Government Found in Contempt of Parliment

[Born Free]

Can you please provide me with unredacted and official government documents that prove these allegations?

Coming to a theatre near you...

[Keepitsimple]

Here is the heart of Milliken's ruling:

Finding common ground will be difficult. There have been assertions that colleagues in the House are not sufficiently trustworthy to be given confidential information, even with appropriate security safeguards in place. I find such comments troubling. The insinuation that Members of Parliament cannot be trusted with the very information that they may well require to act on behalf of Canadians runs contrary to the inherent trust that Canadians have placed in their elected officials and which Members require to act in their various parliamentary capacities.

The issue of trust goes in the other direction as well. Some suggestions have been made that the Government has self-serving and ulterior motives for the redactions in the documents tabled. Here too, such remarks are singularly unhelpful to the aim of finding a workable accommodation and ultimately identifying mechanisms that will satisfy all actors in this matter.

But the fact remains that the House and the Government have, essentially, an unbroken record of some 140 years of collaboration and accommodation in cases of this kind. It seems to me that it would be a signal failure for us to see that record shattered in the Third Session of the Fortieth Parliament because we lacked the will or the wit to find a solution to this impasse.

The House has long understood the role of the Government as ―defender of the realm‖ and its heavy responsibilities in matters of security, national defence and international relations. Similarly, the Government understands the House’s undoubted role as the ―grand inquest of the nation‖ and its need for complete and accurate information in order to fulfill its duty of holding the Government to account.

Examples have been cited of mechanisms that might satisfy the competing interests of both sides in this matter. In view of the grave circumstances of the current impasse, the Chair believes that the House ought to make one further effort to arrive at an interest-based solution to this thorny question.

Accordingly, on analysing the evidence before it and the precedents, the Chair cannot but conclude that the Government`s failure to comply with the Order of December 10, 2009 constitutes prima facie a question of privilege.

I will allow House Leaders, Ministers and party critics time to suggest some way of resolving the impasse for it seems to me we would fail the institution if no resolution can be found. However, if, in two weeks’ time, the matter is still not resolved, the Chair will return to make a statement on the motion that will be allowed in the circumstances.

In the meantime, of course the Chair is disposed to assist the House in any way it can and I am open to suggestions on any particular role that I as your Speaker can play.

I thank the House for its attention.

Link to full ruling: http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2010/4/28/4516300.html

[eyeball]

But back to the real point. There is not a system invented that can overcome dishonesty and self-interest.

You haven't even tried, worse you couldn't be bothered. You have a hell of a nerve accusing other people about being apathetic.

[Dave_ON]

The problem with political junkies like you is you think it is all about you. It's not the politicians who lose when they are dishonest, it is the people they are supposed to represent. Life doesn't exist for you outside the caucus.

The problem with idealists like you is you expect that a cat can somehow become a dog if it tries hard enough. To expect honesty from politicians is frankly unrealistic. The best we can truly hope for is that they do as little damage as possible from our specific point of view. If you expect honesty from politicians you will always be disappointed, why? The honest/nice/principled ones don't get elected and more often than not don't even bother to run.

[Wilber]

You complain, but I'm not exactly seeing any solutions. So imagine for a moment that you were king of the world. What system would you put in place and how precisely would it assure honesty?

You can't assure honesty, you can only expect it and act accordingly if you don't get it. Eyeball is right, you've got a lot of gall accusing others of being apathetic.

[Wilber]

The problem with idealists like you is you expect that a cat can somehow become a dog if it tries hard enough. To expect honesty from politicians is frankly unrealistic. The best we can truly hope for is that they do as little damage as possible from our specific point of view. If you expect honesty from politicians you will always be disappointed, why? The honest/nice/principled ones don't get elected and more often than not don't even bother to run.

Now there's apathy personified.

[Wilber]

Back to the speaker. I applaud Milliken's decision but don't think for minute it will have a lasting effect on the way our party leaders do business.

[myata]

The problem is not with the electorate. Maybe not even with the "politicians" if they could all be branded with one tag. OK there appears to be much ignorance, boredom, complacency and lack of interest, which may become serious or even fatal for democracy (real and functioning) in the long run. But we aren't there just yet, and before getting there we could still try a few things. One of which would be of course, allowing voters a real and meaningful choice.

As was already explained in another thread, the problem is with the stagnant, devoid of real competition system that has little interest to develop new and effective policies and solutions for the country, and a lot of vested interest to preserve things as they are and no matter what. That system naturally inspires deep yawning lack of voter interest and attracts en masse mediocre career conscious and line toeing politicians. To expect otherwise would be illogical and irrational. To hope that it could change by its own act would be pipedreaming.

[bloodyminded]

Can you please provide me with unredacted and official government documents that prove these allegations?

