There are certain "moments" that come, that go beyond the normal jockeying and gamesmanship. This detainee issue, while still about the subject matter, has morphed into a FUNDAMENTAL question about our democracy- the stakes are enormous, the precedents far reaching. For this reason, there can be no half measures, the opposition can't appease the government, it MUST stand firm, no matter the consequence. Anything less, and Harper "wins", not in the sport sense, but by default, because the people's representatives have lost.
On the political front, despite some pretty shallow bravado, I don't think the Conservatives really want an election that is forced under the guise of secrecy, lack of transparency and thwarting the right of Parliament, supported by the impartial ruling. It's all just to risky, and if waving the flag and troop talk is all the Conservatives can must, I'd say blowback is distinct possibility. So, if you want to go to the chess board, I'd say we're still white, and this might lessen the hyper fears that tend to turn tail at the slightest suggestion of real consequence. In other words, if the Conservatives don't provide a reasonable solution, than be prepared to go wherever we MUST, our resolve must be unwavering.
Funny thing about SPINE, when you show it, you're rewarded. The inverse is also true for the weak, and I'll be questioning my partisan leanings, should any cave occur. I don't see the value in investing, engaging, within an apparatus that can't afford to find a hill to die on. In fact, it's that mentality that has us here in the first place, paralyzed by our own calculations. Yes, it's a "moment", this is a microcosm of the entire problem with this government, our current system, all that's wrong with today's reality. Don't forget the plot, we're on the right side and that simple fact should win the day EVERYTIME.
18 comments:
I think once the Libs get a look at ALL the files, including those during the Liberal oversight years, you will see alot of opposition bravado die down.
Just a feeling....
Kind of like how you clowns lost the transparency bravado when you actually got the keys. That sort of feeling conbot?
Why so testy and insulting to my comment?
Do you have some sort of information that the Libs handled prisoner transfers flawlessly while they were in power?
I am neither a clown nor a conbot. I was merely making a comment.
Sheesh.
Of course.
Uh oh I feel a classic Jim spazzout about to happen.
although that Jim comment is fluffier than his usual lite-thoughs.
Let the spazzout begin.
The passive aggressive ones are the cutest.
Jim - I'll come to the bat for the Libs here - they have always been fully open to having everything investigated right back to November 2001 when the Liberals first put any of our soldiers into the Afghan theater.
Iggy has been on record with this, has said so in Parliament, hell it's in Hansard that he and all his fellow MPs voted for this full disclosure late last fall.
I dunno about you but that seems pretty unequivocal to me that the Grits have nothing to hide.
Now why is Harper going so far out of his way to hide something if he has nothing to hide?
And please spare us the protecting our soldiers defense, because General Natynczyk already said there are no problems releasing the unredacted documents.
Why would I get upset?
This country is as much mine as yours.
We are certainly NOT war criminals as a country, no matter the government....this will prove to be a net loss for your party.
And frankly, I am sickened.
Yeah, Jim? I am pretty sure the liberals know the risk about what is in the documents, though they may be thinking that if they did expose the liberals in that fashion, Harper would have used them by now.
Steve - there is no way the opposition could not have considered that Harper would do this. It is not in his nature to admit defeat. Not to mention the fact that Coyne predicted this right after the ruling.
I have to believe they are prepared to take this all the way. Otherwise they have all collectively pulled the biggest bone headed move in the history of political bone headed moves.
I am still sticking with my theory - that Harper is going to drag this out to the summer break, flood the airwaves with ads and then call an election.
Well... maybe not the BIGGEST bone headed move...
So I guess Jim has seen all the documents then, because that is the ONLY way he can state that we as a country are not war criminals at this point in time. Do I want to find out that we breeched our responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions regarding torture? Oh HELL no I don't, the stain it would place on the honour of the many members of my family that wore the uniform in several generations is one I would be horrified to see. Yet one cannot run away from reality if this is what we have become thanks to the policy of our government, which is what these documents are all about discovering one way or the other after all.
