The Afghan Documents: The Speaker's Ruling

After providing an exhaustive review (45 minutes of background, precendents and rulings) of the case of whether Harper's government had breached parliamentary privilege by censoring and delaying the release of the documents related to questions about whether Afghan detainees handed over to Afghan officials have been tortured, speaker Milliken ruled against the government.

Milliken gave the government 2 weeks to come up with a compromise acceptable to the opposition on dealing with the handling of classified documents. If they can't, the speaker will intervene again and may accept a ruling of contempt of parliament - a very significant warning which could ultimately bring down this government.

He stated that it was not acceptable (and, paraphrasing, was basically insulting) to suggest that elected members of parliament should be seen as threatening national security by having access to those documents.

He also ruled that McKay's office did not intimidate possible witnesses by penning a letter, via the justice department, outlining their duties. However, he said that if a case is presented that shows that an actual witness did feel intimidated, he will consider it.

Regarding the government's excuse that handing former justice Iacobbuci the job of deciding which documents should be released, Milliken ruled that since that is a parallel process to the house and committee work, it cannot be construed as being an acceptable workaround to the motion the house passed in December to turn over all of the documents.

The government now has 3 choices. It can either comply with the ruling, appeal to the Supreme court or call a snap election via forcing a non-confidence motion.

More:

Afghan detainee records order 'clear': Speaker
Tories have two weeks to release Afghan files
 

The Detainee Document Dump: Explosive Allegations

The Canadian Press has begun reviewing the 2,000+ heavily censored pages that the Cons unceremoniously dumped on parliament on Wednesday and have already discovered startling new allegations - including reports of summary executions of transferred detainees.

You can read what they've found so far here.

Further proof that a public inquiry is the only legitimate vehicle for uncovering the truth.
 

This is democracy?

The maxim goes that if you don't have anything to hide - don't act like you do.

Apparently, Harper's Conservatives either:

a) don't understand that concept

or

b) have something to hide

The smart money is on b).

From filibustering a committee meeting to refuse to have the widow of the former Rights and Democracy president to testify to, of course (and for years now), using every single obstructionist tactic it can possibly dream up to deny MPs access to documents about allegations of torture on Afghan detainees handled by Canadian forces, this perpetually arrogant minority government cadre of Conservatives believes that democracy is only something that works according to its restrictive rules.

The only good news is that the Canadian people, according to the latest poll, don't think these Cons are anywhere near deserving to rule as the majority party. And it looks like the collective opposition is finally growing a real spine by threatening MacKay et al with contempt of parliament. What is truly laughable in the situation with these torture documents is that MPs are not to be trusted with national security matters - unless they are in the governing party, apparently.

That's not the way to run this country.

And that the opposition refuses to push this government out of office while its attempts to rule by fiat only increase in audacity every week shows how truly weak they really are.

We're talking about a cover-up of torture here.

But, after all, what have we learned from our neighbours to the south these past few years when it comes to concerns about torture and their lack of urgency as expressed by so-called "liberals"? We've learned that those who authorized torture and who publicly condone - even flaunt - its use in public (a la Dick Cheney and Karl Rove) can admit their war crimes without any consequence whatsoever from those with the power to go after them legally.

There's not much breathing room on the political scale between the Democrats and the Liberals (not that the NDP is off the hook for this lack of urgency either) when it comes to forcefully and immediately standing up for the human rights of torture victims. Why? Because they're just as complicit - either by taking part in the cover-up or in failing to act in any way that actually mattered when they had the power to do so.

So, we coast and wait and coast and wait until the powers that be deem that "Canadians want an election" or until some international body finally forces some actual accountability - which could be years, decades from now.

In the meantime, we boast about how wonderful our "democracy" is and how those "third-world" countries would do so much better to mimic our so-called "representative" and uncorrupted systems.

Just who are we trying to fool - besides ourselves?
 

Torture in Afghanistan: There WILL be a Public Inquiry

The house has voted on the NDP's motion to hold a public inquiry into the fate of Afghan detainees amid allegations that some may have been tortured after they were transferred to Afghan authorities.

The vote, with the support of all of the opposition parties, has passed.

There's no more hiding the truth, Cons. You have lost.

By the numbers:

Yea: 146

Nay: 129
 

Torture in Afghanistan: The Coverup Continues

This is all very simple: if Peter MacKay wants to be believed when he says that no Afghan detainees handed over to Afghan authorities by the Canadian military were victims of torture, he needs to release all of the relevant documents to prove his assertion. As long as he refuses to do so, he and his Conservative government don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

(And they certainly don't deserve to be cut any slack, no matter what Chantal Hebert thinks. Is anybody out there denying that this "mess" started with the Liberals? No. I didn't think so.)

