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

[gerryhatrick]

What RECENT RE-DEPLOYMENT are you talking about?

You seem to know more about this, so please enlighten me.

Yes, I do seem to know more about this than yourself.

Late in 2005 they redeployed from the Kabul area to their present deployment around Kandahar.

Now you know.

[betsy]

So GerryHatrick, answer the questions.

"Canadians Made Ready for Afghanistan Death Toll

- Chris Cook*, PEJ News, September 15, 2005 -

The nature of the Afghanistan mission has transformed somewhat in the past few months, as has the nature of Canada's military. No longer focussed primarily on "peacekeeping," Canada's forces are being restructured to more resemble the American model."

Since Sep 2005, it had been noted the way our military was being re-structured to model the Americans.

Have you or have you not voiced out your fear on this forum that this may include torture?

Have you demanded of Martin what you demand of Harper now?

Peace, Earth, and Justice News? Gee, must have taken you quite a while to dig that up!

So Peace, Earth, and Justice News noted in September 2005 that our forces were being transformed to resemble the American model, and that a redeployment was on the horizen. And because I didn't notice this in Peace, Earth, and Justice News I'm now a hypocrite?

More nitwittery!

The redeployment has been recent. This fresh straw man of yours is a waste of your time, and more importantly a waste of my time.

It wasn't you that I called hypocritical. It"s Jack and the Liberals.

[betsy]

What RECENT RE-DEPLOYMENT are you talking about?

You seem to know more about this, so please enlighten me.

Yes, I do seem to know more about this than yourself.

Late in 2005 they redeployed from the Kabul area to their present deployment around Kandahar.

Now you know.

Okay, so they deployed from Kabul to Kandahar in 2005. But it is still the same commitment made by the Liberals, which Harper is just trying to fulfill...and taking it seriously. And the nature of their mission did not change. It is still more of a combat mission.

So whether they've been redeployed in Kandahar or all over the face of Afghanistan, my question still remains the same.

How come you made no mention of your fear that our troops may indulge in torturing POW?

Did you voice out any question what could happen to detainees?

Did you call for Martin to make Canada's position clear on where we stand regarding handling of POWs?

Of course this is not a "straw man".

I am questioning your motive as to how come you demand of Harper to make a public commitment...and yet you never demanded such things from Martin.

Of course the question of partisanship as being behind your topic is too hard to ignore.

You are making serious demands from our current PM...demands that involved undiplomatic and insulting gestures towards an ally....a move that could have serious ramifications towards our relationship with our neighbor.

[gerryhatrick]

Okay, so they deployed from Kabul to Kandahar in 2005. But it is still the same commitment made by the Liberals, which Harper is just trying to fulfill...and taking it seriously.

So what betsy? Stop wasting our time.

You pounced all over a supposed hypocrisy in me and all others with fresh questions about the Afghanistan mission because you didn't realize the nature of the mission had recently changed.

You object to the detainee policy being made clear, yet you cannot explain why. All you do is make petty and false accusations of hypocrisy.

Address the topic without all this partisan argument for godsake.

[betsy]

Okay, so they deployed from Kabul to Kandahar in 2005. But it is still the same commitment made by the Liberals, which Harper is just trying to fulfill...and taking it seriously.

So what betsy? Stop wasting our time.

You pounced all over a supposed hypocrisy in me and all others with fresh questions about the Afghanistan mission because you didn't realize the nature of the mission had recently changed.

You object to the detainee policy being made clear, yet you cannot explain why. All you do is make petty and false accusations of hypocrisy.

Address the topic without all this partisan argument for godsake.

I am addressing your topic. You wrote these two statements. You said:

"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?"

And I've answered that there are no guarantees whatsoever no matter what is done!

Why should Harper, as a PM of a nation, volunteer any sensitive information, publicly commtiing himself to something that would box him in a corner when there is no necessity to divulge such information or commit himslef in the first place?

You said:

"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."

Again, there is no necessity to hammer that in! As I've pointed out, Canada had officially stated...and demonstrated how we view treatments of POW that go against the law! We punished those few Canadian soldiers that were responsible for the torture of that POW.

Publicly stating that will not make any difference...but you bet it will easily be used by the media to make it sound as a rebuke to the US!

