The detainee document game of hide-and-seek the Conservatives are engaging in is an affront to members of Parliament and a subversion of the Military Police Complaints Commission. It cannot be allowed to continue, and this government must be held accountable for their willful complicity in the torture of Afghan detainees.
Although the Prime Minister would prefer to continue his autocratic reign, never having to answer for the actions of his government, Canadians will not stand for the continued assault on our access to information and our right to know.
The refusal by Harper to submit the requested unredacted documents to the MPCC, who have the highest level of security clearance, speaks volumes to the extent of the incriminating evidence being hidden behind layers of black ink.
The audacity of Defence minister Peter MacKay to accuse those asking questions of undermining our troops serves only to insult those very soldiers who adhere to the Geneva conventions and conduct themselves with courage and honour.
There is no doubt as to whether this Conservative government violated the rules of the battlefield; it most certainly did. But precisely who was aware of the prisoner abuse, and to what extent detainee torture took place remains unclear, because the answers lie in the files Harper is so desperate to suppress.
If the Prime Minister is found in contempt of parliament, and chooses not to produce the uncensored files being demanded by the opposition, Harper may well find himself and fellow Conservatives before the International Criminal Court (ICC) to face charges of war crimes.
The increasing sense of urgency exhibited by the government in the face of fresh requests for document disclosure suggests the ICC may just be the perfect venue for the Conservatives to answer for their crimes.
Advertising
---
The video shows Peter MacKay in a media scrum following the testimony of the Generals in November 2009. The reporter wants to know how it is the Generals obtained the documents while the opposition MPs were still being refused access.
Given the holocaust of World War II, it has been established by the Nuremberg Trials, the Nuremberg Principles and the Geneva Conventions that the claim "I didn't know" (willful ignorance) is no excuse. In both the holocaust of World War II and the subsequent handed over prisoner torture and abuse atrocities in Afghanistan, the German (and other, in the case of WW II) and Canadian government and authorities (in the case of Afghanistan) had/have the legal duty to apprise (inform) themselves of what was going on and take steps to remedy the situation. In late 2007, early 2008 the Harper administration claims to have done this. Subsequent information has revealed that this was not the case.
It's naïve to think that any Canadians will ever stand trial at the ICC for war crimes. The ICC exists for the sole purpose of delivering "victor's justice" against those who refuse to comply with U.S. foreign policy.
Moreover, Canada's complicity in the torture of Afghan detainees goes back to the days of the Liberal government. There's no way the Liberals would want the ICC or any other judicial body to open the worm-can of Canadian war crimes, so the Conservatives have nothing to worry about on that score.
And Peter McKay's crimes go far beyond insulting "our" soldiers, "who adhere to the Geneva conventions and conduct themselves with courage and honour. (sic)" If "our" soldiers had really adhered to the Geneva Conventions in the first place there would be no Torture Scandal today!
Also, I find this bizarre:
Why would it make any difference whether the PM is found in contempt of Parliament? If a contempt motion were defeated in Parliament, would that mean he was absolved of war crimes? And if he did in fact hand over the uncensored files to the parliamentary committee, would that absolve him of war crimes as well?
In fact, whether Harper's cover-up succeeds or fails has absolutely no bearing on the question of his culpability for war crimes. And if it succeeds, we may never have all the evidence that would be required to prove a criminal case against him in any case, even if the ICC were a realistic possibility.
Actually, the Liberals were out of government before any reports of torture came to light. The Liberals drafted a transfer agreement and were then voted out of office. Everything happened under Harper's watch. The Liberals are pushing for a public inquiry and are welcoming any scrutiny from the ICC because they know they are in the clear.
And perhaps you're not aware, honour is spelled with a U in Canada.
If Harper is found in contempt and refuses to provide the documents, which the contempt ruling would compel him to do, thus continuing to obstruct the hearings in Ottawa, then he may have to face the ICC directly. No one, except you, suggested he'd magically be absolved of his guilt.
As for the rest of your rant, I'll respond with a *yawn*. Same old, Same old from one, M. Spector.
