babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
The character assassination of Richard Colvin
November 25, 2009 - 9:32am
because this needs to be discussed...
Richard Colvin's statement to the special committee on Afghanistan, Nov 18, 2009
Harper and company are now doing their best(?) to discredit Mr. Colvin, who has nothing to gain except to demonstate his integrity, honesty, and courage. We need more people like Richard Colvin.
18 attempts to explain the same story
Wake up Mr. Prime Minister. Canada's mission in Afghanistan is a failure. Time to declare victory and come home. But you're not gonna do that, are you? We are in there for the long haul, right? Beyond 2011 right?
Never admit a mistake, it only makes you look weak. That is one of the rules, right?
Sounds like most contentious debates on babble.
Twice as many Canadians believe the testimony of a diplomat who alleges Afghan detainees handed over by the Armed Forces were tortured than the government's assertion that the evidence lacks credibility, according to a poll released Wednesday.
The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey found 51 per cent of respondents believed Richard Colvin's statement that all prisoners handed over by Canadian soldiers to Afghan authorities were likely abused and that government officials were well aware of the problem.
By comparison, only 25 per cent said they believed the Harper government's assertion that Colvin's claims are flimsy and not credible.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/11/25/colvin-harris-decima-poll.htmlWhistleblower's Warnings Reached Minister's Office
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/whistleblowers-warnings-on-...
"Diplomat corrects his testimony to confirm that some of his reports on Afghan detainees were sent to highest level of Foreign Affairs"
Feds bar whistleblower diplomat from handing over torture documents to MPs
Good one Harper. This move is sure to win the hearts and minds of voters for you. You facist pig.
How would the courts handle it if, the Committee decided to find Colvin in contempt of parliament?
or can the government be accused of tampering with the workings of a Parlaiamentary Committee?
When you think of the people in you've met in your life experience who will not only make denials when found out but will also seek to attack and smear the accuser, what sort of people are we dealing with usually? Moral cowards lacking any sense of integrity and ethics? Yep, that is our government. Proud yet?
Cover-up!
It's a page borrowed from the US Republicans. The Canadian Conservatives aren't even original in their ad hominem attacks on Richard Colvin.
I'm watching QP - and Harper and MacKay are still stonewalling. It's obvious they want this to disappear.
Former U.S. President Richard Nixon immediately comes to mind.
Come to think of it, he resigned over Watergate.
Will the same happen to Harper over the torture of Canadian tansfered (to Afghan authorities) detainees?
The character assassination of Richard Colvin continues. Harper and company have done a splendid job making themselves look as if they have something to hide.
Three generals and Mulroney had the luxury of providing testimony that will never be confirmed by any recorded documentation unless ordered by the Federal Court of Canada (Harpers legally available remedy). It's all about national security you know.
Some excepts from yesterday's Hansard:
I live in the Netherlands now, and Richard Colvin's opening statement drew a number of differences between the Canadian and Dutch handling of detainees. Some exerpts (emphasis mine):
The Netherlands is a monarchy, has a coalition government and proportional representation. They don't heckle each other in chambers like the school playground our House of Commons now resembles.
I really have a hard time believing what is happening in Canada these days.
A particularly nasty piece by Christie Blatchford, which may as well be an application for a Mike Duffy type senate appointment.
E-mail trail only adds to Afghan questions
She claims to have reviewed all the e-mails by Colvin, and although heavily redacted, she draws some amazing conclusions or is privy to information that no else has, except maybe the generals.
The CBC has taken Blatchford to task on this, as have most of the readers who have commented on this very shabby piece of journalism.
Colvin e-mails "now in the public domain"?
On the plus side, a couple of good pieces of why we should be regarding Colvin as the hero, instead of the retired generals and politicians who hide behind the phony veil of national security.
Colvin is just doing his job, Amir Attaran and Gar Pardy, special to the Ottawa Citizen, Nov 28, 2009
What do we tell our future diplomats?, James Ron, special to the Ottawa Citizen, Nov 25, 2009
Sounds like the Honourable gentleman is not only obtuse but is engaging in an exercise of obfuscation.
