UPDATE detainees

[waldo]

Let's not forget that the Speaker said that the opposition parties could also be cited for contempt if they were being unreasonable.

well, of course! Conservatives are fighting to ensure that any documents that actually draw negatively upon Conservative actions/persons will not be allowed to be made public... that is to say, the obligation of Opposition parliamentarians to hold the Harper Conservative government to account, absolutely must be trumped by presumptive Conservative concerns for, "secrets of the mission". How convenient!

And that pertains to the speaker how?

follow along now... Simple's "unreasonable contempt" presumptive move by the Speaker would be predicated upon the Conservatives claiming an unreasonable Opposition. The stated remaining point of contention between the Conservatives and the Opposition parties concerns public release of information within the documents. As I said:

"

Conservatives are fighting to ensure that any documents that actually draw negatively upon Conservative actions/persons will not be allowed to be made public... that is to say, the obligation of Opposition parliamentarians to hold the Harper Conservative government to account, absolutely must be trumped by presumptive Conservative concerns for, "secrets of the mission". How convenient!

"

[M.Dancer]

follow along now... Simple's "unreasonable contempt" presumptive move by the Speaker would be predicated upon the Conservatives claiming an unreasonable Opposition. The stated remaining point of contention between the Conservatives and the Opposition parties concerns public release of information within the documents. As I said:

"

Conservatives are fighting to ensure that any documents that actually draw negatively upon Conservative actions/persons will not be allowed to be made public... that is to say, the obligation of Opposition parliamentarians to hold the Harper Conservative government to account, absolutely must be trumped by presumptive Conservative concerns for, "secrets of the mission". How convenient!

"

You seem to be implying that the speaker is biased. Follow along now....iot is the speaker who would make the determination, not Layton, Duceppe, or that other guy or even the government.

So what does your post have to do with the speaker citing the opposition?

[waldo]

You seem to be implying that the speaker is biased. Follow along now....iot is the speaker who would make the determination, not Layton, Duceppe, or that other guy or even the government.

So what does your post have to do with the speaker citing the opposition?

follow along now: Conservatives dip into their dysfunctional playbook and scuttle any agreement based on, "secrets". Of course, as already demonstrated, that dysfunctional playbook will have the Conservatives madly and wildly accusing the Opposition of "being unreasonable". Of course, the Opposition parties want to reserve the right to publicly bring forward information found within documents, presuming to following their obligations as Opposition parliamentarians to hold the Harper Conservative government to account. End result, no agreement.

you would presume that the unbiased Speaker will be able to cut through the antics of the Conservatives dipping into their dysfunctional playbook while claiming an "unreasonable Opposition".

[M.Dancer]

Of course, the Opposition parties want to reserve the right to publicly bring forward information found within documents

That right cannot be open ended or without limits. If the opposition (Taliban Jack) can't accept that, then bugger them. Even Ignatief, now that he is a privy councillor, will acknoledge that there will be some secrets.

[Smallc]

That right cannot be open ended or without limits.

It very well could if the opposition decided it was going to be.

[Oleg Bach]

The NDP is drafting a motion of contempt. It's come to a point I think the best outcome would be an election. This session of Parliament has become a circus and needs to die.

LAYTON is contemptable in the fact that he seeks favour from those he holds in contempt..what happen Jack - did they not give you want you wanted this year?

[msdogfood]

Where do you get bizarre ideas like that? The Speaker isn't a king, he has no power to dismiss a government. The only thing he can do in this case is permit or deny a motion finding the Government in contempt. It is up to the Government and Parliament do decide what to do after that point. If the Government decides the motion is a confidence motion, then we'll have an election.

It's pretty obvious that no one actually wants an election right now. What they're wrangling over is how precisely actual evidence of wrongdoing on the Government's part gets released. A sticky issue as it was bound to be.

technically i think he does have that power!!

I was referring to the Speaker's decision 2 weeks ago!

[Topaz]

Do they? I haven't seen any evidence that Canadians want an election either. In fact, the general consensus seems to be the opposite, that whoever drives Canada to another election less than two years after the last one could very well be punished.

