Comments on: Weekend reading

By: McKenzie1

McKenzie1 — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:01:06 +0000

For all those commentators who still maintain that Colvin's reports about torture and abuse of detainees are lacking credibility, there's a simple test to determine if you are correct. It's this: Since Colvin made his claims about detainees being tortured has corroborating evidence from multiple sources appeared? The answer to this question is a resounding yes.
And to anyone who continues to maintain Colvin's lack of credibility let me ask you this question: what kind of evidence is required for National Security Certificates? Is CSIS required to provide only 'concrete' evidence or are they permitted to use hearsay, third hand accounts or even rumours and speculation?

By: kcm

kcm — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:53:52 +0000

'In this case since I suspect that the documents in question contain no "smoking gun", the inability to release them actually helps Colvin, not the government. So no, it's not "convenient " for the government"

But that would be the action of a responsible and consistent govt – are you telling me this govt wouldn't find a way to release any documents that vindicate them…in a heart beat!

By: MaggiesFarmboy

MaggiesFarmboy — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:29:43 +0000

The Department of Justice regularly objects to the release of information that might harm national security. There has never been a judgement which has suggested that they have done so to prevent "embarrassment", or for reasons of government "convenience".

In this case since I suspect that the documents in question contain no "smoking gun", the inability to release them actually helps Colvin, not the government. So no, it's not "convenient " for the government.

By: MaggiesFarmboy

MaggiesFarmboy — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:54:47 +0000

And another thing, so what if the documents were shown to two retired generals?

They have already seen them!

It's obviously very hard to sustain a claim of national security confidentiality against people who have previously seen the information in question. There is absolutely nothing nefarious about allowing the generals to see documents not made available to Parliamentarians, when they have already seen the documents.

The Parliamentarians may complain, but if they want to change the law, well, they know who to go to to make those changes, don't they?

By: MaggiesFarmboy

MaggiesFarmboy — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:47:23 +0000

There is no legal reason to redact the word "torture". No one, including Colvin himself, has suggested that he explicitly mentioned the threat of torture in any of the 2006 memos.

Consequently, I find myself in rare agreement with Blatchford: Mr. Colvin has some splainin' to do.

By: burlivespipe

burlivespipe — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:34:34 +0000

That B*S* response worked wonders for the Bush-Cheney vaudeville show; now that we've seen the movie and like most of the world are still paying for the ticket, I dare say the 'create a faux goat' tactic may not hit its mark a second time around… But keep copying the Republican playbook. Hopefully it will lead your so-called leader to an equally deserving conclusion.

By: burlivespipe

burlivespipe — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:28:26 +0000

Flanagan's really the one 'just visiting' and trying to influence the Canadian way of life. His protege is 'just following.'

By: kcm

kcm — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:41:07 +0000

That's convenient…for the govt that is. And…i thought the generals had not seen Colvin's reports in particular…or was i not paying close enough attention?

By: Big Dave S

Big Dave S — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:37:04 +0000

Hi Fat Arse
Your comment misses the point I am making, which is that there is an issue here which YOU bring up which IS very real, but there is also the reaction and frame of mind that knee-jerk people from both sides are bringing, hoping for a specific conclusion before facts exist to back them up.
I think your position is quite reasonable, though I disagree with it.
I am quite ready to say that I don't know who is correct or to be believed here- I can't imagine a career diplomat like Colvin being a liar or villain, in fact I'm much more inclined to believe that he's trying to do the right thing. That in itself doesn't mean he's correct. (As an aside, this stuff that "its not about the soldiers its about the leadership" seems like hypocritical tripe though. If Colvin is claiming that our detainee transfer policy is flawed, then sure. But if he is claiming that the overwhelming majority of our detainees are innocent, then that surely is an accusation against the men in the field.)

My point is, I disagree with your conclusion but I think you're coming from a reasonable place.

I think that the majority of commenters are coming from a respectful place, and I too would like the truth of the matter and wish the Conservatives would be dealing with the issue in a more straightforward manner.But to answer a previous poster, I have been paying attention, to the columnists and commenters over the past weeks. And I think one would have to be blind not to see that there are those gleefully hoping to find military misdeeds. And anyone living in Canada that has been paying attention to their neighbours knows that there IS a sadly significant segment of our population that views our soldiers as villains, as morally equivalent to their enemies, and hopes for them to be accused of war crimes.
If anyone wonders if I'm accusing them, I can't answer. They have to ask themselves how they react to accusations or testimony against our Forces.
And folks who throw out words like "stupid" and "ignorant" based on my short post ALSO say more about the frame of mind they bring to the issue.

By: kcm

kcm — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:39:59 +0000

Sigh…more conjecture…how can you possibly know what motivated him? As to it being good advise…it might as easliy be seen as suppression. If i wanted to raise some wind and i thought i was being ignored/suppressed i'd try and contact as many individuals as i could.

