- Harper to MPC Commission 'Never mind the Facts, Just Make A Decision'
Submitted: 9:46am, PDT, 21 Apr.'10 CBC News
Federal lawyer rues detainee document remark, CBC News, 21 Apr.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/20/afghanistan-detainees-commission.htmlTab 48
***
Transcript excerpts from the April 13, 2010, hearings on detainees at the Military Police Complaints Commission follow:
Diplomat Richard Colvin: "If we had access to the un-redacted version then there would be some crucial information, additional information which we obviously don’t have because of the redactions."
Justice Department lawyer Alain Préfontaine: "I have had access to the un-redacted document. I don’t see there anything that is missing or crucial or important."
Colvin: "Well I am afraid you are acknowledging that you are new to this issue because if you were someone who was involved in this file, involved in Afghanistan, involved in this issue, what has been redacted is extremely important and it is critical to understanding that there is nothing particularly subtle about this message. I don’t agree that it’s a subtle signal."
...
Préfontaine: "The commission will decide whether it was too subtle for the reader to pick up your meaning."
Colvin: "I think the commissioner is only given the redacted version so he may have some difficulty fully assessing the subtlety or lack thereof of this report."
Préfontaine: "I realize it’s difficult for the commission to have to contend without ability of independent verification of what you say, or for that matter, what I say."
Colvin: "I am fully prepared for the commissioner to see the un-redacted version and to form his own opinion."
Préfontaine: "So would I. But it’s not my call to make, Mr. Colvin."
Military Police Complaints Commission chairmain Glenn Stannard: "Did you say the information contained in the un-redacted [version] really isn’t critical – or did I misread that?"
Préfontaine: "No, you didn’t Mr. Stannard."
Stannard: "Just a real silly question then: any reason why we don’t have it? "
Préfontaine: "Because disclosure would be injurious to either national defence, international relations or national security."
Stannard: "Even though it’s not critical information?"
Préfontaine: "Well it might be that the information has nothing to do with what Mr. Colvin makes it out to be."
...
Colvin: “Obviously critical information has been removed by the censor. And I’m not allowed to speak to what’s behind the blacked-out portions. So I am not sure what good it is to read simply read the little bits which the censor decided is available to the Canadian public.”
Préfontaine: “Because at the end of the day, Mr. Colvin, this commission is going to be asked to pass judgment on the actions of some on the basis of this material. That’s why.”
Colvin: "I can give you my assessment of the significance of this section if you like."
Préfontaine: "No. I just am looking at what information you relayed to the reader, who will eventually end up being the commander of Joint Task Force Afghanistan, who is tasked to make the decision of whether to transfer or not."
Colvin: “But your redactions ... have made my content somewhat incoherent because big chunks of it have been sliced out. So I am not sure what good it does to read all these little bits.”
Préfontaine: “I have heard your opinion, Mr. Colvin.”
( Ottawa Notebook, Richard Colvin's catch-22, April 14, 2010, Steven Chase)
Oh, yah, I almost forgot, on Tuesday (20 Apr.'10):
"Prefontaine told the commission that the 'documents will be given to the counsel when they are good and ready.'
Glenn Stannard, the acting chair of the commission, responded that he found Prefontaine's remarks 'close to offensive, not only to the panel but also to the public.'
Following a break, Prefontaine apologized for his remarks but still would not commit to a date as to when the documents can be expected.
(Federal lawyer rues detainee document remark, CBC News, 21 Apr.'10
)
***
Am I reading this right (Prefontaine and Colvin transcript):
- Colvin's communication despite not being critical, important or adding anything to the unredacted parts, "disclosure would be injurious to either national defence, international relations or national security."
-This non-disclosure " it’s not my call to make".
- The Commission will get the disclosures (redacted) when they are Good and ready
-Prefontaine's has access to the un-redacted version of the documents
-The Commission is required to make its decision not having seen the unredacted documents
Also
-Prefontaine cross-examined Colvin, apparently despite stating at earlier Colvin was his client.
- Didn't Harper, Mackay, Baird and/or some other of the Con's state just a few weeks ago that a full public Inquiry into the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal was unnecessary since there is already a review going on - the above Military Police Complaints Commission.
And,
Didn't Harper, MacKay, Baird and/or some other of the Con's explain to Canadians that it was not them who re-dacted the documents but the Department of Justice lawyers.
Well it appears that not only are the Department of Justice lawyers not basing the decisions to redact and withhold on any legal principles other than taking instructions from his client - Harper, MacKay, Baird, O'Connor, and the Con's
It would also appear that Alain Prefontaine might have a personal interest in this case.
And,
Isn't it that the Canadian Government is his client and not Harper, MacKay, Baird, O'Connor, and the Con's, oh yah, I forgot, Harper and the Con's own the Canadian government.
