Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

A serious allegation

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, March 5, 2010 10:35pm - 238 Comments

The CBC led tonight’s National with a rather serious allegation: that detainees in Afghanistan were deliberately transferred so that torture could be used to extract information. The allegation is made by University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who claims to have seen uncensored documents that indicate this.

Here is Terry Milewski’s report. Make of it what you will.

Tags: Afghanistan, Amir Attaran, cbc, detainees, The National, torture, transfers, University of Ottawa

More by Aaron Wherry

wellwell

If true, this is big. The government could fall over this.

wilson

You are assuming the allegations are about the current government.
Amir Attaran was after DFAIT's HR reports from 2002-2006 , through the courts, but lost.

Anon ABC

So, if it is really about the Libs, why is Harper refusing to give up those documents and risking contempt of Parliament. Does he like Iggy so much?

wilson

? ? It's not Iggy he would be protecting,
Iggy would have been still writting pro Bush articles when all this was happening

the 'rendition' Attaran speaks of,
is that not the US scheme, circa 2004?

The written version of the CBC report is here Mr Wherry
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/05/afghan-…

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Oh Wilson, still in never, neverland.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

You conveniently forget wilson, that the Liberals have already stated they are perfectly fine with any inquiry or documents to detail what happened from the start of this Afghan mission as it pertains to prisoners and transfers.

wilson

I haven't forgotten that Iffy is perfectly fine to throw every Liberal leader that preceeded him, out with the trash.
Look what he did to Dion. I wouldn't be bragging about it.

If we are talking JTF2 (something Travers hinted at weeks ago) and 'rendition and war crimes',
and hand over to 'torturers' (not Afghan guards),
what's the first thought that pops into your head Scott?
Katherine

The fact that Ignatieff returned to Canada so recently may turn out to be an unexpected blessing, if the allegations are true. He's sufficiently detatched from the previous history of the Liberal party that he's more likely to allow an investigation of what the Chretien and Martin governments did in Afghanistan than any other Liberal leader would be.

Why the Conservatives would cover so hard for the Liberals is another question, but not necessarily surprising given how hard Obama's covering for Bush.

burlivespipe

Ahh, the on-cue CON sgt schultz defence — we knew nothing and if we know something, its because the Liberals did it!
It never gets old.

biff

Enough of this Canadian pride,

back to the important leftist task of casting ourselves in the international light of shame, and guilt.

The dicotomy over witnessing our greatness over the last three weeks, with how the left will once again attempt to herald the plight of Taliban monsters will be interesting to see.

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

How sad, you believe everything Harper's mind manipulators throw out to you. Sad indeed.
biff

Funny how the media is more that willing to attach a labe of "right wing" onto somebody they wish the public to be skeptical of, regardless as to whether there is inherent truth to the statements made,

but the term "left wing" doesn't even exist in media discourse,

even when its an obvious far left winger with an agenda.

Today's balanced media: where there's no bell to the curve, only a slope that starts in the middle and ends on the "right wing".

illbethejudge

Speculation Alert, but here it is…
I doubt the CBC would have run this story unless they were convinced he HAD indeed seen the documents.
How could they be so convinced? Perhaps he has a copy.
Why would they not show them? Because the RCMP would rain down on them all with search warrants under national security.
I will not be at all surprised if, at some point in the future, it is revealed out Amir Attaran was leaked a copy of the unredacted documents.
I just don't see Mr. Attaran or the CBC doing an explosive story like this unless they were 100% sure they could defend it. The proof will be in the pudding. Watch the official Conservative government reaction. It will tell you all you need to know. Bet they're in meetings RIGHT now, trying to figure out how to deal with it.
Mike T.

If it's true, the government MUST fall over this.

Jake

Release the files.
It has to happen.
Anon ABC

Derek Lee should file his motion. If the opposition cannot hold the govt accountable for not following an order of Parliament, then we do not have Parliamentary democracy any more. Colvin's stand would have been in vain.

wilson

The motion is on hold.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

It was as of this am. After this report, it may not be as of Monday.

Remember too, that it's not just the Liberals who can file contempt of Parliament Points of order. Any opposition MP can do so.

Anon Liberal

Terry Milewski is a serious journalist. I'd be worried if I was Harper.

wilson

They are all serious reporters, and then they get re-assigned to star watch in the US.
Rob H

Milewski is a left wing hack. No one believes Canadian media "journalists". They just peddle the latest socialist spin whether its human caused global warming or that Iraq was better off under Saddam.

burlivespipe

You hide behind that lame retort. Chretien didn't like Milewski's conclusions and if this report he's filed finds legs, I doubt your whiney so-called leader will like it either. And I dare say there's 100,000 plus Iraqis who as victims of an illegal war could care less who was in government, just as long as they would be alive for another day.
Patchouli

You're an idiot; Milewski is a smart and balanced reporter.