And demanding a "written assurance" before handing a prisoner over is undiplomatic and would cause more friction between us and our ally next door.

Once you've handed over a prisoner, he is out of your hands and responsibility! Let the US deal with any problems since it's their responsibility. We have no right to make such demands! Further more, we are going to strain a relationship over an impractical demand? Even if you have a thousand written assurances signed....any sicko will still pry an owwww from anyone under his/her mercy!

BTW, what happens if we just so happened to capture Osama's bunk-mate?

[betsy]

Address the topic without all this partisan argument for godsake.

Just read your topic description. "1984-ish. Bizarre. We saw it coming."

I saw it coming too...your seeming concern I mean, upon reading your first two posts. Harper-slamming, US-bashing combo!

You can't blame me for questioning the real motive of this post. It smacks of partisanship in disguise.

[gerryhatrick]

And I've answered that there are no guarantees whatsoever no matter what is done!

Why should Harper, as a PM of a nation, volunteer any sensitive information, publicly commtiing himself to something that would box him in a corner when there is no necessity to divulge such information or commit himslef in the first place?

What information are you talking about?

[gerryhatrick]

Just read your topic description. "1984-ish. Bizarre. We saw it coming."

I saw it coming too...your seeming concern I mean, upon reading your first two posts. Harper-slamming, US-bashing combo!

You can't blame me for questioning the real motive of this post. It smacks of partisanship in disguise.

Harper is being critisized from all sides for putting a noose on information flowing out of his cabinet. It is quite 1984-ish.

I don't know what you want, a sugar-coat?

Even letters to the editor need to be cleared. And you're comfortable with that?

If Harper reverses his bizarre edict I will be the first to stand up and sing his praises.

[betsy]

And I've answered that there are no guarantees whatsoever no matter what is done!

Why should Harper, as a PM of a nation, volunteer any sensitive information, publicly commtiing himself to something that would box him in a corner when there is no necessity to divulge such information or commit himslef in the first place?

What information are you talking about?

The kind of information you are griping about....the ones you say the PM is restricting his ministers to talk about. I forgot how you worded it but I'm referring from your topic title.

[betsy]

Just read your topic description. "1984-ish. Bizarre. We saw it coming."

I saw it coming too...your seeming concern I mean, upon reading your first two posts. Harper-slamming, US-bashing combo!

You can't blame me for questioning the real motive of this post. It smacks of partisanship in disguise.

Harper is being critisized from all sides for putting a noose on information flowing out of his cabinet. It is quite 1984-ish.

I don't know what you want, a sugar-coat?

Even letters to the editor need to be cleared. And you're comfortable with that?

If Harper reverses his bizarre edict I will be the first to stand up and sing his praises.

Is this what is being criticized?

"Harper tightens leash on his ministers: report

CTV.ca News Staff

In an effort to appear focused, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is tightening the leash on his cabinet ministers and top bureaucrats by restricting what they can say to the public, a report says.

The Globe and Mail says Harper has ordered them to say nothing to the media unless it is first cleared by the Prime Minister's Office.

"PMO will have final approval for all communications products -- even Notes to Editors or Letters to the Editor," an e-mail sent to bureaucrats states.

Harper is determined to keep the focus on five key Tory campaign issues and any comments straying from those campaign points must be first cleared by him, the Globe reports.

"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 Globe quotes the e-mail as saying.

CTV's David Akin said reporters "don't really have access" to cabinet ministers anymore."

I don't see anything wrong. As for the letters to the editor...geez, you almost gave me a seizure! I had a mental picture of Harper checking all letters to the editors of all media print in this country.

Well those letters to the editor obviously apply only to his ministers! So he's keeping a tight reign on them, preventing any loose canon....what's wrong with that?

As elected MPs that had won based on those five key issues, those five key issues should be their main focus. They know the other parties will be all out trying to derail them.

Actually, Harper demonstrated all the more that he is sharp-witted! That by golly, this man is determined to push for those 5 key issues! He is a true leader!

[gerryhatrick]

The kind of information you are griping about....the ones you say the PM is restricting his ministers to talk about. I forgot how you worded it but I'm referring from your topic title.

So any information other than the 5 campaign platform planks is "sensitive" in your view?

The topic is about Harper muzzling his MP's...telling them no inverviews or even letters to the editor can occur without his approval.

