-_-
Will Harper Cut Potato Head Loose & Incur the Wrath of Nova Scotians?
Wed, 2009-12-09 23:31
#1
Will Harper Cut Potato Head Loose & Incur the Wrath of Nova Scotians?
Wed, 2009-12-09 23:34
#2
Haven't we been through this saga before? This is not the first time Potato Pete has screwed up but these kind of rumours about his head being on the chopping block have occurred before, and nothing happened. These people are thugs and could care less about doing the honourable thing. Not gonna happen unless Harper's in jeopardy himself, and his way out to save himself is to do MacKay in.
Canada’s Opposition Parties Say MacKay Must Resign
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aScDMIbUm01U
Wed, 2009-12-09 23:51
#3
Boom Boom
"Potato Head" 
Wed, 2009-12-09 23:56
#4
Harper, though, has an interest in clipping MacKay's wings, since Peter is one of the viable candidates to replace him. My guess is that once the Commons adjourns there will be a cabinet shuffle, and MacKay will be moved to some other portfolio while Prentice (the other potential threat) will be moved INTO Defence.
Thu, 2009-12-10 01:08
#5
Harper has shown that he will not allow the opposition to cause a cabinet minister's resignation regardless of how much scandal is involved.
He will only move a minister when he feels like it and not before. Calling for a minister's resignation often just makes Harper even more stubborn in keeping the minister in place to rub it in the opposition's faces. The agriculture minister was allowed to stay despite making jokes about people dying from poisoned food. Lisa Raitt also stayed in place, as did Tony Clement after his comments earlier this summer.
Still, it's nice to see the Conservatives having a bad week before their Christmas holiday. Hopefully they will lose a couple of points in the polls because of this.
Thu, 2009-12-10 01:10
#6
Harper has shown that he will not allow the opposition to cause a cabinet minister's resignation regardless of how much scandal is involved.
Bernier?
Thu, 2009-12-10 04:18
#7
John Ibbitson on why Peter MacKay is safe:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/mackay-may-be-indefensible-but...
Thu, 2009-12-10 05:33
#8
Mounties investigate federal role in torture
Thu, 2009-12-10 05:56
#9
Absolutely shameful behaviour by Hillier, Mulroney, MacKay, & rest of Conservative caucus. These people are just low-life bullies.
Colvin readies new response to government on torture
Canadian diplomat whose allegations of torture in Afghan prisons has set off a political firestorm is preparing a letter over what he deems to be inaccurate statements
Defence Minister Peter MacKay, who initially said there were “incredible holes” in Mr. Colvin's testimony, has been careful to note over the last few days that his attacks were not personal and aimed what he considered to be Mr. Colvin's hearsay evidence.
Some Conservative MPs were quick to paint his testimony as “ridiculous.”
It has since been revealed that the International Red Cross was also one of the groups warning of torture.
Mr. Colvin claimed that he was muzzled by superiors in Ottawa and was not allowed to write down information that contradicted the government's line on detainees and on the Afghanistan mission itself.
His former boss, David Mulroney, who is now ambassador to China, painted a more nuanced picture in testimony before the committee. Mr. Mulroney said once a collective decision was made on policy, he expected foreign service officers in the field to tow the line.
Mulroney described Colvin's warnings as opinion, rather than fact.
Retired general Rick Hillier, who also appeared before the Commons committee, was more. explicit He described Mr. Colvin's allegations of torture as “ludicrous.”
Thu, 2009-12-10 10:09
#10
Haven't we been through this saga before? This is not the first time Potato Pete has screwed up but these kind of rumours about his head being on the chopping block have occurred before, and nothing happened. These people are thugs and could care less about doing the honourable thing. Not gonna happen unless Harper's in jeopardy himself, and his way out to save himself is to do MacKay in.
There is a precedent for this: Maxime Bernier. Harpo could quietly behind the scene instruct Potato Head Pete to resign in a 'voluntold' fashion.
Torturegate has now reached the point in Watergate where Nixon, in order to protect the Office of the President, considered it eminently prudent to fire Erlichmann and Haldemann: After that, who is left? Nixon (Watergate) and Harper (Torturegate).
And what happened to Nixon?
Thu, 2009-12-10 10:56
#11
MacKay's attempted character assassination of Colvin is despicable. And let's not forget Hillier's deplorable comments as he was piling on as well like the bully he is.