Have you forgotten he was blamed for being too partisan AGAINST the Liberals by Cretien's office back during the Asia Pacific economic conference here? He was suspended from CBC and investigated — and found to be fair and honest in his reporting.

Come on, try harder. Find someone else to blame besides the guy who brings you the story. I know — how about blaming the harper government for trying to hide something from Canada?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

The opposition parties should reject this retired SC judge gambit as of right now. Demand full disclosure as Parliament has ordered.

wilson

Go for it, table the motion,
I'm sure Canadians will understand being dragged into an election because an Afghan detainee got cuffed upside the head with a shoe, by an Afghan guard….because that's all yah got right now, oh and the word of a dude who says he has seen things.

Anon ABC

Steve told you Canadians don't care, didn't he … just like they did not care about prorogation?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

And just to be clear by "cuffed upside the head with a shoe, by an Afghan guard", wilson means "beaten until bloody with the boots of several Afghani guards"

wilson

Ok, cuffed upside the head with 'several' boots.
Still nothing compared to how Afghan women are treated on a daily basis.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Oh spare us the histrionics…your "concern" is transparently false.
http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

So that's our new Canadian standard: 'hey, we abuse our prisoners less than the Taliban abuses theirs.'

You sound like Rumsfeld after Abu Ghraib went public: 'Well, it's certainly less abuse than Saddam's people were committing!'

Canadians are supposed to be better than that. Our handling of these allegations will be the proof (or disproof).
http://intensedebate.com/people/Nich Nich

Your Canadians; not Wilson's.

http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

Go for it, table the motion, I'm sure Canadians will understand being dragged into an election

Maybe it's becoming more about accountability, credibility and transparency? Could they become issues in an election? Sounds like a theme developing….. Stephen Harper misread prorogation, could he be misreading this too?

rayk

Stephen Harper has ignored legal orders hand over documents and even suspended parliament to cover up possible illegal behaviour by ministers in his government.

Notice how that sentence doesn't even mention "Afghan detainees"?

I think your on to something, danby, when you suggest the may be more about accountability than anything else.

Mike T.

There doesn't need to be an election, there needs to be following of the rules.

And if there is, Harper needs to campaign from jail.

biff

If a company outperforms its competitors, its a success.

If an athlete wins gold, he's the best.

In order to guage performance, the obvious way is to guage the performer to other performers.

Except if to do so would shed light on the strength of our economy at a time when the press wishes to cast a pall of dissappointment on the dreaded conservative (read unworthy) government.

Today's coverage stayed safely away (or buried it at the bottom) from the single most important guage of our economy: our performance relative to other countries.

Whitewash here, scandal chase there: today's "responsible" journalism.

Dunbar A. Fortiori

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNe…

CTV.ca News

Date: Fri. Mar. 5 2010 10:25 PM ET

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is facing the ire of opposition critics who say the minister isn't leading by example, after it was revealed that he used a private jet to sell his belt-tightening budget Friday.

The day after he unveiled the government's new budget, the finance minister flew from Ottawa to London, Ont., on a Challenger jet so he could do media interviews at Tim a Horton's coffee shop.

The opposition says the flight cost taxpayers $9,000, compared to a commercial flight, which runs about $800.

Liberal MP David McGuinty said that Flaherty is asking that Canadians cut back while he travels on a private plane.

"He can't say he wants Canadians and the government and public services to be reined in, while he spends so flagrantly."

Flaherty's office told CTV Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife that the private flight was necessary because of scheduling. The office said that Flaherty would be returning to Ottawa on a commercial flight.

However, it costs another $9,000 just for the jet to return, Fife added.

Justin

They don't have Tim Hortons in Ottawa? Or better yet, how about use the Parliamentary Press Gallery? Or are there no votes to win in there?
wilson

The Canadian taxpayer also picks up the tab to fly Ruby Dhalla's momma around with her/

Gayle

Yes, well, that totally makes it A OK that Flaherty abuses his position so he can fly a private jet while so many Canadians are out of work.

Wilson, honestly, you are not going to lose your title as Harper's biggest shill just because you do not defend every little thing his government does.

