Wednesday, January 13, 2010

McCallum's Answer Was Crystal Clear

"It's the government."

And presumably any Parliamentary investigation into the detainee issue would be focused upon the behavior of the political players involved. If the Harper Government truly believes that malfeasance on the part of any of these players entails the guilt of our troops in Afghanistan, then let them be the ones to make that argument and pursue the consequences.

As to the behavior of Canada's military in this whole affair, it seems to have been in line with the high professionalism we expect of our soldiers. The detainee "problem" was raised within the ranks (and in our diplomatic core, and elsewhere) and our civilian leaders were informed. The outgoing Martin government did not act, and the incoming Harper government did not act quickly enough.

Again, if there's more to it than that, let Ezra and the gang lead the witch-hunt.

56 comments:

Tof KW said...

Doesn't surprise me that it was during an interview with Meharchand, she's the biggest redneck shill in the network. I admit there are some reporters within the CBC with more of a left-wing bias, but they at least try to keep it hidden. Meharchand might as well sit (sorry stand, new CBC-NN don’t you know) behind the anchor desk wearing a “Common Sense Revolution” t-shirt.

As for the actual interview, what part of ”It’s the government” did the Reformatories not get?

Big Winnie said...

With the speed that the email come out after the interview, the CONs are certainly trying to mislead the public and deflect the issue away from the government. For them to accuse the Liberals of blaming the military, is reprehensible.

CanadianSense said...

Based on what body of law are you suggesting you can bypass the military handing over detainees?

I can't find the book of wishful thinking.

http://www.historians.org/projects/giroundtable/Criminals/Criminals7.htm

Unlawful orders if given to the front line regarding the Detainee Policy Liberals 2001-2006)?

Revised Detainee Policy 2007-Present?

The military has transferred prisoners from 2001-Present. When did the Policy supersede unlawful orders?

The U.S. and the UK led the aerial bombing campaign, with ground forces supplied primarily by the Afghan Northern Alliance. In 2002, American, British and Canadian infantry were committed, along with special forces from several allied nations. Later, NATO troops were added. The U.S. military calls the conflict Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).

bigcitylib said...

Again, CS, the Tories are free to pursue that line of reasoning. A parliamentary inquiry would be concerned with what members of the Martin and Harper govs. did or didn't do. If the Tories want to EXPAND this to include the behavior of the military...well, perhaps Mr. harper can make that suggestion.

Fred said...

"the fact that they may have been committing war crimes, handing over detainees knowing that they were very likely to be tortured, that is a war crime."

"they" = our troops, the ones who do the handing over.

So you can try and spin this away but your pathetic attempts at covering up this claim that Canadian troops are War Criminals can't hide the truth.

Iggy said it, Dosanjh said it. Liberals believe it.

The Liberal Party of Canada believes Canadian troops are War Criminals.

The official position of you and your scumbag party is that Canadian troops in the field are War Criminals!

You are all fucking despicable.

Canadians will be reminded of your treachery in the next election.

Reminded a lot.

bigcitylib said...

"They" refers to the gov. Its pretty clear from the context.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

"the fact that they may have been committing war crimes, handing over detainees knowing that they were very likely to be tortured, that is a war crime."

BCL - "They" refers to the gov. Its pretty clear from the context.

I must have missed something. When did the Conservative Government go to Afghanistan and take part in the prisoner handover?

bigcitylib said...

They set the policy. It seems YOU are the one claiming that the troops were at fault.

Lizt. said...

As soon as some mentions torture and the Government the Cons always think of the poor troops who are only told what to do... but exactly by whom?

CanadianSense said...

The Tories can't make up the "body of law".

If the Liberals have another set of law books to how to exclude the Military from their handing over detainees please let me know.

I have said this for months regarding this issue.

The repeated attempts to smear Harper has put our troops in peril by the opposition stunts.

Please link how you jumped the shark?

Can you cite me a legal case how the military (top, front lines) were excused for the policies of the government?

We were "just following orders" excuse does not work-check the UN-Nuremburg.

Gayle said...

Oh Joanne

Yow know perfectly well what is meant by that comment. You know perfectly well the evidence says the government was told about the risk of torture, did nothing about it, and is now trying to cover it up.

It is clear McCallum is referring to the government, mostly because he SAYS he is referring to the government.

The fact is that NO ONE is blaming the troops for their actions. The truly despicable people in this debate are the ones who would run and hide behind the troops as a means to exonerate the Harper government from their failure to take responsibility for their own failure in this whole mess.

It is about time you Harper groupies grow up a bit and hold the man accountable for things. The fact you would be willing to throw our brave men and women under the bus in order to protect Harper is about as low as you can get.

bigcitylib said...

