Nobody Buying

The latest EKOS poll, shows some erosion in Conservative support. It also reinforces other findings, namely that pretty much nobody is buying the Conservative detainee retort, as well as massive rejection of their secrecy and lack of transparency.

First, the detainee findings, then the horse race numbers, which provide a note of caution for the Liberals. Rarely to you find such one sided opinion, but when it comes to government knowledge of possible torture, it's close to unanimity:

Do you think that the government of Canada was aware at the time that there was a strong possibility that some of the prisoners being handed off would be tortured?

YES 83%
NO 16%

Even Conservatives say yes, by more than a margin of two to one. When your own supporters so thoroughly reject your spin, it means you have a sizable problem. The nonsensical argument that MacKay and company have put forth, is being taken as just that- their no knowledge or credible report defence simply doesn't pass the most basic of smell tests. Maybe more concerning, the government has effectively boxed themselves in with this argument, so they are stuck with trying to counter common sense.

In terms of government satisfaction on this file, Canadians don't approve of their handling:

To date, how satisfied are you with the federal government's level of transparency and disclosure regarding the alleged torture of prisoners that were handed off to Afghan authorities by Canadian Forces?

Dissatisfied 41.4%
Satisfied 24.1%
Neither 34.5%

Another bad number for the government. EKOS asks this question on a scale of 1-7, which explains the large neither component, representing a 4. I would categorize that subset as hardly supportive of the government position. The government strategy of obstruction and delay isn't doing them any favors, it suggests they have something to hide.

In terms of how this underlying weakness is translating to the horserace numbers, EKOS sees "trouble brewing" for the Conservatives, so it will be interesting in the usual voter lag effect comes into play. EKOS does find Conservative support falling, and it is noteworthy that all their gains after the September election showdown have disappeared:

35.6% CPC
26.5% LPC
16.7% NDP
11.3% Green
9.9% BQ

EKOS is now releasing in two week chunks, which represent a huge sample size (4000). They've broken it down on a week to week basis (2000 MOE 2.1), to show if there are any trends within the release. The Conservatives actually scored 35.9% in the first week, down to 35.3% the last, further evidence of a slight downward trend.

NDP support is up, although the last week shows 16% support, so there is no trend to speak of. Of note, still no evidence of a federal NDP surge in Ontario and British Columbia, despite the HST maelstorm. It will be interesting to see if provincial decisions spill over to the federal scene, to the NDP's benefit. I know many naturally assume it will, but I'm not so sure, given the perceptions of the messenger. Something to keep an eye on.

As for the Liberals, while there is some optimism in this poll, I would submit that our problems are mitigating the damage to the Conservatives. In other words, if we were a more attractive option at the moment, then voters would be more inclined to leave the Conservatives. As it stands now, we see a quirky dynamic, wherein Conservative support is slowly falling, without any uptick whatsoever for the Liberals. The voters that are leaving the Con fold, are going elsewhere. In the poll, the Greens score an impressive 11.8% in the last week, the Bloc up to 10.7%. I see a hesitation towards the Liberals, the Conservative missteps offset by our own issues, which is why the government numbers are still in healthy minority terrority. However, there is a real weakness developing, so this translates to opportunity, if Liberals can get some momentum.

Graphs You Won't See At Stephen Taylor's Blog

Faced with the LOOMING embarrassment on the world stage, Stephen Taylor tries hard to deflect criticism, in the most predictable of ways. The problem is, in his ZEAL, Taylor has pointed to a TELLING reference, which actually highlights just how ABYSMAL, the Conservative record on the environmnent.

I agree, the Liberals did a very poor job on the environment, you'll get no quibble here. Taylor attempts to neuter criticism, by pointing to the Liberal record, using the Fossil Awards, with a neat little graph. Did you know that from 1999-2005, Canada received the 2nd most Fossil Awards, ONE HALF that of the Americans under George Bush? Tsk, tsk, tsk. We stand united Stephen, in our disdain for this dreadful record. What then, does it say about the current Conservative government, that they managed to PULL AHEAD of the Americans, effectively DOUBLING the shoddy legacy of those DIRTY Liberals? The Liberals were a distant second, the Conservatives TOP THE WORLD. Here is a graph, from the last round of climate talks at Bali, under the Conservative government:


Canada leads the world. So, the more people like Taylor HIGHLIGHT the Liberal record, the more they demonstrate just how much WORSE their own. Jean Chretien was a disgrace, but we make him look like Henry David Thoreau, relative to our performance. You guys did absolutlely nothing, but we've somehow managed to do much, much worse (is that physically possible?) You guys were second only to the historical laggard George Bush, but we kicked his ass. Take that.