There is plenty of evidence, from Canadian, American, and other sources. (I wasn't only talking about Canadian complicity, after all.)

1. Dilawar, who was sold for bounty by a militia:

In October 2004, the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command concluded that there was probable cause to charge 27 officers and enlisted personnel with criminal offenses in the Dilawar case ranging from dereliction of duty to maiming and involuntary manslaughter. Fifteen of the same soldiers were also cited for probable criminal responsibility in the Habibullah case. Seven soldiers have been charged so far.

According to an article published in the October 15, 2004 New York Times 28 soldiers were under investigation.[12] Some of the soldiers were reservists in the 377th Military Police Company under the command of Captain Christopher M. Beiring. The rest were in the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion under the command of Captain Carolyn A. Wood.

On October 14, 2004, the Criminal Investigation Command forwarded its report from its investigation to the commanders of 28 soldiers.[13]

As of November 15, 2005, 15 soldiers have been charged.

And note how this allies with what I said about offering people money to hand in "terrorists."

We KNOW that will lead to abuse. Here (and no doubt in many other cases) it did.

2. Laurie Hawn, Parliamentary Secretary to Peter McKay, said that "every time" abuses have happened "in that mission, we have taken action."

So, as you say, there's no abuses proven...except that we have taken action every time they have occurred. That's an interesting logical dilemma.

3.

Gen. Walter Natynczyk, Canada's top military commander, is now saying a suspected Taliban fighter abused by Afghan police in June 2006 had been detained by Canadian troops, contrary to comments he made Tuesday.

"The individual who was beaten by the Afghan police was, in fact, in Canadian custody," Natynczyk told reporters in Ottawa on Wednesday.

Natynczyk had told a parliamentary committee that Canadian troops questioned the man, picked up during operations in Zangabad. But Natynczyk said it was the Afghans who took him into custody.

On Wednesday, the defence staff chief said he has received new information and learned that Canadians had taken the suspect into custody before handing him over to the Afghans.

So, an accused Taliban fighter was "abused" and "beaten" by Afghan authorities, after being handed over by the Canadians. Acording to the military Commander. "Beaten" and "abused" are his words.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/12/09/natynczyk-detainee.html#ixzz0mVZZgtIF

4.

OTTAWA (Reuters) -- In a major embarrassment for the government, Canada's top soldier unexpectedly revealed that some Canadian troops had known detainees handed over to Afghan authorities could be abused.

The announcement by General Walt Natynczyk effectively swept away the long-held official line that there was no credible evidence prisoners might be harmed.

http://www.rferl.org/content/Canada_Knew_Of_Afghan_Detainee_Abuse_Risk_General_Says/1900028.html

That took about three minutes. No doubt I could fill a book.

But your request specifically for "unredacted official government documents"--as if only these count as proof--is quite unreasonable.

Not even the top Canadian Commander claims there is no abuse and torture.

The official American government stance is an admission that abuses have taken place.

Why do you doubt it?

[Dave_ON]

Now there's apathy personified.

No the phrase you're searching for is pragmatic cynicism. Apathy is defined as not caring. I care a great deal and I'm practical about politics, those who tell the truth don't get elected. It didn't work for Dion with the green shift(tax) it didn't work for Clark and a myriad of other idealists with good intentions. If you're so worried about honesty in politics why not run yourself? Put your money where your mouth is.

[Wilber]

No the phrase you're searching for is pragmatic cynicism. Apathy is defined as not caring. I care a great deal and I'm practical about politics, those who tell the truth don't get elected. It didn't work for Dion with the green shift(tax) it didn't work for Clark and a myriad of other idealists with good intentions. If you're so worried about honesty in politics why not run yourself? Put your money where your mouth is.

It didn't work for Dion and Clark because of their policies, not because they were honest. I wouldn't run because I am not suited for the job and know it. I just don't think I would be good at it. But if you care so much, why don't you run or does your "pragmatic cynicism" prevent that?

If we live in a world where telling the truth is considered a weakness to be scorned and those who lie the best should be rewarded, we are in deep trouble. You might as well pull names out of a barrel instead of holding elections because you won't know what you will get either way.

[Dave_ON]

It didn't work for Dion and Clark because of their policies, not because they were honest. I wouldn't run because I am not suited for the job and know it. I just don't think I would be good at it. But if you care so much, why don't you run or does your "pragmatic cynicism" prevent that?

Come now there's no need to wax sarcastic...

Your flippant aspersions aside, please try and remain accurate in your assessments. Pointing out reality doesn't make one apathetic, it makes one observant. By contrast, denying the reality of situation does not make one a concerned and caring citizen, it makes one oblivious.