Are you in a state of denial over this?

[gerryhatrick]

Is this what is being criticized?

"Harper tightens leash on his ministers: report

CTV.ca News Staff

In an effort to appear focused, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is tightening the leash on his cabinet ministers and top bureaucrats by restricting what they can say to the public, a report says.

The Globe and Mail says Harper has ordered them to say nothing to the media unless it is first cleared by the Prime Minister's Office.

"PMO will have final approval for all communications products -- even Notes to Editors or Letters to the Editor," an e-mail sent to bureaucrats states.

Yes, that's it.

Well those letters to the editor obviously apply only to his ministers! So he's keeping a tight reign on them, preventing any loose canon....what's wrong with that?

I guess you just don't get it. Or you've decided you will support Harper on all things regardless of the details.

As elected MPs that had won based on those five key issues, those five key issues should be their main focus.

So they should shut up about anything else.

I for one would be a little dissappointed to know that my MP cannot speak out on the issues concerning his constituents without PM approval. Not exactly what I'd describe as a democracy.

You see nothing wrong with this dictatorial control over elected MP's. That's where we digress I guess.

You see a "true leader" because he's muzzling his MP's and constricting them to 5 issues.

I see a paranoid lack of trust in his collegues.

[scribblet]

Actually I think its fun seeing the media get its knickers in a knot over it, although I think Harper should be careful about alienating them even more. As I said before, I don't blame him for not wanting to give the press the opportunity to spin and misconstrue everything he says.

[gerryhatrick]

Actually I think its fun seeing the media get its knickers in a knot over it, although I think Harper should be careful about alienating them even more. As I said before, I don't blame him for not wanting to give the press the opportunity to spin and misconstrue everything he says.

OH yes, that evil press! Danger! Danger!

I'm seeing honest conservatives get their knickers in a knot over it, and rightly so. I want to know what our government is doing, and if all the press is ever going to be fed is campaign 2006 redux then we're not - as a nation - being kept informed.

Seeing people defend it is stunning. He doesn't need to worry about alienating the press, as you say. He needs to be careful about alienating his own caucus and the Canadian public. Nobody likes being told they're not able to speak out on what they choose, and we don't like finding out our government is muzzled.

[betsy]

The kind of information you are griping about....the ones you say the PM is restricting his ministers to talk about. I forgot how you worded it but I'm referring from your topic title.

So any information other than the 5 campaign platform planks is "sensitive" in your view?

The topic is about Harper muzzling his MP's...telling them no inverviews or even letters to the editor can occur without his approval.

Are you in a state of denial over this?

"Sensitive" information of what you seemed to be focused about: WAR-RELATED!

Your first two posts were all about Afghanistan and our troops and POWs etc..,

Actually most of the arguments and rebuttals on this topic are all war-related!

[betsy]

Well those letters to the editor obviously apply only to his ministers! So he's keeping a tight reign on them, preventing any loose canon....what's wrong with that?

I guess you just don't get it. Or you've decided you will support Harper on all things regardless of the details.

What exactly don't I get? Explain yourself.

[betsy]

I for one would be a little dissappointed to know that my MP cannot speak out on the issues concerning his constituents without PM approval. Not exactly what I'd describe as a democracy.

You see nothing wrong with this dictatorial control over elected MP's. That's where we digress I guess.

Speak of issues concerning constituents...to the press? Especially to mostly liberal journalists??

If there is any issue regarding constituents...would it not be the norm to talk to your PM first before mouthing off to the press?

If my MP will spill his guts to journalists before he addresses any problems or concerns to proper channels, I would question his professionalism and motive for doing just that! I'd hate to think of my MP as a publicity-hungry opportunist.

[betsy]

Seeing people defend it is stunning. He doesn't need to worry about alienating the press, as you say. He needs to be careful about alienating his own caucus and the Canadian public. Nobody likes being told they're not able to speak out on what they choose, and we don't like finding out our government is muzzled.

Well I don't know about that. What I see is he's just systematically going about doing what he promised during the election.

Actually, some press at Mike Duffy seem to be intrigued by this man...and awed by his unpredictable moves.

They discussed him in a serious way...you could see that there is reluctant adimiration. Who knows, maybe they hadn't encountered anyone like him in a long time (golly...after 13 years of Liberals), he is refreshing!

