Now our PM is restricting information from his gov't.

[gerryhatrick]

I also give him credit for not making a political show out of the trip, as a previous PM had.

I thought it was quite the show. Three days, press in tow, photo-ops...but, whatever.

This announcement today makes me very angry. It reeks of despotism. The last time I checked everyone including cabinet ministers and government officials had the right of free speech. Not anymore, not if you are a member of the Conservative government of Stephen Harper. Makes me wonder what draconian measure he may have up his sleeve for the ROC.

He does not have the right to muzzle people this way. He simply does not. I agree that matters of national security should be vetted, but not to speak or write, at all, about anything, unless the PMO clears it? Get real.

I will be one of the first to applaud any Conservative in government who has the back bone to stand up and refute this edict, it can not go unchallenged. This is no less than a form of tyranny.

Welcome to Mr. Harpers government. The warning bells went off for me when I heard he'd decided to stop answering questions for the press with two days left in the campaign....and some reporter was man-handled trying to speak to one of his candidates.

I'm not a conspiracy theist as a rule, but this smells like Karl Rove message control.

Mr. Harper still has a chance to turn things around; he can begin by apologizing publicly to his ministers and other government members for his lack of faith.

I agree, and would respect him for that. Unless he fires whoever is steering his spin bus I doubt it will happen.

[gerryhatrick]

I've yet to figure out why people feel so entitled to know everything thats going on. Most people can't comprehend the reality of the situation, and even more people can't do anything about it anyways. Let the experts decide policy matters, the average Canadian isn't bright enough to do it on their own.

Are you in favor of his muzzling of his cabinet then?

Why is he doing it, because the "average" Conservative Cabinet member "isn't bright enough" to speak on their own?

[Argus]

I've yet to figure out why people feel so entitled to know everything thats going on. Most people can't comprehend the reality of the situation, and even more people can't do anything about it anyways. Let the experts decide policy matters, the average Canadian isn't bright enough to do it on their own.

Are you in favor of his muzzling of his cabinet then?

Why is he doing it, because the "average" Conservative Cabinet member "isn't bright enough" to speak on their own?

I would imagine that it would be because almost all of them are rookies, and rookies make mistakes. Harper probably wants to avoid giving ammunition to an extremely hostile press which is eager to jump on any miscue or misstatement to trash the Conservatives they despise. Once the new ministers have gotten to know their portfolios and ministrie better I'm sure they'll be given more leeway.

[gerryhatrick]

I would imagine that it would be because almost all of them are rookies, and rookies make mistakes. Harper probably wants to avoid giving ammunition to an extremely hostile press which is eager to jump on any miscue or misstatement to trash the Conservatives they despise. Once the new ministers have gotten to know their portfolios and ministrie better I'm sure they'll be given more leeway.

Ah, I see. He's protecting the rookies from a hostile press. How thoughtful of him!

Funny, the press seems to have been fawning over Stephen Harper lately. Which press is eager to tear down the Conservative government? Sounds a little over the top to me.

No, I think he's just being himself. He wants to control the message, and it will backfire on him.

[Argus]

I would imagine that it would be because almost all of them are rookies, and rookies make mistakes. Harper probably wants to avoid giving ammunition to an extremely hostile press which is eager to jump on any miscue or misstatement to trash the Conservatives they despise. Once the new ministers have gotten to know their portfolios and ministrie better I'm sure they'll be given more leeway.

Ah, I see. He's protecting the rookies from a hostile press. How thoughtful of him!

Funny, the press seems to have been fawning over Stephen Harper lately.

I suppose that would depend upon ones perspective. Most people wouldn't see a few grudgingly approving stories of him in Kandahar as "fawning".

[August1991]

This announcement today makes me very angry. It reeks of despotism. The last time I checked everyone including cabinet ministers and government officials had the right of free speech. Not anymore, not if you are a member of the Conservative government of Stephen Harper. Makes me wonder what draconian measure he may have up his sleeve for the ROC.

He does not have the right to muzzle people this way. He simply does not. I agree that matters of national security should be vetted, but not to speak or write, at all, about anything, unless the PMO clears it? Get real.

I will be one of the first to applaud any Conservative in government who has the back bone to stand up and refute this edict, it can not go unchallenged. This is no less than a form of tyranny.

Mr. Harper is telling his government and the Canadian people that he cannot rely on the intelligence of his own people. He does not trust them. In effect, he is saying that he and he alone is capable of conceiving messages for public dispensation. He is denying cabinet ministers and bureaucrats the right to free speech.

This is greatly, I repeat greatly, exaggerated.

The internal e-mail which a G & M reporter managed to read merely reminded Ministers and their staff to keep focussed:

"Maintain a relentless focus on the five priorities from the campaign. Reduce the amount of ministerial/public events that distract from the five priority areas identified in the campaign," the e-mail states.