Justin

The funny thing about this is that Flaherty choosing to fly on a commerical jet back to Ottawa actually cost the government MORE because the plane had to fly back anyways. He just didn't want to be labelled as having flown in the expensive plane too much.

burlivespipe

The constant prattling of biff and wilson — tweedle-dee and tweedle-doo — makes my heart sing. Their rapid response to these niggling questions would indicate both their tinfoil and talking point memos are working overtime. That must mean there's smoke and fire.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

I see your point, but still hurts my soul to know that such people can be so easily bought.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

If this is true, can we all understand why, with Canadian troops still over there, that there is an actual national security interest in keeping some secrets a secret?

Or are we STILL all so eager to yell COVER-UP!!!!! and PARLIAMENT IS SUPREME!!!!! at Harper for the frisson of sticking it to Harper, even though he may be covering for a previous administration and even when the collateral damage to Canadians in Kandahar is a very real risk?

Just wondering.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

No, I don't see a national security interest here. You are, understandably, concerned for the welfare of our soldiers. But I put it to you that if a) regular Afghanis knew about this anyway, it would be helpful to our soldiers if we stood up and condemned the pracitce, assured Afghanis that we will not tolerate, etc. b) regular Afghanis didn't know about this, and will hear about it ALONG WITH our condemnation of said bad behaviour on our part. Honesty, accountability, a novel concept that just might grow on them c) The taliban. Who cares what they did or didn't know, they are out to kill us no matter what we do, say, think, etc.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

You are, commendably, calling on common sense and civility to reign supreme where propaganda actually rules. With our soldiers still over there in harm's way, I am afraid I cannot share your idealism.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Ah, well I hadn't taken that into consideration, you are right. I do look to common sense probably more than I should. Then again, we haven't started an anti-propaganda campaign either (probably because we don't know the truth yet).

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

And, with respect, neither you nor I can obviously "see" whether there is a national security interest or not. Because we have not seen the documents.

What has me flabbergasted is the verbiage over the last several weeks that seems to suggest that there is NO national secret worthy of keeping secret, no matter what damage the exposure would do to our nation's interest. That's just incredibly naive, or so incredibly partisan as to be begging for harm to come to Canada so the party in power might suffer at the next ballot box.

Jenn, you seem to suggest that the country would be better served for properly dealing with some embarrassing issues. While I am not completely convinced (especially since neither of us knows just what the "secrets" are), it is of course a legitimate stance. And you have offered the courtesy of a conversation. So thank you for that. To the silent thumbs downers out there, may I remind you that you are more than welcome to post a response. I look forward to reading tomorrow what you unknown dissenters might actually have to say. Good night.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Fred_Moro Fred_Moro

"you seem to suggest that the country would be better served for properly dealing with some embarrassing issues"

The country would be better served yes, following the rule of law shows to the world that our laws are not just enforced in time of peace but also in time of crisis. That is what makes us better, if we cannot follow our own rules then we are no better than the people shooting at our soldiers in Afghanistan.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Your point about neither of us knowing what the secrets are is well taken and of course might well change my opinion once known. But going on what I assume the documents might show, and I assume they might show we did some either misguided or downright horrible things, but we did them IN THE PAST and haven't been doing that anymore in more recent history. So that is why I think it would not affect today's National Security (along with the other stuff I already said).

In addition, I have no problems with the documentation not seeing the public light of day, if that is the issue, which is why I particularly liked the MPCC forum for this whole mess. But to suggest, in a democracy, that our elected representatives have no right to know what the government has done in our name is, well, past ridiculous and into no-longer-a-democracy, I think.

Mike T.

Except that the one guy in the public who HAS seen the documents suggests there could be wrongdoing greater than anyone ever thought.

There's definitely enough that this should be explored in a transparent manner. Details which could reveal sensitive current military information should be kept secret, everything else must come to light.

Out There

I have no problem with the concept of some national secrets being worthy of being kept secret from the general public. But there is no national secret that should be kept concealed from Parliament. Canada's MPs are the duly elected leaders of Canada. Stephen Harper is not a King.

I believe that the opposition has agreed to allow some Parliamentary debates or discussions kept closed to the general public. And I have no problem with that.

Saying that some business of the Canadian government must be kept concealed from the vast majority of its elected representatives smacks of autocracy.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

If only I could share your trust in MPs to protect secrets. As a group they've been a partisan self-serving sieve for all sorts of information.
Out There

I don't particularly trust MPs. The idea that somebody like Rob Anders has access to any information at all, other than perhaps what is on the Parliamentary cafeteria's menu, scares me senseless. But, like or it or not, the members of Parliament are the only government we have.

The alternative – the Prime Minister and the PMO keeping secrets from the rest of the government – is scarier to me than the idea of some rogue MP giving away Canadian secrets to some enemy or other.

And, in my opinion, it is the Conservative MPs who have been the most partisan and self-serving of the lot. Their job seems to be to parrot the government's talking points and serve as attack dogs as needed.

