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.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Travers doesn't do a reading of the language -- he simply states:
and moves on from there. I take him seriously, though, as a guy who obviously has backstage contacts, has seen some documents still not made public, believes, eg, that we have been colluding with the U.S. to launder some prisoners through the NDS to get them into the black site at Bagram (which I also suspect). So if he's leaping directly to despair, I figure he must have some reason to do so.
I agree with your literal reading of the language, as does the Jurist, as Coyne more or less did at one point. And yet everyone else I've read seems to have that fuzzy sense that the Jurist describes as the Liberals giving the agreement a "weak" interpretation. So somebody's been saying something. You'd think, if that was outright wrong, we'd have heard some Liberals attempting to clear up the uncertainty and criticism. But nothing so far.
He was on CTV Question Period today, reiterating the same point: that he felt the agreement negotiated away the aspect of the Speaker's ruling that asserted the supremacy of Parliament, and that it was done "primarily for partisan reasons", that for this he blames the Liberals, and says that they did it for two reasons: (i) because they're afraid of an election, and (ii) because they believe they'll be the government one day, and won't want to give Parliament too much power over themselves either.
Jane Taber tried to dismissively trash the NDP for "walking away with their hands up" from the deal, but Travers disagreed with her, saying "that they did the right thing", and that Jack Layton's and the NDP's performance was one of the hits of the last sitting of Parliament, and they're setting themselves up to be the real opposition party (he might have said next opposition party) to the Harper government.
Taber sniffed, but didn't have any material to disagree with him further.
Well, Taber is an insider of the gossip-columnist garden-party sort, but Travers sounds to me an insider of the serious deep-background conversations sort, so I'm tempted to believe him, or at least take his views seriously.
I wonder when the next move is -- not till August sometime, I think. Who will keep this alive? Who?
Exactly what Obama has done on every national security front -- rendition, torture, offshore prisons, surveillance, secretive intel squads and special ops -- more Bush than Bush in some ways. And Iggy is close friends with Cass Sunstein, last heard of promoting the use of agents provocateurs among DFHs like us. Boy, are we sunk.
The same ones who raised it to begin with: Amir Attaran, Michael Byers and good old reliably progressive NDP.
Oh, and in case anyone's still interested in interpretations of the functionality of the agreement, this morning's Hill Times has a rather good piece on it, including another poison pill (the requirement for all the party leaders to renew their signature on the agreement in a new Parliament ... which honestly I do believe is coming soon).
The bigger piece of news for me is that Errol Mendes is supporting NDP MP Joe Comartin's position on the document. This would be well-known Liberal University of Ottawa Law Professor Errol Mendes. Even their own legal scholars are disagreeing with them on this one.
[Just noticed that I wrote this a few hours ago, but forgot to hit Post. Sorry if it's been superseded by someone else.]
OO, this excerpt shows how confused everyone is about Section 7, including the Hill Times story:
Show me where Dosanjh and Nicholson are saying different things? Both are saying that claims of privilege go to the jurists' panel first. Why the "But" in the second para?
And both Dosanjh and Nicholson, in my reading of the plain text, are wrong.
Unionist, I guess the proof of the pudding is going to be in the eating, on this one. And I still haven't had time to read the original documents, so I'd have to defer to you.
The sense I got from the Hill Times story was that Amnesty's lawyer at the Military Police Complaints Commission, Paul Champ (I think that's who he's representing) is complaining about the large volume of documents that are being withheld from the MPCC under so-called "solicitor-client" privilege, so the differences of opinion on the number of documents potentially affected by that exemption may be what's behind the fears of Comartin and Mendes. It seems the parliamentary committee and MPCC process are working in parallel, but taking note of each other.
I seem to recall that the Conservative Party tried to keep a lot of documents out of the In-and-Out case based on "solicitor-client privilege" as well, by basically cc'ing their lawyer on every single communication. It's a common tactic, I'm told.
