Bring Harper Down over Detainee Issue - Election Anyone?

I can understand why the Liberals would buckle once again - but I'm surprised that the BQ would be such patsies. Would it not be in thre BQ's interest to join the NDP in denouncing the Tory obfuscation and leave the Liberals isolated?

I truly do not understand why.

we just have to get our own spin out there - Liberals cave in again!

I dont appreciate being baited by people who say "where are all the NDP partsans/dupesnow that _______ has happened."

So how about refraining from returning the favour?

Yes, the Liberals and BQ should be condemned -  but the end result is still that the war criminals' crimes stay buried . That's still the problem.

Unionist wrote:

For the NDP, they were simply outthought, outpaced, and outmanoeuvred as always - declaring "victory" prematurely, and now scrambling.

We've been around this on a lot of issues Unionist.

What is "outpaced" "outhought", "outmanouvered" when you are dealing with a multi-variable circus?

There is only so much in the parliamentary field that the NDP can do alone. Its quite a juggling act trying to bully a larger partner that wants to squish you into cooperating to get around Harper.

"Bully" [or 'compell' if you prefer] and "cooperate" in the first place, inherently don't mix well.

Let alone when the partner in question historically positions itself by posturing in the safest place possible. Which gets even worse when its confused [by its own very low standards] and weakened.

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/milliken-does-right-thing#... April 30:[/url]

KenS wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I think I mentioned that Harper will win this little skirmish. Just watch him.

Note something very central to what we can expect to see unfold: the parties are working on a compromise.

Compromise means no one gets everything they want.

But I'll go out on a limb- but a big fat one I'm very confident will hold me- that whatever the eventual agreement, Unionist will declare Harper the winner. Just watch him.

I declare Harper the winner. Hands down. Thus, Ken's prediction was correct. Even though, on [url=http://www.ndp.ca/press/agreement-on-detainee-documents-brings-us-closer... 14[/url], someone prematurely declared: "This is a victory for parliamentary democracy."

I do wonder, however, whom Ken considers to have won this skirmish - and what compromise the Conservatives made - and what they wanted which they won't be getting.

KenS wrote:

Mugs game set up by you Unioist.

You didnt just say that Harper would win- an easy prediction to make even for a minority government- you said the NDP was outfoxed, othought.

Then, Ken, if it was that simple, why didn't you say: "you're right, Unionist, Harper will win, so we need to try something different?" Instead you said... well I just quoted it above, didn't I? You and many others cherished an illusion which had zero prospect of success. All we're left with is a talking point.

Quote:

Get thinking man, even in the most general terms, and with all the benefit of hindsight, if the NDP needs the cooperation of the Liberals to actually do something, and to deny Harper a win by default... whats the big plan?

I just would like the NDP to be a little smarter. Why did I ridicule their "victory" statement last month... because I'm such a political maven? Shit, I thought it was friggin' obvious that once all three parties had agreed in principle to the mere possibility that every single document might remain secret except for a handful of MPs, the game was over. So now it's confirmed.

And what about my other prediction, Ken? That like Omar Khadr - where a majority of Parliament jumps and leaps and rises to say nice things - the detainee issue is finished, for good. After the whole drama of the anti-prorogation movement. After triggering a movement and then dashing it to the ground. That's what I predicted, and I stand by it. Want to sign up for that mugs' game?

Why do I say this? Because in the final analysis, all three of these cowardly parties will follow Stockholm's mantra - that no one really cares about these faraway events. No one votes based on how jihadists are treated in prison cells. And even parliamentary supremacy is a vacuous theoretical notion, when Harper does exactly what he wants - when he wants - on every single issue imaginable, without constraint - and if one party makes a mistake and votes against him, the other jumps to the rescue.

That's what he won and why he won. There was no profound political analysis required.

If the objective was to publicly release all the documents, that was never on the table, and Unionist was going to be disappointed from the get-go.

If the objective was to protect parliamentary supremacy and the right to order the production of papers, which is what the NDP Caucus was talking about, then what the Liberals and Bloc have signed on to gives that away, and must be fought.

I might have profound disagreements with what the government keeps secret and why, but I do accept that at least some information is justified to be classified as Secret (meaning you need that clearance to see it, and can't share it with those who don't have that clearance).  Unionist seems not to accept this point, which is his right, but it's an extreme position.

The position the government was taking was that MPs had no right to see secret or top secret documents because they might leak them, and that only the government could determine what should be seen or not.  The Speaker already found this position violated the principle of the supremacy of Parliament, when he made his ruling.

The Liberals accepted an agreement that said a panel of jurists selected by all the parties would determine what the MPs on the Committee could see or not.  Their big concession that they got from the government (whoop-de-doo) was that they could pick their own judges to sit with Frank Iacobucci.  The MPs will still not see any documents that this panel decides they can't.

Also, the process can be endlessly hijacked by any MP asking for any document to be referred to that panel.  Next week I predict Pierre Poilievre will be given a secret security clearance, named to that committee, and start referring each and every document to the panel of jurists.

Even some (normally very partisan) Liberal bloggers believe this is a complete sell out of the principle of parliamentary supremacy.