Well think again. Harper has been the one to call all the elections and his supporters keep putting him back in, so they must want an election every time Harper calls one. Any torturing was done AFTER April of '06 was under the Tories and O'Connor was the minister and since he was military at one time, wouldn't he coverup what the government knew. We had an election not too much later, then Harper made McKay Minister. Why didn't they just come out and say we had some torturing going on that we didn't know about but we've made changing, instead of lying and coverup.

[ToadBrother]

technically i think he does have that power!!

I was referring to the Speaker's decision 2 weeks ago!

No he does not. Only Parliament or the Sovereign can remove a government. The Speaker's power in this case is to allow a contempt motion. Whether or not that contempt motion morphs into a confidence motion depends entirely on the Government itself.

[ToadBrother]

Well think again. Harper has been the one to call all the elections and his supporters keep putting him back in, so they must want an election every time Harper calls one. Any torturing was done AFTER April of '06 was under the Tories and O'Connor was the minister and since he was military at one time, wouldn't he coverup what the government knew. We had an election not too much later, then Harper made McKay Minister. Why didn't they just come out and say we had some torturing going on that we didn't know about but we've made changing, instead of lying and coverup.

If Harper wanted an election, he'd order the Government House Leader not to negotiate with his Opposition counterparts at all, let the motion go through, declare it a confidence motion and voila, we'd have an election. Alternatively he could just simply go to the Governor General, request a dissolution and even faster he would have an election.

[ToadBrother]

That right cannot be open ended or without limits. If the opposition (Taliban Jack) can't accept that, then bugger them. Even Ignatief, now that he is a privy councillor, will acknoledge that there will be some secrets.

Logistically that's true. Constitutionally it isn't. If Parliament opted to photocopy it and send it to every Canadian household, they can. As the Speaker said, unless legislation explicitly limits Parliament's rights, it does not refer to Parliament. Parliamentary privilege trumps secrets, if Parliament were to press the point. But Parliament isn't. They're just saying they want a look, and the final issue is how exactly to make everyone aware if the Government has been up to no good without compromising state secrets.

[msdogfood]

No he does not. Only Parliament or the Sovereign can remove a government. The Speaker's power in this case is to allow a contempt motion. Whether or not that contempt motion morphs into a confidence motion depends entirely on the Government itself.

even if thay violate the Speaker's order and do not find a compromise???.

[ToadBrother]

even if thay violate the Speaker's order and do not find a compromise???.

Again, the Speaker's job, indeed the office's entire existence, is wrapped in Parliament. You have to understand the separation of powers here. While the Government is lead by a cabinet almost always exclusively from the House of Commons (infrequently Senators, and even potentially, though extremely rarely since the 19th century from outside of Parliament entirely, but I'll get back to that in a second), the Cabinet Ministers by and large serve the Crown, not Parliament. The Speaker has no power at all over the Executive, save within the context of protecting Parliament rights and privileges (this dates back to 1642 when Charles I attempted to arrest a number of members of Parliament on charges of treason and the Speaker, William Lenthall, refused to reveal the members' whereabouts).

In a situation of Parliamentary privilege, the Speaker is the final arbiter, and in this way he does serve a key constitutional role. But that role is limited to Parliament. The Government is the Executive, and is thus beyond the Speaker's authority. Yes, his actions and decisions could lead to findings of contempt or even to a loss of confidence, but that is indirect.

Now, let's take the possibility that the Government ultimately refuses to release the documents in a fashion that Parliament can agree to. At this point, the Speaker has made clear that this is a matter of privilege, and at that point there would be a motion of contempt in the House, which, unless the Opposition backs down, would ultimately find three ministers in contempt (my understanding is that the Government itself is not part of the motion, so not even the entire Government is in contempt). Now the Government essentially has the power to declare any motion or bill a confidence motion, and most of the experts I've read agree that if the Speaker were to allow the motion (which he essentially stated he would), then the motion would essentially topple the government, with the most likely outcome (since nobody seems to be floating the coalition idea any more) that there would be an election. But this, again, is the Government's decision. The Speaker's role is simply to declare the issue a matter of privilege and allow the motion to be voted on in the House. What happens after that is really up to the Government.