"In order to keep a grip on such events [those that distract from priority areas], PMO will approve all ministerial events."

G & M

That makes perfect sense to me, and it makes sense for Harper's staff to know when a Minister plans to talk about an issue outside of the priorities. It's a minority government and it is well-placed to win a majority in the next election if it manages to show competency. Harper has chosen to focus on five priorities as the route to do that.

Read the portions of the e-mail that the Globe article quotes and state whether there is anything wrong. Ignore the journalists' spin.

Journalists are genetically programmed to be in the loop, and they are driven to writing nonsense when they feel they are being ignored.

Harper is right to go over journalists heads and speak to Canadians directly, but only when it is appropriate and when it concerns an issue that is a priority.

Mowich, would you have every Minister's special assistants shooting off their mouths to any reporter they happened to meet in a bar? Do you call that democracy?

[gerryhatrick]

This is greatly, I repeat greatly, exaggerated.

The internal e-mail which a G & M reporter managed to read merely reminded Ministers and their staff to keep focussed:

"Maintain a relentless focus on the five priorities from the campaign. Reduce the amount of ministerial/public events that distract from the five priority areas identified in the campaign," the e-mail states.

"In order to keep a grip on such events [those that distract from priority areas], PMO will approve all ministerial events."

G & M

That makes perfect sense to me

You forgot this part:

"PMO will have final approval for all communications products — even Notes to Editors or Letters to the Editor,"

Mowich, would you have every Minister's special assistants shooting off their mouths to any reporter they happened to meet in a bar? Do you call that democracy?

Straw man. This isn't about "special assistants shooting off their mouths". It's about elected Cabinet ministers being told they can't talk about anything or write anything without PMO approval.

[betsy]

What I want to know is this:

What happens to detainees our soldiers capture?

Will they be handed over to US forces? Are there guarantees that torture will not occur?

Why should everything be spelled out for everyone to know???

Especially when it comes to war??

What "guarantees" that there won't be any tortures do you need to hear?

A promise? A swear on boyscout's honor? If given, will you then go back peacefully to pretend that this kind of reality does not exist anymore?

I want to hear Stephen Harper tell Canadians that detainees will be treated humanely (according to the convention we're a signatory to) and never turned over force without assurances (prefereably written) that they will be treated in the same manner by them.

I sense that many here are either unaware of the profound damage Abu Garaib has done to the USA or they're just cavalier about it....dwelling in a "it can't happen to us" mentality.

I realize anything can still happen, but hearing our PM speak publically about it would stamp the idea on every citizen and soldier and help protect against the worst case scenario.

If it even came out that our forces had turned over detainees who were mistreated by the Americans then you can kiss any goodwill they've earned goodbye and start digging 5 times as many 6 foot deep holes.

Beyond all that, maybe you can explain your opposition to me? What possible reason do you have to be against Harper clarifying our policy on this issue? Do you think making this information public would be a threat to the operation?

Why does Harper need to "vocalized" something that is already a given? Isn't there already an international law about treating prisoners of war humanely???

Why does Harper have to demand something written from an ally (which I presume you mean the USA), before turning over detainees to them?

Do you understand what that written demand signify??

Kiss what "goodwill" goodbye? Whose "goodwill?" You mean the terrorists? The Taliban?

So you want that on one hand while our soldiers go fighting in this war, we alienate an ally through insults and demands of guarantee (that seem to protect the enemy)....and protect our own hide since we do not want to really offend the enemies or we will, as you said, start digging 5 times as many 6 deep holes.

Whose side are we really on then??? What did we send troops there for if we'll quibble and pussyfoot around?

The international community involved in this operation must show solidarity!

Besides, once we've turned over detainess to somebody...we've relinquished responsibility. If there be any criminal mistreatments, let whoever actually did it face the music.

[gerryhatrick]

Why does Harper need to "vocalized" something that is already a given? Isn't there already an international law about treating prisoners of war humanely???

The USA thought it was a "given" too.

[betsy]

Enough of this fluff about pseudo-humanitarian posturing! This attitude is more damaging to our soldiers' morale. Let our soldiers be as real soldiers in a REAL WAR! Show your concern for our own before others!

Stand 100% behind our own soldiers rather than mollycuddling the enemy! Get real!

One more thing betsy.....demanding that the policy on detainees is vocalized by our leadership IS supporting our troops. You talk about "damaging our soldiers morale" but obviously haven't considered the damage that the torture pictures did to the morale of the US forces. And then to have thier civilian leadership blame them for a policy of "softening" that they asked for. Not exactly a morale booster. And all for nothing, since testimony indicates no real useful information ever came out of all that "softening". The only result was a tripling of enemies and a loss of respect worldwide.