CS,

A Parliamentary investigation is not a court of law. If the Harper Tories think that anything uncovered about failures in government policy means our troops committed war crimes, then they can make those legal arguments. I hope they do.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

They set the policy.

And what 'policy' did they set?

bigcitylib said...

Or, rather, they maintained and did not change a flawed Liberal policy for too long.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Or, rather, they maintained and did not change a flawed Liberal policy for too long.

That's quite different from saying that soldiers were knowingly released into torture.

bigcitylib said...

Doesn't sound that different to me. At issue is whether the Tories maintained a policy that saw detainees released into etc. Sounds to me like you're quibbling.

Ti-Guy said...

Back to your vermin-infested lair, Joanne.

darcymeyers said...

The policy set out in the transfer agreement is pretty crystal clear if you ask me...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23511027/Detainee-Transfer-Agreement

sharonapple88 said...

Not investigating isn't going to change what happened. It's going to clarifiy the situation -- in the same way peeking into the box finally make it clear that Schrodinger's cat isn't both alive and dead, it's one or the other.

Not knowing -- isn't that like diving your head in the sand like an ostrich?

With the amount of obfuscation that the government's engaged it, I don't think they're trying to protect the troops as much as they're trying to cover their own butts.

bigcitylib said...

Whats that supposed to prove, Darcey?

CanadianSense said...

McCallum was clear, he later corrected himself suggesting only the government would be held responsible.

McCallum can't make that decision.

Who is responsible for the operations in the Afghanistan?

Are you suggesting the Generals, front lines call the government for advice on how to conduct the war?

Can you link how that works?

The Liberals are still upset for being tricked by the Military in participating in Iraq. Is this payback against the military?

Ti-Guy said...

in the same way peeking into the box finally make it clear that Schrodinger's cat isn't both alive and dead, it's one or the other.

Don't confuse the Torees. They have enough problems, what with basic English and figuring out how the light in the fridge goes out when the door closes.

Besides, you know how science enrages them.

Gayle said...

MacCallum can say who he, and the LPC, are holding responsible. You are the one who can't make that decision.

Nice try though.

Gayle said...

BCL. Don't forget the Liberal Government put safeguards into that agreement in order to protect detainees from torture. The fact those safeguards were not sufficient did not become apparent until Harper was PM.

The only issue the opposition is concerned about is when the current government learned about this risk, and why they decided to ignore it. The only issue the CPC is concerned about is how they can escape responsibility for their actions. So far their strategy has been to hide behind the troops. Now it looks like MacKay might have to take some heat too. They sure do like their scapegoats.

sharonapple88 said...

Are you suggesting the Generals, front lines call the government for advice on how to conduct the war?

Wait, so the military is now independent of the government? Great, all we need is a coup d'etat (not that we've been having much luck with democracy lately).

Hey, did you know the Commander-in-Chief of the military is the Queen with the duties given to the Governor General... so really the Libs are trying to smear Queen Elizabeth and Michaƫlle Jean. Happy now?

Besides, you know how science enrages them.

Everything enrages them.

CanadianSense said...

Sharon,

the investigations have been temporarily delayed.

The MPCC will be restarted when the house returns.

The former chair was not happy and went on the CBC.

The Committees will also be restarted when the house returns.

The opposition will be able to pick up where they left off.

If the opposition believe Colvin's (testimony) they can reintroduce their motions and find the government in contempt if they refuse to comply.

I believe the government has told them to take it to the courts as well.

I have said this months ago, this stunt does not have real legs, if it did they would have not kept passing supply bills in December.

Ti-Guy said...

Everything enrages them.

I don't know. They seem to become quite serene when somebody dies or is tortured.

The only enraging thing about this issue is that they've been caught.

Ti-Guy said...

this stunt does not have real legs,

Heh. Learned colloquial English by reading Toree blogs, did ya?

RuralSandi said...

I watched a documenatary by Nick Roberts who has been reporting in Iraq and Afghanistan for years. He interviewed Al Quada and Taliban members and what did he learn? I watched it.

They said many of their attacks are based on revenge - whenever one of theirs is tortured they plan terrorist attacks. And, our soldiers also pay a price when caught.

So, Joanne and all those other Harper apologists who think they support the troops are truly dillusional.

If this documentary comes on again I let you folks know. It was very interesting indeed.

So - suuport your troops - don't accept torture, investigate it and deal with it and show we are better and we do care what happens to them.

I suppose this is beyond the Con thinking - they just don't get it.

CanadianSense said...

Sharon,

Democracy is not under threat from a 17 day delay from the cheap seats returning to mount their fake protest and anger.

APEC and War Measures Act implementation are two examples of our democracy under threat compliments of Liberal majorities.

Using prorogue to stop Sheila Fraser Adscam Report, Somailia..those are examples of abuse of prorogue.