MacKay's time's up
Natynczyk's about-face staggers Tories' stories
If the latest bombshell in the Afghan detainee fiasco proves the adage that truth is the first casualty of war, Defence Minister Peter MacKay should probably be the next one.
Either his credibility is in tatters, or he is not competent to hold the job.
On top of it all, as the truth about the Afghan detainee issue continues to leak out, MacKay's recent savaging of diplomatic whistleblower Richard Colvin becomes more reprehensible by the day.
Yesterday, Canada's top general, Walter Natynczyk, admitted an Afghan prisoner captured by Canadian forces in 2006 had been severely beaten after being turned over to local authorities.
The incident was so extreme, Canadian troops took back the prisoner for his own safety.
The chief of defence staff's revelation was an extraordinary about-face, reversing his own testimony before a parliamentary committee just the day before.
Natynczyk's admission also flies in the face of denials by Canadian military brass and their Conservative masters for the past three years -- most notably of late by MacKay.
The general said he wanted to correct the record after receiving a military report yesterday morning, written by a field commander in 2006, detailing the detainee beating.
"I intend to investigate why it took so long to get to the chief of defence staff," Natynczyk told reporters.
Good question.
Rarely have so many officials in high places allegedly known so little about so much over such a long time.
Colvin was Canada's second-ranking diplomat in Afghanistan in 2006 when he wrote over a dozen communiques warning prisoners being turned over to local authorities were probably being tortured.
But somehow not one person in a position of military or political decision-making recalls reading any of Colvin's rockets to them.
http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/greg_weston/2009/12/10/12102...
Thu, 2009-12-10 13:05
#12
I am surprised by the Sun article. This could do critical damage to MacKay locally as well. He appears incompetent. 
I predict MacKay will get hung out to dry.
I am also going to predict that Elizabeth May returns to Central Nova before the election is called.
Thu, 2009-12-10 13:18
#13
Natynczyk's about-face staggers Tories' stories
Yesterday, Canada's top general, Walter Natynczyk, admitted an Afghan prisoner captured by Canadian forces in 2006 had been severely beaten after being turned over to local authorities.
The incident was so extreme, Canadian troops took back the prisoner for his own safety.
The chief of defence staff's revelation was an extraordinary about-face, reversing his own testimony before a parliamentary committee just the day before.
Natynczyk's admission also flies in the face of denials by Canadian military brass and their Conservative masters for the past three years -- most notably of late by MacKay.
The general said he wanted to correct the record after receiving a military report yesterday morning, written by a field commander in 2006, detailing the detainee beating.
"I intend to investigate why it took so long to get to the chief of defence staff," Natynczyk told reporters.
The actions of the Conservative government and former Gen. Rick Hillier have tarnished Canada's and the Canadian military's image, both at home and internationally.
Gen. Natynczyk is covering his own and the military's ass.
I will tell you what his military investigation will find: At the very least, the reason why this particular report of transferred Afghan PoW abuse didn't surface until some four years later, is that Natynczyk's predecessor Gen. Hillier "buried" or as Nixon would put it, "deep sixed" it.
Hillier may have acted on his own, in which case responsibility for this war crime rests with him. If he acted the way he should, then he should have been in constant communication with his superiors which would be the Defense Minister (MacKay) and the PMO who would have been informed of the abuse and the instructions to cover up and "deep six" the problem would have come from them and they too, would be culpable in regard to this war crime. The investigation will also reveal how limited or widespread such transferred PoW abuse was/is.
Whoa Nellie, is Hillier's reputation ever going to be destroyed by Walt's military investigation!
Thu, 2009-12-10 13:57
#14
Substantial side benefit: deep six Hillier's future political career. [Though he'll still have the consolation of a seven figure income with all the speaker fees and directorships he gets to add to his pension.]
Thu, 2009-12-10 14:16
#15
Substantial side benefit: deep six Hillier's future political career. [Though he'll still have the consolation of a seven figure income with all the speaker fees and directorships he gets to add to his pension.]
[Sigh] Just like war criminals former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
Thu, 2009-12-10 14:22
#16
Sgt. Rock and/or Potatoe Head could be charged with war crimes, as FrmrSldr explains.
I would really like to see them both reduced to a pool of their own snot and have to live there for the rest of their miserable lives.