I would also like to hear that our troops who are required to guard detainees have suitable training.

I find your complaining above to be "fluff" and pseudo-something. Certainly not logical or thought-out at all. It's just more partisan nonsense.

I don't think the torture incidents damaged the morale of the US troops, if indeed there is damage. More so it is the divided position of the US...with every celebrities, partisans and anyone anti-Bush vocally voicing out their criticism of that war!

So some soldiers did something awful. Some of our soldiers did too, remember the torture of that African boy? How can you really spot out the rotten apples in your troop? The psycohological impact of warfare?

Every country have had their own share of having some of their troops do atrocious things....it's ugly, but it's the real face of war! Let's not go painting all soldiers with the same brush.

Well I called it fluffy pseudo-humanitarian posturing...because that's just what it is. Actually your suggestion to insult an ally in the guise of humanitarian concern is nothing more than just another anti-US whipping.

[geoffrey]

Why does Harper need to "vocalized" something that is already a given? Isn't there already an international law about treating prisoners of war humanely???

The USA thought it was a "given" too.

Explain. The USA can think? Are you talking about the administration or the people or what? It makes no sense either way to me, but if you elaborated...

[betsy]

Why does Harper need to "vocalized" something that is already a given? Isn't there already an international law about treating prisoners of war humanely???

The USA thought it was a "given" too.

See? What more can I say? It's plain as day!

[gerryhatrick]

I don't think the torture incidents damaged the morale of the US troops, if indeed there is damage.

How can you not think the pictures from Abu Garaib damaged morale? The entire nation was embarrassed and it's thrown in their face in Iraq all the time. They lost the hearts and minds of the Iraqis over that, something they worked hard to gain. How on earth could you think that isn't morale damaging?

So some soldiers did something awful. Some of our soldiers did too, remember the torture of that African boy? How can you really spot out the rotten apples in your troop?

I thought the torture in Somalia was partly caused by an anti-malaria drug, but whatever I agree with your point that it happens to other nations soldiers.

There has been plenty of testimony and recent news releases indicating that the torture by US troops was a top-down policy. There was certainly no leadership to the contrary.

Look at the AG in the USA. Did he not determine that anything that would not cause death is not torture?

As for "painting all soldiers with the same brush", I am not doing that.

Again, what objection do you have to the policy being vocalized at this point?

All you've said is "why do it". It can't hurt, so why not? It will remind all the "bad apples" what the leadership expects of them, and remind commanders that rendering detainees for torture is not allowed.

[betsy]

Again, what objection do you have to the policy being vocalized at this point?

All you've said is "why do it". It can't hurt, so why not? It will remind all the "bad apples" what the leadership expects of them, and remind commanders that rendering detainees for torture is not allowed.

What makes you think that Harper and key military high-ranking officers have not discussed the prevention of any of this atrocities?

Our men have not dealt in a real combat situation since the war in Korea (at least that was what was said at M Duffy talk show). All these years, they've been trained and experienced as PEACEKEEPERS! And they've been so well-respected as such!

You think they've not been trained well enough to handle civilians????

Why are you assuming that they are not well-trained? That they could easily lose it while they're there (ala-Lord of the Flies)...and what, indulge in torture sprees?

Your demand of Harper smacks of doubting the capability and capacity of our own troops! It shows lack of trust and confidence in our men!

Our troops are not some juvenile teeners that Harper ought to warn and remind about rules of engagement...and the dire consequences should they not behave themselves. If there be any warnings and remindings to be done, it should be through their immediate ranking leaders!

[gerryhatrick]

What makes you think that Harper and key military high-ranking officers have not discussed the prevention of any of this atrocities?

I didn't say they might not have. Why do you keep setting up false arguments?

Why are you assuming that they are not well-trained?

Again, false argument.

Go into a room by yourself someplace betsy if that's all your're going to engage in.

Harper has shut down the freedom of his Cabinet to communicate. That's evidenced by the memo the G&M report on in the topic article.

He's made a mockery of his promises of accountability and transparency.

Assuch, I don't expect to hear from our MOD on this issue. I don't expect to hear anything from our government other than "Support our troops you ungrateful Canadians!"

Further to that I have asked my questions of second and third party opposition MP's.

[betsy]

Again, what objection do you have to the policy being vocalized at this point?

All you've said is "why do it". It can't hurt, so why not? It will remind all the "bad apples" what the leadership expects of them, and remind commanders that rendering detainees for torture is not allowed.

So yes, it will hurt! See post #39 for the reason why.

Your demand for public vocalization is nothing more than a petty demand to satisfy yourself....placing your own petty satisfaction just for the sake of "knowing" that the PM did PUBLICLY castigate...and WARNED OFF...show lack of confidence and pride in all our men, assuming they are all possible lunatics....before sending them off to fight in a war!