On my gloomier days, I wonder whether the plan is to try to eliminate Parliament entirely. If (the reasoning goes) Parliament consists of nothing but squabbling and untrustworthy partisan shills, why not dispense with it altogether?
Dunbar A. Fortiori

You're not "Out There."

My Member of Parliament is Stephen Harper. Previously Preston Manning. I actually pine for Preston's representation and can say with certitude I would like to roll the clock back. That's conservative.

common man

What myl said. Very well put. The reckless actions of the opposition on this file assumes that Harper acts only as leader of the CPC, and not the leader of a country responsible for thousands of Canadians abroad.

If I thought for a minute that the primary reason for this reckless attitude of the opp. was not to harm the CPC, but rather that they were acting solely because of humanitarian reasons, then, I would still want them to use more discretion.

kcm

For my part i'm going to be cautious about anything Attaran has to say. He's a bit of a professional handwringer to say the least. That said, it's up to him to put some flesh on these allegations. My hope is this puts even more pressure on the gov't to release the docs unredacted [ not publically of course]. If Harper's takng a bullet as MYL implies, then why for god's sake wouldn't he privately make it clear to the opposition leaders [ at least the liberal leader since the previous gov't may be implicated] that they need to back off, at least while the troops are there. I see no obvious indications that Harper is protecting anyone's hide but his own, or possibily the militaries. The latter would explain why he's playing this politically…a sort of ace to pull out at the last moment. If i were a con i'd have to hope this was more than merely wishful thinking…hopefully the libs in particular have considred the possibility…that may be wishful thinking on my part? I certainly hope not. Let parliament see the docs!

RayK

"What has me flabbergasted is the verbiage over the last several weeks that seems to suggest that there is NO national secret worthy of keeping secret, no matter what damage the exposure would do to our nation's interest."

That's not what's being called for. The executive branch can keep documents secret from parliament, but parliament can certainly request documents, review them and then choose on its own what to release publicly. The motions I've seen demanding these documents have allowed for exactly that process by ordering that the documents in question be handed over the the special committee on Afghanistan which can then choose what to do with them.

rayk

Oops. Should read: "The executive branch can keep documents secret from parliament, but parliament can certainly request documents, review them and then choose on its own what to release publicly."

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Even for you, this is blisteringly stupid.

biff

Cubans, in our continent, languishing in prisons. A country where many of us vacation. Not held for being accused of killing westerners, but for the "crime' wanting free speech, and other basic freedoms.

They languish in silence,

while the faux leftist human rights activists, herald the cause of the Taliban monsters, for the sole purpose of attacking a conservative government.

Taliban, who under Liberal (read correct) rule, were no ones concern.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Your faux concern is touching…but ahem….

http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-release…

biff

amnesty, sure, bus so what?

On this blog, in the press, on the news?

Crickets chirping.

biff

"A serious allegation"

HE MADE IN 2007:

from this guys wiki description:

"In February 2007, he received significant media coverage in Canada when he brought forward testimony by Afghan prisoners captured by Canadians and handed to the custody of the Afghan National Army, who said they had later been abused by the ANA. [2] [1] [3] (See also Canadian Afghan detainee abuse scandal.)"

wilson

And if you google Attaran, he was delving into Gitmo, JTF2 and the years 2002-2006
Even the G&M has not picked up his 'rendition and war crimes' story………

Attaran also said HE found the 'secret' agreement Rick Hillier signed,
omg, what a showboat.

kcm

Attaran may be a hand wringer, but you've just made a case for him being an unbiased one. Let's see what he has, sounds reasonable…so i doubt you'd agree.

biff

So to recap:

AGW crumbling, a new scandal almost every day: won't touch (only the british press appears interested, and of course alternate media everywhere)

Gotcha "accusations" against conservatives: lather rinse repeat.

Justin

What is with all of your random spacing. Ever heard of a paragraph?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Fred_Moro Fred_Moro

A paragraph, what are you, an elitist?

wilson

That's how it goes, the Libs are owned by their media, will follow them anywhere.

Gayle

Ha ha ha.

When all else fails, resort to the "they are all out to get us" defence.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Fred_Moro Fred_Moro

Oh the damn media with their Liberal bias making you feel like the underdog. Always a nice thing to use although as Charlie Brooker on Newswipe reminds us, pretty hard to be the underdog and raging over the left bias while bragging about being #1 in the ratings like in the US. The bit is around 1:35.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2aEk864YrKw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2aEk864YrKw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Out There

I don't get this whole "liberal media" thing.