The Head of state is the Queen, the head of Government is the PM and I clearly understand the difference.

I can provide links regarding the role and duties including our military.

The theory in Lib blogs is you can smear the current government and exclude the military.

I have said you can't. Can you provide me with an example how you can allege the Government is guilty of war crimes, cover up, (should have know of torture of detainees) and not hold the military for their capture and transfer.

The gov't decides (line) does not work.

If you like we can talk about ISAF Policy, and how the Liberals failed to plan, support our military with this mission. The Liberals did not trust our American allies and refused to hand them over to the Americans who set up their own prisons. (We would have had improved visitations?)

CanadianSense said...

An article appearing in the April 28, 2007 issue of La Presse (which can be translated here), it was noted that the Liberal government of Paul Martin was warned on numerous occasions spanning 2003-05 that torture commonly occurred in Afghan prisons.

Prior to 2005, Canadian forces in Afghanistan transferred their detainees to American forces operating in Afghanistan. In response to the abuses taking place at Guantanamo Bay, however, the Liberal government decided to instead transfer prisoners to Afghan authorities.

So the Liberals made the changes and are covering up?

http://nexusofassholery.blogspot.com/2010/01/so-lets-talk-about-cover-up.html

Ti-Guy said...

An article appearing in the April 28, 2007 issue of La Presse (which can be translated here)...

She's forgetting the links when she's frantically pasting in the comments she's copied from elsewhere.

Loony.

Gayle said...

The funny part is CS posts this after BCL posted it in a new thread.

The sad part is CS keeps on repeating the same tired old nonsense seemingly unaware of how those "points" have been debunked here and elsewhere.

He seems to believe if he repeats himself over and over again, his nonsense will magically come true.

CanadianSense said...

Gayle,

you remind of Al Gore

the science is settled camp. Best of luck.

Ti-Guy said...

He seems to believe if he repeats himself over and over again, his nonsense will magically come true.

I give him/her (which is it now?) more credit than that. The wingnuts know they're just distracting people with their nonsense, derailing other people's discussions and amplifying the talking points so that, later on, people only remember what they read/heard the most, if they remember anything at all (which works for them as well).

In a sense, you're correct though. For the Right, it doesn't matter what's true. It's what people believe.

ridenrain said...

Perhaps Rae could get some of his Tamil Tiger pals to fill out a protest march or perhaps some of the Hezbollah folks. I'm sure the average Canadian would love to see those banned flags in a march to demand a military investigation. Whatever happened to Michael Ignatieff and his praise of the US or his support of the Manley report.
Sad small town cheap politics.

Gayle said...

^ Heh.

I see what you mean TG.

RuralSandi said...

CanadianSense is everywhere day and night spewing from her notes and wanting to argue and debate, but the problem is her arguments have mostly been proven wrong - what a total bore.

Ridenrain - what the hell have the Tamils got to do with Afghanistan? Dumber and dumber these two.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Adler is shredding McCallum on CHQR.

Ti-Guy said...

Which one are you again, Joanne?

Ti-Guy said...

...or rather, which two?

bigcitylib said...

Adler is angry? How unusual.

RuralSandi said...

Adler - Rush Limbaugh of the North.

Hey there Adler, you made fun of the social media, chuckled and made demeaning sarcastic remarks yesterday of CTV...

Then the breaking news about Haiti - and the only contact they could get was from social media - still think it's a chuck there Chuck?

CanadianSense said...

I disagree Adler like most Canadians don't like politicians who are accusing our troops.

I am hoping the Liberals with a bump in the Polls don't mind getting the official results through a general election.

Please contact your Liberal MP and demand they vote against the Throne Speech.

Don't leave Colvin twisting in the wind.

Let the Bloc or NDP prop up the gov't.

bigcitylib said...

Go to bed, CS, the booze is starting to show. You're starting to slur.

CanadianSense said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gayle said...

Oh no! Adler! AHHHH!

Dear lord.

Big Winnie said...

"It's the government"

No more needs to be said

Tof KW said...

Please contact your Liberal MP and demand they vote against the Throne Speech.

Really CS?
You really want an election sometime soon?
Even after what The Strategic Counsel, AngusReid, and EKOS are telling you, you still think that’s a good idea?

Oakville, Ontario – population 165,000 – but still not so big that it can’t have a village idiot.

CanadianSense said...

TofKW,

resorting to insults instead of sticking to the issue so liberal of you.

Great, you have some good polls, let's go!

If you refuse to pull the plug after calling the government despotic, war criminals for months, the failure to protect democracy from this goverment makes your party complicit.

It is not that complicated, either you agree with Colvin's allegations and the opposition attack meme or your don't.

