Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

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

The Commons: Agreeing to, but not with Omar Khadr

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, November 1, 2010 6:21pm - 0 Comments

The Scene. The challenge of the day would be this: could the government be compelled to agree to agree that it had agreed to an agreement to which it had officially signaled its agreeability.

Whatever the futility of the effort, it was first for Gilles Duceppe to attempt to break our impervious Foreign Affairs Minister. How, the Bloc leader wondered, with the public release of diplomatic notes detailing discussions between the Canadian and American administrations, could the Foreign Affairs Minister deny knowledge of negotiations meant to resolve the matter of Omar Khadr?

Lawrence Cannon was, of course, prepared for this and rose to repeat his carefully scripted words into the record. ”The government of Canada,” he said, “did not participate in negotiations regarding the sentence.”

This was a hair finely split. And surely Mr. Cannon should have been allowed a moment to bask in the dexterity of such a display. But before the galleries could shower the Minister with applause and bouquets, Mr. Duceppe was up to have another try. Oui ou non, he demanded: would the Minister authorize the return of Mr. Khadr to Canada after another year has been served stateside?

Over again to Mr. Cannon, this time not so much to pirouette as to pull an extrajudicially detained rabbit from his hat.

“Mr. Speaker,” he said, “the government of the United States agreed that Omar Khadr return to Canada and we will implement the agreement reached between Mr. Khadr and the government of the United States.”

This was indeed quite magical, as discombobulating as anything ever rendered by David Copperfield, or at least David Blaine.

It is not, you see, that Mr. Cannon’s government has entered into an agreement with the United States and Mr. Khadr, but that the United States and Mr. Khadr have reached an agreement which Mr. Cannon’s government now agrees to honour. We have not agreed with Mr. Khadr, you are apparently to understand, we have simply agreed to Mr. Khadr.

What followed was an attempt to pin a tail on this rabbit.

“He just said that the government will keep the promise that it made to the U.S. to allow Khadr to return to Canada after he serves the first year of his sentence,” Liberal Ujjal Dosanjh reviewed. “However the government has forever claimed that it was not involved in any discussions or dealing with anyone on this issue. Now we know obviously it was talking to the United States government all of the time. Why did the government continue to mislead Canadians, the media and the House of Commons?”

Mr. Cannon was unmoved. “That of course, Mr. Speaker, is a false premise,” the Minister admonished. “The government of Canada was not part of the plea negotiations.”

(Canada, you see, was not part of the plea negotiations, even if part of the plea negotiations involved Canada.)

From the far end of the room, New Democrat Wayne Marston stepped forward and attempted to pull matters back toward some kind of mutually agreed upon reality. “Mr. Speaker, the fact remains, Omar Khadr is a Canadian citizen. The will of this House, the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, was to have Khadr brought home to face justice in Canada. Canada has been the only country to accept the Guantanamo process and that fell far short of Canadian, U.S. and international legal and human rights standards. There is no justice in Guantanamo,” he testified.

“Now,” he finally asked, “in light of the diplomatic notes that have surfaced, the obvious question is: What else is the minister hiding and what other plans does this government have for Omar Khadr?”

Mr. Cannon was undaunted. “Mr. Speaker, our friend and closest ally, the American government, agreed that Omar Khadr return to Canada,” the Minister repeated, “and we will implement the agreement between Mr. Khadr and the U.S. government.”

(Canada, you must understand, makes its own decisions, unless and until Hillary Clinton calls.)

The NDP’s Paul Dewar, seeming altogether quite tired of this, stood then to bellow and stammer in the Minister’s direction—”He should embrace the truth,” he offered, “it might even set him free.” Mr. Cannon, unshaken, was unwilling to reconsider his previous statements. “I will not go back into this response,” he said. “We are not and were not part of the plea negotiations.”

With time nearly done, the Speaker permitted Mr. Dosanjh another try. And with this last entreaty, the Liberal was apparently set on leaving Mr. Cannon no out.

“The issue is not whether or not the government is part of the plea bargaining, because the government cannot be part of the plea bargaining. Only the prosecutor, defence or anyone else that is allowed by Khadr to be part of the process can be part of the process,” he allowed. “The question is this. The government talked to the U.S. State Department and said to them, If you arrive at an agreement, we would agree to have him transferred into this country.’ That is an agreement by any name. By any other name that is an agreement to say Khadr can come back.”

That clarified, Mr. Dosanjh was then so eager to close the door on this cage that he neglected to address his question in the third person through the Speaker. ”Did you not negotiate with the United States State Department to have Khadr come back?” he begged.

Alas, man has not yet invented a loophole so small this government can’t jump through it. Or, rather, man has not yet so expertly set a trap from which Mr. Cannon could not conjure an escape. And so here Mr. Cannon simply imagined that Mr. Dosanjh had asked something else entirely.

“Mr. Speaker, the question remains this,” Mr. Cannon asserted. “Is the Government of Canada part of the negotiations, the plea negotiations? No, the Government of Canada is not part of the plea negotiations and I am very happy to see that my honourable colleague, after spending this Question Period repeating that, has finally agreed with me that that is the case. We were not part of it. ”

The Foreign Affairs Minister returned to his seat, barely able to suppress a smile. Across the way, Mr. Dosanjh grinned too, either impressed or simply astonished.

The Stats. Omar Khadr, seven questions. Foreign investment, six questions. Foreign aid, natural resources and arts funding, four questions each. Meech Lake, government spending, economic development, taxation, infrastructure and aboriginal affairs, two questions each. The military, food labeling, prisons, crime and border crossings, one question each.