A very touching and sensitive gesture, don't you think?

[betsy]

A couple of days ago on CTV newsnet, I had seen a scrum with the soldier that was injured when a bomb exploded. I think his name was Pte Salikin.

A lot of questions from the journalists seemed to want to hear him question the military presence in Afghanistan. The questions were repeatedly asked in various ways...baiting...fishing for anything he might say against their deployment.

This soldier repeatedly conveyed the message that he finds the mission important.

Finally, one reporter asked what he would like as a show of support.

He answered along this context: No more negatives. Say positive things!

I can't blame Harper for shutting down communication. The situation in Afghanistan is being politicized...by the other political leaders and some supporting media.

[gerryhatrick]

So yes, it will hurt! See post #39 for the reason why.

You fail to give any reasons there.

Your demand for public vocalization is nothing more than a petty demand to satisfy yourself..

I'm supporting the troops in this. Demanding this clarity up front helps protect them all.

assuming they are all possible lunatics...

We are ALL possible "lunitics" betsy if put into the wrong conditions. That's why I'm demanding our government make sure the wrong conditions don't have a chance to exist.

You want to pretend the US has not been torturing, because to breath mention of it is "anti-Americanism" in your view. You are demonstrating a spineless cowardice and a willingness to put our troops at risk for fear of offending some neo-cons down South. Despicable.

[betsy]

What makes you think that Harper and key military high-ranking officers have not discussed the prevention of any of this atrocities?

I didn't say they might not have. Why do you keep setting up false arguments?

Why are you assuming that they are not well-trained?

Again, false argument.

Go into a room by yourself someplace betsy if that's all your're going to engage in.

No it's not false argument! You want the PM to jump the gun and PUBLICLY admonish and warn off our troops that they better follow the law regarding prisoners of war....

...like as if our soldiers (whose experiences as reknowned PEACEKEEPERS) have not been trained well enough to include that important part!

[betsy]

We are ALL possible "lunitics" betsy if put into the wrong conditions. That's why I'm demanding our government make sure the wrong conditions don't have a chance to exist.

With that well-publicized torture incident, you think our own military is not aware and doing anything to prevent that kind of shame happening to our men?

Especially when our own military have been put on the spotlight for the same type of atrocity not too long ago?

Is our military led by a bunch of incompetents???

[betsy]

You want to pretend the US has not been torturing, because to breath mention of it is "anti-Americanism" in your view. You are demonstrating a spineless cowardice and a willingness to put our troops at risk for fear of offending some neo-cons down South. Despicable.

No, you want to pretend that atrocities such as this will never happen if a nation's leader "vocalize" it.

Your argument eventually ends up wanting us to continue insulting the US...certainly undiplomatic, especially when you consider that our troops will be fighting side-by-side with them!

When our troops are edgy from facing possible torture and deaths from the TRUE ENEMIES...you want them to also feel edgy and uncomfortable alongside their comrade-in-arms because of sheer politics...and the fact that you want Canda to rub the US's nose on that unfortunate torture incident.

That's why it's just pure baloney...and I call this "PSEUDO-Humanitarian POSTURING!

[gerryhatrick]

No it's not false argument! You want the PM to jump the gun and PUBLICLY admonish and warn off our troops that they better follow the law regarding prisoners of war.

No, I want our PM to show leadership and clearly state our policy in the matter. Given the recent (ongoing) revelations regarding our allies the USA, this would be a welcome move.

It has nothing to do with adminishing anyone. Unbelievably, you present ANOTHER false argument in the same breath as you deny them! Do you even realize what one is?

[gerryhatrick]

With that well-publicized torture incident, you think our own military is not aware and doing anything to prevent that kind of shame happening to our men?

Especially when our own military have been put on the spotlight for the same type of atrocity not too long ago?

Is our military led by a bunch of incompetents???

Civilians make policy decisions, not the military. And it's yet to be seen what they are.

As per the topic, Cabinet is not even allowed to speak to Canadians about this issue. Stick to the 5 platform issues, that's it. So, it's up to us (and the NDP and the Liberals and the Bloc) to protect the troops from incompetents.

[BubberMiley]

By using the word "admonish", Betsy is implying our troops are already torturing. I bet they would resent that.

[betsy]

No it's not false argument! You want the PM to jump the gun and PUBLICLY admonish and warn off our troops that they better follow the law regarding prisoners of war.

No, I want our PM to show leadership and clearly state our policy in the matter. Given the recent (ongoing) revelations regarding our allies the USA, this would be a welcome move.

It has nothing to do with adminishing anyone. Unbelievably, you present ANOTHER false argument in the same breath as you deny them! Do you even realize what one is?

The PM is showing true leadership by refusing to be boxed in a corner just to satisfy petty demands ...reserving the right to make a decision depending on circumstances as they arise!