Government Found in Contempt of Parliment

[eyeball]

Without out knowing how things came to be what they are, how can you possibly know if what you're setting out is a course to progress or just a repetition of former disasters?

Where we're heading, whether we know where we'll end up is still more important than where we've been. Do you drive around with your eyes permanently fixed on the rear-view mirror?

[ToadBrother]

Where we're heading, whether we know where we'll end up is still more important than where we've been. Do you drive around with your eyes permanently fixed on the rear-view mirror?

Don't get mad at me because your ideas are stupid.

At any rate, I don't think my gaze is stuck in the past, it's just that I am mindful of past errors and successes. I do not believe that change should be a lottery, and quite frankly if you don't like your ideas put to scrutiny, don't post them.

I stand by what I say, too. Our governing system is far from perfect, but it's significantly better than most formulated throughout history. I'll gladly back sensible, rational improvements. But when some guy on an Internet forum suggests politicians strap cameras to themselves and then further suggests some privacy commissioner who will function, apparently, as an all-powerful gatekeeper, yeah, I'd say my skepticism is warranted. What you wrote is the kind of silliness people say after four or five beers, not a serious recommendation.

I do have to say you and Myata that I've never seen two people putting more effort into not reading a little history and political theory. Generally I find people who complain and come up with hyperbolic suggestions, but don't really want to discuss things in a thoughtful manner are just simply malcontents.

Edited May 6, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Born Free]

"On the one hand, the opposition MPs want to know if the Afghan detainee files contain evidence that Canadian officials not only knew the high risk of prisoners being tortured, but actively sought to cover it all up."

Thats already been established in verbal testimony...

[msdogfood]

Fun?

Do you see a revolution as fun? Msdogfood, I reckon that you were born in the 40s (or 50s).

---

I suggest that we revolutionize your pension. For example, let's abolish the CPP and other State pensions - that's what the Marxist Chinese and Russian revolutions did - they abolished financial obligations and debts.

No one owes anyone anything, including anyone paying a pension.

Whaddya think?

No i am a lot younger than that thank you

!

Wow you need to learn sarcasm ASAP!!!

[bloodyminded]

What if there are several communications from Netherlands and Germany that indicated that their prisoners were abused and that we should be extra careful? That would put those countries in peril of going through the same political grandstanding that we are experiencing here? Countries would never trust Canada agin, fearing that any secure or confidential information could very well be made public - simply by the opposition demanding it.

.....and that's only one example. Who knows what is in those files?

Defending, through the screaming "silence" of redaction, other nations' illegal abuses does not rise to the level of "national security" secrecy.

Unless we wish to add a new clause: "Embarrassment of Allies Re. Their Illegal Behaviour."

Under which we're going to have to redact a lot more documents, all so that powerful people can rule in absolute secrecy.

[bloodyminded]

"On the one hand, the opposition MPs want to know if the Afghan detainee files contain evidence that Canadian officials not only knew the high risk of prisoners being tortured, but actively sought to cover it all up."

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/greg_weston/2010/05/05/13839351.html

I find this very interesting and significant, the change is not subtle, how the bar has been lowered for the opposition, in their quest for something explosive in the detainee furor so they don't come out of this with egg on their face - good luck.

It was until now all about prisoner torture and accusations of same ( alleged case of a prisoner being hit with a shoe being their big prize)- now we learn from Greg Weston that the search of documents and supposed accusations they want verified, to be nothing more, than if they can find that possibly "officials knew the 'high risk' of prisoners being tortured". The search for evidence and proof, that would verify Colvin's testimony "that ALL Afghans we handed over were tortured", which not a single Liberal challenged on behalf of our military, as their conduct and professionalism was besmirched, is no longer the prize. I thought the least we owed our military in the field is that Colvin's serious charge either be proven or withdrawn and not try to find and be satisfied with some mamby pamby proof of "risk" of torture, as we dragged our armed forces through the mud for months.

The torture is real, and has been verified...and has long been known by at least some top Canadian officials. I can't imagine where you're getting your information. We know this without any unredacted documents, although perhaps these documents might provide further information. Never mind Colvin, or the idea that "all" Afghans handed over were tortured; that, of course, we don't know.

But the fact that it is real, and serious; that's not even debatable.