Lawrence Cannon, seven answers. John Baird, six answers. James Moore, Bev Oda and Dave Anderson, four answers each. Josee Verner, Peter MacKay, Gary Goodyear, Jim Flaherty, Diane Finley, Rona Ambrose and Dave MacKenzie, two answers each. Tony Clement, Jean-Pierre Blackburn and Rob Nicholson, one answer each.

Bookmark and Share
  • bill_y

    i do not know whether to laugh or cry – or be really pissed off……

    • Halo_Override

      I'm inspired to multitask.

      • burlivespipe

        I'd like to see a poll right now of those who voted CONservative and just what they think of their government's either role in the agreement between the US and Khadr, or the fact that the Harper gov't took no role in the agreement between the US and Khadr and just took what they agreed upon.
        Seems to me a bone of contention, either way.

        • Popsiq

          Somehow, the Liberals have made them do it. Or maybe it was the new govermint general.

          It's just a good thing they hate our freedoms more than the jihadis do, or we'd all be wearing them Berkas an Muu-Muus right now.

  • Mike T.

    Such a small and insane point to refuse to admit.

    Dear conservative party – nobody will criticize you for doing your job. Merely for doing it poorly.

    • arturolexo

      Wrong, Mike T. The Harper government has played this one absolutley correctly. The only lies are the ones the oppostion and their shills state.

      • Wrong. Cannon lied about our involvement with the plea deal. Fact.

      • Halo_Override

        Excellent. And now I'm going to tap the other knee.

      • Gayle

        Ummm, what?

  • Emily

    It's a pity you can't use the word 'liar' in the HOC…because 'misleading' just doesn't cover Cannon

    • arturolexo

      Really? Micheael Igsnotief called Helena Guergis a liar in the Commons.

      • Emily

        No he didn't.

        • burlivespipe

          Don't take mr roboto or whatever his name's bait. It's just another decoy fail-safe argument waiting to be disengenuous…

    • Popsiq

      Would "lying sack of sh*t" pass muster? No?

      Pity!

  • tobyornotoby

    When will we be sacking the rogue diplomats for using the Canadian seal and making undertakings to a foreign government without the approval of the minister? And surely the minister will resign in shame if his oversight of our most important diplomatic and trade relationship has been usurped by civil servants?

    Or is just that a Conservative minister was lying to the House and the public again?

    • Sigh

      That last one.
      But as pointed out above, why bother on such a small point?

  • Bob Larocque

    For the first time in my life, I now believe our political system is beyond repair.

    • Halo_Override

      Then Mr Harper has accomplished at least one of his goals since taking office.

    • Reverend_Blair

      Ah nothing is beyond repair, Bob. It does require a major renovation though. Tear those walls right down down to the studs so we can see what's going on inside. Call in the foundation repair specialists to poke around in the basement. Rip out those little old inefficient windows and put in some large, high efficiency ones to let the light in. While we're at it, let's rewire the place so we can plug in lamps to shine some light on even the darkest corners.

      Of course we won't do that. Instead we'll slap a couple coats of paint on the walls and pretend everything is fine.

  • Stewart_Smith

    Why am I suddenly nostalgic for those days when Baird responded to all the questions?

    • Popsiq

      The 'King of Dentures" is a 43rd degree Master at speaking out of all sides of his cakehole at the same time. I understand he'll be teaching this subject in PoliSci at a Canadian University when he stumbles from the halls o' power.

      Your 'nostalgia' could be easily cured by a fifth of yankee bourbon, a cheap stogie.and a protracted Beavis 'n Butthead experience.

  • Jan

    This, from the minister who claimed that there was no family planning – in any way -in the materal health initiative. Of course he finally had to admit that there was – the minor detail of the abortion prohibition. So now he is telling us a supposed terrorist is negotiating his own sentencing arrangements on behalf of Canada. Come on Larry, this is pathetic.

  • gar

    This is about chicken politics played in this country.this is about visible minorities ghettos in major cities and the vote.This will backfire on all parties in this country if this guy is returned and does not face charges of treason the day he set foot in here.He killed an American soldier part of the U.N and part of NATO which we are dedicated to defend as required..That soldiers death is no different than the 153 young Canadians who have been killed by the likes of this scum and his friends planting roadside bombs.This is like everything in this country it is not about right it is about politics and votes from our medical system to the census to supplying our military with the right planes regardless of cost.I sometimes wonder who are the traitors we should be charging

    • Emily

      Perhaps you've forgotten a basic point….Americans were invading the village he was in.

      • gar

        Do You not remember 9/11 ? Do you not remember what the Taliban did to their women and children?t was a U.N operation to save our ass from more 9/11s and so far it has succeeded

        • Emily

          Yup..and 911 had nothing to do with either Afghans or Iraqis.

          The highjackers were Saudis.

          • gar

            The hijackers were trained in the middle east many in Afghanistan.I was around when the second world war started by those who pressed their political leaders for peace while others knew peace comes at a cost..There are too many Chamberlains and not enough Churchill's in the western world .With all likely hood I will not be around to witness the next holocaust brought on by those who wish for peace.The people who are out to destroy us like that nut case in Iran and the other in Korea are the 21rst century Hitlers.We all love peace and having been in one war I would not want a repeat.If you have an idea how we can stop these nut cases the whole world is waiting your answer

          • Emily

            It's good to know you won't be around much longer, because you wouldn't understand the solution.

            Step one is to stop calling leaders you disagree with….nutcases. They run countries whether you like it or not.

