- Harper, MacKay and the Con's playing soldier
Submitted: 9:36am & 9:53am, PDT, 1 Apr.'10 CBC News
Re-submitted: 12:51pm & 3:33pm, PDT, 1 Apr.'10
Afghan security blocked Canadian detainee access, CBC News, 1 Apr.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/01/afghanistan-nds-detainees-.html#socialcomments-submitTab 17
If I recall, and perhaps the media can throw a light on this, apparently, forgotten aspect of the early Harper days.
One of the first things Stephen Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, Hawn and the rest of the Cons did when they took over in Jan.'06 was to crank up Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to that of active combat. This, of course, corresponds to the belligerent, 'Hawkish' nature of Harper and the Con's and was in line with GW Bush and the extreme conservative movement in the US to whose tune Harper marches, in fact, if the truth be know, it may very well have been Harper's 'marching orders'. But more than this, they wanted to 'associate themselves' with the military (MacKay) and play soldier (MacKay's little buck private soldiering video, shown on CBC I think it was, is quite revealing).
When the Opposition brought up the issue of possible torture of Afghan Detainee in Parliament, instead of serious answers to serious questions they were viciously attacked and on a very personal level. There was no serious reply by Harper, O'Connor, MacKay, don't forget John Baird.
The reasons Harper is fighting release of these documents and un-redacted , is becoming manifestly clear. As Cory Anderson testified "detainee issue was a potential 'mission-killer' for Canada's efforts in Afghanistan". Harper and the Con's covered this issue up at the time in the manner discussed above.
It has always been clear that Harper, MacKay, O'Connon had to of know about abuse of Afghan detainees transferred. The problem is, their covering it up allowed for the possible violations of International Laws involving war crimes during active combat. To maintain their policy of active combat in Afghanistan they put our brave men and women in uniform in potential harms way, not from the Taliban, but potential legal repercussions.
However, if the truth be know, I think that every Canadian to a man, woman and child would join ranks and stand strongly behind our troops and demand those that are really to blame take responsibility. It is shameful and outrageous for Harper to suggest that revealing the documents is somehow against our troops. This is simply trying to duck taking responsibility.
Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn you wanted to play soldier, so act like one. Abide by the soldier's Code of Honour, stand up take responsibility and accept the necessary consequences of your actions. Don't try to use our good men and women in uniform, or civil servants, as a shield.
***
Submitted: 9:53am, PDT, 1 Apr.'10
continued . . .
"'The practice of this House, and in other jurisdictions, has always been to acknowledge that some information ought not to be disclosed for considerations of public policy or national security,' Nicholson said in the House of Commons."
Wrong, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson.
The practice in free, open and democratic societies is to bring wrong doing to light and hold those responsible accountable.
This is one of the fundamental duties the people entrust to their Parliament (or, other body elected by the people to represent them in governing the country).
To oppose Parliament is to oppose the Will of the people, to favour a small group to the exclusion of the majority, to declare yourself as the paramount power with no accountability to the people, in other words a de facto dictatorship.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Re-submitted: 12:51pm & 3:33pm, PDT, 1 Apr.'10
Afghan security blocked Canadian detainee access, CBC News, 1 Apr.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/01/afghanistan-nds-detainees-.html#socialcomments-submitTab 17
If I recall, and perhaps the media can throw a light on this, apparently, forgotten aspect of the early Harper days.
One of the first things Stephen Harper, MacKay, O'Connor, Hawn and the rest of the Cons did when they took over in Jan.'06 was to crank up Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to that of active combat. This, of course, corresponds to the belligerent, 'Hawkish' nature of Harper and the Con's and was in line with GW Bush and the extreme conservative movement in the US to whose tune Harper marches, in fact, if the truth be know, it may very well have been Harper's 'marching orders'. But more than this, they wanted to 'associate themselves' with the military (MacKay) and play soldier (MacKay's little buck private soldiering video, shown on CBC I think it was, is quite revealing).
When the Opposition brought up the issue of possible torture of Afghan Detainee in Parliament, instead of serious answers to serious questions they were viciously attacked and on a very personal level. There was no serious reply by Harper, O'Connor, MacKay, don't forget John Baird.
The reasons Harper is fighting release of these documents and un-redacted , is becoming manifestly clear. As Cory Anderson testified "detainee issue was a potential 'mission-killer' for Canada's efforts in Afghanistan". Harper and the Con's covered this issue up at the time in the manner discussed above.
It has always been clear that Harper, MacKay, O'Connon had to of know about abuse of Afghan detainees transferred. The problem is, their covering it up allowed for the possible violations of International Laws involving war crimes during active combat. To maintain their policy of active combat in Afghanistan they put our brave men and women in uniform in potential harms way, not from the Taliban, but potential legal repercussions.
However, if the truth be know, I think that every Canadian to a man, woman and child would join ranks and stand strongly behind our troops and demand those that are really to blame take responsibility. It is shameful and outrageous for Harper to suggest that revealing the documents is somehow against our troops. This is simply trying to duck taking responsibility.
Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn you wanted to play soldier, so act like one. Abide by the soldier's Code of Honour, stand up take responsibility and accept the necessary consequences of your actions. Don't try to use our good men and women in uniform, or civil servants, as a shield.
***
Submitted: 9:53am, PDT, 1 Apr.'10
continued . . .
"'The practice of this House, and in other jurisdictions, has always been to acknowledge that some information ought not to be disclosed for considerations of public policy or national security,' Nicholson said in the House of Commons."
Wrong, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson.
The practice in free, open and democratic societies is to bring wrong doing to light and hold those responsible accountable.
This is one of the fundamental duties the people entrust to their Parliament (or, other body elected by the people to represent them in governing the country).
To oppose Parliament is to oppose the Will of the people, to favour a small group to the exclusion of the majority, to declare yourself as the paramount power with no accountability to the people, in other words a de facto dictatorship.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
posted by wlloydm at
10:04 AM
<< Home