We know it from the Red Cross; we know it from human rights organizations; we know it from Laurie Hawn, Parliamentary Secretary to Peter McKay, said that "every time" abuses have happened "in that mission, we have taken action."

Oops. I think she slipped there. Poor thing. But when officials say "every time" they happen, "we have taken action," well, that's kind of self-explanatory.

As for the military, whom we're being laughably informed are being victimzed by all the "anti-war types" (and a more concrete example of the increasing militarization of our culture would be hard to find than this this bit of "support the troops" propaganda)...we also know from Canada's top military Commander that the abuses have been taking place:

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.

http://www.cbc.ca/ca...l#ixzz0mVZZgtIF

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.

[DrGreenthumb]

The torture is real, and has been verified...and has long been known by at least some top Canadian officials. I can't imagine where you're getting your information. We know this without any unredacted documents, although perhaps these documents might provide further information. Never mind Colvin, or the idea that "all" Afghans handed over were tortured; that, of course, we don't know.

But the fact that it is real, and serious; that's not even debatable.

We know it from the Red Cross; we know it from human rights organizations; we know it from Laurie Hawn, Parliamentary Secretary to Peter McKay, said that "every time" abuses have happened "in that mission, we have taken action."

Oops. I think she slipped there. Poor thing. But when officials say "every time" they happen, "we have taken action," well, that's kind of self-explanatory.

As for the military, whom we're being laughably informed are being victimzed by all the "anti-war types" (and a more concrete example of the increasing militarization of our culture would be hard to find than this this bit of "support the troops" propaganda)...we also know from Canada's top military Commander that the abuses have been taking place:

http://www.cbc.ca/ca...l#ixzz0mVZZgtIF

It's quite telling that General Natynchuck is not the least bit worried about having opposition members see the unredacted documents. If the military command is not concerned that national security will be compromised then it is likely there is no security issue involved other than Conservative government JOB security.

[bloodyminded]

It's quite telling that General Natynchuck is not the least bit worried about having opposition members see the unredacted documents. If the military command is not concerned that national security will be compromised then it is likely there is no security issue involved other than Conservative government JOB security.

Well, any time "national security" is summoned as a response, the default position should be suspicion.

[msdogfood]

The torture is real, and has been verified...and has long been known by at least some top Canadian officials. I can't imagine where you're getting your information. We know this without any unredacted documents, although perhaps these documents might provide further information. Never mind Colvin, or the idea that "all" Afghans handed over were tortured; that, of course, we don't know.

But the fact that it is real, and serious; that's not even debatable.

We know it from the Red Cross; we know it from human rights organizations; we know it from Laurie Hawn, Parliamentary Secretary to Peter McKay, said that "every time" abuses have happened "in that mission, we have taken action."

Oops. I think she slipped there. Poor thing. But when officials say "every time" they happen, "we have taken action," well, that's kind of self-explanatory.

As for the military, whom we're being laughably informed are being victimzed by all the "anti-war types" (and a more concrete example of the increasing militarization of our culture would be hard to find than this this bit of "support the troops" propaganda)...we also know from Canada's top military Commander that the abuses have been taking place:

http://www.cbc.ca/ca...l#ixzz0mVZZgtIF

That is so telling!!!.

[jbg]

As much as I want to believe this Harper has fully stated he intended to take an unsatisfactory ruling straight to the Supreme Court. His record of compromise isn't great. Hopefully it doesn't evolve into a constitutional crisis.

Why would seeking the recognition of something akin to the U.S.'s "executive privilege" (yes I know that a P.M. technically isn't an executive) create a "crisis"?

[Smallc]

Why would seeking the recognition of something akin to the U.S.'s "executive privilege" (yes I know that a P.M. technically isn't an executive) create a "crisis"?

Because in Canada, the government is completely accountable to parliament (like in all parliamentary democracies) as is th Crown in many ways. There is no executive privelage to be had in parliamentary democracies.

[jbg]

There is no executive privelage to be had in parliamentary democracies.

So there's no privilege allowing a PM to obtain frank advice from others, without the risk of an advisor being "outed" by some Committee?

[Smallc]

So there's no privilege allowing a PM to obtain frank advice from others, without the risk of an advisor being "outed" by some Committee?

Well that depends....but I suppose...no. That said, the committee would not necessarily be able to share it with the public.