Shhhhhhh!!!! You're not helping :)

Just take your lumps, they're well deserved.

SHAMEFUL

Quite simply, today's revelations on the torture question, offer the most succinct indictment of this government, as well as a glaring testament to their unseemly nature. The Chronicle Herald piece has it all, a willful attempt to manage a KNOWN problem, essentially lying to an international agency, as well as putting propaganda before policy. In a few paragraphs, the essence of the Harper government is revealed.

A point on simple common sense. You don't go the lengths this government did to "manage" the message on the torture question, if you weren't aware that a problem existed. In fact, this government went so far as to co-ordinate talking points between departments, which clearly speaks to their full KNOWLEDGE. Any other suggestion is laughable, the issue was on the radar, and steps were taken to mitigate any potential fallout:

Nov. 20, 2006, Foreign Affairs officials drafted talking points meant to assure officials of the humanitarian agency.

"Canada is reflecting on how to engage more pro-actively with Afghan and international authorities on the issue of treatment of detainees, including asking the Government of Afghanistan for permission to visit the prisons, discussing with Afghan authorities the process and procedures for handling and treating detainees from transfer to arrival at final detention facility, and talking to the (Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission)," say the talking points.

The document also warned officials to prepare "an interdepartmental approach" for dealing with "the potential scenario where allegations of mistreatment or torture are substantiated."

The government, in REACTION to the Red Cross concerns, formulates these talking points to address any concerns or issues. A clear attempt to appease, rather than a genuine response to torture concerns. This shocking "misplaced priority" scenario, fully documented:

Despite those assurances, officials in Ottawa placed the notion of formally monitoring prisoners at the bottom of a "Strategic (Macro) Level Engagement" plan produced near the end of February 2007.

No. 1 on the eight-point plan for officials was to "Prepare standard key messages (ie. importance of adhering to obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law regarding the treatment of detainees.)"

Point No. 8 in the plan was to "consider supplementing the existing arrangement" in such a way to include the "guarantee of access for Canadian authorities to individuals transferred by the (Canadian Forces)."

The emphasis is on SPIN, while actually dealing with the detainee problem appears as an afterthought. The Red Cross is mislead into thinking the government is focused on action, when they are really consumed with COVERING THEIR ASSES. The question then becomes, how many Afghans were tortured during this period when the government was distracted with co-ordinating propaganda? Is the 15 month delay between awareness and action a result of putting party fortunes above INTERNATIONAL LAW concerns? Only when revelations did become public, the spin no longer effective, did the government finally act, on what they apparently knew all along.

This government prepared a messaging campaign, because they feared damaging revelations were a distinct possibility. How could they react in this manner, if they didn't have CREDIBLE information on abuse? You don't go into damage control mode, if damage doesn't exist. There is no way for apologists to reconcile this logic chasm.

Anyone paying attention knows that this government always puts messaging and control center stage, no matter the issue. It's not about getting it right, it's about finding the right talking point. The truth is a casualty, political survival the main consideration. Where this particular issue rises to a different level, the pre-occupation with self interest effectively put lives at risk, so irresponsible and offensive, Canadians should be rightly ashamed and profoundly embarrassed.

The way this torture issue was handled is a national disgrace.

"Anywhere But Copenhagen"

Quite a few entries for the Liberals photoshop contest. A few I liked:

Fudge

Peter MacKay is either a speaker of mistruth or a complete incompetent of biblical proportions. MacKay was so unequivocal in his blanket denial, which in and of itself was problematic from the onset. Today's story in the G and M isn't surprising, in fact I've been waiting for it. See, when your argument is basically reduced to an admission of frequent "mistreatment" throughout the theater, with the lone exception being your jurisdiction, you're just asking to be exposed as a fraud. In MacKay's defence, he has been constantly cornered into a forever narrowing box, sensible retorts almost impossible, apart from admitting the obvious.

If MacKay holds to his "no knowledge" defence, then it should be followed up with a frantic "how the hell didn't you?":

Proof of detainee abuse exists, despite MacKay's denials

Sworn testimony by senior Canadian officers and rare uncensored documentary evidence contradict Defence Minister Peter MacKay's repeated assertions that no proof exists of even a single case of a Canadian-transferred detainee abused by Afghan security forces.

The rescue incident dates from June of 2006, during the period when ministers and senior officers now insist they were completely unaware of repeated warnings of the risks of abuse and torture being filed by diplomat Richard Colvin.