It is said that the one doing the torture often has PTSD as bad as their victims do, so maybe Hillier and MacKay are getting their own negative kharma returned to them in other ways even if Canada does not manage to charge them for war crimes.
Thu, 2009-12-10 15:02
#17
... even if Canada does not manage to charge them for war crimes.
They face the prospect of both being brought before Canada's criminal court and the World Court in the Hague over war crimes.
Thu, 2009-12-10 17:24
#18
I am surprised by the Sun article. This could do critical damage to MacKay locally as well. He appears incompetent.
I predict MacKay will get hung out to dry.
I am also going to predict that Elizabeth May returns to Central Nova before the election is called.
That would certainly be interesting to see!
Thu, 2009-12-10 17:27
#19
Whats going to happen is they will blame it on a 'liberal' bureaucrat who didn't pass the information up the chain and that person will be fired showing how responsible and accountable they are.
Thu, 2009-12-10 17:49
#20
remind
do not see how they could, given the General's reversal and information otherwise is out there.
... the snowball is rolling down hill, can Harper out run it and leave Mackay in it's path?
My bet is on Harper running, or being carried actually, out of harms way. He will not want his legacy to show he was a war criminal.
I wonder if there is enough hatchets out there though, who have info and would see this as a good time to rid themselves of both Harper and Mackay?
Thu, 2009-12-10 18:08
#21
Whats going to happen is they will blame it on a 'liberal' bureaucrat who didn't pass the information up the chain and that person will be fired showing how responsible and accountable they are.
Walt Natynczyk is talking about a 2006 field report written by a Section Commander (a Sergeant) concerning the subsequent torture by Afghan authorities and rescue of a handed over PoW by the Canadian military. That report was 'deep sixed' within the military by the military. That would be then Chief of Defense Staff Gen. Rick Hillier.
The question I have is, did he or did he not inform his superiors: the Defense Department and the PMO.
Harpo and MacKay can't wriggle out of this one by blaming some nameless, faceless (non-existent) public servant.
Thu, 2009-12-10 18:16
#22
How soon do you want to bet Hillier holds another news conference to "adjust" his story and protect his reputation?
My bet is sometime in January if the committee investigating goes on break along with the house. However, if the committee continues to meet, and is able to table Colvin's new letter, then Hillier will be re-explaining himself sometime before Christmas.
Thu, 2009-12-10 18:21
#23
Harper, though, has an interest in clipping MacKay's wings, since Peter is one of the viable candidates to replace him. My guess is that once the Commons adjourns there will be a cabinet shuffle, and MacKay will be moved to some other portfolio while Prentice (the other potential threat) will be moved INTO Defence.
I'm not sure why MacKay thinks he is going to be the next leader of the Conservatives. He still barely speaks French from what I can tell.
Thu, 2009-12-10 19:00
#24
How soon do you want to bet Hillier holds another news conference to "adjust" his story and protect his reputation?
My bet is sometime in January if the committee investigating goes on break along with the house. However, if the committee continues to meet, and is able to table Colvin's new letter, then Hillier will be re-explaining himself sometime before Christmas.
When Hillier first appeared before the House (along with the other generals) to support the government, just look at his testimony. It was full of internal contradictions:
According to Hillier, Colvin did not have substantive evidence that Afghan detainees handed over by the military were tortured by Afghan authorities in 2006. Hillier makes the universal statement that there is no substantive evidence that Afghan transferees were tortured because the military made sure that no one transferred was tortured. Elsewhere, Hillier makes the claim that the military, in fact, had substantive evidence that Afghan transferees were tortured. Acting on this so called "substantive evidence", Hillier and the government stopped Afghan detainee transfers the next year and the year following that - in 2007 and 2008.
Hillier also slammed Colvin's claim that many of the detainees who had been arrested were innocent people...
Here's a quote from the CBC dated Wednesday December 2, 2009:
... "nothing could be further from the truth. We detained, under violent actions, people trying to kill our sons and daughters, who had in some cases done that, been successful at it, and were continuing to do it."
Hillier ignores the fact that we are killing the sons and daughters of the Afghan people in our illegal war of aggression. His argument dovetails with MacKay's that Afghans who legitimately defend their families, homes and country are "Taliban". "Taliban" are terrorists and are, therefore, guilty.
Although he doesn't say it, if we take his statement to its logical conclusion - it would follow: "If any of these detainees were tortured at the hands of the Afghan authorities, they deserved it."