            Step two is to stop being afraid of tiny tinpot countries 'taking over the world'. This is not a James Bond movie.

            Step three involves aid and trade, and bringing them into the world community instead of trying to isolate them.

          • gar

            Emily I forgot the other nut case it's you! you have to get into the real world not the world of just be nice and they will love us.We have been spoon feeding North Korea while they build a mass army.Believe me ask anyone who fought in Korea when they come at you by the thousands with modern weapons its all over for the west unless we go nuclear.Sadly no person under 40 years realizes the outcome.We will appease until they see they have us and then all hell will break loose.when you are lined up against a wall or starving tell them about brotherly love just before they blow you away.

          • Emily

            No, I'm quite normal. Sorry to disappoint.

            You want to make the world an armed camp….and the world is going the other way, towards globaliation.

            N Korea is neither here nor there…tiny country with no influence at all, and Kim Jong il is dying

        • mrsardonicus

          So where's binladen? wasn't that the real target and cause of 9/11? And as to the evidence in the case, the evidence of cohercion would outweigh all the evidence of fact in the charge. This was not a true trial of a case for innocent before proven guilty, but a case of guilty and we'll make you prove it…

          • Emily

            Osama bin forgotten. LOL

          • Jan

            They're tracking him on the Long Gone Registry.

          • Blue

            He`s hiding in Pakistan. Did you want the Americans to invade Pakistan ? That should go well. Nah, let`s just sit back and bitch about anything.

          • Jan

            Bush practically bought Pakistan when he was President. How many billions was he sliding to them. That worked out well. Now the Afghanistan government is receiving bags of cash from Iran. I'm no military expert but something seems wrong here. It's almost as if the Americans are being played for suckers.

          • Emily

            Americans should go home and stay there. They can't be trusted without adult supervision.

      • Ariadne

        Khadr is an Egyptian, not an Afghan. You have forgotten that basic point. He was given a choice to surrender peacefully but decided to bomb anyway.

        • Holly Stick

          Omar is a Canadian. His father was Egyptian, I believe.

    • kcm

      "That soldiers death is no different than the 153 young Canadians who have been killed by the likes of this scum and his friends planting roadside bombs."

      Actually that's a very good question – Why are none of the Taliban on trial in this country for similar crimes to those that have been leveled against Khadr? It's politcs all right – but not the poltics you charge. Khadr is simply a scape-goat. If Khadr can be tried, why not others? Could it be that this legal concept of armed beligerants who are out of uniform has no basis in logic or law – unless of course you're from the northern alliance who helped to kick the Taliban out – pretty sure they wore no recognised uniform. But they were our thugs…which always makes it different, doesn't it?

      • madeyoulook

        Canada chose not to have prisoners. They were transferred to Afghan authorities. I am sure everyone remembers how well THAT's been going…

        • kcm

          "Canada chose not to have prisoners. They were transferred to Afghan authorities"

          Correct…but that didn't preclude bringing Khadr[ a CC] home to face justice. Instead we[ libs too] left him to rot in a compromised American detainee system [ the very reason we quit transferring prisoners to the US] when we knew he was arguably a child soldier. It was and is shameful. We've just successfully convicted some homegrown terrorists, and all without the need to resort to confessions extracted with torture/brutality, and the use of secret evidence. Khadr could have faced justice here.

    • Mike T.

      The census?? THE CENSUS??

      • Jan

        And our medical system…

        • Mike T.

          Yeah but you can make arguments about our medical system and even constructive criticism about delivery. The census is just an unrivalled barrel of pointless WTF from beginning to end, perhaps the largest in Canadian history – as we've discussed in another thread.

  • Blue

    kcm…..Earlier in gar`s comment he used the word "treason". That signifies that the Khadr family used Canadian social services, education, health etc. That`s OK—we welcome thousands of immigrants every year and the Canadian way of life comes with all these services.
    However, the Khadr family were not your typical immigrant family—they raised money here for weapons and then returned to Afghanistan to fight against Canada and our allies. That`s what is different between Khadr and your average Afghan Taliban.
    This concept is very easy for clear thinking Canadians to understand, except for those who just oppose anything the Conservative Gov`t does.

    • Jan

      Why hasn't our government charged them with treason then? Or something?

      • madeyoulook

        From the Criminal Code of Canada…

        High treason
        46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,
        (a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;
        (b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or
        (c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

        And, from the Youth Criminal Justice Act:

        “young person” / « adolescent »
        “young person” means a person who is or, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, appears to be twelve years old or older, but less than eighteen years old and, if the context requires, includes any person who is charged under this Act with having committed an offence while he or she was a young person or who is found guilty of an offence under this Act.

    • Blue

      Actually, it is ironic that you feel that Khadr should be treated as just your average Taliban.
      Most of your cohorts here feel that he shoud receive preferential treatment because he is Canadian. They completeley overlook the fact that by going to Afghanistan to fight along side the Taliban against Canadians, he was committing the ultimate act of treason.
      So in order to commit treason he would have to be Canadian so he applies for mercy because he`s Canadian. Now that`s ironic…..reminds me about the joke where the man convicted of murdering his parents begs mercy on the court because he`s an orphan.

      • Emily

        He was first taken to Afghanistan when he was ten. He was only 15 when he was attacked.

        And so far he hasn't applied for anything.

      • kay

        "They completeley overlook the fact that by going to Afghanistan to fight along side the Taliban against Canadians, he was committing the ultimate act of treason."
        Might be a good idea to get the time-line correct. Omar Khadr was 11 when his family took him to Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure that was prior to 9/11 & also pretty sure that was prior to Canadian soldiers being in Afghanistan. Moreover, he was never charged with any "crimes" relating to Canadian soldiers.