I live in Toronto, and we have four newspapers here: the Toronto Star (which admittedly is liberal, if not Liberal), the Globe and Mail (centrist, but has endorsed Harper in the last two elections), the Toronto Sun (rabidly socially conservative), and the National Post (the unofficial Conservative Party house organ).

I, for one, would like some more liberal media, please.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

The fact that you live in the bowels of hell means you don't get an opinion.

(hey, look at me – Blogging Torying is Easy!)
FVerhoeven

The G&M has never endorsed Harper during any elections. They have had editorials suggesting that Harper would do but simply because the G&M couldn't find something better. They had to semi endorse Harper, because had they endorsed the other options they would have made themselbes to be the laughingstock, and that they wouldn't stand for. It's really that simple.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

nono…they actively endorsed him.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/arti…

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

"You see, once you get out of the 'news' business and into the propoganda (sic) business, its pretty much over"

Unintentional Hilarity of the Day!

Thanks Biff, you quite literally made my weekend! And I got hockey tickets for tomorrow :)
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Your ability to move goalposts is a thing of beauty.
wilson

Derek Lee, walk down that hill,
oh, he did already.

Liberals stand down, take cover behind Harper's SCoC Judge.

But, they will follow the next media led road to nowhere too.

Maclean's Regular

Would you kindly shut up?

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Interesting tactic. Claim whatever cockamamie story you can think of to slur the Canadian forces in an attempt to attack the government.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Except for slurring the forces, I think I could agree with that. But that's the very problem with unconfirmed allegations, isn't it. We should do something about that, like confirm or dismiss the allegations.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Nich Nich

Perhaps there is a whistleblower in the public service who is trying to avoid the public attack orchestrated against Colvin, who wasn't even a whistleblower, while bringing to light possible war crimes.

That to me sounds more likely even than a established legal academic risking his career on a 'silly tactic'.

http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

What makes you think he's risking his career? This makes him a hero to "social justice" types, whether or not he's making up allegations out of whole cloth.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Nich Nich

Because outside politics those who tell big, attention catching lies suffer consequences for them.

He risks everything, unlike us online commentors.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

avr is right. This guy making the allegation won himself a spot as the lead in prime-time television. Hardly a risky move.

wilson

Attaran is also taking the Ontario govt to court,
on the ground that it is a Human Right for infertile couples to have babies,
paid for by you.

http://www.infertilitynetwork.org/ivf_funding_Att…

http://intensedebate.com/people/Nich Nich

Challenging laws furthers our jurisprudence and helps the legal system adapt to an ever-changing society.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Nich Nich

I thought Colvin became a household name because he was publicly slandered by a government for performing a order from parliament and speaking truth (from his position) to an obfuscating system of 'governance'.

http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

To disprove these allegations, the files must be released. To not do so will now be seen as an admission of guilt or negligence, if you're feeling generous.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Yeah, that's exactly the reasoning for this silly tactic. It's win-win, if the files are not released, they can make up whatever allegations they want, and if the files are released, they can claim a victory forcing the government to do their bidding.

http://intensedebate.com/people/NorthernPoV NorthernPoV

"can claim a victory"
Sure, that logic works……
No! Just by refuting these specific allegations, Harper will "win" as it will be endlessly spun by him and media as proof that all what has come before is irrelevant (basically the con-troll aurguments on this board getting writ large) don't attack the troops etc etc

and this whole " victory" stuff is soooo parochial

Canadian reputation and $$ is at stake
Canadian and Afghan lives are at stake

I, for one am sick of your relentless partisan spinning

enough already

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

I'm a little sick of your partisan spinning too.

http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

"They can claim a victory forcing the government to do their bidding."

When you say "they", I'm sure what you meant to say was "parliament", because the rules the current governing party is being asked to follow are parliamentary rules.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Yes, it's true, I think eventually the documents will be released. It appears that at this time Harper is relying on the advice of an impartial individual, a supreme court justice, to try to persuade the opposition that releasing the documents will be detrimental to the success of the mission in Afghanistan.

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

You're setting up a false dichotomoy. In fact, the files *have to be released* because Parliament has demanded it.

As long as the opposition has the spine to follow through, the only ones putting the government in a lose-lose position is the government itself.
frobisher

Sounds like a manoeuvre worthy of his chessmasterliness himself, then?

biff

"make of it what you will"

As if there is any doubt what the author wishes us to "make" of it.

On cue, the first comment:

"the government could fall over this"

Of course that is what we are to "make" of virtually all of Wherry's posts.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Biff, I seem to remember you, specifically, all hot and bothered about China's human rights abuses. Now we have an allegation that Canadians deliberately transferred to torturers in order to gain information from torture, and you seem fine with the idea.

