Stephen Harper Democracy Strikes Again

[g_bambino]

So you state your evidence is all in the constitution 1867 - well it doesn't fully address how the command structure of the military works it only explains a portion of it.

It explains enough to affirm you're wrong about the the Queen or governor general requiring approval from a majority of parliamentarians before deploying Canadian Forces personnel.

[William Ashley]

The BNA Act explicitly puts the military under the command of the Queen.

No it explicitly states that the queen is commander in chief and that different portions of the military and the generality. However this does not remove the letters patent 1931 that confers the queens powers (king at the time) to the Governor General. So you are not giving the "whole picture" This is exactly the point in that bambino ain't stating the whole story and so it becomes misleading to the actual legal situation. That is one of two issues I have with bambino's posts 1. the comments are not full 2. the comments confuse terminology and the actual situation. 3. they are mostly rhetoric with very little if any evidence thus substance. It is all fair game but I just feel like bambino may intentionally be misleading honest discussion.

You can keep trying to argue your way out of this, but it's there in black and white. Parliament does not directly control the military, and has not in any way done so in well over three hundred years.

And either does cabinet. They have different levels of operational insight. Parliament for instance controls the "ends policies by establishing the laws ordering conduct" back during the English Civil war Parliament took command of the military. They however then opted to let only experienced commanders command it, although there may have also been politcal ambitions. Up to this time wealthy people - lords and whatnot, this is the point that the "new model army" came about. However so being command by the wealthy and affluent continued into the Canadian Colonial period, often time military men were British British on service terms, where there was also a local militia. Often the upper commanding officers also had political aide posts, and thus also acted at times within government, especially in terms of the govenors. After the rebellions even leaders of the rebellions such Makenzie King became MP's in parliament - actually the birth of the Grits and Reform movements. Tories of Course were tied more into the Orange Order Traditions - but split between both Catholic and Protestant groups and further divided between English, Irish and Scotts - and also of course the French Canadiens. Many people were involved in local militias in the early days. Today however only 10 members of commons and 10 members of senate (1 in 30 and 1 in 10 or so ) have actually served in the military.

To make a long story short - parliament is there to say how the military is run - and they made the national defence act and emergency act (former war measures act) to DO THIS. The government thus has a LEGAL means of conducting war crisis, and thus without direct parliamentary consent conduct war acts. IS there something you don't get about this?

Are one of these acts being used? If not what LAW is? Deployments are 1. orders (travel orders) and ought to stem from an order. Orders in Council should stem from existing law. Even the commander in chief still needs to command with accordance to the law.

Besides, what's the sudden "needs to be tested in court" line anyways?

If not tested provide the law. Use of the forces contrary to the law is something that should be discussed in parliament because it is a matter of law not existing - parliaments role in clarifying law. The purpose of the courts is to test law already existing.

If acting not within law you are testing status quo ante dium. and unilaterally this is not a wise thing to do- it should be based on consensus of society.

I showed you where the Act of Settlement, 1701 and the Statute of Westminster were tested in a Canadian court and deemed to be constitutional documents still fully in force, and you just invented some crapola about how the judge was wrong.

You can link to that, I recall, but I had good reasons for my statements. If I recall it was because of the dating and application of the charter not being included in the judgment. This may be because it wasn't raised as a matter of law during the court hearing. That is there was no charter challenge for the case - but the charter would have been applicable and would have been able to change the determination. That is why a case is only applicable within context of the ruling, including basis for judgement.

Edited November 15, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

No it explicitly states that the queen is commander in chief and that different portions of the military and the generality. However this does not remove the letters patent 1931 that confers the queens powers (king at the time) to the Governor General. So you are not giving the "whole picture" This is exactly the point in that bambino ain't stating the whole story and so it becomes misleading to the actual legal situation. That is one of two issues I have with bambino's posts 1. the comments are not full 2. the comments confuse terminology and the actual situation...

I think the problem isn't that anyone is not presenting the full picture, it's that you mistakenly believe the picture is bigger than what it is and believe eveyone else needs to be convinced you're right. You're not.

The Constitution Act 1867 makes the Queen Commander-in-Chief of "the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada." That means she is the supreme commander of the military; there is no higher position. The Letters Patent 1947 (there are no Letters Patent 1931; you're confusing the Statute of Westminster with the letters patent issued by George VI in 1947) change nothing; letters patent don't override other parts of the constitution except previous letters patent. And they certainly did not make it necessary for parliament to vote approval before the Queen or Governor General-in-Council can declare war or deploy troops somewhere, as you claim.

[Moonlight Graham]

Foreign relations is the domain of the executive; Harper is entirely within his rights to advise the placement of troops without parliament's prior consent. If the opposition is absolutely against Harper's decisions, they can make their displeasure known.

True. However, Harper put the fate of the Afghan mission to a vote in parliament in 2006 and 2008. So why not now?

[Alta4ever]

Maybe.

I'm a really mobile person I have a house but I also am a student (and teacher), I also travel a lot.

Does this scare anyone else too?

I hope constitutional matters aren't any part of the curriculum because you would be failing both as a student and teacher.

[ToadBrother]

True. However, Harper put the fate of the Afghan mission to a vote in parliament in 2006 and 2008. So why not now?

I'm not defending Harper. As a general rule the Government has always sought the approval of Parliament when seeking to send the armed forces into combat. It is not, however, a constitutional requirement. The armed forces are very specifically placed in the hands of the King/Queen-in-Council.