Indeed, I wrote more than a couple of years back how worried I was that the government had created and implemented a policy which placed the average soldier in a no win scenario, they refuse to turn over prisoners because they believe they may be liable down the road for possible war crime, which then they almost certainly face immediate court martial for disobeying orders in a combat environment which is about as bad as it gets. So which do they choose to face, immediate court martial they know will likely go against them (because if you think the odds favour a soldier refusing orders generally let alone in a combat theatre then you know nothing about military law and justice, even leaving alone the probability of the government making sure any such proceedings were kept secret given its MO to date) or a possible war crimes trail years later, especially if they aren't sure that there is a violation of Geneva even if they think it is a reasonable possibility, what do you think is going to be the more likely choice made?
This infuriated me so much it was the proximate cause for my departure from the blogging scene for a couple of years, you simply cannot understand just how deeply my feelings run about issues like this because you do not know me nor my family and our history with the military and other significant roles in the Canadian security context. However, as much as I do not want to hear this I know it must be examined fully first otherwise the suspicion and inevitable taint because of the lack of transparency is a dishonour all on its own.
As to the point of this post, I agree. This went beyond the issue of the documents and the Afghanistan file once the government claimed it was superior in power to the full Parliament itself, something under our system of government is nonsense. Andrew Coyne had it exactly right when he wrote his piece about the Speaker's ruling, I said so at MacLean’s and I wrote so at my own blog, Saundrie. This became an issue of fundamental democracy as defined by our system and the willingness of a sitting PM to decide his will was superior to that of the rule of law.
This *IS* about the rule of law, make no mistake people, and about the most important aspect/element of the rule of law in any nation is where it defines how we govern ourselves. What Harper argued and lost on was that a government was the highest authority regarding deciding national security and the ability to withhold information it chose even when the HoC as a whole voted in the majority otherwise. In the Speaker's ruling it is definitive that the only law Harper must respect on the release of these documents is that of the full HoC when they formally vote on it, this overrides any and all laws passed by Parliament regarding disclosure and national security.
To be concluded...
Conclusion:
For Harper or anyone to say they have any right to withhold any documents because of applicable laws other than the ruling of the Speaker (which shows that the government lacks that in this case since the majority of Parliament is not in agreement with them via a formal vote) on disclosure given the Speaker's ruling is to show either ignorance or contempt for the reality of what the Speaker's ruling actually said.
The ruling said that the HoC has absolute authority to compel documents and witnesses when it chooses to do so as was done with these documents last December. When he added what he did about national security he was talking about how in our history it was taken as a consideration by the opposition parties when it was involved, not that it was something the government could still claim as a basis to withhold *UNLESS* the majority of Parliament agreed, in other words not on its own authority, it must gain agreement from at least enough MPs (or a party with sufficient numbers, any in our current HoC) to have a majority of the House agreeing with that.
This is a fundamental principle that *CANNOT* be sold down the river by anyone in my books, indeed one of the core reasons for my years long fight against Harper is because he refuses to accept that this is the way our system of government works. It is his contempt for due process that makes him such a threat to our way of life, and he cannot be allowed to get away with it on something as serious as this issue is. Parliament is supreme that is how our system actually works legally, and so long as Harper has a minority he cannot escape this fact no matter how much he would prefer otherwise and has been able to act like it was not true to this point.
If Harper refuses to comply with the ruling he has shown in the most fundamental way possible that he holds the rule of law in contempt when it gets in his way, and that is something that cannot be tolerated in any PM regardless of political stripe. Anyone that can defend such has shown their own contempt for the rule of law and democracy and is in my eyes a de facto traitor to the ideas of democracy, the rule of law and the idea of the nation of Canada itself. Yes, I know this is a very harsh thing to be saying, but I really cannot in fairness call it anything else. Treason is fundamental betrayal after all, and such would be the most fundamental betrayal of the basic rules by which Canada exists as a nation and as a government. I never use the word treason and traitor lightly unlike some folks, because it is a meaning that should never be watered down or treated as rhetoric, it simply is too important and serious in nature as far as I am concerned.
The third party reference panel that is being floated in the news, sounds like a good solution.
As long as Iacabucci is not part of the panel, I would be ok to have a separate panel to resolve disputes.
Now, since the Cons have talked about national security, I would like to see Gen Walt Natynczyk (Chief of the Defense Staff) on the panel.Who better to have on the panel than someone with a vested interested in keeping the Armed Forces personnel safe.
Sounds like a good deal. Well done opposition.
Upon further review, the devil is in the details...
Post a Comment