Also,
Why is it that Prefontaine has access to the un-redacted and unobstructed documents. And, Harper, Mackay and the Con's have access to the un-redacted documents but there is no one else in Canada, including all the Opposition MP's and the Head of the MPCC that are capable of protecting Canada's national security. Certainly their oaths of office, their integrity, dedication and loyalty to Canada are every bit as strong as Prefontaine's as a simple lawyer, apparently unanswerable to anyone but Harper.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Federal lawyer rues detainee document remark, CBC News, 21 Apr.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/20/afghanistan-detainees-commission.htmlTab 48
***
Transcript excerpts from the April 13, 2010, hearings on detainees at the Military Police Complaints Commission follow:
Diplomat Richard Colvin: "If we had access to the un-redacted version then there would be some crucial information, additional information which we obviously don’t have because of the redactions."
Justice Department lawyer Alain Préfontaine: "I have had access to the un-redacted document. I don’t see there anything that is missing or crucial or important."
Colvin: "Well I am afraid you are acknowledging that you are new to this issue because if you were someone who was involved in this file, involved in Afghanistan, involved in this issue, what has been redacted is extremely important and it is critical to understanding that there is nothing particularly subtle about this message. I don’t agree that it’s a subtle signal."
...
Préfontaine: "The commission will decide whether it was too subtle for the reader to pick up your meaning."
Colvin: "I think the commissioner is only given the redacted version so he may have some difficulty fully assessing the subtlety or lack thereof of this report."
Préfontaine: "I realize it’s difficult for the commission to have to contend without ability of independent verification of what you say, or for that matter, what I say."
Colvin: "I am fully prepared for the commissioner to see the un-redacted version and to form his own opinion."
Préfontaine: "So would I. But it’s not my call to make, Mr. Colvin."
Military Police Complaints Commission chairmain Glenn Stannard: "Did you say the information contained in the un-redacted [version] really isn’t critical – or did I misread that?"
Préfontaine: "No, you didn’t Mr. Stannard."
Stannard: "Just a real silly question then: any reason why we don’t have it? "
Préfontaine: "Because disclosure would be injurious to either national defence, international relations or national security."
Stannard: "Even though it’s not critical information?"
Préfontaine: "Well it might be that the information has nothing to do with what Mr. Colvin makes it out to be."
...
Colvin: “Obviously critical information has been removed by the censor. And I’m not allowed to speak to what’s behind the blacked-out portions. So I am not sure what good it is to read simply read the little bits which the censor decided is available to the Canadian public.”
Préfontaine: “Because at the end of the day, Mr. Colvin, this commission is going to be asked to pass judgment on the actions of some on the basis of this material. That’s why.”
Colvin: "I can give you my assessment of the significance of this section if you like."
Préfontaine: "No. I just am looking at what information you relayed to the reader, who will eventually end up being the commander of Joint Task Force Afghanistan, who is tasked to make the decision of whether to transfer or not."
Colvin: “But your redactions ... have made my content somewhat incoherent because big chunks of it have been sliced out. So I am not sure what good it does to read all these little bits.”
Préfontaine: “I have heard your opinion, Mr. Colvin.”
( Ottawa Notebook, Richard Colvin's catch-22, April 14, 2010, Steven Chase)
Oh, yah, I almost forgot, on Tuesday (20 Apr.'10):
"Prefontaine told the commission that the 'documents will be given to the counsel when they are good and ready.'
Glenn Stannard, the acting chair of the commission, responded that he found Prefontaine's remarks 'close to offensive, not only to the panel but also to the public.'
Following a break, Prefontaine apologized for his remarks but still would not commit to a date as to when the documents can be expected.
(Federal lawyer rues detainee document remark, CBC News, 21 Apr.'10
)
***
Am I reading this right (Prefontaine and Colvin transcript):
- Colvin's communication despite not being critical, important or adding anything to the unredacted parts, "disclosure would be injurious to either national defence, international relations or national security."
-This non-disclosure " it’s not my call to make".
- The Commission will get the disclosures (redacted) when they are Good and ready
-Prefontaine's has access to the un-redacted version of the documents
-The Commission is required to make its decision not having seen the unredacted documents
Also
-Prefontaine cross-examined Colvin, apparently despite stating at earlier Colvin was his client.
- Didn't Harper, Mackay, Baird and/or some other of the Con's state just a few weeks ago that a full public Inquiry into the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal was unnecessary since there is already a review going on - the above Military Police Complaints Commission.
And,
Didn't Harper, MacKay, Baird and/or some other of the Con's explain to Canadians that it was not them who re-dacted the documents but the Department of Justice lawyers.
Well it appears that not only are the Department of Justice lawyers not basing the decisions to redact and withhold on any legal principles other than taking instructions from his client - Harper, MacKay, Baird, O'Connor, and the Con's
It would also appear that Alain Prefontaine might have a personal interest in this case.
And,
Isn't it that the Canadian Government is his client and not Harper, MacKay, Baird, O'Connor, and the Con's, oh yah, I forgot, Harper and the Con's own the Canadian government.
Also,
Why is it that Prefontaine has access to the un-redacted and unobstructed documents. And, Harper, Mackay and the Con's have access to the un-redacted documents but there is no one else in Canada, including all the Opposition MP's and the Head of the MPCC that are capable of protecting Canada's national security. Certainly their oaths of office, their integrity, dedication and loyalty to Canada are every bit as strong as Prefontaine's as a simple lawyer, apparently unanswerable to anyone but Harper.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
posted by wlloydm at
10:20 AM
<< Home