What is up with that?

biff

Actually my point is directly related to this. This isn't an issue because of concern for the plight of Taliban monster detainees,

it's an issue because its seen by the left as an opportunity to attack Harper.

And so, real abuse, murder, of people not engaged in acts to kill westerners, but rather simply want to speak freely, like say Cubans,

languish away.

While the precious Taliban are the current darlings of the left.

Partisanship sure creates interesting allies.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

You make absolutely no sense, biff. No, sorry that isn't true. You make quite a bit of sense as long as you are fine with the complete hypocrisy of condemning others for that which you do yourself. Like the government of Uganda, who condemns a truly evil monster named Koni for abducting children for use as child soldiers. Sometimes, the government of Uganda is able to "rescue" these children–and usually keeps them for use in the government's own army.

That is similar to what you are doing, biff.
burlivespipe

Substitute the word 'attack' with 'hold accountable'… No doubt the biffs of the nation would prefer to keep politics on the 'attack' mode, since its the only constant in their own party's moral-less arsenal. And being accountable? That's only for other parties, other leaders and other citizens.
the biffs need no answers, because they are sheep.

biff

While the liberal press will once again attempt to revive this issue,

they're desperately attempting to whitewash a critical fact in our current state of the economic union coverage:

Canada "owns the podium" in economic performance and stability.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Yer rrreal proud of that "own the economic podium" line ain'tcha?

biff

Canada,

by far,

has the strongest economy out of any comparable country.

Of course the press won't report it.

But you can be gauranteed the CPC will remind candians of that come election time.

And it will have traction becuase its true.

True, important, and something the liberal media desperately wants to avoid (like the AGW implosion).

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Yay….the "liberal media" strikes again!!

by the by, what would you in your esteemed opinion consider a "comparable country"?

biff

Far left liberals should cheer.

Just as they cheer the NYT and CNN in the US.

Then the non far left public caught on and they crumbled.

I can assure you, while far left activists would love the startling facts of the AGW's demise, these literally earth shattering facts are probably not of the variety that average folk think should be actively suppressed.

You see, once you get out of the 'news' business and into the propoganda business, its pretty much over.
frobisher

"Far Left"

Hilarious O'Reilly-ism. But you're doing it for 'the folks'. right?
Mike T.

The far left that put in placing the banking rules that Harper bitterly opposed and then saved our butt when America spiralled towards collapse?

Don't worry, though, if there was going to be a recession we'd've had it by now.
biff

Far left liberals should cheer.

Just as they cheer the NYT and CNN in the US.

Then the non far left public caught on and they crumbled.

I can assure you, while far left activists would love the startling facts of the AGW's demise, these literally earth shattering facts are probably not of the variety that average folk think should be actively suppressed.

You see, once you get out of the 'news' business and into the propoganda business, its pretty much over.

illbethejudge

you act like the CPC had anything to do with Canada's economic standing.
They were handed balanced books and were headed toward a deficit long before a recession hit ( a recession they denied, a deficit they fudged over and over, btw).
Cutting the GST and being the LARGEST spending government in Canadian history does not good money managers make.
You'll notice real fiscal conservatives are not defending Harper's economic record, only partisan to the death types.

biff

Heh,

when the "news" reports the economy in the negative, its the CPC fault,

but the supressed facts of economic superiorty, not the CPC's doing.

Are you a Reuters reporter by any chance?

Rob H

And the problem with this is? Actually the problem is we didn't torture them for information ourselves. These people are terrorists, not soldiers in an army. They laugh at our "human rights" cry babies while they hack the heads off their own people and throw acid in school girl's faces who try to attend school they first torture. If beating them saves on Canadian soldier's life or the life of an innocent Afghan woman or child I say give it to them.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

Whats the problem? Rob H, are you kidding me?

Study international law where it pertains to the Geneva Conventions and the handling of prisoners/detainees.
It's against international law for the government to have turned over prisoners to Afghan authorities if we even SUSPECTED they were going to get tortured (which completely shreds and makes a moot point "the no credible evidence claim that MacKay and others were spouting off about).

If its shown we not only knew that they were going to be tortured, but officials hoped they would be tortured to get more "intelligence" out of them, that is a war crime…. and the Hague's chief prosecutor is going to get a lot more involved then he already is.

If it's proven Cdn authoritie
Out There

Some day, you may have sons and daughters of your own, if you don't already. And there's always the possibility that they may be called on to serve their country, on the front lines, in situations where they might be captured by the enemy. If such an unhappy event were to occur, I assume that you would prefer that they not be tortured.

The main reason why we don't torture – besides the obvious moral one – is this: if we do it to them, they can do it to us.