I agree with Scott, as I argued previously, that it's time for the opposition to demand a resignation. Too often, that demand is made, and because of it the validity of the request gets lost in the partisan noise. However, in this instance, MacKay is clearly stonewalling any attempt to get to the bottom of this torture issue, or he has no business being a Minister of any kind, simply not fit to hold high office. IF, there was all this information available about detainee transfers, and it never made to MacKay's desk, then we need an inquiry for this matter alone, to address the glaring holes in government operation. It is almost scandalous, that this information never made to the Minister in question, given that we know key foreign diplomats, the Red Cross, the Commission in charge of the transfers which you relied on, the Afghan Prime Minister, our allies, etc, were all taking this issue quite seriously, concerns were RAMPANT. Why wasn't the military sharing this information with the government? Why were staff in MacKay's office withholding this information, should they not come forth and explain their behavior?

Canada may be guilty of war crimes. In this account out today, we clearly see that soldiers on the ground were entirely aware of their international requirements, they understood the parameters and protocols. MacKay himself has admitted that torture concerns are serious, and the government's eventually reforms, in the face of public disclosure, speak to the gravity. It is simply indefensible to claim ignorance, but I suppose the alternative of misleading is worse.

Minister Of Misinformation

Have you noticed the trend? Peter MacKay makes a public claim, only later be undermined by the facts at hand. In reality, I can't point to one solitary INITIAL claim MacKay has made on the torture issue, that has survived the slightest inspection. The latest example, which goes to the heart of MacKay's defence, his claim that no political interference exists, any decisions on redaction or secrecy are those of "arms length" officials, acting in the nations interest. MacKay even frames it all as a noble exercise, rather than a COVER UP. MacKay "scoffed" at any suggestion of political direction, absolving any responsibility for withholding scads of information.

Maybe MacKay needs to have a chat with his communications staff, because the latest revision is a self inflicted wound:

In testimony before the Commons defence committee on Thursday, Mr. MacKay scoffed at the idea that there could be political interference in the censorship of the documents, as opposition critics suggest.

But his department said in an email Friday that the minister’s office is DIRECTING THE LAWYERS in charge of blacking out documents.

"Instructions are given to Department of Justice counsel by the responsible minister and their officials," said an email from Josee Houde, a communications adviser at the Department of National Defence. "In this case, the responsible ministers and their officials are from the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Forces and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade."

Opposition, pointing out the obvious:

The Defence Department’s email is an acknowledgment that political direction was given to those holding the black markers, says NDP MP Jack Harris.

"That certainly contradicts the minister," he said.

Mr. MacKay told the committee that the redactions are done to protect national security, in keeping with federal legislation.

Liberal MP Ujall Dosanjh said the Defence Department has acknowledged that it was acting on instructions from the political level.

"That is a far cry from what the minister pretended was the case before the committee," he said. "He said it’s all done at arm’s length.

I recall MacKay telling us all that the Department of Justice was independently deciding what information should be made available. Completely and utterly untrue, according to this advisor, in fact "instructions" are given to the Department of Justice by the "responsible Minister" and his officials. This means that this claim of arms length contemplation doesn't exist, there is a direct channel between vested interests and redaction. The next question becomes, what were these "instructions"?? It's a pretty flimsy argument to say you don't decide what is redacted, when you've dictated the parameters. It's a cute way to avoid direct fingerprints, even though you've provided the road map.

Judging by the excessive black marker routine and lack of co-operation- referred to as "seemingly Kafkaesque" by the complaints commission- it would appear that the direction was such to render any meaningful disclosure useless. Nobody should be comfortable with this latest omission, because it completely refutes this notion of independent decision making, it suggests a puppet master working the shadows. Imagine the credibility of a process, where military brass and government officials are laying out the parameters for disclosure, and essentially telling lawyers they can only operate in areas deemed acceptable by said people. Those with self interest had a hand in what was released, there is no other conclusion. And, once again, another one of Peter MacKay's counter arguments resembles SWISS CHEESE.

HST Poll

A new poll for Ontario, which shows a dramatically different horserace, and overwhelming rejection of the HST. A NANOS poll last month indicated erosion in Liberal support (37% Lib 35% PC, 17% NDP, Green 10%). The latest Angus Reid poll brings unprecedented numbers for the McGuinty Liberals, pegged a full 14% behind the PC's:

PC 41%
Libs 27%
NDP 20%
Greens 11%

That's some serious seismic change. Of note, this poll was primarily a survey on HST opinion, so the overwhelming rejection questions may have spilt over to the horserace findings. What is apparent, the PC's are gaining at the Lib expense, while the NDP remain relatively static, slight uptick, but unremarkable given the large Liberal retreat. Again, I make the point that the NDP may not be suited to make a TAX argument(one could argue the federal incarnation even less), given people's perceptions. That said, there are warning signs in these numbers to be sure. We'll see if any of it really resonates on the federal scene.