Let's just say that the Government does not make the motion a confidence matter, and let's say the House votes to find MacKay and pals in contempt of Parliament. What exactly that means is up to Parliament itself, it isn't really sharply defined, but could range from nothing to be expelled to imprisonment. Nobody seriously thinks the House would order the ministers to be jailed, that option largely being seen as anachronistic (apparently it has only happened once in Canada during the 19th century). So the most likely options are a simple finding of Contempt or being expelled.

Let's just say that the House votes to expel the Ministers. Remember how above I said in our constitution it is permissible to have cabinet ministers who do not sit in either house of Parliament (it in fact happened in the late 1990s under the BC NDP when an outsider was brought into cabinet). If, say, MacKay were expelled, it means he couldn't sit in the House, but it doesn't mean he ceases to be the Minister of Defense. Since many of his duties do not directly involve his Parliamentary role, it's quite conceivable that he could continue. For anything that requires action or decisions in Parliament, he would have to assign a proxy, an MP who would be his voice. It would be somewhat awkward, but in the days of Blackberries and instant communication, it certainly wouldn't be as difficult as it once was.

Edited May 13, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Keepitsimple]

Well, Bill Graham's testimony beore the Detainee Commission certainly had a different feel to it - unfortunately, I missed it on TV. Mr. Graham was the Liberal Defence Minister until the Conservatives took power in 2006. Somehow, it seems that the Liberals could not be faulted for an agreement that had no safeguards whatsoever. The Conservatives then took over and went to great lengths to upgrade the agreement - but now somehow the "critic" say all their fault for any abuse that may or may not have taken place? Priceless. Here's some interesting points that Graham made....and if you take it to heart, at a minimum, the Conservatives did their best to improve a bad situation. Now, will the CBC and The Star turn their outrage on the Liberals? I won't hold my breath.

Former Liberal defence minister Bill Graham says a flawed 2005 agreement on the transfer of Canadian detainees to the Afghans was better than no deal and dismissed suggestions torture was a big concern at the time.

“In the end the agreement was not perfect . . . but it was the best we could do at the time,” Graham told an all-party parliamentary committee. The panel is looking into whether the Conservative government transferred prisoners knowing there a chance of them being tortured or sexually abused.

Graham told the committee that for one thing, there was no monitoring provision in place to follow up on the welfare of Canadian prisoners turned over to Afghan authorities.

“It was not . . . evident to us that there was such a substantial risk” of torture, said Graham, defence minister from 2004 to 2006. Even so, he added, the government and its officials had decided it was the Afghans’ responsibility once the deal was signed to see that prisoners were not abused.

“I cannot honestly say that we foresaw all of that at the time. We didn’t or we might have acted differently.”

The 2005 agreement was replaced with a new agreement in 2007.

“I’m not suggesting Americans are evil or anything but they had serious problems at that time,” he said, adding Canada had already made the decision not to build its own detention centre, a decision that was echoed by NATO countries.

Graham said even in hindsight Canada can’t be held responsible for prisoners being tortured once they were handed over to Afghan authorities.

“You can’t be responsible for what you don’t know about.”

Graham said Amnesty International and the Afghan Human Rights Commission and even some Canadian non-government organizations were concerned about the conditions of the Afghan jails, but “it’s not the same as torture.”

“We didn’t know there was torture in the Afghan prisons, we didn’t have the experience of that,” he said. “Having signed the agreement we had every legitimate right to rely upon the word of the sovereign government of Afghanistan that they would live up to their obligations to Canada.”

Graham told reporters later it was generally agreed the deal with the Afghans for prisoner transfer “was the solution that we felt was the best possible one under the circumstances.”

And he added he didn’t accept allegations that Canadians were “knowingly or implicitly involved” in a way that they would make them liable for possible war crimes.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/808760--ex-liberal-defence-minister-says-2005-afghan-prisoner-deal-was-best-available

[eyeball]

Isn't this issue about whether Canada is guilty of war crimes?

I mean, I doubt if the ICC gives a rat's furry ass whether it was the Conservatives or Liberals, so why should we?

Edited May 13, 2010 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

Isn't this issue about whether Canada is guilty of war crimes?

