- Harper Call Off Your Attack Dogs
Submitted: 6:25am, 16 Apr.'10
Afghan shooting claims 'drive-by smears': MacKay, CBC News, 15 Apr.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/15/afghan-translator-allegations-detainees.html
Peter MacKay:
"insisted Thursday the Canadian Forces investigates all substantiated allegations of abuse.
. . .
'Our troops certainly deserve better than drive-by smears and unsubstantiated allegations,' the minister told the House during question period."
. . .
"When specific allegations are brought forward, we have forums, we have investigations, and we have the ability to look into them, but in yesterday's testimony there was no specific evidence offered, by his own admission," MacKay said.
And this from the guy who claims that if it is not in Hansard it didn't happen.
Peter MacKay, these are specific allegations and we do have a forum and investigations to look into them.
It's called 'a full and open Judicial Inquiry'.
Given that Mr. Malgarai's response to the MacKay attack is:
"If he wants me to prove it, give me access to the information and I'll lead them to it . . . Or issue a visa, I'll bring the witness."
Clearly 'a full and open Judicial Inquiry' is the only answer.
To suggest that these are simply rumours and nothing but hearsay is, and from MacKay i'd suggest deliberate, mis-framing the evidence.
Being a lawyer I am surprised that he seems to miss the distinction. This is not a simple rumour, like what you might hear while at your local Pub. This is what, according to Mr. Malgarai, was what he translated to Canadian officials from eye witnesses.
Keep in mind that any Court of Law, in free and open Democracies, of which Canada still is, anyway, accepts what a translator relays as what a witness says in another language as evidence. There is no accusation of hearsay.
The key is that the interpreter is suitably qualified, and given the letter of reference and the length of time the Canadian authorities employed Mr. Malgarai I infer this is a given. The second, is that the interpreter is oath bound to translate accurately and completely to the best of his/her ability. I would be very surprised if this were not part of Mr. Malgarai duties and responsibilities as interpreter for the Canadian authorities - it would be bizarre to suggest it would have been otherwise. It is also bizarre to think that it was in fact anything else.
Also, Gen. Natynczyk seems to take this allegation seriously. So, why is it Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper don't. Well the easy answer is that if they did take it seriously instead of simply responding with viscous personal attacks, they would have to call a full, open Judicial Inquiry, now wouldn't they. and then they'd be scr[XX]d, perhaps.
One thing Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, Laurie Hawn might keep in mind is that it is usually after the leaders of a country have discontinued their rule, for whatever reason, that they are brought before the ICC (International Criminal Courts) at the Hague. Harper, MacKay and the Con's can hold out while they are in power, but what about after they leave.
For whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee, Stephen.
Harper is renowned as a strategist, so perhaps he has previously prepared position to fall back on. I wonder what that could be.
How many will be surprised if it comes out that there can be found no damning evidence after Harper leaves office.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Afghan shooting claims 'drive-by smears': MacKay, CBC News, 15 Apr.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/15/afghan-translator-allegations-detainees.html
Peter MacKay:
"insisted Thursday the Canadian Forces investigates all substantiated allegations of abuse.
. . .
'Our troops certainly deserve better than drive-by smears and unsubstantiated allegations,' the minister told the House during question period."
. . .
"When specific allegations are brought forward, we have forums, we have investigations, and we have the ability to look into them, but in yesterday's testimony there was no specific evidence offered, by his own admission," MacKay said.
And this from the guy who claims that if it is not in Hansard it didn't happen.
Peter MacKay, these are specific allegations and we do have a forum and investigations to look into them.
It's called 'a full and open Judicial Inquiry'.
Given that Mr. Malgarai's response to the MacKay attack is:
"If he wants me to prove it, give me access to the information and I'll lead them to it . . . Or issue a visa, I'll bring the witness."
Clearly 'a full and open Judicial Inquiry' is the only answer.
To suggest that these are simply rumours and nothing but hearsay is, and from MacKay i'd suggest deliberate, mis-framing the evidence.
Being a lawyer I am surprised that he seems to miss the distinction. This is not a simple rumour, like what you might hear while at your local Pub. This is what, according to Mr. Malgarai, was what he translated to Canadian officials from eye witnesses.
Keep in mind that any Court of Law, in free and open Democracies, of which Canada still is, anyway, accepts what a translator relays as what a witness says in another language as evidence. There is no accusation of hearsay.
The key is that the interpreter is suitably qualified, and given the letter of reference and the length of time the Canadian authorities employed Mr. Malgarai I infer this is a given. The second, is that the interpreter is oath bound to translate accurately and completely to the best of his/her ability. I would be very surprised if this were not part of Mr. Malgarai duties and responsibilities as interpreter for the Canadian authorities - it would be bizarre to suggest it would have been otherwise. It is also bizarre to think that it was in fact anything else.
Also, Gen. Natynczyk seems to take this allegation seriously. So, why is it Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper don't. Well the easy answer is that if they did take it seriously instead of simply responding with viscous personal attacks, they would have to call a full, open Judicial Inquiry, now wouldn't they. and then they'd be scr[XX]d, perhaps.
One thing Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, Laurie Hawn might keep in mind is that it is usually after the leaders of a country have discontinued their rule, for whatever reason, that they are brought before the ICC (International Criminal Courts) at the Hague. Harper, MacKay and the Con's can hold out while they are in power, but what about after they leave.
For whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee, Stephen.
Harper is renowned as a strategist, so perhaps he has previously prepared position to fall back on. I wonder what that could be.
How many will be surprised if it comes out that there can be found no damning evidence after Harper leaves office.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
posted by wlloydm at
6:31 AM
<< Home