    • Emily

      Gosh, just like every immigrant group we've ever had, some of them persist in continuing wars in the 'old country'.

      Like the Irish did when this country began….it's an old tradition

    • kcm

      "This concept is very easy for clear thinking Canadians to understand, except for those who just oppose anything the Conservative govt does"

      Well i sure hope most Canadians think a whole lot clearer than yourself then. What has immigrants or Afghan Taliban to do with my question? If Khadr can be tried for murder, then why not others? As for the Khadr family i would be happy to see them gone – so don't assume. Perhaps it would even be more honest to try Khadr for treason? Certainly more honest than some farcial military trial in the US. My main concern is that the rule of law is applied, so i would want to know if treason is even lawful in such a case [ outside of a declared war] You [ like some in this govt] seem to have no regard for the law at all, unless it supports your worldview/ideaology.

      • Jan

        You would assume that this law and order government would have wanted Khadr returned to Canada in order to prosecute him of something, rather than leave his fate to the ever evolving Gitmo judicial system. The Americans brought John Walker Lindh – the American Taliban – to justice in the U.S. – he's serving something like 20 years.

        • Blue

          Fortunately we have a law and order government.

          Unfortunately we have a catch and release judicial.

          • Emily

            Well we have a 21st century one………. that doesn't believe in dungeons, and/or breaking rocks.

          • Gayle

            I hate it when people just make stuff up and use that to "support" their dubious points..

      • Blue

        So why do the majority of Canadians not want this guy shopping for supplies at the local hardware store.
        IMHO Canadians have little use for those who would support a terrorist group like Al Qaida and a special dislike for those who would use the fact that we welcome immigrants as a means of setting up their home base here.
        Call it betrayal, call it treason, get him for tax evasion……he`s not wanted here.

        • Emily

          'In your opinion'…..and that's all it is….your opinion.

        • craigola

          How many times do you think you're going to have to be told that Khadr isn't an immigrant before you start doing your remembering for yourself?

          • s_c_f

            We know he's not an immigrant. Once he's done his time in America or Gitmo, he's welcome to return on his own two feet with his Canadian passport. Until then, he's not welcome. When you commit a crime in a foreign country, Canada has no obligation to bail you out.

          • craigola

            If you're talking about you and I, then yes, you're correct, it seems apparent that "we" know he is not an immigrant. If you're talking about you and Blue, however, it is not as obvious that both of you know.

            P.S. Hi s_c_f! It's been awhile. How are you?

          • Blue

            I don`t need any history lessons from you—Khadr`s parents were immigrants to Canada —Omar khadr may have been born here but he was part of a family connection that chose to leave their homeland and fight a war against Canada.
            That is why we have a special dislike for this terrorist.
            Quit splitting hairs in an effort to excuse this convicted murderer.

          • craigola

            You may not need history lessons from me, but you very clearly need civics lessons from somebody, because if there's anyone around here splitting hairs, it's the one who's trying to conjure distinctions out of thin air about what constitutes Canadian citizenship. I'm not usually one to point fingers (Blue), but I think it's pretty obvious (Blue) who that person (Blue) is. (It's you, Blue).

          • Blue

            Well if you refuse to be able to differentiate between a Canadian who is convicted of marihuana possession, for instance, in a foreign country and one like Khadr who travelled to a foreign country to wage war against Canadians, then you are just too much of a Liberal.

            Good luck with that position. Put it in your platform in the next election. Khadr is a traitor. We have a special dislike for traitors. Your refusal to recognize that and continue to make excuses for Khadr distances you and your Party from Canadians.

          • craigola

            You assume too much, friend, when you start blabbering nonsense like "too much of a Liberal" and "you and your Party."
            And, whether or not you care, you cross a line when you suggest that there is any sort of distance between me and "Canadians". Our positions on this issue may differ, but I am not any less, or farther from being, a Canadian than you.
            It's a shame how some people let their partisanship distort their perspective.

        • Douglass

          Khdar is a first generation Canadian. Stop with the 'immigrant' tirade.

  • chet

    Blue,

    the problem for today's left is that is it purely reactionary, not ideal driven.

    The reaction is to oppose, or more accurately, to demonize all of the CPC decisions.

    "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is part of the reactionary's toolkit. The result is to befriend the most hienous of actors – the taliban prisoners earlier in the year, Khadr and to consistently side against our military, the fighter issue being the most recent.

    They have forgotten the cardinal rule of politics that "stops at the water's edge". Not just a principled rule, but one based on good politics.

    The left has essentially sided with, not only enemies of our country, but the most despicable enimies imaginable.

    All for purely petty partisan gain.

    • Emily

      Ahhh time again folks to rock to the golden oldies

      Chet starts us off tonight with a medley….'today's left' followed by ' a reactionary's toolkit'….with a little 'F35' thrown in….followed by a 'cardinal rule' no one has ever heard of…..and he ends with a musical flourish….. the ever-popular 'partisan gain'.

    • Mike T.

      And stupidest post of the week goes to Chet! And it's only Monday!

  • chet

    Oh, they will attempt to cloak this in the most high minded ideals, such as "the rule of law".

    But notice the pattern, and who is always defended.

    Our legal system hears charter challenges to abuse of governmental authority in our criminal courts every day of the week. The "rule of law" is constantly being raised, debated, tested.