On the HST question, it's all bad for the proponent side:

-76% are very or moderately familiar with the HST

-75% oppose the establishment of the HST in Ontario

-83% believe the HST will make goods and services more expensive

-70% say their opinion of the McGuinty government has worsened over the HST

Rarely do you see such one sided numbers. I'd question the "familiarity" finding, because it's a complicated proposition, all people are really reacting to is the word TAX.

Clearly, some worrying trends for the Liberals.

Nefarious- "Evil, Wicked, Sinful"

Peter MacKay's choice of word, to deflect criticism that vital information is being withheld from the Parliamentary Committee:

"most importantly to protect Canadian citizens, soldiers and civilians who are working in missions like in Afghanistan where they could be put in harm’s way, their lives could be literally be at risk if certain information is made public for a nefarious purpose."

Our elected officials, looking into allegations of torture and international illegalities, is equated to a "evil, wicked" endeavour. I don't have words.

------

A few comments from another story today. People will remember, that at the time of the first media accounts of systematic torture of detainees, the primary government defence was to rely on the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission to placate. The government used this Commission for cover, and yet just prior to the time the Conservatives were offering the AIHRC as monitoring screen, that group was "so alarmed at its lack of access that officials complained to President Hamid Karzai".

One, how can the Prime Minister and Defence Minister claim a lack of credible concern, when the agency they cite had brought their concerns to the HIGHEST officials in Afghanistan. Isn't there a logical disconnect, to know that Karzai was getting first hand complaints and Foreign Affairs officials weren't passing on information to the Minister.

Here's the KICKER. Remember that MacKay argued that while there was knowledge of torture generally in Afghanistan, there was no evidence of any allegations within the Canadian sphere? This defied common sense on the most basal level, the argument was basically "torture everywhere, except where we were". Now we learn that MacKay might have been technically correct. It appears there were no credible accounts from Afghan prisoners from the Canadian sector, because NOBODY had access to those facilities, NOBODY had a CLUE what was going on:

the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) had little or no access to the Kandahar detention facility run by Afghanistan's intelligence service, the National Directorate of Security. NATO forces, including Canada, usually hand over their prisoners to the NDS.

"As a result, the commission is unable to monitor the condition of the detainees, as per their agreements with the Canadians, Dutch and others," a commissioner of the Afghan monitoring agency told Colvin.

Stunning.

MacKay's House Of Cards

Peter MacKay is either completely and utterly incompetent, which puts his fitness as a Minister into question, or he's purposely misleading Canadians about what he knew and when on the torture question. Either way I see calls for his resignation in the near future. Reading the latest investigative piece by the Canadian Press, we get further insight into others raising the same concerns as Colvin, connecting the dots right to MacKay's DOORSTEP. We also learn of frustration, that the Canadian military "won't return the calls" of the most respected international human rights organization. The whole mess congeals to paint a picture of indifference, willful ignorance and culpability. It really is an amazing read:

The International Red Cross met twice with senior Canadian officials in Kandahar to deliver veiled but insistent warnings about torture in Afghan jails a year before Canada acted to protect detainees... undermine the federal government's claims that diplomat Richard Colvin was a lone voice raising vague concerns about torture....

But the new memos show that the insistent concerns were specific to Canada's military mission in Afghanistan and made directly to senior Canadian officials, not transmitted through a single diplomat.

Two further high-level Red Cross meetings about torture took place in Ottawa and Geneva around the same time with Canadian officials.

...Three high-ranking generals, including former general Rick Hillier, described his allegations last week as "ludicrous."

But the new memos show that Colvin's concerns were in fact shared by a respected humanitarian agency that pushed the diplomatic envelope to get the ear of Canadian officials. The International Red Cross by convention is allowed to raise specific concerns about torture only with the national government of a country.

...That meeting spawned a second more detailed discussion at Kandahar Airfield on June 2.

...The Kandahar meeting was followed by a more high-level meeting on June 12, 2006, in Ottawa involving the international agency's delegation head for the U.S. and Canada as well as the agency's legal adviser from Washington.

A series of meetings with Canadian officials, culminating in a "high level meeting" in Ottawa, and yet MacKay clings to the lack of credible information, Colvin a lone wolf. Foreign Affairs now admits to meetings on the torture question, in OTTAWA, and yet we're to believe that MacKay was "never briefed". Oh, for the love of god, you're either a gigantic dolt or a bald faced liar. It was so bad, that the relationship with the Red Cross became strained, and they relayed to Colvin their aprehension to share information because of "CANADIAN political pressure". The only pressure that would matter to the Red Cross would be from the HIGHEST of office.

