Bring Harper Down over Detainee Issue - Election Anyone?

The editors whose job it is to moderate those just hate that job.  I can understand why some news organizations are now poll-testing a policy change of eliminating comments ... and want people to sign their names to them like letters to the editors.

Yep never mind that little thing about the Liberals caving on the detainee document issue. Why would anyone care when they can attack a good person who made a small slip up. The characterization of the rest of her comments are just complete lies, yet they get away with it. There are days when I wonder whether we are mature enough as a people to deserve democracy.

Yeah, perhaps if Jack hadn't forced Libby to apologize, phoned the Israeli ambassador, and agreed to be interviewed on the Libby Davies Crisis of the Century and repeated over and over that it was ok because she had apologized... he could have focused a bit more on the supremacy of Parliament.

NDPP

But Israel WAS an occupying force in 1948. What the hell do you think the 'Nakba' means?

"In March of 1948, Zionist forces launched a systematic plan to ethnically cleanse Palestine of its indigenous population. Heavily armed Zionist militias seized control of numerous multi-ethnic cities such as Jaffa, Haifa Selat and Tiberius and ruthlessly drove out the native Palestinian inhabitants. Massacres took place in Deir Yasin, where 100 men, women and children were killed, Tantura where 200 men were murdered and in 368 other Palestinian villages and cities. BY THE WINTER OF 1948 90% OF THE NATIVE POPULATION -SOME 750,000 PALESTINIANS HAD BEEN TURNED INTO REFUGEES" [there's lots of pictures of dead people and detailed descriptions of how they were killed if Mr. Layton plans on telling the truth instead of the outrage we all know is coming...]

http://www.countercurrents.org/weiler040310.htm

The NDP must not in any way betray the NAKBA with some kind of awful denial of historical truth.

U, you are making demands of the NDP that cannot be met in this climate of one-sided control of the MSM. Yeah, Harper "won" in the battle for mainstream loyalty. 

If Jack Layton demanded the sort of control over caucus' comments out there in public that we see practised by Steve, you would be all over him for thought control and censorship.

Now you attack a political party for its concern about image, even though there must be parameters to "free speech" when all around you are enemies, waiting to pounce at the slightest slip.

Libby blew it, and her party is now paying the price, much to her everlasting embarassment. And, of course, she will have to fight that, and not the issue of pverty, in her next election.

Why in hell do you continue to attack the party in this fashion.  How are you going to "vote against" Mulcair in the next election? Why not just turn out - with lots of uniion NDP members - at the party's nomination meeting (get out there and round up a membership starting today) and make sure the bastard is not the party's nominee. You might have some opposition from central office, but shoot the works.   

In fact (what the hell) why don't you stand for the nomination - you have immaculate  credentials - and  show us how it should be done? Better that than simply playing a huge, nitpicking  part in demoralizing the NDP community in this little outpost of moral outrage. Get out there in front of the average masses and see how they respond to a purely moral position.  I'm betting, however, that it won't be any more morally forthright than the anti-waffle struggle by union members nearly 40 years back on the issue of nationalism.

 

Kady O'Malley has been keeping up with the news on the Detainee Documents agreement (back to the main purpose of the thread), and bless her is not falling in line with the press gallery pile-on of yesterday, mainly because she's too interested in the details.

"Orders of the Day: ContemptWatch [et al.]"

So, apparently, no-one's actually seen the agreement yet, save the 3 parties to it.  And this includes the Speaker.  Harris has asked the Speaker about launching a question of privilege (or privilege motion, I'm not clear on that point right now), but I guess the upshot is that we'll learn more after Question Period.

Excellent, thanks NorthReport.

I hope we are all in gear to support the NDP decision to boycott this travesty - and there's still hope the Speaker will do the right thing.

On the other hand, I can't help but notice that of the 6 criticisms raised by the expert (Prof. Attaran), at least two of them (#4 and #5) and arguably #3 and #6, apply with equal force to the original tentative agreement that all four parties agreed to in May. That's when the stuffing got knocked out of the Speaker's historic ruling, and Harper's win over parliamentary supremacy was ensured.

Thanks for that, OO! And here I had reconciled myself with being a voice in the wilderness. It's so much more comforting to be in a minority of two.

Unionist is running? Where do we sign up? Could be another Stuart Parker moment in the making. 