Peter MacKay can't have it both ways - but he'll definitely keep trying. He and his Con buddies have spent days smearing Richard Colvin and insisting that he couldn't prove that there were any "credible" allegations of detainee abuse. Yet, here's what MacKay admitted today when his back was against the wall because of General Natynczyk's weekend revelations:

"Most recently the reason that the transfers stopped was that the Afghan officials were not living up to ... expectations," MacKay said during question period in the House of Commons.

He told Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff that the government acted as soon as "credible allegations came to our attention."

Meanwhile, Colvin is unable to properly defend himself.

As he stated during his opening statement last week:

In October 2007, I left Afghanistan and started a new job in Washington, D.C. In April 2009, I was subpoenaed by the Military Police Complaints Commission. In response, DFAIT, in collaboration with the Department of Justice, took three significant steps.

First, they’ve made it very difficult for me to access legal counsel. This ongoing problem has still not been resolved.

Second, DFAIT and the Department of Justice, again working together, blocked my access to my own reports from Afghanistan. I was told, “We will decide which of your reports you require.” I was given none of them.

Third, government lawyers have threatened me under section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act. This had the effect of placing me in an impossible position. If I refuse to co-operate with the MPCC subpoena, I could be jailed for up to six months, but I did co-operate under section 38 I could be jailed for up to five years.

When this warning was sent, DFAIT and the Department of Justice, again acting together, were still withholding approval for legal counsel, depriving me of legal advice and protections.

So, MacKay is free to strut and crow while Colvin remains under threat from a government that absolutely refuses to allow the man to back up his testimony with actual evidence.

This is democracy? This is Canada?

With General Hillier set to invoke the Alberto Gonzales "I don't recall" defense when he testifies this Wednesday, followed by an emergency damage control effort by David Mulroney who has requested to appear as well, the Cons will continue to dig in their obstructionist heels as they attempt to hide the truth.

The lingering question is why?

And the only obvious answer is that they can't afford to let that truth be known. And not for Canada's sake - as they continue to insist. This is all about politics. Human rights be damned.
 

Secret prisons by any other name...

The NYT reports that the ICRC will now be given the names of so-called terrorist suspects in Obama's secret prisons "temporary screening sites" in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But, wait a minute, you're thinking - didn't Obama close the secret prisons?

Well, no.

The executive order he signed last January only included secret CIA prisons. (And we'll never really know if that has actually happened, will we?) Meanwhile, the US military is still more than free to have its own little private gulags.

The New York Times reported in 2006 that some soldiers at the temporary detention site in Iraq, then located at Baghdad International Airport and called Camp Nama, beat prisoners with rifle butts, yelled and spit in their faces, and used detainees for target practice in a game of jailer paintball.

Military officials say conditions at the camps have improved significantly since then, but virtually all details of the sites remain shrouded in secrecy.

There's more of that promised transparency Obama campaigned on.

How often do we need to be reminded that people taken prisoner during these wars have been continuously denied their basic human rights while our governments pretend otherwise?
 

Coderre Says McKay Has 'Chronic Pinocchio Syndrome'

The approved PMO talking points about the bungled Afghan detainee situation were out in full force during Monday's Question Period as the Cons who spoke to the issue went to great lengths to again blame the Liberals for their "flawed" detainee transfer agreement that the Cons supposedly improved upon. (Remember when they said the Red Cross was monitoring those detainees and the Red Cross staunchly denied it?. So much for the Cons' assertions and so much for their defence.)

In response to one opposition member's question, Peter McKay pulled out this old line as well:

"We're not going to talk about the details...because that only helps the Taliban."

How, exactly? No one really knows, but it's a handy talking point that once again infers that the opposition parties are only interested in helping the Taliban and don't care about Canadian soldiers. What he fails to get, obviously, is that when allegations of torture result from the actions of our soldiers while his government completely mishandles the issue, he puts our soldiers at risk.

And Harper had the audacity to say, after being challenged with the point that even the secretive Bush administration announces its operational handling of detainees, that at least the Canadian government doesn't send its transfers to Gitmo. If that's what he thinks about Gitmo, why isn't he doing anything to free Omar Khadr from that gulag?

