of Ottawa, Canada. Previously he was an adjunct lecturer in Public Policy at Harvard University, publishing research as part of the Center for International Development and the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Wait, isn't that where Michael Ignatieff, second-in-command of the Liberal Party, taught during his years as a professor? Sure, but then there are a lot of professors and other staff at the Carr Center. I mean, what are the odds that Attaran and Ignatieff crossed paths in a meaningful way, in a way that would suggest that Attaran would want to help the Liberals undermine the Conservatives?

Fernande Raine, the centre's executive director, says Mr. Ignatieff was someone she instantly trusted, someone who cared about the people he worked with and their personal lives and families...

"That was very rare at Harvard," she says. "He was probably the least political person in a tactical way of thinking at the Kennedy School."

Amir Attaran, now Canada research chair in law, population health, and global development policy at the University of Ottawa, was a research fellow at the Kennedy School during Mr. Ignatieff's time at the Carr.

He ran afoul of an influential faculty member and the school's administration over a line of academic inquiry he insisted on pursuing, and found himself about to be booted out.

He brought his troubles to Mr. Ignatieff, who gave him office space and mentoring support until he could find another academic home. "Michael stuck up for me against some extremely nasty attacks," Prof. Attaran says.

Well, I'd say that counts.

Call me cynical, but it sure sounds like Attaran owes Ignatieff a favour in return. A big favour.

And so when the Liberals start taking heat from the Conservatives for being so concerned about murderous Taliban (who as an irregular guerilla force are not covered by the Geneva Conventions), suddenly out pops Amir Attaran to give the Liberal attacks the veneer of academic respectability. More importantly, Amir Attaran can accuse Canadian soldiers of committing war crimes, something no Liberal member of parliament could do and still hope to be re-elected. Liberals can still prattle on about how they "support" Canadian troops, even as Attaran, a close personal friend of Michael Ignatieff, calls Canadian soldiers, their commanders, and the government of Stephen Harper a bunch of war criminals.

Pretty good plan, when you think about it.

Link: http://stevejanke.com/archives/224017.php

Edited April 21, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[capricorn]

We'll probably never know given that the military is more interested in covering it all up.

We do know that the military has done this before...ie covering up a crime and murdering a prisoner.

How would you explain this?

Capt. Robert Semrau is facing a military court-martial—and the possibility of life behind bars—for allegedly executing a severely wounded Taliban fighter. According to the prosecution’s version of events, the 36-year-old was bound by both international law and the Canadian Forces Code of Conduct to administer First Aid, but decided to fire two bullets into the man’s chest instead.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/20/mercy-or-murder/

Why do you suppose the military didn't attempt a cover up in Semrau's case?

[Born Free]

How would you explain this?

Google the name General Boyle. The so-called cover-up today is about the matter of Canada's policy (or perhaps a lack of one ) regarding the handling of detainees.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Born Free

[bloodyminded]

How would you explain this?

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/20/mercy-or-murder/

Why do you suppose the military didn't attempt a cover up in Semrau's case?

I personally take it for granted that cover-ups are occasional, not the norm. Obviously, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Edited April 21, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Born Free]

I personally take it for granted that cover-ups are occasional, not the norm. Obviously, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Agreed.

[capricorn]

I personally take it for granted that cover-ups are occasional, not the norm. Obviously, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

I agree with you and born free on this count.

[wyly]

Agreed.

the military reflects our generally population...criminals to saints and everything else in between so they're capable of anything, to deny it is ludicrous.... Edited April 21, 2010 by wyly

[Born Free]

the military reflects our generally population...criminals to saints and everything else in between so they're capable of anything....

For the record, I'm not tarring the military for what I believe are the actions of a couple of guys at the top of the house.

When a general tries to tell me that any allegations of Afghan detainees being tortured are

"ludicrous", I have to seriously consider him to be an asshole as well as a liar.

[wyly]

For the record, I'm not tarring the military for what I believe are the actions of a couple of guys at the top of the house.

When a general tries to tell me that any allegations of Afghan detainees being tortured are

"ludicrous", I have to seriously consider him to be an asshole as well as a liar.

I understand, I've a number of military types in my family some are beyond question awesome people but there's one I wouldn't let in my home...

a General who claim accusations are ludicrous is seriously deluded, he knows nothing of the incident and is acting on blind faith...who would have thought a respected base commander could be a serial rapist murderer but it happened...the military is made up of humans and humans are capable of lying and much, much worse...

[bloodyminded]

For the record, I'm not tarring the military for what I believe are the actions of a couple of guys at the top of the house.

When a general tries to tell me that any allegations of Afghan detainees being tortured are

"ludicrous", I have to seriously consider him to be an asshole as well as a liar.

Oh, for sure. He knows this isn't true, so the question of lying is already established.