OK, I think Jay Hill tabled the agreement, but things were a bit busy here.  Then they went on to the rest of routine proceedings, and I get the sense they're coming back to the privilege/Speaker's ruling part.

Amir Attaran still doesn't like the final wording of the deal, he tells the Globe (there's a copy of the actual agreement Scribd'ed in the Globe story, too):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pact-ensures-sensitive-detainee-files-will-remain-sealed/article1606609/

Aaron Wherry notes what were some of the differences between the recent leaked draft and the final one:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/06/16/the-memorandum-of-understanding/

I have a question about one of Attaran's points (see first G&M link above @ North Report):

I'm not sure that the bolded language is uncomplicatedly true. It is true of most government lawyers (not that they've been behaving that way recently, and I'd be all in favour of seeing a judge warn a few of them to bring a toothbrush next time if they're going to keep bringing such bad arguments to court), but I'd like to know whether there is an office in our justice ministry parallel to the U.S. DoJ OLC (Office of Legal Counsel), which does provide legal advice specifically for their executive branch. (Yes, we're on John Yoo territory here.)

I know that we don't have the "division of powers" familiar from U.S. constitutional arrangements (although in theory, most of their DoJ lawyers also represent the U.S., not just the executive), but as we learned from the last Khadr hearing before the Supreme Court, the Court accepts Harper's claims of privilege on certain grounds (in that case, that the conduct of foreign policy is assigned to the government), although with a (weak) warning that privilege cannot be used to cover for violations of the constitution or international law. (Wouldn't it be nice if they enforced that?)

Anyway, does anyone know how to break this down? I think that solicitor-client-privilege claims are exceptionally dangerous, but that's partly because they seem to be a grey area. I, anyway, do not have my head around the distinctions that may obtain in Canada -- maybe we need some better distinctions?

A second quibble with that first G&M article: Drapeau says that Bush released "controversial [OLC] memos" -- well, not many, and mainly because they were already leaking. The major release was made last year by Obama/Holder, again because they were expected to be leaked anyway, although that was a major breakthrough.

 

Well, maybe that's my question: in what sense are Harper and his cabinet "the government," and in what sense is the whole of Parliament "the government"?

For OO @ 56:

I follow all the separate definitions. What makes skdadl's head hurt is trying to fit them together. I go back to Prof Attaran's lines:

which, if I read you @ 56 correctly, means Harper and his cabinet. Yes/no?

Which would mean that there is solicitor-client privilege.

(Goddamn this editor: I cannot get it to stop coding for me.)

And then beyond that, how do you fit what you wrote @ 54 re the "indivisibility of the Crown" with para 2 @ 56? Same problem as my  last question above.

I'm not trying to be contrarian here; I'm just not grasping where the divisions lie if there are also claims of indivisibility.

I also refuse to continue typing in this perverse box that will not let me disable the forking italics, and besides skdadl's head hurt. But I thank you very much for your patience with the weedy questions. *hugs*

 

According to the Globe&Mail: "NDP MP Jack Harris has said this deal doesn’t fit with the spirit of a historic ruling in April, when Commons Speaker Peter Milliken declared that Parliament had an absolute authority to demand un-redacted versions of the detainee documents."
-------------------
With all due respect to Jack Harris, he's wrong.

At the very heart of Milliken's ruling is the affirmation of parliamentary sovereignty and the ability of the House to create, amend, and repeal any rule it so decides is necessary to manage its own affairs. Parliament has the full authority to demand and receive uncensored documents.  But, by the same authority, Parliament is also able to place explicit limits and conditions on which documents it sees if the House so chooses.

To quote Milliken: "No statute or practice diminishes the fullness of the power rooted in the House privileges unless there is an explicit legal provision to that effect, or unless the House adopts a specific resolution limiting the power. The House has never set a limit on its power to order the production of papers and records." (my emphasis)

Until now and in this very specific instance.

Everything in Milliken's ruiling regarding the production of documents flows from this power, this sovereignty.

The spirit of Milliken's ruling lies in the ability of the House to freely set its own rules and its own limits by simple majority vote, which is how the standing rules that govern Parliament's ability to demand documents came into being. And clearly, limiting access to documents that legitimately (and I stress legitimate) involve cabinet and/or solicitor-client privilege fall within the legal preferences noted by the Speaker.

This may or may not be a good deal and may, in the final analysis, be a bad for Parliament and bad for Canadians but it is certainly within the spirit of Milliken's ruling.