Our logo is bigger now

What will happen if Harper tries to shut down the detainee inquiry?

14 posts / 0 new

Log in or register to post comments

Sun, 2010-01-24 14:44

#1

WFPD

What will happen if Harper tries to shut down the detainee inquiry?

I am looking forward to the resumption of Parliament. The detainee inquiry committee will have a new, Conservative appointed committee chair. His job will no doubt be to shut down the inquiry. Harper has no choice, since his uncooperative behavior with the committee will lead to some sort of opposition response, possibly even a non confidence vote. Short of a non confidence vote, what other measures can the committee take against Harper and McKay? Can they force them both to testify and submit to cross examination? Can they subpoena documents in their original, unredacted form? If they can, Harper will have to kill the investigation just to save himself. This will produce a serious backlash. I am sure that the newly discovered Facebook mobilization tool will be used once again to organize opposition to the move, demonstrating greater public antipathy towards the Harper regime. Hopefully the opposition leaders will want to be seen as proactive this time, taking the lead rather than literally following the crowd.

No matter what happens, I think that the Conservatives are destined to lose seats in any election, no matter who is responsible for terminating the current Parliament. I don't know what they can do to make up for their current situation, other than buy time and hope that everyone forgets.

Sun, 2010-01-24 16:17

#2

Debater

What will happen if Harper tries to shut down the detainee inquiry?

I think he would risk dropping further in support and that if the controversy got big enough and he continued to be arrogant and undemocratic, it could potentially lead to the end of his political career.

Sun, 2010-01-24 16:28

#3

bonzo

Well, if he does shut it down he will avoid any public scrutiny. Sure, some people will complain but they will be declared taliban sympathizers, you know, like taliban Jack. Likely any discord amongst the opposition will be declared a threat to investment, and therefore threatening the recovery.

Go to the 'coca cola' torch relays, show the world Canada is safe to invest in.

Don't criticize the government, they are focusing on the economy. Any dissent will cause investment to flee, which we need to attract in order to have employment. You lefties want a job, don't you?

Sun, 2010-01-24 16:32

#4

Boom Boom

Boom Boom's picture

As I wrote in another thread, Iggy says he's not going to pull the plug, and, unless the next Budget is a really awful document, I just can't see Iggy contradicting himself. If Harper shuts down the Inquiry, that action likely will come back to haunt him whenever the next election is called - I just don't expect that to be anytime soon.

Sun, 2010-01-24 23:13

#5

N.Beltov

N.Beltov's picture

Harper could always arrange to burn down the Reichstag (or whatever that building is called in Ottawa where MPs are supposed to do their work), blame the Muslims or the Tamils or the Arabs or the left, and established a "temporary" emergency. It's been done before, I understand.

Sun, 2010-01-24 23:19

#6

Frmrsldr

Debater wrote:

What will happen if Harper tries to shut down the detainee inquiry?

I think he would risk dropping further in support and that if the controversy got big enough and he continued to be arrogant and undemocratic, it could potentially lead to the end of his political career.

If Canada ever had a Watergate, this is it. I call it "Torturgate". In fact, it is worse than Watergate. The lying to Congress and the American people and obstruction of justice by Nixon at worst broke federal laws. In the case of Torturegate, Harper, Mackay and Hillier not only violated federal laws (which are subserviant to) but violated international laws. Transferring prisoners to a third party where it is likely that the prisoners may be subject to torture or abuse is against the Geneva Conventions and is a war crime.

Mon, 2010-01-25 03:47

#7

N.Beltov

N.Beltov's picture

The best anti-Olympics poster I saw back when the "Games" were held in South Korea was a poster that read "Torture is not an Olympic Sport." One could use the same anti-Olympic slogan this time around ... with the Vancouver Games and what Canada has done in Afghanistan.

Torture is not an Olympic Sport. Boycott the Games.

It's even kinda catchy.

Mon, 2010-01-25 09:40

#8

Frmrsldr

N.Beltov wrote:

The best anti-Olympics poster I saw back when the "Games" were held in South Korea was a poster that read "Torture is not an Olympic Sport." One could use the same anti-Olympic slogan this time around ... with the Vancouver Games and what Canada has done in Afghanistan.

Torture is not an Olympic Sport. Boycott the Games.

It's even kinda catchy.

Outstanding idea. Love it!

Mon, 2010-01-25 15:47

#9

Debater

The main story today on this issue is that Richard Colvin's lawyer is now claiming that Colvin is being persecuted by the Conservatives as a result of coming forward with his allegations.

Mon, 2010-01-25 18:19

WFPD

Debater wrote:

The main story today on this issue is that Richard Colvin's lawyer is now claiming that Colvin is being persecuted by the Conservatives as a result of coming forward with his allegations.

The Conservatives should set up a death squad to take care of that trouble maker.

Mon, 2010-01-25 22:15

ottawaobserver

WFPD, either that's a really bad joke that didn't come out properly, and you should retract it, or it's one of the most offensive things I've read here in a long time. If this is a sample of what we can expect from the Conservative trolls, now that their government is down on its luck, the moderators are going to have to keep a much closer eye out.

ETA: I might be mistaken in your views, but I'm guessing this was an attempt at irony that just fell flat. Sorry, but please don't joke about shooting people.