    But it is Khadr that is the chosen one to be the standard bearer for the fight for justice. Likewise, the Taliban prisoners, were the victims.

    The reality is this:

    in order to gin up faux scandals against the CPC, the left in Canada, championed the cause of terrorists.

    Let them come to sites like this, were fellow leftists will whisper soothing reaffirming words into their ears.

    But the average Canadian will be none too pleased. That Harper has to stand alone in defence of Canada will no doubt be remembered at the ballot box.

    • Emily

      Question for tonight….how can you tell when a society….a civilization….is breaking down?

      When they start going backwards.

      And we are doing that with a vengence.

    • Jan

      You usually suck and blow chet, but that was just straight sucking.

    • Halo_Override

      chet, can I ask you a question?

      • Emily

        Give chet a minute….he's misting up over the idea 'that Harper has to stand alone in defence of Canada'….even though he's hotfooting it out of Afghanistan, and Canada doesn't need any 'defence' since no one is attacking us.

    • Reverend_Blair

      The rule of law is a "high minded ideal" chet? No.

      You know what the rule of law really is? It's an acknowledgement that if they can do it to somebody else, they can do it to you too.

      • LdKitchenersOwn

        I have a feeling that chet says the phrase "rule of law" the way most conservatives these days say the word "Harvard". In other words, it's treated as though it were something he just scraped off his shoe.

        And yes chet, it's absolutely SHOCKING who ends up getting defended in these types of cases. Imagine, it seems like every time questions surrounding the rights of accused criminals to due process come up, the people being discussed are ACCUSED CRIMINALS. Why can't we ever protect the rights of accused criminals without protecting accused criminals??? The mind boggles.

  • kcm

    "The left has essentially sided with, not only enemies of our country, but the most despicable enimies imaginable."

    Kody: You've been singing the same pitiful, self-pitying tune on this site for years now. When are you going to grow up and just engage others whose worldview/principles you find repugnent? Paul Wells had you pegged years ago – you seem to have learned nothing. If you want to be taken/debated seriously, then treat others with different values to your own with some respect.

    • Emily

      "The left has essentially sided with, not only enemies of our country, but the most despicable enimies imaginable."

      They said the same about the Soviets….until they turned out to be ordinary people just like us

  • Philanthropist

    Khadr killed and terrorized people in Afghanistan, send him there for a trial.

    • Emily

      Mmm no, he didn't.

  • kcm

    a couple of years ago Paul Wells alluded to it being Kody/biff/chet's mission/assignment to haunt Macleans…i didn't really take him seriously at the time, but now i'm not so sure. Deflecting and derailing true debate does seem to be his MO – i agree he doesn't beieve most of his spiel.

    • Gayle

      biff has been doing this for a long time. He just keeps changing his name.

      • Emily

        Are you sure he isn't Blue and Philanthropist too? They all sound alike to me.

    • Mike T.

      We thought they were sent by the Conservative Party.

      It's worse.

      They're from the Globe & Mail!

    • Blue

      Jeez, you guys. You spend your days here dissecting Wherry`s latest missive ( missile ) at the Harper Gov`t. There`s little new or intelligent in your constant bitchfest. One of you will make what is perceived as a innovative remark and it is quickly followed by several equally lame retorts and backslapping ensues.

      This comment board, and of course the CBC, are the only place where the Libs hold a majority in the country. Those of us who believe that the Harper Gov`t are best suited to govern now are outnumbered often 10 to 1 in the comments tally here and when one of us disagrees with several of your inane remarks, kcm is lauded for saying we are " deflecting and derailing true debate ".
      Try to get some perspective—get away from Wherry.

      • Gayle

        Way to stay on topic.

        ha ha ha

      • kcm

        Sure Blue all our remarks are inane and all yours are what?…oh right, you're just right because you're just right; what passes for rebuttal from your average conbot these days. It may have escaped your notice but AW does the most blogging around here, when Wells or Coyne can be bothered [ snark] to blog most of the commentators head there too. Many of the commentators here collect or cross reference many different sources for their info – i wonder if the same cn be said for you?

        "…when one of us disagrees with several of your inane remarks, kcm is lauded for saying we are " deflecting and derailing true debate ".

        Actually i was referring to Chet, and only Chet. Do try and get your facts right from time to time, why don't cha?

        • Blue

          Some of your backslappers referred to me in the same sentence as Chet.
          And really, if Chet makes a couple comments at the end of a blog, let it be. Just because someone has a different opinion, it`s no reason to say they are derailing debate.
          There`s only one person who`s responsible for drastically reducing intelligent debate here and we all know who she is.

          • Orson Bean

            The 9/11 truther?

          • Blue

            Oh that`s her and unfortunately she has managed to become the main Rep. for the Liberal cause here which explains the major drop in intelligent debate. The more respected Liberal followers have allowed this to happen so she`s their problem and Wherry`s.

          • kcm

            I'm not responsible for those who endorse my comments – or not[ i don't like ID much so i don't participate]. As for Kody/Biff/Chet, he has a dubious history here at Macleans. As trolls go he's pretty harmless. Emily is entitled to her opinions too – i'm just glad she despises the Harper govt more than she does liberals :)

          • Orson Bean

            Yes, because the most important thing in the world is to hate Harper. And as long as you really, really hate Harper, who cares if you're reasonable, civil, coherent or sane?

          • Pat

            I'm sorry, but have you actually read Chet's comments? The ones where he ignores the topic of this post to start railing against Khadr and lying about the motives of those who support him?

            The topic is the Harper Government's unwillingness to admit their role in this arrangement even in the face of fact after fact.