Anyways, I was talking to someone who's been attending the MPCC hearings, and is thoroughly impressed with Champ. I didn't know the name before, but I gather he has been doing yeoman's duty there.
I saw that, too - the only time I have ever seen Jane Tabor left speechless!
British Documents Reveal New Claims of Detainee Abuse
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/british-documents-reveal-new-c...
"Two more previously undisclosed allegations of beatings and abuse of Afghan detainees after they were turned over by Canadian troops to Afghanistan's controversial security service has surfaced in British court documents...Prisoner transfers were halted until the investigation into the two cases were completed, but quickly resumed. Unlike previous halts - which were announced by ministers or senior officials - this one was never disclosed..
Critics of the government's policy say it's so lax and willfully blind that it amounts to transferring prisoners to torture, A WAR CRIME UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION."
Given the weekend detention centre in Toronto it is arguable that if the Canadian troops had remained the jailers after being the captors that the abuse would have been as bad or worse.
As bad as things were in Toronto, and they were indeed unacceptable, this kind of comparison minimizes what Afgan prisoners have faced. People were not tortured to death here.
I was going on the presumption that "citizens" in Canada would get better treatment than any Tailban suspect would get from our occupying troops. I should have realized that an Afghan in a turban speaking "gibberish" would be treated the same as a middle class Canadian trying to go work for the TTC.
Yes things were bad for the TTC worker but don't you think it is offensive to suggest that that worker's ill treatment compares with what our armed forces have handed people over to? Or even participated in themselves?
Give the documented allegations of torture we have heard, I find it difficult to hear a bunch of comparatively well-off, fortunate Canadians comparing their lot with the Afghans.The survival rate alone should tell you what I am getting at.
Yes, some innocent Canadians got roped in and that was bad. They had a bad night and suffered terribly. But it is going a bit far to compare their fates with those of the Afghan civilians who have been unlucky enough to get in our way, or possibly have information we or one of our "allies" wants. I find the comparison extremely offensive.
How many innocent Canadians did not survive their detainment?
I get the point that we are in no position to lecture others if that is the point you are making. I get that we are not offering a good example. I get that we are not showing any respect for human rights here either while crowing about it half way around the world. But to compare the experiences of Canadians-- even the worst ones in the G20 to the experience of Afghans frankly angers me. Spend a bit of time looking at the allegations Afghan prisoners are making-- substantiated allegations in many cases before you continue down this path. If your points are the ones I suggested at the start of this paragraph-- quit while you are ahead.
Yes sir massa sir. Can I go now?
Kropotkin. That is completely uncalled for and unacceptable.
I won't respond in kind other than to say that is a good example of the worst of this place.
And of course I will flag it as offensive given that it comes on a day you were already warned in another thread by a moderator.
Sean IN Ottawa if you want to post condescending posts why should I not be able too? You are on a very slippery slope. Do you believe that the treatment accorded to our citizens was in keeping with the minimum treatment of prisoners of war. Are you arguing that our troops would be justified in this treatment or at least it would be legal? So when will the treatment go over the line in your estimation?
Was the treatment given to the young women in particular that were arrested not humiliating and intimidating? If it did not fall below the Geneva Convention then you could explain to me when what would. If it did fall below the minimum standard then why are you making differences between types of abuse and saying we need to minimize it because it could have been worse.
I was outraged that I saw what looked like testimony that our police engaged in conduct that was not up to even the standard required for an active combatant in a war theatre.
As for your "I'm telling Mom on you," I would vote that as the absolute best of babble. The perfect cooperative spirit of take my insults or STFU. I will not take your velvety put downs so go ahead get me banned for responding to you. I am an anarchist that should be just about enough on this board. One misstep and the posse will throw me out for the good of the movement.
Closing for length.
Reopening.
kropotkin, your post #104 is offensive and racist. Don't use that kind of language again, or you will get a suspension. The fact that you are and old timer and very aware of babble policy means you have no excuse for such talk.
When I closed this thread yesterday evening, clearly I had not read it, nor had I seen Sean's flag of the offensive language.
Closing again.