Tue, 2010-01-26 00:14

Debater

I think WFPD was probably just trying to illustrate how undemocratic and tyrannical the Conservatives have been towards Colvin and Parliament lately.

Wed, 2010-03-10 23:16

NorthReport

Strange turn of events

Liberals feared Abu Ghraib-type detainee scandal: source

The Liberal government of 2005 feared Canada's detention of Afghan prisoners would spark a controversy similar to Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, according to a current government official who spoke with CBC News on condition of anonymity.

The official's claim comes just after Eileen Olexiuk, a former Canadian diplomat with extensive experience in Afghanistan, disclosed that in 2005, she raised the possibility detainees transferred from Canadian to Afghan custody were at risk of torture. Paul Martin's government ignored her concerns, she said.

The government official, who has been involved with the detainee issue for years, confirmed much of what Olexiuk said and added it's clear now Canada should have done more in 2005, when that first detainee transfer agreement was negotiated with the Afghan government.

He said the Liberal government looked at three options as it considered moving Canadian troops to the embattled Kandahar province from the relative stability of Kabul:

A "take and keep," which the official said raised fears of problems such as those the U.S. encountered with its control of the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq or its detention of terrorism suspects at its naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Handing off detainees to U.S. forces for transfer to U.S. facilities like Guantanamo, which had already led to trouble for a previous Liberal defence minister, Art Eggleton.
Working with Afghans and the local system in place at the time.

In the end, the government opted for the third option, the official said, adding officials and politicians felt they had to trust that helping the Afghans improve their own prison system would be enough to protect Canada's detainees.

These revelations cast the detainee issue - which has ensnared Stephen Harper's Conservatives for months - solidly back to the days of the last Liberal government.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/10/afghan-detainees-controversy...

Thu, 2010-03-11 03:30

Frmrsldr

NorthReport wrote:

These revelations cast the detainee issue - which has ensnared Stephen Harper's Conservatives for months - solidly back to the days of the last Liberal government.

Here's Janice Gross Stein's and Eugene Lang's take on this issue in their book The Unexpected War Canada in Kandahar:

Janice Gross Stein and Eugene Lang wrote:

The federal election that ended the tenure of the Martin government began within weeks of [Defense Minister Bill] Graham's return from Kabul. The detainee agreement had not been signed when the election got underway. It appeared that the new government would have to handle the issue after the election.

However, during the election campaign, Hillier visited Kabul and, along with Canada's new ambassador to Afghanistan, David Sproule, met with [Afghan] Defence Minister Wardak. During the meeting, Hillier managed to obtain the Afghan government's approval of the elusive agreement on detainees, with all the terms and conditions that Canada wanted. The general signed the agreement for Canada, even though Graham had not delegated this responsibility to him. Hillier insisted that the Department of Foreign Affairs had seen and approved the agreement at every stage and explained why he took this unusual step of signing the agreement: "Wardak was a friend of mine. We got to know each other when I was Commander of ISAF and he was CDS [Chief of Defense Staff] in Kabul. Wardak asked if I could sign the agreement since he had such great respect for me. Sproule agreed. Without question, Foreign Affairs saw the agreement and approved it. If my flight had been delayed twenty-four hours, Sproule would have signed the agreement. He wouldn't have signed anything that Foreign Affairs hadn't seen." Foreign Affairs did see the agreement, explained a senior official in the department, but when it raised objections, was told in no uncertain terms by Defence to "mind our own business. We didn't press any further."

Hillier's decision to sign the agreement -- typical of his can-do attitude -- would come back to haunt him in eighteen months, when the detainee issue blew up and engulfed the Harper government in its first real crisis.

Even though they were critical of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations' handling of the Vietnam war, Nixon tried to obstruct the publication of the Pentagon Papers. If letters, documents and information on the Vietnam war under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations could be published, then letters, documents, correspondence and information on the Vietnam war under the Nixon administration could also be published. Nixon didn't want that. He didn't want the public to know about the secret negotiations he and Henry Kissinger were having with representatives of the Hanoi government at the Round Table Paris Peace Talks. He didn't want the public to know about his secret invasion of Cambodia and his secret bombing campains of Cambodia and Laos in 1971. He didn't want public opinion to influence what he did in Indochina. When Nixon found out the man who released the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times was Daniel Ellsberg, Nixon attempted to discredit the Pentagon Papers by digging up "dirt" on Ellsberg. In a prelude to the Watergate break-in, Nixon sent his special "assistant" Howard Hunt and his accomplices to break into a couselling psychologist's office and steal Ellsberg's personal files.

Even though the "Prisoner Papers" are critical of the Chretien and Martin administrations' handling of the Afghan war - like Nixon, Harper is trying to obstruct their publication. If letters, documents, correspondence and information on the Chretien and Martin administrations' handling of the Afghan war and the treatment of Prisoners of War are published, that would mean that letters, documents, correspondence and information on his administration's handling of the Afghan war and treatment of Prisoners of War could be published. Like Nixon, Harper doesn't want that.

These new revelations do not shift the direction of the smoking gun to Chretien and Martin. The smoking gun is still firmly aimed at Harper:

All The President's Men by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Get the book or the DVD, baby.