And information obtained from torture is not reliable anyway: the tortured tend to tell their captives what they want to hear – or anything, as long as it stops the pain.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Actually, no. The main reason we don't torture, and why we don't turn prisoners over to those who might, is because doing so endangers our troops.

If you're fighting against an enemy and he knows that capture will likely equal torture, he will fight harder than he would have if he knows that capture means he won't be treated too badly. We don't want them fighting harder. It's that simple.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Dehumanizing the enemy makes you feel better about your moral depravity I gather?
Anon001

Rob H. sounds a lot like Rob Anders.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Are you very young, Rob H? Have you read or heard the slightest thing about, say, World War II? Because there, it was conclusively shown that once a society is okay with removing a certain segment of that society's rights, the certain segment grows. And as it grows, it grows faster, because those who might have, eventually, stood against the practice have already been trod under by it. There are other examples, as well, in Africa and South America, too, I believe.

But if some day we should ever feel as you do, I vote that people named Rob H (and you better not be the one I know) be the first to go.

illbethejudge

You know how you can tell when Conservatives are getting really nervous?
There must a handbook out there for these kind of predictable responses:

1. Attack the socialist, Liberal media, it's a big media conspiracy (apparently even conservative media are lefties these days)
2. Attack the personal character of whoever is dissenting (Attaran, Colvin are apparently part of the vast left wing conspiracy)
3. Divert blame (ie.pretend it's an attack on CF, not legitimate questions to a government to make people feel bad about betraying front line soldiers).
4. Blame the Liberals (cause the sponsorship scandal was way worse than this)
5. Defend the indefensible (torture is ok, it's the TALIBAN. Only posters on the lower end of the IQ scale are permitted to use this one.)

I dare y ou to find a contrary Conservative opinion on the blogs that doesn't fall into one or more of these categories. The Conservatives who are mortified by all this? They're just shutting up and hoping it's not as bad as it looks. I know my fair share of them.

http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

you forgot "we own the economic podium"
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

You don't need all that in order to deny a fabricated story.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

Well then, the Cons should release the documents to Parliament so that can be proven scf. The fact they haven't and have gone to extreme lengths not to disclose them suggests they have something to hide, and it aint due to matters of national security.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

There is a flaw in your logic that is obvious to you, me and everyone else.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Funny, I thought Harper acted as an elected MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.

common man

No you are mistaken. We do not expect our PM to act as an average MP. We vote for MP`s but we want leadership qualities from our PM. I would have thought this was common knowledge.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Something tells me that you would have been right at home in Fujimori's Peru.

common man

That`s all you`ve got ?

FVerhoeven

Hear, hear!

common man

Guys, dig your heads out of the sand. If leadership didnt matter to us we would now have PM Dion. You guys should know that poll after poll asks respondents about who is the best leader because it is a very important component in how one votes.

You guys seem to be in some kind of denial and maybe you would like gov`t to be about a bunch of diverse MP`s in a never-ending debate.

Saying something as silly as " The MP`s elect the PM " just shows how out of touch you`ve become.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

We dont' elect our PM.
We elect MPs.
The MPs' elect the PM.

Anon001

The CBC is not going to put a report on TV based on third-party assertions.

The CBC itself has seen and/or has these documents. They are using Amir Attaran to innoculate their sources.

It is quite obvious that there is something bad in those documents, given the lengths to which the government has gone to hide them.

wilson

CBC is the ONLY media outlet covering this story.
What's that tell yah

Holly Stick

Not the only media outlet. Canadian Press has an article today about CSIS.

http://www.news1130.com/news/national/article/330…

http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

RIght. I'm sure they didn't even cover the wafergate story at all.

Oh wait…

Anon001

It's simple then. Harper should sue Amir Attaran and the CBC for slander.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

What malarkey. If the CBC has seen them, then clearly the documents have been released, so there is no controversy.

There's nothing stopping the CBC from publishing whatever they want, rather than relying on innuendo and smears.

Justin

Except for the certain budget cut/privatization of the CBC. Who has crossed the Harper government and come out unscathed? Linda Keen? Elections Canada? Richard Colvin? No one.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

That they got the scoop?

wilson

Nothing to do with a scoop,
everything to do with being the only outlet where the TAXPAYER picks up the legal cost when this nutbar gets taken to court for unsubstantiated allegations.

Dunbar A. Fortiori

. . . when this nutbar gets taken to court for unsubstantiated allegations.