  • Sam

    Why do we want this murdering scumbag back in Canada? He has killed; he has expressed happiness that he killed a soldier of an ally; he is a disgrace to Canada. He should serve 40 years in a US prison. His entire family should be deported to the hell from whence they came. He should not cost the Canadian taxpayers one more cent. Oh wait; I forgot – he has a lawsuit in the works and the Canadian government will roll over & play dead while doling out millions of taxpayers dollars. In the end the Canadian taxpayer will reward him for his psychopathic behaviour.

    • Thwim

      Uh. Because they asked us to.
      And when the US asks Mr. Harper to do something, like say give away a billion dollars of our softwood lumber industry's money, he bends Canada over and — if we're lucky — applies lube.

    • Gayle

      Sigh…

      People want due process, which he has not received. I realize that people like you have to ignore that basic fact and make up all kinds of other stuff in order to justify your position, but doing so does not make you particularly persuasive.

    • kcm

      Sam seems to be under the delusion that Khadr's had a trial or something.

  • Popsiq

    To the denizens of the legislature, this abysmal performance is what could be described as 'skilful question-period repartee'. The production of such horse dung seems to be a prerequisite for high office in whatever 'government' is in power.

    This is countered by the threat of the 'vote of non-confidence' which goes unused when it should be and is generally applied over something particularly stupid or innocuous.

    Another instance of us getting the giovernment we deserve …. we gave the lying sacks of sh*t a working minority.

    • Harvey Mushman

      Looking forward to the next "lying sacks of sh*t" to replace them.

      Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

      • craigola

        The Libservative Party of Canada strikes again!

  • wafer

    What I find most despicable about this story is that the Leaders of the Coalition who pressured the government for ages to bring Kahdr home are now wasting everyones time and playing for cheap political points. This is the same bs we ended up with when the Coalition demanded stimulus spending because of the economic crisis and now protests that the deficit is too high. While the Gov't needs more credibility and openess their frustration level must be out of sight because with this group of opposition leaders you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. In my opinion Iggy, Layton and Duceppe are complete jokes and completely unable and unwilling to work toward any goal in unison with the Gov't. As for us, the peons, the old saying goes "we get the Gov't we deserve".

    • MostlyCivil

      Your repeated use of the word "coalition" doesn't change the fact that Canon is lying.

      And I can say this with no fear of libel suits being dropped on me, as truth is the best libel defence.

    • Thwim

      No, what's most despicable about this is that the CPC is incapable of saying anything that might reflect even slightly poorly upon them, even for an instant. Had Cannon stood up and said,

      "We weren't involved in the deal, but in the interest of foreign relations, and to finally correct the mistake the Liberal party perpetrated on Omar Khadr when this situation started, we have agreed that we will not stop Mr. Khadr from being transferred to Canada if Corrections Canada approves" it would have been a two second smear and the opposition parties would have been well advised to steer clear. Any comeback that the Liberals came out with could have been turned back by simply saying, "This government has a record of preferring not to interfere in the legal systems of other countries, just as we expect other countries not to interfere in our own. We have done that. The trial of Mr. Khadr is complete. We have acted accordingly."

      It's funny, for all their talk about appealing to the Tim Horton's crowd, they sure do like to use a lot of weasel-speak to try and get out of the obvious.

      The more I look at things, the more often I find that while I'm occasionally in agreement with what the CPC achieves (with the exception of what they've done to our governance systems as a whole) I'm almost never in agreement with how they feel they must make sure they are manipulating public opinion, whether that's by these stupid semantic games, hiding what they're doing, or simply outright lies. And it's those things which have soured me on the CPC until they show evidence of change.. something that I expect will not happen while Mr. Harper remains in power.

    • Gayle

      Actually, what is now most despicable are people like you, who claim to be conservatives and therefore, I assume, cling to conservative values like accountability, failing to hold a conservative government accountable for their decisions.

      But I am sure the boys at the PMO are well pleased with your attempt to turn the tables here and make this about blaming the opposition for the deficit instead of the government for lying.

    • wafer

      MostlyCivil – One could certainly expect Cannon is lying however you cannot say so for a fact, that is a fact.

      Thwim – I agree with much that you have said however things are rarely as simple as we would like to think they are. As much as we, the people, think we should be privy to every detail of every government action there are often circumstances which cannot be publicly shared and we need to trust our government to do their best. I am quite sure that they had to hold their nose to agree to anything that resulted in Kahdr returning to Canada. Unfortunately playing games and trying to manipulate public opinion are not now or ever will be traits that only the Conservatives own.

      • Thwim

        Of course they're not the only ones who do it.. they have taken it to entirely new levels, however, as we see in the recent communications budget.

        And you know what.. we, the people, SHOULD be privy to basically every detail of every government action, with the very narrow exception of those that would impact national security or the physical safety of a person.

        What we shouldn't be is needing to be privy to all of these to see when our government is lying to us.

    • wafer

      Gayle – I'm not sure how you come to claim I am politically a Conservative but I don't mind sharing that in my quite long life I have only voted Conservative once, the last election and that is because I cannot stomach the leaders or the actions of the other parties any longer. Neither of them deserve to even be on the floor of the House. They interpret their "opposition" function as obligatorily holding up progress of any kind, trying to embarrass the government at every turn, nationally and internationally, getting on tv while asking questions in the House that have no answer and just being useless jerks at every opportunity. Your people aren't trying to hold the government accountable they are just running off at the mouth because they have nothing productive to offer on any other issue.