In this case, I suspect it's because the Government does not want to put its relations with NATO partners in the hands of a Parliament that is stacked against it. I can certainly understand it, though I think the Liberals have made enough statements to suggest that they're really only interested in a "look stern" photo-op or two before throwing support behind whatever the Government has in mind.

[ToadBrother]

Does this scare anyone else too?

I hope constitutional matters aren't any part of the curriculum because you would be failing both as a student and teacher.

No kidding. The man is verbose, but so much of what he writes is pure nonsense. I sometimes thinks he types out vast posts filled with inanities and pointless asides simply to try to win the argument by sheer weight of prose. But there's nothing to debate. The BNA Act puts the armed forces under the Queen's command, and that simply reiterates the Monarch's role as commander-in-chief of the military since Feudal times.

[capricorn]

However, Harper put the fate of the Afghan mission to a vote in parliament in 2006 and 2008. So why not now?

The Canadian government has made the decision to extend this country’s mission in Afghanistan. It will end its combat role and continue, in a more intensive way, to train the Afghan army and police. It is the right decision. Should it be put to Parliament to debate and vote on, as MP Paul Dewar, the New Democratic Party’s foreign affairs critic, says?

No. Such a vote is not necessary or helpful. It is not required by law or custom, as Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae points out. It’s “the government’s choice,” said Mr. Rae, and he understands the choice in the circumstances. Mr. Dewar implies there is something nefarious in Mr. Rae discussing the extension with the government. Not so. The two main parties representing the majority of voters support the extension, and their comments suggest a non-partisanship that can only benefit the mission.

The extension can still be debated in Question Period. There will be opportunity to discuss it. And Prime Minister Stephen Harper should be clear about how many Canadians will be involved, what the costs will be, and how success will be measured and reported for this country to assess.

But Parliament has already adopted a resolution that expressly supports the training mission beyond July, 2011. That resolution of March, 2008, called for an end only to Canada’s presence in Kandahar. It went to say that Canada, with its allies, including Afghanistan, “must set firm targets and timelines for the training, equipping and paying of the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Police, the members of the judicial system and the members of the correctional system.” The Canadian government’s decision to stay in Afghanistan to train soldiers is entirely consistent with that resolution. For quite a while now, Mr. Harper has given the public the impression that Canada’s military would be leaving the country entirely. But there is nothing in the resolution’s letter or spirit to suggest that.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/we-dont-need-another-afghan-resolution/article1797305/

At a news conference tomorrow, it is expected the Conservatives will announce the details of the mission post 2011.

The government’s post-2011 plans for Afghanistan, including details of the training mission as well as a development strategy, are to be announced at a news conference Tuesday. They come as Prime Minister Stephen Harper prepares to travel to Lisbon for a summit of NATO leaders that opens Friday, where leaders are expected to endorse a strategy to hand over the “lead role” in security to Afghan forces in 2014.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/afghan-training-mission-will-keep-950-troops-behind-wire-sources-say/article1800204/

---

Now, I don't know about anyone else here, but I want our military to exit Afghanistan alongside our NATO allies in 2014. They'll do so with their heads held high that they answered the call of their country and remained in Afghanistan till the end of the NATO mission. To pull them completely out now would not be good for the morale of our troops.

[bloodyminded]

though I think the Liberals have made enough statements to suggest that they're really only interested in a "look stern" photo-op or two before throwing support behind whatever the Government has in mind.

Yep.

[bloodyminded]

Now, I don't know about anyone else here, but I want our military to exit Afghanistan alongside our NATO allies in 2014. They'll do so with their heads held high that they answered the call of their country and remained in Afghanistan till the end of the NATO mission. To pull them completely out now would not be good for the morale of our troops.

There might be good arguments for staying, but troop morale is not one of them. Even military dictatorships hopefully understand that foreign policy is not conducted for the sake of troop morale.

[capricorn]

There might be good arguments for staying, but troop morale is not one of them.

I'm not suggesting troop morale was a factor in deciding our course of action in Afghanistan and neither should it be.

But looking at it through our soldiers' eyes, exiting before our country and NATO calls for the end of the mission would be a huge letdown for them. A good number have seen their comrades killed or injured, and they would not want their sacrifices to be for naught. It is important for them that they exit honourably and that can materialize if they exit Afghanistan alongside our allies when the curtain comes down on the NATO mission. Can anyone deny that they would be proud to be part of the contingent of countries exiting Afghanistan as a group to return home? In fact, can anyone deny that Canada would be proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies as they welcome their soldiers home when NATO pulls out as is expected in 2014?

On top of which, in these uncertain times we don't know when or where our military will be called upon to deploy to another conflict. We need a military that senses our government and citizens have confidence in their ability to do the job handed to them, from start to finish. Assigning troops to training the Afghan army and to humanitarian projects affords our military the opportunity to remain engaged til NATO pulls out. I do believe this is their wish.

[ToadBrother]

On top of which, in these uncertain times we don't know when or where our military will be called upon to deploy to another conflict. We need a military that senses our government and citizens have confidence in their ability to do the job handed to them, from start to finish. Assigning troops to training the Afghan army and to humanitarian projects affords our military the opportunity to remain engaged til NATO pulls out. I do believe this is their wish.

Aside from any other considerations, the one thing Afghanistan has produced is a generation of experienced and battle-hardened officers, some of which will be ending up moving up the chain of command as career officers. That is a gift that will keep on giving for years to come.