No, that's the fantasy land issue guys like you concentrate on.

I mean, I doubt if the Hague gives a rat's furry ass whether it was the Conservatives or Liberals, so why should we?

You're utterly delusional. There will never be any kind of trial at the Hague. Get off the funny pills your taking.

[ToadBrother]

Well, Bill Graham's testimony beore the Detainee Commission certainly had a different feel to it - unfortunately, I missed it on TV. Mr. Graham was the Liberal Defence Minister until the Conservatives took power in 2006. Somehow, it seems that the Liberals could not be faulted for an agreement that had no safeguards whatsoever. The Conservatives then took over and went to great lengths to upgrade the agreement - but now somehow the "critic" say all their fault for any abuse that may or may not have taken place? Priceless. Here's some interesting points that Graham made....and if you take it to heart, at a minimum, the Conservatives did their best to improve a bad situation. Now, will the CBC and The Star turn their outrage on the Liberals? I won't hold my breath.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/808760--ex-liberal-defence-minister-says-2005-afghan-prisoner-deal-was-best-available

I'm sure the Liberals are every bit as guilty. The difference is that they didn't try to overthrow a core constitutional rule that has governed our system for over 300 years. That makes the Tories infinitely worse.

[eyeball]

I'm sure the Liberals are every bit as guilty. The difference is that they didn't try to overthrow a core constitutional rule that has governed our system for over 300 years. That makes the Tories infinitely worse.

Guilty of what, you do realize Keepitsimple is not talking about the agreement between Liberals and Conservatives over detainee documents don't you?

[eyeball]

No, that's the fantasy land issue guys like you concentrate on.

Then what on Earth is all the fuss about in Parliament?

You're utterly delusional. There will never be any kind of trial at the Hague.

Don't worry about that, I've long since come to realize the Geneva Convention means little if anything.

Get off the funny pills your taking.

What sort of pills do you have to take to be so utterly mesmerized by the issue of how the government is avoiding an issue no one but the odd loon like me give's a shit about? I'm afraid I really don't get that.

I admit I'm far more mesmerized by your mesmerization than anything.

[eyeball]

I'm sure the Liberals are every bit as guilty. The difference is that they didn't try to overthrow a core constitutional rule that has governed our system for over 300 years. That makes the Tories infinitely worse.

How many Canadians do you really think give a shit about this difference? Enough to want an election?

Speaking for myself I still think the alleged neglect of our core principle of respect for human rights is infinitely more important.

[Muddy]

In Canada nobody cares about a bunch of terrorists being roughed up by their own people. The way we see it the terrorists Islamic thugs are trying to kill our guys. They don`t wear a uniform and so do not belong to a recognized military.What Geneva conventions are they under anyway? This did not just start with the Harper government. As Bill Graham said they got the best deal they could at the time as a Liberal government. They did not care then but now they are all teary eyed. Canadians don`t care! It will not be an issue come election time.In fact a lot of Canadians are looking askance at those who are making our troops out to be committing war crimes.

[ToadBrother]

Guilty of what, you do realize Keepitsimple is not talking about the agreement between Liberals and Conservatives over detainee documents don't you?

Yes, I am aware of that.

[bloodyminded]

In Canada nobody cares about a bunch of terrorists being roughed up by their own people.

Not just terrorists. Suspects, among others.

But why do I believe this has been pointed out to you before?

[ToadBrother]

Then what on Earth is all the fuss about in Parliament?

I care more about our democracy than the rights of murderous evil religious fanatics.

Don't worry about that, I've long since come to realize the Geneva Convention means little if anything.

It's questionable whether it would apply in this case, but even if it does, no one is going to side with a bunch of murderous evil religious fanatics.

What sort of pills do you have to take to be so utterly mesmerized by the issue of how the government is avoiding an issue no one but the odd loon like me give's a shit about? I'm afraid I really don't get that.

I admit I'm far more mesmerized by your mesmerization than anything.

You post, I reply. That's how discussion forums work.

[bloodyminded]

I care more about our democracy than the rights of murderous evil religious fanatics.

I think you mean "people suspected of terrorism or insurgency."