      Lastly, while like many Canadians, I hoped that Kahdr would never set foot in our Country again however in the grand scheme of things this is a miniscule issue that once again much time is being wasted on while everyone takes their turn at grandstanding. Seriously, we have more important things to do.

      • kcm

        You may not be a conservative voter, but you sure seem to have fallen for their "coalition" line. Your criticism seems a little onesided all around: only the opposition are interested in embarrassing their opponents; only the opposition want to hold up progress; only the opposition are being opportunistic jerks; only the opposition have nothing productive to offer. I can't imagine where i've been these last 4 or 5 years.

        • wafer

          I haven't "fallen" for the coalition line, I believe it whole heartedly base on the evidence and actions. Regarding my criticism of the opposition's actions try to imagine what your job would be like if the people who were supposed to analyze your work and offer constructive criticism with a goal of making better decisions were instead a bunch of morons whose main questions were, what else is kcm hiding, when will he reveal his true motives etc. I'm sick of it because I've lived it and understand how unproductive it is.

          • brooster2

            "I haven't "fallen" for the coalition line, I believe it whole heartedly base on the evidence and actions."

            Oh, like your irrefutable evidence for the existence of a "coalition"? I have equally compelling evidence that the Masons are hiding the holy grail.

          • s_c_f

            Anyone with a working brain knows that when three parties sign a document (a document that was made public and intended for the governor general) stating their mutually agreed-upon intent and plan of action, you call them a "coalition". And then, you can take what's in the document and you can call it the coalition's "demands" of the current gov't or their "intentions" as a replacement. This is basic stuff.

          • Pat

            Are you referring to the document signed by Harper, Layton and Duceppe? I assume so since the coalition agreement in 2008 was signed by two parties, not three.

            In any event, neither coalition exists anymore.

          • brooster2

            "Anyone with a working brain knows" that arrangement was quickly repudiated by the current opposition leader when he assumed office and hasn't surfaced anywhere since, except in the febrile brain of Harper and his sycophants, like you.

            Try to stay current.

          • kcm

            You seem to be implying that only this govt has ever faced an obstructionist opposition. It's the opposition's job to oppose albeit constructively [ there you may have a point]. But name me the GOTD who hasn't faced such an opposition – what do you imagine Harper did in opposition – blow kisses at the liberals?

            Coalition – what evidence – what actions?[ recent please] Please try and remember it is a minority govt. There is an obligation on the part of the govt to work with other parties as much as there is a duty for the opposition to oppose constructively.

  • Harvey Mushman

    That's it for me.

    After a couple of decades of not voting I re-engaged with politics and voting hoping that the "Reform" movement would actually…you know…reform something in our inefficient, antiquated, partisan, corrupt, self-interested, party dominated governments. It didn't. Chalk "reform" down officially dead. It's party politics as usual from all sides and Canada is the worst for it.

    So disappointing.

    I'm so disillusioned with the leadership and direction of all our major federal parties…and please…don't point out the "Greens" to me as an alternative. They aren't and their leader is a dingbat.

    • Thwim

      Good for you. Now don't give up on politics entirely. Just give up on party politics. Start voting based on the individual candidates. Ask them what their positions are with respect to your specific community. Let them know what your specific vote shifting issues are. Taxes? Copyright? Politicians playing semantic games? Pollution? Military support? Whatever.. pick one of those issues where you've heard the party might be doing something that doesn't agree with what you think is best for the community. Ask the candidate what they're specifically going to do, and why you should vote for them when their party is going against it.

      The more we let the candidates know that it's what *they* do that will change votes, not what the party does or wants, the less power the party system has.

  • gottabesaid

    Interesting that this story led to a re-hashing of the Khadr debate when the story was about the nature of the government's involvement in the plea deal. That said, it sounds like there's quite a debate inside the Conservative party as well over this.
    http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/conservatives/ca…

    • Amateur Hour

      Brian Lilley steps up to help out the ConParty by suggesting that this deal was done behind Harper's back while he was abroad. Apparently Harper's BlackBerry doesn't work overseas. The bureaucrats did it because they're all Liberal plants!!!!

      What a pathetic dodge.

      No agreement between Canada and the US Dept. of State (fronting for the Dept. of Defense in this case) gets approved without the Minister giving it his blessing. And in this gov't, no Minister approves anything Harper hasn't okayed.

  • Emily

    I'm sorry, but the hijackers were Saudis….and the planning took place in Germany.

    But if you think it's right to kill thousands of innocent Afghans on some mistaken belief, you have a very odd moral code.

    I'll also point out that bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and thousands of Taliban are openly living in Pakistan….but it appears we don't attack nations that can defend themselves.

  • Orson Bean

    Emily, I can't believe I have to point this out to you, but once the 9/11 suicide hijackings were over, the hijackers were . . . like . . . umm, dead. So there was no point retaliating against the hijackers themselves because they were . . . like . . . umm, dead. And not all the hijackers were Saudis — most were, but there were also 2 from the UAE, one Egyptian and a Lebanese.

    The point of invading Afghanistan is that that was where Al Quaeda's senior leadership was residing and operating at the time. From that perspective, it was as logical and defensible a military move by NATO as it was logical to bomb Germany during World War II.

    You are quite correct to make the current observation about Pakistan — right now, the US and NATO consider it to be politically too risky to invade Pakistan outright. But they have certainly been very busy doing drone strikes there, haven't they?

  • Emily

    Yes…dead…as doornails. So there was no reason to attack Afghanistan at all.

    One Egyptian, one Lebanese….no Afghans, no Iraqis.