Another vein that went directly to Foreign Affairs, today's confirmation that all of Colvin's correspondence, did in fact make to the MacKay's office. SO, you have high level diplomatic meetings on two continents, continually warnings to the military as well as consistent correspondance coming from the field into your office, and MacKay was unaware, only vague acknowledgement of problems in the theatre, nothing specific to Canada. Speechless.

We need a public inquiry.

Photoshop The Fossil

Kudos to the Liberals for this "bit of fun", at Harper's expense of COURSE:


On the negative side, good luck getting that image of Pierre out of your head :)

Smoking Gun?

I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but the just released Colvin documents are pretty informative. Take page 40 below as an example, a testament to transparency and a desire to get the facts on the table:



A good read for sure. It's all there in black and.

On "Muzzling"

Requests to delete relevant material, gleamed from a "credible" source. Managing the information given, narrowing who can see the reports. The more we learn, the more we can understand Colvin's frustration that eventually led to his Committee appearance. Sounds like "muzzling" from here:

Canada's former ambassador to Afghanistan asked a diplomat to erase two bluntly worded sections from an April, 2007, report on how Ottawa's delays in notifying the Red Cross of prisoner transfers to Afghan authorities left these detainees vulnerable to abuse.

The Globe and Mail has learned that Arif Lalani asked for the edits from Richard Colvin, a diplomat at the centre of an unfolding controversy over whether Canada turned a blind eye when handing prisoners to Afghanistan's torture-prone authorities.

This editing took place in April, 2007, only days after a Globe investigation revealed disturbing allegations of abuse and torture among prisoners transferred by Canadians to Afghan detention - stories that kicked off a stormy debate in Ottawa.

In one of the sections he was requested to delete, Mr. Colvin remarked on a pattern observed by the Red Cross: that abuse took place almost immediately after prisoners were transferred to the Afghans - timing that meant Canada's tardiness made it very hard for the human-rights monitor to guard against torture.

"[A Red Cross official], who had read The Globe and Mail's reporting, said that the allegations of abuse made by those Afghans interviewed by [reporter] Graeme Smith fit a common pattern," Mr. Colvin wrote in text that was cut out....

he Globe and Mail has also learned that Mr. Lalani also asked Mr. Colvin to dramatically scale back the number of people in Foreign Affairs who would be e-mailed this same late April report on detainees - chopping the recipient list to about five from more than 70.

"Richard, please go with my distr[ibution list] - Arif," Mr. Lalani wrote on a printout of the draft e-mail, a heavily censored copy of which was obtained by The Globe and Mail. The edited and final version of this report was e-mailed from Kabul on April 30, 2007.

Here is the reaction from foreign affairs to justify deleting:

"Reporting is expected to be factual, objective, collaborative and subject to rigorous assessment. Mr. Lalani applied these same standards during his time as ambassador in Kabul."

If you buy this argument, then you have to conclude that the most well respected international human rights organization, THE RED CROSS, doesn't pass the credibility sniff test. That's the justification, which is beyond lame.

Colvin begins to report on torture concerns, and suddenly he is asked to trim his email list, to a small group approved by the ambassador. This revision, IN AND OF ITSELF, denotes CONCERN and an attempt to manage his reports. If there is nothing of concern, nothing substantive, you don't make this request to revise. This is behavior akin to people that want to muzzle information.

Limiting access to who can see Colvin's findings, and on top of that, DELETING material which challenges the detainee transfer arrangement. So, a reduced(once 70, now 5) number of people are allowed to receive the reports, and the Ambassador will delete what those select people actually see. That suggests a concerted effort to SUPPRESS what Colvin was reporting. Why?

HST Decision

A few thoughts on the Liberal decision to support the HST legislation. Obviously, the federal Liberals are in a cramped position, although not as precarious as some would suggest.

Today's decision comes as no surprise, and frankly it was the right one. The federal opposition Liberals don't decide what elected provincial governments do, within their own jurisdictions. Had the federal Liberals decided to oppose, I'd question the federalism framework, clearly overstepping their bounds. At the heart of the issue, is the question of respecting the provincial desire, really apart from a debate on the merits of harmonization. People are free to interject their own agendas onto this decision, and that is where the "problematic" component lies. But, really that perspective is a political consideration, separate from the respective jurisdictional considerations. It's hard to fault the Liberal decision on a philosophical level, unless of course you endorse the incoherent message that Ottawa is right to thwart legally available requests from the provinces.