Hillier is a four star clown, a national disgrace and embarrassment.
Thu, 2009-12-10 21:55
#25
McKay will not be cut from cabinet, but I think he is finished as Defence Minister. Harper wouldn't even let him answer questions in the HoC. That task was given to John Baird. There are also rumours that the Canadian Forces will not withdraw from Afghanistan at the anticipated 2011 date and Harper will need a minister he can trust if that issue is to be carried through. This was the subtext to the Chief of Staff's comment in the press recently that if he does not receive clearer guidance from the Conservatives, Canadian troops would have to start withdrawing from Afghanistan starting this summer...in other words, to date no order has been given for them to withdraw (despite the legislation) and no order has been given to them to stay. If the opposition can get ahead of this issue, the government might get caught with its pants down if/as it tries to signal for an extension.
If Harper thinks DND is to become a hot file, then my money is for him transfering Baird to that portfolio (as predicted by the Calgary Herald's Don Martin).
As McKay is a potential leadership challenger Harper will want to shunt him somewhere important sounding (like Foreign Affairs before) but a graveyard for political aspirations (like Foreign Affairs). In other words, some file that doesn't give you a high profile on domestic issues and thus the public forgets about you- unless you screw up. Lol, with McKay, there are so many choices.
Thu, 2009-12-10 22:08
#26
Remember these comments from this asshole:
Hillier: Torture claims were 'ludicrous;' lacking in substance
Former military chief says he didn't read diplomat Richard Colvin's warnings at the time, arguing staff found nothing credible
And now this:
Afghan detainee timeline
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/12/09/12100716-sun.html
And this:
Anatomy of a spin gone wrong
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/12/10/f-vp-newman.html
And this:
Law prof: leaders knew of abuse
"The law is clear. Where there are substantial grounds for the risk of torture ... there is an absolute obligation to stop that transfer," said Errol Mendes, from the University of Ottawa, yesterday. "(The law) doesn't say, as (Defence Minister) Peter MacKay keeps on saying in Parliament, that you have to have proven allegations." The international law indicates there need only be substantial grounds for the risk of torture, he said.
The law in question is aiding and abetting a war crime, which is outlined in the Geneva Conventions, and has also been incorporated into the Criminal Code of Canada.
"If there is knowledge or foreseeability that by handing someone over, that person is going to be subject to torture or inhumane treatment, then that could likely constitute aiding and abetting a war crime," said Payam Akhavan, a McGill University law professor with experience in international courts and tribunals.
Both Mendes and Akhavan said any responsibility for the incident lies with the civilian command, not with individual soldiers in Afghanistan.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/prof+leaders+knew+abuse/2323420/story.html
Thu, 2009-12-10 23:57
#27
So that explains it. Thanks for that Frmsldr.
Fri, 2009-12-11 00:15
#28
What a difference a day makes.
Enough bruises for an inquiry
Tories have lost all deniability on detainee affair
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=2323082
Fri, 2009-12-11 00:19
#29
Natynczyk has been in the various forms of media everyday for the last two weeks taking about the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Fri, 2009-12-11 00:58
#30
NorthReport, have you gone to the Canada Complicit in TORTURE Part 2 thread? There is a good debate on this subject there too.
Hello Webgear, it's good to hear the opinions of a fellow soldier on this subject.
What do you think, are Harper and MacKay right. That this issue tarnishes the military. Or are Colvin and Natynczyk right that it is the Conservative government and Hillier (and his cabal of generals) who have brought disgrace to the military?
Fri, 2009-12-11 01:01
#31
I am not going to give my view on the detainee issue. I do not believe we could have honest and open discussion here.
Fri, 2009-12-11 01:09
#32
Ah, perhaps you might feel under siege like Petey MacKay.
Fri, 2009-12-11 01:11
#33
There are also rumours that the Canadian Forces will not withdraw from Afghanistan at the anticipated 2011 date and Harper will need a minister he can trust if that issue is to be carried through. This was the subtext to the Chief of Staff's comment in the press recently that if he does not receive clearer guidance from the Conservatives, Canadian troops would have to start withdrawing from Afghanistan starting this summer...in other words, to date no order has been given for them to withdraw (despite the legislation) and no order has been given to them to stay. If the opposition can get ahead of this issue, the government might get caught with its pants down if/as it tries to signal for an extension.