By: kcm

kcm — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:31:47 +0000

Oops…Colvin revealed as…

By: kcm

kcm — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:30:30 +0000

How you can actually see that commenters are "gleefully hoping" to find military misdeeds is nothing but conjecture, and therefore worthless, other than as opinion. Similarly if i were to assert that some commenters were gleefully hoping to see Colvi evealed as a taliban dupe…mere conjecture.
Anyhow asseting "this" is not quite what you asseted above.
"folks are very hopeful to see our soldiers shown to be guilty of war crimes. Says more about themselves than our soldiers"

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:59:26 +0000

"I used to work with Glyn Berry, Colvin's predecessor…"

*cough*bullsh*t*cough.

If you're ready to venture that kind of insider information, you wouldn't do so anonymously.

By: Mike R

Mike R — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:11:58 +0000

Mr. Colvin's 2006 memoranda are more concerned with bookeeping than with any actual concerns that prisoners had actually been abused, much less tortured. If there are other memoranda that are more on point it will be interesting to see them, but the ones disclosed so far wouldn't raise any issues that weren't already being dealt with by others who actually had responsibility for them.
His later ones appear to be motivated at least in part out of dudgeon at being told to stop sending blanket e-mails to dozens of people. Which seems to be good advice. If you want people to actually do something, you send a request to the one or two people who might have responsiblity, not dozens.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:46:28 +0000

It's still bullsh*t.

By: doug_rogers

doug_rogers — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:44:21 +0000

Why would they be the only ones in otherwise stellar careers? Everyone but the government is lying.

By: Style

Style — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:28:26 +0000

Foreign Affairs has over 2,000 employees and works closely with other government departments, so its not exactly insider information to have crossed paths with Glynn Berry or to understand how the department is structured.

By: Style

Style — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:48:18 +0000

Hmm, and are his accusations the only war crimes in Hillier and Mulroney's otherwise stellar careers?

By: Fat Arse

Fat Arse — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:08:51 +0000

Hey Big Dave,
Your comment belies ignorance regarding the issue.
You fail to understand the detainee debacle is not about the troops.
It is about the policymakers who have placed them in untenable positions.
The calls for a full accounting of the Harper government's actions have arisen precisely because Canadians do not wish to see our brave Afghan forces placed in legal jeopardy because they have been ordered to follow an operationally questionable status-quo that was known to be broken. Only a small mind could possible believe that any sane Canadian is 'hoping' to see our guys and gals get accused of war crimes. Following directives from DND and Foreign Affairs, our people in Afghanistan deserve to be provided with the policy framework possible to facilitate their success on the ground. When it becomes known that a policy is weak, flawed, and/or illegal – it is up to Ottawa to rectify the situation without delay. And that sir, is what this detainee fiasco is all about: unacceptable delays in policy adjustment at the highest levels of our government.

By: TicToc

TicToc — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:56:05 +0000

Good goddam, but some Canucks are stupid. No Dave, it's not the soldiers as Blahferd believes, it's their political masters who tell them what to do. And that's where the problem lies. Good Goddamm, but that is pointedly obvious isn't it?

By: Anon

Anon — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:54:40 +0000

Using our soldiers to hide incompetence again, I see.

This coming from a bunch that, according to TheGreatSaint Hillier, didn't want TV images of the coffins of soldiers killed on the battlefield.

Do you guys have no shame?

By: Anon

Anon — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:51:20 +0000

He (or I) are not pretending to know people-in-the-news, and then using that as a cover to malign somebody else. Got it?

By: Anon

Anon — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:49:33 +0000

Yes, someone going by the handle "Two Yen" is more believable than somebody who is posted at our Embassy in the US and testifies under oath!

Right.

By: SisyphusThis

SisyphusThis — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:45:15 +0000

Or even here ... http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.htm...

By: mlc

mlc — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:44:38 +0000

So whats your name???

By: kcm

kcm — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:26:02 +0000

I haven't read much of Colvin's testimony…from this clip i'd say his criticisms of the military are very pointed indeed, and very courageous. Although how he expected our pitiful parliamentary process[ particularly under this govt ] to get to the bottom of this is baffling to me. I still haven't decided if he's a brave crusader or a hopelessly lost naif.

By: kcm

kcm — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:13:20 +0000

'Once the decision was made, by Canada and our allies, to transfer detainees to the NDS, it wasn't helpful to repeat general observations about the NDS'

I n other words don't rock the boat, shut up and go file some reports that evryone will later claim not to have seen…can't think why he bothered at all?

By: Greg

Greg — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:10:44 +0000

Big Dave that is complete nonsense. You should be ashamed.

By: kcm

kcm — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:07:57 +0000

Are you paying attention at all?