Voters have remedies available to express their outrage over the HST, and that anger should be directed towards those that brought forward the legislation. I'm not sure I buy the "guilt by association" wishful thinking, that places blame on secondary, after the fact, sources, who really are respecting the provincial will. There is a risk to the federal Liberals, but to date this is nothing more than speculation. I note that while the Ontario Liberals have stumbled in the polls, the NDP haven't advanced at all, voters have moved elsewhere. I notice the B.C Liberals falling flat, mostly because they hid this policy during the last election. I notice no corresponding UPTICK in federal NDP support for both Ontario and British Columbia. This fact suggests a separation, that this clearly provincial matter isn't spilling over to the federal scene. I know, I know, you just wait now, but really it's all speculation, so talk of "damage" is just that.

I'm not convinced that the federal NDP enjoys the credibility to really make gains on the HST issue. The only evidence seems to be retaining a seat in a quirky by-election, with dreadful turnout. Pretty much a whatever from here, or at best something I wouldn't dare draw any predictive conclusion from. Others will, but consider the sources. I think there's a real political opportunism component at play here, and the NDP as champions on the taxation issue, one has to wonder how much it resonates beyond the already sympathetic. This isn't to say a risk doesn't exist for the Liberals here, but it really does remain to be seen.

I'm glad the Liberals took an early stand here, instead of coming out on the fence, until the final decision had to be made. Effectively, the Liberals have taken the air out of debate, this will pass, so Ottawa will focus on other matters. Again, that doesn't mean the firm decision allows the HST to disappear, because others will ensure it doesn't, but only that it was the path of least resistance.

Respecting the will of the provinces. The horror.

UPDATE

BCL is in key.

If It Walks Like A Duck

Read the following, then ask yourself a question:

The Harper government has blacked out large sections of relevant files handed over to the independent inquiry probing allegations of transfer to torture of detainees in Afghanistan, despite the fact that its investigators have the highest levels of national security clearance.

The heavily redacted documents, obtained by The Globe and Mail, underscore the sweeping nature of the government's efforts to keep the documentary record from the Military Police Complaints Commission, which is attempting to conduct an inquiry into allegations that Canada knowingly transferred prisoners to likely torturers in Afghanistan.

The MPCC's repeatedly thwarted effort to get to the heart of the detainee-transfer issue – it has faced attempts by the Harper government to gag witnesses, limit the scope of the investigation and withhold documents – prompted opposition politicians to open their own limited probe through a parliamentary committee, leading to last week's explosive testimony by diplomat Richard Colvin. But that committee's efforts have been similarly stymied, since it has no power to compel the government to deliver the documentary record and no real opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

In the material delivered to the MPCC, government blackouts render unreadable many of the documents, some drafted by Mr. Colvin. The sweeping redactions were imposed even though everyone who works with or serves on the MPCC must have at least “secret” clearance and all of the senior investigators, as well as the panelists who would conduct the inquiry, have the highest security clearances.


"...someone is going to considerable lengths not to disclose what was known,” said Stuart Hendin, an expert in the law of war and international-rights issues who represented now-retired Brigadier-General Serge Labbé, one of the most senior Canadian officers embroiled in the Somalia affair 16 years ago.

Is this behavior consistent with people who have nothing to hide, NO culpability?

Maybe A Bit Too Candid Thomas

Tom Flanagan outlines the thrust of the entire Conservative strategy, and it isn't pretty:

On CBC Radio’s “The House,” top Conservative strategist Tom Flanagan said this about ten-percenters:


“Canadians seem to be willing to tolerate attacks that are based on half-truths or things taken out of context, or misstatements, partial misstatements, distortions. I mean, as long as there is some basis, there, it becomes a matter of debate.” (November 28, 2009)

This is so offensive, on many levels. A frank admission that the Conservatives sanction lies and mistruths, there is nothing that is "below" them. Flanagan's comments aren't news to anyone paying attention, the government approaches every debate with the same gutter mentality. However, what is particularly amusing, all those sanctimonious Conservatives, who continually reference past SINGULAR examples, to extrapolate a wider theme, are SILENT in the face of the most co-ordinated, systematic delivery of morally questionable propaganda.

Whenever there is a discussion or issue, the Conservatives seem content to forget about the merit of argument, instead believing that they simply have to confuse and blanket to render it all meaningless. The consistency in approach almost resembles a religion. Predicated on apathy and voter indifference, there is no need for depth of argument, there is no DANGER of being exposed. The arrogance we see, is a testament to the utter disdain the Conservatives have for voter sophistication. Today, Harper hides at home to avoid Question Period, but there is no risk, because nobody will notice or frankly care- minor references here and there, but nothing of resonance.

Tom Flanagan outlines the contempt for Canadians and the true nature of this government. There is no honor here, no intellectual debate, no clash of ideals. It's all about smear and FOGGING of issues, and they freely acknowledge their dubious motivations. Classless thugs, who sully our political discourse.