Please send a letter to your Liberal MP demanding the back up their rhetoric!

Democracy is under attack!

Tof KW said...

resorting to insults instead of sticking to the issue so liberal of you.

Actually I learned that fine art while I was campaigning for Harris in the 90's. You seem to forget which side wrote the book on this subject.

Tof KW said...

Although it really is beneath me to even comment on this, but just to dispel your point with the delightful trip down memory lane in regards to the FLQ crisis; the WMA was wildly popular at the time and fully supported by Robert Stanfield and the Tories (though he later wrote he regretted the decision). In fact some of the biggest support came from the west, where the popular opinion was that Trudeau should go further and have the RCMP begin to round up all the pot-smoking hippies and anti-US Vietnam War protesters while they were at it. I personally remember a cartoon lampooning this view published in the Star.

From wikipedia:
Opinion polls in Quebec and the rest of Canada showed overwhelming support for the War Measures Act; in a December 1970 Gallup Poll, it was noted that 89% of English-speaking Canadians supported the introduction of the War Measures Act, and 86% of French-speaking Canada supported its introduction.

You see, hindsight is always 20/20. Looking back its easy to judge that the actual numbers within the FLQ were very small, and the suspension of civil liberties was unjustified in that light. However at the time the FLQ manifesto warned of ”100,000 revolutionary workers, armed and organized” and there was no way of the RCMP being able to determine any real number. Canada Post boxes blowing up and police finding Pierre Laporte dead in a trunk were discomforting events as well.

Now, any more straws you wish to grasp at?

CanadianSense said...

Tofkw

Nice try, how many mailboxes were destroyed?


1 kidnapping, 1 death.

450 rounded up held democractic rights GONE!

Democracy for Canadians living in Quebec suspended.

The WMD arguement does not hold back then or now.

Are you defending the RCMP who did not know how many were involved?

Where is the evidence, that warrants the use of the War Measures Act?

Where are the arrests of the "terrorists", the court cases?

How many people were involved?

You sound like Dick Cheney, trying to fearmonger.

Now get some real evidence before you start labelling Canadians as terrorists for the actions of a VERY small number of criminals.

Sounds like the Toronto 18.

The London Subway bombing Spain train derailments?

Did they suspend democracy overseas for those acts?

Tof KW said...

Serves me right debating crazy people.

”Nice try, how many mailboxes were destroyed?”

Do you enjoy engaging in a debate when you know nothing of the subject? A simple 10 second Google search got me:

”One of the first FLQ bombings happened on the streets of Montreal, it all started when the FLQ placed bombs in 17 mailboxes. One of those mailboxes was own by an army demolition expert, the bomb blew up in his face, he didn't die but he had to fight for his life for a long period of time. The rash of explosions started at 3am.”

I suggest you learn something on the topic before you debate anyone. For record 8 people died from FLQ bombings between 1963 - 1970. Targets included English owned businesses, banks, McGill University and the homes of prominent English speakers. In 1963 they bombed the Canadian Army Recruiting Centre in Montreal, killing Sgt. Wilfred V. O'neil. They bombed the window well of the National Defence Headquarters on Lisgar St in Ottawa, Ontario. That explosion killed a cleaning lady. They also set off a bomb in a mailbox next to a Canadian Tire store on Wellington St in Ottawa. On February 13, 1969 the FLQ set off a powerful bomb that ripped through the Montreal Stock Exchange causing massive destruction and seriously injuring twenty-seven people. They also attempted bombing mayor Drapeau’s house in Montreal, the bomb was hidden in a toilet.

Oh and that army demolition expert horribly injured attempting to disarm the mailbox bomb was Warrant Officer Class II Walter "Rocky" Leja.

Why do you hate our soldiers CanadianSense?
Why won’t you let our government protect them adequately?
Why do you support terrorists and wish our businesses, banks, schools and government officials to be bombed?

That is my answer for the rest of your rambling, stop trying to put words in my mouth CS …’cause you really suck at it.

CanadianSense said...

TofKW,

Your are too young having not lived through it. I should have used a mor recent example my bad.

It was nice of you to spend a few minutes trying to understand what happened through google.

So what is the total of killed? How many charged and convicted?

Tommy Douglas was right to not support the undemocratic move by invoking the War Measures Act.

Try going deeper than google next time. This was NOT a national emergency or an insurrection as alleged by the Liberals in government. It was a responsibility of the local law enforcement to do their job.


I should have used APEC it would have been easier for you to understand. oh well.

Best of luck with calling a debate throwing personal insults in every post.

Gene Rayburn said...

Did CS use a Fatprick link to back up her theory?

Drunk and crazy as a moonbat - good to see CS is keeping up the online wanking in 2010.

I wonder if she still has her Ignatieff fetish.