To be quite honest with you I would love to run, save that my current MP in my riding is doing a great job. I seriously have a great deal of respect for him. Glen Pearson, he's a member of the LPC but is reasonable and very involved in the community. He also called for the rest of the LPC and other opposition members to ease up on the whole Guergis/Jaffer attack.

That aside if he weren't in the picture my pragmatism not my cynicism would prevent me from running, at least at this current moment. Unfortunately running for office is a very expensive undertaking and generally involves a great deal of personal financial investment. Sadly I don't have that kind of capital at this time. The rest has to be raised, some assistance from you party but the lion's share from the community.

Then again if Elsie Wayne could do it why not me right? (Consequently she is the only politician that I can think of that has been honest and successful at the same time, she did after all comprise precisely half of the PC caucus back in the 90's)

If we live in a world where telling the truth is considered a weakness to be scorned and those who lie the best should be rewarded, we are in deep trouble. You might as well pull names out of a barrel instead of holding elections because you won't know what you will get either way.

Who said it was considered a weakness? Now you're just bloviating. What was said by me and many others on here is that it's not the reality of politics nor is it expected. You say it was Clark's and Dions policies that were the issue. You're half right, but the difference is they ran on them and were upfront about very unpopular policies that they deemed necessary. It got them nothing. So my question to you is why do you expect to get blood from a stone? It seems to me that it's far easier than getting complete open honest discourse from a politician.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Dave_ON

[Wilber]

Come now there's no need to wax sarcastic...

Your flippant aspersions aside, please try and remain accurate in your assessments. Pointing out reality doesn't make one apathetic, it makes one observant. By contrast, denying the reality of situation does not make one a concerned and caring citizen, it makes one oblivious.

Couldn't be more serious. Knowing something is wrong and not trying to do something about is indeed apathetic. Making excuses for it makes one partially responsible.

Who said it was considered a weakness? Now you're just bloviating. What was said by me and many others on here is that it's not the reality of politics nor is it expected. You say it was Clark's and Dions policies that were the issue. You're half right, but the difference is they ran on them and were upfront about very unpopular policies that they deemed necessary. It got them nothing. So my question to you is why do you expect to get blood from a stone? It seems to me that it's far easier than getting complete open honest discourse from a politician.

They lost because people didn't like their policies. That is the way it is supposed to work. It seems you would rather people lie to get elected then impose those policies afterward. Again, you might as well put names in a hat because you don't know what you will be getting anyway. Seems you are fine with that. If we don't get honest discourse from a politician it is because we don't demand it and hold them accountable if we don't get it.

[bloodyminded]

If we don't get honest discourse from a politician it is because we don't demand it and hold them accountable if we don't get it.

There's truth to this, but it becomes very quickly more complex. For example, as we can see by discussions on this board alone, we all can't even agree when and that certain politicians are lying.

[Wilber]

There's truth to this, but it becomes very quickly more complex. For example, as we can see by discussions on this board alone, we all can't even agree when and that certain politicians are lying.

You will always have that as long as there is partisanship and some things are indeed not black and white. Those you can debate but I don't know how anyone can maintain that deliberate lying to get elected is an acceptable part of the process.

[bloodyminded]

You will always have that as long as there is partisanship and some things are indeed not black and white. Those you can debate but I don't know how anyone can maintain that deliberate lying to get elected is an acceptable part of the process.

Ah, I get you now. You're right, it's useless...scratch that, much worse than useless to be too sanguine about it. It's one thing to recognize that dishonesty occurs (of course it does); quite another thing to accept that fact as ok.

[eyeball]

You complain, but I'm not exactly seeing any solutions. So imagine for a moment that you were king of the world. What system would you put in place and how precisely would it assure honesty?

I'd start with the Westminster system, why reinvent the wheel?

My minions however would all be required to wear cameras and microphones and conduct all their paper and digitized work employing procedures and protocols that are designed with the needs of deep forensic auditors in mind.

Nothing is 100% certain but given what happened to Baron Black of Crossharbour we'd be at least assured that we were doing a better job of keeping the peace and maintaining honesty throughout Our Realm.

Now watch this drive...

Edited April 29, 2010 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

I'd start with the Westminster system, why reinvent the wheel?

My minions however would all be required to wear cameras and microphones and conduct all their paper and digitized work employing procedures and protocols that are designed with the needs of deep forensic auditors in mind.

Nothing is 100% certain but given what happened to Baron Black of Crossharbour we'd be at least assured that we were doing a better job of keeping the peace and maintaining honesty throughout Our Realm.

Now watch this drive...

Tell me, would you wear one of those?

[ToadBrother]

If we live in a world where telling the truth is considered a weakness to be scorned and those who lie the best should be rewarded, we are in deep trouble. You might as well pull names out of a barrel instead of holding elections because you won't know what you will get either way.