That you can type those words without being instantly struck by a lightning bolt or bursting into flame is proof enough that your god is a merciful one.
http://intensedebate.com/people/doug_rogers doug_rogers

Maybe they're the only outlet with a copy of those alleged documents? Maybe the problem is that Milewski works for the CBC?
Gayle

That is ridiculous. You are accusing the reporters of deliberately lying.

wilson

How about the Liberals and their media wait until our brave troops are out of Afghanistan, out of harms way.
They have succeeded in demoralizing them, leave it at that for another year.

If what Liberals and their media want is to hurt Harper,
then take direct aim at him.
Like get the guts to bring down the government or something.

Leave our troops alone you sorry fools.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

Just so I'm clear on this: we should never, ever question the conduct and policy of the Canadian military (or more precisely its commanders and political leaders) in the midst of active engagement? Isn't that something of a blank cheque for the ruling party?

http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

It's transparently happening primarily not for its own sake, but as a club with which to attack the government.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

Hmm. There's undoubtably an element of political gamesmanship to this. But it's hard to overlook the government's handling of this file and the concerns raised – at almost every turn they've acted liked a group seeking to save their poltical skins (the attacks on Colvin, the equation of criticism and concern with being against the troops, proroguation in the face of demands for documents, etc…).

A productive debate on this issue needs to acknowledge that some of us are very concerned about potential involvment in torture, and that it doesn't make us partisan attack hounds, Taliban supporters, or any less supportive of the men and women in our armed forces. And the conservatives have not done that.

So while it's certainly true that some of the heat Harper is experiencing is rooted in purely calculated attack ploys (i.e., not based in genuine concern about the issue per se), there's enough obfuscation and politicking on the government's part to make it untenable to put the issue to rest for that reason.

wilson

Where was your concern when the Liberals were detaining Afghans from 2002-2006?
Not a peep. The Liberal govt even lied about our troops taking prisoners,
no concern.
But all h— breaks out when a Conservative govt takes over power,
trying to deal with the mess the Liberal govt made of the detainee handover agreements.

Do you think Canadians are stupid?
Liberals and their media are trying to recreate a military version of Adscam to bring down the govt,
because they can't do it any other way (coaltion of losers failed)
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

My concern was just as pronounced then. Not all of us are knee-jerk partisan stooges like yourself. And your comments tend to illuminate more of your biases than mine.

I trust you were advocating for the citizens and media to leave the Liberal government alone at the time – for the sake of the troops and all.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Liberals and their media

To properly counteract this phenomena, you should recommend that the CPC acquire some media outlets of their own.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Fred_Moro Fred_Moro

Like the National Post?
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Works for me, but I couldn't even begin to guess if wilson would agree.
frobisher

Isn't the NP being slowly shoe-horned into the CBC anyway? Shared content and whatnot?

Anon001

Soldiers are not saints. Yes, we thank them for their service, but putting on a uniform does not preclude bad or criminal behavior. Much like priests or judges, they are human beings first, and are thus susceptible to all the human frailties.

Having said that, the CBC report does not talk about the conduct of the troops. It alludes to the conduct of "officials," possibly meaning political people.

There is no evidence that our uniformed soldiers did nothing but follow orders and conduct themselves in an honourable way.
Martin Levenson

As Anon001 points out, our soldiers are expected to follow orders. They are not autonomous agents acting on our behalf. If there are problems with how they are conducting operations, it's reasonable to assume that the problem originates somewhere up the chain of command, and the responsibility for that ultimately falls to the Minister of Defence and the government. So it's a question of leadership above all else. If our troops are conducting the campaign in a questionable manner, it is because at some level that conduct is condoned or even encouraged.

Our troops perform difficult and dangerous work under extremely unpredictable conditions and deserve, at the very least, clear, coherent, and consistant direction from their leadership, military and civilian alike. NOT getting that direction is what puts them individually, and the legitimacy of their campaign, at risk.

Martin Levenson

I should also point out that it is NOT unreasonable to expect that a military campaign conducted on behalf of Canadian citizens be consistant with the values of those citizens. Any digression from that requires explanation and justification.

The alternative is to establish the military as independent of civilian command. Does anyone really think that is desirable?

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Good grief – head still in the clouds. You don't even realize that if the government doesn't deal with this – it hurts our soldiers.

Poor little sheep.

http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

Good grief – ego still wrapped up in bringing down Harper. You don't even realize that if the media runs with this – it hurts our soldiers.

Poor little sheep.

wilson

The CBC is the only scum to run the story,
Wherry the only paid blogger to pick it up, so far.

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

How do you know Harper's in trouble and the Cons supporters are worried – Wilson and Biff come out with PM talking points and silly drivel.

wilson

Grow up.

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Pardon me – did you say something?

Response – grow up from a mind manipulated Harper sheep.

LOL and yawn