    And if you want to capture one man, you don't bomb an entire country

    All of Germany was in the war effort….most Afghans can't read and were unaware of events.

    The FBI 10 most wanted list doesn't even list 911 http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten

    'al Qaeda' btw is just a database. A US database at that.

  • Mike T.

    It was nowhere near as clear as bombing Germany!!!

  • Orson Bean

    I realize that the Germany/WW II analogy is far from exact. In any event, the bottom line for me has always been this: anybody with half a brain should have realized that if you successfully carried out an attack on the United States resulting in mass casualties, the US was going to be mighty pissed off and was going to go after the perpetrators. Everyone and their dog knew that Al Quaeda planned and carried out the attack, and that their senior leadership was residing in bases within Afghanistan, with the clear knowledge and cooperation of the Taliban government (who explicitly referred to the Al Queda leadership and personnel as their "honoured guests"). The US asked the Taliban government to hand over the perpetrators. The Taliban government said no. They did so at their peril. It's extremely unfortunate that Afghan civilians ended up paying the price, but the Taliban government had a choice. They could have given up Bin Laden et al., and they chose not to. Bringing a WW II analogy back in, it's also extremely unfortunate that so many German civilians had to die, but they also had a bunch of reckless nutters for leaders.

  • Emily

    Well no one can account for the Americans…most people just twirl their forefinger near their temple .

    But if the US wanted to go after the actual perps….they should have attacked Saudi Arabia

    And no, 'everyone and their dog' knew no such thing. That was Bush's invention

    In Afghanistan btw…all guests are honoured. It's part of their cultural code. And the Taliban said they'd hand over bin Laden if they saw any proof he'd done it. The US couldn't offer any.

    Oh yes…terribly 'unfortunate' thousands of innocent men women and children have been killed. Tsk tsk. I'm sure they won't hold it against us, right?

    I repeat…Germany was behind the war. Afghans knew nothing about it.

  • Jan

    Next up – Yemen – because AQ's hanging out there now. That should put a stop to them.

  • Orson Bean

    "And the Taliban said they'd hand over bin Laden if they saw any proof he'd done it. The US couldn't offer any. "

    So do you think Bin Laden was not behind it?

  • Orson Bean

    One particular branch is hanging out there. Taking out one branch won't kill the tree.

  • Emily

    bin Laden has said he wasn't….and they are all quick to take credit for what they do, so probably not. He was a small-time troublemaker before that…minor stuff involving exploding trucks and rubber dinghys. But he became a hero in the ME, and a rallying point, so he kept quiet after that….just mentioning things about how he 'rejoiced' in it and so on.

    But as I pointed out earlier, even the FBI doesn't want him for 911.

  • Emily

    BINGO! AND AFGHANISTAN IS ANOTHER BRANCH.

  • Orson Bean

    Rather an apples and oranges situation, in that Bin Laden, Al Zawahiri et al. constituted the senior leadership of AQ at the time. It's much more dispersed now.

    One of the military and strategic justifications for going into Afghanistan at the time was that you could deal quite a major blow to AQ by killing or capturing at least most of its senior leadership. That seems to me to make eminent common sense, militarily and strategically. To think that you could ever utterly wipe out such an organization in a single operation is unrealistic and I don't think anyone ever really thought that invading Afghanistan would accomplish that.

    But I think it is agreed amongst most credible and reasonably non-partisan military and intelligence experts that the operations in Afghanistan significantly degrated and weakened Al Quaeda, particularly with respect to its senior leadership at the time. And certainly, they are not operating bases and training centres right out in the open like they once were. And they have since that time not successfully carried out many operations of the magnitude of the Tanzania and Nairobi bombings, or the USS Cole operation, never mind 9/11. Res ipsa loquitur.

  • Orson Bean

    I was talking about in terms of command and control. That's basic military strategy 101. One of the first things you go after in any military situation is the enemy's command and control systems and capabilities. The consensus among military and intelligence analysts at the time was that Al Quaeda's leadership and command and control functions were located in Afghanistan, at Al Quaeda's various camps and other facilities there. Ergo, if you want to attack, degrade and defeat Al Quaeda, that's where you do it. Secondly, those base campts etc. existed because the Taliban government allowed them to exist. That made the Taliban government a legitimate target, IMO.

  • Emily

    That's because of American crap like believing in a pyramid management structure…a hierarchy. Same as the kill-the-Chief-and-the-Indians-will-go-home thing. But it doesn't work.

    There were no 'justifications' for going into Afghanistan…well, beyond the pipeline that is.

    'most credible and reasonably non-partisan military and intelligence experts' were full of sh*t from day one, and that hasn't changed.

    The Taliban now have their own country, and they're about to take over the govt of Afghanistan again. They're bigger than before.

    They don't need to do another 911….it's still working. The US is broke and terrified just as bin Laden said they would be. Bin Laden won.

    A few copy-cat amateurs are neither here nor there…except it continues to terrify yankees. Probably gives Mullah Omar and bin Laden a lot of laughs.

  • Mike T.

    Justifiable war or not, the comparison between Germany in WWII and a mobile group of people in a volatile region with a strained relationship with the west is pretty weak.

  • Eas Coas

    If you are a truther, I swear to God it will take a maximum effort on my behalf to believe anything else you say on this board without at least three (3) scholarly print references.

  • Orson Bean

    You're right — she's a 9/11 truther — and the Wherryites give her big thumbs-up for it. Res ipsa loquitur.

  • Orson Bean

    I agree that if I made the post again, I would have used a different analogy.

From Macleans