When confronted by Stephane Dion about the fact that those sacred "operational details" about the transfers were released to the court (in the case the BC Civil Liberties Association and Amnesty International are involved in surrounding these allegations) and not to the house, Harper had multiple choice answers. Initially, he said that is was revealed in court to "show clearly that the Canadian forces and authorities in the Canadian government at all levels always respect our humanitarian and international obligations". But, when pressed further by Dion who wondered aloud why information that is "good to be disclosed in court" isn't good to reveal to Canadians Harper said, "for their only legal reasons, the lawyers in that case chose to disclose this information". And that is exactly what did happen: the government's lawyers had no choice but to disclose it. It wasn't about them trying to show how wonderful we are. It was a court-mandated release of information.

On top of that, the current status of the agreement has now been muddied with Harper stating that the military has the "discretion" about whether to turn over detainees now. So, first the Cons stated the transfers had stopped and now they're saying that they haven't really. When pressed about where these detainees are now ending up, the government refused to respond. "Operational security", you see.

But the best line of the day went to Dennis Coderre who said McKay has "chronic Pinocchio syndrome". At the rate his nose is growing (along with the rest of his partisan liars), he'll soon end up poking somebody's eye out. In response to that accusation, McKay said, "Nobody has said that I had no information about what was happening...". Pardon me?

In an e-mail to The Globe and Mail on Thursday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's communications director, Sandra Buckler, said the military did not tell the government about the suspension [of the transfer agreement].

Ms. Buckler called Friday to say she “misspoke” but would not say whether the military had or had not informed the government.

Can you lie just a little bit more, Mckay?

Radwanski of the G&M reported this quote today from Harper's press conference during which he supported Manley's so-called "blue ribbon" panel on the future of Canada's role in Afghanistan:

"There has been no issue that has caused me as Prime Minister more headache, and quite frankly more heartache..."

Hmm...that sounds familiar:

During an interview on NBC's Today show Wednesday concerning Malaria Awareness Day, Laura Bush talked to Ann Curry about "other challenges her husband is facing."

"You know the American people are suffering watching --," Curry said to the first lady.

"Oh, I know that very much," Laura Bush responded. "And believe me, no one suffers more than their president and I do when we watch this, and certainly the commander in chief, who has asked our military to go into harm's way."

Curry then asked, "What do you think the American public need to know about your husband?"

"Well, I hope they do know the burden, the worry that's on his shoulders every single day for our troops," Bush said. "And I think they do. I mean, I think if they don't, they're not seeing what the real responsibilities of our president are."

Pity the warmongers!

As Radwanski asked upon hearing the same kind of mush from Harper: "Who is this guy"?

Exactly.

When all else fails, channel Bush and hope it works. (You'd think Harper would take a look at Bush's approval numbers to see how effective that particular strategy is.) What's next? Dressing up like Commander Codpiece?

According to a new poll, it looks like the Conservatives might not even manage to keep the pathetic numbers they currently have if they continue to spin this issue the way they've been doing. One thing is certain: Harper's restrictive communications strategy, in which you couldn't pull the truth out of his ass with a tractor, is failing.

Photo credit: Canadian Press
 

Quote du Jour: Hell Edition

Via the G & M:

OTTAWA — A Conservative MP said it's up to the Prime Minister to decide whether to fire his chief spokeswoman for making false statements about Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

The government sent out two designated speakers Saturday — one English, one French — to defend Prime Minister Stephen Harper's communications director Sandra Buckler.

Other Conservatives grumbled privately that her misleading remarks are the latest example of how a potential good-news story about the Afghan mission has been plunged into the bowels of public-relations hell.

Enjoy the heat, Cons.
 

What is Hillier Hiding?

I'd like someone from this new, "US Joint Chiefs of Staff" sounding "Strategic Joint Staff" to tell me exactly how releasing the number of Afghan detainees handled by the Canadian military may: "be very prejudicial to the safety of CF [Canadian Forces] and allied personnel, may be of significant information operations value to the enemy and may assist in undermining the effectiveness of Canada's efforts to support the stability of the Government of Afghanistan,”, as reported in Monday's Globe and Mail.

And I would also like to know why the DND is using the Bush trick of reclassifying formerly unclassified documents as per this ridiculousness:

..Lt.-Col. Clarke suggested it had been a mistake for DND to release information about detainees earlier and that the department was rethinking its disclosure policy.

“In the process, we are learning that some of the information that may have been previously released in response to an Access to Information Request can be used against CF personnel and objectives in the operational theatre,” he wrote, adding that any additional information could help the enemy get a better picture of Canadian operations.

It's kind of late to stuff that back into the box now, isn't it? If the DND truly believes that it put Canadian troops in harm's way by releasing that information, everyone involved should be fired immediately and that includes political hack Rick Hillier and the most useless excuse this country has ever had for a defence minister, Gordon O'Connor.