Actually, Chief of Defense Gen. Natynczyk gave a general standing order (back in October, I believe) for his generals and subordinates to draw up plans so that all Canadian Forces personnel and equipment, etc. could be withdrawn, sold or given to the Afghan government (as appropriate) in an orderly fashion by 2011.
That is why the day after, Natynczyk was quietly recalled to Ottawa. That is why we haven't heard anything from him until yesterday.
His motivations are:
1) He wants to undo the damage of his predecessor, Hillier. Hillier tarnished the reputation of the military. Natynczyk wants to restore it.
2) Natynczyk wants to cover his own ass. - Add to edit, a bit too harsh, perhaps(?)
3) Because Natynczyk is no longer in Harper's favor, he no longer owes Harper or the Conservative government and has nothing to lose.
Fri, 2009-12-11 01:15
#34
No, why would I?
Fri, 2009-12-11 01:21
#35
welder
Haven't we been through this saga before? This is not the first time Potato Pete has screwed up but these kind of rumours about his head being on the chopping block have occurred before, and nothing happened. These people are thugs and could care less about doing the honourable thing. Not gonna happen unless Harper's in jeopardy himself, and his way out to save himself is to do MacKay in.
Canada’s Opposition Parties Say MacKay Must Resign
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aScDMIbUm01U
Wonder how David Orchard is feeling right about now?
Fri, 2009-12-11 02:57
#36
What's interesting about the lie Peter MacKay told when he promised never to join the PC's and the Alliance is that it foreshadowed the dishonest person he is today.
Fri, 2009-12-11 08:03
#37
Afghan detainee crisis: Conservative climbdown
SO, who are the dupes now, Mr. MacKay?
Fri, 2009-12-11 08:06
#38
Wow!
MacKay must resign
Rather than admitting a mistake, or apologizing for the delay, or, better still, offering a full and honest explanation, Mr. MacKay decided instead to lead an assault on a respected public servant, who testified at a parliamentary committee that he tried to warn the government repeatedly of evidence of crimes committed by Afghan jailers. The minister was either willfully blind or incompetent in responding that there is no proof that even a single detainee apprehended by Canadian soldiers was tortured. (He has since been proven wrong by his own chief of defence.) The UN, the Red Cross, and other agencies and countries all reported on the abuse, but Mr. MacKay decided, irrationally, that none of it applied to Canada.
When he took over the defence portfolio more than two years ago, Mr. MacKay knew that the detainee question was a sensitive and important issue. He had a duty to ensure that he was fully informed on all aspects of the controversy, but he says today that he never saw any of the reports about torture by former diplomat Richard Colvin. That, in itself, is an admission of failure. The minister must step down. He is unfit to deal with the file any longer.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/editorials/mackay-must-resign-79038427.html
Fri, 2009-12-11 08:15
#39
MacKay's tangled web
Now there are calls for MacKay's resignation, but Harper will not want to risk a backlash in Atlantic Canada (or admit that the minister was only following orders). Still, MacKay may be moved to a lower-profile ministry in some future shuffle.
For now, he will survive with his reputation intact. That, of course, is his problem.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/MacKay+tangled/2328007/story.html
Fri, 2009-12-11 11:54
#40
remind
yesterdy when Harper and Mackay tried to make it appear as if pointing out their possible war crimes was an attack on the Canadian military persons was a new low for them.
In fact, by their words it is they who are obliquely accusing military persons and trying to deflect upon them.
Fri, 2009-12-11 13:09
#41
Poor Peter, no one likes him anymore, not even his fellow Cons it seems.
Peter MacKay seeks 'a dose of reality' back home
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/peter-mackay-seeks-a-do...
Fri, 2009-12-11 17:20
#42
Peter MacKay has never won his riding by a majority of the vote, which is interesting.
However, because of vote-splitting between the other parties in the riding, it is still going to be difficult to defeat him.
Fri, 2009-12-11 17:31
#43
remind
Liberals going to stand down?
Fri, 2009-12-11 17:36
#44
I don't like the headline Potato Head. Does babble have a different set of guidelines if the object of ridicule is a Conservative?
Conservative Anger Machine tactics spreading???
Fri, 2009-12-11 18:11
#45
Potato Head is a bit insulting, I suppose. I used to prefer it when people said MacKay had a "long face".
Fri, 2009-12-11 19:05
#46
So much for Spector's idiotic comments today.