If the Liberals and Bloc had held firm to the principle that MPs will decide what they can see, and can be trusted not to reveal material that should not be released publicly, they would have been backed up by the Speaker.

As it stands, the Speaker may yet back up Harris' point of privilege.  We'll know after Question Period, I think.

Now, what if the MPs had seen documentation in the secret documents that raised questions they believed ought to be raised publicly.  That's all moot now, but two options I can think of are: (i) anything they say in the Commons is protected (their ancient right), and (ii) they could petition the courts to change the designation of the information in that document.

Unionist wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

If the objective was to protect parliamentary supremacy and the right to order the production of papers, which is what the NDP Caucus was talking about, then what the Liberals and Bloc have signed on to gives that away, and must be fought.

I agree it must be fought - but the NDP gave that away in the "tentative agreement" as well - as you know. It left the decision of what Parliament can see in the hands of unelected outsiders, with [b]no right of appeal[/b]. Milliken never mandated that. That was capitulation #1.

That's not my understanding of what transpired, or what was agreed to.

Unionist wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

I might have profound disagreements with what the government keeps secret and why, but I do accept that at least some information is justified to be classified as Secret (meaning you need that clearance to see it, and can't share it with those who don't have that clearance).  Unionist seems not to accept this point, which is his right, but it's an extreme position.

No, OO, my position is that in this country, Parliament is supposed to be supreme. [b]Parliament[/b] decides what is "Secret" - not you. Once the NDP (and Liberals and BQ) ceded that fundamental principle, there was little left of Parliamentary supremacy to uphold. Milliken never mandated that. That was capitulation #2.

That is a misunderstanding of the constitutional division of powers. The Governor-in-Council (i.e., cabinet, the executive branch) decides what it secret or top secret. That Parliament is supreme means that it can order the production of those papers regardless of their classification, the Speaker ruled.

Unionist wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

The position the government was taking was that MPs had no right to see secret or top secret documents because they might leak them, and that only the government could determine what should be seen or not.  The Speaker already found this position violated the principle of the supremacy of Parliament, when he made his ruling.

If the Liberals and Bloc had held firm to the principle that MPs will decide what they can see, and can be trusted not to reveal material that should not be released publicly, they would have been backed up by the Speaker.

All it takes is one party. Had the NDP stood firm before May 14, it might be more credible in its stand now. I hope and pray that even at this point, the NDP will indeed hold its ground. Milliken never said that a dirty deal between some (not all) of the parties would suffice to set aside his power to enforce the question of privilege.

It's also my understanding that any MP can raise a point of privilege.  I suspect there may have been some behind-the-scenes sounding out of the Speaker as to how he might rule, or at least what he might consider.

I do hope they stick to their guns, and I'm sorry they have to do it alone, frankly.

[/quote]

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

I hate to interject with facts that might get in the way of a rigteous hanging of the NDP but Unionist you are completely wrong about what the tentative agreement contained.  It contained a provision that after MPs on the committee reviewed a document it could then be refered to the extra-judical group for release if there was disagreement. MPs still saw the document. 

Yes. Four (4) MPs. Sworn to secrecy. And without their agreement, or the panel of experts' unappealable ruling, no document could be shown even to the House Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan - let alone Parliament as a whole. So Parliament had no assurance of seeing any document at all. It was up to two groups, both operating behind closed doors, sworn to secrecy, and both with the power to make "final and unreviewable" decisions.

Quote:

The appeal was final, but again MPs saw the documents and may have found other ways to get information out.

What - one or both committees rules that the documents are too secret to be seen even by the Special Committee, and the sole NDP MP on the committee (or her alternate) "leaks" it to the media? Are you serious?

As for OO's comments, I stand by what I said. There is no such thing in Canada as a "constitutional division of powers", except between the federal government and the provinces. The Governor General has certain powers, but they do [b]not[/b] extend to keeping documents secret in defiance of Parliament - and that's surely what we're talking about here.

It seems some have forgotten the elements (admittedly vague, because never committed to writing) of the "tentative agreement" - there are many decent accounts around, one of them being [url=http://www.thecourt.ca/2010/05/14/detainee-docs-agreement/]here[/url], including associated links.

So, OO, what will we say when Layton complies? Might as well put our thinking caps on. I've got my answer ready. I do believe I've given it already.

ottawaobserver wrote:

He defended her in the House, for your information, and she was sitting right behind him in the camera shot clapping.

So OO, do you think she'll resign as Deputy Leader? You're more in touch with the inside track than I am.

ottawaobserver wrote:

Update:  the Prime Minister just avoided answering Layton's questions on this issue, by calling for Libby's resignation for apparently saying that Israel was an occupying force in 1948 instead of 1967.

 Our corrupt stooges tend to avoid answering very many questions from the NDP.

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.

ottawaobserver wrote:

Oh, by the way, the only two stories being covered out of Ottawa on the half-hour newscasts on CTV Newsnet now are (i) MP expenses, and (ii) the Libby video.

What a fucking propaganda machine the mainstream media is.

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.

ottawaobserver wrote:

Update:  the Prime Minister just avoided answering Layton's questions on this issue, by calling for Libby's resignation for apparently saying that Israel was an occupying force in 1948 instead of 1967.

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.