By: kcm

kcm — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:59:53 +0000

Flanagan is contemptible. He may be saying it's just the way things are. But nonetheless absent anything else one must assume he approves. in fact i believe he goes on to say that the libs should stop whining and get busy too. Political scientists like Flanagan should bear more than a little of the blame for our polity becoming a shameless liars den.

By: kcm

kcm — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:31:38 +0000

HAHAHA!!! And you moron's were wondering if i ever visit Maclean's boards.
Steyn…ooh damn i meant to sign Whyte.

By: doug_rogers

doug_rogers — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:24:07 +0000

You might expect a more negative and critical assessment here: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.htm...

By: Big Dave S

Big Dave S — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:17:22 +0000

Folks are very hopeful to see our soldiers shown to be guilty of war crimes. Says more about themselves than our soldiers.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:56:41 +0000

"but I can say that, based on my experience and knowledge…"

And that means what, exactly?

Spare us, please.

By: Style

Style — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:40:20 +0000

Which is not to say that Colvin was lying or fabricating, just transmitting facts that didn't support the strong conclusions he offered at the committee?

Mulroney mentioned that Colvin was re-opening policy debates without offering new information, which may have contributed to the reception of his advice. I found this quote from Colvin suggestive: So I said, “Look, you know, the NDS tortures people, that's what they do. And if we don't want our detainees tortured, we shouldn't give them to the NDS.” I was a bit taken aback to see the CEFCOM note-taker stop writing. She didn't write that down and then she put her pen down.

Once the decision was made, by Canada and our allies, to transfer detainees to the NDS, it wasn't helpful to repeat general observations about the NDS.

By: TwoYen

TwoYen — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:39:04 +0000

I am not in a position to comment on an individual's career, but I can say that, based on my experience and knowledge, some descriptions of his seniority that I have seen in the media are blown out of proportion.

By: doug_rogers

doug_rogers — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:30:41 +0000

Why would these be the only incredible fabrications in his – otherwise seemingly stellar and trustworthy -career?

By: TwoYen

TwoYen — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:26:23 +0000

from Christie B's article….
"By the kindest reckoning, he [Colvin] would have spent a grand total of a half-day outside the wire in Kandahar.

Certainly, this does not diminish his time in that hard country – and he was there as a diplomat, not as a soldier or journalist – but it does mean he got nowhere near what's called a “point-of-capture” on a battlefield and had no visceral sense of who it was Canadian troops were detaining."…

My own comment…

I used to work with Glyn Berry, Colvin's predecessor, and have direct experience on how the reporting structure for his job works. I found David Mulroney's evidence both believable and compelling.

It is becoming abundantly clear on the other hand that Colvin's reports lacked credibility, all the more so because he had no first hand knowledge of what was happening. It is not at all surprising therefore that the military and others with a more direct experience raised red flags about what he was saying.

By: Style

Style — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:11:11 +0000

His comments aren't confined to the leadership in those quotes (although he singles them out). And going out of your way to note that there are exceptions to a rule isn't exactly denying the rule…

By: Jenn_

Jenn_ — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:13:06 +0000

And even if he is giving the military brass a knock or two, it is a far cry from knocking the soldiers, as Blatchford would have us believe.

By: Jack Mitchell

Jack Mitchell — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:07:07 +0000

It was both, as I dimly recall. Many stories sentimentalising the highly professional CF, others that turned around and talked about how certain soldiers — she actually gave their names, I couldn't believe it — would experience incapacitating physical fear (as one does in battle, by all accounts). It was those latter columns that made me think she was just exploiting our soldiers for copy.

By: sea_n_mountains

sea_n_mountains — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:04:40 +0000

i love what gets a thumbs down around these parts.

MCKenzie makes an obvious point – even a whole set of partial documents is still a partial account – and gets a thumbs down. who wants to put their name on that bit of brilliance?

By: Jack Mitchell

Jack Mitchell — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:01:35 +0000

But he criticises "the Canadian Forces leadership" here, and goes out of his way to say that DND has lots of people who are not so secretive. I wouldn't say that's "knocking the army."

By: Style

Style — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:56:43 +0000

Colvin seems to knock the military more than once in his testimony, suggesting it has a culture of secrecy and was concealing information from monitors and politicians. He even suggests that DND official sin Ottawa deliberately avoided noting his comments on detainees so that it wouldn't appear in official reports. He's a brave guy and I respect him for coming forward with his concerns, but he also seems frustrated with the culture of .

By: Holly Stick

Holly Stick — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:51:37 +0000

Tom Flanagan demonstrates how trustworthy the Harper government is:

"…According to Flanagan, attack ads and flyers work if a party can successfully skirt the line between truth and distortion.

"If an attack is totally fictional, it will backfire if there's not truth in it at all," he says. "Canadians will tolerate attacks based on half-truths, misstatements, partial misstatements and distortions. As long as there is some basis there it becomes a matter of debate. If there's no basis it will backfire."…"

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2009/11…