You've got it backwards. We live in a world where people like to be told nice, comforting things and don't like bad news, and when they hear it, they tend to shoot the messenger. Look at the election in Britain. Everyone knows that there are going to be serious cutbacks, there has to be. Britain has to get expenditures under control or within a year or two it will end up like Spain and Greece. But all full honesty would get you is nothing. You wouldn't get elected, because everyone wants to hear that everything is heading in the right direction. This is the principle weakness of democracy, and it's been there since the beginning. The Athenians did the same thing when they went to war against Sparta. They didn't listen to people like Socrates, and ultimately even abandoned the balanced views of the general Pericles, instead buying into the dreams of empire that Cleon and his ilk were selling, and it ended in absolute disaster; Athens shorn of its empire, subjugated almost totally to Sparta and, quite literally, the end of the golden age of Hellenism.

We always tend to blame our elected officials and our governments, but rarely, I think, does the citizen every look in the mirror and ask himself what he is doing that's creating the situation. There's the old saying that we always get the government we deserve, and I think, maybe, that's what is happening. We're too lazy, on a whole, to get involved, to give direction to our elected representatives. We're too easily distracted to adequately understand the issues. We like to be told sweet lies much more than bitter truths, and then we complain because we bought into the lies which we pretty much demanded in the first place.

Edited April 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Wilber]

You've got it backwards. We live in a world where people like to be told nice, comforting things and don't like bad news, and when they hear it, they tend to shoot the messenger. Look at the election in Britain. Everyone knows that there are going to be serious cutbacks, there has to be. Britain has to get expenditures under control or within a year or two it will end up like Spain and Greece. But all full honesty would get you is nothing. You wouldn't get elected, because everyone wants to hear that everything is heading in the right direction. This is the principle weakness of democracy, and it's been there since the beginning. The Athenians did the same thing when they went to war against Sparta. They didn't listen to people like Socrates, and ultimately even abandoned the balanced views of the general Pericles, instead buying into the dreams of empire that Cleon and his ilk were selling, and it ended in absolute disaster; Athens shorn of its empire, subjugated almost totally to Sparta and, quite literally, the end of the golden age of Hellenism.

We always tend to blame our elected officials and our governments, but rarely, I think, does the citizen every look in the mirror and ask himself what he is doing that's creating the situation. There's the old saying that we always get the government we deserve, and I think, maybe, that's what is happening. We're too lazy, on a whole, to get involved, to give direction to our elected representatives. We're too easily distracted to adequately understand the issues. We like to be told sweet lies much more than bitter truths, and then we complain because we bought into the lies which we pretty much demanded in the first place.

Speak for youself. You don't speak for me.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Wilber

[Born Free]

.... We live in a world where people like to be told nice, comforting things and don't like bad news,

This stuff reminds me of the speech on the witness stand by Jack Nicholson in A few Good Men...

We always tend to blame our elected officials and our governments,...

I tend to blame my wife.

[ToadBrother]

Speak for youself. You don't speak for me.

I wasn't speaking for you. I have no idea why you react this way. Surely you must be acquainted with the notion that people, in general, don't like bad news, and that more often than not, they'll shoot the messenger. I didn't name you, or anyone in particular, but the electorate in general.

Edited April 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Wilber]

I wasn't speaking for you. I have no idea why you react this way. Surely you must be acquainted with the notion that people, in general, don't like bad news, and that more often than not, they'll shoot the messenger. I didn't name you, or anyone in particular, but the electorate in general.

Personally I am more likely to believe someone who doesn't sugar coat things and suspicious of Pollyanna's at election time. I can understand why someone would downplay something but that is not the same as claiming one thing in order to get elected then doing the exact opposite . You can try to rationalize it any you want but it is still just a lie being told by a person who is prepared to be dishonest to get what they want. Nothing more or less.

[ToadBrother]

Personally I am more likely to believe someone who doesn't sugar coat things and suspicious of Pollyanna's at election time. I can understand why someone would downplay something but that is not the same as claiming one thing in order to get elected then doing the exact opposite . You can try to rationalize it any you want but it is still just a lie being told by a person who is prepared to be dishonest to get what they want. Nothing more or less.

History is littered with the corpses of the careers of politicians who thought they could win on truth alone. Hell, the Athenians democratically forced Socrates to drink hemlock tea because he dared to tell them "Your woes are your own fault".

You're problem isn't with politicians, it's with human nature.

Edited April 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Wilber]

History is littered with the corpses of the careers of politicians who thought they could win on truth alone. You're problem isn't with politicians, it's with human nature.

No, its with people who lie and people who are prepared to reward people who lie. You seem to think that the label "politician" gives a person some sort of exemption from simple honesty and integrity.