Afghan detainee watchdog warns
of Tory 'chilling effect'
If the Conservatives ignore the order, as they appear poised to do, opposition parties could vote to find the government in contempt, sparking a battle that might result in the courts being asked to weigh the limits of parliamentary privilege.
Ministers or other MPs found in contempt could be admonished and embarrassed by being compelled to appear before the Bar of the House - the floor of the Commons - to face a grilling from MPs.
But this House order-to-produce is a rarely used power and one that is in potential conflict with laws - such as those concerning privacy and national security - that Parliament itself has passed.
The Commons has now adjourned and the debate will continue outside the House until it reconvenes in January.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/afghan-detainee-watchdog-wa...
Sat, 2009-12-12 10:20
#47
From a guy who never met a mic that he didn't like. Right. Harper and the boys must really be feeling the heat if they managed to shut him up.
Hillier mum on abuse
Former top soldier in Halifax for book signing, won’t comment on allegations of Afghan prisoner mistreatment
Sat, 2009-12-12 10:26
#48
Detainee issue screams coverup
On Tuesday, Gen. Walter Natynczyk, the chief of defence staff, announced he had misrepresented the facts since 2007 when he stated that Canadians had never detained the Afghan in question.
That means Mr. MacKay has repeatedly misled the House on the most controversial aspect of his portfolio.
In the House, Mr. MacKay did not apologize but pointed to the department.
"This issue came to my attention this morning after I spoke with Gen. Natynczyk," he said.
"He immediately went on the record to correct the record."
Fair enough. Mr. MacKay only knows what the department tells him, so he wasn’t knowingly misleading the House.
Nonetheless, the principle of ministerial accountability means he is responsible.
And if you look at the facts of this case, you come to see why ministers must be held accountable for misinformation, because they control what information they get.
Mr. MacKay is the second defence minister in a row to be given wrong information on this issue by his own department.
It was his job, and no one else’s, to make sure that didn’t happen.
He needed to know what was happening on the ground so he could report to the 308 members of the House of Commons, who represent the people in whose name our men and women are getting killed over there.
The pattern suggests he did not want to know the facts.
For example, Gen. Natynczyk says Mr. MacKay has never asked him about the detainee issue.
In his previous job as foreign affairs minister, Mr. MacKay sent Richard Colvin over to Kandahar to find out what was happening to the detainees.
Mr. Colvin sent him reports warning of torture, which Mr. MacKay later denied receiving.
He only acknowledged that his office received them after it was proven, beyond doubt, in public.
When Mr. Colvin was called to testify before a parliamentary committee — as was his duty — Mr. MacKay said: "We are being asked to accept testimony from people who throw acid in the faces of schoolchildren."
And Mr. MacKay complained that Mr. Colvin hadn’t mentioned detainee abuse when the two met in Afghanistan — likely because he would have been going over his bosses’ heads.
But Mr. MacKay would have been free to ask Mr. Colvin, and he didn’t.
And Mr. Colvin testified that his bosses at Foreign Affairs tried to stop him from reporting the inconvenient facts on the ground, which fits with the pattern at Defence, where the facts appear not to have been passed up the chain of command.
It also fits with the pattern at the Military Police Complaints Commission, an arm’s-length body that has been trying to examine the detainee issue since 2007.
The government is refusing to hand over documents before they are redacted by officials, who are supposed to black out facts to protect national security, not conceal information that would damage their political masters.
Here is what an unidentified sergeant with Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group, wrote about the Afghan detainee who was beaten up: "We then photographed the individual prior to handing him over, to ensure that if the ANP did assault him, as has happened in the past, we would have a visual record of his condition."
Here is the document as it was released to the Military Police Complaints Commission: "We then photographed the individual prior to handing him over (redacted)."
Stating that the Afghan National Police had previously assaulted detainees is not a threat to national security.
It is a threat to the senior officers, officials and politicians who have denied any evidence of such assaults.
This looks like a coverup.
Sat, 2009-12-12 10:59
#49
That last column of Steve Maher's in the Chronicle-Herald is devastating for Peter MacKay.
Sat, 2009-12-12 11:19
#50
remind
Hopefully we can keep this going until the session break is over....unless of course Harper goes to the GG again....
Sat, 2009-12-12 11:42
#51
There are rumours around Ottawa that he might seek to prorogue the session again before returning in the New Year. There's certainly an expectation of a cabinet shuffle as well.