Nice to see you're so taken with my writing. Thanks for continuing to read my work!
Did I not spell honour with a U? And why are you - of all people - criticizing my spelling?
The date when "reports of torture came to light" is not the relevant date. The relevant date is when the Canadian government and military started handing detainees over to Afghanistan - and the US for sending to Guantanamo - without making any efforts to ensure they wouldn't be tortured. Please don't try to whitewash the Liberals' crimes.
In the end it's for the courts to decide.
Since you seem to have so much to say, I suggest you start a personal blog where you can ramble and rant since you seem to have an issue with anything other people write.
Your antics here are juvenile.
Your Liberal Party bias is showing again. 1. Everything did not happen under Harper's watch. 2. The Liberals are not welcoming scrutiny from the ICC. 3. The Liberals are not in the clear.
Since you only ever refer us to mainstream media sources, you may be unfamiliar with the following, which never appeared in the Globe and Mail, the National Post, or the CBC:
Evidence that Canada was and is, violating Canadian and international law by transferring people taken captive in Afghanistan to either U.S. or Afghan authorities has long been part of the public record. Since November 13 2001, the world has known that the U.S. intended to illegally detain non-Americans taken prisoner in Afghanistan and to deny them access to properly constituted courts and other due process in violation of international law. The world has known since February 7, 2002 that such prisoners transferred into U.S. custody would be denied the protection of the Geneva Conventions and subjected to whatever treatment, including torture and/or other prohibited treatment, the President or Secretary of Defense arbitrarily determined was 'required by the exigencies of the war on terror'. By the end of September 2004, concerned people and those in positions of responsibility knew, from the report of the Independent Expert on the Situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan, that prisoners were routinely subjected to torture and other internationally prohibited treatment in both Afghan-run and U.S.-run prisons within Afghanistan.
[footnotes omitted, but available HERE]
So far, the ICC has been going after persons from Third World countires - most notably the Sudan's President Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir and Ugandan Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord's Resistance Army - for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Pressure has been building up on the ICC to go after war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by persons from First World countries. Canada is not a member of the Five Permanent Member Security Council of the U.N. Unless the U.S., the U.K. and possibly France (all Permanent Security Council Members) and possibly the Western European members of NATO are willing to support and defend Canada all the way, Canada may be isolated and vulnerable to a summons to a war crimes trial before the ICC.
Were this to happen, the ICC gets my 100% support. Let's put our war criminals on trial, I say - the sooner the better! Let's restore Canada's sullied image.
Do you really imagine that the US and the UK would allow the ICC to put Canadians - or any other NATO members - on trial for participating in their war crimes in Afghanistan and elsewhere?
The last thing they want is to have an international tribunal of any kind delving into the delivery of detainees into the hands of the Afghan and Bagram/Guantanamo torturers! Whatever Canada did in Afghanistan, it was acting as an accomplice in the crimes of the United States, the Afghanistan government, and the NATO allies. Does the Security Council really want an investigation into who really did the torturing, and where?
I highly recommend you read - Our Afghan Victims Have Faces
I realize what is at stake for our Permanent Security Council Members and Western European NATO partners in crime.
It's a question of political will. Do these other countries have the political strength and will to defend and support Canada for as long as it takes, should it appear or should Canada, actually go to trial?
If Canada goes to trial, this trial could last for years. Currently, in all the countries that belong to the two above categories, the majority of their citizens are opposed to the Afghan war (lower 60% range). The Netherlands has declared it's going to withdraw its troops later this year.
As the trial drags on and the horrible war crimes and human rights atrocities become public knowledge and the war grinds on and the global and micro (national) economies get worse - exacerbated by the war, will the governments and their political will last?
Just like the Vietnam War destroyed the Johnson and Nixon administrations and the Democratic Party for a number of years, the Afghan war and these possible trials could do the same to a number of other governments.
It all boils down to a test of will and resolve. I put my faith in "We the People".
Of course this is all just an hypothetical scenario at this point in time.
Will it turn out this way or not?
We'll see.
Stay interested and stay tuned.