- Harper wanted to play soldier right from the start
Submitted in two parts: 9:26am & 9:42am, PDT, 8 Apr.'10, The Toronto Star
Travers: Tories pay price for silence on detaineesComment on this story, Apr 8 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/791827--travers-tories-pay-price-for-silence-on-detainees?bn=1 tab 4
Travers is right (morally that is) of course.
However, there are a few things that he has missed the mark by a bit.
"Conservatives were told last summer that Afghanistan’s notorious NDS security directorate was too secretive and abusive to be trusted with prisoners."
It is highly unlikely that this memo came into existence at the same time that the problem with the NDS arose. This secrecy with the NDS was there all the time. By its very nature it had to be known to anyone having any dealings with them. Further, given the extent that this issue was being pursued by the Opposition in Parliament in 2006 and onwards, it is highly unlikely that the NDS secrecy was unknown to Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor and other Con's.
One question that arises is to what extent, if any, Harper and the Con's were complicit in this. After all, extreme secrecy is a hallmark of Harper and his Con's and it would be a fascinating twist on the 'turning a blind eye' scenario. In International law 'turning a blind eye' is no excuse. If the actions are covert, the government may need not have to 'turn a blind eye'. A neat trick would be to let it be known the NDS do things secretly thereby giving an 'out'. Given the very close dealings of Harper and his Con's with the Afghan authorities, including the NDS, is this really that far fetched a concept.
"An open administration, one willing to admit mistakes were made under a flawed system inherited from Liberals, would now be safely in the clear."
This gives the impression that Harper and the Con's merely continued what the Liberal started.
If I recall, one of the first things Harper did when he got in office was to change the roll of Canadians in Afghanistan from peace keepers and society reconstruction was all out active combat. This is obviously a very important distinction, especially when looking at the issue of prisoner transfers.
It appears Harper wanted to play soldier (it's his nature) in Afghanistan and if these things had come to light in 2006 and onwards, it would have seriously jeopardized his ability to do so in Afghanistan - imagine the reaction if Harper had let it be known. So instead he and the other Con's engaged in a course of action whereby instead of given, honest and full answer, they simply responded to every serious inquiry with abuse.
There is little doubt that the Canadian people will close ranks and stand behind our soldiers so that they have little fear of prosecution.
However, I am unable to suggest the same for Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and/or any Con that might be responsible.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Travers: Tories pay price for silence on detaineesComment on this story, Apr 8 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/791827--travers-tories-pay-price-for-silence-on-detainees?bn=1 tab 4
Travers is right (morally that is) of course.
However, there are a few things that he has missed the mark by a bit.
"Conservatives were told last summer that Afghanistan’s notorious NDS security directorate was too secretive and abusive to be trusted with prisoners."
It is highly unlikely that this memo came into existence at the same time that the problem with the NDS arose. This secrecy with the NDS was there all the time. By its very nature it had to be known to anyone having any dealings with them. Further, given the extent that this issue was being pursued by the Opposition in Parliament in 2006 and onwards, it is highly unlikely that the NDS secrecy was unknown to Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor and other Con's.
One question that arises is to what extent, if any, Harper and the Con's were complicit in this. After all, extreme secrecy is a hallmark of Harper and his Con's and it would be a fascinating twist on the 'turning a blind eye' scenario. In International law 'turning a blind eye' is no excuse. If the actions are covert, the government may need not have to 'turn a blind eye'. A neat trick would be to let it be known the NDS do things secretly thereby giving an 'out'. Given the very close dealings of Harper and his Con's with the Afghan authorities, including the NDS, is this really that far fetched a concept.
"An open administration, one willing to admit mistakes were made under a flawed system inherited from Liberals, would now be safely in the clear."
This gives the impression that Harper and the Con's merely continued what the Liberal started.
If I recall, one of the first things Harper did when he got in office was to change the roll of Canadians in Afghanistan from peace keepers and society reconstruction was all out active combat. This is obviously a very important distinction, especially when looking at the issue of prisoner transfers.
It appears Harper wanted to play soldier (it's his nature) in Afghanistan and if these things had come to light in 2006 and onwards, it would have seriously jeopardized his ability to do so in Afghanistan - imagine the reaction if Harper had let it be known. So instead he and the other Con's engaged in a course of action whereby instead of given, honest and full answer, they simply responded to every serious inquiry with abuse.
There is little doubt that the Canadian people will close ranks and stand behind our soldiers so that they have little fear of prosecution.
However, I am unable to suggest the same for Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and/or any Con that might be responsible.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
posted by wlloydm at
9:49 AM
<< Home