Local Boy Makes Good II

Last week, I wrote about the Liberals embracing Ignatieff's pedigree, as opposed to the current avoidance. Donolo is making initial noise that the Liberals will change gears and counter the current smear campaigns with their own positive narrative of Ignatieff's past. Let's hope that sentiment becomes a concrete thrust, because I've never understood our current strategy. First, our downplaying to date is pure reactionary politics, the Conservatives formulate an attack line, and we effectively buy in to the negative, with our own silence. Second, this misguided notion that time abroad, coupled with the "lofty" circles he travelled in, is somehow a liability that won't resonate with ordinary folks. I think that a shallow conclusion, that truly fails to understand the Canadian identity.

Canadians embrace internationalism, probably more than any nation on earth. As a matter of fact, Canada's image is a template for the world, in some respects. The idea of a Canadian moving abroad, particularly because of merit and talent, has never been a perceived slight, no matter the particular occupation or career. Ignatieff left Canada to pursue intellectual endeavors abroad, he was a WANTED commodity on the world stage- the horror, the shame! From where I sit, that's an advantage that can be exploited. In addition, every leader offers his/her own set of attributes, to fail to mold a narrative around that is the equivalent of giving up. Part of the reason Canadians don't really know who Ignatieff is, is because we've voluntarily failed to highlight his life's work, which is impressive by every objective measure.

Today, another perfect example of Ignatieff's stature on the world stage, completely rare air for a Canadian. Considered one of the world's great "thinkers", speaks to the respect Ignatieff enjoys, and it frankly boggles my mind why Liberals aren't pushing items like these with ZEAL. It would be one thing if Ignatieff was some aloof, detached elitist, that can't "rap" with the commoners, but he can with graceful ease, so why the hesitation? Are Liberals forgetting that part of the narrative envolves time as far away from the ivory tower as humanely possible, talk about "street" creds, Ignatieff has them in spades. That part of the story also speaks to a certain courage and curiousity, it completes the man. I don't think Canadians really have any sense of Ignatieff's past, apart from what the Conservative smears have offered. However, I don't blame them, because we've created the vacuum, we've allowed the negatives to operate in isolation.

I notice Jeff mirrors what I argue, it's time to turn this whole "just visiting" nonsense around and in so doing, give a more accurate picture of Ignatieff. Agree or disagree with his views, any fair person must cede the level of respect Ignatieff enjoys internationally, based on sheer merit and accomplishment. With Harper continually stumbling on the world stage, all the more reason to highlight Ignatieff's creds.

Ignatieff's vocabulary is such that his intellectualism isn't elitist, he's actually prone to slang, rather than enraptured with his own sense of prose ala the Peggy Noonan windbag disease. Ignatieff can mingle with the Tim Horton's crowd, he can relate, so Liberals need not fear the "elitist" angle. I've never sensed it, watching Ignatieff in townhalls or edgy television appearances- sheer ease, that make Harper look even more robotic and wooden. Always remember who we're comparing Ignatieff with, that alone should relieve any worry about who has the "common touch".

Number 64, on a list of world "thinkers", to go along with several other past accolades from other sources. I'll know we've truly changed direction, when I see a press release highlighting today's acknowledgement...

Truth Hurts

I stumbled on this video, by fellow blogger Jennifer Smith. Well done!





It will come as no surprise, that I love the sarcasm :)

Conservative Afghan Story 3.0

If you listen to all the Conservative apologists, and their media minions, this was apparently the week where Colvin's "account" was completely refuted. All the heavyweights at Committee, offering the sober counter, which rendered Colvin a lone wolf, a flawed source. When sifting through diametrically opposed "accounts", trying to determine who is really credible, one very TELLING dynamic is the consistency. With that in mind, the fact that the Peter MacKay of yesterday, bears NO resemblance to the one from a week ago, tells us where the real evidence lies:

Harper government changes tune on Afghan prisoner issue

The Conservative government now says it was aware of “concerns about the state of prisons" in Afghanistan almost from the day it took office and eventually rewrote a prisoner transfer agreement as those concerns mounted.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay offered a dramatically different Tory narrative on the Afghan torture issue on Friday. This capped a week in which the government went from lampooning as Taliban dupes anyone who alleged prisoner abuse to claiming the government took such reports seriously from the start.

A 2005 prisoner transfer agreement with the Afghan government was eventually renegotiated in May 2007 under intense public scrutiny following explosive media revelations about torture in Afghan prisons.

Now, under the weight of evidence that many international organizations were sounding the alarm about treatment of Afghan prisoners, Mr. MacKay says his government knew of the problems and began to act shortly after taking office in January 2006.