Parker Donham on the Blatchford column:
http://contrarian.ca/2009/11/29/blatchford-makes-herself-useful/
Excellent comment by "Contrarian". Why don't we have politicians who can challenge the Harper government in this fashion?
Thanks bekayne, that was an excellent link. Christie Blatchford is a scary person.
It seems rather obvious that Richard Colvin has everything to lose by speaking out, I suspect this was clear to him when he decided to do so, it is equally obvious that the Harper government has everything to gain by denial and the character assassination of Richard Colvin. As to whether or not they can obscure this sufficiently, I am hoping for a complete failure on their part.
.
The Cons' success or failure depends on whether Canadians find their and the cabal of generals' behavior acceptable or not.
Despite what that poll said, I think the jury is out whether the swift boating of Richard Colvin will work. I'm sure more tha 50% of Americans would have said they believed John Kerry more than his attackers- but the damage was done anyway.
That onlt requires that enough doubts get planted in enough peoples heads such that they end up saying "I don't know"... which means in practice they tacitly accept the version of the generals and other underlings of the governments choice [David Mulroney, etc.]
Only time will tell on that. And while I don't expect Canadians to fall for this US Republican tactic, neither do I expect they will not fall for it.
I understand Richard Colvin has to pay for his own lawyer. Does anyone know if there is a defence fund for him?
My understanding is that as a civil servant he's entitled to a lawyer, and had one before he testified.
I had heard, and it might not be true, that the government was refusing to provide a lawyer for him. You must admit it is something this government would do. I would like to know the truth.
No Sarann, it is true. Harper denied him a lawyer for the MPCC inquiry and threatened him with prison for disclosing state secrets...
Attempts to obstruct Colvin fail as story comes out, Richard Cleroux, Law Times, Nov 30, 2009
but then Colvin was invited to testify before a parliamentary committee. That is history.
So then Harper ordered Mackay and the generals to deny, deny, deny, and enlisted Christine Blatchford to conduct another character assassination. Kady O'Malley of the CBC, said WTF (to paraphase) and called her bluff.
But like a Ludlum novel, there is always a twist...
Redactions hamper Afghan detainee probe, Paul Koring, Globe and Mail, Dec 1, 2009
There's something missing in that LawTimes article [only a one sentence to him having/not a lawyer paid for]- or in what I remember. Or both.
At any rate, its not a question of what Harper Crew would do to Colvin. My understanding is that as a civil servant if he is compelled to testify to the MPCC he is simply entitled to an independent lawyer.
But maybe that is wrong and that is why he did not testify there [which leaves the question of whether he had a choice]. Maybe someone can sort that out.
He definitely had a choice about going to the Parliamentary Committee- and guess he has a high degree of legal protection there.
They have raised the spectre of the Official Secrets Act. But I think that has more to do with the public character assasination than with being a material threat. I'm sure legal advice is prudent for him. But at this stage of the game its just that and he's a high paid civil servant, so its premature to be talking about a defense fund. [And if he ever needs one, he wont want to or need to be accepting funds from people who go to demos.]
I think the chances are remote they would actually go after him. Its all about hit and run smears. Going to court works both ways, they'd have to answer questions.
And of course Colvin will now pay the price for his transgressions.
Colvin is indeed a whistleblowerhttp://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/todays-paper/Colvin+indeed+whistleblower/2288078/story.html
when did Kady move to the CBC?
Several months ago. 1,5 months
http://kempton.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/bloggerjournalist-kady-omalley/
wow, 6 weeks eh, Macleans' loss is CBC's gain, though I m not surprised she left there...
Richar Nixon resigned, but no matter what happens Mr. Harper will never resign. I have this horrible vision of his being defeated in an election, but still clinging like an old dirty piece of gum, to the soles of our shoes. This happens in the world you know, so watch a government that closes down criticism of the police forces and the military. It is building up debts that will be owed to it by these organizations.
Also lets call it what it is. Redacted? Polite term for censored, really.