[ToadBrother]

So there's no privilege allowing a PM to obtain frank advice from others, without the risk of an advisor being "outed" by some Committee?

That's pretty much true. Parliament is supreme over the executive. The executive cannot act in defiance of Parliament. It cannot make secret acts and expect that at some point Parliament might not want to pull the curtain away. That is the chief check and balance in our system.

If Parliament chooses to release that information publicly, then that is its right. It may be the wrong thing to do, but, constitutionally, the Executive is in no position to prevent Parliament.

Edited May 10, 2010 by ToadBrother

[msdogfood]

So what do you think is going to happen tomorrow??

Look at this they have no deal yet

The speaker does not seem to be the type to screw around so tell me what you think???.

[msdogfood]

I keep hearing that their close to adele but than not

I dont i dont think they will get one in time!!!.

So what do you think???.

[msdogfood]

So there's no privilege allowing a PM to obtain frank advice from others, without the risk of an advisor being "outed" by some Committee?

no privilege!!

[ToadBrother]

Why would seeking the recognition of something akin to the U.S.'s "executive privilege" (yes I know that a P.M. technically isn't an executive) create a "crisis"?

Because our system explicitly rejected the notion in 1689. It is a bedrock part of our constitution. Executive privilege is a notion of presidential and semi-presidential systems of government, not of purely parliamentary systems. This is political science 101.

[ToadBrother]

I keep hearing that their close to adele but than not

I dont i dont think they will get one in time!!!.

So what do you think???.

They're apparently very close. The rumor mill has it that it will be ironed out by Friday.

[waldo]

They're apparently very close. The rumor mill has it that it will be ironed out by Friday.

there really, really has to be something for the Harper Conservatives to hide... Opposition balks at Tory loophole in detainee records deal - Conservative proposal would allow exemptions for some documents

The Harper government is trying to insert a loophole in a deal that’s supposed to grant opposition MPs full access to secret records on Afghan detainees – a proposal that could derail negotiations if not resolved.

Opposition parties are fighting the attempted exemption that would let Ottawa withhold some documents on the grounds they are “not necessary or appropriate for the purpose of holding Parliament to account.”

A proposed version of the agreement that the Conservatives submitted to opposition parties Wednesday includes a paragraph allowing Ottawa to keep secret any records on detainees that can be linked to advice it received from government lawyers.

The Tory-authored proposal, obtained by CTV News, asks the other parties to agree that records “subject to solicitor-client privilege” are a class of “information that the Parliament of Canada has long recognized [is] not necessary or appropriate for the purpose of holding the government to account.”

Harper Conservatives... putting a new spin on openness, transparency and accountability - ya think?

[Jack Weber]

there really, really has to be something for the Harper Conservatives to hide... Opposition balks at Tory loophole in detainee records deal - Conservative proposal would allow exemptions for some documents

Harper Conservatives... putting a new spin on openness, transparency and accountability - ya think?

They still don't get it...

Parliament has asked fro the documents,not the documents with proviso's...That's it,full stop.

I'm thinking those governemnt lawyers may have advised the Con's to do something that could get them all in alot of trouble.

Why else would they cover it up?

Unless the "National Security" excuse is waiting in the wings?

[eyeball]

It's quite telling that General Natynchuck is not the least bit worried about having opposition members see the unredacted documents. If the military command is not concerned that national security will be compromised then it is likely there is no security issue involved other than Conservative government JOB security.

It could be General Natynchuck is amongst the number of Canadians that simply don't give a crap that prisoners are being tortured. It must be as galling for these people to watch their representatives pretend they care as it is to see them pretend they care about global warming.

[msdogfood]

They still don't get it...

Parliament has asked fro the documents,not the documents with proviso's...That's it,full stop.

I'm thinking those governemnt lawyers may have advised the Con's to do something that could get them all in alot of trouble.

Why else would they cover it up?

Unless the "National Security" excuse is waiting in the wings?

Yes i noticed that too

What the hell did we Do?????!!.

[jbg]

It could be General Natynchuck is amongst the number of Canadians that simply don't give a crap that prisoners are being tortured.

It's Afgans torturing Afghans remember.

[bloodyminded]

It's Afgans torturing Afghans remember.

With the help of Canadians.