The last I heard....Chinese leaders are happy!

[BubberMiley]

The simple fact is that a PM who campaigned on a platform of accountability and more free votes for MPs suddenly changing his tune so dramatically is pure hypocrisy.

[gerryhatrick]

Speak of issues concerning constituents...to the press? Especially to mostly liberal journalists??

Ah, the "liberal journalist" rightwing mantra. Like it or not the press is our vehicle to government accountability. Maybe they just allow the MP's to speak to SunMedia and National Post, would that be OK with you?

If my MP will spill his guts to journalists before he addresses any problems or concerns to proper channels, I would question his professionalism and motive for doing just that! I'd hate to think of my MP as a publicity-hungry opportunist.

"Spill his guts"? All we're talking about is freedom of MP's to speak. You're assuming that anything your MP is going to say will somehow undermine the PM. You assume MP's are all unprofessional publicity-hungry opportunists if they speak to the press (or write letters to the editor) without having the content of what they say or write approved by the PM.

It is a bizarre position taken for one purpose, to support your beloved Stephen Harper. I don't think you have the courage or honesty to critisize Harper even if it's deserved.

So, I guess you can save it. Your credibility is gone.

[betsy]

Speak of issues concerning constituents...to the press? Especially to mostly liberal journalists??

Ah, the "liberal journalist" rightwing mantra. Like it or not the press is our vehicle to government accountability.

Like the terribly slanted Liberal-leaning CBC for example? Globe and Mail?

[betsy]

"Spill his guts"? All we're talking about is freedom of MP's to speak. You're assuming that anything your MP is going to say will somehow undermine the PM. You assume MP's are all unprofessional publicity-hungry opportunists if they speak to the press (or write letters to the editor) without having the content of what they say or write approved by the PM.

It is a bizarre position taken for one purpose, to support your beloved Stephen Harper. I don't think you have the courage or honesty to critisize Harper even if it's deserved.

So, I guess you can save it. Your credibility is gone.

You wonder about my response when you were the one who said this:

"I for one would be a little dissappointed to know that my MP cannot speak out on the issues concerning his constituents without PM approval. "

Why should an MP go to the press first concerning constituents' issues? Why would he not go through the proper procedures? In every workplaces this attitude will mean this MP is not a team player!

[betsy]

So, I guess you can save it. Your credibility is gone.

Excuse me?

You've twisted and turned with your topic (which seem to indicate you're not really sure what it is really about).

If you'll only take off that Liberal hat for a sec and be consistent, maybe we'll meet on the same page.

It's hard to catch up with you flip-flopping all over the issue.

[betsy]

"Spill his guts"? All we're talking about is freedom of MP's to speak.

Well, as far as I know Harper didn't say they can't speak! Did he?

As long as no loose canons shooting off his mouth.......which the barracudas and the piranhas along the sides are just waiting to happen. They're out there waiting for anything...any crumbs they can use to derail this small minority government.

As it was reported:

"Harper is determined to keep the focus on five key Tory campaign issues and any comments straying from those campaign points must be first cleared by him, the Globe reports.

"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 Globe quotes the e-mail as saying."

Just think of a football team in their dug-out having a last minute rundown on the team work before coming out to the field.

You guys are griping only because you are anxiously awaiting for any ooops that's more likely to happen from this fresh batch of MPs....so unlike the veterans of duplicity who had perfectly mastered playing the media.

[gerryhatrick]

Like the terribly slanted Liberal-leaning CBC for example? Globe and Mail?

As I said betsy, maybe they just allow the MP's to speak to SunMedia and National Post, would that be OK with you?

Four posts in a row and you're nowhere nearer to answering or seemingly even understanding the issue. You believe the media is the enemy...that the CBC is "terribly slanted" for example. I got the latest on the Gomery inquiry day after day on CBC radio. Guess they didn't get the memo, oh well. It's not really the point anyway, and it's immature and short-sighted to focus on it. The media is the vehicle for accountability. You conveniently claim that it's "liberal" as a way of throwing support behind Harpers decisions. It doesn't stand up betsy, and I've demonstrated that by suggesting he just allow SunMedia and National Post. Throw in CanWest. We can have a pissing contest over the media if you want, but in the end there's no excuse for what Harper has done.