“The decision to change the transfer arrangement would have been as a result of a lot of sources of information including those from Mr. [David] Mulroney, those from other individuals on the ground, Elissa Goldberg, those who were involved in the actual PRT, those who went to Afghan prisons to observe the situation," the minister said outside the Commons.

“That began almost immediately after we took office. … Obviously there were concerns about the state of prisons."

Effectively, MacKay is now admitting that the government was well aware of "concerns" (code for mistreatment) since it took office, and in so doing validating the CHIEF issue, that they did nothing for months and months. It has nothing to do with what the government eventually did, it's all about the period where the knowledge existed and the delay in response, that is where they are culpable. MacKay has moved, because the evidence has forced him. The latest admissions, render his previous statements laughable.

The government position now hangs by a thread, completely relying on no "smoking gun" for cover. This "first hand account" nonsense aside (torturers don't generally pose), the actions of the government contradict their position. Why does MacKay now say we worked to change the transfers immediately, if there was no compelling evidence to suggest the change was required? No evidence of torture, but we acted "immediately"? Nevermind the chronology problem, MacKay is in fact reaffirming what Colvin said, using their own reaction to validate. So, the Canadian government changes policies, based on flimsy "evidence" and not "credible" accounts? If anyone can square the contradictions, please let me know.

Yes, it was a great week for the government side. That's why MacKay is backtracking at an alarming rate and the story changes almost daily.

Ignatieff Speech

Video of Ignatieff's speech on the environment:



For any of the Liberal detractors, don't forget he was out of the country during all those years of inaction ;) Hardly his legacy, and since I didn't vote for them either, hardly my need to defend.

Canadians Believe Colvin, Want Inquiry

Another poll, showing overwhelming support for Colvin. These numbers partially (Nov 24, 25) take into account this week's circle the wagons routine in Committee, showing that the government has failed miserably, putting Colvin's "credibility" into question. The poll also finds majority support for a public inquiry. As an aside, a few quick thoughts on today's proceedings after the numbers.

Rarely do you see such a lopsided finding:

49% find Richard Colvin’s testimony credible; 10% side with federal government ministers

Five to one, find Colvin more credible than the government. Two polls now with the same theme on the crediblity front. This means that these attempts to dismiss his information haven't "struck a cord" with pretty much anyone. Even in Alberta, only 24% believe the government. Further, this lack of support for the government position means that even bedrock Conservatives aren't buying the retort.

The only highlight for the government, as this all unfolds, Canadians aren't necessarily blaming anyone for the torture itself:

Still, Canadians are not ready to point fingers. While one-in-five (21%) blame politicians in Ottawa for the alleged mistreatment of Afghan prisoners, 16 per cent think the Canadian troops in Afghanistan are responsible. A More than a third of respondents believe neither is to blame (36%) and one-in-four (27%)
are undecided.

I believe it's this kind of sentiment that the government is hanging their hat on, an almost passive acceptance that "shit happens", to put it crudely.

However, this debate over a public inquiry isn't one the government is winning:

majority of respondents (53%) support launching a public inquiry on what the government and the Canadian Forces knew about reports of prisoner torture in Afghanistan, while 36 per cent are opposed.

A pretty decisive opinion, in spite of all the baggage surrounding the idea of public inquiries. The government can blame themselves, because their resistance to handing over documents has fueled the idea of an inquiry, to get to the bottom of the confusion.

-----

A couple quick comments on Mulroney's testimony today:

-Apparently, everybody knew that torture was commonplace in Afghanistan, including Mulroney, but a different, more humane culture seemingly existed where Canadian detainees were sent. It's almost farcical to hear Mulroney admit public knowledge, but then make the distinction there was no evidence that it involved Canadian detainees. So, torture was everywhere, just not where we were? Take leave of your senses. That doesn't pass the sniff test, it's merely a way to try and bridge the chasm between knowledge and culpability. Weak.

-Yesterday, there was no knowledge from the military of the Governor using torture. Today, Mulroney not only admits knowledge, but then says the Governor's home was inspected. Okay.

-Mulroney basically said that opinion was heard, in reference to Colvin, but then the high ups would make a decision and surrogates were to accept that policy. Mulroney painted Colvin as a dissenter, who ultimately couldn't accept decision making that didn't completely reflect his personal opinion. I didn't like the tone of Mulroney here, basically it amounted to "you said your piece, we're not addressing it, DEAL".

-We all know that the detainee transfer question evolved over time, and measures were enacted to change the hand over process. Rehashing this, over and over, is completely and utterly irrelevant to what happened prior to that VERY PUBLIC and ALREADY KNOWN change in direction. Meaningless, after the fact, padding.