- Harper, me thinks thow dost protest too much
Posted: 7:51am, PDT, 30 Apr.'10 CBC News
Top general OK with releasing Afghan papers, April 29, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/29/afghan-documents-speakers-ruling-liberals.html
CBC News asked Natynczyk on Thursday, "Do you have any fears of people poring over those documents?"
Natynczyk responded: "Not at all, not at all."
There's something that doesn't add up here.
Does this mean that nobody has asked Natynczyk this question before now???
Natynczyk has not told Harper this before???
If Harper has never asked him this before or Natynczyk has not informed of Harper of this then, on what factual basis is Harper insisting that releasing the documents would threaten our troops.
What about the Parliamentary Committee. Surely if no-one asked him this, Natynczyk ought to have volunteered such important and cogent evidence. I can't remember off-hand, but my impression was that 'The Three Generals' pretty much stone walled and avoided directly answering questions at the Committee.
When Natynczyk held the news conference the next day to clarify his testimony, wouldn't that be a good time for correcting such an omission.
This is another very good reason a full and open Judicial Inquiry is required.
Another, of course, is that even if representatives of Opposition parties in Parliament are allowed to view un-redacted documents, how can they be sure that nothing has been withheld, nothing has been misplaced or 'lost'. The only way is through the power to call witnesses, examine these witnesses and cross-examine these witnesses conducted by people trained, experienced and skilled in such matters.
For example, we might infer that because none of the 'Three Generals' mentioned when they testified on, or about, 8 Dec.'09, that they had no fears of people poring over these documents that they, at that time, must have had such concerns. The fact that they don't now, suggests that whatever it was they had concerns over, no longer gives concerns. The International laws have not changed, domestic laws have not changed, the underlying facts have not changed (based on the belief in the immutability of truth and reality). So, what has changed to cause these concerns to 'disappear', we are left with 'the evidence'.
***
Submitted: 7:55am, PDT, 30 Apr.'10
Also, if Canada's military has no objections, and as many other boggers have suggested, one would think he above anybody else is in a position to know whether it might jeopardize our troops, then from what source is all the resistance coming from and what is the motivation.
It only leaves Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, Laurie Hawn. We will see what happens in the next week or so.
Harper appears to be clinging to the idea that existing Legislation somehow allows him to hold back documents from Parliament. The Speaker was clear that they don't. Further, they can't. Even if there were a provision that purported to allow this interpretation, the Motion of Parliament that was passed over-rides it and takes precedence.
Harper may try to take it to the Supreme Court. But, it would be very surprising if the Supreme Court were to take jurisdiction - that would run contrary to paramountcy of Parliament. Also, I can't see the Supreme Court wanting to get mixed up in this matter, let alone thrust into the middle.
On the other hand, I found it very surprising that Frank Iacobucci was willing to get mixed up in this. Some astute Parliamentarians have pointed out that Iacobucci is not a judge, is not adjudication on anything. They also point out that he is a lawyer whose client is not Parliament. They suggest that the government is his client.
In reality, Iacobucci is Stephen Harper's lawyer, he takes instructions from Harper and reports to Harper. If there is any question, then answer me this. If Harper and the Con's were to be booted out of power, and they will, hopefully sooner rather than later, what do you think Harper's position would be, if it were to announce that they were releasing this report, assuming it has not been 're-dacted'.
If Parliament has the power to compel production of documents form the government, why not simply pass a motion requiring that the report be handed over, in toto.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Top general OK with releasing Afghan papers, April 29, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/29/afghan-documents-speakers-ruling-liberals.html
CBC News asked Natynczyk on Thursday, "Do you have any fears of people poring over those documents?"
Natynczyk responded: "Not at all, not at all."
There's something that doesn't add up here.
Does this mean that nobody has asked Natynczyk this question before now???
Natynczyk has not told Harper this before???
If Harper has never asked him this before or Natynczyk has not informed of Harper of this then, on what factual basis is Harper insisting that releasing the documents would threaten our troops.
What about the Parliamentary Committee. Surely if no-one asked him this, Natynczyk ought to have volunteered such important and cogent evidence. I can't remember off-hand, but my impression was that 'The Three Generals' pretty much stone walled and avoided directly answering questions at the Committee.
When Natynczyk held the news conference the next day to clarify his testimony, wouldn't that be a good time for correcting such an omission.
This is another very good reason a full and open Judicial Inquiry is required.
Another, of course, is that even if representatives of Opposition parties in Parliament are allowed to view un-redacted documents, how can they be sure that nothing has been withheld, nothing has been misplaced or 'lost'. The only way is through the power to call witnesses, examine these witnesses and cross-examine these witnesses conducted by people trained, experienced and skilled in such matters.
For example, we might infer that because none of the 'Three Generals' mentioned when they testified on, or about, 8 Dec.'09, that they had no fears of people poring over these documents that they, at that time, must have had such concerns. The fact that they don't now, suggests that whatever it was they had concerns over, no longer gives concerns. The International laws have not changed, domestic laws have not changed, the underlying facts have not changed (based on the belief in the immutability of truth and reality). So, what has changed to cause these concerns to 'disappear', we are left with 'the evidence'.
***
Submitted: 7:55am, PDT, 30 Apr.'10
Also, if Canada's military has no objections, and as many other boggers have suggested, one would think he above anybody else is in a position to know whether it might jeopardize our troops, then from what source is all the resistance coming from and what is the motivation.
It only leaves Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, Laurie Hawn. We will see what happens in the next week or so.
Harper appears to be clinging to the idea that existing Legislation somehow allows him to hold back documents from Parliament. The Speaker was clear that they don't. Further, they can't. Even if there were a provision that purported to allow this interpretation, the Motion of Parliament that was passed over-rides it and takes precedence.
Harper may try to take it to the Supreme Court. But, it would be very surprising if the Supreme Court were to take jurisdiction - that would run contrary to paramountcy of Parliament. Also, I can't see the Supreme Court wanting to get mixed up in this matter, let alone thrust into the middle.
On the other hand, I found it very surprising that Frank Iacobucci was willing to get mixed up in this. Some astute Parliamentarians have pointed out that Iacobucci is not a judge, is not adjudication on anything. They also point out that he is a lawyer whose client is not Parliament. They suggest that the government is his client.
In reality, Iacobucci is Stephen Harper's lawyer, he takes instructions from Harper and reports to Harper. If there is any question, then answer me this. If Harper and the Con's were to be booted out of power, and they will, hopefully sooner rather than later, what do you think Harper's position would be, if it were to announce that they were releasing this report, assuming it has not been 're-dacted'.
If Parliament has the power to compel production of documents form the government, why not simply pass a motion requiring that the report be handed over, in toto.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
posted by wlloydm at
7:58 AM
<< Home